:00:12. > :00:22.Bishops, bankers and benefits, all on the minds of our audience here
:00:22. > :00:24.
:00:24. > :00:27.in Plymouth. Welcome to Question With me on the panel, the Liberal
:00:27. > :00:32.Democrat Foreign Office minister and in the Government, Jeremy
:00:32. > :00:37.Browne. Labour's former higher Education Minister, David Lammy.
:00:37. > :00:47.The Conservative MP, Elizabeth Truss. The Daily Mail columnist
:00:47. > :00:55.
:00:55. > :01:02.Melanie Phillips and comedian Mark Thank you very much. Our first
:01:02. > :01:06.question tonight from Mary O'Connell, please. Who is more in
:01:06. > :01:10.touch with the public's view of benefit capping? The bishops or
:01:10. > :01:13.David Cameron and the coalition? Melanie Phillips, are you for the
:01:13. > :01:17.bishops? No, I'm not for the bishops. I think the bishops are
:01:17. > :01:23.completely out to lunch, quite frankly. When you consider that
:01:24. > :01:29.many of their own vicars earn less than the amount of �26,000 per year
:01:29. > :01:36.which they say would be a level at which people live in dire poverty,
:01:36. > :01:40.then you have to ask yourself what on earth is going on. I think it's
:01:40. > :01:44.very laudable that Mr Cameron's Government is trying to bring some
:01:44. > :01:50.justice, social justice, to the welfare system to restore the
:01:50. > :01:53.incentive to work. It's surely only common-sense that if on average you
:01:54. > :01:59.can get more by being on benefits than going out to work, you don't
:01:59. > :02:03.have an incentive to work and that it's extremely unfair and unjust
:02:03. > :02:10.for all those people who are working and who are bringing in
:02:10. > :02:15.very much less than �26,000 per year to see that money is going on
:02:15. > :02:19.benefits to people who are not working and then to be told that
:02:19. > :02:26.they can't possibly survive on that amount. There are many people
:02:26. > :02:31.working for long hours for very low pay for home �26,000 income per
:02:31. > :02:35.household is untold riches. They are being completely abandoned.
:02:35. > :02:45.When did we hear the bishops stand up for the working poor of this
:02:45. > :02:49.country? Mark Steel, are you with the
:02:49. > :02:53.bishops, do they occupy the moral high ground? Well, I think compared
:02:53. > :02:57.to David Cameron they do. You see, I think it can look as if David
:02:57. > :03:02.Cameron's in touch with the common people, but if you step back for a
:03:02. > :03:07.moment and see what they're doing here, it's not just a one-off issue,
:03:07. > :03:13.a one-off cut. This is part of this Government's overall strategy which
:03:13. > :03:16.is to make the poor pay for a mess that the rich have created.
:03:16. > :03:24.APPLAUSE That's their overall strategy. Of
:03:24. > :03:30.course, the people - there's only 67,000 households receive this
:03:30. > :03:33.level of benefit, most of the money goes on rent, that's why half of
:03:33. > :03:37.these people live in London where the rents are highest. If you just
:03:37. > :03:42.consider for a moment when it's posed as being fair and posed as
:03:42. > :03:45.being in defence, as Melanie says, of hard-working people, you've got
:03:45. > :03:49.to think to yourself, hang on a minute, in some ways, maybe what
:03:49. > :03:54.the Government's complaining about is that these people aren't
:03:54. > :03:57.claiming enough. If these claimants weren't claiming �26,000, but were
:03:57. > :04:01.claiming �1 million and then �1 million bonus on top of that as
:04:01. > :04:04.well, instead of the cap being put on it, there would just be a mild
:04:04. > :04:09.call for them to show some restraint. If they were having
:04:09. > :04:12.millions of pounds that they were taking out of society and then they
:04:12. > :04:17.were putting that money in their wife's name and shoving it over to
:04:17. > :04:19.the Cayman Islands so not to pay any tax, instead of a cap being put
:04:19. > :04:24.on it... APPLAUSE
:04:24. > :04:28.Instead of a cap being put on it, then the Inland Revenue would be
:04:29. > :04:34.meeting them, as they did with many business businessmen before
:04:34. > :04:37.Christmas and wrote off in one day �25 billion of tax that was avoided.
:04:37. > :04:41.�25 billion is so much more and therefore what's pernicious about
:04:41. > :04:47.this argument is it's trying to divide all the different people
:04:47. > :04:51.who're being hammered. Yes, the working poor are being hammered.
:04:51. > :04:54.That's how pernicious it is to say, do you know who are taking it, the
:04:54. > :05:00.people who're even poorer than you. This is what they do all the time,
:05:00. > :05:04.put up the fees... APPLAUSE Make you pay tuition fees
:05:04. > :05:08.so that we can protect the working poor. The danger here is that all
:05:08. > :05:11.the different people they're hammering are all squabbling
:05:11. > :05:15.amongst themselves over who it is taking it while the rich run off
:05:15. > :05:18.and get away with it. That's why I think when you step back from this
:05:18. > :05:23.argument, it looks as if David Cameron is in touch with people but
:05:23. > :05:29.I really don't think he is. APPLAUSE
:05:29. > :05:33.The woman there? Surely what the bishop was saying
:05:33. > :05:37.is that we should be protecting the children. The children don't decide
:05:37. > :05:40.whether their parents go out to work or whether they stay home and
:05:40. > :05:44.claim benefits. Surely we should be thinking about them and not whether
:05:44. > :05:49.we should be going after these people that we've decided don't
:05:49. > :05:52.deserve money. APPLAUSE
:05:52. > :05:56.Jeremy Browne, you are a Liberal Democrat. Paddy Ashdown, who used
:05:56. > :06:00.to lead your party, would agree with that lady there and said this
:06:00. > :06:04.was completely unacceptable. Is he right or wrong? I think he was
:06:04. > :06:09.wrong and I support the benefit cap and I support it for two reasons.
:06:09. > :06:12.The first is it won't have escaped the attention of people in the
:06:12. > :06:18.audience that Britain has an absolutely colossal budget deficit.
:06:18. > :06:23.We are borrowing, as a Government, over �400 million every single day.
:06:23. > :06:28.�400 million a day. That is money that you, in this audience, and
:06:28. > :06:32.your children will be paying back for years to come. We have to get a
:06:32. > :06:37.grip on that situation. Mark Steel says you could have got a grip by
:06:37. > :06:42.not allowing people to get away with not paying tax? We have to get
:06:42. > :06:45.a grip on that situation. Welfare is the biggest single item of
:06:45. > :06:48.Government expenditure and we can't exempt welfare payments and hope to
:06:48. > :06:52.have any chance of balancing the budget of this country and we need
:06:52. > :06:56.to do that in all our interests. This is my second point, perhaps
:06:56. > :06:58.the biggest point. We do need to have some transitional arrangements.
:06:58. > :07:03.I don't think you can suddenly change people's circumstances from
:07:03. > :07:06.one day to the next. But, if we had a balanced budget, if we didn't
:07:06. > :07:11.have a problem with the deficit, I would still support this benefit
:07:11. > :07:15.cap and the reason is... transitional measures are what
:07:15. > :07:20.Paddy Ashdown wants and you say he was wrong? This is for me... Hang
:07:20. > :07:24.on a second, that's what he said? think he's wrong to oppose the
:07:24. > :07:27.position of the Government's position. There is a moral issue
:07:27. > :07:31.which Melanie touched upon which is, if you go up the road to my
:07:31. > :07:37.constituency in Taunton, there are a lot of households who earn a lot
:07:37. > :07:40.less than this proposed cap. They work full-time often in low paid
:07:40. > :07:44.unglamorous jobs, working nights in supermarkets for example. They have
:07:44. > :07:47.to make sacrifices, they can't always live in the part of town
:07:47. > :07:51.that they would like to and I think it's unreasonable for people to be
:07:51. > :07:55.earning more or to be having more household income as a principle
:07:56. > :07:59.when they are not in work than people in work who're earning and
:07:59. > :08:03.taking it home to their houses. APPLAUSE
:08:03. > :08:09.Thank you. The man at the very back in the blue shirt?
:08:09. > :08:13.Yes, you mentioned people in Taunton not earning that much, but
:08:13. > :08:17.I wonder how many people are claiming benefits in Taunton would
:08:17. > :08:23.be receiving this top limit because it's been talked about that
:08:23. > :08:30.actually lots of people will find it very difficult to get housing
:08:30. > :08:35.and there'll be crowding fam of families into smaller rooms and
:08:35. > :08:37.accommodation, a return to the tenement days, that's my fear of it
:08:37. > :08:42.-- crowding families into smaller rooms.
:08:42. > :08:47.The woman there with the spectacles? In the West Country,
:08:47. > :08:50.�26,000 is a lot of money. I have to be earning �35,000 a year to be
:08:50. > :08:54.in the same position and there are a lot of people I know who'd love,
:08:54. > :08:59.David, to take home �26,000 a year. So when you start talking about
:08:59. > :09:04.this, I whole heartedly do agree with the �26,000 cap.
:09:04. > :09:07.OK. And the woman here in the third row? Returning to the question over
:09:07. > :09:13.who was more in touch with the people, the bishops or the
:09:13. > :09:17.coalition government, it seems that a vast proportion of the electorate
:09:17. > :09:20.are very in favour of some reform to the welfare system and if the
:09:20. > :09:24.coalition Government is actually making steps to do something to
:09:24. > :09:30.reform the system, it surely shows the coalition government are the
:09:30. > :09:36.ones in touch with the public. APPLAUSE
:09:36. > :09:40.David Lammy, your party's also in favour of a cap on benefits, isn't
:09:40. > :09:44.it? Yes. So you are with the Government? No, no, no, I'm with
:09:44. > :09:49.the bishops. But they are against the cap? The bishops' job is to
:09:49. > :09:59.scrutinise this policy. That is what they are doing. It's a bad
:09:59. > :10:01.
:10:01. > :10:05.policy. In my constituency, one of the poorest in London, �1,750 for a
:10:05. > :10:08.bed -- three bedroomed flat. Were going to be moving people from
:10:08. > :10:14.Inner London to outer London. I'll tell you what we are going to get,
:10:14. > :10:19.something similar to Paris, a suburban ring of the very poorest
:10:19. > :10:22.in overCrowded Houseing that will lead to lots of problems in the
:10:22. > :10:27.year ahead and of course it's the bishop's job to challenge that.
:10:27. > :10:31.What happens to the churn in large families that find themselves
:10:31. > :10:34.virtually on the streets or in overcrowded, as the gentleman said,
:10:34. > :10:38.tenemented buildings? That's going to cost all of us a lot more than
:10:38. > :10:48.the saving that the Government are going to make. That's why the
:10:48. > :10:51.
:10:51. > :10:59.bishops are right to challenge this. You say your party, and it's the
:10:59. > :11:05.official line, is that you are in favour of it, what is it?
:11:05. > :11:07.prices should be regional. Prices in London are higher than prices in
:11:07. > :11:11.Hull. That's not rocket science, it's obvious. People in work
:11:11. > :11:16.shouldn't be receiving less than those out of work and claiming
:11:16. > :11:20.benefit, but you've got to get this right, you have got to get into the
:11:20. > :11:25.detail. This slapdash idea also that people receiving Housing
:11:25. > :11:28.Benefit are somehow all scroungers is just wrong. Most of the people
:11:28. > :11:33.on Housing Benefit are there because they can't get employment.
:11:33. > :11:38.They're part of the 2.68 million people in Britain currently
:11:38. > :11:44.unemployed. APPLAUSE
:11:44. > :11:47.Elizabeth Truss? Well, I think the issue is that it's not
:11:47. > :11:52.compassionate to leave families on benefits for year after year. What
:11:53. > :11:56.we have is, we have second and third generations of families on
:11:56. > :12:00.benefits which have been left by successive Governments. I think the
:12:00. > :12:04.bishops have got it wrong because compassion is about makes those
:12:04. > :12:07.work less households households with work. The lady in the audience
:12:07. > :12:11.talked about children, but children do much better if their parents are
:12:11. > :12:14.working. What the Government is doing is, it's taking active
:12:14. > :12:20.intervention with those families getting those people back into work.
:12:20. > :12:24.At the moment, we are wasting a huge amount of talln't from people
:12:24. > :12:28.who're capable of working who're capable of being trained up --
:12:28. > :12:31.talent. We need to start competing with other countries and getting
:12:31. > :12:35.those people back into work. At the moment, benefits are a trap because
:12:35. > :12:38.it's difficult to get out of benefits if you find that you are
:12:38. > :12:41.earning less when you are going into work, rather than being on
:12:41. > :12:44.benefits. In response to David's point, there are people in my
:12:44. > :12:47.constituency who get up at five in the morning to commute into London
:12:48. > :12:52.because they can't afford to live in London. You know, there are huge
:12:52. > :12:55.amounts of people who don't have the privilege of having any kind of
:12:55. > :12:59.home anywhere near London but their job is there. So I think we have to
:12:59. > :13:01.think about those people as well. I'm very worried about the idea of
:13:01. > :13:07.a regional cap for that point of view.
:13:07. > :13:13.Members of the audience now. The woman on the right?
:13:13. > :13:16.I don't agree with the �26,000 cap because each family's household is
:13:17. > :13:20.different and it's the families circumstances that are different.
:13:20. > :13:24.In Plymouth, we have some of the lowest wages but the biggest
:13:24. > :13:29.increase in housing costs in any city in Britain. Also, going back
:13:29. > :13:33.to the lady's point on the panel, I don't agree with that, necessarily
:13:33. > :13:39.that children for familys that are working are better off because they
:13:39. > :13:43.might work 24 hours seven days a week and not see the kids, they go
:13:43. > :13:46.to breakfast and after school clubs, you know, where's the interaction
:13:46. > :13:49.there if they are working all the hours they've got to?
:13:49. > :13:53.The man in the white shirt? It's great to have a Government that's
:13:53. > :13:58.tackling this issue rather than the previous Government who let it get
:13:58. > :14:05.out of control. Gadd to tackle the issue? To have a Government that's
:14:05. > :14:09.tackling the issue. The man in the checked shirt? It's ironic that
:14:09. > :14:14.Labour can criticise policy when Labour have no policy. We are in
:14:14. > :14:24.this situation in the first place because of Labour's deficit and it
:14:24. > :14:24.
:14:24. > :14:29.was their Chancellor who claimed to Who is going to get the money? Who
:14:29. > :14:33.is getting the money in housing benefit? Slum landlords, on the
:14:33. > :14:37.whole, in many parts of the country. What we need, and Ken Livingstone
:14:37. > :14:43.is proposing this in the London elections, his rent control. That
:14:43. > :14:46.is what we need. Not private landlords profiteering from the
:14:46. > :14:50.poorest in the country. We need rent control, but I suspect neither
:14:51. > :14:57.of these two will mention that. They don't want to regulate the
:14:57. > :15:02.landlords. They want to regulate the poorest people in our country.
:15:02. > :15:05.What the hell is going on with the Labour Party? This year so far they
:15:05. > :15:09.have said they are against the cuts but they do not want to reverse
:15:09. > :15:13.them. They have so they are against public sector pay restraint, but
:15:13. > :15:17.now they want to keep it. -- they had said. And they have said they
:15:17. > :15:21.are in favour of a benefit cap but they are voting against it. Labour
:15:21. > :15:23.need to ask themselves when they will get a leader who is a credible
:15:23. > :15:33.Prime Minister who can put credible policies in front of the British
:15:33. > :15:37.public. Shaun Leavey Government's idea of compassion should be
:15:38. > :15:41.creating more jobs for young people and unemployed. -- shore leave. I
:15:41. > :15:45.have not heard anything from the Lib Dems or Conservatives like the
:15:45. > :15:50.Labour five-point plan for jobs. I am not sure where that is coming
:15:50. > :15:57.from. This Government has created a record number of apprenticeships to
:15:57. > :16:05.get young people into work. No, you have not. It was 250,000
:16:05. > :16:10.apprenticeships when we left office. And it is now 400,000. That is not
:16:10. > :16:16.a record number when there are 1 million unemployed on the dole. It
:16:16. > :16:22.is complacent. Youth unemployment started rising in 2004. It is not
:16:22. > :16:26.complacent. We are taking action. The woman on the back row. We are
:16:26. > :16:31.forgetting that benefits are already means tested. It is a
:16:31. > :16:34.figure that the Government says that people need to live off. So
:16:34. > :16:42.what is the Government saying? That they are going to give people less
:16:42. > :16:45.than what they believed to live off? People who take the side of
:16:45. > :16:48.the bishops in this discussion seemed to be giving the impression
:16:48. > :16:52.that what is being proposed is that benefits are going to be taken away
:16:53. > :16:58.from people and they will be left destitute. All that is being
:16:58. > :17:01.proposed is that benefits are capped at 26,000, and that it is
:17:01. > :17:06.considered wrong for any household to earn on benefits more than the
:17:06. > :17:10.average wage. No one is saying people should be deprived of
:17:10. > :17:13.housing benefit or child benefit. All that is being said is that the
:17:14. > :17:17.accumulated total coming into a household should not, in all
:17:17. > :17:21.justice and because of the disincentive effect on working,
:17:21. > :17:26.should not exceed the average wage brought in by people who are
:17:26. > :17:31.working. And all of the discussion on the opposing side seems to
:17:31. > :17:37.ignore the fact that we are talking about people, as has been said also
:17:37. > :17:41.here, who are working for very, very low pay, and as someone said
:17:41. > :17:44.over there, all families are different. Of course. People get
:17:44. > :17:49.benefits according to how many children they have. But what about
:17:49. > :17:54.the person who is bringing in one wage who has four or five children?
:17:54. > :17:58.No one seems to care about that person. It is the same thing. Every
:17:58. > :18:01.family is different, but why are only households on benefits
:18:01. > :18:09.supposed to be different, that we are supposed to care about the
:18:09. > :18:13.differences? Why is no one talking about the working poor? We will
:18:13. > :18:23.move on to another question, also about money. If you want to join in
:18:23. > :18:31.
:18:31. > :18:35.You can see every rude comment that has been made about the programme
:18:35. > :18:40.as it goes a long, which we cannot see because we are recording it as
:18:40. > :18:44.it goes out. The news tonight that RBS has decided that Stephen Hester
:18:44. > :18:49.will get just under �1 million in shares as a bonus is behind the
:18:49. > :18:59.next question. Is the Government doing enough to address the
:18:59. > :19:02.
:19:02. > :19:09.excessive bonuses of the finance sector? David Lammy. No. This is a
:19:09. > :19:19.man that already has a salary of �1.2 million. And then he gets a
:19:19. > :19:22.nice top up that takes it over �2 million. And we own this bank.
:19:22. > :19:25.Shareholders made this decision and the Government is the biggest
:19:25. > :19:30.shareholder around the table. David Cameron has talked a good talk
:19:30. > :19:39.about doing something about this but he has done absolutely nothing.
:19:39. > :19:44.There should be a payroll cap for bankers' bonuses. We should be
:19:44. > :19:48.publishing the ratios of not just the chief executive officers of
:19:48. > :19:52.these companies, but the very poorest, those on the shop floor
:19:52. > :19:57.that are barely making the minimum wage. And we absolutely should be
:19:57. > :20:01.putting employees on the boards of these banks and big business, who
:20:01. > :20:06.seemed oblivious to the hardship that we see across the country. It
:20:06. > :20:13.used to be that you would expect someone like this to be happy with
:20:13. > :20:18.a knighthood at the end of their service. Why do you need �900,000
:20:18. > :20:28.on top of your salary? It is embarrassing, it is a disgrace, and
:20:28. > :20:32.
:20:32. > :20:36.David Cameron should do something Jeremy Browne. You would not guess
:20:36. > :20:41.from what David just said that the pay arrangements for Stephen Hester
:20:41. > :20:46.were set up by the last Labour Government, and that the bonus
:20:46. > :20:51.arrangement, the bonus pot for RBS has gone down since his Government
:20:51. > :20:55.got in, compared to under the last Labour Government when Gordon Brown
:20:55. > :20:59.was Prime Minister. Are you saying his bonus is a contractual
:20:59. > :21:04.necessity? The contractual arrangement, as I understand, was
:21:04. > :21:07.set up in 2009, when nationalisation took place, when
:21:07. > :21:12.Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and Alistair Darling was Chancellor of
:21:12. > :21:16.the Exchequer. I want people to start up businesses, create wealth,
:21:16. > :21:20.create jobs. If people are watching and are inclined to start the
:21:20. > :21:23.business, go and do it. If you make a lot of money, I am delighted. I
:21:23. > :21:27.do not mind people who run big international companies making a
:21:27. > :21:32.lot of money because sometimes they are doing complicated, difficult
:21:32. > :21:35.jobs with a great amount of skill. And if Wayne Bridge, the Manchester
:21:35. > :21:40.City 4th choice left-back and get paid �1 million a year, somebody
:21:40. > :21:45.who runs a big company well can also justify a high salary. But
:21:45. > :21:48.there are two areas I have big problems with. One is the crony
:21:48. > :21:52.capitalism, the cosy capitalism which is, you scratch my back and
:21:52. > :21:55.I'll scratch yours, we will sit on each other's remuneration
:21:55. > :21:59.committees and decide what chaps like us ought to get paid in order
:21:59. > :22:03.to have the right lifestyle. Vince Cable and the Government are
:22:03. > :22:06.completely right to take measures to get to grips with that. Labour
:22:06. > :22:11.never did that in 13 years in office. My second point is where
:22:11. > :22:15.I'd basically agree with what David was just saying, which is that
:22:15. > :22:20.there is a question of honour. Even if there is a contractual
:22:20. > :22:24.opportunity for him to have a bonus, it does not mean he has to accept
:22:24. > :22:29.it. He is already being paid more than �1 million a year. His total
:22:29. > :22:34.package now means he gets paid in about three days' work a soldier
:22:34. > :22:38.serving in Afghanistan, risking his life, gets paid in a whole year. He
:22:38. > :22:41.should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a
:22:41. > :22:45.bank which is almost complete the owned by us, the tax payers, and I
:22:45. > :22:50.think he needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to
:22:50. > :22:54.his country and not just to his own wealth. You are saying Stephen
:22:54. > :22:59.Hester should turn down the bowlers he has been offered? No one is
:22:59. > :23:03.forcing him to take it. If Stephen Hester wants to leave RBS and set
:23:03. > :23:07.up a fantastic business, let's say in Plymouth, which ends up
:23:07. > :23:11.employing 2000 people and makes him an extremely rich man, great, go
:23:11. > :23:16.and do it. If he is so brilliant I have no problem with him going to
:23:16. > :23:20.do that. But he is working for a company which is 56 owned by the
:23:20. > :23:25.taxpayer, and I think he has to think like a public servant, not
:23:25. > :23:28.like somebody who is there to line his own pocket. To pick up the
:23:28. > :23:31.point that David Lammy made, could the Government not used their power
:23:31. > :23:36.as shareholders representing all of us to deny him the bonus in the
:23:36. > :23:40.first place? Because, according to what we are told, the decision made
:23:40. > :23:44.has to be put before the shareholders before it is agreed.
:23:44. > :23:48.The RBS bonus pot, or that I know is that it is lower this year than
:23:48. > :23:51.last year, and it was lower last year than it was the year before,
:23:51. > :23:57.and it is lower under this Government than it was under the
:23:57. > :24:00.Labour Government. Not quite what I was asking. I know. I have made my
:24:00. > :24:05.position completely clear, which is that I think he has a moral
:24:05. > :24:12.obligation which he has failed to discharge. Elizabeth Trusts, do you
:24:12. > :24:19.agree? I do. Both he is essentially a public servant. It is 83% in the
:24:19. > :24:24.public sector. I think we have seen too many organisations in the
:24:24. > :24:27.public sector, including the BBC where the director general is paid
:24:27. > :24:30.650,000, Network Rail, which is largely funded by the public sector.
:24:30. > :24:35.We have a public sector pay freeze at the moment and it would be an
:24:35. > :24:39.honourable course of action for him to take. If he gets RBS into a
:24:39. > :24:41.position where it can be sold back and make the public sector money
:24:41. > :24:46.when it is sold back into the private sector, that is the time
:24:46. > :24:50.for him to get a bonus on the basis of performance. But I wanted to
:24:50. > :24:54.reply to David's point about ratios. The problem with having ratios
:24:54. > :24:58.between the highest and lowest paid is that it gives companies
:24:58. > :25:02.incentive to outsource lowest skill parts of their business to places
:25:02. > :25:07.like India to improve their ratio. It gives them an incentive to gain
:25:07. > :25:10.the system. I think what we need internationally is better
:25:10. > :25:13.competition. Shareholders should take control of executive pay and
:25:13. > :25:17.performance. I am a shareholder through the various pension pots
:25:17. > :25:21.that I have, and I want the opportunity to improve the
:25:21. > :25:25.recruitment for top executives. I do not think it is meritocratic
:25:25. > :25:28.enough. I do not think the best people get the best jobs. I want
:25:29. > :25:33.more transparency because I think we have had a bloated culture up
:25:33. > :25:36.here and in the US. If you look at the price of Indian bankers and
:25:36. > :25:41.Indian company chief executives, they get paid a lot less. We may
:25:41. > :25:45.lose out internationally. Stephen Hester is getting short shrift.
:25:46. > :25:51.Would you agree that he should take his bonus, or should he say no
:25:51. > :25:54.thanks? I think it would be very nice if he said thank you and no
:25:54. > :26:00.thanks. I think it would be the morally decent thing to do. I very
:26:00. > :26:08.much agree with what has been said, but with the country owning 83% of
:26:08. > :26:12.RBS, he should be regarding himself as a kind of public servant. There
:26:12. > :26:17.are a lot of people who have lost huge amounts because of what
:26:17. > :26:22.happened at RBS. They have not got their money. There is something
:26:22. > :26:25.really quite disgusting - forget the amount for a moment - there is
:26:25. > :26:29.something disgusting about someone taking a large bonus when the
:26:30. > :26:34.people who have been the victims of what happened at RBS still have not
:26:34. > :26:39.been properly compensated. But the question was broader than about
:26:39. > :26:42.Stephen Hester. The question was whether the Government is doing
:26:42. > :26:45.enough to address, to curb executive pay. I have to say, I am
:26:45. > :26:51.a little concerned about what I think is a kind of lynch-mob
:26:51. > :26:56.mentality that has grown up at the moment about bankers. Bankers did
:26:56. > :26:59.bad things, for sure. But they are being made scapegoats. There were
:26:59. > :27:03.three sets of people in this calamity - there were the bankers,
:27:03. > :27:09.there was the Government that failed to regulate, and there was
:27:09. > :27:12.us, who actually all borrowed as if there was no tomorrow. And if it is
:27:12. > :27:16.the case that people should not only be rewarded for success but
:27:16. > :27:20.punished for failure, what about all the Government ministers who
:27:20. > :27:25.have lost billions and billions of pounds of our money, just poured
:27:25. > :27:30.down the drain, the Public Accounts Committee regularly tells us how
:27:30. > :27:36.many billions are wasted on IT calamities, huge amounts of money.
:27:36. > :27:40.Should ministers lose all of their pay? Once one goes down this road,
:27:40. > :27:47.one is into a very difficult territory. I am concerned about the
:27:47. > :27:51.crudity of the feeling of vengefulness towards bankers. I do
:27:51. > :27:55.think there should be better regulation... But Stephen Hester
:27:55. > :28:00.has done nothing wrong, has he? He has just helped to save a bank,
:28:00. > :28:05.hasn't he? He has not saved the bank yet. You say he should not
:28:05. > :28:09.have his bonus. I think where the bank has yet to discharge its
:28:09. > :28:12.obligation to recompense the people who have lost from what happened to
:28:12. > :28:18.the Royal Bank of Scotland, then the person who is at the head of
:28:18. > :28:24.that should be seen to be cognisant of that fact and not seek this
:28:24. > :28:28.enormous bonus. In all of this talk about the need for austerity and so
:28:28. > :28:38.on there is one layer of people who have become much wealthier over the
:28:38. > :28:39.
:28:39. > :28:45.last year. The directors of the top 100 companies in the FTSE 100 in
:28:45. > :28:48.this country have seen their salaries increase by 49%. It is
:28:48. > :28:52.extraordinary that we have all of this from people who go, what about
:28:52. > :28:56.the working poor, we have to attack benefits because of the working
:28:56. > :29:01.poor, and yet they do not bother about his enormous wealth
:29:01. > :29:05.redistribution that goes towards the very rich. -- this enormous
:29:05. > :29:10.wealth redistribution. One of the saddest things, when I hear David
:29:10. > :29:13.he sounds brilliant and I think, I would vote for you. And then when
:29:13. > :29:18.it comes to being in the Labour Party, the party as a whole manages
:29:18. > :29:27.to be an organisation that completely refutes its whole
:29:27. > :29:30.rationale, because the institution that it is is an opposition, and
:29:31. > :29:33.yet it has ceased to be an opposition. Instead, it agrees with
:29:33. > :29:38.pretty much everything the Government has done which is why
:29:38. > :29:42.Jeremy is able to poke fun in that way. That is a terrible shame. I
:29:42. > :29:45.think if David and the Labour Party were able to stand up for the mass
:29:45. > :29:55.of people against this tiny bunch of very rich people, I think the
:29:55. > :29:58.
:29:58. > :30:02.country might be going in a APPLAUSE
:30:02. > :30:07.The woman there in red? Yes, I agree with you, Mark, you think
:30:07. > :30:11.this is about an issue of general growing inequality in the world in
:30:11. > :30:15.general. We are rewarding people for their productivity, for their
:30:15. > :30:20.increase in GDP and their contribution to that. We need to be
:30:20. > :30:24.asking, what is that GDP doing, because if it's just people
:30:24. > :30:27.accumulating wealth, taking it offshore, how is that translating
:30:27. > :30:30.into well-being which is what economics should be about. As a
:30:30. > :30:36.country, we need more of a debate about what we mean by economic
:30:36. > :30:40.growth and what it's doing for the well-being of our people.
:30:40. > :30:45.APPLAUSE Thank you. The man in pale blue at
:30:45. > :30:50.the very back? If David Cameron told me as a civil servant that I
:30:50. > :30:54.have to accept less disposable income in 2015 than I had in 2009,
:30:54. > :30:57.why can't he pick up the phone to this gentleman and tell him to sort
:30:57. > :31:00.it out? And the man behind on the very back row? The rhetoric from
:31:00. > :31:05.this Government and the previous Government was that people would
:31:05. > :31:09.only be rewarded for success. The last time I looked, the Royal Bank
:31:09. > :31:13.of Scotland was posting losses, they were making thousands of
:31:13. > :31:18.people redundant, their share is at a penny level. Where is the success
:31:18. > :31:25.in that and high should he get a bonus for failure?
:31:25. > :31:31.APPLAUSE. One more point if we can get to the
:31:31. > :31:35.woman on the right there? Surely, when we stop paying the price for
:31:35. > :31:39.this monumental mess-up is when the bankers should get their bonuses
:31:39. > :31:41.back. When it's all over? Yes. right. Let's go on. We are over
:31:41. > :31:47.half way through the programme. David Matthews has a question for
:31:47. > :31:52.us on a different topic. Is Richard Branson right in saying drug users
:31:52. > :31:55.should not go to jail? Richard Branson, Sir Richard Branson, has
:31:55. > :31:59.been giving evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee is is
:31:59. > :32:04.inquirying for the first time in a decade into drugs and his line is
:32:04. > :32:08.that people using drugs should not go to jail but should be treated
:32:08. > :32:13.quite differently. Elizabeth Truss? I don't think he's right. I do
:32:13. > :32:18.think drug users should go to jail. But, I think the problem is that
:32:18. > :32:22.too often our jails are full of drugs and actually they create a
:32:22. > :32:25.breeding ground for people who have drug addiction. So what we need to
:32:26. > :32:29.do is improve what goes on in our prisons. We need to make them
:32:29. > :32:32.working prisons so people get in the habit of a working life, we
:32:32. > :32:39.need to make sure that they are completely drug free, otherwise all
:32:39. > :32:42.we are doing is exacerbating the problem. Unfortunately, drugs have
:32:42. > :32:47.become a way of life in many of our prisons and we need to change that.
:32:47. > :32:52.So you are not in favour of decriminalisation? No, I'm not.
:32:52. > :32:56.David Lammy, are you? No, because I think if you are living on an
:32:56. > :33:01.estate riddled with crack cocaine or heroin and there may well be
:33:01. > :33:06.users selling as well, I'm afraid you do want to see jail time, so I
:33:06. > :33:08.can't support Richard Branson in his overall call. But I do suspect
:33:08. > :33:12.that Richard Branson is also concerned about treatment and
:33:12. > :33:17.better treatment and resources for that treatment and it's clear to me
:33:17. > :33:24.that we do need to do better in Britain in relation to those issues.
:33:24. > :33:28.Are you in favour, the woman there? Me, yes. For certain things. Both
:33:28. > :33:34.the panellists who've answered so far have made a very clear link
:33:34. > :33:39.between drug use and antisocial behaviour and non-working and being
:33:39. > :33:42.unemployed. I think there's a very big difference between people who
:33:42. > :33:46.maybe occasionally smoke a bit of pot and people who inject heroin.
:33:47. > :33:50.There should be a difference made between the two and not all drug
:33:50. > :33:53.users lumped in together because I just don't think that's not right.
:33:53. > :33:57.Would you like it not to be a criminal offence for instance not
:33:57. > :34:02.to smoke pot? Yes. You would like that not to be an offence? Yes.
:34:02. > :34:05.man in the checked shirt? Yes, I come plaitly agree with what he
:34:05. > :34:10.said. Richard Branson? Yes, completely. If they were to
:34:10. > :34:18.legalise all drugs, for example, tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that
:34:18. > :34:24.everybody here would still not go out to a store and buy some
:34:24. > :34:31.heroined -- heroin. The amount of money spent on keeping people who
:34:31. > :34:34.use the drugs in prison could then be used on people to help them get
:34:34. > :34:38.off the drugs, rather than just sticking them in a place where they
:34:38. > :34:42.could then use in that prison as well.
:34:42. > :34:47.It's still really readily available in that place.
:34:48. > :34:53.The woman here? I wouldn't agree to the extent of
:34:53. > :34:56.Richard Branson of not putting drug users in prison. But I think that
:34:56. > :35:00.the previous Government have really failed within their view that
:35:00. > :35:04.prisons actually work. The best thing, in my opinion, would be to
:35:04. > :35:07.find a way of reforming the attitude and the behaviour of drug
:35:08. > :35:15.abusers to educate them properly. When putting them in prison may not
:35:15. > :35:21.even do anything for them at all and there are a lot better reasons
:35:21. > :35:25.for them to actually be there. OK. Jeremy Browne, you put yourself
:35:25. > :35:32.forward as a liberal on a whole lot of social issues. Are you a liberal
:35:32. > :35:38.on this issue? I will come to that. Did he say users, dealers or
:35:38. > :35:42.traffickers? Did he definitely say users? Decriminalising users?
:35:42. > :35:46.isn't an automatic presumption at the moment that users will go to
:35:47. > :35:51.prison. There are quite a lot of people who're not in prison who are
:35:51. > :35:58.on drug rehabilitation programmes, on substitutes for heroin, for
:35:58. > :36:02.example. They're not criminalised, despite it being known to the
:36:02. > :36:06.authoritys that they use drugs, so that it seems to me, is the
:36:06. > :36:10.existing situation. In terms of the wider point, look, we have more
:36:10. > :36:17.people in prison in Britain than we've ever had before in our
:36:17. > :36:20.history. You get people in prison, sad, mad, bad people in prison. I
:36:20. > :36:24.would rather that a higher proportion of the people were bad.
:36:24. > :36:28.I know it's crude and a simplified way of putting it, but there are
:36:28. > :36:33.people who end up in prison because they have all kinds of other
:36:33. > :36:36.difficulties in their lives, because they've fallen into
:36:36. > :36:41.difficult circumstances. It might make society feel good that those
:36:41. > :36:44.people are no longer in circulation, but it doesn't actually achieve
:36:44. > :36:48.very much. I would much rather those people were getting some sort
:36:48. > :36:53.of specialist care, rehabilitation, treatment, whatever their
:36:53. > :36:56.requirements are, and the people who're a genuine threat to people,
:36:56. > :37:03.that's where the priority should lie in terms of people going to
:37:03. > :37:13.prison. So you are in agreement with Branson in principle? Well, I
:37:13. > :37:14.
:37:14. > :37:24.am generally liberal and I go so far as to say libetarian. But uem
:37:24. > :37:24.
:37:24. > :37:28.not an absoluteist. I don't go for a clamour of drugs to be sold in
:37:28. > :37:33.shops, so I'm not somebody who thinks that we should have come
:37:33. > :37:36.plaitly liberalised drug laws. man in the third row? When you
:37:36. > :37:40.listen to Richard Branson, he uses very strongly his evidence of the
:37:40. > :37:45.way that drugs have been managed in Portugal and the huge success rate
:37:45. > :37:50.they've had there. Basically, if you got caught with drugs, you
:37:50. > :37:54.weren't sent to the police station, you were sent to a health centre to
:37:54. > :37:58.try to rehabilitate you and stop it becoming a problem. He marks this
:37:58. > :38:07.out with a huge level of success in Portugal. I think that's what he's
:38:07. > :38:11.trying to emmate late. Do you agree with him? I do -- emulate. It's too
:38:11. > :38:18.simplistic. I am a pharmacist and dispense methadone every day. I can
:38:18. > :38:23.actually see that the drug dealers have much less power because of the
:38:23. > :38:27.services that we provide. There's also very serious cases recently
:38:27. > :38:35.where women had to turn to prostitution just to get the money
:38:35. > :38:43.to buy methadone or heroin and providing good Public Services cuts
:38:43. > :38:48.out drug dealers and reduces public, reduces crime. You would like a new
:38:48. > :38:54.approach, would you, the easing of penalties? What Branson's said is
:38:54. > :39:00.far too simplistic and there's far too much prison overcrowding which
:39:00. > :39:06.is very expensive for the country anyway. In comuck terms, were
:39:06. > :39:08.basically helping the social situation by providing a service of
:39:08. > :39:13.supervised supply of methadone -- economic terms.
:39:13. > :39:17.The woman in front of you there, yes? I for one thank Richard pran
:39:17. > :39:20.son for bringing this up in the public agenda again -- Branson.
:39:20. > :39:23.Addiction by its nature is very complex and we should have
:39:23. > :39:27.difficult discussions about what works well for those who suffer
:39:27. > :39:30.from substance misuse, whether it's drugs or alcohol per say.
:39:30. > :39:35.Thank you. The man there in the purple tie?
:39:35. > :39:38.Whether it's a criminal offence or not, it's a mute point, with our
:39:38. > :39:43.police forces being scaled back, there's going to be nobody out
:39:43. > :39:52.there to catch them as criminals anyway? Mark Steel? Well, if people
:39:52. > :39:57.are in a right mess with drugs, if they're heroin addicts on the
:39:57. > :40:01.streets and they're jacking up and everything, their lives are a
:40:01. > :40:06.complete mess, you shouldn't put them in prison. You wouldn't bang
:40:06. > :40:09.up a schizophrenic. David's wrong we he uses the example about the
:40:09. > :40:13.estate, send these people to jail because look at the crack dealers,
:40:13. > :40:18.you would want to send them to jail, but they don't go to jail, it
:40:18. > :40:22.hasn't worked. The current method of just say no and we must put up
:40:22. > :40:25.this barrier against all drug drugs and not even listen to it and so on
:40:25. > :40:30.clearly hasn't worked. If you listen to almost anybody who works
:40:30. > :40:36.in the area of drugs, like the man at the back there, almost anybody
:40:36. > :40:40.who's close to the problem will say the same, that just criminalising
:40:40. > :40:44.it simply doesn't work. I have to also add that the most disturbing
:40:44. > :40:50.part of this story for me is that I find myself agreeing with Richard
:40:50. > :40:55.Branson and I find that a little bit unsettling.
:40:55. > :41:00.We'll see if you agree with Melanie Phillips as well? Melanie Phillips?
:41:00. > :41:04.Oh, I think not. This is completely bonkers. The idea that our jails
:41:04. > :41:07.are full of drug users is false. Sir Richard seems to think this is
:41:07. > :41:12.true, I don't know what planet he's living on. The vast majority of
:41:12. > :41:16.drug related offend, in jails are dealers and general Lynn quite big
:41:16. > :41:20.dealers, people who deal death and destruction to our young. Richard
:41:20. > :41:23.Branson is dangerously wrong. For example, he's so dangerous, he's
:41:23. > :41:27.persuaded some of these good people in the audience that Portugal,
:41:27. > :41:32.since it decriminalised drugs, has had great success. The very
:41:32. > :41:36.opposite is the case. Sir Richard is drawing on one flawed report,
:41:36. > :41:40.much more authoritative data shows that since Portugal decriminalised
:41:40. > :41:44.drugs, drug use there has gone up, the number of people using drugs
:41:44. > :41:51.has gone up, the number of homicides related to drug use has
:41:51. > :42:01.gone up by 40% and drug related HIV AIDS and hepatitis C is up and is
:42:01. > :42:04.now eight times the rate in Portugal as it is in other EU
:42:04. > :42:09.countries. The stpact Sir Richard thinks we have a failed war on
:42:09. > :42:15.drugs -- the fact is. If only, we don't have a war on drugs. We have
:42:15. > :42:20.a war on drug laws. For years, our policy has drifted away from law
:42:20. > :42:29.enforcement towards what's called yuef mistically harm reduction,
:42:29. > :42:35.which is half way to legalisation - - euphamistically. Signals are put
:42:35. > :42:40.out by well meaning people who're naive and easily led betrillion
:42:40. > :42:45.dollar campaigns to subvert and undermine the UN drug conventions
:42:45. > :42:48.which commit countries to try to eradicate drug use and instead to
:42:48. > :42:53.legalise. There has been a procession in Britain of useful
:42:53. > :43:00.idiots of whom Suhr Richard Branson is but the latest who've been used
:43:00. > :43:06.as front men for this pr Nish shus campaign. Every single argument
:43:06. > :43:11.they use is false -- pernicious. They say if you legalise drugs, you
:43:11. > :43:15.will get rid of crime and the black market. 20% of tobacco is in the
:43:15. > :43:18.black market. The only way you will get rid of crime related to drugs
:43:18. > :43:23.is if you make all drugs free completely and available to
:43:23. > :43:26.everybody. That is the only way you will get rid of... Is that what you
:43:26. > :43:32.are advocating then? I know you would like that, but let's not go
:43:32. > :43:36.there for the moment. All right, all right. Would you have an
:43:36. > :43:39.automatic presumption that somebody who was a drug user, even if they
:43:39. > :43:42.were in the terrible state that Mark described, that they would go
:43:42. > :43:46.to prison, rather than have medical treatment? No, I would not say drug
:43:46. > :43:53.users should go to prison, I very much approve of treatment, but the
:43:53. > :43:57.best way you get people to have treatment is that you use the law.
:43:57. > :44:01.In Sweden, it flirted with liberalisation, their drug use went
:44:01. > :44:11.up completely. They criminalised use in order that people are then
:44:11. > :44:18.
:44:18. > :44:21.made to have treatment. I think we My understanding is that the vast
:44:21. > :44:25.majority of drug-users who are in prison are not there because of
:44:25. > :44:29.their drug use but because they have turned to criminal activity,
:44:29. > :44:33.theft or prostitution in order to get money to buy the drugs. It
:44:33. > :44:37.seems to me that the biggest issue is getting appropriate treatment
:44:37. > :44:42.for those people, ideally while they are in prison or immediately
:44:42. > :44:50.they come out. I think some of the comments have completely missed the
:44:50. > :44:55.point of where the real issues are. Let's take another question. Wendy
:44:55. > :44:59.Milne. Are considering there is no evidence of Iran having anywhere
:44:59. > :45:09.near the number of nuclear weapons that Israel has, will our
:45:09. > :45:10.
:45:10. > :45:15.Government back Obama if he decides to attack Iran? Jeremy Browne, you
:45:15. > :45:19.are a Foreign Office minister, what is your view? I am probably the
:45:19. > :45:23.only person on the panel who has lived in Iran. I know a little bit
:45:23. > :45:27.about the country. It is an amazing country in lots of ways, an ancient
:45:27. > :45:33.civilisation with lots of very talented people, doctors, academics
:45:33. > :45:38.and others. They should be a very successful country. But the fact of
:45:38. > :45:42.the matter is that they are a very threatening, pernicious regime in
:45:42. > :45:46.the most unstable part of the entire world. And it is a genuine
:45:46. > :45:52.threat to the security of the Middle East, and by extension a
:45:52. > :45:57.threat to us, if Iran has nuclear weapons, or sparks some sort of
:45:57. > :46:02.nuclear arms race in that part of the world. Do you think it is not a
:46:02. > :46:08.threat that Israel has nuclear weapons? That is a separate point.
:46:08. > :46:14.That was her question. In case people think that somehow Iran
:46:14. > :46:19.should not be treated as a category which should concern us, it really,
:46:19. > :46:22.really should concern us. It is the only country I am aware of that is
:46:22. > :46:25.actively making threats to obliterate other countries. It
:46:25. > :46:29.sponsors terrorism not just in the Middle East but recently in America.
:46:29. > :46:35.We have just had to close our embassy because the government
:46:35. > :46:38.sponsored protesters, putting our own staff at risk in that country.
:46:38. > :46:43.It is an extremely serious situation. It is a country where
:46:43. > :46:48.people are routinely tortured, they execute children and pregnant women.
:46:48. > :46:52.It is a very dangerous situation. We do not want a war with Iran.
:46:52. > :46:56.That is why we have this package of proposals at the EU this week. In
:46:56. > :47:00.passing, what a good example of working constructively with other
:47:00. > :47:07.EU countries to magnify and project our own foreign policy, a great
:47:07. > :47:12.success. We are seeking... Do not gesture at me. Just answer one
:47:12. > :47:15.point on this. I want to put a supplementary question. We want to
:47:15. > :47:20.put the pressure on to make sure the Iranian regime come to their
:47:20. > :47:24.senses and we do not get to that situation. But what account do you
:47:24. > :47:27.take of the fact, as she put it, that Israel has many more nuclear
:47:27. > :47:31.weapons and other countries around the world have many more nuclear
:47:31. > :47:36.weapons and there is no evidence of Iran having anywhere near that
:47:36. > :47:39.number? What accounts do you take of that? We know there has been a
:47:39. > :47:42.gradual growth of nuclear weapons since the Second World War,
:47:42. > :47:49.including Britain, for instance. Well, we don't know with the
:47:49. > :47:53.certainty with which you have just stated it, Israel's position. But
:47:53. > :47:56.Iran have made a fundamental international undertaking. They
:47:56. > :47:59.have signed the treaty is not to develop nuclear weapons. They are
:47:59. > :48:03.telling us at the moment that they are not developing nuclear weapons.
:48:03. > :48:07.We do not want to stop them having civil nuclear power. They are
:48:07. > :48:11.perfectly entitled to have that. But for the reasons are just
:48:11. > :48:16.explain, including their stated desire to obliterate other
:48:16. > :48:20.countries, and their active sponsorship of terrorism, it is a
:48:20. > :48:23.very serious matter whether Iran acquires nuclear weapons. We do not
:48:23. > :48:26.want the conflict but we do have an obligation to the people across the
:48:26. > :48:29.Middle East and to people in this country and across the wider world
:48:29. > :48:34.to try to make sure that a very dangerous regime does not
:48:35. > :48:39.destabilise the most unstable part of the world. So would you back
:48:39. > :48:43.Obama, who said he takes no options of the table to achieve the goal of
:48:43. > :48:47.Iran preventing getting a nuclear weapon? That is the position of the
:48:47. > :48:51.British Government as well but we do not want to get to that stage.
:48:51. > :48:54.David Lammy, when you were in Government, your Foreign Minister,
:48:54. > :48:59.Jack Straw, said not only is it inconceivable that there would be
:48:59. > :49:03.bombing of Iran but the prospect of it happening was also inconceivable.
:49:03. > :49:10.Would you agree? I do not want to speculate on what is conceivable or
:49:11. > :49:15.not. But I think that clearly Iran having nuclear weapons would hugely
:49:15. > :49:19.destabilise the Middle East. I would be deeply, deeply
:49:20. > :49:26.uncomfortable with any unilateral action in relation to Iran, and I
:49:26. > :49:33.am pleased that so far this is being done through the process of
:49:33. > :49:37.the UN and the European Union. But I do also think that for people of
:49:38. > :49:43.my age, who grew up in an era where it seemed the whole Western world
:49:43. > :49:46.was concerned with nuclear disarmament, it is very sad that we
:49:46. > :49:54.seem to be seeing proliferation and not a discussion about how we can
:49:54. > :49:57.withdraw from nuclear weapons per se. War is a terrible thing in all
:49:57. > :50:04.circumstances, but when it comes to protecting this country against
:50:04. > :50:08.things like terrorist attacks, the British public see things put in
:50:08. > :50:11.place like not being able to take liquid onto a plane without putting
:50:11. > :50:17.grip -- in a plastic bag, so how come they trust the Government to
:50:17. > :50:20.protect them against more serious damage? -- how can they trust the
:50:20. > :50:24.Government? And do you think they should, if the Americans decided to
:50:24. > :50:31.take action against Iran, do you think the British Government should
:50:31. > :50:35.support them? I disagree with war in any circumstance.
:50:35. > :50:41.I am tired of the same old rhetoric that I heard about weapons of mass
:50:41. > :50:51.destruction in Iraq. Are we going to be told the same lie over and
:50:51. > :50:52.
:50:52. > :50:58.over? It is nonsense sabre-rattling every time. Well, the IAEA and
:50:58. > :51:04.virtually every Western Government believes that Iran is racing to
:51:04. > :51:12.develop a nuclear weapon. It is behaving entirely as if it is. It
:51:12. > :51:16.is boasting that it is. It is hiding its uranium, some of its
:51:16. > :51:24.uranium manufacturing centrifuge Best in a very deep mountain, very
:51:24. > :51:28.deep in the mountain so that it cannot be bombed. To come back to
:51:28. > :51:33.the question that Israel has nuclear weapons, what's the problem
:51:33. > :51:38.with Iran, that is a terribly confused cemetery which I think is
:51:38. > :51:42.very dangerous. As has been said, Israel does not ever acknowledge
:51:42. > :51:45.that it has nuclear weapons, but let's assume that it does. It does
:51:45. > :51:51.for one reason alone, to protect itself against the threat of
:51:51. > :51:57.genocide, against countries such as Iran. Iran is threatening genocide
:51:57. > :52:03.against Israel virtually every week. And it means it. You are dealing
:52:03. > :52:08.with Iran with people who are not rational, people who believe that
:52:08. > :52:15.if they provoke the a pop -- the Apocalypse, the End of Days, they
:52:15. > :52:18.will bring to earth the Messiah or. So they are in the business of
:52:18. > :52:21.provoking an apocalypse. It does not matter if it -- to them that in
:52:21. > :52:25.a nuclear exchange they may lose half of their own country. It does
:52:25. > :52:30.not matter. This is the mentality you are dealing with. And the
:52:30. > :52:36.threat is to all of us. It is extraordinary to think, since 1979
:52:36. > :52:41.when the Iranian Islamic revolution happen, from that moment, the
:52:41. > :52:46.Iranian regime declared war upon the West. Since then, large numbers
:52:46. > :52:50.of Western interests and people have been attacked by Iran. I think,
:52:50. > :52:54.personally, there is no major terrorist atrocity in which Iran
:52:54. > :52:59.has not had hand. It was Iranian roadside bombs that were blowing up
:52:59. > :53:06.our troops in Iraq. Melanie, I am going to have to ask you to bring
:53:06. > :53:11.the remarks to a conclusion. Just on one point, do you believe this
:53:11. > :53:18.British Government should back Obama if the Americans decide to
:53:18. > :53:22.attack Iran, willy-nilly? Bombing Iran is the most appalling prospect,
:53:22. > :53:28.because it will possibly unleash terror, it will unleash thousands
:53:29. > :53:32.of rockets upon Israel. Yes or no? But the alternative is worse. A
:53:32. > :53:41.nuclear Iran would paralyse the West, would mean nuclear terrorism
:53:41. > :53:44.in our cities. Mark Steel. I wonder if people like you, Melanie, and
:53:44. > :53:48.people in the Government that are going along this road, I wonder if
:53:48. > :53:51.at any point you sit around and think, if only there was a
:53:52. > :53:55.precedent in recent times for us going to war, invading a country on
:53:55. > :54:03.grounds that we thought it had weapons of mass destruction, we
:54:03. > :54:10.might be able to... We might be able to possibly learn from that,
:54:10. > :54:14.to see whether it had gone well or not. And the nonsense... When both
:54:14. > :54:17.you and Jeremy start talking about the obligation we have two people
:54:17. > :54:22.in the Middle East, as outsiders, to going and try and sort things
:54:22. > :54:26.out and help, how do you think that looks? I will tell you what most
:54:26. > :54:30.people in the Middle East will think immediately. Babel thing, we
:54:30. > :54:35.have an appalling regime - it is an appalling regime - but what about
:54:35. > :54:38.Mubarak, he was appalling. How did we deal with him? We sold him
:54:38. > :54:43.weapons and made him a friend. Gaddafi, he was pretty ropey, how
:54:43. > :54:50.did we deal with him? We sent Tony Blair to pose in front of cameras
:54:50. > :54:56.smiling. The Saudi Arabia, not the nicest country... Again, we have
:54:56. > :55:02.got the point and I have to curtail this. Ma, you are absolutely right,
:55:02. > :55:06.there is a precedent, it is the 1930s when this country was in to
:55:06. > :55:13.appeasement... These are the same things you said before we invaded
:55:13. > :55:18.Iraq. You would have been saying the same thing in the 1930s.
:55:18. > :55:21.think example is Libya, which was not started all led by the US. We
:55:21. > :55:25.should look at the other countries who stand to lose out from the
:55:25. > :55:31.Middle East becoming unstable, such as China and India, we import a lot
:55:31. > :55:36.of oil from Iran. I think we need to be looking for a more pan-
:55:36. > :55:41.national solution, putting more pressure on police actions. All of
:55:41. > :55:44.those countries need to be involved in the solution. I think it is
:55:44. > :55:49.dangerous carrying on with this idea that we still have won global
:55:49. > :55:52.superpower. We do not. We have a changing world and it is better if
:55:52. > :55:58.we act in Coalport. That is why the Libyan campaign was successful,
:55:58. > :56:05.because we had the support of the Arab League in mounting a campaign.
:56:05. > :56:11.A couple of points from the audience. I would say, yes, we
:56:11. > :56:17.would do whatever America wants. You think we should. I do not think
:56:17. > :56:23.we should, but we would. We just do whatever America wants. The woman
:56:23. > :56:29.in red with spectacles. How can we criticise a country for having
:56:29. > :56:37.nuclear weapons when we have them ourselves? Two wrongs do not make a
:56:37. > :56:42.right. And you. How are we meant to cope if we do follow Obama when the
:56:43. > :56:49.Government keeps cutting the cost of the army and the armed forces?
:56:49. > :56:54.One more point from the man in the blue shirt. What concerns me is
:56:54. > :57:00.whether we have the capability to take the fight to Iran. Have we got
:57:00. > :57:05.the capability now? All right, you, and then we must stop. I was
:57:05. > :57:11.thinking, if Iran is like Iraq and sitting on how oil, then yes, we
:57:11. > :57:15.ought to attack them. We have just voluntarily decided to stop buying
:57:15. > :57:18.any royal from them. Just because they both start with the same
:57:18. > :57:22.letter and are in the Middle East, it does not mean it Iran and Iraq
:57:22. > :57:27.are the same places. Liberal Democrats voted against the war in
:57:27. > :57:30.Iraq, but Iran is a different category. We do not want a war in
:57:30. > :57:40.Iran but it is in our interest to prevent them getting nuclear
:57:40. > :57:43.
:57:43. > :57:46.weapons. We have to stop, because We will be in Southport next week
:57:46. > :57:56.and the week after in central London. If you would like to take
:57:56. > :58:00.
:58:00. > :58:05.Or you can go to the website and we will give you a call. I hope you