09/02/2012 Question Time

pretty cold weekend. Keep up-to- date on the website. We are in

London and welcome to Question Time. With me on the panel, the Defence

Secretary, Philip Hammond. The former leader of the Liberal

Democrats in the House of Lords, Shirley Williams. Labour's Alastair

Campbell, who was head of communications for Tony Blair. Anne

Leslie and the comedian and actor, We start with a question from Ben

Roberts. In light of the latest step back in attempts to deport Abu

Qatada, should the UK now simply put him on the first available

flight back to Jordan. Anne Leslie? If we were France, we would. What

is extraordinary is that France has signed up obviously to the human

rights convention, but they threw thousands out. You want to adopt

the French policy, do you? No, I'm not saying that. I know what I'll

be accused of, being populist Daily Mail. Well, get on with it.

going to. The reasons I'm going to get on with, is because I think my

views actually do represent what most people in this country feel.

Here we have a man who does not respect this country and quite like

to destroy it, who is anti-semetic and incites violence and who has

been called the right-hand man of Osama Bin Laden. He's living here

in some comfort, as is his large family on our taxpayers' money. I

am fed up with all this stuff about oh, well sending him back is going

to destroy his human rights. No, he's the one who wants to destroy

our human rights, because the only human right that does exist is the

right not to be murdered or have loonies like him inciting murder. I

would like him to be tried in a court. That is partly our system.

It doesn't do that partly because our security services don't want to

reveal, through intercept evidence and so on. To put it simply, you

would put him on a plane back to Jordan? Yes I would.

APPLAUSE Sorry. Abu Qatada is the perfect

pantomime villain for the Daily Mail. The only person who surpasss

him is abham. -- Abu Hamza. I think that if I can quote something,

"Nothing can be more abhor rent to democracy to keep someone in prison

because he is unpopular." Winston Churchill said that. He was not --

he would not have approved of this. You can't send someone back to a

country who has a track record of torturing people, or whose evidence

is based on evidence gathered from torturing people. You create an

industry for torture and a system whereby governments think OK we can

carry on torturing because there is a system where we can convict

people based on evidence gained from torture and the reverse is

true. If you stop sending people back to the countries where they

gather that evidence you stop that taking place. What do you do with

them? Put them on trial in this country, or the worst thing

possible is how do we think that sending them back to Jordan is

going to make us safer from a security point of view? To have him

in this country, being monitored is far better sending him where he can

hang out with his Al-Qaeda mates and he has a huge grudge.

APPLAUSE It struck me that all the things

that Anne said could be applied to the leader of the BNP and by the

fact he happened to be born in this country is it OK to let him stay

here and let him incite all those things? Don't tell me that I am

pro-BNP because I am not. I wasn't. It's a completely different issue.

Philip Hammond. Well, firstly as I'm on the BBC I probably can't

refer to him as an extremist. certainly can. Why not? I read in

the paper the BBC had banned any reference. I wouldn't believe

everything you read in the papers if I were you. I think the Daily

Mail. Did you read it in the Daily Mail? No, he didn't. I think it was

the Daily Telegraph. If you are telling me it's not true.

Question Time you can say what you like. You read it too. I will say

that overweight extremist belongs in a prison cell in Jordan. He's a

Jordanian national. He has already been convicted in that country. We

should send him back as quickly as we can. We are going through the

process to try to see if we can get him back there. The Prime Minister

has spoken to the king of Jordan this afternoon. A Home Office

minister will be going out there next week. We are trying to see if

we can establish with the Jordanians a set of assurances that

will satisfy the court that we can send him back. This is not a good

place for us to be. The best thing we can do - Which court are you

trying to satisfy? The immigration appeals tribunal here to allow us

to send him back. That will be the quickest, easiest and most

effective thing to do to get him back to Jordan, and in a prison

cell there. Why not - assuming you think you can do it that way, why

not follow the example of Italy and France and simply send him back and

say to the European Court of Human Rights, "It's our affair."? Because

we are very clear that we need to reform the way the European Court

of Human Rights works and David Cameron has made it very clear. It

is not working effectively. It has 160,000 cases back-logged in its

system. It is protecting these kind of people while not dealing with

some of the really serious issues. Why not ignore it and show your

mettle and ignore it? As long as we are part of a regime that we have a

principal that the Government -- principle that the Government

abides by the law. If we break the law we'll get into trouble. You say

the French and Italians can get away with it? If the law is wrong,

we should change it, but - Government signed a memorandum

saying as long as you don't - we know you torture other people, but

as long as you promise not to tour tour this one we'll let him go back.

It is far -- torture this one and we'll let him go back. It's far

more sinceible to monitor him. made that point. I'm sure there are

charges outstanding for him in other countries. Why aren't we

seeking to deport him to these countries when he will be

imprisoned? Shirley Williams? absolutely clear. In a civilised

society you have to hold the line and one of the absolutely critical

lines and we have signed the convention on torture, is that you

do not allow people to have their lives decided by the act of torture

on the part of those involved in the court. This man may well be

very dangerous. He's been shut up here in Britain for six-and-a-half

years. It seems to me to be a very long time. That is under the

original legislation. What do you do? Quite clearly you hold a trial

here in the United Kingdom. I agree with Anne on that, but not on the

other part. You hold it here, where you cannot have evidence based on

torture. It is possible in our courts to have some of the evidence

held in private, so that if intelligence is sensitive and

people might die because it's open, you have the judge and the two

barristers, defence and prosecution, brought into the discussion about

that information. The rest is as it ought to be, in the open. We should

try him, because we believe in the courts. What would you try him for,

encitement to hatred? He's already been in fact arraigned for a number

of different issues, including terrorist acts in Jordan. Could you

try him for the acts he's been found guilty of in Jordan here?

could certainly try him for what he would be guilty of, which would be

encitement to violence. How long would he go away for that? I have

no idea, but quite a long time. If this man is involved in weapons and

that kind there are other further sentences. The British Government

is currently negotiating again with the Government of Jordan to see if

they can get assurances about him not being tortured and evidence

gotten by torture. Are you saying you wouldn't accept those? I would

find it difficult. Jordan has always been willing to accept

torture as a source of evidence. Alastair Campbell? The problem is

that Shirley he should be tried here, but one of the points that

the British judge, not a European judge, but the appeal judge made,

was there was no evidence against him and he had been held for six-

and-a-half years and as Shirley rightly says, the judge admitted it

was far too long to be held without being charged. One of the many

issues in this country that we do not have a sensible, rational

debate about, is the European Court on human rights. -- of Human Rights.

This idea that the French and the Italians say, "We are going to

ignore it." Occasionally they may, but the worst offender and if Anne

wanted to ally herself to Russia, which is the worst offender in this,

well, most European countries actually do respect it. I think

that the British Government is right, because the European Court

of Human Rights is part of our law. This is a British immigration judge

who said the guy couldn't be held any longer and now there are only

two routes. One is security. He has to be kept under close security and

it's ironic that some of the people who criticised us for the measures

are now saying why can't we do more with him? The second is diplomacy,

which is why it is right that David Cameron spoke to the Government and

the minister goes. It would be awful when we fighting to defend

our values to do something which would say we are descending to the

values of somebody like he would support. A couple more points.

think it's a really interesting conversation, whether he should be

sent back or not, but what really an noise me is every five years we

go to the polls in this country and we elect members of Parliament to

represent us and we have elected a Government and they say they want

to send the person away. Now, there are unelected judges in Strasbourg

are saying to our elected Government saying we can't do that.

And you there. Following on from the last speaker, why don't we have

our own Bill of Rights and pull out of the UNHCR? The man over there.

Whilst obviously the extradition is tricky, surely he shopbt be kept in

a house in London, but locked -- shouldn't be kept in a house in

London, but locked up elsewhere. may well be that this man is full

of hate, owedious views, in which case he could right for the Daily

Mail. LAUGHTER

Watch it. We'll turn to that now. We have a question from Henry

Allingham. Do you think in the wake of the phone hacking scandal heavy

regulation of press the way forward or would it compromise the free

press? In the light of everything we have been hearing from the

Leveson Inquiry over the week. Shirley Williams? Absolutely not. I

think State regulation would be something we would live to regret

for a very long time. The freedom of the press is very tough. Anybody

who is in public life, like several of us are, know how tough it is,

because it means you can be shredded and often you feel it is

unfair and you have been maltreated and all the rest. Don't

underestimate we are in a democracy. It's the best possible source of

making sure that there is no corruption, of making sure that

people who cheat on their expenses are caught out. Of making sure that

we have to be kept to the highest possible standards and heaven knows

all of us need that. Whatever you do, don't tough the freedom of the

press. The one thing you can do, I think, is to look to the media

themselves and say, look, like doctors do with the professional

councils, like lawyers do with the Law Society, you have got to set up

your own structures and in those you have got to make sure that

journalists feel they are obliged to tell the truth as far as

possible and they are obliged not to use methods which are near

criminal and sometimes actually criminal. For example, the kind

that have been encountered by my There have been several inquiries

into the press, one in the 06z, can't remember what it was called.

There was an inquiry in 1990 -- '60s. There have been various

inquiries into the standards of the press, on each occasion the press

have said they'll put their house in order and have failed to do so.

People like me who've raised our head above the parapet in this are

not there of our own volition, but because we are perhaps more media

savvy than some of the more hapless victims of this. What was your

complaint for people who've come in? My phone was hacked and I was

tail and lots of private information was, information I got

from the police, but I had to go through the courts, I'm fortunate

enough to have enough money to pursue the press on this, but the

fact is, they had their opportunity to put their house in order, they

failed every time and said if it was a child saying I'm going to

behave and you said I'm going to send you to bed if you misbehave

one more time and they keep misbehaving and you don't send them

to bed, you would be a bad parent. The point is, this is about, is the

story justified, is the story in the public interest? Nine times out

of ten they are not in the public interest. I'm in favour of good

journalism that investigating in terms of the public interest.

That's important, it should be protected. In fact, I even go so

far as to say if you are doing a story of public interest exposing a

great corruption, you would even be justified in hacking if that's

always in the public interest but time and again it's not, it's about

who is sleeping with who. It's used as a smoke screen by much of the

press to justify what they're interested in which is satisfying

their shareholders by selling newspapers. Heavier regulation?

think the press should not be, I think they should be allowed to put

their house in order but there should be a backup system or some

kind of regulation which the BBC has to have. Ann Leslie? As you

know, I'm a huge admirer of you as a comedian and I said to you before

hand... You did That one of your less well regarded programmes,

which is brilliant, but I'm afraid people like you and Alastair, on my

right, do not know what damage they're doing to this country.

gosh. Well, you did. 40 years on the Daily Mail and you talk about

doing this to the country. I'm not on the Daily Mail. May I say that

the BBC is so fond of their balance in programmes, they've chosen two

people who're bitterly against the newspaper I used to work for and

did so for 35 years, mostly as a correspondent.... Sorry, Not 40, I

Beg Your Pardon. You were always a lousy journalist. Can You Get To

The Issue, You Have The Floor? The issue I've forgotten now because my

mic fell off. Right, no... Heavier Regulation Of

The Press? Because I've been a foreign correspondent for, you know,

over 30 years, worked in over 70 countries, the trouble is,

everywhere I go, in some of the less savoury countries in this

world, the Minister of Information will always say I'm in favour of

the press but I'm in favour of a responsible press. Right, who

decides what is a responsible press? Believe you me, it won't be

comedians, it won't be film stars, it will be people who are in power,

very rich people who completely decide what is responsible. That is

why this country is known as the libel capital of the world, because

all sorts of oligarchs and foreign criminals come and sue here because

they know that the Libel Laws actually discriminate against the

free press. I feel the real danger is that the free press, which is,

whatever you say and however much you jeer at me, it is a guarantee

of democracy because nothing can get away from the press, including

bent MPs who actually expose the bent MPs, the press, who exposed

the phone hacking, the press. press did not expose the phone

hacking. The press singularly failed... Steve hold on, let

Alastair Campbell have a say. You scoffed at that remark, why?

question was about a free press. I passionately believe in a free

press. Oh, God, yes. We do not have a three press when it's controlled

by three very senior men. What the Leveson Inquiry is showing is

something that some of us in politics have been worried about

for quite a long time which is a media culture that is frankly

debasing the culture of this country. And we are seeing

journalists, and I was a journalist and I'm glad Ann Leslie thinks I

was a lousy journalist, if she thought I was good, I would be

ashamed of myself. Can I just say... Can I just finish. The Leveson

Inquiry shining a light on things that we have known about, the phone

hacking scandal for me is just the tip of the iceberg. The really big

changes are newspapers where stories are only allowed if they

fit the agenda of that paper, where the fusion of news and comment is

virtually complete, where the commercial interest of the

newspapers are reflected through their news coverage and... How on

earth do you change this? You may not be able to change it all, but

what you can do... By regulation? What is the question Henry

Allingham put? Lord Leveson is asking the right questions, when we

talk about statutory regulation, the PCC is, has been a joke and

always will be a joke because you cannot trust these people to

regulate themselves. Parliament has to set up a system of regulation

which is independent of politicians and independent of media interest.

That is not a difficult thing to do. But in your words, it regulates the

difference between news and comment, it makes sure that the newspapers...

No, the I am saying that is what has happened to our newspapers, not

that that's what I want. We do not have in this country with the

exception possibly of the Financial Times, we do not have newspapers

that now see their job as the per purr vaiing of news, then the

comment alongside it. I'm saying I'm in this debate, not just to get

money out of phone hacking which I did along with Steve yesterday but

to make sure the country understands the reality of what

happens in our media. They are seeing a bit of it at the Leveson

Inquiry. My worry is that when the inquiry reports that the Government

then will not actually want to legislate for a new system of

regulation because by then, they'll be getting nearer to election and

it will suit them. One question very quickly - I agree with what

you said - why is it then that in our own country both Labour and the

Conservative Party have repeatedly appeared at every single social

occasion? I agree with that. you guilty of this? We were and I

said to, when I went to the Leveson Inquiry a few weeks ago, I said

that from about 1999-2000, I was arguing with Tony Blair and other

ministers, we were identifying that this was a problem for our culture,

therefore for our country. Therefore, we should do something

about it. Tony's view, which I completely respect, was that

actually, we got a pretty good press most of the time, the public

certainly thought we did and if we took on the press at that time they

simply wouldn't understand. To answer your question, were we at

times too close to the media, the answer is yes. The reason is

because, if you do have them in full cry out to kill you, then

that's not a very nice place to be. I'll bring you in later. The man

with the purple pullover? One of the things that for me has been

shocking out of the Leveson Inquiry so far is the all too cosy

relationship between our police forces and the media. It seems to

me that as public servants, we should have a bit of regulation on

the police force actually. That is the next stage of the Leveson

Inquiry. The woman on the right? concern, I very much support what

Alastair said, is that the press has far too much power really and

we saw both politicians and the police crumbling in front of that.

It was only really the Guardian that reported the facts and what we

need to do is reduce the concentration of media power. I

mean, you know, why Rupert Murdoch was ever allowed to get so much

power, I think that's really... Hear, hear. Philip Hammond? On the

point that Alastair was making about the closeness of politicians

to the media. That of course is why the Prime Minister has set up a

regime now where contacts with proprietors and editors are

reported, they are publicly registered, contacts by all

ministers and the Prime Minister. Is that why Andy Coulson was

appointed to Number Ten? So people know what was going on. I saw Andy

Coulson as a man that should not be at the heart of Government. That's

what motivated me to take my legal action because the Government

wasn't doing it job, nothing about News International. The Prime

Minister's been very clear about the appointment of Andy Coulson, he

made that appointment in good faith, Andy Coulson repeated assurances in

a House of Commons Select Committee under oath and the Prime Minister's

made it clear that if it turns out he was misled, then he will

apologise for that. Look, the point I want to get back to is what the

Leveson Inquiry is doing. It's looking at two different things.

It's looking at illegality and despite what Steve says that

hacking might be justifiable, hacking is now illegal. It cannot

be justified. We have to be very clear that the press is not allowed

to break the law. But it goes beyond that. We have to have a

debate about within the law, what the pressethically can and can't do.

-- press ethicly can and can't do. I don't share Shirley's view but on

the other hand, I would be... the Government would have to set

that up. I would be wary of Alastair's view that there needs to

be a statutory scheme. Leveson will come forward with a set of

recommendations. That is what the inquiry was set up for. He will

also look at the relationship between the police and the media.

Let's see what Leveson says. He'll be reporting on ethics in September

of this year. Can I ask you one question. Then let's decide.

things you have identified, you say phone hacking, bribing the police,

these are things that are illegal, I mean why do they need to look at

it? Bribing the police is clearly illegal. Phone hacking is clearly

illegal? Phone hacking is clearly now illegal. The PCC took, bought

the line from News International that it was one rogue reporter,

bought it hook line and sink, they didn't question it at all,

Parliament didn't, the Met police didn't, the media didn't question

it. It was left to individuals and a few newspapers to pick away at

this scam. The few individuals who did take action managed to get the

ball rolling. All the original litigants should have a monument

built of them in the shape of a giant can opener because they were

the people who did it. APPLAUSE The man there? It would be

wrong to restrict the freedom of the press, but surely the best way

to control it is for people like us to stop buying rubbish like the

Daily Mail. Very good point. Philip said, when we talk about statutory

regular lace, I don't mean regulation that the Government then

runs, but the Government, the PCC was set up by Parliament, it was a

Government proposal that Parliament voted on, surely we can have

Parliament having to decide what the system of regulation is, and

then it's run as an pnth -- independent media. We have heard

the Government's close to the press, they've been close to the police,

we have heard that the Government have been close to the investment

banking sector. When will the Government learn its lesson?

Leslie, do you want to finish off? Simply, I do object to taking moral

lessons from Alastair Campbell. you, darlings, so sorry about that.

The dodgy dossier. Oh, blah. Don't say oh blah. The judge described

him as unreliable. Giving me or the Daily Mail moral lessons. Get used

to it because I'll keep banging on about it. Better get used to me

banging back. Bang back, but your newspaper was the most putrid

product on the shelves every day, day after day. I want to get away

from the tiff which is great fun. This is an absolutely central

serious issue, that between the police and some journalists, from

different newspapers, there is all together too cosy a relationship

and it's one in which they exchange tips to one another. I'll tell you

who I think is up to no good and you in return will prince it and

give me a bit to get on with. It's the most dangerous thing you can do.

The police have to be divorced from any possible relationship that

means that they can get financial advantage out of providing tips to

the newspapers, that's part of the problem. It's got to be addressed.

Before we leave that, we talked about the Daily Mail and phone

hacking and the rest of it, I want to quote what the editor of the

Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday said, "having conducted a major

internal inquiry, I'm as convinced as I can be that there's no phone

hacking on the Daily Mail, I don't make that statement lightly, no

editor, the editor of the Guardian or the Independent, no doubt

Alastair Campbell or Steve Coogan can say otherwise". If you want to

comment on these things and you are Another question. Syria is

massacring it's own people. How bad does it have to get before the

Government takes action? Alastair Campbell you were deeply implicated

in the invasion in require rack. Your answer? I have a lot of

sympathy, because this is a really difficult situation. There are no

easy answers. Every single choice is ugly. You can stand out and

people are going to carry on getting killed. You can try to

build the diplomatic support for action. You could then take that

action and you have no way of knowing where that is going. Action

being military? I think the mistake has been made in effectively ruling

it out, because it may come to that in the end. All you can do at the

moment is to try to get the diplomatic situation in a better

place. That looks very difficult, because the UN resolution which the

Russians vetoed had already been watered down and wasn't terribly

strong or calling for military action, let alone regime change,

other than to Bashar Al-Assad's deputy. You have a very complicated

and volatile situation. Turkey, which is feeling the power more.

You have Lebanon alongside with Hizbollah and Iraq and ir -- Iran

and there is a real danger and people talking about spilling into

a civil war, I think there's one ready and there is a danger it

becomes a proxy war with the Russians defending and the Saudis

and the Qataris trying to involve the British and French and

Americans. I think it is horrible to watch at the moment, but we have

to be a little cautious, because there is a danger that we go in,

you won't be able to get the support for the action. There isn't

the same UN support that there was for Libya or in Iraq. That was

there. Therefore, in relation to Syria, if you are not careful and

make the wrong move now and you are talking about a really major

situation in the most dangerous region in the world. As Defence

Secretary, do you countenance in the way that Alistair explained,

military action in Syria or do you absolutely rule it out as an impoct

as Jack Straw, when he was -- impossibility, as Jack Straw said,

when he was in the Foreign Office. Syria has a large army. It is well

disciplined. It is possible that that would fall apart if civil war

really takes hold, but at the moment they have 325,000-strong

armed forces. They are well disciplined and well led. They've

got large amounts of Russian weaponary, including very modern

air defence systems. This is a for mid-ible military power. --

formidable military power. The question needs to be addressed to

the Chinese and Russian governments. Since they vetoed the UN Security

Council resolution in October, about 2,000 Syrians have been

massacred. Since they vetoed a resolution earlier this week,

scores more have been massacred. They bear a very heavy burden of

responsibility. Russia is heavily involved in Syria. It has a lot of

leverage in that country. The Russians needs to -- need to feel

the pressure from the rest of the world. 13 out of the 15 nations on

the council, Arab nations, Latin Americans, Africans, all supported

the move for a resolution and greater sanctions. You are saying

that NATO can't do anything? That France and America and the Arab

countries and ourselves, as in Libya, can't do? That's a very

strong term. The United States is world's greatest military power,

but Alistair is right, Syria is a strong military country and you are

not talking about a small policing action. You would be talking about

a very major military conflict and I don't think anybody wants to

contemplate that at this time. What people want to do is get the

international community aligned with the Russians and Chinese on

board, with the rest of the international community, to start

tightening the noose on this despicable regime. You spoke about

the Government massacring its own people and the strength of the Army,

but those are parallels with Iraq. Is the true difference the amount

of oil that Iraq and Libya have, that Syria doesn't have? Shirley

Williams? I think there might be something in that, but I'm going to

make a different point, if you may. In this particular case, we tried

to go the UN route and it was blocked. In the case of Iraq, we

tried to go the UN brute and decided to get around it. Let me be

quite precise, I think the real danger of Syria is that it could

spiral into a war between the Sunni and Shia throughout the whole of

the Arab world. What that means is that you are in great danger of

sending off a powder keg into one of the most fragile regions of the

world. What does that mean? I don't think it means you sit by and do

nothing. I think it means you have to press for the Arab League and UN

to get people into Syria, to insist that they enter, to give full

coverage of what is going on and to draw conclusions from it, but I

tend to agree with Philip that I think the idea of a military

intervention at the moment could actually be more explosive than the

method of going through the international community and it's

what we should do. I guess I'm still not satisfied, because a lot

of that sounds like what I remember reading about Iraq. That was fairly

explosive and in the same area of the world as well. The Chilcott

inquiry hasn't reported, but when we talk about the lessons from Iraq,

I suspect the big lesson is the aftermath and I think that is what

we are talking about here, that it is all very well to say let's take

out the President. What comes thereafter, that could be worse.

Anne Leslie. For once I agree with Alistair. That is amazing! It's

awful. Because I have worked a lot in the Middle East and I still have

a lot of contacts there, and I know a lot of the Arab ambassadors and

we talk about it endlessly, the problem with Syria is that the

horrors of the Bashar Al-Assad regime are great. But the one

virtue it had was that it secular. As we know, religious and ethnic

minorities are better protected by secular governments, however nasty

they are, because they don't care about religion, that is why. Than

sectarian ones that is. It is absolutely the case that there is

now increasing sectarian divisions in Syria. In Syria the regime is

Alawites. It's a minority sect. It's about power. It's not that

interested, as I know in the religion, for various reasons. It's

because it is a sect of Shia, but it has no legitimacy in any forum,

including religion, but the problem is if I were a Christian or Jewish

or druids or Kurdish, I would be running for the exit right now.

That's because once we start deciding who we are going to back,

obviously I don't back the regime, they are a disgusting bunch, but if

we decide that we are going to back the freedom fighters, which ones?

The minorities and I know this because I'm heavily involved with

them, are so scared of what is going to happen when either we, or

the Arab League go in and get rid of Assad. Your view is that we

shouldn't take, so to speak, decisive action? No, I'm afraid not,

because one of the troubles with the West, we are always thinking

we'll go in and humanitarianly. I have worked in Bosnia and in Iraq.

We always make a mistake and we don't improperty matters. Libya

included? Yes. The man there. There's a lot of agreement here on

being cautious and I think that's a good sign, because we have seen how

the sledge-hammer approach works and so I'm glad to see that,

because we can't stied by while people get killed -- stand by while

people get killed. Something has to be done, but just to say it is

difficult is not enough. I think that the MoD, Foreign Office and

the policy makers need to find something good to do. Something to

do which will protect people, which will prevent a civil war breaking

out and which will help to support the Syrian people. Do you have an

idea? We are working with the Arab League and one of the good pieces

of news here is that the League has finally woken up, after decades,

they are now engaging in trying to do with the problem in an Arab

country. You might not think they've been very effective so far,

but compared with the past, this is Monday humanityal and that is

extremely good news. Db monumental and that is extremely good news.

William Hague was in New York trying to rally support behind the

UN Security Council resolution. That work is on-going. Everybody

that comes through London is getting lobbied by us on Syria. We

are determined to make maintain the pressure for a consensus to do

something about Syria in the UN and through sanctions and other

pressures. There is a problem with this, because when you do take

action, as Anne said you may have a situation that is worst. That

involves us all having a crystal ball and being able it see what

would have happened had we not intervened. I think back to the I'm

a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and the massacre of the -- Srebrenica

and the massacre of the men and boys and poun talking about

something awful happening. -- Paddy Ashdown talking about something

awful happening and it did and then we did something. Then we end up in

an imperfect situation and you don't know whether it would have

been better to do nothing, so I think it's - We intervened in

Kosovo and that worked out pretty well. I went out there and it is a

terrible sight. Paddy Ashdown was there with me. We proposed that

there out to be a Government intervention and that I think went

a very long way to save the Albanians. It did. Had it happened

earlier it would have been better. Military action may be a large

resort, but given the fact that the Defence Select Committee has this

week said that as a result of the SDSR cuts the UK armed forces would

not be in a position to take on a similar conflict to Libya, so would

the UK be able to get involved with the UN militarily, even if it did

come down to that? The Select Committee didn't say that. It posed

a question. It asked the question about whether as we move through

the process of transformation of our armed forces, restructuring

them, we would be able. Your answer to the point. Yes, we would be able

to do Libya again, but I've already said, Syria is not Libya. That's a

much bigger challenge and the truth is, there is only one nation that

could really effectively contemplate military action and

that is United States. The defence review under Liam Fox was a

spending review, not a defence review and the Arab Spring wasn't

mentioned. You left us with a black hole in the defence budget. I think

we know where this is going. A question from Vic Loveday. If we

believe in innocent until proven guilty, was it right for the FA to

strip John Terry of the captaincy of England? And for Fabio Capello

to resign as a result? Philip Hammond? Well, I think the point is

that when you are under the kind of pressure that someone is under when

they are facing criminal charges it is very difficult to do your day

job effectively. I think - Chris Huhne are you talking about or the

footballer? APPLAUSE

I was talking about the football, but the analogy hadn't escaped me.

We have a long-established principle in politics that somebody

who is facing a criminal charge, even if they are protesting their

innocence, quits their job and protests their innocence and fights

the case. Simply because, the distraction of being involved in a

criminal proceeding inevitably means you are not able to give your

whole commitment to the job you are doing. I think if the leaders of

England football made that decision, that's a decision for them to make.

I think Fabio Capello slightly Alastair Campbell, do you think

Fabio Capello overreacted or were the football people right to make

Terry stand down? I fear I may have missed something of a scoop on

Sunday because I was sitting behind Fabio Capello... You are not a

journalist, so it doesn't matter. Thank you, Ann. I was sitting

behind Fabio Capello at the Chelsea and Manchester United game and he

had a testy conversation with the FA General Secretary and I realised

then this was all going on. Now, whether it's right, let's park John

Terry for one minute. What is absolutely not right is for the FA

to announce that John Terry is being stripped of the captaincy if

that's not been cleared and approved, in my mind, by the

manager, because the manager is the most important person in any

football team. It does appear that this happened without any recourse

to him. So I think, I'm afraid... He suspended Terry earlier? He had,

but... Without telling them? ultimately, the manager has to

decide who the Captain is and if the FA think he should be stripped,

then at least he has to be brought into that conversation. I also

happen to think it doesn't matter who the England manager is because

there are only two English players we get into the Spanish or German

team so they are not going to win Euro 2012 and we might as well just

get used to that now. You are another football fan, Steve Coogan,

what do you make of this? You are wrong there, David. I'm from

Manchester, so... I thought you were a Seagulls supporter? No, I

have to say, I'm very forceful about this, I have no view on this

whatsoever. APPLAUSE

Good for you. It's very rare that a Question Time panellist is quite so

honest. Shirley Williams? I don't think I'm being dishonest, I'm well

trained in football by my grandsons, I know nothing about it. What I

would say, very quickly is that the issue of racism on the terraces is

very serious, it's also true therefore that I think the FA is

right to take a strong line on that. I don't think it was appropriate

for Capello to step in in the way that he did. I also think very

strongly that it's high time that the football system cleaned itself

up. It's got precisely two senior executive who is are black on the

entire system of senior executives. It I think has been fairly lax in

allowing people to shout their heads off in some cases against a

player who happens to be black or brown. I think football's done a

very good job on racism actually. I'm not saying it hasn't but there

are fans who come who use some very racist language and all I'm saying

is, I think the FA should be supported, supported in taking a

very strong line. It's a strong line but let's remember the

allegations against John Terry are denied by him and they come to

trial in July. He's been suspended. The man with the beard there?

don't think so much he should be stripped of the captaincy. I'm

certain if those allegations were against me, I would be suspended in

my job until proven not guilty, so why has he been chose snn I've been

to you before, Sir, the man with the white beard? Hasn't the FA done

a good job, it's actually got rid of a �6 million a year failure who

couldn't speak English and has got a chance now to get Harry Redknapp

in hopefully on the cheap. think it was all a device? Could

have been. Somebody there, I can just see a hand at the back on the

right there. Alastair, which two players will go into the squad?

Cole and Rooney. Only because the other one has a broken leg. I agree

with Steve over there, I'm not interested in football... Fine,

move on. No! APPLAUSE One of the skill sets of a foreign

correspondent was to know about British football because everywhere

you go around the world, people wanted to know, you know, in China

people would ask me about Man United, they are mad about it, so I

would have to mug up on it. I really don't care. However, one

thing I would like to ask the footie fans here is, why don't

footie fans get hysterical about the enormous amount of money that

Fabio Capello was getting, what, �6 million, for failure, running a

third rate team, couldn't even speak English as one of the

audience pointed out, yet they get into a terrible state about people

like Stephen Hester. I mean, I'm not in favour... APPLAUSE

I think you are off on to a different question there. You had

nothing to say about the suspension. I like what Ann said. Thank you,

Ann. Why should this sound unexpected from the Daily Mail. Lay

lay Moran? Last question? Should Andrew Lansley and his NHS Bill be

take -- be "taken out and shot". The Jeremy Clarkson solution to the

problem, a political problem of whether Andrew Lansley's screwed up

with the NHS Act and it was apparently said by somebody at

Number Ten or quoted in the Times as being said by somebody from

Number Ten. It's the politics of it. Shirley Williams, I know you began

against, you then said you get reassurances, do you think

Lansley's mishandled the whole thing? To a great extent, but let

me say very clearly he's right about one thing. I'm somebody who

believes very deeply and I think it's true, that the NHS is the most

remarkable Health Service in the world, probably. It's been

tremendously praised by the OECD and others who can't be seen to be

just political voices. Having said that, I think where Lansley is

right in in saying there has to be major changes because we are an

ageing society because thank God because of the NHS, more and more

chronically sick people are surviving into their '70s and

beyond. Therefore it's got a real crisis facing it. Now, quite

straightforwardly, my own view is the only way to deal with that

would have been originally to make some reforms in what was then the

structure of the NHS. Was it necessary to have a new Act?

don't think it was. Why would they have done that? I think because he

believed that the changes I'm talking about, these big, big

challenges, could only be met by changes in the structure. I don't

entirely agree, that's why we fought like mad in the House of

Lords for weeks on end to make it clear that the Secretary of State

has to remain responsible for a comprehensive Health Service, we

have got that through in the House of Lords, we have an all-party

basis for that, which is important. I think there are more things to be

fought for, competition policy has to be, in my view, very much

contained. I think issues about conflicts of interest have to be

addressed. We'll discuss this in the House of Lords in the next few

weeks. You give Lansley a clean bill of health so to speak? No.

you think he should be sacked? because I think he was right about

the changes that are needed. The responses to the changes should

have been closer to where we were with the original NHS but there

were changes that need to be made. Why did you abstain on the Bill?

didn't. I thought you abstained on the Bill last night? One issue, the

issue of whether mental and physical health should come

together and in the light, having found out about this, that we had a

precise answer from the minister ah very decent man indeed which said

he'd take it back and I don't think that was... When you were at Number

Ten, you had ministers "taken out and shot" metaphorically speaking.

Would you have Andrew Lansley changed? No, that's over the top.

I'm surprise head got a round of applause for the idea of taking him

out and shooting him. I don't think this is about Andrew Lansley. Let's

go back to the general election. David Cameron, when he was busy

decontaminating the brand, as he called it, he made two clear

statements on the National Health Service. He went up on the big

posters "I will cut the deficit, not the NHS", he's failing on the

deficit and there are cuts going through the NHS as we speak in

every part of the country. He also said, you have and he got a massive

round of applause at the Royal College of Nurses for it, he said

there will be no top down reorganisation. This is the biggest

reorganisation since its inception. A Bill three times longer than the

Bill that brought in the National Health Service way back when. I

think that those two things alone, the cuts, and when Shirley talks

about the competition, we are talking here about a free market

free-for-all that is going to pit doctor against doctor, hospital

against hospital, Trust against Trust, and this is now, I believe,

a fight for the future of the National Health Service, it's why

it's not You have a very short memory. It shouldn't be taken out

of shot, but they are destroying the National Health Service. Who do

you think brought in competition? We brought in the use of thery vat

sector... Yes. In the interest of the National Health Service patient.

This is using the NHS to boost the private sector. You gave them 14%

extra. It's now gone to 50%. Philip Hammond? You should vote against

this Bill, sure Shirley, vote against it. The private sector had

a special advantage. All right, all right, hold on, everybody. Philip

Hammond? I want to say for the record as a former Shadow minister

that Alastair did used to take ministers out and have them shot

and they used to talk to their opposite numbers in the opposition

once he'd done it. I don't know who that was? Andrew Lansley... Who he

said? I'm not going to tell him, they'll be shot again! Look,

Shirley is absolutely right, the National Health Service is our

greatest national asset, we know from opinion polling that people

regard it as the most important thing. Has the politics been well

done? It absolutely required reform. This is a massive undertaking, a

restructuring of the NHS to allow it to work. The whole point about

this restructuring is that it's built on clinical groups, GPs...

That's happening already. It's a bottom up structure. Has the

politics been Weldon, that is the point -- well done, that is the

point? The BMA says they are against it, they were against the

creation of the Health Service in the first place. What Andrew

Lansley's done is very diligently listened to what people are saying,

including what Shirley and her colleagues have been saying and

incorporated hundreds of changes to the Bill to um prove it, the NHS

future forum taking the views of health professionals and patients

across the country. But they become more against it. The opposition and

the Health Service... Well... have a minute or two. Tony Blair

did reform of the Health Service. One at a time. Steve Coogan, then

Ann Leslie, then we'll have to stop. When it comes to the Tories doing

reform with the NHS, despite the involvement of distinguished people

like Baroness Williams next to me, I view it with great suspicion, I

think they don't lake the NHS because it's one of the few

remaining legacies of people who believe in... Don't tell me I don't

believe in it. I didn't say that. Of course I know you believe in it.

I'm saying that it's the Tories, not your good self-. I'm saying

when Tories are involved in reforming the NHS, I don't trust

them, it's like putting Harold Shipman in charge of your local

surgery. Ann Leslie? Well, I'm like Steve,

I'm not a comedian -- unlike Steve I'm not a comedian, however, no, I

mean, I've been in and out of hospital more or less constantly

for two years. I have a lot of experience of the Health Service

and the private service. All I can say is that, as I lie there,

drugged to the eye balls, often inaccurately because the nurses are

not angels, they're, well, I'm not going to say anything more, I just

feel that after all the years I've been alive because Shirley has

pointed out, she and I are very old ladies, I'm terribly bored with a

whole lot of politicians saying, we are going to save the NHS. When I

heard Ed Miliband say, we have three months to save the NHS, my

heart sank. I remember your boss, Tony Blair, saying, 24 hours to

save the Health Service. It's a good job because we did save it.

You didn't. All right. Ann... Satisfactory levels within the

National Health Service and record low waiting times. All I'm saying

is it never ever is completely saved. And what Andrew Lansley has

been doing and the way he's been doing it. No good at being a star

on television, that's the problem. He doesn't want to be. You would

better be, unlike Ed Miliband. Proper reform of the NHS. The GPs,

RCN, never argue with a nurse. BMA... She'd argue with a nurse.

She just insulted the entire nurses profession. We have talked about

the NHS before and a lot of you have things you want to say but I

can't overrun our time because we've done our hour and just have

to stop and that's how it is. We are going to be in Nottingham next

week. We've got Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary and John Prescott

only panel, should be quite a scene, and the week after that, we are

going to be in Tunbridge Wells. If you want to come to Nottingham or

Tunbridge Wells, you know how to do it. The number is on the screen. Or

you can apply to the website. My thanks to all of you on the panel