:00:22. > :00:24.in Ipswich, and welcome to Question our audience and our panel,
:00:24. > :00:29.Conservative Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, Labour's Shadow
:00:29. > :00:32.immigration Minister, Chris Bryant, former leader of the Liberal
:00:32. > :00:36.Democrats, Charles Kennedy, award-winning journalist and
:00:36. > :00:40.assistant editor of the financial Times, Gillian Tett, and the
:00:40. > :00:46.television producer famous for bringing the brother to our screens
:00:46. > :00:56.and chairman of arts Council England, Peter Bazalgette. --
:00:56. > :01:04.
:01:04. > :01:11.question. If there was an EU in-out referendum tomorrow, how would you
:01:11. > :01:16.vote, and why? I would vote to stay in. I am passionate that we need to
:01:16. > :01:20.be in the European Union. There was a survey recently, done by the
:01:20. > :01:24.Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, which found that 95% of businesses in
:01:24. > :01:31.Suffolk thought that the EU was essential to them doing future
:01:31. > :01:34.business. And I really worry, when I look round. It is not just the
:01:34. > :01:39.economic benefits of being associated with the largest trading
:01:39. > :01:43.bloc in the world. It is also the fact that we gain influence
:01:43. > :01:47.elsewhere. And I really worry that if we were to cut ourselves off from
:01:47. > :01:51.the European Union we would end up being like a tired old spinster on
:01:51. > :01:56.the side of Europe. We would be completely irrelevant politically.
:01:56. > :02:02.And there is a bit of me, also, that says Ash maybe this is idealistic -
:02:02. > :02:06.but in my lifetime, Spain was a dictatorship, Portugal was a
:02:06. > :02:09.dictatorship by most of the countries of the east of Europe were
:02:09. > :02:13.dictatorships. And all of those countries in my father's lifetime
:02:13. > :02:18.went to war with one another. I am not claiming it is the European
:02:18. > :02:22.Union alone that has stopped war, but I do think it means we have our
:02:22. > :02:25.battles in the chamber in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than on the
:02:25. > :02:32.battlefields. And that can only be good for a consummate that has been
:02:32. > :02:37.at war for centuries. And what about a reverend? The whole argument about
:02:37. > :02:43.the referendum, is it an unnecessary luxury? What do you make of Philip
:02:43. > :02:50.Hammond saying that he would vote out? Well, he is wrong.What about a
:02:50. > :02:56.referendum at all? I am not ultimately opposed to one.
:02:56. > :03:01.Ultimately being what, when you are an old man? I am an old man already.
:03:01. > :03:06.The only party that has ever given a referendum is the Labour Party.
:03:06. > :03:10.Liberal Democrats offered one. there has been one in my lifetime
:03:10. > :03:14.and that was when there was a Labour government. The law has been changed
:03:14. > :03:16.in the last couple of years so that if there is a big change to the
:03:16. > :03:21.European Union there will be a referendum, and I am happy about
:03:21. > :03:27.that. I relish the idea of referendums. Do I think it is a
:03:27. > :03:31.priority now to have a referendum? No, I do not. Do I think it makes
:03:31. > :03:35.any sense whatsoever to say that in four years time we will have a
:03:35. > :03:40.referendum? No, I think that is bonkers. It means you wave a sword
:03:40. > :03:43.of Damocles over the British economy, uncertainty, instability,
:03:43. > :03:51.nobody knowing whether they should be investing in the United Kingdom
:03:52. > :03:59.for four years. What induced you to tell the world this week that if
:03:59. > :04:06.there were a referendum tomorrow you would vote out? Well, I was asked a
:04:06. > :04:10.question. It took you a long time to answer it. By a very persistent
:04:10. > :04:15.interviewer, about a specific and hypothetical circumstance. If there
:04:15. > :04:21.were an in-out referendum tomorrow. But there is not going to be one.
:04:21. > :04:26.Your Prime Minister refuses to answer. There is a very good reason
:04:26. > :04:30.why there is not going to be. will come to that. Your leader said
:04:30. > :04:34.he would not answer a hypothetical. The Foreign Secretary said he would
:04:34. > :04:39.not answer a hypothetical. What kind of loyalty is it for you to say you
:04:39. > :04:43.would vote out? I was asked a question and answered in a
:04:43. > :04:47.straightforward way. If there was a referendum tomorrow, how would you
:04:47. > :04:51.vote? I prefaced my answer by saying that there will not be a referendum
:04:51. > :04:54.tomorrow. My strong preference would be that we have a mandate to
:04:54. > :04:58.negotiate with the European Union and to see what we can achieve, and
:04:58. > :05:02.then put the question to the British people, which is something, by the
:05:02. > :05:06.way, that only the Conservative party is prepared to do. The Labour
:05:06. > :05:10.Party and the Liberal Democrats party do not trust the British
:05:10. > :05:14.people and would not allow this question to be put to them. What is
:05:14. > :05:17.so bad about the way that things are now that would lead you to vote to
:05:17. > :05:22.get out, and what is it that you would want to see happen to get you
:05:22. > :05:27.to change your mind and vote yes? do not believe the status quo is
:05:27. > :05:31.acceptable, but I do not think the status quo is going to be on offer.
:05:31. > :05:35.The changes that have happened in Europe, the problems in the
:05:35. > :05:38.eurozone, mean that Europe is going to change. There is no question
:05:38. > :05:41.about that. The only question is whether we can help to shape that
:05:41. > :05:46.change in a way that makes Europe a more palatable proposition for the
:05:46. > :05:51.British people, and a way that makes Europe work better for Britain in
:05:51. > :05:56.the things that really matter to people here. What is it you want to
:05:56. > :06:05.see? The things that matter are economic growth, jobs, prosperity,
:06:05. > :06:08.ability to control our borders. would you change? What the
:06:08. > :06:11.government is doing now is undertaking what we call a
:06:11. > :06:14.competencies review. We are going right the way through everything
:06:14. > :06:18.government as, looking at the level of interference we get from
:06:18. > :06:23.Brussels, where we need to seek to repatriate powers, where we need to
:06:23. > :06:30.seek to make muscles more flexible. If we win the next election, we will
:06:30. > :06:34.have a mandate to negotiate. When we have negotiated, so we know what it
:06:34. > :06:39.is we are asking people to be in or out of, we will put the question to
:06:39. > :06:43.the British people and we will trust the electorate to make the decision.
:06:43. > :06:49.So at the moment, in other words, you are like a chef preparing a menu
:06:49. > :06:53.which you are not yet prepared to show. But you will show us. We know
:06:53. > :06:58.we want a European Union which is more outward facing, more flexible,
:06:58. > :07:07.more competitive. These are generalisations. What does that
:07:07. > :07:12.mean? Let's hear from the audience. I broadly agree with Mr Hammond. I
:07:12. > :07:17.think there is no doubt that we have seen in the last few years a more
:07:17. > :07:20.diverging, more coming together in Europe, but it seems to be more now
:07:20. > :07:25.political, and it probably has to be because of the problems with the
:07:25. > :07:31.euro. The only way forward out of that is for more political coming
:07:31. > :07:34.together. As we have seen with the march of UKIP recently, there are a
:07:34. > :07:38.lot of people very uncertain in the general public about whether that is
:07:38. > :07:42.the right way to go. I think the Tory approach now, of let's just
:07:42. > :07:45.have a renegotiation when what we really want is a country out of
:07:46. > :07:50.Europe, the time is right and I think it is a reasonable policy to
:07:50. > :07:56.get it on the table. You see the Tories as saving the electorate from
:07:56. > :08:00.UKIP? I would not quite put it that way. We would have to say Nigel
:08:00. > :08:03.Farage has certainly brought to the table a lot of the discussion in the
:08:03. > :08:07.general public that we had not been hearing so much in Westminster of
:08:07. > :08:11.late. It has got it back on the agenda and I think we need to go
:08:12. > :08:19.through. It has been 30 years since the last referendum. That decide
:08:19. > :08:24.once and for all where we are going with this.
:08:24. > :08:28.If I was asked how I would vote today, I would vote to stay in,
:08:28. > :08:33.although I appreciate the issue is becoming more tangled. Three
:08:33. > :08:37.reasons. Firstly, 50% of UK trade is with the European Union. Secondly,
:08:37. > :08:40.the city of London would find it very hard to maintain a pre-eminent
:08:40. > :08:45.position outside the European Union. To think the French and Germans
:08:45. > :08:48.would let the city carry on dominating Euro trade would be like
:08:48. > :08:54.asking the Americans to have their financial centre in Toronto. It will
:08:54. > :08:58.not happen. Thirdly, the point that Chris raised about influence on the
:08:58. > :09:01.world stage is very important. The Americans made clear, in public and
:09:01. > :09:07.in private, that the UK without being part of Europe would simply
:09:07. > :09:11.not punch its weight. What do you make of the impact of people like
:09:11. > :09:18.Philip Hammond, who have said that they would leave if the vote was
:09:18. > :09:21.tomorrow? Has it had a destabilising effect, as some are claiming?
:09:21. > :09:27.had a destabilising effect on the debate. But I think he raises an
:09:27. > :09:37.important point. Vince Cable was saying it is damaging already.
:09:37. > :09:40.Sunday? Yes. If you talk to people in the city of London it raises
:09:40. > :09:44.questions about where people will locate business in future. But I
:09:44. > :09:48.would agree that Europe is changing at the moment. The question was, if
:09:48. > :09:52.you were asked today how you would vote, the reality is that Europe is
:09:52. > :09:57.at a crossroads right now. It is like a bad marriage. It is going to
:09:57. > :10:05.make up or break up. If they have to make a decision about the euro, and
:10:05. > :10:09.it will not work unless they come together more closely, or do not.
:10:09. > :10:16.am delighted Philip Hammond would say we should come out of the EU,
:10:16. > :10:25.but I do not understand why you are indecisive as a party. You should
:10:25. > :10:29.give us a choice. We are asking for that. We are in a coalition
:10:29. > :10:33.government. We do not have the ability to do that now. We could not
:10:33. > :10:37.get it agreed as part of a government programme. Why is it that
:10:37. > :10:47.Nigel Farage is doing so well saying this when you are not giving us that
:10:47. > :10:48.
:10:48. > :10:53.choice? Are you powerless? The truth about coalition government is that
:10:53. > :10:57.you have two agree a programme that you both agree on. But don't you
:10:57. > :11:02.want to be elected next time, not be in a coalition? That is why people
:11:02. > :11:07.are voting UKIP. They are saying, we want out now, and the Conservatives
:11:07. > :11:14.are not giving it to us. With respect, the Conservatives have
:11:14. > :11:17.published a draft Bill. I don't want paper, I want out. The Prime
:11:17. > :11:21.Minister never even asked the leader of the Liberal Democrats whether he
:11:21. > :11:24.could have a bill in this Parliament. If you were in the
:11:24. > :11:30.chamber yesterday and you heard what the leader of the Liberal Democrats
:11:30. > :11:35.said, you would know his position. You have been misleading. The prime
:11:35. > :11:42.Mr never asked the Liberals for such a bill. This Prime Minister is not
:11:42. > :11:48.master of his own destiny, or of his own party. He was forced to do it.
:11:48. > :11:52.Who would you like to see lead the Tories? I think Michael Gove is a
:11:53. > :12:00.good choice. I think there are a view good choices. What about Boris
:12:00. > :12:05.Johnson? Why not Boris? We have a Liberal Democrat who has not spoken
:12:05. > :12:10.yet. Charles Kennedy. Just keeping my counsel. What a shame for these
:12:10. > :12:13.poor Conservatives. It is these beastly, horrible, violent Liberal
:12:13. > :12:18.Democrats that are messing everything up. In case you missed
:12:18. > :12:21.it, 100 Tory MPs voted against and Cameron last night in the House of
:12:22. > :12:25.Commons. But that has nothing to do with it. It is all Nick Clegg's
:12:26. > :12:31.fault. They must think you are stupid if you are going to buy that
:12:31. > :12:34.line. How would I vote if there was a referendum tomorrow?
:12:34. > :12:40.Unequivocally, positively, enthusiastically, for Britain to
:12:40. > :12:45.stay in Europe. And one of the reasons I would do so is because
:12:45. > :12:49.Europe needs reform. It is at a crossroads, and it could fragment,
:12:49. > :12:55.to everybody's even greater instability than we are experiencing
:12:55. > :12:59.at the moment. All it could get its act together. But it will not get
:12:59. > :13:04.its act together if a big player like Britain decides we are going to
:13:04. > :13:09.take our ball and go home. We should use our influence and credibility.
:13:09. > :13:14.The other point is this - it is a pleasure as always to contribute to
:13:14. > :13:18.this panel on Question Time in Ipswich. The last but one time I
:13:18. > :13:22.contributed, I was in Inverness. Inverness and Ipswich are both part
:13:22. > :13:28.of a union, a very successful one, called the United Kingdom.
:13:28. > :13:31.Conservative party's full title, the Conservative and Unionist party.
:13:31. > :13:36.There is not a hypothetical referendum going on within the UK,
:13:36. > :13:40.folks. There is one happening in Scotland at the moment, and if we
:13:40. > :13:44.lose that referendum it will be the end of the United Kingdom. I would
:13:44. > :13:47.suggest to our Conservative colleagues in coalition that the
:13:47. > :13:51.Conservative and Unionist party should worry about getting base camp
:13:51. > :14:00.established first, maintaining the union that is the United Kingdom,
:14:00. > :14:05.and then worry about reforming the union that is Europe. Some more from
:14:05. > :14:09.our audience. Shook the government be spending so much time talking
:14:09. > :14:17.about an EU referendum when there are so many promising things in the
:14:17. > :14:27.Queens speech? Advances in technology, sources of new growth in
:14:27. > :14:32.the country. Peter Bazalgette? distrust the SERPSty. I say bring it
:14:32. > :14:36.on and let's have the discussion. APPLAUSE
:14:36. > :14:40.There are about 100 Conservative MPs. If you say Europe to them,
:14:40. > :14:44.their eye balls start to roam and they foam at the mouth. There are
:14:44. > :14:49.people madly in favour. I don't know what the questioner thinks, but I'm
:14:50. > :14:53.not sure if we had a referendum we could hear the arguments. What I
:14:53. > :14:57.find fascinating about the European issue and the political scene is
:14:57. > :15:03.that it really is a one point in which people get ideologically
:15:03. > :15:07.passionate. No-one's arguing about the fiscal problems with such anger.
:15:07. > :15:11.It's a bit like the guns and the republican part any many America,
:15:11. > :15:18.people foam at the mouth on both sides. Faye Miller, do you want to
:15:18. > :15:21.answer the question that Peter Bazalgette asked? Yes, 2017 is
:15:21. > :15:25.ridiculously late for a referendum. It's not only shutting the stable
:15:25. > :15:30.door after the horse has bolted, it's already gone around the field a
:15:30. > :15:33.few times, hasn't it? And we haven't heard anything from David Cameron
:15:33. > :15:39.about what the benchmarks are for renegotiation, so we can only base
:15:39. > :15:46.our view on what we know now which isn't relevant.
:15:46. > :15:51.Yes. You, there, on the fourth row from the back? If the UK leaves the
:15:51. > :15:54.EU, and then Scotland leaves the UK, where does that leave us? England,
:15:54. > :16:01.Wales and Northern Ireland? What shall we be called? In the
:16:01. > :16:03.independent Republic of Ipswich! The gentleman at the back there?
:16:03. > :16:07.APPLAUSE I've never known an election
:16:07. > :16:11.campaign to start two-and-a-half years before it's ever been there,
:16:11. > :16:15.chucking out the fishes, hoping everybody's going to run over here.
:16:15. > :16:18.Let's concentrate on this country, try and get back opt path that we
:16:18. > :16:23.have and keep saying I'm on the right track justlet isn't good
:16:23. > :16:28.enough, I'm afraid. This gentleman is right. There are more pressing
:16:28. > :16:31.issues than this, but we cannot avoid this debate because the
:16:31. > :16:35.eurozone Crill crisis means that Europe, after the German elections,
:16:35. > :16:39.are was of the way, is going to have to the debate how it restructures to
:16:39. > :16:44.make the eurozone work and it's in our interest, even though we are not
:16:44. > :16:49.in it, that the euro survives and prospers. We can stand on the side
:16:49. > :16:52.Lymes of that debate and then we'll be left facing a stark choice of
:16:52. > :16:56.whether to join in something that may be a much closer Yahoo! Onion
:16:56. > :17:02.than the British people are prepared to accept, or we can try and shape
:17:02. > :17:06.the debate around possibly a multitiered Europe where there are
:17:06. > :17:10.things that can join in the single market, cooperation where it makes
:17:10. > :17:16.sense, without having to be dragged into all this ever closer political
:17:16. > :17:21.fiscal union. All this jargon, what does it mean? Ees's talk about
:17:21. > :17:28.something practical. You would never vote no. Noim not going to vote to
:17:28. > :17:32.leave the European Union. Whatever. If the European... You are asking a
:17:32. > :17:37.hypothetical question. The European arrest warrant - the Conservatives
:17:37. > :17:40.want us to leave the European arrest warrant and Europol and eurojust,
:17:40. > :17:45.the organisations that ended up getting that man arrested in Spain
:17:45. > :17:49.the other day and brought back here, unluke Ronnie Biggs years ago who
:17:49. > :17:55.could live in Spain on the Costa Dell crime for years. That's going
:17:55. > :18:00.off the subject? It's not.Growth and the economy, the jobs. The first
:18:00. > :18:07.things I mentioned. All right. As you say, the election campaign
:18:07. > :18:12.started here and we'll be stopping on this in a moment, but let me just
:18:12. > :18:15.move on. The lady on the left? grew up in a country that didn't
:18:15. > :18:20.aassociationiate with the rest of the world for a lot of its history.
:18:20. > :18:24.Where was that? I was brought up in the US. Yes?
:18:24. > :18:31.And one of the problems is that we didn't get with the rest of the
:18:31. > :18:35.world until late on to the war. In other decisions, we seemed to stand
:18:35. > :18:40.out. We've noticed from the current government that they don't take care
:18:40. > :18:45.of the people that are in their country very well. And now they want
:18:45. > :18:51.to get out from another group that they are not getting along very well
:18:51. > :18:58.with. We are marginalising a whole bunch of people over a period of
:18:58. > :19:01.time. Becoming an isolation isolationist tendency place? If the
:19:01. > :19:06.Conservatives continue along the path that they are in, yes.
:19:06. > :19:11.Thank you very much. I think we will go on. Apologies to those who still
:19:11. > :19:21.have your hands up. Before I do, you can join in the debate if you are
:19:21. > :19:31.
:19:31. > :19:34.to listeners to BBC Radio Five Live who are hearing Question Time for
:19:34. > :19:42.the first time without having to see our faces which must be a blessed
:19:42. > :19:52.relief! Welcome to you all, I hope you are enjoying it. A question from
:19:52. > :19:56.
:19:56. > :20:03.Gillan Scott, please? Was Margaret Hodge right to describe Google's tax
:20:04. > :20:09.arrangements as evil? Gillian Tett? I think the practices from Google
:20:09. > :20:13.were unethical, but they were legal and unfortunately, what Governments
:20:13. > :20:15.need to accept is, if they are going to complain about what groups like
:20:15. > :20:21.Google have done, they should look to themselves and their own tax
:20:21. > :20:25.regime. The issue of cross border tax avoidance, not evasion, but
:20:25. > :20:30.avoidance, is a very big one. It's been growing for a number of years.
:20:30. > :20:33.Frankly, without real cooperation, it's going to be very hard, if not
:20:33. > :20:38.impossible, for any one Government to ever tackle it. If you ever
:20:38. > :20:41.wanted a reason why things like the European Union, why international
:20:41. > :20:46.cooperation matters, something like Google's tax story is absolutely a
:20:46. > :20:50.good example of that. All the sound and fury from Margaret Hodge,
:20:50. > :20:56.justified? I think it's right that she's raising the issue. People
:20:56. > :20:59.should have been talking about this four or five years ago.
:20:59. > :21:02.Unfortunately though, it's not good enough to simply point the finger at
:21:02. > :21:06.the companies, you should be looking at the Governments too. Chris
:21:06. > :21:09.Bryant? APPLAUSE
:21:09. > :21:14.I think Margaret Hodge has done a brilliant job at revealing some of
:21:14. > :21:18.what has been going on and putting people on the spot. I worry. Today I
:21:18. > :21:21.saw her today starting the evidence and she was effectively say, please
:21:22. > :21:26.don't lie to us and that's been a worrying trend that people have
:21:26. > :21:30.given evidence to Parliament which is not about whether they are lying
:21:30. > :21:34.to me, but whether they are lying to the country, you know, and I think
:21:34. > :21:38.that that is a really worrying development. People should tell the
:21:38. > :21:42.truth. Of course, I understand that businesses try to be as tax
:21:42. > :21:47.official, that's what they call it, as possible. That's their legal duty
:21:47. > :21:50.actually. But, we all know that Google's doing business here, we all
:21:50. > :21:54.know that Amazon's doing business here, they can't pretend not to have
:21:54. > :21:59.any business here and therefore not pay any taxes. Frankly, that is the
:21:59. > :22:02.version of shirking that is going on in this country and we need to
:22:02. > :22:07.expose it and change the law, we need to make sure we do that jointly
:22:07. > :22:11.with other countries. There's one bit that I tried to deal with, which
:22:11. > :22:15.was the overseas territories that are British, like the vinyling
:22:15. > :22:19.Islands and Turks and Caicos where they have virtually no tax area at
:22:19. > :22:24.all. When they wanted to borrow money and needed my permission, I
:22:24. > :22:29.said you can't have it unless you are going to diversify your tax base
:22:29. > :22:31.so you can't be a tax haven any more. The new Government let them
:22:31. > :22:38.borrow as they wanted? Government should be making the
:22:38. > :22:46.rules very clear now going forward and clamp down strongly on companies
:22:46. > :22:49.that evade or avoid. To go back retrospectively... HMRC needs to
:22:49. > :22:55.answer in this, but where Parliament can expose something like that,
:22:55. > :22:59.Government can move in and change the rules. But it does have an
:22:59. > :23:05.effect, because Starbucks, for example, has been losing custom and
:23:05. > :23:12.is now less popular than it was. don't go there any more. Really?No.
:23:12. > :23:18.That must make a big difference to them. Nobody buys my books on Amazon
:23:18. > :23:22.either! You, there? We need to ask ourselves
:23:22. > :23:27.why a company is trying to avoid paying tax, is it because the taxes
:23:27. > :23:32.are too high? Maybe we should think about lowering their taxes and they
:23:32. > :23:36.will be less likely to try to avoid paying them? It's an international
:23:36. > :23:41.law issue as well. The EU, you can move an office to Dublin, Ireland,
:23:41. > :23:44.in the EU, and then save taxes. That does need to be fixed
:23:44. > :23:47.internationally. I'm not sure Margaret Hodge is right to call
:23:47. > :23:54.Google eel because they are not breaking the law, but it's very
:23:54. > :23:58.worrying. I have to tell you, small arts and cultural organisations pay
:23:58. > :24:01.�1. 6 billion tax a year and if they can pay that amount of tax, when
:24:01. > :24:06.they are under enormous pressure and doing a wonderful job for our
:24:06. > :24:09.quality of life, I don't see why Google couldn't pay a bit more tax
:24:09. > :24:16.but we'll have to fix it generally and internationally.
:24:16. > :24:21.APPLAUSE I've got a small business myself,
:24:21. > :24:25.very small, less than ten people, but if there's I don't know, �10 out
:24:25. > :24:29.wrong with the tax I'm paying, HMRC jump on it straightaway, there's no
:24:29. > :24:34.way out of it. I don't understand how they couldn't see the millions
:24:34. > :24:38.and where they should have been. say very small. Companies with ten
:24:38. > :24:45.employees with big business in the economy as a whole. They must be the
:24:45. > :24:48.majority, mustn't they? Possibly. We are not paying that much tax!
:24:48. > :24:54.Assuming you do pay the tax you have to, I hope you Stu will be, if you
:24:54. > :24:58.know what I mean? ! Yes. The gentleman there? What would be
:24:58. > :25:03.the situation if I was to sit back and say I have an office in Dublin,
:25:03. > :25:09.as a self-employed person, HMRC wouldn't take that from myself, they
:25:09. > :25:16.would sit back and suddenly I would be sitting in doing longer than two
:25:16. > :25:19.months in jail. Why is it different for a company that size or for
:25:19. > :25:23.myself? Philip Hammond? The British people have a strong sense of
:25:23. > :25:26.fairness, what's right and what's wrong. At the margins, there might
:25:26. > :25:31.be some issues, but when they see a company turns over billions and
:25:31. > :25:37.paying no tax, they sure as hell know that that is wrong. We have got
:25:37. > :25:40.to tackle it at two levels. We have got to make sure that companies pay
:25:40. > :25:44.tax somewhere, first of all, because seem of the companies are moving
:25:44. > :25:48.money around the world so they don't pay any tax anywhere. Secondly,
:25:48. > :25:52.we've got to make sure, and this is something that we have to discuss
:25:52. > :25:56.internationally, we have to make sure there is an agreed way in an
:25:56. > :26:01.Internet-based world, of deciding where the profits of companies
:26:01. > :26:05.properly belong and who should be taxing what so that they are proper
:26:05. > :26:09.and fair shares for the companies and the countries in which the
:26:09. > :26:14.companies do business. The Prime Minister has made it clear that that
:26:14. > :26:18.agenda is going to be one of his main themes at the G8 next month
:26:18. > :26:22.where we'll be hosting in Northern Ireland the world's biggest
:26:22. > :26:27.economies leaders and sorting out international tax evasion and the
:26:27. > :26:31.way in which we share tax revenues internationally, including making
:26:31. > :26:39.sure that developing countries get their fair share of the tax that is
:26:39. > :26:45.generated from operations in their countries. E U could... Last time I
:26:45. > :26:51.checked, the Cayman Islands was not in the EU. But Ireland is. The man
:26:51. > :26:54.in the middle? If we have known about this problem and issue for
:26:54. > :26:59.four or five years, as the panel said, why haven't we been able to
:26:59. > :27:04.deal with it ourselves and at least try and clamp down? Four or five or
:27:05. > :27:07.ten or 20? Five years ago, I took part in a debate on this at a
:27:07. > :27:10.festival with Christian Aid and another group and it was very
:27:10. > :27:14.sparsely attended. People weren't interested. The good news about what
:27:14. > :27:17.we are talking about today is that if there is now, as Philip Hammond
:27:18. > :27:23.said, an attempt by Governments to address the issue and get more tax,
:27:23. > :27:29.that may go some way to plugging the big fiscal black hole.
:27:29. > :27:34.The key word "evil", do you think it was "evil" of Google to avoid
:27:34. > :27:41.playing British -- paying British tax and pay a small amount in
:27:41. > :27:48.Ireland instead I'm concerned that I'm the guru on "evil"? ! Moral
:27:48. > :27:55.arbiter tonight? ! My God, we are in trouble! It's an interesting point
:27:55. > :27:58.and goes beyond the issue, but, you know, we can all cite examples of
:27:58. > :28:01.politicians using irresponsible language, inflammatory language,
:28:01. > :28:05.whether inside the House of Commons or out there on the street, although
:28:05. > :28:11.there's laws that can control you in terms of what you can and cannot say
:28:11. > :28:17.on the street. On the other hand, there is a responsible role for any
:28:17. > :28:21.politician to use language in a way which grabs people's attention and
:28:21. > :28:26.puts perhaps a moral dimension into an issue that needs to be there. The
:28:26. > :28:29.use of this world "evil" in this context you could argue either way,
:28:29. > :28:35.but it's certainly done that. The interesting thing about the events
:28:35. > :28:39.at the committee was the extent to which the chap from Google was
:28:39. > :28:44.having a particularly hard time because the committee, particularly
:28:44. > :28:47.the chair, was able to cite all this evidence which came from
:28:47. > :28:52.whistleblowers within the organisation. That, in a way,
:28:52. > :28:55.although not ideal for the whistleblower, or for the rest of
:28:55. > :28:58.us, Philip Hammond's point is correct, there is an innate sense of
:28:58. > :29:03.fair play, not least amongst the employees who don't like what's been
:29:03. > :29:08.going on, and following on from this point about chasing it up, I don't
:29:08. > :29:13.think it's disputed, the figures from the experts show that for every
:29:13. > :29:17.extra pound that you invest in trying to track down people not
:29:17. > :29:21.paying tax, you get about �9 back. To be fair to the Government,
:29:21. > :29:26.they've just put in �150 million extra over the next couple of years
:29:27. > :29:30.and that should yield, if this theory works, in excess of �1
:29:30. > :29:39.billion coming into into the coffers from all of us to benefit from at
:29:39. > :29:44.the moment so it's not all doom and gloom. This use of the word evil is
:29:44. > :29:48.a play on words. Google has 70-80% of the search traffic, a dominant
:29:48. > :29:51.position in its market, it's a brilliant public facility, but with
:29:51. > :29:55.that dominant position comes a lot of public responsibility. It's going
:29:55. > :29:57.to have to do a lot better if it's going to fulfil its public
:29:57. > :30:07.responsibility in return for its dominant position in the market
:30:07. > :30:09.
:30:09. > :30:15.place. It's a competition issue as It is a big conscious -- conscience
:30:15. > :30:18.issue. Companies are taking from society by giving very little back.
:30:18. > :30:22.The attitude we have seen this morning from the select committee is
:30:22. > :30:27.that we do not care. Philip made a good point about developing
:30:27. > :30:33.countries. I think the figure is around about $160 billion a year
:30:33. > :30:38.which is lost from tax avoidance in developing countries. You think that
:30:38. > :30:43.is going to be affecting healthcare and education. People's lives in
:30:43. > :30:46.some countries are not going to be as good as they could be. Do you
:30:47. > :30:51.think it is legitimate for countries to make the tax arrangements as lean
:30:51. > :30:55.as they can? They are running big corporations and have shareholders
:30:55. > :31:00.and they want to make a profit so they can expand. Is that reasonable,
:31:00. > :31:05.or should they say, I think we will volunteer, in effect, to pay tax in
:31:05. > :31:11.Britain because we do business there? That is why it is important
:31:11. > :31:14.there is an international agreement. The G8 thing is important. There are
:31:14. > :31:17.180 charities in this country working under one banner because
:31:17. > :31:20.they realise it is really important and it will make a huge difference
:31:20. > :31:26.if we can do something about it, but it needs government is working
:31:26. > :31:30.together or it is never going to work. Do you think it was evil of
:31:30. > :31:39.Google to behave as they do? Pope has described it as a sin and
:31:39. > :31:45.he does not like it, so maybe, yes. The Pope? Yes.You can give way to
:31:45. > :31:50.the Pope, Charles Kennedy, as our moral arbiter of autumn night.
:31:50. > :31:56.did notice today that one leading conservative Euro-sceptic, when this
:31:56. > :32:03.private members bill came top of the ballot, he said this proves that God
:32:03. > :32:06.is a Euro-sceptic. And as a Catholic I thought, surely if anyone in the
:32:06. > :32:16.universe is left that still believes in the Treaty of Rome it has to be
:32:16. > :32:21.
:32:21. > :32:24.the Almighty. A question from Matthew Pickhaver. More than 656,000
:32:24. > :32:31.people have signed an online petition opposing the redefinition
:32:31. > :32:35.of marriage. Is it not time the government rethought its plan?
:32:36. > :32:38.are ahead of the game. This is coming up in the House of Commons on
:32:39. > :32:45.Monday and Tuesday, a debate on gay marriage and whether it should
:32:45. > :32:49.become legalised. Peter Bazalgette. It is row simple. Gay people and
:32:49. > :32:58.straight people should have exactly the same rights to marriage, civil
:32:58. > :33:02.partnership, anything else. And it is a perfect the clear proposition.
:33:02. > :33:06.One more thing, I have a very clear memory from just before the last
:33:06. > :33:10.general election. I was in the West End of London and I met Chris Bryant
:33:10. > :33:20.in the street and we had a quick chat. He was buying a suit because
:33:20. > :33:24.he was about to have his civil partnership. This suit.Very nice.
:33:24. > :33:33.Just before his civil partnership, crisp Bryant was a very happy man,
:33:33. > :33:37.and that is good enough for me. -- Chris Bryant. That is not quite the
:33:37. > :33:44.issue, is it rest of the issue is marriage, as opposed to civil
:33:44. > :33:50.partnership, which is already the law. And the 650,000 people who are
:33:50. > :33:55.signing this are against the concept of marriage. Direct replies that. I
:33:55. > :33:58.made my position clear in the first answer. Gay people and straight
:33:58. > :34:01.people should have exactly the same rights. The reason I mention the
:34:01. > :34:08.story about Chris is that that is what makes people happy, and we want
:34:08. > :34:15.people to be happy. At the risk of sounding boring, like an old married
:34:15. > :34:24.couple, I would thoroughly agree. It is a personal choice. You have an
:34:24. > :34:27.interesting view about old married couples! There may be 650,000 people
:34:27. > :34:37.who signed the petition, but how many more people in the country are
:34:37. > :34:42.in favour of gay marriage? As a Muslim, I still think people
:34:42. > :34:47.should have an equal right in society, whatever your religion is.
:34:47. > :34:52.You are living in the 20th century, the modern world. You can live
:34:52. > :34:56.side-by-side without having any differences, and get along with each
:34:56. > :35:01.other. At the end of the day, you are going to live and die, and
:35:01. > :35:06.whatever happens in the after-world, it is for God to decide, not for you
:35:06. > :35:15.to decide. Are you saying that despite being a Muslim you support
:35:15. > :35:22.the notion of gay marriage? Yes. I wonder what Jesus would have
:35:22. > :35:27.thought on the subject. Because Jesus loved everyone. I am sure he
:35:27. > :35:31.loved gay people, straight people. I have loaned -- known lots of lovely
:35:31. > :35:34.gay people and lots of horrible heterosexuals. I think it is
:35:34. > :35:37.disgusting that it is even discussed.
:35:38. > :35:43.I agree with the gentleman on the left that everyone should be given
:35:43. > :35:46.equal rights. It does not affect anyone else who is currently in a
:35:46. > :35:51.marriage if someone else decides to get married. It is not about
:35:51. > :35:54.redefining marriage, but about opening it up to all people. If you
:35:54. > :35:59.are in a marriage, it does not affect you. If you are signing a
:35:59. > :36:09.petition to suggest you do not agree with it, fantastic. But there will
:36:09. > :36:09.
:36:09. > :36:14.be an awful lot more people that support it. Well, I have not been a
:36:14. > :36:20.supporter of the same-sex marriage bill. But I am resigned to the fact
:36:20. > :36:24.that I am in a minority and that it will pass through Parliament. I
:36:24. > :36:29.think before we had civil partnership, people who were in
:36:29. > :36:33.same-sex relationships suffered some real disability, some real
:36:33. > :36:41.disadvantage in the way they were treated. And I think the civil
:36:41. > :36:45.partnership solution has removed those disadvantages. The problem
:36:45. > :36:50.that many people who object to this change now have is that, contrary to
:36:50. > :36:55.what the gentleman who spoke last said, this change does redefine
:36:55. > :37:00.marriage. It means for millions and millions of people who are married,
:37:00. > :37:05.the meaning of marriage is changed. And there is a real sense of anger
:37:05. > :37:11.among many people who are married, that the government thinks it has
:37:11. > :37:16.the ability, any government, thinks it has the ability to change the
:37:16. > :37:23.definition of an institution like marriage. And that is why the people
:37:23. > :37:29.who are opposed to this feel so very, very strongly about it.
:37:29. > :37:32.you are one of them, you feel strongly in that way? I do not feel
:37:32. > :37:37.strongly about this because I come at it from a point of view of
:37:37. > :37:40.religious conviction. Many of those who object have strong religious
:37:40. > :37:45.convictions. I have just never felt that this is what we should be
:37:45. > :37:50.focusing on. We have civil partnership, which seems to deal
:37:50. > :37:55.with the very real problem that same-sex couples faced. And it seems
:37:55. > :37:59.to me that there was no huge demand for this, and we did not need to
:37:59. > :38:08.spend a lot of parliamentary time and upset vast numbers of people,
:38:09. > :38:17.vast numbers of people, in order to do this. I just think everybody
:38:17. > :38:22.should be treated equally under the law. It is very simple.
:38:22. > :38:25.Incidentally, the government was my version of the bill coming forward
:38:25. > :38:30.on Monday says that homosexual couples, same-sex couples will be
:38:30. > :38:35.able to either be in a civil partnership or be married, but
:38:35. > :38:38.heterosexuals will only be able to form marriage is. I think we should
:38:38. > :38:43.have both for everybody. It should be exact with the same for
:38:43. > :38:48.everybody. I have always felt slightly upset when people say this
:38:48. > :38:53.will completely undermine marriage. The papal nuncio once told me, he
:38:53. > :39:00.asked me how my wife was, and I said, he is a man. And he said, do
:39:00. > :39:04.you mean very butch? I said, no, he is a man, I am a homosexual. He
:39:04. > :39:10.said, you know you will do more damage to this world than climate
:39:10. > :39:16.change? You laugh, and I laughed at the time because it was a social
:39:16. > :39:20.engagement. But I just say to some people, who may be passionately
:39:20. > :39:26.opposed to this move, just wing of how you advance your arguments,
:39:26. > :39:31.because it can be very, very painful to some people. -- just think of how
:39:31. > :39:35.you advance your arguments. And to Philip, I would accept your argument
:39:35. > :39:41.more if you had ever voted for an equal age of consent, for gays to be
:39:41. > :39:44.allowed to adopt, for gays in the military to be able to pursue their
:39:44. > :39:48.career, or for that matter if you had voted for civil partnerships.
:39:48. > :39:52.There have been 23 votes since you have been in Parliament on these
:39:52. > :40:02.issues and on 12 of them you have not even bother to turn up, on 11
:40:02. > :40:03.
:40:03. > :40:08.you have voted against. There were a number of people applauding what
:40:08. > :40:15.Philip Hammond said. Would any of you like to speak? Speak fearlessly,
:40:15. > :40:22.because this is an open debate. have a lot of gay friends, and I
:40:22. > :40:31.have never in my life had anything, any views against people being day.
:40:31. > :40:36.That is society. But I believe that marriage is something that possibly
:40:36. > :40:41.we are playing around with a little bit too much. Marriage, and I could
:40:41. > :40:47.be wrong here, is described in the Bible, a book that has been around
:40:48. > :40:52.for a lot more years than openly gay people, described in the Bible as
:40:52. > :41:00.where a man and a woman come together. It is a religious matter,
:41:00. > :41:07.for you? Personally, yes. Me and my wife, coming in front of God and
:41:07. > :41:12.being blessed by God with the name of marriage. I don't believe gay
:41:12. > :41:15.couples should have any different rights to straight couples, but I
:41:15. > :41:24.kind of think it would be nice to keep a hold of that, the name
:41:24. > :41:27.marriage. I am religious as well, I used to be a vicar and have married
:41:27. > :41:33.more people probably than anybody else in the room, if you see what I
:41:33. > :41:37.mean. I know some very horrible day people, as well, to the lady in the
:41:37. > :41:43.back. That is a different matter. In the book of Common prayer was
:41:43. > :41:47.produced in the 16th century and the 17th century, which the Church of
:41:47. > :41:51.England has used for years, it said one of the reasons for marriage was
:41:51. > :41:54.neutrals -- mutual support one for another. I suspect that in most
:41:54. > :41:58.marriages that is as important as bringing up children or anything
:41:59. > :42:08.else, and I do not see that a gay couple are not as entitled to do
:42:08. > :42:13.that as anybody else. Why doesn't need to be labelled as marriage? Why
:42:13. > :42:18.can't a gay couple a civil partnership as where they have come
:42:18. > :42:24.together? Because we are the same. In the end, it is that thing about
:42:24. > :42:27.being equal under the law. The thing that changes is that you bind
:42:27. > :42:33.families together when they can come to that event and celebrate, because
:42:33. > :42:37.they have bought new suits, or whatever. It is just a really
:42:37. > :42:42.important part of that binding together of a couple and of
:42:42. > :42:45.societies. The issue I have is not necessarily whether or not gay
:42:45. > :42:50.people should be allowed to be married, but there are religious
:42:50. > :43:00.leaders who are very opposed to it. I know that you were a vicar, but
:43:00. > :43:01.
:43:01. > :43:04.there are vicars who stop -... They would not wish to marry a gay couple
:43:04. > :43:07.because of religious beliefs. I do not think there is as much
:43:07. > :43:11.protection as has been claimed for them, in the sense that had they
:43:11. > :43:14.opposed marrying a gay couple, people could then come back at them
:43:14. > :43:20.and say, actually, that is not fair, it is inequality and you should not
:43:20. > :43:25.be allowed to do that. And so you cannot bring in a bill where it is
:43:25. > :43:33.OK for them to do it. You are frightened they will not be
:43:33. > :43:42.protected? My understanding is that there are very sufficient safeguards
:43:42. > :43:46.in this legislation already. The three of us in the Commons here - I
:43:46. > :43:50.am with the majority view on the panel, and have no difficulty with
:43:50. > :43:54.this legislation in principle. I think the conduct of the debate in
:43:54. > :44:01.Parliament, and this is not about party politics, I think it has to be
:44:01. > :44:07.reflective of the very strong and sincere views that an awful lot of
:44:07. > :44:11.people in this country have, and the genuine anxieties. Whether it is up
:44:11. > :44:15.-- whether it is in a professional sense, like clerics, or whether it
:44:15. > :44:22.is individual heterosexual couples who feel the equilibria of their
:44:22. > :44:30.life, they're up ringing their attitudes are being rocked by all of
:44:30. > :44:33.this. How do you reflect that if you are going to change the law? In the
:44:33. > :44:38.process of changing the law, we have to offer the reassurance that we
:44:38. > :44:42.can. The case about clerics who may be put in a difficult legal
:44:42. > :44:48.position, we have to get messages of reassurance which are there, out.
:44:48. > :44:53.But I hope that one day, maybe beyond our lifetimes in this room to
:44:53. > :45:03.night, this issue, historically, will be looked at a way that we now
:45:03. > :45:06.
:45:06. > :45:09.look at votes for women, or the abolition of slavery.
:45:09. > :45:15.APPLAUSE And when the change comes, we won't
:45:15. > :45:18.apply the pressment of time and say, how awful were the people that
:45:18. > :45:21.apposed it, but we may understand better that when you have a huge
:45:21. > :45:26.social change for people, it's hardly surprising it will cause
:45:26. > :45:35.distress. Another couple of questions in, if I
:45:36. > :45:45.can. Mary Hullis, please? I can I just come back on that, please?
:45:46. > :45:48.
:45:48. > :45:53.Briefly? The 66,000 people have signed a petition for gay marriage
:45:53. > :45:58.and 600, 656,000 people, that's the largest petition for years. But...y
:45:58. > :46:01.can I finish and make it clear. It's not about equality but it's about
:46:01. > :46:06.confusing equality with uniformity, right. All people are equal. I
:46:06. > :46:13.believe, as a Christian, that we are all equal. We are all equal in the
:46:13. > :46:18.eyes of God, I quality sinners in the eyes of God. The word "marriage"
:46:18. > :46:22.means, union of one man, one woman exclusion you havely. It's about
:46:22. > :46:26.celebrating the differences between men and women, complimentary but
:46:26. > :46:29.fundamental differences and about the potential for procreation. Love
:46:29. > :46:34.and commitment is an important part of marriage but you can't legislate
:46:34. > :46:39.for that or measure that. You have to legislate for things like where
:46:39. > :46:44.the law is concerned with consumation and about divorce laws
:46:44. > :46:50.and you cannot redefine something that is a creation ordinance, you
:46:50. > :46:53.might as well try and redefine day or night. I'll be very quick. I
:46:53. > :46:57.won't argue about religion because it sounds to me as though you know
:46:57. > :47:02.rather more about religion than I do. What I will point out is that
:47:02. > :47:07.your statisticical point is not valid. 656,000 people care to vote
:47:07. > :47:14.about it. Take the sentiment in this room tonight, it's against you
:47:14. > :47:18.actually. APPLAUSE
:47:18. > :47:22.All right. The points have been made. A question from Mary Hullis,
:47:23. > :47:28.please? Do you believe that the new evidence about possible gas attacks
:47:28. > :47:33.in Syria crosses the red line for intervention? This is the news BBC
:47:33. > :47:38.carried today that gas has been used in Syria. President Obama said that
:47:38. > :47:41.was the red line for him. How should this change things and should it
:47:42. > :47:47.lead to intervention? I would like you to be fairly swift in answering
:47:47. > :47:54.this because I want to get another question in, if I can. Chris Bryant?
:47:54. > :47:56.I'm not in favour of intervention. I'm also wanting Britain to be very,
:47:56. > :48:02.very reluctant about military intervention that puts British
:48:02. > :48:05.troops in harm'sway in this. I do worry about the weapons of mass
:48:05. > :48:08.destruction and I understand that many people in the country may feel
:48:08. > :48:14.very troubled that we are going through a story that we went through
:48:14. > :48:19.ten years ago. But, I do worry that, in a situation where you have got a
:48:19. > :48:23.Civil War, effectively, the danger is, some of that mightlet get into
:48:23. > :48:27.the hands of people that we don't want it in their hands. I feel very
:48:27. > :48:32.angry with the Russians because the Russian position on Syria's been
:48:32. > :48:36.disgraceful for more than a year and if they joined the international
:48:36. > :48:39.community, and China, a year ago, we might have been able to act in a way
:48:39. > :48:42.that prevented Assad doing the terrible things he's doing in that
:48:42. > :48:49.country without having to think about the dangers that we are facing
:48:49. > :48:53.now. APPLAUSE
:48:53. > :48:59.Do you think the time has now come, Philip Hammond, to arm the rebels in
:48:59. > :49:03.Syria? ?y on that specific question, we have certainly not taken off the
:49:03. > :49:09.table the possibility of choosing to arm the rebels and we have said that
:49:09. > :49:14.we'll seek an amendment of the E U arms embargo so we have the flexible
:49:14. > :49:18.to use in response if necessary to what is a fast-changing situation.
:49:18. > :49:23.Are you influenced by the evidence of gas? With the greatest of respect
:49:23. > :49:28.to the BBC, I've seen some video foot footage on the Six o'clock
:49:28. > :49:32.news, I haven't seen any more detail than that. We have had some quite
:49:33. > :49:37.persuasive information coming out of Syria over the last few weeks
:49:38. > :49:44.suggesting that gas may have been used but haven't yet had what
:49:44. > :49:47.amounts to concrete evidence of the use usage of chemical weapons. We
:49:47. > :49:50.need to apply a high standard of proof here and we need to be
:49:50. > :49:58.automobile to go to the international community with
:49:58. > :50:03.evidence that stands up. All of us, remember what happened in 2003 in
:50:03. > :50:07.Iraq. No-one wants to set hares running, we have to make sure if we
:50:07. > :50:10.go out there and say this, what would be a war crime, has been
:50:10. > :50:14.committed through the use of chemical weapons, we have to be sure
:50:14. > :50:20.that we have hard evidence, not a sexed up dossier. We have to have
:50:20. > :50:23.hard evidence. So I don't think that I have seen yet evidence which is
:50:23. > :50:28.sufficiently strong to we are suede frankly a very sceptical British
:50:28. > :50:34.people. We know from survey after survey that the British people, as
:50:34. > :50:39.Chris has reflected, are very, very wary about an engagement in Syria,
:50:39. > :50:43.even though they are, I'm sure, appalled by the shocking events
:50:43. > :50:51.there and the terrible treatment that's being meted out to the Syrian
:50:51. > :50:58.population by the regime. Charles Kennedy? Well, the evidence
:50:58. > :51:02.is inconclusive. That's for sure. It's good to hear my colleague speak
:51:02. > :51:05.in in these sombre terms, it's a hell of a sombre issue this, and
:51:05. > :51:09.it's a lot better than the way things were ten years ago. I
:51:09. > :51:13.remember what it felt like in the House of Commons being the only
:51:13. > :51:17.party leader questioning the Iraq strategy and getting scant support
:51:17. > :51:22.from either of the other two parties at the time. We've all learnt
:51:22. > :51:27.lessons. Perhaps most importantly, the American public and their
:51:27. > :51:30.politicians have learnt the lesson of George Bush and I was much
:51:30. > :51:38.encouraged enyou think what Donald Rumsfeld was like as Defence
:51:38. > :51:43.Secretary, the man who said "stuff happens", that was his analytical
:51:43. > :51:48.perceptiveness about Iraq at the time. His successor in office today
:51:48. > :51:52.working to Obama, Chuck Hagel, has made categorically clear that
:51:52. > :51:57.whatever needs to be done, if this is the red line fanned it has been
:51:57. > :52:00.crossed, and these are two very big ifs at the moment, for the reasons
:52:00. > :52:07.the Defence Secretary just pointed out, the Americans, and the same for
:52:07. > :52:12.us, are no are not going to do anything that are outside the
:52:12. > :52:17.parameters of legality. Easy wish to God we'd heard that ten years ago
:52:17. > :52:20.from George Bush. We are still living with the consequences of
:52:20. > :52:25.Guantanamo and illegality. It looks serious but we must look again
:52:25. > :52:29.before we leap and I couldn't agree more - if we can get particularly
:52:29. > :52:33.the other significant members of the Security Council at the UN on board
:52:33. > :52:37.and get inspectors into Syria, that has to be the first concrete
:52:37. > :52:42.political steps. You, Sir? I don't believe actually
:52:42. > :52:48.this is about Syria itself because I don't believe that Assad has woken
:52:48. > :52:53.up one day and decided to butcher up his people. I believe this is about
:52:53. > :53:00.resources that come from the Middle East, Iran, Iraq and so on and so
:53:00. > :53:07.forth, the Western world and the rest of the world realise that. I
:53:07. > :53:10.really think we shouldn't engage in Syria, we should be out of it.
:53:10. > :53:13.APPLAUSE The woman at the back there?
:53:13. > :53:19.I don't believe it's necessarily helpful to compare the such weighs
:53:19. > :53:25.in Syria with Iraq. Iraq wasn't justified. Our involvement in Syria
:53:25. > :53:27.perhaps is. Gillian Tett? The situation is very
:53:27. > :53:30.embarrassing for President Obama because he drew the red line with
:53:30. > :53:34.the chemical weapons thinking it wouldn't be breach and it has been.
:53:34. > :53:38.Do you believe it has been? certainly looks that way, as Philip
:53:38. > :53:41.Hammond said, we need to see the hard evidence first. The one thing
:53:41. > :53:47.that's clear is it's going to get more embarrassing for the British
:53:47. > :53:52.and American Governments as you go forward, because you have had
:53:52. > :53:57.Western leaders sitting indecisively on the side Lymes, this is
:53:57. > :54:03.spiralling town a wider regional conflict and there won't be any easy
:54:03. > :54:06.answers at all -- sidelines. Peter Bazalgette? We can only go into
:54:06. > :54:10.Syria if we have international agreement. We didn't have it with
:54:11. > :54:18.Iraq, we had it with Bosnia, that's what we need. Until we have
:54:18. > :54:24.agreement from Russia, we can't go APPLAUSE
:54:24. > :54:30.You, Sir, briefly? Just to pick up on Charles Kennedy's point, are the
:54:30. > :54:35.Assad regime ever going to allow international observers into Syria?
:54:35. > :54:41.I think that... We must insist on it. The international community must
:54:41. > :54:47.insist upon it. But how?But Assad will have to go. Of course. We'll
:54:47. > :54:51.move on. Just to end on a completely different note, but equally serious,
:54:51. > :55:01.Susan Gardner has a question, please? As a woman over 50, is my
:55:01. > :55:06.
:55:06. > :55:08.best way of getting on television to be on the Question Time audience?
:55:08. > :55:14.LAUGHTER I don't know whether it's your best
:55:14. > :55:17.chance but you 've certainly succeeded? ! Bazalgette, you are the
:55:17. > :55:22.former television man and know how it works? The first thing I would
:55:22. > :55:25.like to say is, Susan, could you introduce me to your agent because
:55:25. > :55:29.clearly you should have a future career in television and things are
:55:29. > :55:34.moving in your favour because I think people are now aware of the
:55:34. > :55:38.injustice of not having older women properly represented on screen. I
:55:38. > :55:43.think it will change and I think it should change and Susan, you will be
:55:43. > :55:48.the first person we'll call when the time comes. Why do you think it's
:55:48. > :55:54.happened? Why is there this absence of women? Because historically
:55:54. > :55:59.television has been run by men. you? Like you as well.I've never
:55:59. > :56:03.run anything in television, you have run some of the biggest things, you
:56:03. > :56:08.brought us Big Brother and all sorts of things that people like and some
:56:08. > :56:12.don't. But your role has been very powerful in television? Well, I was.
:56:12. > :56:16.I no longer am. I think it has been run by men, yes, like me, and I
:56:16. > :56:19.think a lot of the people who 've taken the decisions, the men,
:56:19. > :56:27.thought they needed young women presenting programmes. They were
:56:27. > :56:28.wrong. It has to change. OK. Pf
:56:28. > :56:33.APPLAUSE Gillian Tett? I maybe will leave the
:56:33. > :56:37.politicians out of this debate. You have got to make the running!
:56:37. > :56:41.would agree. I think the fact that we are having this debate is partly
:56:41. > :56:45.because older women are becoming more powerful, economically and
:56:45. > :56:49.politically at the moment, but secondly I've been in America the
:56:49. > :56:53.last few years it's very striking there that already a lot more female
:56:53. > :57:02.voices on television who're older. People who may not be familiar to
:57:02. > :57:06.this audience, but Andrea Mitch Mitch who I believe is in her 60s,
:57:06. > :57:10.Christine Amanporu, crayty Curick and they are fabulous and I look
:57:10. > :57:20.forward to seeing you on television. I don't believe that Susan is over
:57:20. > :57:21.
:57:21. > :57:27.50! Chris, would it matter? ! thinking of standing for Parliament
:57:27. > :57:34.in Ipswich, Chris! Do either of you two want to say a brief word before
:57:34. > :57:38.we end? Yes, what a sad note on which to end, really! Right. Our
:57:38. > :57:42.hour is up. That is our time. Next hour is up. That is our time. Next
:57:42. > :57:50.week now, going to be in Belfast. The week after that, we are going to
:57:50. > :57:58.be in London. We have Alan Johnson for Labour in London and the crave
:57:58. > :58:08.downtonne abbey director, Julian Fellows. The usual rules apply, you
:58:08. > :58:09.
:58:09. > :58:14.can ring us or apply on the website. -- Downton Abbey. I hope you have
:58:14. > :58:20.enjoyed listening on Five Live. You can continue the degate with
:58:20. > :58:24.Question Time extra time. That's how they score in football isn't it?
:58:25. > :58:34.have no interest in football whatsoever, I won't even pretend.
:58:34. > :58:38.Penalties! Question Time extra time on Five Live tonight. I hope you