22/11/2012 Question Time

Good evening. Tonight we are inside the Palace of Westminster where

Parliament sits. We are here in Westminster Hall where over 350

years ago, Charles I was try and for 900 years this place has been

at the very heart of British history and tonight, of Question

Welcome to our audience here who're shivering rather. There's no

central heating in this place and 90 years ago there would have been

braziers all around. Tonight it's cold. Welcome to the panel. Our

panel, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Yate, the Shadow Home

Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the former leader of the Liberal

Democrats, Charles Kennedy, columnist on the Independent, Owen

Jones and the businesswoman and star of Dragons' Den, Deborah

OK, we'll warm up with a question from Roberto Campana, please?

Should Parliament now consider amending sex discrimination

legislation to cover the hutch of England? After the refusal to allow

women to become bishop, should sex discrimination legislation which

didn't cover the Church of England be amended? Deborah Meaden?

staggered by what happened this week. I see both sides of most

arguments and this argument I just absolutely do not get that at such

a tiny portion of the church could say they don't want women to be

bishops and for that to mean that the stay kus quo remains. I

absolutely do not get it -- day kus quo. However, I'm also not sure

that it's Parliament's place to intervene -- status quo. This is

about a faith. This goes to the heart of many people, obviously,

and I feel like it should be left with those people to sort it out.

Actually, for me, the most important thing is, I think they

know they made a mistake. How they deal with it is either going to

mean that the faith has a church has a viable future or it's going

to actually eat itself alive. And that would be an awful thing to

happen. But I still don't believe it's Parliament's place to sort it.

Charles Kennedy? Well, I think that first of all I don't agree with the

decision that they arrived at and it's a rather curious electoral

college that they have got that they'll have to look at. After

years in this place as a Scottish Roman Catholic, I've always felt

that I should not have too much to say and not cast votes on how the

Church of England goes about... don't exactly have women priests do

you? No, and I'm not in agreement about that in my own church as a

matter-of-fact. There was a sensible set of exchanges in the

Commons chamber a few yards from here this morning on this issue and

I think what we'll see, I mean the new Archbishop coming in has

probably got as rough an entry in front of them as the new Director-

General of the BBC actually, you could vie for which is the worst

stat scenario to a new big position in society. But he clearly wants to

tackle it. It can't corrode his forthcoming period as Archbishop,

the way it's dogged Dr Rowan Williams' period and the figures

speak for themselves. One third of those administering the Anglican

ministry within England are female. To say that there's, as it was

rather well put by an MP this morning, there's a stained glass

ceiling on the legitimate ambitions and progress of those women is

ludicrous. But the point is that the church specifically got

exemption from the sex discrimination act didn't it?

not sure but I think... Frank Field wants that withdrawn but I think

they did. Probably. By Parliament, they are given exemption. By

constitutional right, they sit in the House of Lords and Leggett.

So they are different from just any old church aren't they, they are an

established church? If you look at it historically and there was

discussions about this today, there isn't a great deal to be gained

from Parliament, particularly the House of Commons and the decision-

making processes of the Church of England getting into some big head-

to-head and a stand-off. I mean do remember, the bishops, with very

few exceptions, were arguing strongly in favour of this change,

it was just an aspect of the layty that were opposed and were able to

block it by a tiny majority. person second row from the back?

Irbgs I agree with Deborah, I don't think it's Parliament's place to

intervene, I think it's a decision for the church. I think Parliament

should consider whether the bishops should remain in the House of Lords

given this kind of opinion of the church. Owen Jones? I think the

problem when we are saying it's none of our business is this - we

have an established church. In terms of the problems we've got at

the moment is, the church is unwilling to enter the 20th century,

let alone the 21st. That doesn't mean as a society we can't enter

the 21st century and follow the lead of many other advanced Western

countries and disestablish the church. That would mean

independence for the state and the church where neither can stick

their noses in each other's business. Now, the church at the

moment could argue legitimately, you know what right do I have to

get into their affairs like 88% of the population, I don't regularly

attend a church. So I think for me, the point to make is, actually if

we disestablish the church, we protect the rights of people's

private religious beliefs which is very important, with take religion

out of the public life in that sense and defend it as a private

matter then I don't think we'll have these sorts of problems. But

as long as they remain established and the bishop's bench in the House

of Lords remains preserved for men, it's all of our business.

APPLAUSE You, Sir? The basis of Parliament is that the people who

make the laws have to live under the laws. Therefore I think we

should amend the legislation so that it covers the Church of

England and they have to live under the law, like the rest of us.

Duncan Smith, do you agree with that? One thing I would say is in

line with my predecessor Norman Tebbit who also argued for

disestablishment of the church. It's a rare agreement. I'm a

Catholic like Charles. The Church of England is an established church

and I accept that therefore that brings greater responsibility in a

sense with regards to what it does inside Parliament but I'm rather

with Debra on this point. I don't want Parliament to have to go and

lay it heavy hand achos the -- across the church and dictate to

the church what it should do. I think the reality for us is that

the Church of England is going to get women bishops. The we is, how

do they get there in the short- term? The vote by the way...

many years has it been going on? The vote was complex. What

fascinated me was that it broke. Some women bishops ended up voting

against the motion alongside those who didn't want women bishops

because they said those who didn't want women bishops had been granted

too much licence so they didn't like it and so in other words,

these things are never quite as simple as you think. I'm lost.

we walked in as Parliament and hammered and Leggetted, we could do

more damage. What about that man's point, you can't have bishops

Leggetting in the House of Lords when the church has this kind of

discrimination going on and they are there by right, but you say you

don't want to disestablish the church? Put pressure on them to

change their position. In the House of Lords, they need to have that

greater equality. The Prime Minister said... What is the sharp

prod? You need to get this done or it may be that we'd enter into your

realm and start dog something, but we don't want to do it. They need

to get their act together. It was such a small degree that would have

been changed they would have got it through so there is a level of

competence. One vote is enough as you know. Yes. Yvette Cooper?

position would be more credible and the Prime Minister's position would

be more credible if there were more women in the Cabinet, we have seen

the number of women fall over the last three years.

APPLAUSE I also think this was a dreadful decision by the Church of

England. The vast majority of, not just the bishops, the clergy, but

also members of the Church of England across the country, the

diocese, supported women bishops, I think they were outmanoeuvred by a

vocal minority. Yet we have the Queen as the Head of The church, we

have some fantastic women priests, including the woman chaplain in the

House of Commons who is excellent and I think it's just shocking that

the church is effectively saying to those women it's OK to do the

flowers, to sit on the pews, to do sermons occasionally, but you can't

be a bishop, shocking, we have to have this changed within the next

five years and not let it lie. APPLAUSE

You, Sir, then you, then we'll move on? Well, doesn't this show that we

shouldn't listen to the Church of England on anything. It's a

flagrant kind of arm of the state, it's an all pervasive arm of the

state and shouldn't be an arm of the state any more if it acts in

this way. The point there is that most don't attend religious

services, we are a diverse nation, services, we are a diverse nation,

we have Muslims, Muslims, Buddhists, it's act Ronistic when other

countries have separated church and state. Get on with each other's

business without intervening in each other's affairs. The decision

seems strange. All religions are full of anomalies and if we start

Leggetting about this specific act, are we also going to Leggett that

the Roman Catholic Church should have female priests or even go the

length of Germany and start questioning whether Jewish parents

are allowed to give their infant children unnecessary surgical

operations at birth. In other words once you start do you have to

examine... This is my point about the heavy hand of Parliament.

Aagree for those who say there should be women bishops, but when

Parliament moves into this arena, we are more likely to do more

damage than good that,'s my concern, stamping on everybody's pwheefs

when we are not the ones to lecture anybody about what to do, frankly -

- beliefs. The woman there? I can't help but

feel that the church is losing credibility when it claims it hand

for quality but doesn't provietd equality opportunities for men and

women who twoish follow a career in the church -- provide equality

opportunities for men and women who wish to follow a career in the

church. I believe in freedom of religion and we shouldn't tell

people how to worship. The problem for the Church of England is it's

our national church, it does the Coronations, state funerals, and

it's part of our national life because we have 26 bishops sitting

in the House of Lords. Parliament will be expected to pass any change

to the rules of this Church of England. I don't think you can

expect Parliament to pass unfair rules, discriminatory rules, that's

why I hope the church will sort this out. If it doesn't, Parliament

will have to work with the church in order to make sure that the

national church can be fair to all. You can join this debate on Twitter.

We have an anonymous blogger alled -- called bishop. A question from

Paul Haydon, please? Should Britain forge a new looser relationship

with Brussels? Should Britain forge a new looser relationship with

Brussels? I ask you to speak with brevity because a lot of people

have things to say. Iain Duncan Smith? What's happening in Europe

at the moment is set for change. The Prime Minister spoke about this

not so long ago. The reality is that the problems in the euro area

is forcing those members of the euro area to decide to go deeper in

in terms of fiscal union. They are now laying plans so that the

taxation et cetera can be run and overseen centrally. They are

talking about a banking union, all the banks and the various member

states are part of the euro and they'll get closer tied together.

It's a reality for those who're outside the euro, like Britain, and

by the way, I thank God that we are outside the euro, the disaster for

us had we been inside the euro, it's a marvel that we are not in

the euro, thank God... APPLAUSE

So we are seeing, I think, and William Hague's said this, a kind

of re-alignment within Europe. The question isn't should Britain have

a looser arrangement, it's that Britain outside by its very nature

over the next few years will find that relationship will change and

we need to negotiate, as the Prime Minister said, to make sure that we

gain the advantages out of being in part of a trading bloc and

cooperating where we need to, but not being sucked into deeper union

where we don't want to be governed by Brussels or by anybody else.

Where do you stand on the key issue of a referendum, when would you

want that to be held? My view about that is that the Prime Minister

said the other day legitimately, it will be a referendum. The question

is, what will you be asking about and that's the point. No good

saying we want a referendum, the point is, it should be about what

that relationship is about, in other words when we are clear about

where this is going to end, we need to ask the public, is that what you

want, that relationship, the looser relationship, is that where we

should be or would you like to have something different. Before the

next election? I think timing is not the issue. It's a germane

issue? It's secondary. The key thing is what is the question.

Everyone wants a referendum and I say what over, it's not being in or

out, it's about the relationship. We'll have a relationship with

Europe regardless because we trade and cooperate with them. The ideas

in a blissful place that's About a referendum about Europe we

need a debate not just about the disadvantages and problems but the

advantages of being part of the enormous market that is Europe.

APPLAUSE Charles Kennedy? Well, obviously define a looser

relationship. Those that say a looser relationship is lets leave

the formal structures of the European Union. To a certain extent

I would subscribe to this word. A looser relationship means you have

more democracy in Europe, more transparency, more decentralisation

away from Brussels across the nation's and indeed the regions of

Europe. So we can all pay lip service to looser. But Ian and

myself are of a vintage in this place. We go all the way back to

the battles of Maastricht 20 years ago. As he will recall, I was the

Lib Dem European spokesman at the time. I voted in favour of a

referendum then on the Maastricht Treaty. We need to lance the boil,

and so did Ian. And you want a referendum now? Why not now before

the election? Because there isn't a practical proposition. If there was

a new treaty for example, that represents a proposition. That

doesn't appear to be. What about the question, would you like to be

in or out? Whether it was on Maastricht or the single currency,

which Tony Blair baulked at, or as yet some unforeseen further

development, which will take place. We all know in our hearts the

argument will come down to do you want us in or out? That's a good,

honest argument we need to have. This issue, and I'm strongly in

favour of Britain taking a leading role at the top table in Europe,

this issue has bedevilled successive Prime Ministers and

Governments and it has just got be resolved. It seem as very short-

term point of view to say we need a looser relationship with Europe.

Over the next 20 or so years Britain is going to struggle to

find itself in an internationally more competitive economy, so we

need to forge stronger relationships with Europe so we can

remain a significant nation. And you Sir? I do not understand

why politicians constantly pussyfoot about this. The nation

wants a referendum. This is critical, it is costing us a lot of

money. We want somebody to lead us and for the issues to be properly

debated. It makes me that I politicians in Britain are the same

as politicians in Europe. It's a these cosy club and everybody can

get a nice bit of expense and salary. Listen to the people and do

something about it. It's not good enough. APPLAUSE Deborah Meaden, do

you, is that a picture you recognise of political life? Well,

I have to say that in terms of referendum, if we are going to ask

the question, there needs to be a lot more debate. When go about

everyday life, most people don't like Europe, because of the things

that they encounter. Quite small issues they encounter every day -

health and safety this, we've got to do this and that, and that's

crazy. And actually the bigger picture, which is that over 50% of

our exports go within the EU, that they create hundreds of thousands

of jobs for us. And when we say it's expensive, that the cost of

running the EU, the people in Brussels is about 6%. That is not

crazy. 6% of their budget, it is not crazy. If we are going to have

it, I think we are going to have a debate, but if we are going to have

a referendum there needs to be a lot more debate and information so

that people are making their decisions on the actual facts and

what's right and best for this country, and not the frustrations

that I feel, and everybody feels on a day-to-day basis, oh silly health

and safety rules, that is not the basis on which to make this

decision. APPLAUSE Did you vote for this proposal for a cut in the

budget this time, real cut? Would you like to see a referendum? You

are obviously quite anti-European if you want that. I think it is

pro-European to argue for reforms on things like the European budget,

because at a time of austerity for a lot of people right across Europe,

and certainly in Britain as well, if other budgets are being cut I

think that Europe should take its fair share of the cuts, in

materials of the European budget. Otherwise you allow Europe to

become discredited and to become pointless and out of touch with the

countries that contribute to it. just saw a flock of European pigs

fly past the window. APPLAUSE The fact of the matter is, Labour have

done this consistently, I remember John Smith held the Labour Party

together over Maastricht because of the Social Chapter not because of

the pro-Europeanism. He had more splits in the Labour Party on

Europe than were evident. The Labour Party walked through

division lobbys with the right-wing of the Conservative Party...

Charles, you walked through with the right wick of of the

Conservative Party every single week. To increase tuition fees and

VAT hike. You do it every time. cannot accuse me on tuition fees. I

was a party leader. I was against them. I spoke against them under

the coalition and I voted against them, so get your facts right.

coalition Government is deeply damaging. It is opportunism on

Europe .. Which will come back to bite them and I make that

prediction. Isn't the reality that Labour in Government saw budget

rises of over 50%? �2 billion cut off our own rebate and gave it away

for nothing, and yet suddenly in opposition you seem incredibly keen

on cutting the budget. I don't see where this came from. You promised

a referendum, you didn't give the public a referendum. All of sudden

you want a referendum, you want to cut the budget, you are jolly Euro-

sceptic pool.. I don't think the public believe a word of it. Aren't

those three things you rather like in your opposition heart? The Prime

Minister is out trying to get that deal. It's the Conservatives that

wanted a referendum. Why didn't you vote for it? If the Government

supports a reduction in the EU budget y did they not support

something the Labour Party put forward not just recently but in

July. We've argued for it consistently. I think it's the

right thing to do. Where I disagree with Ian and he is undermining the

things we need from Europe, is the fight against crime. He wants us to

pull out of the European arrest warrant, which is what helped us to

bring terroristings back to this country to stand trial in Britain.

I think a looser relationship which makes it harder to fight crime is

deeply damaging for Britain. You have to argue for the right, the

sensible reforms, but stay in Europe rather than walk away.

think the problem is as a country we've been denied a proper debate

about this. The reason is this. Any criticism of the EI is seen to

automatically place you on the frothing at the mouth, swivel-eyed

xenophobic right, and that is wrong. I think arguments about democracy

have been surrounded to the right. For example the Council of

Ministers which wields huge power, only directly accountable to each

nation who sends Ministers to the Council of Ministers. Even when you

get to the treaties themselves, often they've enshrined free market

dog match. It may well be the British people embrace that - I

don't think they do. But it should be up to the British people. One

example. The majority of the British public want to

renationalise the railways. In fact even most Conservative voters want

the railways brought back into public ownership. The EU directive

91-440 which enforces competition on the railways, could prevent that

from it's place. So let's have a proper debate about. It is not

about if you criticise it you want to make it democratic, you don't

want to enshrine liberal economics, especially in the eurozone, where

you are seeing the catastrophe of austerity. A modern European nation

like Greece being dismantled with the support of the people in the EU.

The European Central Bank enforcing those policies. It is not

accountable. It doesn't even publish its minutes. So let's have

an argument about making it democratic and having a Europe that

runs in the interest of working people, not the people at the top.

Deborah Meaden? Very quickly let's make sure that debate is about

what's right for this country in the EU and not who did what, in

terms of if political parties. don't trust the political partys?

To be honest, listening to a debate about you said this, you said that,

many years ago. I see heads nodding and I'm not surprise. That's the

kind of thing that sends glazed looks on to the voters. This is not

the point. Plaus plau If I ran my business -- APPLAUSE $$TRANSMIT. If

I ran my business, constantly trying to find out who did what in

the first place, instead of saying, it doesn't matter. What matters now

is what's the right decision for this country, whether or not we go

into the EU. APPLAUSE OK. Sorry, we are in the EU. You know what I

meant. A slight correction there. Alex Klinger please.

Do you think Israel was justified combing Gaza after months of rocket

attacks on Israeli civilians? College? Well, tinge line the

British Government have taken -- Charles Kennedy? Well, I think the

line the British Government has taken is that they have a right to

defend themselves. Pointing out that if our society, our country,

was suffering an external threat of this type, well, you can imagine

the discussion on a programme like this. There would be an

overwhelming public clamour to know why the Government of the day

wasn't doing something about that. Having said, that it is quite clear

that this is no means to a solution at all. And that the two sides

therefore have got to under some kind of international auspices sit

down and now move beyond the ceasefire, thank goodness that

appears to be in position, appears to be holding, and try and make

progress. The Palestinians are not justified in doing what they've

been doing, but equally Israel's response is a council of despair.

It won't resolve Israel's legitimate security programmes, but

what the Palestinians and the extremists Hamas have been doing

won't meet the legitimate demands of the Palestinians either. We have

to get back to sane, rational talks based on 1967 boundaries and a two-

state solution. That is going to be a very difficult thing to make

progress on given what's happened, and nearly 150 mainly innocent

civilians dead as a result of this dreadful episode that we all

deplore. Owen Jones. I am disappointed by that response,

Charles, in all honesty. APPLAUSE Let's be clear what happened.

Firstly the whole idea that Gaza, that Hamas broke the ceasefire, is

not true. In fact it was broken after in October Israel killed 15

Palestinian fighters, they shot dead a mentally disabled

Palestinian, killed a 13-year-old in an intrusion. When there was an

attempt to get a ceasefire, negotiations were ongoing, that is

when they assassinated Ahmed Jabari, ending the ceasefire talks. It is

often said, and Barack Obama made this point, what country on earth

would tolerate rockets being fired at them? I ask you this. What

people on earth would tolerate a siege which stops basic supplies

getting in... APPLAUSE An occupation. A 45--year-old brutal

occupation, illegal settlements all over the West Bank, which are in

total violation of international law, and what we've seen in the

course of this onslaught are the deaths of 158 Palestinians. At

least 30 children. I don't want to just throw statistics around, but

one example of one of those children. Omar, 11 months old, a

little boy, the son of a BBC journalist. He was killed in a so-

called targeted strike. We all want a secure and lasting peace. When we

have Israeli Ministers like the interior Minister calling for Gaza

to be sent back to the Middle Ages. Another Minister calling for a

Holocaust to be inflicted on Gaza. When we have the son of Ariel

Sharon who wrote in the Jerusalem Post talking about how Nagasaki and

hor or ma were possible solutions to be inflicted. When we have those

people we went get a secure peace. But for Arabs and Jews alike to end

the occupation, the siege of Gaza, dismantle the settlements and have

a just settlement for the people and have a region for Arabs and

Jews as a whole. You, Sir? I think part of the

problem is that people like Owen should actually keep their noses

out of something that they have no intimate knowledge of and that they

jump on the bandwagon of this anti- American, ultra--left Israel

bashing that is fashionable at the moment. You know, it's all very

well for people on the panel and at home to sit in their suburban arm

chairs with no actual knowledge, intimate knowledge of the conflict.

Sorry, can I just come back to that. I'm disappointed you didn't

engaidge with a single argument I put across -- engage. Let him

finish his point. Terms are banded around as if they are factually

correct. What did I get wrong? word pre-1967 territory is banded

around as a given fact whereas pre- 1967, Jordan controlled the West

Bank and Gaza, not the Palestinians. What is your view on the question

of whether Israel yuz justified? was justified. I'm not a person who

whole heartedly agreed with the policies of every Israeli

Government but I think there is a lack of understanding by a lot of

people in Britain and in the West generally when people have no

knowledge of the history and the complexity of the conflict. You,

Sir, up there? I think that gentleman is completely ignorant.

He hasn't asked a single question Owen put to him.

APPLAUSE Why is it that President

Ahmadinejad of Iran, when he said something about blowing Israel into

the Middle Ages that it received such wide scrutiny and America are

threatening to possibly even go into Iran in the future, but when

the Israeli minister seds it, it falls on deaf ears -- says it.

Duncan Smith? Let's take a pace back for a second. This is a

tragedy whichever way you cut it on other side. People killing each

other, seeing civilians and children being killed. That's a

complete and utter tragedy and there's never any excuse for that.

The reality is, how to get out of it. When you say no excuse, do you

mean the bombing was unjustified? The question is, did Israel get

rocketed first, and in which case did they retailiate? My thought is

that the West, America, us, Europe, we took a pace back. For the last

couple of years, we've done nothing about the Middle East, let's be

honest. We got fixateed on the Arab Spring and we completely forgot

that at the heart of this still lies a very deep problem between

Palestine and Israel. Hamas in the Gaza Strip refused to acknowledge

Israel's right to exist. Israel refused to deal with them in Gaza

until they do that and also until they take responsibility for the

rockets et cetera. So each is taken deeper in entrenched positions. My

point here is one thing that may well come out of this which is

really important. Egypt we worried about has taken a front and centre

place which is a very, very good thing. Leadership from the

President of Egypt, he's got this thing rolling again, we've got

actually intriguingly Israel and Hamas having to recognise each

other by both on the one hand agreeing to take responsibility for

the rocket attacks and on the other side agreing to open the borders.

That may be the beginning of a start of a change and we should

actually pledge ourselves in the West with America and the American

President to get behind this and now real ie find a solution to the

two state problem and get both sides talking to each other,

agreeing to acknowledge that each has the right to exist and saying,

now is the time to settle this, otherwise there could end up being

further bloodshed. You, Sir? Is it up to Israel and

Palestine to determine whether Palestine has statehood? In what

sense? Doesn't it go through the UN? Yvette Cooper? I think this is

a very important point because I agree with a lot of the points that

Iain's made about the tragedy that has been unfolding and the

importance now of having a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is not a

peace process and we've got to have a peace process. There is no

military solution that is going to work here, given the history of

what has happened in Israel and Palestine, but also the importance

of us getting towards the two-state solution and having a meaningful

set of negotiations to do that. I think that the debates that have

been put forward for the UN are really important. This is an

opportunity for the UN to give greater recognition to the

Palestinian Authority. I hope the UN will do that and the British

Government will change its position and support the recognition of the

Palestinian Authority because I think that is an opportunity to

support a political and diplomatic process to reach peace, rather than

the violence, the rocket ataxes and bombing that we have seen. Do you

think the Foreign Secretary was wrong to lay the blame on Hamas for

this? I think the danger - look, the immediate trigger of what

happened obviously was about the rocket attacks on Israel and of

course Israelis should be able to live in security and not have to

endure the fear from rocket attacks. Than, I think the wider cause, we

have to accept the wider cause of what's been happening in the last

few weeks which has been the failure to have a proper peace

process, the failure to have a long-term sustained negotiation

towards a two-state solution, the failure to see progress for the

inaction against the illegal setmentments that have been taking

place, as well as the wider issues and long-term commitment --

settlements. We haven't taken that seriously enough, it's our

opportunity to do this now. The woman in the fourth row? Give

than there are now over half a million Israelis living within the

West Bank, I wonder whether anybody feels the two-state solution is

viable? Is it time to have a te bait about a different type of

solution? -- debate. Deborah Meaden? I want to go back to

something the gentleman said over there. The truth of the matter is,

I don't live there and I don't know. I can form opinions, reading

through the news who started this, who caused all that, whose fault it

was, you know, trust me, we'll never understand that, we are in a

cycle that has to be broken and it's not going to be a military

answer to this. But I think what the ceasefire's done is, it's

hopefully created space so that you don't have to have these debates in

this state of high tension, so that it says everybody stop for a minute.

Actually, I suspect we were pretty guilty of causing all of this at

some point, you know, so it's not about who caused all of this. Now,

if people can get their mind wrapped around that, because I can

promise you, that for every reason, that's why we bombed yeah but we

did that because you did it, this can go on for the last 100 years

and until we get our mind wrapped around the fact that it cannot be a

military solution, there has to be an tend to the block aids, the

whole rhetoric. People need to be able to pass in and out of the

country, they need to be able to trade and until we get our minds

round that, there will be no solution. I have to say, what other

country on earth would be allowed to flout international law in the

way Israel's done for decades... Answer her question? Well, the key

point there... You heard what she said which was the number of people

who've now settled in the West Bank make the two-state solution

practically impossible? You could have a federal solution. That seems

far fetched but they said that about South Africa back in the day.

Otherwise you have to dismantle the settlements, enforce international

law, but what has to happen, because the point is Britain

supports, as other Western countries do, they've supported an

armed Israel to the teeth, they're not acting as honest brokers, they

have to use the pressure to force Israel to give in and give justice

to the Palestinian people. A couple more points to the

audience then we'll move on. The person in the back row? The only

reason we are having this conversation is because rockets

were fired. I mean I'm not saying I'm an expert but I've spent time

volunteering in UN schools in the West Bank and what I've seen there

is children growing up in environments where they don't get

taught politics. They draw pictures of soldiers when they draw their

homes and they see their brothers at night getting imprisoned. What

are these children growing up understanding? What do we have for

the future? Thank you. On that point, the clock's against us so

I'll move on to a question from Chloe Heaver, please? Why should

prisoners who've shown they cannot abide by the laws be given a say

into how society is run. In other words, should prisoners be given

the vote as is being proposed. Yvette Cooper are you favour in --

in favour? I thought it was reasonable for prisoners to forego

their vote because if you have committed a serious crime, you lose

your liberty, have restrictions on your right to a family life and

during that period, I think you should also forego your right to

have a say in who the law-makers of the land are because you have

broken the law in such a significant way. So I think it's

proportionate, I think it's the European court who said that they

think the ban on prisoner voting is indiscriminate, it's a blanket ban.

I don't think it's indiscriminate, it's discriminating because you

lose your right to vote in proportion to your sentence which

is decided in the courts and which is in proportion to your crime.

That's why I've always supported it. You've lost me there. You say that

you lose your right to vote in proportion to the length of the

sentence? -- sentence? Yes, in other words while you are in prison.

It's not proportionate to the length of sentence. Yes, it's not

indefinite, but when you are released, you get your right to

vote back because you've served your time. So the European Court of

Human Rights saying it's illegal for us to do this, you would flout

their injunction? I think that the - I mean I disagree with the

court's judgment. I think in fact by making this a decision, it's in

the spirit of the convention, the European convention which I think

is important. We did sign up to it and we have international

obligations. Having a proportionate ban is in compliance with the

European convention. I think what the Government is trying to do here

is to find a way through where we now have a debate in Parliament, we

try and set out detailed legislation because the court's

rightly criticised us for not having had detailed legislation

before the Parliament and discussed that in some detail. I hope we'll

be able to do that and take that back to the court and convince the

court that that is in compliance with the convention and in the

spirit of... Just to collar fierbgs you are Shadow Home Secretary for

Labour -- clarify, you are Shadow Home Secretary for Labour, are you

saying no vote for anyone while in prison, is that Labour's position?

The legislation sets out a series of options. I'm asking what your

view is? Our long-standing view has always been that prisoners

shouldn't have the right to vote whilst in prison and that continues

to be our view. We'll have to look at what the Government recommends,

what its legal advise is, we have asked the Government to show us

what its legal advice is, but that's our position and we'll work

with the Government on the Parliamentary process to try and

get this legislation right. woman with the red pullover on?

by the MPs in the British Parliament defying the rule set by

the European court to... The court saying they must give prison terse

vote? Are they not setting a bad example to society like about

breaking the rule of law, especially because of the

considering it's to do with prisoners? Setting a bad example by

not doing what the European court wants? Dominic Grieve and Chris

Grayling today talked about this. In reality we've always been a law-

awiding nation and stand by our law-abiding -- law abiding nation

and stand by the law-abiding things. What was announced out today is

that what they've asked us to do is, we should have placed legislation,

they say, in front of the House to decide what we will do about their

judgment. So today, he said that we will essential Le place legislation

in front of the -- essentially place legislation in front of the

House, no votes for prisoners under six months intered and prisoners

between six and four years. So we are saying to Parliament,

Parliament is sovereign and it will decide. The British people elected

Parliament to make decisions about their laws, not the Convention on

Human Rights, that is where it should stand. At some point,

Parliament will get that option, when they vote on it, that position,

the Government's position will be that Parliament's sovereign

decision stands and my personal view has been that I've never been

in favour of seeing prisoners goat the vote. I think if you commit

crimes you lose the right to decide If Parliament votes for the option

to say no-one in prison should have the vote you would stick with that?

It is not defying. What they want you to do is legislate on the basis

of what their decision was. Parliament however is sovereign and

Parliament at the end of the day makes final decisions about the law

of this land. That is the reality, so we will make a decision about

that. I also believe Parliament, a point we forget about, Parliament

is sovereign. Everybody out here elected us to make the decisions.

We should make the decision in Parliament and that decision should

stand. OK. Do you not think maybe there is an argument that if you

have been in prison, particularly for a longer time, that as part of

your rehabilitation shoe be encouraged to be involved in

society? APPLAUSE And if you are released within six months if

there's a general election or something like that, that you are

allowed to partake in the election. What do you think? I think a

proportion of people who end up in prison end up in prison or commit a

crime because society isn't working for them. If you take away their

right to vote, in terms of people on remand or there for less than

six months, they have no impact on society in the future. Charles

Kennedy, if it comes to the vote, people with six months only, people

four years, or absolutely no anyone in prison can't have a vote. How

would you vote? I will make my mind up finally when the committee

that's now going to look at this, it is a terrible mouthful, but it's

a prelegislative committee, in other words they have hearings,

everybody under the sun with contribute their thoughts, from

absolutely no votes for anybody to some partial exemptions from such a

ban et cetera. It makes sense, and we've just agreed to do that today

in the House of Commons. Let's see what comes back. I think myself...

You mean you are just going to listen to what people say? What a

terrible thing for an imagine to do, to listen to collective wisdom and

come to a decision. Herely make myself unpopular in front of

millions of people. I do not support a blanket ban on people in

prison not being allowed to vote, which is the basis of this European

ruling. I think that there can be a degree of sensible divergence from

that, which I think at the end of the day in years to come will

square this circle between the House of Commons and Strasbourg.

There's positive reasons are y those on shorter sentences

shouldn't be denied the right to vote as part of their

rehabilitation process. Deborah Meaden? I am clear on this, I do

think they should lose the right to vote. I don't think it stops them

from engaging in the political process. You can discuss it in

prison and hope that when you enter society again you can take part

that. There is a but the. That is half of the argument. The other

half says I think it is a very dangerous route to pick and choose

what we do and don't agree with under the Human Rights Convention.

Not only, we actually, whether we feel it or not, live in a pretty

protected environment, but what signal does that send out to some

of those countries out there who really need protection under that,

under human rights protection? We consider ourselves, we think the

world looks to us, not completely but we do consider o'er influential

in the world and I think we are. I think picking and choosing in terms

of human rights is wrong. That worries me. In those two arguments,

when I weigh those up, I think we should stick to it. I know you're

going to talk about the legality of it. He's not. The man there.

prisons are going to be given a vote, isn't there a danger that

politicians should start appealing this demographic. Is there not a

chance that policys could be catered towards some sort of vote?

Would you get the prisoners' vote? Owen Jones. I would be surprised if

MPs start rocking up to Pentonville and asking people how they are

going to vote. A really important point about the European Court of

Human Rights. It is separate from the EU. Lots of countries signed up

to it with pretty poor human rights records, such as Russia for example.

How can we put pressure on those countries to abide by the European

Court and improve their human rights record if we start picking

and choosing? It is not a blanket ban. People are worried about

murderers and rapists getting the right to vote. I'm not somebody who

lives in some sort of out of touch ivory tower. I've been a victim of

crime many times. I've been violently mugged and Burrelled.

to the point. The really important point is people on short-term

sentences. We are trying to rehabilitate them, integrate them

back into society, what better way of doing that than giving them the

right to vote and making them citizens again connected with

society. APPLAUSE I'm sorry to hurry you all along, but we've got

time for one more question. Debbie Wild. Under the benefit cap,

should large unemployed families priced out of London move to

cheaper areas, or should councils subsidise them? Deborah Meaden.

my goodness. I was hoping... can pass and let Iain Duncan Smith

answer it if you like and come back. Shall I do that and then I will

respond to it. Iain Duncan Smith? The cap is about putting the

benefit cap rather than the housing cap, a limit to the amount of money

that somebody on benefits can receive. The limit is �35,000 a

year gross, �26,000 net, which is essentially average earnings. That

is a cap that says they can't earn more than that. There are some

exemptions, people on Disability Living Allowance, war widows,

people on working tax credits. Those who are not work and not in

those compaempingss. There's already -- exemptions. I don't

think there is any need for people to be transferred outside. There is

housing inside London and the South East that Acomb dates them. The

reality is we are in touch -- Acomb dates them. The reality is that we

are in touch with the councils, and have money to make sure they are

tidied over if they have kids in school. This cap is about saying

look, when people work out and they get to average earnings, it is

Haditha we end up paying benefits to people at way higher because

they live in very expensive accommodation in difficulty parts

of London and the South East. So the cap is fairness to taxpayers as

well as being fairness to benefit payers. APPLAUSE Yvette Cooper, do

you agree with that? I think that there is an issue about making sure

you are not spending a huge amount of money on the large houses in the

highest-cost areas, where large families do need larger housing. I

think that it is right to have restrictions on the level of

benefits that are paid out and on the pay. Made by the. The but I

think the problem with the way the is doing this is that the full

consequence, not just of the measures that Ian is talking about,

but a series of other changes they are making, are pushing up

homelessness. We've seen a 50% increase in the number of families

with children, living in bed and breakfast accommodation. They can't

and sit and have a meal at a table. They are eating food on their laps,

with no privacy. It is really bad for the kids growing up. Completely

Government policy is it that Iain Duncan Smith has introduced that is

causing that? I think a mix of them. Housing benefit changes but also

the benefit cap. The combination of the way it is introduced.

doesn't start until April. combination of the mix of changes

the Government is introducing, it is crazy if we end one welfare

reforms that end up costing the taxpayer more. That's what shoe

change. We must keep moving here. This is a good debate. I think the

introduction of the benefits was a good thing in the first place, but

hate become absurd to think that someone who is not working and

getting benefits should earn more than someone who is. I think the

cap is reasonable, it is appropriate. APPLAUSE Owen Jones?

Firstly, the reason that this whole debate has become so toxic is a

cynical deem onisation of campaign of people on benefits by this

Government. APPLAUSE What they are do, and you can nod your head as

much as you want. I was shaking my head. People have just final anger.

The working poor, the working poor against the unemployed over

benefits. Not-disabled people against disabled people. �26,000 a

year is hardly impoverishing somebody. Average earnings Owen...

Housing benefit is not going into their pockets. Answer Iain Duncan

Smith's point. �6,000 a year. Housing benefit is not going into

the pockets of tenants. It is lining the pockets of wealthy

landlords charging extortionate rents because successive

Governments, new Labour included, got rid of council housing. It is

not just about disabled people and the cap. If there is anything I

want tow remember. Disabled people are compefrpted from the cap.

exempted from the cap. Don't go off on to some other agenda. Tenancy

question about unemployed families. -- Answer the question about

unemployed families. The housing benefit is lining the pockets of

landlords. Charles Kennedy? Well, I don't doubt Owen's sincerity on

this matter, but I hope he would accept I'm not somebody who can

readily be labelled as part of a terrible conspiracy to single owl

groups of society and blame them for all their ills. I think Yvette

has eLeeds United to this, the housing benefit system has

burgeoned to such an extent that even without the need for an

austerity package any Government here today of what of political

persuasion would have to address it. Indeed Labour were doing so.

don't agree with Sarah Teather, your former Minister, who said the

welfare cap was immoral? I think when politicians start using words

like immoral, I would probably leave that for Anglican Bishops.

What surprises me about her comments, I don't know if she's

clarified this. She is entitled to her view. I don't think what Iain

Duncan Smith is doing is immoral. I don't think what he did in terms of

his Centre for Social Justice was immoral... Don't shout out. Madam,

please don't shout out from the back. Please don't shout out. Let

him speak. I'm not complaining at all, madam. This is the home of

free speech. Can I hardly disagree with that can I? APPLAUSE We can't

hear what she was saying anyway. Deborah Meaden? I want to pick up

about a point, you talked about the deem onisation of people on benefit

-- demonisation. We are, welfare benefit happen to be a very sad,

awful truth of the moment. Truth is that this country, the same as any

company with any budget, has got so much money to spend. I think it is

very wise to make sure that we allocate, sorry, I think it is very

wise to make sure that we have a cap on benefits, but I also think

it is very wise to make sure that those people who are at the very

neediest get that money, the right people get that money. And that's

what we need. APPLAUSE But at the moment what you're getting is

you've got working families who are losing thousands of pounds in their

tax credits. That's working families, at the same time as

millionaires are getting a �40,000 tax cut. That is what's unfair.

Most new claimants of housing benefit are in work. They don't

have the money to pay extortionate rents. If we stimulate the economy

and create jobs, but it's a point that has to be made about the

treatment of disabled people in this country. There are two names I

want to give Iain Duncan Smith. Brian McCard dhal, paralysed down

one side, blind in one eye and couldn't speak. He died one day

after being fit for work by Atos. Let me tell you something. I didn't

hear you screaming about 2.5 million people, nobody saw them for

over ten years, not working, with no hope and no aspiration. We are

changing their lives. I'm proud of that. Getting them off benefit is

what we have done. I'm afraid our time is up. I know, can I see you

want to speak, but we've got to speak. Our hour is up. That is the

story of Question Time. We always have to stop just when things are

getting going. Thank you to Parliament for being our host, this

is part of Parliament Week that we are here in Westminster Hall. Next

week Swansea. Our panel is going to include the singer Charlotte Church

and the former executive editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallace.

The following week we are be in Liverpool. Put questions to the