:00:44. > :00:49.Afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Abu Qatada or is released
:00:49. > :00:54.from Long Marton jail after winning his case against deportation. Home
:00:54. > :00:58.Secretary says she will appeal again. A long will this continue?
:00:58. > :01:01.Women are being held back in the workplace by clapped-out rules,
:01:01. > :01:07.says the Deputy Prime Minister as he announces that fathers will be
:01:07. > :01:11.able to share parental leave. Starbucks executives tell MPs how
:01:11. > :01:14.their UK businesses are struggling to make an meets foot -- to make
:01:14. > :01:17.ends meet. And why cigarette papers could hold
:01:17. > :01:22.the key to a peaceful future in Afghanistan.
:01:22. > :01:29.Some people are gloomy about the prospect for political settlement
:01:29. > :01:37.in 2014 when the troops leave but I am more optimistic for more Afghans
:01:37. > :01:43.centric reasons. All that coming up in the next hour. And stepping up
:01:43. > :01:46.to join us, crossbench peer and former head of the British Army,
:01:46. > :01:54.General Richard Dannatt. Welcome back to the programme. Good to be
:01:54. > :02:01.here. Starting with inflation, the UK's consumer price index rose
:02:01. > :02:08.sharply to 2.7% in it sober up from 2.2% in the month before. -- in
:02:08. > :02:12.October. That is a bigger league fan and economists expected. -- a
:02:12. > :02:20.bigger leap than. It is worth putting these figures into context.
:02:20. > :02:25.One year ago, CPI was running at 5%. Clearly, from where we were, we are
:02:25. > :02:31.in a better position. It is disappointing to see inflation
:02:31. > :02:36.rising. As the ONS has said, two factors led to this. Food costs in
:02:36. > :02:41.particular, relating to the harvest, which was poor because of the
:02:42. > :02:47.weather, and secondly tuition fees, which has been greater than
:02:47. > :02:53.expected on the impact -- in terms of the impact on inflation. We are
:02:53. > :02:57.joined by Stephanie Flanders. The Government is saying there is a
:02:57. > :03:01.one-off jump because tuition fees are included in the index but as I
:03:01. > :03:07.understand it, energy prices coming through for the winter are not
:03:07. > :03:12.included. It is true it is part of the utility price rises, and that
:03:12. > :03:18.is included in this number, which is one reason why it has risen.
:03:18. > :03:22.There is an extra 0.3% Tchoutou that the increase in tuition fees.
:03:22. > :03:30.There is also some food price inflation coming into the shops,
:03:30. > :03:34.which we have seen influence the prices. There is no guarantee that
:03:34. > :03:37.inflation will go back down again and there is expectation in the
:03:37. > :03:40.City that the Monetary Policy Committee is going to have to put
:03:40. > :03:44.up with inflation bouncing around a bit and maybe even going higher
:03:44. > :03:49.than this in the next few months. They had hoped that it would be
:03:49. > :03:58.heading firmly back to 2%. If the downward trend has come to a halt,
:03:58. > :04:02.and this may not be a halt, what is the implication for government
:04:02. > :04:07.economic policy? It means that the Bank of England may have less room
:04:07. > :04:11.than we might have hoped to do more to stimulate the recovery. I know
:04:11. > :04:15.that people were thinking that the last quarter may not show laughing
:04:15. > :04:20.like the growth that we had seen in the last three months and that
:04:20. > :04:26.there is the risk that the recovery might grind to a halt. The Monetary
:04:26. > :04:28.Policy Committee may feel it has less room to do anything about that,
:04:28. > :04:32.and in fact the monastery Policy Committee knew about this figure
:04:32. > :04:35.last week when they met and this may be one reason why they did not
:04:35. > :04:40.create more money through quantitative easing, to support the
:04:40. > :04:44.recovery. It does not necessarily mean that we will stay at this
:04:44. > :04:51.higher level. Most people expect inflation to be coming down. We are
:04:51. > :04:56.not seeing domestic price pressure. University fees, food price
:04:56. > :05:00.inflation, energy price inflation, but we're not seeing wages picking
:05:00. > :05:09.up, and that may mean that they can keep interest rates very low but it
:05:09. > :05:14.does limit their room for manoeuvre. Thank you very much. General, you
:05:14. > :05:18.have a degree in economic history and do you care to comment? I think
:05:18. > :05:22.what Stephanie said his right. Her last comment is very interesting. I
:05:22. > :05:26.think the Bank will have less and room to manoeuvre because the
:05:26. > :05:29.quantitative easing has had an effect on inflation. One thinks
:05:29. > :05:33.that inflation rising is a bad thing but I think a bit of
:05:33. > :05:39.inflation is important. Also, we should see interest rates coming up
:05:39. > :05:45.which is good for savers, but not borrowers. It is time for our quiz.
:05:45. > :05:51.As we know, Nadine Dorries is taking part in ITV's I'm a
:05:51. > :05:56.Celebrity. Last night, she took part in the first bush tucker trial.
:05:56. > :06:00.That is the name of the game. The public have voted for her to do
:06:00. > :06:04.tonight's trial as well. But which of these people have said they have
:06:04. > :06:12.voted for her to stay there and added that they have her voting No.
:06:12. > :06:18.On speed dial? Was a David Cameron, George Osborne -- was it David
:06:18. > :06:20.Cameron, George Osborne, Eric Pickles always mention? At the end
:06:20. > :06:24.of the show, we will have the opportunity to give you the correct
:06:25. > :06:28.answer. If you don't know, we will tell you
:06:28. > :06:38.and give you her speed dial number as well. Within the last hour, Abu
:06:38. > :06:39.
:06:39. > :06:44.Qatada has been released from jail. There he is, pulling out in a taxi.
:06:44. > :06:48.I wonder if the taxi driver knew who he was picking up. He has been
:06:48. > :06:53.held there for deportation. He was supposed to be going to Jordan.
:06:53. > :06:55.They have spent years trying to get in there but yesterday, the Special
:06:55. > :07:00.Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that he could not be deported
:07:00. > :07:04.to Jordan after all. Indeed, he would have to be released. Theresa
:07:04. > :07:08.May has said she will appeal the decision but success is not
:07:08. > :07:17.guaranteed. It could take months or years of further work, especially
:07:17. > :07:23.for lawyers. Abu Qatada first arrived in Britain
:07:23. > :07:29.from Jordan in 1993. In 1999, he was convicted in his absence on
:07:29. > :07:34.terror charges in Jordan. After a series of arrests by UK police, the
:07:34. > :07:40.Government first began deportation proceedings in 2005. But in 2008, a
:07:40. > :07:42.court of Appeal ruled that sending him to Jordan would breach his
:07:42. > :07:48.human rights because a court case would rely on evidence which had
:07:48. > :07:51.been obtained through torture. In 2009, five law lords ruled that he
:07:51. > :07:57.could be deported after all falling assurances from Jordan that he
:07:57. > :08:01.would receive a fair trial. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights
:08:01. > :08:05.block that and despite further attempt by the Home Secretary to
:08:05. > :08:08.overcome the problems, the British Special Immigration Appeals
:08:08. > :08:12.Commission has now ruled that he should be released again. He will
:08:12. > :08:18.be under a curfew for 16 hours a day and will be under restrictions
:08:18. > :08:22.on whom he meets. Some estimates put the cost also their rooms at �5
:08:22. > :08:26.million a year. -- the cost of surveillance. Theresa May says she
:08:26. > :08:31.will make a further appeal to try to get deportation back on track.
:08:31. > :08:36.We are joined by Chris Bryant and by Geoffrey Robinson, human-rights
:08:36. > :08:40.lawyer. Chris Bryant, the last government could not get rid of the
:08:40. > :08:46.sky and this government cannot. Will we ever get rid of him? --
:08:46. > :08:51.read of this guy. I also. Part of the problem is that when James
:08:51. > :08:56.Brokenshire was sent out to Jordan, he did not end up with a strong
:08:56. > :09:00.enough set of reassurances and Theresa May's own visit did not
:09:00. > :09:07.have enough on top of that. When she decided not to appeal the
:09:07. > :09:16.decision, earlier this year, effectively as the court said this
:09:16. > :09:21.week, the threshold for deportation rose. She has got quite a lot of
:09:21. > :09:26.egg on her face. It is right to appeal. Is there something you want
:09:26. > :09:29.to make party points over? Pupil failed to do it. It may be wrong to
:09:29. > :09:36.send him back but that is a different issue. I do not think it
:09:36. > :09:40.is wrong. I am not disputing that. I'm saying that this government
:09:40. > :09:44.tenure Government have failed. Right -- rather than making party
:09:44. > :09:47.points, maybe you should sit down and make a general policy.
:09:48. > :09:54.offered to come to some kind of agreed position. But the difficulty
:09:54. > :09:58.is we have the law and we have to meet the law. The thing the
:09:58. > :10:03.Government did not do, when the writing was on the wall, and it was
:10:03. > :10:06.very clear, we had to get absolutely solid, cast-iron
:10:06. > :10:11.assurances from the Jordanians and that did not happen. But Geoffrey
:10:11. > :10:15.Robertson, the Jordanians do not necessarily have to get that. They
:10:15. > :10:20.are sovereign power and we seem to be getting into the situation where
:10:20. > :10:24.we are now trying to write to the Jordanian criminal code. Well,
:10:24. > :10:29.Theresa May has egg on her face because she told parliament she has
:10:29. > :10:34.succeeded. Clearly, when cross- examination came in court, it
:10:34. > :10:41.turned out she had failed. I think there is an argument that Abu
:10:41. > :10:44.Qatada or has, a loathsome view -- there is an argument that he has a
:10:44. > :10:47.lows than view and should not have been given asylum. That is
:10:47. > :10:51.something to look at. There have been mistakes made by the
:10:51. > :10:56.government along the way but ultimately, I think we can see Abu
:10:56. > :11:00.Qatada getting out of his taxi today and feel a certain pride that
:11:00. > :11:04.in very few other countries with this happen. We have independent
:11:04. > :11:09.judges who, no matter how hysterical the Government is, no
:11:09. > :11:15.matter how 99% of the public wanted to go, we to uphold the rule sloth.
:11:15. > :11:19.This is what makes Great Britain great. -- the rule of law. I was
:11:19. > :11:23.with you until you said you wanted me to be proud that he was getting
:11:23. > :11:27.out in a taxi. It is not just that he has lows some views, lot of
:11:27. > :11:33.people have laws and views. That is not the issue. Quite a few of them
:11:33. > :11:38.come through the studio! Some of them are even presenters!
:11:38. > :11:41.It is not about whether you like or dislike someone's used, it is about
:11:41. > :11:46.whether their views are dangerous. Everybody has agreed that the way
:11:46. > :11:51.this man has conducted and propounded his views is dangerous
:11:51. > :11:54.to national security. The question is, we do not seem to have any
:11:54. > :11:58.means of being able to bring a prosecution. The Jordanians want to
:11:58. > :12:02.be helpful, and they have changed elements of the constitution but I
:12:02. > :12:10.do not think of... Are you proud to be British when you see him getting
:12:10. > :12:14.into the taxi? I think he is making an ass of us. I think two things,
:12:14. > :12:18.if he has done things that we think are wrong, we should consider
:12:18. > :12:22.charging him but that is unlikely to happen. Apparently the evidence
:12:22. > :12:27.is not admissible. I think we should challenge of the apparently.
:12:27. > :12:30.I think the other thing that is important, Jordan we have very good
:12:30. > :12:33.relationships with and we are friends with them. We can trust
:12:33. > :12:36.them and I think we should keep the dialogue going and suggest that
:12:36. > :12:41.they might look closely at whether they will make a definitive
:12:41. > :12:46.statement about not including evidence obtained under torture.
:12:46. > :12:54.That may come at the appeal stage. As I understand it, one of the
:12:54. > :13:02.original concerns was that he might be in danger. The Jordanians said
:13:02. > :13:08.they looked at that, and to Theresa May thought they had got that
:13:08. > :13:13.sorted, but the appeals court did not think it was cast-iron. Three
:13:13. > :13:17.judges heard the evidence of an they cross examined it and they
:13:17. > :13:21.decided that the evidence against him was very thin and that all it
:13:21. > :13:27.was came from people who had been tortured. On that basis, Jordan had
:13:27. > :13:32.not gone far enough. What should you do? It should go further to
:13:32. > :13:36.exclude a law -- it pass a law to exclude evidence obtained during
:13:36. > :13:42.torture and then Theresa May can try again. This is where I want to
:13:42. > :13:47.make a very slightly partisan comment. Theresa May could have
:13:47. > :13:51.known that in 2000 than 10 when she started making statements to the
:13:51. > :13:54.House of Commons about it. -- in 2010. It was absolutely clear that
:13:54. > :13:59.that would be necessary and we set it in Parliament. I do not think
:13:59. > :14:03.she comes out of this well because I think she went there and sent to
:14:03. > :14:07.junior minister. They came away with what they thought were easy
:14:07. > :14:10.assurances but there should have banned the deal harder. Can I come
:14:10. > :14:15.back your point? Many people do not understand why we have not been
:14:15. > :14:19.able to bring charges to him. Because we have no evidence.
:14:19. > :14:23.evidence is incredibly thin and the only evidence is obtained from
:14:23. > :14:27.people who have been tortured. There is no way around that? Judges
:14:27. > :14:34.are not Newsnight journalists, they do not make allegations without
:14:34. > :14:40.evidence. That is where Newsnight went wrong. We are in the business
:14:40. > :14:43.of prosecuting people on evidence that will stand up in court. And if
:14:43. > :14:47.that is the case, there are takes the issue back to the Jordanians.
:14:47. > :14:53.At the gig goes back into their court. Will they or will they not,
:14:53. > :14:59.and I hope that they will consider it, change the law in a small way.
:14:59. > :15:05.But this is the bit that... That is still in Theresa May's court. She
:15:05. > :15:12.has to appease the courts and she needs to be very clear. First of
:15:12. > :15:17.all, I think she needs to appeal. Or if there was judicial evidence...
:15:17. > :15:23.A do-nothing she will succeed on appeal. There is a wider points to
:15:23. > :15:27.get involved in, why should we have given him asylum in the first place
:15:27. > :15:31.when he holds views that are fundamentally and violently anti-
:15:31. > :15:35.democratic and racist? That is because of the reading of the
:15:35. > :15:42.refugee Convention but in my view, we are not obliged, as some think,
:15:42. > :15:46.to give people who are violent racists and sexists refuge here on
:15:46. > :15:56.a permanent basis. We can give them temporary refuge if they are about
:15:56. > :15:58.
:15:58. > :16:02.It is about time you had a policy. Let me just bring you back, that is
:16:02. > :16:06.an interesting context, let me try to tell you something you may be do
:16:06. > :16:11.not know. King Abdullah is coming to London next week. I know that
:16:11. > :16:15.because I was invited, I did not know until I was invited to a
:16:15. > :16:19.lecture at the Policy Exchange, just round the corner next week. So
:16:19. > :16:23.what should the British government say to the king now that he is
:16:23. > :16:28.here? What should we try to require of them, keeping in mind that he
:16:28. > :16:34.may say, look, we are a sovereign nation, we have done what we have
:16:34. > :16:39.got to do? To be honest, thus far, they have proved themselves to be
:16:39. > :16:43.as helpful as one could want, and what I do not understand is why the
:16:43. > :16:48.Home Secretary did not come back with the goods, basically, because
:16:48. > :16:53.I understand... She has got a chance this week. Yes, indeed.
:16:53. > :16:57.think they should be lifted away from party politics. We all want to
:16:57. > :17:05.see the back of Abu Qatada. We are a good friend of King Abdullah, we
:17:05. > :17:13.need to say, if that is what you can you have signed the torture
:17:13. > :17:19.Convention... Widened to go as far as that convention allows and have
:17:19. > :17:23.pale against the reception of evidence obtained by torture? --
:17:23. > :17:27.why don't you go? And if the king is watching, we would like to
:17:27. > :17:33.invite him to reply! He wants to know what the next director-general
:17:33. > :17:39.is up to. I met him at a gym in Paris once. The next director-
:17:39. > :17:46.general? The King of Jordan, you are obsessed with the BBC! I wanted
:17:46. > :17:53.to point out this was a BBC Three programme until you mentioned it! -
:17:53. > :17:57.- BBC-3. You are going to leave us now, but we thank you for joining
:17:57. > :18:01.as, we are keeping you here, willingly, I hope. Geoffrey
:18:01. > :18:05.Robertson, you are staying with us because one of the biggest
:18:05. > :18:09.challenges facing President Obama is what to do about Iran. Tensions
:18:09. > :18:12.have been running high over Tehran's nuclear programme, and
:18:12. > :18:16.during the presidential elections Barack Obama said that negotiations
:18:16. > :18:20.could not go on forever, adding that the clock is ticking.
:18:20. > :18:24.Yesterday Iranian media reported that the regime has launched a
:18:24. > :18:29.military drills across half the country. A spokesman said the
:18:29. > :18:32.exercise would send out a strong warning to those who threaten Iran.
:18:32. > :18:36.Their real military capabilities are disputed, and the accuracy of
:18:36. > :18:40.these pictures cannot be confirmed, but it is clear that despite
:18:40. > :18:45.sanctions, Tehran continues to develop its nuclear programme, and
:18:45. > :18:48.Western nations believe it is aimed at developing weapons. Geoffrey
:18:48. > :18:51.Robertson is still with us, and he argues that by spring of next year
:18:51. > :18:55.President Obama will be under huge pressure to back an Israeli attack
:18:55. > :19:00.on Iran and Britain will have to decide whether to support it. Is
:19:00. > :19:03.there any doubt that Iran is trying to make a bomb? I don't think so. I
:19:03. > :19:09.think the evidence is overwhelming that they have been trying to make
:19:10. > :19:15.a bomb, frankly, since the Shah! He decided that they would ultimately
:19:15. > :19:21.make a bomb, the Ayatollah when he got in said, no, this is a Western
:19:22. > :19:26.weapon, so it is in for. But then Iraq started to use chemical
:19:26. > :19:32.weapons on the Iranians, and they changed their mind. In 1985-86,
:19:32. > :19:37.they hired this Pakistani bomb maker, and they have been trying,
:19:37. > :19:41.edging their way towards a nuclear weapon, and they are probably
:19:41. > :19:44.within one year. Netanyahu, who is likely to be re-elected in January,
:19:44. > :19:49.and that is half the problem, thinks they should be attacked by
:19:49. > :19:54.the spring or early summer. He has been threatening that for some time,
:19:54. > :19:58.and we know that relations publicly between the Israeli premier and
:19:58. > :20:03.President Obama are not, perhaps, what they might be. President Obama
:20:03. > :20:07.certainly talked tough during the election, obviously he had to equal
:20:07. > :20:12.Mitt Romney, but is there any appetite in America for any sort of
:20:12. > :20:16.military action? The Jewish lobby have a great deal of influence.
:20:16. > :20:22.President Obama said at the United Nations that there was a coalition,
:20:22. > :20:27.he actually used the word coalition, and that is a signal for Britain, a
:20:27. > :20:32.coalition that would stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Now, that
:20:32. > :20:36.means that he will be brought in, I would have thought, to an attack,
:20:36. > :20:41.and we will have the old Iraq debate about the legality at the
:20:41. > :20:46.United Nations some time next year. It will be a re-run of Iraq, and
:20:47. > :20:54.there is no doubt that under international law there is nothing
:20:54. > :21:00.to stop Iran going nuclear. This is the problem. The Non-Proliferation
:21:00. > :21:05.Treaty has broken down, North Korea has 12 nuclear weapons, Pakistan
:21:05. > :21:14.has 110, and the Islamic extremists attacked an airbase and almost got
:21:14. > :21:18.one. We are in a new area, we are out of the Cold War, we are out of
:21:18. > :21:21.mutually assured destruction, and we are in a new area where nukes
:21:21. > :21:25.are proliferating and something is going to go wrong unless we stop
:21:25. > :21:29.them. Is it the right thing for America and President Obama to
:21:29. > :21:33.threaten attacking the military and nuclear capability in Iran, or is
:21:33. > :21:38.that not going to make the Iranians feel even more, you know, indignant
:21:38. > :21:42.about what they are doing, and they will just pursue it anyway? I think
:21:42. > :21:46.the Americans are right not to take the military option off the table,
:21:46. > :21:50.but it is the one you do not want to use. Sanctions would appear to
:21:50. > :21:54.be working rather more effectively and diplomatic dialogue, more so
:21:54. > :21:57.than people previously thought. The worst case situation, and it is
:21:57. > :22:01.interesting that the Iranians have put his propaganda film at, they
:22:01. > :22:05.are trying to show their military capability is strong. Question, do
:22:05. > :22:09.the Americans, the Israelis have the military capability
:22:09. > :22:13.significantly to degrade their nuclear weapons capability?
:22:13. > :22:16.Israelis do not on their own, do they? Who knows? But the wider
:22:17. > :22:21.point is that we do not want to bomb Iran to stop them having a
:22:21. > :22:25.bomb, and then wind up with a bomb Iran that has a bomb. Much better
:22:25. > :22:29.to learn to live with and Iran with a bomb over time. Sanctions are not
:22:29. > :22:35.working. They are making the public and the regime even more determined,
:22:35. > :22:41.that is the evidence in my book. Diplomacy is not working. The
:22:41. > :22:48.European Union people are being just simply strung along by the
:22:48. > :22:54.Iranians. The problem with bombing which no-one realises, everyone
:22:54. > :23:02.thinks it is going to be 10 people dead, but it is not. There are
:23:02. > :23:06.5,000 people working at Natanz, 371 tons of uranium hex of chloride in
:23:06. > :23:09.the places that are going to be bombed. Let that go up, let the
:23:09. > :23:14.wind blow it across the city, and you have tens of thousands of
:23:14. > :23:18.people who will die. Is Britain going to sign up for that? Very
:23:18. > :23:23.briefly, then, if Britain is forced to take tides, whose side should
:23:23. > :23:27.they back? Neither side, I do not think Britain should allow Diego
:23:27. > :23:32.Garcia to be used, which it may well be forced up the island in
:23:32. > :23:37.Indian Ocean. We should not allow up our facilities to be used. We
:23:37. > :23:41.should be neutral, because it would be an unlawful attack. Geoffrey
:23:41. > :23:47.Robertson, thank you very much. Can you sign the book and leave a copy
:23:47. > :23:57.behind? Yes, of course! Not often you get something out of a lawyer,
:23:57. > :24:01.is it? I definitely want it for free! It is not often that
:24:01. > :24:06.multinational coffee chains inspire sympathy with us on the Daily
:24:06. > :24:11.Politics, but one firm, I have got it here, told MPs yesterday that it
:24:11. > :24:15.is struggling to make ends meet here in the UK and not doing nearly
:24:15. > :24:21.as well as some of its competitors. I will not tell you which one it is,
:24:21. > :24:25.but it has got bucks in its name. If not in its profit line,
:24:25. > :24:30.according to the company, boom- boom! They are one of three
:24:30. > :24:34.companies to appear before the Commons Public Accounts Committee,
:24:34. > :24:41.where MPs were curious to know why they paid so little tax in the UK.
:24:41. > :24:49.Let's see how well or badly they If you make losses in the UK, which
:24:49. > :24:53.is what you are filing, over 15 years, what on earth are you doing
:24:53. > :24:58.doing business here? We know that we must be in the UK to be a
:24:58. > :25:03.successful global company. But you are losing money here! Why don't
:25:03. > :25:09.you focus on the US, where you are making money? We have had
:25:09. > :25:16.tremendous optimism... 15 years, you have given the UK business 15
:25:16. > :25:21.years, you are still making losses, and yet you are carrying on, if it
:25:21. > :25:25.is true. I assure you it is true, it is very unfortunate, we are not
:25:25. > :25:30.pleased about the financial importance. Everything we have said
:25:30. > :25:37.is historically true. It does not ring true. It is hard to believe,
:25:37. > :25:47.when I rushed down Victoria Street, and a double Paranal Karthi leaves
:25:47. > :25:47.
:25:47. > :25:49.you in such a bad way, for 14 years. -- .. Paranal Kotri. You have paid
:25:49. > :25:56.1.6 million in corporation tax, you are either running the business
:25:56. > :26:00.very badly, or there is a third of going on. This is the most
:26:00. > :26:05.competitive market that we operate in. There is outstanding
:26:05. > :26:09.competition, consumers have much choice, more choice for consumption
:26:09. > :26:16.of coffee per capita than anywhere else in the world. Your entire
:26:16. > :26:21.economic activity is here in the UK. I pay in pounds, it never comes off
:26:21. > :26:27.my bank account in euros. Your entire activity is here, yet you
:26:27. > :26:33.pay no tax year, and that really riles us. It riles us. Can I
:26:33. > :26:40.clarify that? We do pay corporation tax... Tiny in relation to your
:26:40. > :26:46.turnover. Tiny! The other thing I would also highlight is that we
:26:46. > :26:50.have paid in excess of 100 million in payroll taxes in the last five
:26:50. > :26:54.years, we have paid tens of millions in business rates in the
:26:54. > :27:00.past five years... I have heard this argument already, so let me
:27:00. > :27:05.kill it, because it makes me cross. So does every other business.
:27:05. > :27:10.you to adopt a more robust business model where you work, God forbid,
:27:10. > :27:15.making a profit... We are making a profit. A real profit, rather than
:27:15. > :27:21.just part of a tax avoidance scheme. I have to say, we are paying the
:27:21. > :27:27.tax we are required to under the law. We are not avoiding tax.
:27:27. > :27:34.are avoiding tax! Would you leave, and if you left, if you had to pay
:27:34. > :27:38.higher tax and make decent profits, where would you go? The issue of
:27:38. > :27:41.your understanding is about, you know, if Google was a British
:27:41. > :27:46.business, founded in Cambridge, we would be in a very different place
:27:46. > :27:50.here, because the profitability would rightly suit with where the
:27:50. > :27:54.technology and innovation happens. But Google is a US business, and
:27:54. > :27:58.the activity that happens in the UK, even if you describe it as sales
:27:58. > :28:01.activity, which is not exactly what we do, we could still get that
:28:01. > :28:11.activity from the open market at the costs we are paying to the UK
:28:11. > :28:11.
:28:11. > :28:15.With me now, the Conservative MP Charley Hull thick, a former tax by,
:28:15. > :28:21.and Kevin White, managing partner of deVere Group, a financial
:28:21. > :28:25.advisory firm. -- Kevin L Beck, a former tax lawyer. Let us assume,
:28:25. > :28:30.and we have no grounds for saying otherwise, that they are behaving
:28:30. > :28:35.entirely legally, doing their tax returns with in the law. I put it
:28:35. > :28:39.to you that companies with combined revenues of �3 billion only paying
:28:39. > :28:44.corporation tax of �30 million, there is something wrong with the
:28:44. > :28:49.system. Yeah, what they are doing is entirely legal. We have
:28:49. > :28:52.established that. I think that the tax that they are paying is not an
:28:52. > :28:58.awful lot, but they are within their rights to do it. That is not
:28:58. > :29:02.what I am asking you. I am saying to you, if the system is taxing
:29:02. > :29:07.revenues of 3 billion and ends up getting tax revenues of only 30
:29:07. > :29:11.million, there is something wrong with the tax system. It is a lower
:29:11. > :29:16.rate of tax than I pay, and people on average income paid, that almost
:29:16. > :29:21.everyone in the country. I agree, things need to be changed, and that
:29:21. > :29:25.is the overall factor. What should be changed? You have got three
:29:25. > :29:31.issues, a local issue, which is a UK tax issue, then the European and
:29:31. > :29:37.global. Been global multinationals, do you go down the route of
:29:37. > :29:42.escalating it to the G20,... OECD countries. Or do you look at
:29:42. > :29:45.it in the UK? I think a possible solution is a turnover tax. You
:29:45. > :29:50.cannot mitigate turnover, otherwise you are reducing sales, and you
:29:50. > :29:56.cannot do that. A small proportion of turnover in each country would,
:29:56. > :30:00.I think, be fair, transparent and ultimately where we want to get to.
:30:00. > :30:04.Why do you think that our tax system, meant to be one of the most
:30:04. > :30:08.sophisticated in the Western world, put it this way, when our viewers,
:30:08. > :30:13.all of us are paying a lot of tax as individuals, a lot of people
:30:14. > :30:18.have been tracked into the 40% band, people pay 20%, quite low down the
:30:18. > :30:27.income scale, why is it that these companies making so much money pays
:30:27. > :30:32.Two things have happened, the rise of the internet age, with companies
:30:32. > :30:37.like Amazon trading from Luxembourg even though they are fulfilling in
:30:37. > :30:41.the UK. The first thing we need to do is update tax presents. We need
:30:41. > :30:45.to have laws that say the presence of Amazon is in the UK and they
:30:45. > :30:49.should pay tax in the UK. Presumably they do have the
:30:49. > :30:53.infrastructure. They must exist somewhere!
:30:53. > :30:59.The manner was the former MD of Amazon UK is on the BBC executive
:30:59. > :31:05.board. -- the man who was. If they had a UK MD, then they are in
:31:05. > :31:09.Britain. Exactly right. If you buy a book from Amazon, they will say
:31:09. > :31:12.you were buying it in Luxembourg and they fulfil from the UK. It is
:31:12. > :31:16.a Royal Mail stamp that goes on it and it comes to you. It is counter-
:31:16. > :31:21.intuitive that they should be able to say they are not here. What
:31:21. > :31:26.constitutes having a presence in Luxembourg to justify that that is
:31:26. > :31:30.where their tax and not here? their argument is that that is
:31:30. > :31:34.where the place of sale takes place. That is what is wrong. It could be
:31:34. > :31:39.a filing cabinet in Luxembourg. pretty much. Could that be done
:31:39. > :31:45.easily? They are currently doing it. They are not working out of the
:31:45. > :31:49.current laws. What I meant was, could the law be changed in what
:31:49. > :31:55.our MP calls attacks presence to make them legally present for tax
:31:55. > :32:01.purposes in Britain? I think the war can change. The politician and
:32:01. > :32:05.the MPs have the power to do so and I think this is deflected from the
:32:05. > :32:10.fact that they are abroad. The fact is, the reason why the companies
:32:10. > :32:20.are able to do this is because over the years politicians of both
:32:20. > :32:25.parties have made the tax code so complicated that you hire expensive
:32:25. > :32:32.accountants and you can find 101 ways of not paying. That right. If
:32:32. > :32:36.you knock out transfer pricing mark ups and deductions, you could
:32:36. > :32:41.actually have a really low rate of tax, simple and strong. And that is
:32:41. > :32:49.what I am advocating. And that would put you out of the job.
:32:49. > :32:54.think it would. But there is more to financial planning than this.
:32:54. > :32:59.Where are you on this, General? thing for us this veritable law and
:33:00. > :33:05.the letters bowl-off. It is perfectly possible that these big
:33:05. > :33:10.companies, that it can be predicted how much business they do and the
:33:10. > :33:17.mechanism can be calculated. That is logical. The law must be
:33:17. > :33:23.adjusted. Let's take Starbucks, it is on the report to be taxable
:33:23. > :33:27.profit once in 15 years. -- it has only reported a taxable profit once
:33:27. > :33:32.in 15 years. I am assuming that everyone watching this programme
:33:32. > :33:38.thinks that is not credible. Credible, no. Legal, yes. But is it
:33:38. > :33:41.that a right. That is what needs to change. Can we do it on a
:33:41. > :33:47.unilateral basis? You mention that it has to be changed in three
:33:47. > :33:50.places. If we do it alone, will that not just our businesses?
:33:50. > :33:56.Starbucks cannot go elsewhere, or it can if it wants to, there are
:33:56. > :34:00.plenty of other coffee shops. We could have a look at the entire
:34:00. > :34:10.corporation tax regime and ask ourselves, can we have a simpler
:34:10. > :34:18.
:34:18. > :34:23.tax system? But your government, you went for tax simplification.
:34:23. > :34:27.You promised it but in fact you have added several hundred more
:34:27. > :34:31.pages to the Tax Guide that you inherited from Gordon Brown. There
:34:31. > :34:40.is the question of counting pages. The more important question,
:34:40. > :34:45.retinues. From 1997 until 2010, income tax revenues went up by 80%.
:34:45. > :34:48.Corporation tax went up by 6%. What is happening has been happening for
:34:48. > :34:52.one time and is a systemic issue that we need to call to account.
:34:52. > :35:01.there any evidence the Government is going to do that? Will we see
:35:01. > :35:06.any action in the autumn statement? I am campaigning on it. It is going
:35:06. > :35:09.to take time and there is no quick fix. It will take years but people
:35:09. > :35:13.need to be patient. This government has the ability to make a
:35:13. > :35:17.difference. More years of tax free coffee profits. Hopefully not too
:35:17. > :35:21.many. Briefly, will we see action in the United States? I hope we
:35:21. > :35:27.will see moves in the right direction. The Deputy Prime
:35:27. > :35:32.Minister is a man who takes being a father of three seriously. He has
:35:32. > :35:34.reported to do the school run on a regular basis and cabinet meetings
:35:34. > :35:38.had been rearranged around parenting. This morning, he
:35:38. > :35:42.announced he is going to allow dads to share more parental leave with
:35:42. > :35:47.their partner after the birth of their child. Where say we're going
:35:47. > :35:54.to consult with businesses and make sure that mums and dads give the
:35:54. > :35:58.right notice to employers. -- we are saying we're going to consult.
:35:58. > :36:03.My view is that given that women are so important to our economic
:36:03. > :36:09.success as a country, and it is often them who are bosses and have
:36:09. > :36:13.particular expertise, giving them the flexibility to come back to
:36:13. > :36:17.work earlier or to come back to work for a certain period of time
:36:17. > :36:22.to complete a particular task, that would help employers rather than
:36:22. > :36:29.hinder their own. We are joined by the Employment Relations Minister,
:36:29. > :36:34.Jo Swinson. And Liz Gardiner, who works for the charity Working
:36:34. > :36:40.Charities. What is your take on what has been announced? It is a
:36:40. > :36:44.good news story on the flexible working reforms, which has a great
:36:44. > :36:50.business success and good news for families. The right to request it,
:36:50. > :36:56.not get it. There was nothing for business to fear. We hope that will
:36:56. > :37:01.start to change workplace cultures. I think it is a good sign that the
:37:01. > :37:07.Government has listened to concerns and has come up with a greater plan.
:37:07. > :37:11.I do not understand, I thought that businesses already have to consider,
:37:11. > :37:16.even on a voluntary basis, they had to look at requests for flexible
:37:16. > :37:22.working. The federation for Small businesses says, of why do we have
:37:22. > :37:27.to have this imposed upon business? The current right to request is
:37:27. > :37:32.available to parents of certain ages. Extending that actually helps
:37:32. > :37:38.to change the culture about the workplace, to be more in tune with
:37:38. > :37:42.the 21st century at people can work remotely. Our present culture
:37:42. > :37:47.Hearts back to the last century. This makes it easier. Any employee
:37:47. > :37:51.that makes the request, that needs to be considered by the employer.
:37:51. > :37:57.It could mean a practice that the mother who has just had a child
:37:57. > :38:00.takes the first four months on -- months off, and then the father
:38:00. > :38:05.takes a four months and then the mother has another month off. Do
:38:05. > :38:09.you accept that that is hard? they want to chair -- to share the
:38:09. > :38:14.lead -- share believe, they cannot do it concurrently at the moment.
:38:14. > :38:19.They cannot do that at the moment. Also, they cannot break into
:38:19. > :38:24.different walks. If mum goes back to work, she will lose the rest of
:38:24. > :38:28.her return to league -- maternity leave, even if the employer wanted
:38:28. > :38:34.to come back. Employers will have to agree the pattern if they want
:38:34. > :38:40.to do it that way. But to give more choice to mums and dads to find a
:38:40. > :38:43.solution that works. Having a child is difficult and stressful enough
:38:43. > :38:49.without all of this additional stress. Does it go far enough?
:38:50. > :38:53.Would you like to see the right to refuse taken away from firms?
:38:53. > :38:59.think the benefit of the right to refuse is that it is a reasonable
:38:59. > :39:03.right. It has been causing a quiet revolution in the workplace. What
:39:03. > :39:07.is the evidence, and I keep seeing that it makes for a happier
:39:07. > :39:12.workplace, but more productive as well. What is the evidence to
:39:12. > :39:16.support that he Mac the House a strong business case. It leads to
:39:16. > :39:21.reduce absenteeism and sickness. And reduce stress. We have done
:39:21. > :39:23.some research that says there is positive correlation between people
:39:23. > :39:27.flexible working and their performance, in the quality and
:39:27. > :39:31.quantity of the work they produce. But there was a plan to give
:39:31. > :39:35.fathers six weeks' paid paternity leave. How long has that been
:39:35. > :39:41.shelved for? In the challenging economic circumstances, would
:39:41. > :39:43.recognise that would mean an extension to the total time that
:39:43. > :39:47.parents could take off and we thought that doing that did not
:39:48. > :39:52.make most sense. That said, with the ability to share, fathers will
:39:52. > :40:00.be able to have extra time off if that is what the family things
:40:00. > :40:03.works for them. The shared parental leave is due to come in in 2015 and
:40:03. > :40:07.once that is in place, the Government is tempted to review
:40:07. > :40:13.that with the Topshop and extending the daddy month to have more
:40:13. > :40:19.paternity only. But interesting that you think it is not right for
:40:19. > :40:22.the time now. Is it even right to put any extra burden on business at
:40:22. > :40:26.a time when the Government desperately wants businesses to
:40:27. > :40:32.take on more people? That is why we are not extending the total time
:40:32. > :40:37.that a couple can have out of the workplace. While employers
:40:37. > :40:43.employing dance might have an issue, the correlation of that is that mum
:40:43. > :40:47.is coming back to work sooner. There is an economic benefit. At
:40:47. > :40:51.the end of the day, we will not get out of the recession that we're in
:40:51. > :40:54.if we are not using all the talent in the workforce at the moment, too
:40:54. > :40:58.many women do not have enough choice about their role in the
:40:58. > :41:02.workplace. This flexibility will help that. Will it help business be
:41:02. > :41:06.more productive? It is interesting to see where the evidence lies upon
:41:06. > :41:14.the face of it, a would have thought that small businesses feel
:41:14. > :41:19.quite challenged. If you only have a dozen employees, that could make
:41:19. > :41:23.it quite difficult to get the company going. After all, the
:41:23. > :41:26.bottom line is getting the economy going again and getting the country
:41:26. > :41:33.back into a stronger position. And perhaps when we have done that we
:41:34. > :41:37.can then enjoy some more or three arrangements to look after children.
:41:37. > :41:42.That is what the Federation of Small Businesses has said. Let us
:41:42. > :41:46.be clear, we cannot suddenly stop having 80 child because we are in a
:41:46. > :41:54.recession. We need to find a way... Of the request was there for people
:41:54. > :41:56.with children. In terms of requests, that is just be reasonable. In
:41:56. > :42:00.terms of parental leave, there is no additional time off out of the
:42:01. > :42:05.workplace, it is just about allowing mums and dads to choose
:42:05. > :42:09.how to split it. It is not an extra burden but in fact it could help
:42:09. > :42:15.businesses. There is more flexibility. If a mother wants to
:42:15. > :42:21.come back and help or a Pacific -- on a specific client, that
:42:21. > :42:29.flexibility is not currently there. Difficult to manage for a small
:42:29. > :42:35.company or a medium-sized company. There will be very few families
:42:35. > :42:40.that we're asking to take it -- that are taking a job and are they
:42:40. > :42:42.coming and going. I think it is an option but what is the alternative?
:42:42. > :42:48.This is the 21st century and the United maternity discrimination
:42:48. > :42:52.happening in the workplace is also costing the UK a huge amount of my.
:42:52. > :42:56.What is the alternative to match I think it is a perfectly reasonable
:42:56. > :42:59.way to go forward but I think what has been announced allows the
:42:59. > :43:04.request to be placed. If it was more than that and there
:43:04. > :43:09.was pressure to employers to allow more time off, I think that would
:43:09. > :43:14.be the wrong place to be. But I think it is something that we can
:43:14. > :43:19.enjoy more was economy has got better. The idea it is, does that
:43:19. > :43:22.make companies more efficient. It is a moot point.
:43:22. > :43:27.British troops have been in Afghanistan for over 10 years. They
:43:27. > :43:32.are due to leave in 2014 along with the American troops. But the truth
:43:32. > :43:35.is, when the Americans leave, we have no choice whether to leave for
:43:35. > :43:38.not. A lot of people are pessimistic about what will happen
:43:38. > :43:43.in Afghanistan after words but rather than predicting a Taliban
:43:43. > :43:46.takeover, the director of the Royal United Services Institute,
:43:46. > :43:56.Professor Michael clerk, he has higher hopes for the country's
:43:56. > :43:57.
:43:57. > :44:00.future. In Afghanistan into this no one, in
:44:00. > :44:06.the early part of the war, Afghan forces would often confronted other
:44:06. > :44:11.as if they were about to fight. And the night before, people would pass
:44:11. > :44:15.from one line to another with cigarette papers. Along the
:44:16. > :44:20.cigarette papers were written little messages. In the morning,
:44:20. > :44:26.the battle would not take place and some of the forces we eventuate.
:44:26. > :44:29.Some of the sources -- some of the forces would disappear. The
:44:29. > :44:33.cigarette papers say the battle. We might do better to remember this
:44:33. > :44:39.when we get close to the deadline of military withdrawal. People are
:44:39. > :44:43.starting to get nervous. Of course, Taliban leaders and Afghan warlords
:44:43. > :44:47.were never going to a conference room in Geneva and the glossy it
:44:47. > :44:51.for months on end about the fine details of a political settlement.
:44:51. > :44:55.But as we get closer to 2014, they might well start going backwards
:44:55. > :44:58.and forwards with political cigarette papers and that the 11th
:44:58. > :45:05.hour, produce a political settlement on the future role
:45:05. > :45:10.Afghanistan. Why do I think this? For one thing, Taliban commanders
:45:10. > :45:13.to matter have will be fighting for 20 years. They have got a personal
:45:13. > :45:16.battle almost -- battle honours are now they want a political pay-off.
:45:16. > :45:19.They know that the Afghans will not thank them for plunging the company
:45:19. > :45:23.into civil war and they have learned that they are pretty
:45:23. > :45:28.unpopular. Lots of them fear that Taliban. They do not support them
:45:28. > :45:30.even in the heartland of the South. Although they were never going to
:45:31. > :45:34.run to negotiate with Hamid Karzai, they believe that they will they
:45:34. > :45:43.cannot control the country they have earned the right to some
:45:43. > :45:46.decisive say. Go into a room. It will probably go down to the wire
:45:46. > :45:49.in 2014 and that will make us feel uncomfortable but we should not
:45:50. > :45:55.mistake Afghan posturing for a lack of political nous. They understand
:45:55. > :46:05.the value of cigarette papers. I have a pretty good idea if they
:46:05. > :46:08.know when to start passing them Michael Clark joins us now, as does
:46:08. > :46:14.Paul Flynn, and Richard Dannatt is still with us. What would success
:46:14. > :46:21.in Afghanistan actually look like, bearing in mind many feel that the
:46:21. > :46:24.current policy is failing? I think success now looks like some Afghan
:46:24. > :46:28.negotiated future after 2014, so that whatever happens next is in
:46:29. > :46:31.the hands of the Afghans themselves. It is not a future in which the
:46:32. > :46:35.Taliban will not play a part, but it should be a future in which
:46:35. > :46:40.there is no room for Al-Qaeda war- related groups anywhere in
:46:40. > :46:44.Afghanistan. If there were a single attack on the West that seemed to
:46:44. > :46:48.originate from an Al-Qaeda Group in the areas of Afghanistan, that
:46:48. > :46:53.would look like strategic failure. Could you give any reassurance that
:46:53. > :46:57.would not happen at the moment? If the original aim was to certainly
:46:57. > :47:02.damage the Al-Qaeda network, if not destroy it altogether, and remove
:47:02. > :47:06.the Taliban from power, have we achieved that? Well, yes, Al-Qaeda
:47:06. > :47:11.is not in Afghanistan, the Taliban are not in any governmental sense,
:47:11. > :47:15.but they will move back in in some way. Remember, the Taliban have no
:47:15. > :47:19.love lost for Al-Qaeda. All of the indications are that the Taliban
:47:19. > :47:23.know that they do not want to get involved with Al-Qaeda, those guys
:47:23. > :47:26.are trouble. There is a fair chance that in thinking through a
:47:26. > :47:31.political settlement, they will want to reassure the West that Al-
:47:31. > :47:36.Qaeda have no place in Afghanistan. Present at like that, the Taliban's
:47:36. > :47:43.options will be more limited as we approach 2014, that we will have
:47:43. > :47:46.gained some success. There is a dose of reality in this, because
:47:46. > :47:52.the wind that doesn't send so many young soldiers to die, and it was
:47:52. > :47:56.repeated many times in the Commons, is that our people are going to
:47:56. > :48:05.Afghanistan to protect us from a Taliban terrorist threat. This is
:48:05. > :48:09.an untrue, it has always been a lie, and we know that Al-Qaeda were a
:48:09. > :48:15.spent force many years ago. But we see ourselves in a very dangerous
:48:15. > :48:20.situation, and more civilians died in August that almost any month
:48:20. > :48:25.previously, 374. We had the attack on Camp Bastion, �200 million of
:48:25. > :48:28.damage done to aeroplanes, and we have seen this awful phenomenon of
:48:28. > :48:33.our soldiers not being killed in battle, being murdered by the
:48:33. > :48:39.people who we are arming, financing and training, and I think this is
:48:39. > :48:45.an optimistic view but realistic. The Taliban will be in control in
:48:45. > :48:50.the 2015-16 in parts of Afghanistan. We went there, part of the reason
:48:50. > :48:56.was to get rid of them, but we will have failed on so many counts.
:48:56. > :48:59.is where the trust has gone, those attacks of Taliban dressed as
:48:59. > :49:04.policemen or infiltrating into Afghan forces, that is what has
:49:04. > :49:09.made people's faith of any success being impossible. Let us deal with
:49:09. > :49:12.that narrowly. That is a tactical matter, albeit one with strategic
:49:12. > :49:17.consequences. There I was the Taliban leadership, I would be
:49:17. > :49:23.doing something pretty similar. Originally they took us on with
:49:23. > :49:27.direct fire weapons, we killed a lot of them. They switched to IEDs,
:49:27. > :49:32.very effective. We have been able to mitigate that affect, so they
:49:32. > :49:36.have switched to another point of weakness, because we know our exit
:49:36. > :49:42.strategy is for their security forces to take responsibility for
:49:42. > :49:46.the country, so they have begun to erode the trust of us and of them.
:49:46. > :49:49.It is a clever tactic, but it does not change the Big Issue, which is
:49:49. > :49:54.the strategic issue that Michael Clark is talking about, that the
:49:54. > :50:01.settlement was always going to be political. What we have done, just
:50:01. > :50:04.to finish this point, and it has cost us 437 British lives since
:50:04. > :50:08.2006 in the main, of course it has swept Al-Qaeda out of the country,
:50:08. > :50:13.but it has given the Afghans a chance of a better future. That is
:50:13. > :50:18.all we could have done. If they take their chance, that is great.
:50:18. > :50:21.Every time an army exits, more people die when they pull out, and
:50:21. > :50:25.the longer we stay there, the more British soldiers will have been
:50:25. > :50:30.sacrificed. That is a sweeping generalisation, I do not accept
:50:30. > :50:33.that. The Canadians and the Netherlands have pulled out with
:50:33. > :50:38.their heads held high after making great sacrifices. We should be
:50:38. > :50:44.doing the same. There is no purpose Dame there when we know that our
:50:44. > :50:48.soldiers are exposed to greater danger than ever before. -- no
:50:48. > :50:53.purpose staying there. If you say a political settlement is possible
:50:53. > :50:58.and will come in those last few months before exit in 2014, why not
:50:58. > :51:02.do it sooner? We cannot guarantee it will come, but the Taliban, we
:51:02. > :51:06.know from contacts with their leaders and representatives, and a
:51:06. > :51:09.number of us have tried to develop those contacts through friends and
:51:09. > :51:11.friends of friends, we know they are looking towards the future. We
:51:11. > :51:16.know that they do not believe they can control the country the way
:51:16. > :51:22.they used to before 2001, but they believe the have their right to
:51:22. > :51:25.save. They have taken a few things on board. They have produced an
:51:25. > :51:29.education policy earlier this year. You can believe it or not, but the
:51:29. > :51:34.fact is that the Taliban are relatively realistic, and they do
:51:34. > :51:38.not want to plunge Afghanistan into another 20 years of civil war. We
:51:38. > :51:44.may or may not be able to work with that, and it will be a rough ride,
:51:44. > :51:48.because we do not have any direct negotiating credit with them.
:51:48. > :51:52.got his information from informal talks. The distracted diplomacy,
:51:52. > :52:02.you talk to people who talk to people, you create interesting
:52:02. > :52:04.
:52:04. > :52:07.distractions. -- it is tack true -- it is track two diplomacy. There
:52:07. > :52:11.will be a political outcome, whether it is a settlement or not,
:52:11. > :52:17.and it will be very Afghan. We are probably not going to be part of
:52:17. > :52:21.that. Wouldn't you take any of that as having some sort of optimism?
:52:21. > :52:25.The Taliban are running courts, collecting taxes. They know we are
:52:26. > :52:30.going, they are preparing for us to go, but the truth is that we tried
:52:30. > :52:34.to bury the awful reality that is there. I cannot read out in
:52:34. > :52:39.parliament the names of the dead, I did in the past but it is forbidden
:52:39. > :52:43.now. The bodies of the soldiers that comeback on no longer seen on
:52:43. > :52:47.television, they are taken around the backstreets, and we tried to
:52:48. > :52:51.deny the truth that we are sending young men to die, to serve a
:52:51. > :52:55.politician's mistake. They are acting as human shields for
:52:55. > :52:59.politicians' reputations, and we would like to believe they could be
:52:59. > :53:05.a neat end to the war, this is a grand strategy, and it will all end
:53:05. > :53:09.up happily ever after. It is not. It is going to be an awful mess.
:53:09. > :53:14.would be tragic if there is civil war at the end, if at the end what
:53:14. > :53:19.has happened is that allied forces have ended up training pub a whole
:53:19. > :53:23.generation of Afghans who then end up fighting in a civil war. They
:53:23. > :53:28.will not give their loyalty to an election rigging President. They
:53:28. > :53:34.will not give their loyalty to us, to foreigners. They will go back to
:53:34. > :53:40.their tribal loyalties, as Pascoes and Uzbeks. It is a pretty bleak
:53:40. > :53:44.assessment. It is true. I think Michael's argument is a very fair
:53:44. > :53:49.one, that they will be a political settlement. We might not like it,
:53:49. > :53:53.but the Afghans are people at the end of the day. Do they want
:53:53. > :53:56.another 25 years of civil war? History does prove otherwise.
:53:57. > :54:03.will be a settlement made by political cigarette papers, they
:54:03. > :54:07.will do a typically Afghan deal. went in there to clear Afghanistan,
:54:07. > :54:11.438 British soldiers have died, and people will save for what if the
:54:11. > :54:14.Taliban are controlling it? Thank you all very much.
:54:14. > :54:19.News from Southwark Crown Court that discussion is taking place
:54:19. > :54:25.where a jury has found former Labour MP Margaret Moran guilty of
:54:25. > :54:29.fiddling expenses claims when she was an MP. Now, localism is one of
:54:29. > :54:32.the coalition's buzzwords with Conservatives and Lib Dems
:54:32. > :54:35.embracing it enthusiastically, and there is even a Localism Bill aimed
:54:36. > :54:40.at enshrining new powers for local communities and law. Now the
:54:40. > :54:43.Government's commitment to localism is being questioned. The growth and
:54:43. > :54:47.infrastructure bill is up for discussion in the Commons today. It
:54:47. > :54:52.aims to stimulate growth by giving more power to central government
:54:52. > :54:55.over planning decisions. Who would have thought it? Actor and
:54:55. > :54:59.presenter Griff Rhys Jones is also the president of Civic Voice, and
:54:59. > :55:04.he has been touring Yorkshire over the past few days, getting to local
:55:04. > :55:07.-- trying to get local people more involved in planning decisions. He
:55:07. > :55:11.is concerned the new legislation makes it more difficult. He joins
:55:11. > :55:16.us now from Leeds. Good to see you again. What are you doing in
:55:16. > :55:22.Yorkshire? I am going around meeting various civic societies and
:55:22. > :55:26.sort of encouraging people. I see. I hope you are succeeding! What do
:55:26. > :55:30.you make of this? On the one hand the government says it wants more
:55:30. > :55:33.localism, and on the other hand it says if we are going to get the
:55:33. > :55:39.economy going, we have got to centralise things a bit. I think it
:55:39. > :55:42.is rather disturbing, because there is no doubt that one can welcome
:55:42. > :55:47.localism, one can welcome Mayo planning and a lot of things that
:55:47. > :55:51.are going in to allow citizens, ordinary people to be more involved
:55:51. > :55:55.in the planning decisions and to try to sort of put a wedge between
:55:55. > :55:59.what seems to the local authorities and the centralised government and
:55:59. > :56:03.big business tending to want to carve up city centres. And I think
:56:03. > :56:11.what has been missed out of that, clearly, is a local boys, people
:56:12. > :56:15.who live there. Sussex societies, they have a role to play. -- civic
:56:15. > :56:19.societies. What seems to have happened is that somewhere along
:56:19. > :56:24.the line, members of the Treasury and members of the Cabinet have
:56:24. > :56:28.said, no, no, we have to have building and development willy-
:56:28. > :56:32.nilly to get ourselves out of this economic downturn at the moment,
:56:32. > :56:37.and so by giving them this power, you are encouraging them to stop
:56:37. > :56:42.things happening. Eric Pickles has introduced a growth and
:56:42. > :56:46.infrastructure bill which appears to ride roughshod over all those
:56:46. > :56:50.intentions. Isn't it the fact of central government in Britain for
:56:50. > :56:55.many years now that all governments are in favour of localism until the
:56:55. > :57:01.locals do something that government does not like? Well, this Bill
:57:02. > :57:08.seems to be enshrined in short term emergency measures, which might be
:57:08. > :57:12.necessary to help us out of what is undoubtedly one of the series of
:57:12. > :57:15.depressions that all capitalist societies go through and will at
:57:15. > :57:19.one point we will see the light on the other side of the hill, but
:57:19. > :57:23.while things are very low, it is apt to enshrine legislation which
:57:23. > :57:26.will affect us for the next 30 years, until somebody changes it,
:57:26. > :57:31.which seems to require that the Secretary of State can allow any of
:57:31. > :57:35.his friends, anybody he wants, any political sponsors, to go ahead.
:57:35. > :57:38.What is really worrying about his infrastructure built is that they
:57:38. > :57:43.used to be referrals to the Secretary of State if you were
:57:43. > :57:46.worried about power stations or schools or roads, but now it
:57:46. > :57:50.absolutely says quite clearly business developments should also
:57:50. > :57:55.have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Where does the
:57:55. > :57:59.limit come? A very interesting tension, Griff Rhys Jones, thank
:57:59. > :58:04.you for joining us, come back to see us when you get back to London,
:58:04. > :58:10.good to have you on the programme. There is just time to get the
:58:10. > :58:14.answer to the quiz. Remember that? We asked you which of these people
:58:14. > :58:19.voted for Nadine Dorries to stay in the Australian jungle? They added
:58:19. > :58:25.that they have no voting No. On speed dial! David Cameron, George
:58:25. > :58:29.Osborne, Eric Pickles will Louise Mensch? I think it is Louise Mensch.
:58:29. > :58:34.It is not, actually, it is Eric Pickles, who said he would be
:58:34. > :58:39.phoning in every night to make sure she stays in the jungle. That is it
:58:39. > :58:43.for today. Thank you to our guests, particularly Lord Dannatt. The One
:58:43. > :58:48.O'Clock News is starting on BBC One. Parliament is in recess, no