25/04/2013 Newsnight

The United States has decided that chemical weapons have been used in

the Civil War in Syria. What now? Remember this? If you make the

tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences

and you will be held accountable. Today's accusation is incendiary,

can they prove it? We will speak to the former

presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, who believes the

United States has to act. Also tonight, official figures show the

economy isn't in recession, but does that add up to a growth

strategy. As rescuers continue the frantic

search for survivors of the Bangladesh garment factory fire. We

explore the appetite for cheap clothes has created there. With our

guests we ask who is gaining most from this trade?

Chemical weapons have been used in the Civil War in Syria. Both

Washington and London say they believe the evidence is persuasive.

Now Barack Obama has already said that if President Assad were to

start using chemical weapons he would be crossing a red line which

would change everything. Yet the White House hasn't threatened

American military action in Syria. The approach is in great contrast

to the controversial assertions about Saddam Hussein's supposed

weapons of mass destruction. Senior Republican figures though say the

evidence is compelling enough for America now to start giving guns to

the opposition. Here is what the US Secretary of State of defence,

Chuck Hagel, said earlier. The US intelligence community assesss with

some degree of varying confidence that the Syrian regime has used

chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria. Specifically the chemical

agent sarin. As I have said, the intelligence community has been

assessing information for some time on this issue. The decision to

reach this conclusion was made within the past 24 hours.

diplomatic editor is here. What sort of attacks are we talking

about by the Syrians? There have been incidents we have known about,

if we plot them on the map one was late last year near Homs in central

Syria, another last month near Aleppo in the north. That at the

time many explained as a shell shitting a chemical depot and

releasing some chlorine, not nerve gas, not sarin. After that a couple

of villages near Damascus were said to be the site of the attacks.

Today's accusations about sarin. That is a nerve agent, a pin-head

drop sized bit of that could kill many people. These incidents only

involved a few people. So it is still a mystery whether the persons

have got something new. They have talked about an intelligence

assessment formed in the last few hours. The American line is very

uncertain? It is clearly uncertain. Today's news, sparked by the

release of a letter to Senator McCain and others from a White

House legal council. They say they assess with varying degrees of

confidence. That is an alluding to that there are agency differences

that what it means that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons,

on a small scale, specifically sarin, that nerve agent. Then it

says this a sment is based, in part, on -- assessment is based, in part,

on physiological samples. There are suggestions there that the

Americans may have looked at people who might have been affected, maybe

blood or hair or other tissue. It is known that they have got people

on the ground, these different countries, looking for evidence.

With the opposition forces, and they have given them equipment like

this. This is a French chemical agent monitor, a French army one. A

more sophisticated version of the same. You can sample the air or put

a sample in here for analysis. Also looking for biological weapons this

device could help you detect the presence of those live agents like

antthrax and plague -- an thrak and plague. Even if you make the claim

as Britain and France did last week it is hard to butress it. According

to one export here. I wouldn't believe they would say that unless

they had seen credible evidence to that degree. The challenge and the

reason we haven't seen activity from the crossing of the red line

is because that evidence is not, it doesn't follow all the rules of

chain of forensic evidence. It is not absolutely conclusive. We don't

know who used the chemical weapons. It could be the regime, it could be

the Syrian opposition. That is the factor missing at the moment.

do you think the Americans will do about it? The political position

would seem to be quite clear, wouldn't it. Based on that

statement from President Obama late last year. Let's remind ourselves

of that have again. The world is watching. The use of chemical

weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. If you make the

tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences

and you will be held accountable. Now, that puts the President in a

very, very tricky situation. He can't suppress evidence that's

coming to light and hence you have today's disclosure. On the other

hand if you announce it, it creates an imperative for action. Could it

be military action? Well we know there are contingency teams of

specialists, Special Forces, chemical weapons experts in place

in Turkey and Jordan. But in the short-term he may be thinking of

something not quite as escaltory as that, perhaps a new diplomatic

offensive to try to get UN inspectors into the country.

Senator John McCain was the man who brought about today's revelations

after writing to President Obama asking him to reveal what evidence

is known about the use of chemical weapons. He received the White

House's reply today. He joins us now. The samples referred to,

physiological samples, do you know anything more about what they were?

No, our chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has

more information than I do said that it is without a doubt that he

has crossed the red line. The Israeli intelligence alleged the

same. Your British intelligence spokesman said we have limited but

persuasive information from various sources. But I would like to make

two points, one, why are we worried about that? We should have

intervened a long, long time ago. We have watched 70,000 people being

massacred, destablising the neighbouring countries, Jihadists

pouring into the country. Why should the litmus taste be a red

line of use of these weapons when the President has given these

people, Bashar al-Assad, the green light to massacre his own people

and destablise the entire region. And second of all, should anybody

be surprised if Bashar al-Assad used a chemical weapon. He has said

and shown he will do anything necessary to stay in power. In your

judgment, whatever the rights and wrongs of what President Obama has

or has not done, the tipping point has now been reached where he has

to act? I believe that he had to act two years ago. So I can't, I

wouldn't be surprised at all if the White House said well as your

people are discussing this saying we need more he have evidence --

evidence and we need more evidence. They are very clear that this White

House, watching Iraq deteriorate, equiffcating on a force leaving

behind in Afghanistan and a statement that the "tide of war is

receding", doesn't want to be involved. I'm sorry if I'm cynical

but I have watched the withdrawal of the US and the consequences for

which we will pay a heavy price for in the future. Do you think his

credibility is at stake? I don't know. He has an adoring media, so I

don't know. His credibility evaporated when he said he wouldn't

do anything to these people unless there was chemical weapons, giving

a green light for Bashar al-Assad to massacre his people. I wish the

BBC would go to these refugee camps and see the people who have been

raped, tortured skilled and driven out of their home. Destablising

Lebanon and Jordan where they have had to flee to. And Jihadists

fleeing in from all over the world. All the consequences that would

happen if we intervened have taken place if we didn't intervene.

would be equally unacceptable, would it not, if the chemical

weapons were to fall into the hands of the anti-Government forces?

depends on whose hands it falls into. If two years ago we had

established the safe zone, which we still need to do, helped organise,

train, equip and govern, as we did as in Benghazi in Libya we wouldn't

face the problem. Yet we need to be ready to go in or have, let me be

careful with my choice of words here, make sure these chemical

cachets of chemical weapons are secured and do not fall into the

wrong hands. The more Jihadists that go in, the greater their

influence and more likely they get hold of these weapons. You are

conceding that if the chemical weapons, which everyone is so

alarmed about, if they are such a risk, the only thing the United

States and her allies can do is to secure them herself? Well it

depends again. If we gave the resistance and the people that

should, the good people that are fighting for the freedom of the

Syrian people if we gave them the wherewithal to fight and defend

themselves we wouldn't have had to worry about them if it happened a

year ago. A year on there may be a superiority of them. The trend is

in the wrong direction. Its our fault, not their's. I wonder if you

look at the experience of Afghanistan and indeed elsewhere in

the world, early days of Iraq for example, whether we actually know

for sure who the good guys are? sure I can tell you, I have met

with them. I have met with the good guy, I know who they are, and so

does everybody else. But they feel betrayed. They are bitter and angry.

I was in a refugee camp in Jordan and this woman said see all these

children they will take revenge on the people who refused to help them.

I know who she was talking about. These are the sort of people you

think you can trust with chemical weapons? I'm not saying I could

trust them with chemical weapons, but I could trust the people I know

that are the leaders of the National Council and the national

army that I could trust them, yes, I could trust them. They would need

our assistance, but I would be very reluctant to put American boots on

the ground. What about the position of Russia? We keep beating that

drum. How many times are we going to see that movie, it will be the

Russians, they will take Bashar al- Assad, that was two years ago. New

York Times still keeps saying it. It is becoming, if it wasn't so sad

it would be amusing. That we are relying on Russia to make Bashar

al-Assad behave. The Iranians are now training Syrians and bringing

them back. Hezbollah is there on the ground, the Iranians are on the

ground. Russian arms supplies have ined, that is doing a lot of good -

- increased, that is doing a lot of good isn't it. Hang out the bunting

and three cheers for George Osborne we are not in recession, we are not

in yet another recession right now, on the basis of figures which may

yet be modified. The fact that a growth rate in the first quarter of

this year of 0.3% can be treated like the second coming tells you a

lot about the state of the British economy. But we shouldn't be too

dismissive of small mercies for there aren't any bigger ones on

offer. One for Comrade Mason, I think.

If you are the kind of person that gets annoyed when economic stories

start nought point something. Today's nought 0.3% growth is small

but it is something we can expect. It means the UK economy has grown

by �5 billion more in the last three months than it did three

months before Christmas. It is not much, but politically it is enough.

It saved goorn a lot of trouble. -- George Osborne a lot of trouble.

This is a modern depression, the graph shows the size of the economy

which fell dramatically during the financial crisis of 2008 and has

not recovered. Despite today's positive figure. If you look at how

the economy expanded since 2000 you can see what's lost. This dotted

line shows the long-term trend. The gap between that and where we are

is growth that can never come back. I think it is more politically

important than economically important. Anything in the region

of minus two to plus two would have shown we were stagnant. Being

positive is fractionally better. It is only half the growth rate which

in the past we would have considered normal trend growth. It

is very slow indeed. If you look at the detail, nearly all the growth

from January to March came from the service sector, that added 0.5% to

GDP, but that was offset by stagnant manufacture and a

shrinking construction sector, together with agriculture, also

shrinking, subtracted 0.2%, leaving the final figure 0.3%. If you could

speed construction up, or even stop it shrinking you could have a

recovery. That is not what the plan is. When they designed the

austerity plan in 2010, the Government said really clearly it

wouldn't work unless the UK economy rebalanced, away from high finance

and house prices and towards exports and manufacturing. Today's

figure show really clearly that's not happening. That is why the

political size of relief -- sighs of relief were not that big. These

are encouraging signs the economy is healing. Despite a tough

economic situation we are making progress. Of course we have still

got difficult decisions to take, there aren't easy answers. People

understand that. But that's what we have to do. We have to go on taking

those difficult decisions and fronting those problems if we are

going to build an economy fit for the future. What can the Government

do? The UK's top civil servant recently let slip there are too

many answers. Vince Cable wants to fix the banks, George Osborne to

fix the construction industry, David Cameron to boost exports and

Nick Clegg to boost the regions. think the Government recognises

that probably should have spoken more about growth at an earlier

stage, perhaps it should have pitched the whole strategy,

spending cuts and so on in terms of boosting growth. Now we are

flailing around trying a multistrand approach, four

different people pursuing four different basis for pursuing growth,

I don't think that is the best idea. One economist from a think-tank has

drawn handy map of all the options being presented to George Osborne.

What is your best guess at when we finally recover as an economy?

know I think it is just so hard to say. It really actually depends on

what George Osborne decides to do next, I think. What if he does

nothing? There is a danger we end up in the low-growth state bouncing

along the bottom. On a zero point something day, all

the data was sobering for manufacturing, it grew by a zer we

are becoming used to 0.0. David Gauke is here for his routine

appointment. When the Chancellor says the economy is healing, by

when will it be healed? It is an encouraging sign that the economy

is growing. That is what we have seen today. We have got a long way

to go, we have some fundamental problems that we have to address,

that built up over many years. We are making progress. We have seen a

1.25 million private sector jobs created, the deficit is down by a

third. We have low interest rates, there is encouraging signs but we

have a long way to go. Let's have a look at the chart this is the state

of the economy. You call that good do you? It is a difficult economic

climate and I don't look. That looks like a coma not a healing?

growth in the first quarter of the year. We are forecast to grow more

than France and Germany this year and next year. We want to be very

straight forward, these are difficult economic circumstances.

We see the eurozone in recession, we are recovering from a major

banking crisis. We have to deal with the big deficit. There is a

tiny bit of growth, a tiny bit of growth, negative growth, negative

growth, a bit more growth, negative growth, and a bit more growth. That

is not healing? We are forecast by the independent Office of Budget

Responsibility to grow this year. We have actually grown more than

people had predicted for this first quarter. And, as I say, we are

creating a lot of jobs in this country, private sector growth is

strong. We are also getting the deficit down by a third. If your

argument is these are difficult economic circumstances and growth

is not as strong as we would like it to be, I can't disagree with you.

I'm a taking you up on your leader's view that it is a healing.

I was wondering when we might be back to pre-crash levels? I'm not

here to make predictions. The forecast of the Office of Budget

Responsibility ...The Graph shows us what happens at least, you have

no idea what is going on. You have no idea what the next set of

figures are going to be like do you? I'm not making any predictions.

The Office of Budget Responsibility predicts we will grow as the year

goes on. It is an encouraging sign. We shouldn't deny that. But it is

in a climate that is difficult for the economy. Your bosses may made

predictions, I would like to remind you of his prediction of how we are

going to get out of the mess we are in. Let's hear what he had to say

about growth strategies? We want the words "made in Britain, created

in Britain, designed in Britain, invented in Britain" to drive our

nation forward. A Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers.

That is absolute rubbish, isn't it? What is striking about the

manufacturing numbers. I think the rubbish you are looking for is

"yes"! What is striking about the manufacturing numbers is if you

look at the domestic-facing parts of the economy, in the first

quarter of the year we did well, that is where the serves are. If

you look at manufacturing which relies on exports, it is a really

difficult time. There is another graph there, contribution of

manufacturing to growth of GDP, 0.0%, a negative quantity, a little

bit of positiveness, negative, neglective, 0.0, does that look to

you like growth? The position on manufacturing is clear.

Manufacturing depends to a very large extent upon our export

markets. That has been very, very difficult when the eurozone has

been in recession. It is also just worth pointing out that if you look

at the manufacturing numbers, we had a very, very bad January and a

bit of a recovery in February and March. Would you say we are being

carried aloft by the march of the makers, we are not? No. It was a

pretty Silvio thing to say? manufacturing has got to play an

important part in our recovery. It is very difficult when the eurozone

is in the state that it is in. When our manufacturing is quite so

dependant on that. That is why, for example, we need to do more to

export to the like of China and India and we have seen some drat

makes increases -- dramatic increases in exports to those

markets. We need to do more of that and that is a folks cuss of the

Government. But the strategy hasn't worked, clearly. You have just said

it hasn't worked because things are a bit difficult? The environment we

are in is difficult, nobody can deny that. Whoever was in

Government would have to wrestle with some of those prob epbl. I

come back to the point that we have create -- problems. I come back to

the point we have created 1.25 million private sector jobs. We

have low interest rates and maintained the credibility of the

markets, and we have reduced the deficit by a third. It would be

lovely if everything was rosy and the world economy was growing great

guns, that isn't the wags we are in, and it is difficult for the British

people. But the evidence we saw -- position we are n it is difficult

but there is evidence that the position we are in there is growth.

How about Chorley wood, are people happy there? They are, it is a

happy place. People think the economy is getting better and

better, because your experience is doubtless the same as most people's

experience in that they are very unhappy out there. There is a

microclimate in Chorleywood is it? It is a very nice place to live.

There are different experiences in different parts of the country, I

don't deny that. We face some significant challenges. The economy

is growing, it is forecast to continue to grow. It is forecast to

grow faster than in France or Germany. If we have huge steps to

take like the help to buy process, Funding For Lending, it is why we

are switching expenditure to current capital to improve our

infrastructure. It is why we have got ourselves the most competitive

tax system in the G20. That is the direction we are going in. That is

why we are looking at the rules and regulations that inhibit businesses

from growing. Those are steps a sensible Government has to take.

What isn't the answer and we haven't turned to this is to go on

some spending a borrowing splurge, that would be a huge mistake.

tiring being so optimistic all the time? We have some real challenges.

We have been realistic. It is healing? On the evidence of today's

numbers it is. On the evidence of the 1.25 new jobs created in the

private sector and the deficit has come down. You have no idea what

the figures will be next time round? Those are the figures we

have at the moment in difficult circumstances. This is a difficult

time for the economy. And we accept that, whether it is in Chorleywood

or elsewhere. But we are making difficult decision at a time when

there are big challenges. Thank you very much. The precise

figures are elusive, but it seems that about 250 people may have been

killed in the collapse of a building, where Bangladeshi workers

made western clothing. Household name companies are now suddenly

publicity shy for the tragedy raises nasty Questions. Whose fault

is it? The factory boss who is kept one of the people in one of the

poorest countries on earth at their machines despite warnings. The poor

construction that seems endemic in Bangladesh. The western retailers

whose appetite for profits keeps the orders rolling. You and my

guiltless pleasure in consuming. We have this report. The full scale of

this catastrophe is still emerging. The UK's Primark just one of many

western retailers buying clothes from factories inside the collapsed

building. The company says it is shocked and saddened by what

happened. But critics say the Bangladeshi

garment industry was already cracking at the seams. This woman

has paid the price too. Thanks to the west's appetite for cheap

clothes she had a steady job in the industry. But then her daughter

started work in a factory too. Just a week later the plant caught fire,

killing her and more than 100 other workers. From the charred ruins

emerged evidence of rampant cost cutting and safety abuses. Nearly

six months later no-one has been prosecuted or even arrested. Still

living near the abandoned factory her life is in ruins too.

TRANSLATION: I couldn't work after she died. Now I have to because we

are in debt. If I ever see the owner I will burn him alive. Just

like he burnt my child to ash and emptyed a mother's chest.

industry has grown fast, to fast say some. With new factories

opening all the time. Attacked by its cheap labour British retailers

have flocked here. Turning Bangladesh into its bargain tamor

of choice. At this factory they make nearly 20 million garments a

year for major British brands. This plant is known for the high

standards. When the clothes leave here. They are ready to be put

straight on the shelves. You could say this is Bangladesh's Industrial

Revolution. Making cheap clothes for the UK and other western

markets, now employs millions of people. It is also helping to

empower Bangladeshi women. But the industry is under constant pressure

to keep costs down. While this is one of the better factories, in

others the practices that led to the fire still continue. The

capital, Dhaka, is full of smaller factories where safety standards

and working conditions are much worse. To keep costs down it is an

open secret that many companies often sub contract to these

sweatshop operations. The checking up is almost impossible. We have

learned that there are many back street operations in this part of

Dhaka doing sub-contracting work for other factories, including one

that has business with the UK. The only way to see for ourselves is to

use concealed cameras, some of our team are going to go inside, posing

as local businessmen. The way in is the only exit, if there is a fire.

Buckets of sand the only equipment for fighting a blaze. On the shop

floor we see children working, flouting the official ban. The

owner says almost all his work is sub-contracted from other factories

that use him secretly to fulfil their orders. Some of the clothes

made here have been destined for the UK. Even for factories with the

best reputations, the pressure is growing. Here they insist

everything is done in-house, with no sub-contractors. Our existing

customer, they are more vigilent now. They are frequently visiting

with notice and no notice. Wur also ourselves motivating people. We are

on high -- we are also ourselves motivating people, we are on high

alert and taking initiative. Definitely this is a wake-up call

for us. Do you think there needs to be more Government regulation?

have a regulation but the implementation is not about. From

the offices of her small labour union Nasma campaigns for better

conditions and workers' rights. It is risky work, last year one

organiser was found murdered. The case is still unsolved. She says

western buyers are complicit too for turning a blind eye to the

industry's cut-price practice. buyer is showing they are sleeping,

but really they are not sleeping. They know all the thing behind what

is going on and their showing they don't know anything. Their double

face is there. They are always cutting and asking for better

compliance. But some factories still have

questions to answer. We follow one of the Government's new fire

This plant also make clothes for the UK. Then they test a smoke

alarm. It doesn't work. It is an embarrassing and potentially deadly

lapse. The plastic seals are still on the battery. With so many

Bangladeshis on the wrong side of the track, in this densely

populated country, it desperately needs the jobs the clothes business

provides. The Government says it is determined to improve conditions

and to close down the worst franc tros. But the message to --

factories, but the message to western countries is "don't push us

too hard". If they really want this human rights to be maintained, that

is the biggest human right, the right for survival, the right for a

better life. That is very important. Number two is there must be also

ready to pay us the real wages. is not clear if any extra money

would actually reach the people who need it most. Six months since her

daughter's death Rumana finally build up the courage to visit her

grave. Now hundreds of other Bangladeshis are mourning. And the

price of feeding the west's hunger for cheap clothes keeps rising. To

talk about this we are joined by Jeff Banks, a fashion designer and

who launched the fashion chain Warehouse, he also launched the

Clothes Show. Katharine Hammnett, who has campaigned since the 1980s

for better ethics in the fashion industry and a designer. And

Rushanara Ali, was born in Bangladesh and looks into the

industry in India. Who benefits most from the trade?

think it is 50/50. There is a desire in the west to keep on

buying economical clothes. I think we are all guilty of it. I would

like to say I think that the clothing industry generally tonight

is grossly ashamed of what's gone on in the last week in Bangladesh.

I think it's actually having a riveting effect on a lot of chief

executives as the way they handle their business going forward.

Regretably it has had an effect. On the other side, I do believe that

nations that are actually endeavouring to pull themselves up

by the bootstraps do look forward to this kind of manufacturing and

I'm afraid these indiscretions, even though the majority of

companies retain companies to look after the efficiency with which

things are dealt with, some slip through the net. Katharine Hammnett

who do you think benefits from this trade? From this, the people at the

top of the big brands, the people that are floating around in their

�100 million yachts. You would accept that clearly in terms of the

employment and national income it has benefits for a country like

Bangladesh this trade? It is one of their biggest exports. Wait the

workers are paid and treated, it is hard to say whether they are better

off. I suppose they just manage to eat. But a lot of this

manufacturing goes on in export processing zones which are actually

exempt from even local labour laws. Any dissent or demands for higher

wage or attempts at collective bargaining are assessed by the

military. It has a he will had of a long way to go. Rushanara Ali,

would you accept it is a lot to do with corruption in Bangladesh and

people not implementing regulation that should be, it is not entirely

the fault of western retailers? think that the fault lies with both

the companies of those countries, like Bangladesh, as well as the

businesses, western businesses that are involved in there. I do believe

they have a much greater responsibility to work toward

having basic minimum standard. These are multibillion pound

operations. Around the world. In garments factories. If they

exercised their influence and power to ensure the conditions were met

you would have better results. Countries like Bangladesh need the

inLuiz Eduardo investment. The Governments would take action if

business applied its pressure appropriately. That is not

happening. It is very peace meal what they do. -- piecemeal had a

they. Do I have seen some of the work they do, it is good work but

insignificant compared to the scale of the problem. In the case of this

particular tragedy, we know there was a crack in the building,

warnings were given about it, the warnings were ignored, people felt

compelled to go to work. What responsibility is that of a British

or European retailer or importer? There should be, I believe there

should be international agreements on basic minimum labour standards

and conditions, within which businesses can operate effectively.

It is true businesses can't enforce those changes on their own, they

have a very important role to play. Reputationally there is huge damage

to businesses and their brands. It is not really in the interests of

the business or the country concerned, if there is a case of

irresponsible capitalism, this is a clear example of it and business

need to step up. You said some businesses are beginning to

recognise it? Many of the companies named there Next, Tesco, they

employ a group called Suvaro, based in Hong Kong, they would have

170,000 employees that are retained to go and ensure that standards of

minimum wages, hospital arrangements, number of toilets per

head, all of those things are abided by. And they what advise

companies to withdraw should shows not be complied with. The question

mark over this build something would that organisation have had a

structural engineer look at the safety of the building. I think not.

We don't know that? Having said that, the chairman of Matalan

issued a directive to awful his procurement people that in future

that has to be added to the list. The what are son is, you think

about the old sweat -- comparisons is this, you think about the old

factories here and weaving factories and the like, conditions

were pretty terrible. Can we expect to have similar conditions in the

developing world to the sort of conditions we expect to take for

granted here? We should have similar standards. I think we

should have a decent living minimum wage, we should have freedom of

association, access to healthcare, building regulation check. I think

that actually you could have legislation in those countries, but

it doesn't seem to work, we actually need to have legislation

in our countries that goods coming into our countries are certificated

to these standards and inspected properly to force the change. The

problem is, the big brands are really happy. The Chinese

Government official told me once that the reason they haven't

improved their labour standards, their human rights, is because the

big brands were pressuring them not to. The key thing will be, let me

play you a bit of tape, this afternoon we went out to talk to

the people just outside Primark. Their views are quite interesting.

It is very short, just listen to it. Have you heard about the factory

collapseded in Bangladesh? No. people have been killed. One of the

shops they supply to is Primark. didn't know that. Will that affect

whether or not you go to Primark? Yes. Why? That is outrageous. If I

had known that before I went in I wouldn't have gone in. Why do you

shop in Primark? Because it is cheap. For the price. Do you worry

about where and how it is made? Not at all. What a pity, but not at

all. Do you ever think about where they are made? I know they are made

in Bangladesh and I have heard the news about it collapsing. I'm a

lecturer and we were talking about it today. Why did you still go in?

These don't say Bangladesh I don't know where they were made. What did

you buy? A T-shirt and basic things. What did you make of the story when

you saw the pictures of the factory collapse, more than 200 people

died? I felt bad for them, then I thought a person alone not buying a

T-shirt in one shop wouldn't make a difference. What if everyone

stopped buying T-shirts? I hope they do, but I don't think that

time will come soon. We have got a different attitude to clothe,

haven't we. To the fact that you should be able some how to buy

cheap clothes. They are not intrinsically cheap? I think they

are cheap. When you look at prices back in the 1980s that if you look

at the price of a Lewin shirt at �20 these days, it was probably �79

back in the 80s. The cost of clothing, relative to the rest of

the economy has remained permanently cheap. That is the

desire of the consumer. It is interesting what those people are

saying. I think if you don't comply, socially, I think the consumer will

vote with their wallet. I think a lot of people will be turned off

Primark as a result. The one thing I would like to say is that only 35

years ago in streets not too far from here was the centre of the rag

trade. With sweat shops on every flour. In 1976 the minimum leaving

school age of a schoolgirl was raised to 16. Prior to that there

would be rows of 15-year-olds sitting on sewing machines. What we

expect in the west is the rest of the planet will catch up with the

situation today. When Katherine talks about Chinese situations, in

fact the Chinese textile development council employ over

2,500 people that look after the way human rights are actually

activated in China. A lot of the manufacturing that you go to now,

theity and standard of manufacturing and factories there

is higher than you would certainly get in a lot of western European

factories. Let's leave the Chinese, because we are at a bit of a loss

and specific references to China. When you look at the question of

consumer pressure and this industry, do you believe that such a thing as

an ethical rag trade is feasible? think consumers are driving it. The

rag trade by itself would probably have done nothing. But increased

consumer awareness of these issues is making people not buy things

because they are concerned about where they come from and how they

are made. Marks & Spencers have got figures on this which are

surprisingly high H something like 60% of consumers have not bought

something because of these kinds of concerns. I disagree. These are the

ones that are driving the industry to remove. Clothes have come down

and are incredibly cheap. They are not cheap when you consider the

true cost is paid in human suffering and environmental

degradation in the bottom of the ply chain. When you look at the

role of Government, the British Government or the EU, what can they

do? They have a very important responsibility to set the standards.

We have seen that with child labour. Years ago there was much concern

about child labour. Governments came together and companies worked

with the Governments to effect change. You need people to campaign

and Governments to act. I think it does concern me the comments that

Jeff has made. If we don't have high expectations, we are never

going to change anything. The idea that people's lives should be at

risk in those countries is just unacceptable. I represent the

constituency that had the rag trade. That doesn't make it OK that you

have the kinds of deaths and destruction in factories in those

countries. The pay is less than �1 a week in some of these places. The

majority of garments workers are women. It is clear those countries

need the investment and the economic development. But you

cannot have the kind of damage to people's lives that we have seen,

not just in Bangladesh, but Pakistan, numerous accidents. We

need business to work responsibly with Governments and we need

international agreements that are properly honoured. Businesses will

need to be required to act if they don't show results. We haven't seen

the kind of results we need to protect people. You have an

organisation that employs 170,000 people, acting own behalf of

companies like Tesco and Next, that are actually ensuring that the

requirement? They are the exemption peculiars. They are standard, it is

the odd few not necessarily doing T again the restriction in law, it

happened in India that the law was changed about people and

responsibilities in employment and pensions and immediately hundreds