09/06/2011 Question Time

With the Government and the church at loggerheads today, we will be

finding out what our panel and our audience think - welcome to

Question Time. On the panel here in Norwich, we have the International

Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell. Labour's former Home

Secretary Charles Clarke. The Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson. The

feminist writer Germaine Greer. And the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter

How have never known a programme where we have had such an

overwhelming number of questions on this single topic. This question

comes from Rachael Gilbert. Were being committed to radical long-

term policies for which no-one has voted - is Archbishop Rowan

Williams correct? That was his quote - were being committed to

radical long-term policies for which no-one has voted. Is the

correct? I think he is right to speak out, but I don't think he is

right in his analysis. I do not believe the Government has got

fundamental, long-term, radical policies. In one sense, I wish it

had. I think what he should be criticised for is incoherence and

incompetence in a wide range of areas. We have seen it on

sentencing reform, and on other issues. If I thought there was a

coherent vision and strategy which was taking us on a disastrous path,

in a sense, I would be more worried. But it is a really bad situation,

in my opinion, when they have not thought through their proposals. I

think the Archbishop's criticism is right, but the grounds I think are

not correct. So he should have said something quite different?

should have said the Government was incoherent, rather than saying it

has a coherent long-term strategy, which I do not think it has. It is

certainly true that nobody voted for this. A number of deluded

people voted Conservative in the belief that they would get a

Conservative government. And some more deluded people voted Liberal

Democrat in the belief that they would get a left-wing government.

And neither of them got what they wanted. The Liberal Democrats have

dropped many of their pledges, and we know about those, particularly

on universities and many other things as well. Why do you call

them deluded? Because it was quite plain from the behaviour and

speeches of David Cameron and his lieutenants that he was hoping, if

he became elected, to govern the country as a liberal. He has been

very happy indeed to have the support of the Liberal Democrats

against what remains of his own right wing, to make sure that he

can be soft on crime, and that he continues to spend very highly in

certain areas of public spending, which are unpopular with his

supporters, that he continues to lead the country be absorbed into

the European Union. And that's to name just a few areas. He's very

happy with this, he is not the prisoner of Nick Clegg. What about

what the Archbishop said? puzzled as to why an archbishop

should take this particular view, particularly when he speaks about

the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor

being revived. I think an awful lot of people who pay a lot of tax, and

then see people living close to them living off that tax and not

doing any work would like to see the distinction between the

deserving and the undeserving poor revived. And I would point out that

this distinction arises irrespective of religion. I do not

see why this would be a Christian thing to say. I think he is

absolutely right, but he's not alone. Millions of people are

extremely angry about what this government is doing. They are

forcing people to pay thousands of pounds for education, bringing in

changes to the NHS, and competition, which was not in their manifesto.

But we are angry and we are going to take action about this, because

they cannot make ordinary people pay for this crisis, which was not

of their making. That anger will be coming to fruition, thousands of

people will be voting and taking action later this year against this

government's policies. The man in the third row from the back...

I ask why the panel think that such a big say should be given to a

person supported by such a small minority in this country?

Swinson... He is entitled to express his views, and I think very

often he plays an important part in public life. But I think he's wrong

when he says nobody voted for this. 10 million people voted

Conservative, 7 million people voted Liberal Democrat. That is a

high percentage of the population, more than we are used to. The

previous Labour government governed with just 35% of the vote. It is a

curious argument, when the archbishop is an outspoken critic

of any kind of reform to the House of Lords, to bring democratic

legitimacy into that place. But the one place where I think he is right

to highlight is that people are very worried about the current

situation. We have a situation where our economy has gone through

a massive heart attack, where people are finding life very

difficult, often having a pay freeze, concerned about job

security and facing rising costs. We are in a very difficult

recession, which we're trying to find our way out of, and growing

the economy is very important. All of the decisions being taken to cut

the deficit are being made with that recognition, and it is very

close to my mind that these decisions are making life difficult,

but there is no easy alternative. We must bear that in mind. The

alternative, having a ballooning deficit and much higher debt

repayments, are not a price that I want future generations to have to

pay. The archbishop said your government

does not know how afraid people are, and the anxiety and anger are to do

with the feeling that they're not having proper public argument about

the decisions which are being imposed on the country. Well, as I

just said, I to understand the concerns that people have... But do

you think he is right to say what he said? I think MPs are very aware

of these difficult decisions. I don't think anybody is taking these

decisions with any relish. But it is absolutely vital that we get the

economy back on track, and you cannot do that with the deficit

that we have had. Just to repeat the question - were being committed

to radical long-term policies for which no-one has voted... Under

Labour, there was no social justice. I have got Asperger's syndrome, I

was kicked out of three schools, and my local MP said, I don't care.

In 2005, that's when the Conservatives took over the local

council, and it was then that something was done. You say you're

there for the working class - no, you're not, you're there to line

your own pockets. In answer to Peter Hitchens, it is ludicrous to

describe in any way as Liberal a Prime Minister under which the most

vulnerable are under attack, and the people who have done best in

the last year, the people the Government at the top of the income

bracket, are not so badly affected. In answer to Jo Swinson, those of

us who voted Liberal Democrat do not feel we got what we voted for,

because we can hardly notice that you're there. Andrew Mitchell,

you're the most senior representative of the government

which came under attack from the Archbishop - what do you make of

it? He is entitled to his view. I do not agree with him. He was not

very nice about the Labour Party, either. But on the two substantive

points, first of all, no-one voted for this coalition government...

This is actually the first government since 1935 which has got

more than 50% of the popular vote behind it, so I think he is wrong

on that point. In addition, if he says coalitions are not democratic,

and effectively he is disowning most of the governments across

Europe. Hang on, he said we are being committed to long-term

policies for which no-one voted. He didn't say nobody voted

Conservative and nobody voted Liberal. He's talking about the

agreement which the two parties made after the election. As we know,

Jo Swinson said there would never be tuition fees in University...

That surely is what he was referring to? And they had said no

top-down reform of the NHS. point is that these are the

policies of a coalition government which has come together in the

national interest, burying party political differences to try to

sort out the dreadful economic mess. But by definition, nobody can vote

for coalition policies. That's true, but the two parties in this

coalition, for the first time since 1935, have more than half the

popular vote. That's a point which he Mrs in his comments. We are

taking this action not because we want to take it but because we have

got to take it to protect living standards across the country from

the dreadful effects of the inheritance we had from Labour, and

the attack on living standards that would result if we did not get the

deficit down. But you keep going on about these thugs that you got -

when you didn't get them by saying what you were going to do. -- these

votes. Both of these parties got their votes by pretending they were

going to do things. This is a false prospectus, you cannot get away

with it in business. That's not true at all. Everybody is forever

nagging that government, do not carry out what was in their

manifesto. In this case, it is even more interesting, because one of

the things that happened under presidential-style New Labour is

that parliamentary government was weakened in a great many ways, the

power of Cabinet was suddenly sidelined, we began to have rule by

fear, which was invented by Margaret Thatcher, who taught her

policies to win but Murdoch -- who told her policies to Rupert Murdoch

before she told them to anyone else. When you have a system like that,

issues are not argued on their merits. We end up with government

by fear. In this case, what has happened, to somebody who is a

European, is profoundly exciting and interesting. The Tories now

have to argue their case in front of the Lib Dems. They will arrive

at a compromise. This is the way government goes in this country

historically anyway. It is one reason why we are still saying.

Interestingly, whatever government we have now would still be under

pressure from the universities, after years of underfunding, to

raise fees. Where are you on the Archbishop? Well, it is nothing to

do with me, I'm a Catholic. Let's just hear from some more members of

the audience. I'm a high-school governor, and the changes in

education have been insane. The English Baccalaureate, it is one of

the most dumb things I have ever heard. It is so depressing. We have

a real diverse range of students in our school. That's just one example,

one of the crazy things which are just not necessary to try to save

on the deficit, it is just insane. I think he had a right to say

something, because he is a citizen of this country. I think a lot of

people feel like they have been silenced, and the good thing about

him saying what he did today, I think it will have opened up the

debate. There is a time when people say enough is enough, and I think

that time has come. Now is the time to look at the working class, at

everybody, to try to make sure that even if we have to have cuts, we

make sure they are fair and equitable. Andrew Mitchell, he

complained of what he called the seductive language of deserving and

undeserving poor, in other words, that you were starting to make a

distinction between people who needed welfare and people who did

not need to be on welfare. Is that a fair criticism? No, it is not. I

think if you look at the reforms which Iain Duncan Smith is trying

to carry out, to try to make sure that work pays, that people get

back into the world of work, these are very important reforms which

are long overdue. And I think the Government deserves credit for

grasping this nettle and tackling this issue, which for far too long

has been ignored by politicians. don't think it is fair to say that

politicians have been ignored. I think actually the Prime Minister's

response to the Archbishop of Canterbury today has been extremely

contradictory. It has been proven that the Government needs to listen,

that's why the NHS reform was halted, to implement some listening

exercises. And the concerns of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be

listened to and should be explored. I think the response today has been

far too quick, and I think it has I completely agree with what the

lady has said and the what the lady said earlier. The coalition was

entitled to form the Government. They had a majority of seats and it

gave stability. I'm a Labour politician and I recognise Labour

was defeated. Secondly, they're entitled to form the Government on

the basis of a coalition agreement as to what they would do. That is

fair too. What they were not entitled to do was to ignore the

things they'd said prior to the election. The student fees is a

good example and no topdown reform of the NHS is another. What they

also had to do and failed to do, was to come up with cohere rent

programmes for reform. The gentleman talking about the school

curriculum is completely spot on correct. Schools up and down the

country have been thrown into confusion as a result of the

approach taken by the Government. Every health centre in Britain is

in confusion because we don't know what is happening on NHS reform and

that's why the Archbishop of Canterbury was right to talk about.

The Government is no intoe heernt and has gone back on what both

parties -- incoherent and has gone back on what both parties said.

Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury has the right to actually speak for

the hundreds of thousands of people who don't have that right, who

don't have a voice, who are the deserving or undeserving poor?

lady there. I agree for the most part with what Charles Clarke has

said, but I think the coalition has got a coherent policy, but it seems

to be furthering Conservative ideals basically halting social

mobility by raising tuition fees and knee-capping the NHS with all

the ridiculous reforms. Wouldn't it be more helpful if we used the

money being used to bomb Libya at the moment and use that for the

three million children who are living in poverty at the moment?

Briefly, Jo. The gentleman makes a good point about children living in

poverty and I'm sure people watched the documentary, Poor Kids and the

truth is every party had welfare reform in the manifesto, because

what that programme demonstrated so clearly was that getting people

back into work is absolutely the best way to get children out of

poverty. There hasn't been enough support and that's what we are

absolutely determined to change. you are tweeting tonight, just a

reminder the hash tag is bbcqt. Another question from Anne Beaumont.

Does the Government have any teeth when it comes to the inappropriate

sexualisation of children? There was a report about this week.

Germaine Greer? If you think about this phenomenon you have to ask

yourself where it really comes from. Who is it? When is it? When are the

children sexualised? For years and years, 20 years, it's been

impossible to buy clothes for little girls that didn't dress them

as little tarts, that didn't have sequins on their jeans, that

weren't Jordan pink or Katie Price pink. It became a strange thing

that little girls screamed and yelled, they wanted these things.

It became like a guerilla uniform for little girls saying I'm a

girlie. -- girlie girl. I would entertain the possibility that they

were reacting a particularly type of feminism which said you've got

to be boyish and tough and not coy and so on. It was extremely

depressing for an old feminist like me to watch this phenomenon. But it

just grew and grew and the more mothers said I will not buy you

your 25th Barbie doll, the more screaming and yelling there was

until the 25th Barbie doll was got. There's always been this sinister

culture that has gone along and it's always been sexual. The Barbie

doll herself is a fettish and descended from a sex toy. Little

girls learn to flirt with their fathers, kiss daddy good night and

all this sort of business. You wonder whether what is happening in

marketing is a response to this, or whether it's actually causing it.

In fact, by now it's become biofeedback, one feeds the other.

All you can pray for is that it will run out of steam and the kids

will think it's so last year and naff and disgusting that they just

won't do it any more. Government can't do anything about

it? I tell you something, if the Government decides to censor what

is available - cepbs sewer what is available and decide things are not

for little girls they'll give them added value and make them nor

glamorous. -- censure. Kids want desperately to grow up. We have to

come up with something more substantial. We have to give them

an idea of self-worth which goes beyond being concerned with your

breasts and which allows you to have some fat on your thighs and

allows you not to be a dreadful immitation of a Barbie doll. You

don't like topdown with the Health Service and this is mental Health

Service and it has to come spontaneously from the little

people themselves. Peter Hitchens. Where does this sexualisation come

from? Why is it that we now have this Babylon which even affects

small children? Is it because we decide today change our moral

climate. This is a job for the Archbishop of Canterbury. To become

instead a post-lady chatterly society in which sex was like

tennis and something you did and pleasure and there were no rules

about it and everybody should talk about it all the time and it should

be on the television the whole time and form the lyrics of all the

songs that people listen to, which it is. Out of the radio it comes

and television and the internet. They go to school and they get sex

education, which is all about taking away their innocence. All

these forces come bien so what else is the purpose of sex education --

combine, so what else is the purpose of sex education? We are

told it's supposed to stop underage pregnancy and sexually transmitted

diseases. What happens? The more sex education we have, the more

diseases and the more abortion and the more underage pregnancy we have.

It's so. You are in favour of the sexualisation of children. Indeed

you are, our culture is and so to stand here after 50 years of this

and say oh, let's have a law of selling padded bras to children

seems to be a futile gesture. newspapers play their part. I

notice the Mail was described by Ofcom as showing iing Gantly more

graphic and close-up material than -- showing significantly more

graphic close-upmaterial than anyone else. That was Ofcom blaming

someone else because they were in trouble letting something get

through. The speaker of the house Commons -- the Speaker of the House

of Commons described it as it being bigoted.

APPLAUSE I should stress for one moment, but

not to disown the paper, I work for the Mail on Sunday, I would be very

happy to be described in such terms by the Speaker. I would take it as

a compliment. The woman there. There were several problematic

things about the report, one seemed to me the absolute absence of any

research involving children. Bailey is the person who produced

the report for the Mother's Union. The children were absent from this

and I don't know who is talking to children and young people about

their views about this. I think that this kind of moralising tone

and creating the bogeyman, these people have responsibilities, but

if we don't empower the young children to navigate the world then

we are doing a massive disservice and we talk about the fact that

Government only has so much it can do and I agree that it will make it

more appealing, but the Government is involved in education and it's

not consistent in this country or manned interest and does not cover

key issues. We need it to cover pleasure and desire and gender and

media literacy and equip people to better navigate the world, because

people will not stop trying to sell them stuff.

APPLAUSE This report had 14 recommendations.

Andrew Mitchell, do you think the Government can do anything about

this and can the recommendations be enforced? Well, I approach this

issue as a parent of two girls, as well as a politician. I think that

in tackling what is going on behind Anne's question, we should

recognise that the par rent is the first line of defence. On a

Saturday morning, when I took my two daughters to buy some magazines,

I exercised a certain amount of censorship over what they could

have and I was surprised at some of the stuff that was available to

them. I think the parent is is the first line of defence. I think

after that it is of course for companies and businesses to

exercise self-restraint and self- regulation and in his report, reg

Bailey recognises that and as the Prime Minister has said, if self-

regulation doesn't work, in 18 months' time we'll return to this

issue and consider legislation. right. Charles Clarke. In answer to

the question, David, I don't think the Government has any teeth in

relation to this and I think it's a serious mistake for the Prime

Minister to do what Andrew described to imply it could come in

with legislation in 18 months' time and as it were solve this problem.

I don't think legislation is the means for doing it. I agreed with

Germaine Greer's answer. It's for young people to have self-worth and

confidence in what they do. The people who will help them gain that

are their parents, in the way Andrew was talking about, the

grandparents and friends and what society ought to be doing and

perhaps this is an appropriate use of the word big society, is to try

to encourage children to have self- worth and diminish the impact of

the pressures described. I think that really is the way to go. I

think it's true, in a lot of the social areas, the illusion that the

Government can act through legislation is self-defeating.

rating videos and insisting that certain magazines are put out of

reach? There are certain things that can be done to assist parent

and like rating of videos is a good example where you've got it. Some

of the controls which are suggested for pornography on the internet

which can help parents are good things too. I think the concept of

what the Government can do ought to be how can it assist parent,

grandparents and children themselves, control what they are

doing, rather than stop them doing things? The man in the back there.

I think that Mr Hitchens' suggestion that if we don't buy

into his historically inaccurate and rose-tinted view of pre60's

sexual morality we therefore support the skphroiltation of

children. That is a false -- exploitation of children. That is a

false die cot my. I would like to take exception to what Germaine

Greer said as dressing your children as tarts. I have two young

girls and the coy kissing of daddy before they go to bed. Surely they

give me a kiss because they love me? That depends whether a children

is being taught to flirt with you rather than simply - Who is going

to teach my children to flirt with me? That is an awful thing to say.

There are all kinds of ways of kissing your children, but there is

one thing I would like to say here which is that kids don't have a

single culture. They have all different ones and schools side by

side in the same street can exhibit very different behaviours, because

it's the way the kids in those schools define themselves. We have

some schools where the girls wear their uniforms right down to their

ankles and the others where they wear them as short as they can get

them. It's all part of the way they define themselves and they can

define themselves into opposition to a prevailing morality. When you

are a child what you are doing is forging your own path. Parents

might like to think that their kids want to have sex the way they do.

They are almost certainly wrong. What we have got to understand is

how creative kids are and how the development of sexuality has to do

Have you ever heard me use the word unnatural? No, it is encouraging

girls to be rural and manipulative in the way they approach other

people. This is something which enters right into the culture.

That's how sick we are as a society, that people introduce sex into a

good night kiss between father and daughter. Unbelievable! I very much

agree with the lady in the audience, and I have to say, I disagree with

you, Peter, that freedom of information about sex is the root

of all of this. But I do remain concerned about the sexualisation

of much of our culture, whether it is the soft porn lads mags next to

the pick-and-mix, or the pop videos, which inevitably have a very

slender lady in a skimpy outfit gyrating around. He isn't worried

about the message it sends to girls in particular, that what is

important is the way you look, and being a sexualisation object is

what is most important. I'm worried about the consequences. The NSPCC

did a study, and found that one in six teenage girls had been

pressurised into sex by their boyfriends. Girl Guides did a study,

and nearly half of young girls said the most negative thing about being

a woman was the pressure to be attractive. Can the Government

solve all of these problems? I do not think so, it is a multi-faceted

problem. The media does need to take a more responsible view, and

it is not just about sexualisation. Even here on the BBC, what other

role-models? Consumers can have an impact as well. There is a campaign

which managed to stop the Early Learning Centre from selling its

dressing-up clothes, where the girls were sold nurses' outfits,

and the boys were sold doctors outfits. Sorry, if 32% of heroes

are male... Sorry, I got it the wrong way round, 32% of heroes on

BBC are female. I agree with Germaine Greer, we need to get rid

of the sexualisation, but you need to replace it with something else

for people to aspire to. education is not freedom of

information, sex education is propaganda for promiscuity.

Ridiculous! How do you instil self- esteem when there's semi-naked

people everywhere you look - billboards, buses, TV. You have

said many times on the panel, sex sells, so what hope have we got off

self-regulation, while people are making money out of it? I think the

key issue is in relation to parenting, which has been touched

upon. In my role as a police officer, and my wife's role as a

teaching assistant, we see lots of examples where there is inadequate

parenting in lots of different ways. I do not have an answer to that.

But I think that's really where it starts. Until there is effective

parenting, and children are given good examples from a very early age,

then this remains one small example of lots of ills in our society at

A question from Jody Shanahan Predergast, please. Is it right to

seek to become a development superpower at a time when public

services are being slashed? Andrew Mitchell said we are a development

superpower. Is it right to seek to become a development superpower at

a time when public services are being slashed? Peter Hitchens?

though I do not necessarily think it is a question of public services

being slashed. I think there is a strong argument against a great

deal of this aid, much of it is misdirected, much of it ends up in

the hands of despots, much of it is wasted, and a lot of it does not

stand up to much examination, and quite a lot of it does quite a bit

of damage. It is an overrated form of activity. One great economist

said it was a way of taking money from the poor of the first world

and giving it to the rich of the Third World. In many cases, that

seems to be absolutely right. The reason why this government, which

many people wrongly think is Conservative, is so committed to

this very left wing, liberal idea, that by spending lots and lots of

taxpayers' money, gathered from not particularly well-off people in

this country, in the Third World, they're necessarily going to do

good. They are not. I think Andrew Mitchell knows that very well. He

knows what his own department does. He knows how much money goes astray.

How much of it has to go through the European Union, in any case? I

think Neri 20% of our foreign aid is actually spent by the European

Union on our behalf. And much of that is on things which we have no

say about. So I think there should be more scepticism about things

like foreign aid, and a lot less open-mouthed belief that just

because it is called aid, it Andrew Mitchell, you actually said,

the Americans were a military superpower, and we are a aid

superpower. I think it was an important thing, when the coalition

was formed, when we said we would not balance the books on the backs

of the poorest people in the world. I'm proud of being a member of the

government which took the decision. We completely understand Peter's

point that you will never maintain support for Britain's development

programme unless you can demonstrate to hard-pressed

taxpayers that for every pound we take from them, we're actually

getting 100p of delivery in terms of development on the ground. And

over the last year, that is what we have set out to do. We have made

independent evaluation of British aid, so that people do not have to

rely on the word of ministers who can sweep inconvenient truths under

the carpet. We have got independent corroboration, and we have focused

on the results of the programme. And we have done this for two

reasons - first of all, because it is morally right to do something

about these appalling discrepancies of opportunity which exist in our

world today, which our generation, for the first time ever, has a real

chance of correcting and ameliorating. On Monday we're going

to have a huge conference in London, with people gathered from

governments, from private sector companies, from philanthropic

foundations, to try to try not -- to sign up to vaccinating a quarter

of a billion children around the world, who die from diseases which

we are entirely able to prevent. But what do you say about the

question, when other things are being cut, why should this be

protected? Why are you going to legislate to spend three-quarters

of 1% of our national budget on aid? We believe it is morally right,

but also absolutely in our national interest. I was recently in Somalia,

a country from whence comes all sorts of threats to Britain.

Terrorism, migration - it is a source of drug running, a source of

disease spreading. Tackling those causes of this functionality,

tackling the causes of poverty upstream is much cheaper than

having to deal with them later on, when they burst out and you have to

send in the troops. Self-interest? It is both morally right, and

absolutely in our national self- interest to stand by this

commitment. I would like to quote one of my own experiences,

volunteering in the Poole, but first of all, have you ever been to

an undeveloped country before? of them, yes. Which one would you

like me to list? Somalia... In the middle of a famine. Well, I went to

jig Nepal, where I saw that foreign aid can stop young girls being sold

it into prostitution over the border into EDF. -- in to India. It

can stop the disabled from dying. Let me finish, please. You have

done better than I have, you have silenced him. I'm sorry, but I

would like to have my say. There is a precedent in this country that we

would not allow the disabled to die just because they cannot earn a

livelihood. This is what foreign aid protects, the basic human

rights of people around the world. Thankfully, we live in a democratic

country, where our rights are protected. However, across the

world, the rights over their human beings are not. What about the

question, which is that went public services in this country are being

cut, the overseas aid budget is being protected? At that point I

would look at some things which we are very lucky to have provided by

the state in this country. Although some people might be extremely poor

in this country, they will not be allowed to fall under the radar if

they call on community services in the right way. What do you say when

you discover that some of this money is spent on dancing lessons

or building motorways through 35 years ago, we pledged 0.7% of

our national income to the overseas development aid effort. It was out

of self-interest, if you like, because one thing we are supposed

to be doing out there causing growing markets. We are going to

need markets, we cannot sell to people who have no wealth of any

kind. It was self-interest, but interestingly, nobody did it. We

got to about half that amount. The Americans didn't follow through on

it, for all sorts of reasons. The calculations have been distorted,

it has been presented as overseas development aid when it was not. I

agree, it should be properly administered. Should it be given to

a rich country like India? In what way are we going to call in you

rich? -- India. India itself gives as much in overseas aid as we give

to India. It has nuclear weapons, I think that's one way of saying it

is which. For goodness sake, we play these games with figures all

the time. Really, it is a question of administration and organisation.

We are for ever having to patients amounts of money for emergency

relief. If we were actually properly organising things,

actually supporting societies properly, we would not have to do

things like take freight in by air. It is all the result of penny

pinching and sloppiness. You do not get what you do not pay for. You

have got to put in if you want to get out. Let me go back to the

questioner. At the same time that budgets in the NHS are being frozen,

and public services are being cut, Pakistan is to receive �665 million

sterling over the next four years. Meanwhile, Pakistan announced it is

to increase its military budget by 12%. I was wondering why it is the

responsibility of the British taxpayer to pay for public services

in Pakistan? The fundamental reason is the reason that Andrew set out,

the moral case and the economic self-interest case. To take the

example of India, the Open University has got a programme

supported by Andrew and his department to educate teachers in

India to raise educational standards, to help their prosperity

and health and everything. It is very much in our interests to do it.

But I dislike the idea that if we put up walls around this country

and forget that the rest of the world exists, and think we can just

look after ourselves, and that the problems of the rest of the world

Pakistan's an excellent case in point, where we have a massive

interest in actually improving the prosperity, education, capacity of

the people of Pakistan, because from Pakistan comes some of the

most serious threats we have to deal with. It's absolutely in our

interests and we should be doing it. Is that answer, answering your

question? Are you happy with the answer? Ierbgs I'll have to live

with it. I'll have to live with it. We will have meet the moral

commitment. I think in the previous Government I think Clare Short did

excellent work in moving the agenda up and I'm delighted this

Government is taking it so seriously. Of course, there is the

issues of making it transparent and money doesn't go into the hands of

governments where we know there are corruption issues and it's

delivered through other partners in those countries. All of that has to

happen, but I've been to Sierra Leone which is one of the poorest

countries in the world, in the aftermath of civil war, where child

soldiers have been conscripted and made to do the most appalling

things and where the poverty was just like nothing you can almost

imagine. We have that morale responsibility, but we also know in

states where there has been conflict and where there is massive

poverty and big problems with their economy, that that is where there

is more likely to be a breeding ground for terrorism and

instability that will affect us and be much more difficult for us to

deal with when it erupts, so it's both morally right and in our

country's interest to do this in terms of the aid budget. Can I come

back on Peter's point, about how all the money is stolen and

misused? We have set up, the coalition Government, has set up

the independent evaluation of aid, so you'll be able to see, because

independent agencies will publish a report not sent to ministers, but

given to Parliament, to the relevant Select Committee to see

whether it is providing good value and the transparency commitment,

the fact that everything above �500 goes through the net and we are

committed to transparency because we understand we'll not maintain

public support for this programme unless we can demonstrate real

value for money and result on the ground. Thank you very much.

Another question. Does a deliberate policy of rape by Gaddafi in Libya

compel us to commit ground troops? That is the allegation from the

prosecution of the International Criminal Court, saying that rape

was organised and a new aspect of Colonel Gaddafi' repression. Does

that commit us? The rule of course ats -- at the moment is we

shouldn't put troops on the grounds. Charles Clarke? I think the

question putting troops on the ground is the matter that has to be

considered by the people looking at the best way of getting change in

lib yarbgs which I would say has to re-- Libya, which I would say has

to remove the regime and give elections. Not a question for the

UN? It is a question for the UN. What I'm saying, the direct link

between rape and the rape allegations that are being made and

the commitment of ground troops is something which I don't think is

right. It's an appalling allegation against Colonel Gaddafi that this

is happening and it's right it should be considered by the

International Criminal Court so he can be brought to justice there in

those circumstances. What I'm saying is the decision about

whether or not to commit ground troops has to be one made by the UN

Security Council on the overall issue of what is the best way of

achieving change in Libya. You Sir, in the second row. Is not sending

the Apaches in this early a half- way house? You think that is half

way? They based on ground attack and they are equivalent to ground

troops. Andrew Mitchell do you think this has changed the whole

nature of the operations in Libya, the policy of rape and you've just

come back from there? These are appalling allegations. They are not

the first such allegations to be made by the ICC. We have also seen

the use of cluster bombs by Gaddafi against his own people, blowing the

limbs off children and adult, as I saw last weekend in a hospital in

Benghazi. Does it mean we have to commit ground troops? No, it does

not. We are doing everything in accordance with international law.

The UN resolution 1973 underlines the importance of Gaddafi going.

And his regime ending. That event is getting more likely. Firstly,

because his military equipment is being very severely degraded from

the air every day. Secondly, because he is suffering defections

at all levels in his regime. Thirdly, because this work of the

ICC has a very important effect on his support and his supporters,

because they can see the great danger that they'll be held to

account and the age of impunity will be over. I don't think we need

to commit ground troops. I'm optimistic that we are going to be

able to continue to protect the citizens, which after all was why

the UN authorised this intervention in the first place. The

intervention of the international community stopped a bloody massacre

going on in Benghazi, which would have been far worse than anything

we saw in Srebrenica for example. Peter. It seems to me that Libya is

the business of the Lybians, not us. We have rapes taking place in this

country. As we see from the attempts by the Secretary of State

for Justice, the Government isn't particularly anxious to punish them.

Hang on. It's not - I keep stopping me. People listening to you will be

surprised that we have rape in this country. What the ICC is alleging

is rape being used as a matter of policy by Colonel Gaddafi. I know

what is alleged. I'm saying we have concerns in our own country, if you

would actually let me say anything. Come on then. It would be easy. The

point that I am making is this: we have many concerns in this country

which are not being dealt with by a Government which is uninterested in

protecting its own population from an enormous amount of crime and

disorder and yet it poses as the saviour of the world in Libya. What

business is it of ours? We have heard on many occasions in recent

years stories about things going on in other countries, to stampede us

into supporting intervention. We were told about weapons of mass

destruction from Iran. This was false. We do not know if the

allegations against Colonel Gaddafi' troops are true. --

Gaddafi geas troops are true. It seems that an attempt might be made

to try to stampede the UN and this country and others into committing

ground troops in Libya. Well, five years hence, when they are still

there, and the coffins are coming back through Brize Norton or

Wootton Bassett and you are saying, why are we still there and why are

people dying in this country in which we have no substantial

interest, you'll know it was because you were stampeded into

other war by a Government that can't look after you at home, but

likes to parade its wonderfullness by invading foreign countries. I

urge you to be sceptical about this sort of stuff. It doesn't mean we

should be scared of going into just wars. We have a moral obligation to

help people out. I'm not too keen on ground troops, but it should be

an option. You are the right age, off you go, sign up.

APPLAUSE The man in the black and white

there. It must be said that the current situation in Libya helps

nobody. It's just prolonging a very vicious civil war, but as the

Sunday mail hack has pointed out, sending in ground troops will not

necessarily help anything. In both Afghanistan and Iraq we sent them

in and removed the people in question that we were looking for

and in those cases Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and we are still

there. The situation is even worse. What is there to say that if we

went into Libya the same wouldn't happen? Why can't we try a

different technique and perhaps negotiate with Colonel Gaddafi?

It's curious to agree with him and insult him at the same time.

pains me to say that a gree with him. Germaine Greer. Rape is always

present when you have slaughter. You don't have to have a Government

fiat to do it. One of the interesting things about what

happens if we send in ground troops, how will we be sure they don't do a

bit of raping in their turn? APPLAUSE

One of the interesting things about the current situation is surprise,

surprise, allegations of rape are being made about the rebels as well.

Who knows, I don't understand the warfare, but it seems to me you

don't start it because once you start this kind of situation then

the - all kinds of people suffer who are not a part of the conflict

at all. One of the curious things about this story is the allegation

that Gaddafi's commanders have supplied the soldiers with viagra

so they are capable of raping. What is wrong with the Lybians?

Everybody else managed without? Give them too much of that and

they'll be raping each other. The situation might just solve itself.

It seems completely demented the story that we are dealing with at

the moment. There was another famous case where rape was alleged

as a policy on the part of the Pakistani commanders in Bangladesh

in 1971. That was never stood up, but it turned out to be another

urban myth. Extraordinary notion that 300,000 women were raped and

left at the end of the war looking for husbands. It turns - it's not

true. I think in this case we have got one of those legends that is

going to appear about the hated enemy. All soldiers in certain

circumstances will rape, regardless of whether they are ours or theirs

or whose. Do you think we should be if Libya in the first place? It's

an extraordinary thing isn't it, that we supported Gaddafi and we

sold him the weapons to suppress his own people, then when the

people finally boil up, we suddenly change sides and decide we are

going to be their safiorz. Were we right or wrong? We are hypocrits as

usual. Right or wrong to go in? don't think we'll get out. It will

turn out to be a tack Keller roar. I disagree that we should shut our

eyes and let things happen in the world. But the question I do

believe that is morally right to intervene, do we have a means to do

this? The Government is capg carriers and the British army have

a record low -- scrapping carriers and the British army have a record

low intake. You can't get involved if foreign adventures if you don't

have the means to do so and to be a credible NATO partner. It's a very

valid point, being raised. Obviously it's not purely Britain's

moral responsibility alone. This is on the back of the UN Security

Council resolution and 17 different countries are involved in the

action in Libya. I think it's that United Nations' backing is what

makes it different from Iraq. I was advance the -- against the war and

I marched against it. It was an appalling mistake, but this is

different. We have international consensus about it and regional

support from the partners and when somebody said it's not helping

anybody, I think the citizens of Benghazi, who heard Gaddafi say he

was going to bring in the tanks and go from house to house and show no

mercy would disagree. Ground troops? What is important is the UN

resolution, which explicitly rules out an invading force. Wow like to

see an attempt to have it changed to allow ground troops or do you

think it's wrong? I'm not a military strategist, so I'm not

best place today say how to make sure that we can best ensure the

security of the Libyan people. That is what is in the resolution and

that is when the key important thing is. These are just the most

appalling allegations, but I think they have some credibility and they

are not just being put out there by some random bloke. This is the

prosecutor who is giving this credibility and it shows how

Gaddafi has no respect for the people who are his fellow zitzens.

Andrew Mitchell, do you -- citizens. Andrew Mitchell, do you think there

will be a time for ground troops to finish whatever it is that they

want to achieve? No-one is - Peter has set up a straw man to knock him

down. No-one is suggesting at the moment that there should be any

ground troops used in Libya. We are able to fulfil our commitment under

the UN resolution in the current way we are doing it. That is

allowing us to protect the people from Gaddafi. That was what we were

mandated to do and that is why I say for the reasons I set out, that

I think we'll be able to fulfil that commitment. I hope we don't

need ground troops to be committed. We must stop now, because our hour

is up. We are going to be in Aberdeen next week. We'll be in

Huddersfield the week after that, so Aberdeen and Huddersfield. If