15/11/2012 Question Time

Thanks so much. I said there had been a by-election and the polls

had closed but we don't know the result. So many of you voted here

so we don't know the answer. The question comes from cur disBaker,

please. The winning party in Corby's come out winner the general

election in the last few years, will today's result come out the

same? Will the result of today's by-election be the result of the

Every time a Government fights a by-election particularly in a

marginal seat, it is always an up hill battle and we have said it

will be a struggle to hold on to this seat. It has been the case in

Parliament year after year after year. Labour lost by-election when

they were in Government, medium- term and we lost by-election when

we were in Government medium-term. We have got a first rate candidate

here. She campaigned hard. We have had a good team. I hope we have

fought a campaign that will give us a chance to have another

Conservative MP. If we are not successful, that doesn't mean we

can't win the next election. Louise Mensch said she thinks this

by-election is a judgement on her and not on the Tory Party, but

saying it is her fault, do you think that's true? It is always

going to be the case that a local electorate will be unhappy when

they get a change medium-term. I would never condemn someone in

Louise's position, a parent. Many people feel let down, but at the

same time if you are a parent yourself, you know sometimes you

have to put your family first. The man up there with his hand in

the air. You, sir. She came to this constituency on

the back of someone else's hard work and she said she was going to

do things, she never done them. So I was glad and grateful to see her

APPLAUSE Harriet

Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman. Well,

Harriet Harman. Well, I

Harriet Harman. Well, I think this is a very important by-election and

I think all eyes will be on the Corby result because it is right in

the middle of England and it is very like all the different parts

of England in that it has got people who are quite well off and

comfortable, but are worried about things like what is going to happen

to young people and are their standards of living getting

squeezed, but it has got people who find it quite a struggle to make

ends meet. So it is a very diverse community that is very typical of

large parts of England. So I hope that they will have listened to the

message that Ed Miliband put out, that one nation message, I hope

that they will have elected Andy who I think would make an excellent

MP for Corby, one to which you are entitled.

APPLAUSE And you have your ear close to the

ground. Before I go to Nigel Farage, do you think UKIP have done well?

They say it might be their best Westminster result ever? Some

people are saying jokingly that the Tories have split the UKIP vote, I

don't know. We should never second- guess the voters actually. At the

end of the day people have gone in with their secret ballot and we

will have to wait and see, but it is a very important result for us

and all eyes will be on it. Nigel Farage. Well, Labour are

going to win. I think that is clear because the Tory vote will collapse

in Corby because of Louise Mensch and because people don't like being

forced to vote in elections that they see to be unnecessary, but

also because there is a collapse of confidence amongst traditional

Conservative voters in David Cameron who they see as another

Social Democrat. Is it going to be right, they said,

every general election the past 30 years, Corby has been the

bellwether? Not necessarily because there is change taking place in

British politics. Think of Scottish politics with the SNP going from

being a small party to being a majority. Look at Northern Ireland,

with the DUP went from a tiny back street party party to being the

biggest party in Northern Ireland. We are going through change in

English politics. I think the feeling amongst millions of vote

voters that these three parties are indistinguishable from each other

on most major issues, attitudes towards climate change and wind

turbines all over our country and that's why the UKIP vote is going

up. People are looking for a fresh alternative and I would not think

because Labour win tomorrow that guarantees anything for 2015. We

are living in a period, I think, of great change in English politics.

APPLAUSE I think Nigel Farage has actually

hit it on the head. A lot of people are disillusioned with the Tories

and Labour and to a lot of people UKIP is lick a breath of fresh air.

OK. Well, you are the great wizard of political manipulation and man

ufrg and you did Thatcher's victory in 87 and the Major one in 91. So

do you think the Tories fought a good election here? I think the

Conservative Party will be well and truly menched actually and I don't

think it was not a time for spin in this particular case. It was a

time... No place for you? unfortunately not. We were not

particularly involved in this. No, the Conservative Party have to take

it on the chin. I think yes, Louise Mensch, anyone is allowed to

withdraw their labour. I think she signed up for five years. She could

have anticipated her problems with her children. She did two. She had

a contract and a commitment and she let the people of Corby down. I

think she was more interested in Louise Mensch than she was in Corby.

APPLAUSE And so I think it would be very

different come the general election, that will be strategy B when it

comes to that, but for this particular - in this particular

instance, the people of Corby feel let down by the Conservative Party

and not the local candidate, but the Liam with the expenses scandal

and I am not surprised that some of the other parties will do better.

The man in green there. Louise Mensch shares a lot of

characteristics with Nadine Dorries that they put themselves first and

their principles second. She is still eating testicles in

the jungle! Tessa Munt. We had a good candidate,

a lady called Jill Hope, but I suspect this will be something that

polarizes between the two main parties.

Do you think she will keep her deposit? I hope so.

Do you think she will come before or after UKIP? I don't know about

that. I don't know what is going to

happen. She is full of hope! We were a very small party once.

People said you could get the Liberal Democrats into the back of

a taxi and that wasn't many years ago and for small parties it takes

a long time to grow. In answer to what Nigel said, I think it will be

a long time to the point where he has got, there are 57 of us in

Parliament, we have been good at by-elections in its past, I don't

think we are meant to win this one, but we had a good fight and a good

candidate. Let's leave the by- election and we will get the result

tomorrow. A question from Robert Anderson. Should we put put Abu ka

tadder on a plane to Jordan. Nigel Farage? We put Christopher

Christopher Tappen on a plane to America. We put a young lad on a

plane to Greece where he was left to rot in appalling conditions and

released without charge. We are happy to send our citizens off all

over the world and yet, we are so terrified of the European Court of

Human Rights in Strasbourg, an an organisation which was...

APPLAUSE Which was set-up after the war with

good intentions, but has far out reached its purpose. Look, there

are many other European countries who are members of that court who

choose from time to time to ig ignore its judgements. We have a

promise from a Jordanian Government. They have changed their

constitution to say say that he will not be tortured if he is sent

back to Jordan and it is time the British Government showed a little

bit of backbone and said to hell with the European Court of Human

Rights and yes, put him on a plane. There is only problem with that

argument. It was actually a British court in which he succeeded. It was

a commission of a British court and when he went, when this case went,

I mean it has been four times since January into court. He knows our

court system inside out and on the three previous occasions, three of

which were the European Court of Human Rights, he lost and it is one

British court, the Court of Appeal that he lost in and it was only

this week when he went into the British immigration commission

appeals that he actually lost. Now what I find extraordinary is that

we find ourselves in a situation where this man is walking the

streets between 8am and 4pm and I am not sure why it is since we are

quite convinced from all sorts of different sources that he has been

involved in bomb plots, he has been involved in terrorism of one sort

or another. He has been preaching against the liberal elite which has

benefited him, he has been living here since 1993 and he chose to

come here... Do you think he should be put on a plane to Jordan?

should be arrested now. If there is any chance that he will be left

here and not go back to Jordan, the time has come for us to arrest him

and run him through or court system under a charge.

Chris Grayling? You are Justice Minister, you are Lord Chancellor,

you are involved in this. What's your view? This is about a British

court and tempting though it maybe and I would like to see the back of

him as soon as possible, but for Government ministers, police

officers, immigration officials, court officials, to ignore a ruling

by a UK court would be a deeply dangerous step and one we can't

take. Equally, it was the court that released him on to the street.

We are clear, we disagree with the legal decision. We will appeal

against the legal decision. We are working behind the scenes to take

whatever action we can to make sure he leaves the country as soon as

possible. I am clear, where Nigel Farage is right, that I also think

that the Human Rights framework which operates in Europe moved a

long way away from the original views of its creators back in the

1950s at a time when Stalin was in power and when people were sent to

prison without trial. One of my tasks is to find a framework that

will work for the future and to put it to the electorate at the next

election. I would like to get it through sooner, but there is not a

majority in the House of Commons at the moment. Were the courts right

I disagree with the verdict and we will appeal against it.

disagree with the verdict but don't judge him to coming to that

conclusion? Judges have a right in an independent judiciary to reach

the verdicts they believe are right according to law. That's a

principal we have to hold sacrosanct because it doesn't apply

in other parts of the world. We can still appeal against them, but if

you walk away from the independence of judges in a court to form their

view of what is right under the law, you move to a place that lots of

people in the world have to live in where there is no justice.

APPLAUSE So it's the law you think is wrong?

Yes. Would you like to see us leave, as I think you did once imply - the

European Court of Human Rights - you said once, not ruling it in or

out? That'S exactly my position at the moment. One of my key tasks is

to set out an alternative strategy for the Hythe framework in Europe.

We cannot carry on the way we are - - human rights framework. I'm not

ruling anything in or out because I'm new in the job. The Attorney

General saying no question of us withdrawing. You have to win him

over? I'm responsible for delivering the strategy at the

moment, I'm ruling nothing in and nothing out. So you will have to

win him over. You are senior to him aren't you? I don't know where the

hierarchys fit. I will take colleagues with me but there are

strong views in the Government with this. The Prime Minister says he's

completely fed up. Is there a problem, Harriet Harman about

leaving the European Court of Human Rights or abandoning the

conventions of it? I think that we shouldn't leave the European

Convention on Human Rights. I think the European court, I completely

agree with Chris when he says he shouldn't criticise judges in this

country and it would be inappropriate for him to do that

but I think the European court have made a ruling under the European

convention which is causing a problem. It's causing a problem in

this country and it's causing a problem in a lot of other European

countries as well. We've got a situation where this man is not a

British citizen, everybody agrees that he is what is describe as not

condeuce toif the public good and should not be entitled to stay here

and that's butting it at its mildest, yet we can't deport him

because there's a fear that if he's deported to Jordan, he'll be put on

trial and evidence will be used that will be on tained via torture.

You don't have a problem with that? I don't think we should deport

people if they'll be tortured or evidence which is obtained by

torture will be moved but I'll tell you what I think is the worry. OK,

we need to make sure we can get an agreement with Jordan with an

agreement by the courts and we can deport him. The worry is, as Tessa

said, he's walking around free. Actually, we did have a system in

the past whereby if somebody was not a British citizen and we wanted

to deport them but hadn't got through the processes, at least we

could keep them in detention. The problem is, it's not only worrying

people in terms of his dangerousness, but the cost as well

of having to monitor him. I think what needs to happen is that all

the countries in Europe for whom this judgment of the European court

is causing difficulties should go back to the court and say, think

again, this is not just about terrorism or torture, this is about

our own immigration processes and you must let us decide who we allow

to walk around in this country and not tell us that he's got to be

free in this country. APPLAUSE

What about Italy and France have done in the past in just sending

him off? I don't think we should be having a country where we disobey

the law, we have to obey it and the law must make sense.

You, Sir, on the left there? Just curious. See if you go to the Court

of Appeal, you have got to eventually remove him, because

realistically you are going to set a precedence and anybody that comes

to this country, they are going to come here and do as they like

because we are a soft touch, everybody in Europe knows it.

APPLAUSE You in the middle with the tie,

young man? Foreign nationals engaged in terrorist related

activitys in this country shouldn't be allowed to walk around freely

along our British streets. They're a threat to society, they should be

locked up, yes. APPLAUSE.

The man over there on the right, you, Sir? Two things. One it makes

us look weak as a country and secondly, why don't we ask Jordan

to demand him back and then give him back. It might sound very

simple, but surely there's got to be a way.

Moray MacLennan? I'll introduce a small note of dissent in this

because I read the things you read about this man and what he's done,

Osama Bin Laden's right hand man, and on top of that today that he's

costing us �5 million a year and wants a bigger house because the

�400,000 one isn't big enough and all those reasons why you feel like

putting him on a boat and sticking him out in the mid Atlantic

somewhere. The only question I have, and I know I'm supposed to answer

questions - we say he's breaking the law and smoub arrested - why

has he never been convictd? He hasn't even been charged with

anything for ten years -- and should be arrested. I read all

these things but I've never read about the police taking any action

against him and I would like to understand why not. It's a slight

sense of unease. All right. Chris Grayling, before

you answer, let me quote what the judge said in March, 2004, way, way

back. "He was heavily involve and was at the centre in the UK of

terrorist activities associated with Al-Qaeda, he's a truly

dangerous individual". Why under Labour nor Conservative, has it

been not possible to prosecute him? The Jordanians do want him back to

try him and that pre-dates the legislation that the last Labour

Government introduced sensely that now allows us to try people here

for alleged terror offences wherever they take place in the

world so we can't use that law to apply in this particular case. I

don't know whether there's been sufficient evidence to bring him

before a court in the last ten years, in this country. If there

was and if there has been, I would wish that to happen. You have to

have enough evidence to charge someone. You may believe someone,

but unless you have the evidence to bring someone before a court,

charge and convict them, we didn't do it in this country. It's the

Jordanians who want him and we have to help get him back there as

quickly as possible. If people are to be trusted with voting in

commissioners, why can't people be trusted not to kick this man out

the country or not, why can't the people decide instead of leaving it

to politicians? Well, for the law in fact. Referendums. Well, in a

sense, you can't take the European Court of Human Rights issue and

separate it out from the European Union issue. I'm interested to hear

what Chris Grayling is saying, but actually they are both one and the

same thing. They are not. They are not. This is what you get, the

political class lining up telling you they're separate things. They

don't want you to know that you cannot remain a member of the

European Union if you say no to the European Court of Human Rights.

I pause you a second. There's a difference between joining the

European Union, in which case you have to subscribe to it, as I

understand it, but what about leaving? Are you kicked out of the

EU, are you saying Britain would be kicked out if Abu Qatada was sent

back? I'm saying if Chris Grayling is serious in saying that he wants

to consider whether we remain part of the ECHR or not, he's by

implication saying maybe we'll leave the European Union. If we had

a referendum on EU membership, this would be a central part of the

whole debate. No-one wants to talk about it. Every time you are on

this programme, we debate whether should be a referendum. Good things

- absolutely! Not this time. There should be one. I know you do. The

woman at the back there, then I'm going on, the very back row?

Just wondering whether or not the lack of evidence being provided is

a result of the fact that some of the evidence obtained could have

been done through illegal phone hacking? And may not be there...

Harriet Harman, what is your view of that, you were a lawyer? Is

there evidence that can't be used in court? It's perfectly possible

to answer Moray's question, to have a very strong view that this person

is not somebody you want to be entitled to be in this country. The

people who're British citizens are entitled to be in this country. The

people who're not British citizens, we have a discretion as to whether

to allow them to be here, and actually, we can say we don't want

him here, even if he's not actually committed criminal offences, we

know enough about him, we think we know enough about him to think that

we do not want to have him here, but it might fall short of enough

evidence that would be the basis on which he could be convicted. It's

not our discretion then, is it? Well, that's the problem. The court

is saying that actually, you can decide you don't want him here, but

actually, you are stuck because you can't actually send him back to

Jordan. We have to go back to the European court sand say, you are

causing a whole load of countries a problem, not just us, we've got to

decide our own immigration policy and therefore if they can't be

deported because that would risk torture, at least they could be

detained and we wouldn't feel unsafe and it would be cheaper than

having all the surveillance of him. So we could have him detained here?

Yes and he could go somewhere if he wanted and he couldn't walk around

in the streets. Another question. You can join this debate on Twitter.

Careful how you use twiether these You can also text us to see what

other views are saying. Question from David Cremonesimi.

Shouldn't we be spending more time discussing how we can better

protect children than worry about who is running the BBC? APPLAUSE

Moray MacLennan? Yes, I think we should, especially with the news

tonight it appears that this may be the tip of the iceberg and there

are going to be, I would estimate, thousands of people coming forward.

This is not something new. Clearly it goes back decades. It's

interwoven though with the BBC debate and the BBC debate is one,

in my view, that needs to be about a culture at the BBC that allowed

this to happen and a culture and a process and structure that allowed

the Newsnight programme to go out. That should be the focus of the

debate with the BBC, is how to rectify that. There's a phrase

which is used in retail which is called "Value crystallises in the

store" and that means nothing has value unless it improves the

customer's experience in the shop and I think that should be the

ruthless application of that to the BBC, that anything that doesn't

contribute to the integrity and the quality of the programme on the

management side of things should be done away with. That is the test

that should be applied. Value crystallises in the programming.

There isn't a problem, in my view, with the quality of the programming,

the journalism. You travel around the world, not only is it admired

still everywhere, it's actually a tool for democracy and it's one

thing that is way ahead of any other country and it should not be

cut back or sliced up. It should be strengthened, it should maintain

its ambition, but it needs to be split, in my view, between the

Editor in Chief, the creative side of things if you like and the

director-general and the only positive things that's coming out

of this as far as the abuse cases are concerned are there are clearly

thousands of people out there and the listening to the moving

interviews that they give, I heard them on the radio where after

decades they've actually felt that they can talk about this and the

relief of that that gives them and how that makes them feel is perhaps

the only positive aspect to come out of this. Were you asking

whether the media as a whole is too obsessed about the BBC and has lost

sight of the fact that there's been child abuse? The answer was all

about the BBC. We are doing an independent review on the BBC, it's

not the culture of the BBC that's the problem, it's the culture in

this country at how we protect our children, they are not being

protected and we should have a review into looking at how we

protect children. Harriet Harman? It's very important that we think

again and think very carefully about how we protect children and

learn lessons. I think that what we are going to get is, as Moray says,

this is the tip of the iceberg, there's going to be hundreds of

people who've lived with the awful fear and guilt and suffering and

all the tortured feelings of what's happened if you've been sexually

abused as a vulnerable child. There's going to be inquiries into

why the Department of Health put Jimmy Savile in the position of

trust in Broadmoor, who happened about why the police didn't

prosecute or investigate why the CPS didn't prosecute what happens

at Leeds general infirmary, as well as the BBC. I think that, as well

as just having fragmented investigations around the country,

we do need to have an overall inquiry really understanding the

lessons of what went wrong. I hope nobody will think, oh, that

happened then, it couldn't happen now, and all we've got to do is

think about the awful things that happened to those victims then and

try and make things better for them. We've got to do that. But we've not

got to be complacent and think that that sort of thing doesn't happen

now. I think there's been actual weakening of the child protection

system recently or potentially. For example, there's the rules in

relation to vetting and barring, you know, whereby you have to check

people's criminal records before they are allowed to work with

children have been slightly relaxed. We've got a situation where many

social workers who've got responsibility for children have

now got bigger case loads and can do less investigation. We've just

got a new law which is that if somebody makes an allegation

against a teacher of child abuse, that has to be kept secret. It

can't be made public until there's actually a charge. So I think that

we've been moving a bit in the wrong direction, we do have to

listen to children, we do have to take it seriously. As far as the

BBC is concerned, I agree with Moray, I think the BBC, having got

it very disastrously wrong on this, showing a tribute programme to

Jimmy Savile when they had in the building evidence of his abuse,

that was terribly wrong. Then implicating somebody in child abuse

who it turns out wasn't guilty of it. I mean that was terribly wrong.

But actually, the BBC is still loved, still trusted, a period of

stability and sorting it out needs to happen but I think the BBC will

Let's come back to the point about child abuse, Chris Grayling there

has been a tendency to pull back from the control particularly

Michael Gove and the decision to keep private the information?

would refute that. Let's take the example of a teacher. What we have

had in our schools many, many occasions is a pupil making an

allegation against a teacher of violence which maybe untrue. And

that teacher is thrust into the public eye and their career is

ruined on-the-spot. Even though they may have done nothing, they

have been charged with nothing, we think we need to provide protection

for those teachers. Not that those incidents shouldn't be

investigateted, but it is unfair to expose people to allegations if

they are guilty of nothing and if those allegations are going to ruin

their career. That's the change we have made. Now look, in terms of

the broader question, I am with you. One of the reasons, it would be

easy this week, having had the BBC in the position it is, over the

appalling allegations made about Lord McAlpine, it would be easy to

say we will pull back in terms of new inquiries. I am responsible for

one of those, the judge-led inquiry into what took place in North Wales.

To make sure the previous judge-led inquiry covered all the issues and

looked at all the aspects of the complaints about child abuse. I

think that inquiry should continue. Whoever was involved in it, we have

evidence from a victim that suggests that the full picture was

not brought forward at the time. We need to get to the truth. Not just

so we have closure for those people involved, but so lessons are

learned. One of the lessons of the last few months with the horrible

incidents we have seen in Bradford of young girls being groomed by

gangs of men, it proves it can and still does happen today so we need

to make sure that we learn lessons of the past to make sure it doesn't

continue in the future. You see what Chris has just said...

Briefly Harriet. Whenever an allegation is made, it

is very difficult for the person against whom an allegation is made

if it is a false allegation, but what Chris is doing is picking out

children and saying that because they are likely to be making a

false allegation against their teacher of sexual abuse, therefore,

you should have special arrangements to protect the teacher.

The point is where does the balance of risk lie and you must... This

might be just a clip around the ear in the classroom and what happens

if there is an allegation of violence against a teach near the

classroom, whether or not it is true, that teacher finds themselves

in the public eye. Sometimes in the newspapers. We don't want to see

the careers of descent teachers destroyed on allegation, unless the

allegation are proved to be true. This applies to sexual abuse as

well. Does it apply to sexual abuse as

well? It applies to all violence in the classroom and it is not

unreasonable to give our teachers protection unless they are they are

proven to be guilty of something. The point has been taken. The woman

at the back there. Just to clarify. You think it is OK

for teachers to clout their students around the ear then?

didn't say that. You just said that. If there has

been an allegation and if it is not certain that allegation is true, it

should not be the case that the acsays are made publicly because

whether or not it turns out to be true, in that situation the

teacher's career is ruined. No, but you just said if it was

just a clout around the ear... shouldn't face their career being

ruined. You said if it was just a clout

around the ear suggesting... didn't say that at all.

You did just say that. We weren't talking about an

allegation of child abuse, it it could be an allegation of any kind.

I am glad you don't think we should have violence in the classroom.

The woman on the left. On the far left. Yes. There is a massive flaw

in the CRB system. I have... Criminal records checking, yes?

have six CRBs covering me to work in one town because it is done

every two years. I could go out and be very violent because you can't

catch me for another year-and-a- half. How about it comes a live

system and I have a PIN card, you take my card and number and find

out what I did yesterday. The woman at the back?

I do believe that we should support vulnerable young students, children

and young adults, but how can can we when the support services are

cut? I work in a school and there is hardly any services left out

there. Tessa Munt, do you believe that the allegations that we have

taken our eye off the ball on the business of sexual abuse is

justified? That somehow there is more that can be done? There is an

awful lot more that can be done. I grew up at a time when there was no

ChildLine and I think probably most of the children in most of our

schools would know about ChildLine and they would understand and a lot

of them call ChildLine to know that there is somebody on the end of the

line there. One of the things I would like to say. Firstly,

violence, all violence is unacceptable whether that's child

to child, adult to adult, adult to child. That's the first thing that

I would say. The BBC, if I go back to your question, David. The BBC

has to be commended on one thing particularly and that is it has

dealt with one victim, a member of the House of Lords, with speed and

somehow they have come to an arrangement today where he will be

paid �185,000 plus his costs. Now I heard him speak very emotionally

about the anger and the hurt that had been caused to him by what had

happened to him through Facebook and Twitter and inference. I don't

know how anyone can possibly forget the anger and hurt that has been

caused to countless number of young people in all of this because where

that member of the House of Lords, if he is not guilty, who is? And

what is happening about checking what is happening with all of that?

Because that, I can't remember of the name of the gentleman, Stephen

something, the young man who made the allegations, clearly he had

made a mistake and there were all sorts of problems around that, but

somebody did that to him and that needs to be tracked down and we

can't forget that. The other thing I would say, as a mother, I taught

my children to show respect for their elders, good manners and be

graceful to people who are older than them and better than them, but

what they needed to learn and what I tried to teach them is that trust

is something that is earned and that's a very different thing.

Nigel Farage? I think David's question is the right question in a

sense because we started off talk being the appalling sex abuse of

young children, but the BBC has become the story and it dominated

things. The BBC, how we run the BBC, how it is managed, it is very, very

important. But the nub of your question look, the BBC are by no

means a monopoly. In trusted institution where abuse has taken,

we have seen this happen in churches and it has been happening

all over the place, but the question is, there are lots of bad

things that happen in the world, but how do we deal with them?

During the Labour years we moved into a situation where the

Government said we are going to do everything we can to protect people

and this includes young children and so we move into a system where

people get accused of things and even if they are completely

innocent, there has has become a remember versal of the burden of

proof. Now, we have seen what happened to Lord McAlpine. He had

these allegations made against hem and he will get compensated, but

how many other people out there lose their jobs? How many other

people out there are forbidden from working with children again on the

basis that accusations get made, but are not backed up by firm

evidence. We must be very, very careful as a society that we do not

do away with the principle that everybody is innocent until they

are proven guilty and that to me is even more important.

APPLAUSE I will take one more point, you

sir? As a consultant paediatrician, I spend a lot of my time

unfortunately having to deal with the assessments. You mentioned

sexual abuse, the other categories are emotional abuse and physical

abuse and neglect is the biggest thing that causes the problem for

the children here the reason we are getting neglect is the children in

this country are getting poorer. We need to start start thinking about

supporting the families and the children and the Government has to

change the policies to allow that to stop happening.

APPLAUSE I am going on to another question

because time passes. John Morris? Should we be boycotting tax dodging

Well, on Monday, we heard the Public Accounts Committee of the

House of Lords hearing from Amazon, Starbucks and Google saying they

barely paid any tax and being asked by the chairman or being told by

the chairman, "We are not accusing you of being illegal, we are

accusing you of being immoral." Should we therefore stop using what

we think are companies that are behaving immorally. Harriet Harman

do you go to Starbucks? I decide that had I will not go to Starbucks

because I am so angry about what they are doing about not paying

their tax. I was passing a shop the other day in South London called

Star Bikes and it is a bike shop and they had a big sign staying

Star Bikes and underneath it said, "We pay our taxes." You have got

the coffee shop, the independent coffee shop on the corner, trying

to make a go of things and they are going under cut by a big global

company that is not paying their taxes. You have got John Lewis

saying that if Amazon continues to not pay their taxes, John Lewis

will end up going out of business. What people feel so angry about is

this idea and I can't remember what American person said that taxes are

for the little people. It is really important that big companies pay

their taxes as well as small buns, but -- small ones, but as well as

people doing selective boycotts, we have got to have more transparency.

We have got to change the company law to make sure that companies

cannot tell shareholders, "We are making loads of profits, please

let's have a high share price." But tell the tax person that actually

they are not making any profits. We can't have corporate, a cloak of

confidentiality and also companies that are doing business with the

Government like contracts for PFI or privatisation, they should be

open and paying their taxes. What do you make of Starbucks operating

14 years and never making a profit? They are making a profit, but are

concealing it in other countries where they pay less tax. People say

"the Government is spending more money. That makes things worse."

Here is an argument where if you spend a bit more money, you can

save money. HMRC, the Government inspector of taxes need to be

properly resourced as well as backed up by the law so they can

get after these people and make sure they pay their taxes.

Moray MacLennan? Well, it is an interesting one this because a

couple of those are my clients. OK. But if they were - Google has

been our client and Amazon as well. If they were to come to me for tax

advice I would say to them to do the right thing. Not for which

means paying a fair rate of tax and to take that attitude because not

and I wouldn't get into the vagaries of morality, I don't think

that they need to particularly or the law. I would just say that it

is good business. I think that it is good business for them to put

their customers before shareholders because that will be good for

shareholders and in many of these companies, because there are others

like Apple and Facebook that pay pay lower rates of taxes.

Wouldn't they have to put up their prices? They would pay more tax

overall. It would be a low percentage, but the risk is higher

that they will lose money in the longer term because of what the

gentleman said. Most of these companies know the power of social

media. They know that reputations can turn on a sixpence and things

can turn bad and I think that it would be good business for them

therefore, to do the right thing and pay tax and it would be good

for shareholders and good for the customers and that's what I would

advice them to do. I do believe that what makes people

angry, is the fact that these companies are big. All eyes in the

world are on them. So when they are avaiding tax, everyone is seeing

that -- evading tax. When a local person, someone who has a low

income fails to pay even �100 in council tax, they are taken to

court and charged, even regardless of whether they have money or

they've been ill, they are not able to afford it, but you put your eyes

so much on the person who is earning little money or nothing at

all and push them all the way when the big fish in the sea is

overlooked. So it is a Government problem that has got to be looked

into. APPLAUSE

All right. What can be done about big companies that behave not

illegally, as was made clear, but immorally and take the tax

somewhere else that by rights should be here in this country?

think firstly it's important to say the big fish are not being

overlooked. We increased the tack from organisations and individuals,

wealthy individuals sheltering finances in tax last year by a

third, we have put resources into the Inland Revenue to chase after

people who may not be paying taxes. I rather agree with Moray that the

power of individual consumers but social media is enormous. I worked

in the corporate reputation field before being an MP. Believe me, I

know the damage that can be done to a corporate reputation if you find

yourself in a position where the public feel you are getting it

wrong. If you look at the example of Nike, going through a difficult

patch because of their problems in Asia, working additions of their

workforce. What we must not do is tar all companies with the same

brush. The truth is, something like half corporation tax we receive in

this country comes from foreign- owned companies, so do not believe

all foreign-owned companies are trying to avoid tax in the UK and

managing their affairs so they do not pay it. There may be some that

manage their affairs in a way people disapprove of, but we

mustn't tar them with the same brush. But you need the revenue.

Would you encourage people to switch from star bucks to Costa

because you get the revenue? I have no doubt people will make their

minds up without the help of a politician. They'll look up to you.

I don't go to Starbucks. Why not? It's a cop out. What about Amazon?

I've shopped at Amazon and also John Lee wis.

The man there? -- Leigh Lewis. a Starbucks franchise holder which

means it's my business, I pay my royalties, I pay my taxes, I employ

19 people, people start avoiding, what am I going to do, I'm going to

go out of business. The fact is that people don't understand

franchising and the vast majority of Starbucks stores in the UK are

franchised. You pay your taxes? pay royalties to Starbucks, what

they do beyond it, that is the question. We pay our taxes locally,

we pay our people and everything else, and there's not a great deal

left at the end of it. OK. Thank you very much.

APPLAUSE Some members on the panel haven't

spoken. Nigel Farage? The answer of course is that people won't boycott

Starbucks and in the run-up to Christmas they'll be going on

Amazon and buying their books, but I'm astonished to hear Harriet

talking and to hear Chris talking. They've forgotten something. The

reason this is happening is because we are part of a European single

market and that's how it works! APPLAUSE

That's how it works. The European agreement - don't shake your head -

you are the enthusiast and you don't know how it works. The

European single market with other countries including Switzerland set

up a tax agreement years ago that said effectively, we are now all

Nkunda triand if you are a big corporation, you can choose the

European jurisdiction in which you choose to pay your tax, surprise

surprise people are mostly opting for Ireland, Luxembourg or

Switzerland because they are the cheapest jurisdictions. That is why

it's happening district council simple.

APPLAUSE In Switzerland, you could always

set up in Switzerland outside the EU? But it's part of the economic

area and this tax deal. If you left the EU, as you would like people to

vote to do, companies could still operate from Switzerland and not

pay tax? Well, that would depend if the British Government wanted to do

a resip Rickal deal with Switzerland or not. We'd have two

choices. If we ran our own tax policy properly, we could have our

own tax rates or we could do what Dublin have done, try to undercut

the others, have a cheaper tax rate and get business to Britain that

way. I think as of next year or maybe

the year after, we'll have the corporation tax going down to 22%,

that will be the cheapest in the G7 and fifth in the G20. Not sure

where we are going with that. Luxembourg and Ireland are cheaper.

But we will be the cheap nest the G7 when we get to that point. I

would like to go back to the question that John raised.

Boycotting companies does work as long as we know we are basing it on

fact. In Totnes in the West Country, there was a planning application

deemed as being aggressive and lots, thousands of people, wrote to their

local council and said, we don't want this particular coffee outlet

in town because there were 49 independent coffee retailers in the

town already. They got their planning permission but the

publicity around that was so poor that they've now withdrawn from

going into that town. So people power does work. When you've got

companies like Starbucks who poor loves, you know, they are so poor

and running this charity so well, they are actually going to open up

another 200 drive- thrus and will have more shops in the next few

years, I don't believe that's the case. They are buying their coffee

very expensively from themselves in Switzerland. What we should be

doing to these companies is saying, somehow we have to get a meckism to

they pay some tax on UK sales -- mechanism. A sales tax on coffee

then. Let us go on. We've got five minutes or so before we have to end

this programme. A question from Abhai Rajguru, please?

Who is wrong? Hamas or Israel? Who is wrong - Hamas or Israel?

Nigel Farage? There's fault on both sides. I've always tried to defend

Israel and their right to have their nation and I sympathise with

them because they're surrounded by countries, in some cases, that want

to obliterate them from the face of the earth. If they respond to

whatever provocation they get by assassinating a leader figure on

the other side, they can't be surprised if rockets appear.

differ from the Foreign Secretary? I do on this. That they have

principal responsibility? I do on this, and there's always fault on

both sides in a fault like this. I did find it deeply ironic though on

the news tonight, we were hearing the peace envoy Tony Blair saying

we should have peace in the Middle East and I couldn't work that out

for the life of me how we get that. Is the Government right or wrong to

say Hamas bears principal responsibility for this crisis?

There's terrible suffering in Gaza, no doubt about that, but they were

wrong to be sending rockets into southern Israel which were actually

sent in before the assassination. But we totally condemn that and and

the retaliation by Israel is not going to bring peace anywhere

nearer, it's not going to make the Israelis feel any safer which they

are entitled to feel safe within their borders and it's not going to

bring the rocket attacks are not going to bring peace or ease the

suffering. We need a renewed itch tus behind one of the biggest

international diplomatic failures. We need to broker a peace deal

between Israel and Palestine -- impetus. We must have a two-state

solution. If people give up hope, they'll resort more to violence.

The new administration, the new Obama administration and the new

Secretary of State, when they come in America, must make this a

priority. But why do you think that William Hague sided so strongly

with Israel against Hamas and was that condusive to a ceasefire and a

settlement, in your view? Well, Chris will interpret what William

Hague said. You are the Leader of the Opposition, you heard what he

said? But we strongly condemn what Hamas did. Sending rockets into

civilian places in southern Israel is totally wrong. But we think that

the Israelis too should not just be restrained but they should end the

retaliation and we should instead have a diplomatic effort. Chris

Grayling, perhaps you would... APPLAUSE

Perhaps you could throw light on what the Foreign Secretary said?

Harriet and I would both agree on this. What seems to have started

what took place was a series of rocket attacks, very large number

of rockets sent into civilian areas in southern Israel. That's not

going to help create a lasting peace in the Middle East, so

clearly we see Hamas as bearing a substantial part of the

responsibility for what's happened. What has to happen now is, we need

to get both sides to stand down, we need to return to negotiation. At

the end of the day, it's in everyone's interests in Israel,

Gaza, other parts of the Middle East that, we secure a lasting

solution. We'll never get a lasting solution if there's violence taking

place in the area. We have got to get both sides to stand down and

have to get round the table again. That is what Harriet Harman said.

What William Hague said was that Hamas has principal responsibility

for the current crisis. I'm asking you, as a member of the Tory

Government, why he said that and what it's intended to achieve in

this context, to point the finger so very clearly? Because we have to

start by a recognising that the firing of rockets into civilian

areas seems to have started this from Gaza, something that none of

us could do about it other than condemn. What we have to do, and

there'll be efforts to try to get both sides to stand down, round the

table and to restore a peaceful solution, that's all we can seek to

do. You in the fourth row? Do you not think Israel are making their

intentions clear by calling up 30- ,000 odd reservists? Yes, I think

this has the potential to escalate and escalate and escalate and I

think clearly our place is to urge restraint. We have to recognise

that our Middle East peace envoy ought to be there and not making

phone calls for John Prescott. I say that. I don't mean that in a

political party pant way, he has a role to play and shob -- I don't

mean that in a flippant way, we he has a role to way. You can wage war

but you end up having to talk peace and you have to keep negotiating.

We need people there who can talk and bring the sides together if

they possibly can and to de- escalate what's happening.? Moray

MacLennan? In this particular incidence you could say that Hamas

bears more of the blame but the problem with this is that it's a

chain reaction and to two back to the original limp, you go back 60

years and it's a fruitless exercise I think, just to echo what some

other people have said, this is the only way potentially, because it's

looking worrying, especially looking at the news tonne ierbgts

it could get out of control in the Middle East which is more unstable

than ever, is to use Obama, his skills, charisma and power to

perhaps get people sitting down and de-escalate the -- is the only hope.

You, Sir, just briefly? Don't you think the continuation of building

illegal settlements on Palestinian land is something to do with it?

They ignored what Obama was saying, they are antagonising them all the

time? Briefly, Moray? I think so, but trying to depick who did what

to whom when is a fruitless exercise and won't actually get to

the only desirable outcome right now which has to happen quickly I

think given the news as we heard about the mobilisation of troops

which is to just stop it and get people around the table. It's look

bing like than likely tonight. Thank you very much. Next week we

are in Westminster Hall as part of Parliament Week and we'll have Iain

Duncan Smith for the Conservatives, Yvette Cooper for Labour, Charles

Kennedy for the Liberal Democrats, and the star of Dragons' Den, Debra

Meighan. The week after that, we'll be in Swansea. If you can come to

the grand setting of Westminster Hall or to Swansea the following

week and put questions to our panel, go to the website in the usual way

or call the number on the screen. My thanks to our panel here, to all