:00:16. > :00:21.London town. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:21. > :00:25.And good evening to you at home, good evening to our audience and how
:00:25. > :00:29.our panel, Labour's former Home secretary, Alan Johnson,
:00:29. > :00:34.conservative health minister, Anna Soubry, one of the rising stars of
:00:34. > :00:38.UKIP, Diane James, political director of Huffington Post UK,
:00:38. > :00:48.Mehdi Hasan, and the Tory peer and creator of Downton Abbey, Julian
:00:48. > :00:58.
:00:58. > :01:02.Our first question, Michael Kerr. Following the slaughter of Lee
:01:02. > :01:12.Rigby, should adopt a big rubber approach to the surveillance of all
:01:12. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:19.forms of communication? -- a Big Brother approach. I do not regard it
:01:19. > :01:23.as a big rubber approach, but if the questioner is inferring that we
:01:23. > :01:31.should adopt the communications data Bill, then I think we should. -- big
:01:31. > :01:34.brother. There was an important and constructive contribution by joint
:01:34. > :01:40.committee of both houses, because the bill was published in draft
:01:40. > :01:44.form. They pointed to a number of problems. They said the bill was
:01:44. > :01:48.widely drawn. But they said it still needed legislation. Intelligence and
:01:48. > :01:54.Security Committee, which are members of the house of parliament
:01:54. > :02:03.from both sides, and from all sides, chaired by Malcolm Rifkind, they see
:02:03. > :02:07.all of the MI6 and MI5 intelligence. Before you go further... They
:02:07. > :02:13.reported there was a problem that needed to be tackled by legislation.
:02:13. > :02:17.What would you like to see? It is not the content of communications.
:02:17. > :02:21.When people communicate by land line, or by mobile, security
:02:21. > :02:25.services have always been able to look at who was ringing who at one
:02:25. > :02:30.time, the duration of the call, nothing to do with the content. That
:02:30. > :02:33.is a completely different system that has not been changed. But, as
:02:34. > :02:36.new technology has advanced, there are new forms of technology and
:02:36. > :02:42.communication that are not covered by that legislation. And everyone
:02:42. > :02:44.who looked at this dash me, my successor, Theresa May, the
:02:44. > :02:48.intelligence and security committee, and even the joint
:02:48. > :02:53.committee of both houses - said this is a problem and it needs to be
:02:53. > :02:58.addressed. It has disappeared from the Queen's Speech, it seems,
:02:58. > :03:01.because the Liberal Democrats have vetoed it. It is nothing to do with
:03:01. > :03:06.Woolwich, incidentally. This would be an issue with or without
:03:06. > :03:11.Woolwich. It is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. It has been known for six
:03:11. > :03:17.years that there is a flaw in the intelligence services' ability to
:03:17. > :03:21.track was very necessary intelligence. 95% of all the cases
:03:21. > :03:27.that security services have tracked, seven people due to take
:03:27. > :03:31.off in planes to America, all of these other plots that have been
:03:31. > :03:35.uncovered, 95% of them were uncovered through this very form of
:03:35. > :03:41.tracking who was involved, who was ringing who, the jury should not the
:03:41. > :03:45.calls, not the content. This is nothing to do with the content. --
:03:45. > :03:52.the jubilation of the calls. said Theresa May should resign if
:03:53. > :03:55.she does not do this through. the Home Secretary. It is her
:03:55. > :04:00.primary responsibility to keep the public safe. She sees the need for
:04:00. > :04:05.this, we hear. Behind-the-scenes, and she argued for it on Sunday. I
:04:05. > :04:10.think it is so crucial to a Home Secretary's role that it is a
:04:10. > :04:13.resignation issue. If I was Home Secretary and I could not get this
:04:13. > :04:17.legislation through cabinet, and could not convince them, as the
:04:17. > :04:22.voice of the security services and the police in these circumstances,
:04:23. > :04:27.then I would not be able to do my job as Home Secretary. When you were
:04:27. > :04:32.Home Secretary, you did not do it. There must be a good reason. There
:04:32. > :04:38.is a very good reason, because I was Home Secretary in 2009 and there was
:04:38. > :04:41.an election in 2010. The way the government have approached this is
:04:41. > :04:46.the right way, publish a bill in draft before, give a year for
:04:46. > :04:53.committees to look at it, take a measured approach. We did not have
:04:53. > :04:58.time to do that before the election. Or you would have resigned? Yes.Is
:04:58. > :05:03.Ed Miliband in favour? Ed Miliband agrees with the amendments made by
:05:03. > :05:07.the joint committee, which are very important and were supposed to be in
:05:07. > :05:11.the legislation in the Queen's Speech but have disappeared. There
:05:11. > :05:16.is this loophole. I used to be a criminal barrister, so I am aware of
:05:16. > :05:23.what we can do, and the evidential benefit that there is in looking at,
:05:23. > :05:26.for example, contact between people on mobile phones. The mad mass of
:05:26. > :05:34.this is that you cannot get the same sort of evidence on the basis of
:05:34. > :05:39.people using the Internet. -- madness. It is not about the content
:05:39. > :05:44.but about the communication, the timing, the fact that if people, the
:05:44. > :05:47.intelligence forces and police, they put it together in a grid. It is
:05:47. > :05:52.extremely useful evidence to show conspiracy or joint enterprise. And
:05:52. > :05:55.I would like to see it am. And I think now is the time for all the
:05:55. > :06:02.political parties, because this should not be a party political
:06:02. > :06:05.issue, to sit down and work out a way that we can essentially tie up
:06:05. > :06:11.and secure this loophole so we can get what we want, without the
:06:11. > :06:14.legitimate concerns that people have about any encroachment of the state.
:06:14. > :06:20.Have you thought of ignoring the Liberal Democrats and going along
:06:20. > :06:23.with Labour? I do not think we should start to try and see this as
:06:23. > :06:28.damaging the coalition, frankly playing cheap party political
:06:28. > :06:33.politics. This is a national security issue. What is cheap about
:06:33. > :06:38.it? Saying that Labour and the Tories should gang up on the
:06:38. > :06:45.Liberals. That is not the approach at all. We need to sit down and work
:06:45. > :06:46.out a way of achieving what we all want to achieve. If you put the bill
:06:46. > :06:51.aside, Lee Rigby's killers were apparently known for being
:06:51. > :06:59.activists. Should they not have been under surveillance anyway, apart
:06:59. > :07:04.from the bill? It is a good point about the existing powers,
:07:04. > :07:07.surveillance techniques and flaws in the system. The very worst time to
:07:07. > :07:14.change your laws is in the immediate aftermath of what is a terrorist
:07:14. > :07:18.attack, or an alleged terrorist attack. This is the worst time to
:07:18. > :07:24.have knee-jerk responses. I was 100% with David Cameron may rare occasion
:07:24. > :07:29.last week when he said we should carry on with business as usual. And
:07:30. > :07:31.Alan Johnson is a voice of reason on many issues, but on issues of
:07:31. > :07:37.counterterrorism and Civil Liberties the last person we should take
:07:37. > :07:44.advice from is a former Labour Home Secretary. That is the sad truth of
:07:44. > :07:46.the matter. Even I think that is harsh! The coalition, for all of its
:07:46. > :07:51.faults, has done good work in terms of restoring Civil Liberties that
:07:51. > :07:57.were lost under 13 years of labour. Thank God for the Lib Dems standing
:07:57. > :08:00.up against this snooper's charter, whatever you want to label it. The
:08:00. > :08:07.Lib Dems have not exactly been people who have stood up for in
:08:07. > :08:14.recent years. But Nick Clegg is spot-on on this. You think this is
:08:14. > :08:21.an encroachment of Civil Liberties. You are going after everybody's
:08:21. > :08:25.e-mail. What happens in these situations is that it is innocent,
:08:25. > :08:33.ordinary people who get surveilled on, and the criminals and terrorists
:08:33. > :08:40.find the loopholes. So you believe security forces should not have the
:08:40. > :08:44.ability to track phone calls over landlines and mobile phones? I think
:08:45. > :08:48.a government that could not keep control of 25 million child benefit
:08:48. > :08:57.records on a CD and lost it in the post should not be entrusted with
:08:57. > :09:00.the data of the entire population. All government is negotiating the
:09:00. > :09:04.exchange of freedom for security, and you give up certain freedoms in
:09:04. > :09:10.order that you may be free to walk home at night, whatever it is. That
:09:10. > :09:14.is the whole basis of government. In this instance, it does seem to me
:09:14. > :09:19.that the existing situation, which is when they do have permission to
:09:19. > :09:23.go in, when they have some reason to suspect, all that is needed, and I
:09:23. > :09:28.am only speaking for one of the lobbies, is to loosen the rules that
:09:28. > :09:34.bind them. They can only hold information for 30 days, only do
:09:34. > :09:39.this for something or other, they cannot repeat the request. If we had
:09:39. > :09:42.a situation within the existing laws whereby once they have a reason to
:09:42. > :09:46.investigate and interfere and actually look at whatever somebody
:09:46. > :09:51.is doing on their computer, their telephone, whatever, but they are
:09:51. > :09:55.doing it unfettered and able to achieve a result, surely that is,
:09:55. > :10:00.apart from anything else, more realistic than trying to screen 60
:10:00. > :10:03.million people. This is one of the things, simply to make it easier for
:10:03. > :10:10.investigative forces, and to take away the current rules that restrict
:10:10. > :10:14.them. That would make a big difference. The Communications
:10:14. > :10:20.Bill, if adopted, would only solve the symptom of the problem of
:10:20. > :10:25.terrorism. The source of terrorism really is extremism. And that has to
:10:25. > :10:30.come down to the aggressive British foreign policy. We had an attack in
:10:30. > :10:33.the US, that bombings in France, and now in the UK. All of this had to do
:10:33. > :10:39.with attackers saying they were upset with the Western foreign
:10:39. > :10:44.policy. We will come to that in a moment. Then they bring in Diane
:10:44. > :10:49.James on the first point about surveillance. How on earth are we
:10:49. > :10:53.going to resource this is the bill goes through? Mehdi Hasan has made
:10:53. > :10:57.the good point that, quite frankly, governments of every colour have a
:10:57. > :11:02.lamentable record in terms of the way they have held the data in any
:11:02. > :11:08.form of security. The quality of the information, how that has been
:11:08. > :11:11.handled, as such. My understanding is that MI5 and MI6 have a budget
:11:11. > :11:15.which is under considerable threat from the austerity measures that
:11:15. > :11:20.this coalition government is bringing in. It is very well to say,
:11:20. > :11:23.and I would agree with the point that this is a gross intrusion of
:11:23. > :11:28.generalised Civil Liberties with no necessity. There is a small
:11:28. > :11:32.proportion of the population that does need monitoring. But if we
:11:32. > :11:38.suddenly embark on this huge, very costly exercise, without the budget
:11:38. > :11:43.to do it, it will fail at the first hurdle. This is not surveillance. We
:11:43. > :11:47.have to get this clear. This is not surveillance. It is about the sort
:11:47. > :11:52.of access to data which we currently allow with mobile telephones and
:11:52. > :12:01.landlines, and we merely seek to extend that to the Internet. It is
:12:01. > :12:04.not about surveillance. You are making a distinction. You are asking
:12:04. > :12:09.the Internet service providers to say, we keep track of all of the
:12:09. > :12:13.things that have been done but not the content. Absolutely, and it
:12:14. > :12:20.shows a Trail. And you can access that with permission from the Home
:12:20. > :12:28.Secretary, if you choose to. This is about the ability to get data, just
:12:28. > :12:31.as you can at the moment for mobile phones. It prevented a whole series
:12:31. > :12:38.of plots that you have read about, and that people have been tried and
:12:38. > :12:44.imprisoned for. If we have prevented lots of plots, why do we need a new
:12:44. > :12:47.law? If you look at the way we collected data, for example on
:12:47. > :12:51.mobile phones and landlines, it has been particularly successful in the
:12:51. > :12:56.prosecution, for example, of drug rings. It is incredibly important
:12:56. > :12:59.evidence which I have seen in court. It is an extension of that and it is
:12:59. > :13:05.really about filling in this loophole. It is not surveillance and
:13:05. > :13:08.it is not snooping. If you want to talk specifically about
:13:08. > :13:12.surveillance, you can do that otherwise we will widen it to the
:13:12. > :13:18.question that was put over here with a question from Edward Poole,
:13:18. > :13:24.please. Would we see fewer terrorist attacks in this country if we did
:13:24. > :13:29.not invade, or support the invasion of other countries? I do not know
:13:29. > :13:37.whether this particular Woolwich attack, would this count as one of
:13:37. > :13:43.the examples you are talking about? That sort of thing, yes. The short
:13:43. > :13:49.answer is, I think, yes. And I am glad of this question. I wrote an
:13:49. > :13:52.article on this subject today. I do not think foreign policy is the only
:13:52. > :13:56.factor in terms of motivating and radicalising people. To pretend it
:13:56. > :14:00.is not a factor and has nothing to do with it, as Boris Johnson and
:14:00. > :14:04.David Cameron were suggesting last week, I think that is mad. If you
:14:04. > :14:07.look at all of the people who have been captured in failed terrorist
:14:07. > :14:13.attacks, or after terrorist attacks, they all say the same
:14:13. > :14:18.thing. They all talk about invasions and occupations and support for
:14:18. > :14:22.dictators, and support for patients. At some stage, you have to ask, are
:14:22. > :14:26.we going to take seriously what they are saying? That does not mean you
:14:26. > :14:30.change foreign policy on the basis of their demands, and it does not
:14:30. > :14:34.mean they are justified in carrying out acts of violence, but it means
:14:34. > :14:38.if you want to take a multifaceted approach to preventing
:14:38. > :14:42.radicalisation, you have to put foreign policy in the mix. It cannot
:14:42. > :14:46.just be other issues and not foreign policy. The former head of MI5
:14:46. > :14:50.said, I warned the government that if we invade Iraq it will spur young
:14:50. > :14:54.British Muslims towards terror, radicalising young men. And now when
:14:54. > :14:59.you say that, you are accused of being some extreme anarchist, when
:14:59. > :15:07.the former head of MI5 and various intelligence agencies all warned us
:15:07. > :15:14.what our foreign policy would produce, and it has produced. The
:15:15. > :15:20.Woolwich case is sub judice, but the general point. My point is with
:15:20. > :15:23.regard to the total communication (Inaudible) community leaders and
:15:23. > :15:28.the politicians and the agencies which are responsible for this. I
:15:28. > :15:33.can see that the community leaders have not played their role that they
:15:33. > :15:37.were expected to play. I think there's a serious crisis there. They
:15:37. > :15:42.have to win the confidence of the community they are living in and to
:15:42. > :15:46.pass on these, their aspirations, their ideas to the politicians and
:15:46. > :15:54.to the people, the public in general, so they should know what
:15:54. > :15:59.they are thinking and what their feelings are about it. History has
:15:59. > :16:05.shown us that when you have disaffected often young people, they
:16:05. > :16:09.may be angry, they may have other troubles in their lives that they
:16:09. > :16:13.fall prey off on the radicalisation and to extremism and it can go to
:16:13. > :16:18.all sorts of appalling levels. I think when we look at, and we do
:16:18. > :16:21.have to be careful, because somebody has been charged, so we are in
:16:21. > :16:26.difficult legal territory, but it is an important matter this, because we
:16:26. > :16:31.know that too many, usually meals, in our Muslim community in
:16:31. > :16:34.particular, have been radicalised in this way and it has caused much
:16:34. > :16:40.upset and anger in the Muslim community, because the vast majority
:16:40. > :16:44.of that faith are decent, law-abiding, honest, good people. I
:16:44. > :16:50.just feel this with some passion, having seen two members of my
:16:50. > :16:54.constituency today who happen to be Muslims. They came to lobby me on my
:16:54. > :16:59.views on plain packaging of cigarettes, but I thought that this
:16:59. > :17:03.is a story worth repeating. At the end of our very interesting
:17:03. > :17:07.discussion they felt the need to apologise to me in some way because
:17:07. > :17:11.of their faith and to make the point to me that not all Muslims were like
:17:11. > :17:16.some that we've seen in recent events. And I interrupted them to
:17:16. > :17:21.say, you don't have to apologise at all for your faith, because good,
:17:21. > :17:25.sensible people in this country know exactly that the overwhelming
:17:25. > :17:35.majority of people of your faith are good, decent citizens and we are
:17:35. > :17:36.
:17:36. > :17:42.proud to have you in our country. APPLAUSE
:17:42. > :17:47.When we talk of extremism isn't it more a case of lack of belonging for
:17:47. > :17:53.men, and the same thing that draws somebody towards Islamic radicalism
:17:53. > :18:02.is the same issue that draws someone towards gangs, the EDL or violent
:18:02. > :18:08.groups? We have a Corp group of young men with a lack of sense of
:18:08. > :18:10.belonging and it is not just about Islamic radicalism.
:18:10. > :18:14.APPLAUSE Alan Johnson, I would like to bring
:18:14. > :18:20.you back to the question: Would we see fewer terrorist attacks here if
:18:20. > :18:25.we didn't invade or support the invasion of other countries? Well,
:18:25. > :18:29.9/11 happened before any country was invaded there. Would still be
:18:29. > :18:34.jihadists around, I believe, with or without what happened. In terms of
:18:34. > :18:38.Kosovo, we went in to defend Muslims, who were being butchered. I
:18:38. > :18:44.think the argument there is we should have gone in earlier. So
:18:44. > :18:48.there'll always be people who want to make that link. And you can't
:18:48. > :18:53.divorce it from foreign policy. I agree with Mehdi on that. Foreign
:18:53. > :18:59.policy has to be part of the fix, but this kind of suggestion that
:18:59. > :19:03.this is all because of usually about the invasion of Iraq, I don't think
:19:03. > :19:07.that's the case at all. In fact you could make a very good case for
:19:07. > :19:11.looking at the Middle East if Saddam was still there, if you want to draw
:19:11. > :19:17.the kinds of what if questions and find a very difficult situation in
:19:17. > :19:25.the Middle East, as we are finding in Syria. I do enjoy lective quote
:19:25. > :19:29.quoting. In 20032 joint Joint Intelligence Committee told your
:19:29. > :19:34.Government if we invade Iraq we will Huyton threat to the Al-Qaeda of
:19:34. > :19:39.Al-Qaeda. Today you are saying it is not to do with Iraq. The point I
:19:39. > :19:44.made was 9/11 was nothing to do with the invasion of any country. It was
:19:44. > :19:52.an attack on America. Palestinians have been occupied for
:19:52. > :19:59.decades. The West supported Saudi dictatorships. You can't start the
:19:59. > :20:04.clock on 9/11 and forget the oppress eggs of the -- the oppression of the
:20:04. > :20:11.Middle East. I have to say, Alan Johnson hit the nail on the head
:20:11. > :20:16.precisely. Before 9/11, there was no question in our minds as a British
:20:16. > :20:22.nation of having an involvement with invading other countries. Our
:20:22. > :20:28.presence in our countries is as a result of what was even voiced by
:20:28. > :20:33.the man who is now standing accused of an awful crime last week. He
:20:33. > :20:38.said, or is reported to have said, "I want to start a war on London's
:20:38. > :20:42.streets tonight." We live in a surreal world. We've been at war for
:20:43. > :20:51.many years, and what we are doing is trying to protect our freedom and
:20:51. > :20:54.the safety of our nation. So the excuses given by radicals and
:20:54. > :21:01.terrorists is feeble. That was Michael Kerr who asked the first
:21:01. > :21:04.question. Julian Fellowes? For me the issue is not really that is
:21:04. > :21:09.terrorism the result of our intervention? If we were absolutely
:21:09. > :21:14.sure that our intervention was the correct thing and terrorism was the
:21:14. > :21:19.by product of doing the right thing it could be a much clearer issue.
:21:19. > :21:25.Agreed. I'm not sure what we think we are achieving with much of this
:21:25. > :21:31.invasion and involvement. We read today that Helmand province is as
:21:31. > :21:35.disturbed and the rest of it as we arrived, that's for every 2,000 for
:21:35. > :21:40.every man, woman and child in the country. I know it is not the money.
:21:40. > :21:45.The truth is if we are spending this money, seeing young men and women
:21:45. > :21:50.give their lives or be maimed or whatever, we've got to be sure we
:21:50. > :21:54.are achieving something. I think we would do much to go in with aid
:21:54. > :21:59.after a resolution has been reached rather than this inevitable stoking
:21:59. > :22:04.up of the whole thing. We are at the moment on the edge of it in Syria
:22:04. > :22:09.and we were told yesterday by our leaders if we arm the rebels it will
:22:09. > :22:13.take them towards the peace table. Well huh, the next minute that the
:22:13. > :22:20.Russian Russians come in with arms for the other side and were
:22:20. > :22:25.escalating a kind of proxy war. It seems to me we are amateurish in a
:22:25. > :22:28.way about this. We are dabbling in cultures that we don't understand
:22:28. > :22:32.and not getting the results we think we ought to achieve. The one thing
:22:32. > :22:36.all these countries have in common is the outsider who goes in to
:22:36. > :22:39.meddle is the bad guy. That's true across the board. We seem not to be
:22:39. > :22:45.able to take that on board. APPLAUSE
:22:45. > :22:49.The woman in the second row there. have to dis disagree with Mehdi
:22:49. > :22:53.Hasan actually. He is saying this radicalisation and the thoughts have
:22:53. > :23:00.existed for decades. However, what sticks out in my mind, and I'm 27,
:23:00. > :23:05.is 9/11. A lot of the people who are going out and becoming radicalised,
:23:05. > :23:09.being extremists, look at the gentleman last week. He is of my
:23:09. > :23:13.generation. This has happened since then. That's what you need to
:23:13. > :23:19.target. Yes it has been happening for decades but a lot of people have
:23:19. > :23:26.become aware of it only since 9/11. I agree. I was saying that Alan's
:23:26. > :23:33.point was that it had come out of the blue. It hasn't. It is not a
:23:33. > :23:38.controversial point. I think there's a direct correlation. The number of
:23:38. > :23:42.statements we've heard from young people who've turned to radicalism
:23:42. > :23:46.and extremism, what they are citing is quite frankly they want revenge
:23:46. > :23:51.and retaliation. Fundamentally we've made some very bad decisions I
:23:51. > :23:55.believe over the last few years. We followed the the US. We've been
:23:56. > :24:01.asked by the US to go into scenarios, war situations around the
:24:01. > :24:04.world with no good evidence. The weapons of mass destruction was one
:24:04. > :24:10.of the clearest misleading statements to get introduce that
:24:10. > :24:14.particular conflict. Syria could be the next one. We've got no
:24:14. > :24:18.justification, no jurisdiction and no interest. And every single time
:24:18. > :24:24.we follow what I believe is absolutely misguided policy we are
:24:24. > :24:28.going to fuel young people who listening to individuals, who should
:24:28. > :24:33.be deported, it is as simple as that. There should be none of this
:24:33. > :24:38.allowing them to stay here and still radicalise people on the streets, we
:24:38. > :24:45.are going to continue with the problem. I can't allow one of Mehdi
:24:45. > :24:54.Hasan's comments to go unchallenged. He said, I speak as somebody whose
:24:54. > :25:00.father fought at Monty Cass in inknow -- Monte Cassino in General
:25:00. > :25:08.Alexander's Army. He said Palestine had been occupied for a long time.
:25:08. > :25:15.46 years. I'm old enough to remember 1966, 1967, 1973. I don't know who
:25:15. > :25:22.the aggressors were but that is a totally unjustified comment. The
:25:22. > :25:26.State of Israel exists through the decision of the United Nations. This
:25:26. > :25:32.radicalisation by our going into other countries might be a fact, but
:25:32. > :25:37.we have to do what's right. We got rid of a dictator in Iraq, Saddam
:25:37. > :25:42.Hussein. The situation there might be wrong now, but we got rid of a
:25:42. > :25:48.dictator. If we do the same in Syria we risk doing the sill thing. The
:25:48. > :25:51.opposition there are just as radical as Assad, just as bad. However, we
:25:51. > :25:58.can't sit back and do nothing. We have to follow our beliefs. Thank
:25:58. > :26:03.you. I'm going to... I'm going to move on to Syria. We've got a
:26:03. > :26:13.question on Syria. Before we do, you can of course at home take part in
:26:13. > :26:25.
:26:25. > :26:34.this debate either by using our # Or Chris lark, please. Is arming the
:26:34. > :26:39.Syrian rebels in our national interest? We started on this really,
:26:39. > :26:43.they have lifted the ban and Mr Hague suggests that it will
:26:43. > :26:47.accelerate them towards the peace table to know this is a possibility.
:26:47. > :26:52.I personally think Russia's joining in with the offer of other weapons
:26:52. > :26:58.rather make it clear that the danger is that we will be living this kind
:26:58. > :27:05.of proxy war. It is a very frightening prospect to me. Of
:27:05. > :27:13.course I understand that the President Assad is ghastly. I don't
:27:13. > :27:17.have any problem with that. I hope he falls resoon, but I'm not -- I
:27:17. > :27:23.hope he falls very soon, but I'm not keen on what the Chinese are doing
:27:23. > :27:28.in Tibet. Should we get on there? And when we finish invagd let's push
:27:28. > :27:33.off to Moscow and sort out Putin. Where does it end? One has to
:27:33. > :27:38.somehow keep a grip on areas where we do have a kind of responsibility.
:27:38. > :27:42.I suppose I do feel that. Sometimes there is a kind of historic
:27:42. > :27:46.responsibility to get in, but I think that kind of reckless just
:27:46. > :27:53.being the kind of policeman of the world, we can't afford it. But
:27:53. > :27:57.anyway I don't think anyone can, so for me it seems Mr Hague says we
:27:57. > :28:01.won't have any troops on the ground, but yes we will, because people will
:28:01. > :28:05.have have to explain how to work the weapons we were sending. He says it
:28:05. > :28:10.will go to the good rebels as opposed to the bad rebels. Yes,
:28:10. > :28:18.dear. These things are impossible. APPLAUSE
:28:18. > :28:22.I have a slight, just a qualifying admiration, I do rather admire Mr
:28:22. > :28:26.Hague and Mr Cameron for going with something that God knows would not
:28:26. > :28:30.be popular and certainly wouldn't be a question of governing for votes. I
:28:30. > :28:34.sort of like that in them but I think in this instance there's
:28:34. > :28:42.nothing for us there until at the end when we can go in with aid and
:28:42. > :28:47.help the new post-Assad state get settled and set up. OK. You Sir at
:28:47. > :28:52.the back. I'm finding the real problem is not so much arming the
:28:52. > :28:55.rebels, it is what happens very similar to the Americans and the Bay
:28:55. > :29:00.of Pigs arming the rebels is well and good but when it doesn't work
:29:00. > :29:04.out, what does the state do? That's the dangerous line that I find. If
:29:04. > :29:10.it doesn't work out arming the rebels, where does the state come
:29:10. > :29:13.in? Alan Johnson? The rebels are already armed. Syria is awash with
:29:13. > :29:17.weapons. The decision made this week wasn't about other countries in
:29:17. > :29:21.Europe making this decision. It was about Britain making this decision.
:29:21. > :29:26.It required unaninity to keep the sanction as, because the decision
:29:26. > :29:31.had run out after two years, the sanctions and the arms embargo were
:29:31. > :29:34.taken together. France was in an equivocal decision but the rest of
:29:34. > :29:39.Europe knew if they didn't go along with this they wouldn't keep the
:29:39. > :29:42.sanction as, because Hague would have vetoed it. The Americans are
:29:42. > :29:45.supposed to support arming the rebels but there is no chance of
:29:45. > :29:49.Obama or America doing it themselves. This is purely British.
:29:49. > :29:54.This is British arms that are going into a country that's awash with
:29:54. > :29:58.weapons. Julian is right. We don't know whether they are going to get
:29:58. > :30:02.to the good rebels, if you like. There is plenty of evidence that
:30:02. > :30:08.Assad does have a large proportion of the population on side. The
:30:08. > :30:12.Alawites for a start, from his sect. So I can't see how this will help
:30:12. > :30:17.the Syrian people. Leave aside is it in the best interests of Britain? Is
:30:17. > :30:22.it in the best interests of Syria, where we want to see a peaceful
:30:22. > :30:26.solution? There is no options here that are good options. William Hague
:30:26. > :30:30.is faced with a series of options, none of which is perfect, but this
:30:31. > :30:35.seems to me to be the wrong thing to do, at exactly the wrong time. It
:30:35. > :30:40.has led to a production from Russia. Although the idea of peace talks is
:30:40. > :30:47.tenuous, at least it was there for June and July. This seems to have
:30:47. > :30:50.scuppered that as well. You think it is something they are seriously
:30:50. > :30:56.considering, not just a matter of putting pressure by saying they
:30:56. > :31:01.might. I do not think it will put pressure, not with Russia stepping
:31:01. > :31:07.in with the most sophisticated air missiles in the world. Has it been a
:31:07. > :31:11.misjudgement? Not at all. One of the things we have to accept, and Allen
:31:11. > :31:15.has this wrong, is the fact that it was us and the French that wanted
:31:15. > :31:20.the embargo lifted, and quite rightly and properly so, because it
:31:20. > :31:25.gives us the opportunity, should we so choose, to supply weaponry and
:31:25. > :31:29.armament to those people who are fighting against Assad. We are not
:31:29. > :31:34.saying we are definitely going to do it, but we are lifting the embargo
:31:34. > :31:39.so that we have that there are. second point in the question, is
:31:39. > :31:43.arming the Syrian revels in our national interest? It comes back to
:31:43. > :31:46.the point the gentleman at the front made, sometimes you have to do what
:31:46. > :31:51.you believe is the right thing. Allen, in the previous answer,
:31:51. > :31:55.referred to Kosovo. There are other instances where we should have done
:31:55. > :32:01.things which we did not and to our great regret. What is your view on
:32:01. > :32:07.this one? Obviously, we want a proper they go shaded peaceful
:32:07. > :32:10.settlement. That is the way forward. We are putting in aid because we
:32:10. > :32:14.know that millions of people are being displaced. Many more tens and
:32:14. > :32:19.hundreds of thousands of people, innocent women and children inputted
:32:19. > :32:23.tiller, are being slaughtered. There is good evidence that this man is
:32:23. > :32:27.using chemical weapons against his own people. Forgive me, but I do not
:32:27. > :32:33.think we should sit back on that. I think we have a right and a duty to
:32:33. > :32:39.say this is not acceptable in the modern world. To put the question to
:32:39. > :32:43.you, I repeat again, is arming the rebels in our national interest? You
:32:43. > :32:47.have not answered. We have not got to that stage. We have lifted the
:32:47. > :32:52.embargo so that is an option we have. If we were to do it, as
:32:52. > :32:56.William Hague has made clear, it would be done in a very cautious and
:32:56. > :32:59.sensible and responsible way. It is a difficult situation, nobody is
:33:00. > :33:05.going to pretend it is anything other, and it is hugely complicated
:33:05. > :33:08.as well. Do you mind if I just make the point that William Hague appears
:33:08. > :33:13.the only individual in the UK at this point in time who thinks arming
:33:13. > :33:17.the rebels, whether it is a diplomatic ploy for a month or so,
:33:17. > :33:21.or whether it does actually deliver weapons, he must be the only
:33:21. > :33:26.individual who thinks that is going to resolve this, or in any way help.
:33:26. > :33:30.I can almost imagine somebody saying, how are we going to take the
:33:30. > :33:33.weapons to make sure they are allocated to the right rebel? Who is
:33:33. > :33:39.going to be the right rebel, and when is that right rebel going to
:33:39. > :33:43.start talking to somebody in the UK and leading to Morag, is eight here?
:33:43. > :33:51.It is just a ridiculous piece of policy. -- more radicalisation here
:33:51. > :33:54.in the UK. We will go there, we will arm the rebels, they will take over
:33:54. > :33:58.the government and then in 20 years when we are not happy with them, we
:33:58. > :34:06.will have to kick them out again. It is absolutely ridiculous. They are
:34:06. > :34:08.sovereign. There are no good options in Syria, that is true. There is an
:34:08. > :34:13.old saying that whoever fights monsters should see to it that they
:34:13. > :34:17.do not become on in the process. Usher shall Assad is a monster who I
:34:17. > :34:23.load. I loathed him when the US government was rendering terrorists
:34:23. > :34:26.to Damascus to be tortured by their secret police a few years ago. His
:34:26. > :34:30.regime is responsible for much of the violence in Syria, but many of
:34:31. > :34:35.the rebels have come monsters in their own right. The Syrian
:34:35. > :34:40.revolution began more than two years ago as an Arab spring style protest
:34:41. > :34:47.against tyranny but it has morphed into something else, hijacked by six
:34:47. > :34:49.Terry thugs, ex-military, foreign jihadists, gangsters. The UN,
:34:49. > :34:55.Amnesty International, read the reports about what the rebels have
:34:55. > :34:59.done, some of them - torture, beheadings, use of child soldiers.
:34:59. > :35:04.There have been reports they have also used chemical weapons. A few
:35:04. > :35:08.weeks ago some of us watched a foreign -- a rebel commander cut the
:35:08. > :35:13.heart out of a dead man and bite into it, and yet a few weeks later
:35:13. > :35:16.our Foreign Secretary pushes the rest of the EU into lifting an arms
:35:16. > :35:22.embargo so we can potentially supply arms to his allies. So that we can
:35:22. > :35:27.supply arms to rebels who include a group that has openly pledged
:35:27. > :35:31.allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Let me get this straight, at home we are
:35:31. > :35:34.fighting against extremism and countering radicalisation. Abroad,
:35:34. > :35:43.we are sending bombs and bullets to radicals and extremists, we are
:35:43. > :35:47.planning to. That is not just double standards, it is insanity! I would
:35:47. > :35:52.like to say that I support the arming of the rebels. The reason I
:35:53. > :35:56.support it is because the reason Assad has been so successful in
:35:56. > :36:02.killing his own people is because of the support that he has had from
:36:02. > :36:08.Russia and China, and those are two powers that do not seem to worry how
:36:08. > :36:12.many people get killed if they are pursuing their own interests. I
:36:12. > :36:17.think it absolutely right for us to now start to draw a line in the sand
:36:17. > :36:21.and say that we are not accept ting any more of this support and
:36:21. > :36:26.killing, that we will stand up and say that what is happening in the
:36:26. > :36:34.Syria, supported IVs powers, Russia and China, is wrong, and we are
:36:34. > :36:39.going to start to try and reverse this process. -- supported by these
:36:39. > :36:42.powers. Surely, arming the rebels is
:36:42. > :36:47.fuelling the fire. As you mention, we do not know where the materials
:36:47. > :36:52.will go to. I would also say that previous interventions have failed.
:36:52. > :36:58.Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We are leaving them in a bigger mess than
:36:58. > :37:03.we found them. But mainly, is it any of our business? Is it our business
:37:03. > :37:11.for the government to say that we have a right to get involved? Your
:37:11. > :37:15.job is to represent Britain and put our interests first.
:37:15. > :37:21.Is there a worry that this action may cause a bigger international
:37:21. > :37:27.war? That is my worry on this matter. Yes, absolutely. They are
:37:27. > :37:32.talking about this tenuous John Kerry goes over to Russia, they talk
:37:32. > :37:37.about getting a peace conference, some diplomatic efforts underway. It
:37:37. > :37:40.is essential that Russia is around that table, and Iran. They are
:37:40. > :37:46.arming the Assad regime. It is essential to get all of the players
:37:46. > :37:52.round that table. By the actions that William Hague is taking, he
:37:52. > :37:55.does run the risk - I would not accuse William of doing this
:37:55. > :38:02.deliberately - but it does run the risk of escalating the whole arms
:38:02. > :38:06.race. And that means you are in a worse situation than before. It is
:38:06. > :38:10.all right saying, put in more arms on the rebel side. There are plenty
:38:10. > :38:16.of countries arming the rebels, but what is our object if? Our objective
:38:16. > :38:21.is a peaceful solution. You do not get that by putting more weapons in
:38:21. > :38:31.and killing more Syrians. It is keeping our options open. Let's
:38:31. > :38:33.
:38:33. > :38:39.leave that and come back home, clearly domestic issues. Does the
:38:40. > :38:43.fact that patients are more likely to die at the weekend demonstrate
:38:43. > :38:47.the NHS's gradual deterioration? This survey showed you had a better
:38:47. > :38:53.chance of living if you were operated on on a Monday than on a
:38:53. > :38:57.Friday. Anna Soubry. Statistics show a fact but do not give the
:38:57. > :39:02.explanation and the understanding behind the facts. The NHS medical
:39:02. > :39:06.director, who is a heart surgeon by training, explained that when he was
:39:06. > :39:10.operating as a heart surgeon, he would often have his most
:39:10. > :39:15.difficult, most risky patients put into his surgery on a Friday, quite
:39:15. > :39:19.deliberately, because he was not in surgery on a Saturday and Sunday.
:39:19. > :39:25.The cause of the weekend, people would spend longer in intensive
:39:25. > :39:30.care, and because he was not in surgery, he was available and able
:39:30. > :39:35.to give them more attention over the weekend. Why do more people die when
:39:35. > :39:41.operated on on a Friday? If you put more of your risky patients in on a
:39:41. > :39:45.Friday, they run the risk, being risky, of unfortunately not
:39:45. > :39:49.surviving the surgery. It is not as simple as saying, if you go in on a
:39:49. > :39:54.Friday you run a higher risk because there is some failing in the system,
:39:54. > :39:58.there is something wrong in the staff. It could be because you are,
:39:58. > :40:02.in any event, more at risk of not surviving from your operation, that
:40:02. > :40:06.you have been put there on a Friday specifically so that you can be
:40:06. > :40:12.given extra care. But there is another story involved in this. It
:40:12. > :40:16.is something that Sir Bruce Keogh is looking at, and that is making the
:40:16. > :40:21.best use that we possibly can of our NHS, so that it reflects the real
:40:21. > :40:25.lives that most of us live. That means looking at whether or not we
:40:25. > :40:29.could do much better by having more parts of our hospitals open at the
:40:29. > :40:33.weekend. If you have ever been in the unfortunate situation of going
:40:33. > :40:37.into accident and emergency on Sunday night - and you may think I
:40:37. > :40:42.am speaking from experience dash and then you are admitted but you cannot
:40:42. > :40:46.have a scanner, because that part of the hospital is not open until
:40:46. > :40:51.Monday, and so you wait in a bed on Sunday night until Monday comes
:40:51. > :41:00.along. Because there is such a backlog Hamid cannot have the scan
:41:00. > :41:04.on Monday, so they send you home. -- you cannot have the scan. So we
:41:04. > :41:09.could have potentially much greater improvement in our NHS. That is what
:41:09. > :41:13.this is about. Do you agree that gradual deterioration is not the
:41:13. > :41:19.issue? This was analysis done by Doctor Foster at Saint Mary's
:41:19. > :41:22.Hospital. They were looking at planned surgery, elective surgery,
:41:22. > :41:30.not emergency care, but people planning to have a hip replacement,
:41:30. > :41:34.etc. The mortality rate overall is something like 0.6%. It is tiny.
:41:34. > :41:38.Over three years, they looked at the people who had died, that tiny
:41:38. > :41:43.proportion, and equated it with this issue about the weekend. Anna Soubry
:41:43. > :41:49.is right. I have plenty of political issues with her and her government
:41:49. > :41:53.about the NHS, but this is not one of them. I goes you will find there
:41:53. > :41:58.are reasons why the patients who are having a leg of surgery, the ones
:41:58. > :42:03.least likely to come through our operated on later in the week. --
:42:03. > :42:08.having elective surgery. This must not be pumped into another attack on
:42:08. > :42:17.the NHS, as if people are dying on the operating table in huge numbers
:42:17. > :42:22.at elective surgery. APPLAUSE
:42:22. > :42:27.It seems that Anna Soubry was valued into a seven-day hospital, with
:42:27. > :42:30.scanning and having scans available on Saturday and Sunday. One of the
:42:30. > :42:40.main problems with more scanning facilities is that you need to put
:42:40. > :42:40.
:42:40. > :42:44.more money in. The current climate, is that possible? Thank you for the
:42:44. > :42:47.observation you have made. I would like to pick up on his point that he
:42:47. > :42:51.has plenty of issues with the current coalition government's
:42:52. > :42:58.policy on the NHS. When this reform was launched, part of it was that
:42:58. > :43:04.the NHS had to find, before 2015, 20 billion in efficiency savings. I do
:43:04. > :43:09.not know about you, but efficiency savings to me equals costs. Costs in
:43:09. > :43:14.the NHS means you start to reduce things. One of the areas identified
:43:15. > :43:19.very early on, and the audit commission costed this, was that 5
:43:19. > :43:23.billion would be on staff alone. When you take staff out of the
:43:23. > :43:27.system, they cannot man the equipment, cannot be on the wards,
:43:27. > :43:32.cannot be doing surgery. So I go back to the question, which I
:43:32. > :43:37.welcome, that this is a direct correlation. If you affect the NHS
:43:37. > :43:42.in that way, and you supposedly ring fence it, when it is not being ring
:43:42. > :43:46.fenced at all, you start to see problems. The accident and emergency
:43:46. > :43:50.issue is just one of them. In the last few weeks we have had the
:43:50. > :43:57.nonemergency number, and others. It just shows that it is seriously
:43:57. > :44:00.creaking. �20 billion of efficiency savings was introduced under the
:44:00. > :44:05.last government. This had cross-party agreement, and it is
:44:05. > :44:09.ways of making sure money in the NHS is better spent. Forgive me, but it
:44:09. > :44:14.is not about cuts, but about making sure you move money to better areas
:44:14. > :44:17.and spend it more efficiently. On staff, there are more doctors than
:44:17. > :44:21.before and the cuts that have been made in staff is to managers and
:44:21. > :44:26.bureaucrats, which I would have thought you would have approved of.
:44:26. > :44:30.Clinical Commissioning Group's have led to this. You take out one
:44:30. > :44:34.element, primary care trusts, and you immediately launch into Clinical
:44:34. > :44:38.Commissioning Group's, putting doctors into a situation where they
:44:38. > :44:42.are trying to deal with bureaucracy when, quite frankly, they ought to
:44:42. > :44:46.be treating patients. They are the people commissioning the services,
:44:46. > :44:49.which is why we are seeing such an improvement in commissioning,
:44:49. > :44:55.because we have trusted health professionals to do it. There are
:44:55. > :45:01.many examples of where it is working exceptionally well. I am more than
:45:01. > :45:05.happy to share them with you. essential truth of this is whether
:45:05. > :45:10.or not more people die at the weekend, and I don't know enough
:45:10. > :45:16.about it. We all have a better chance of surviving our illnesses
:45:16. > :45:21.before there was an NHS. The fact is that the NHS is a marvellous element
:45:21. > :45:25.of life in this country. Of course it is going through a crisis, it has
:45:25. > :45:31.to deal with far more people, the treatments are more expensive and so
:45:31. > :45:35.on. It is difficult to manage that. But this is a real area, Anna is
:45:35. > :45:40.asking for a cross-party solution. We all want the same thing - an
:45:40. > :45:42.efficient NHS that runs well and the rest of it. Surely this is one area
:45:42. > :45:49.where the political parties could put their differences to one side
:45:49. > :45:55.and work together as to what the NHS needs and the support it should get.
:45:55. > :46:01.APPLAUSE I'm not argue arguing against
:46:01. > :46:05.cross-party agreement. But when even the Royal Colleges don't support the
:46:05. > :46:10.reforms, when David Cameron had to call a pause in terms of the launch
:46:10. > :46:17.of the reform bill, haven't you really got a problem? You can have
:46:17. > :46:22.cross-party support but when you haven't got the mechanics joined up,
:46:22. > :46:27.I believe you've got a problem. Mehdi? I'm astonished to turn up to
:46:27. > :46:31.Question Time and finding myself agreeing with UKIP on every issue
:46:31. > :46:37.tonight. You can't have a cross-party consensus with some of
:46:37. > :46:43.the things going on in the NHS. I'm with Julian, I'm a great fan of the
:46:43. > :46:47.health service. But costs. Labour put in a lot of money to the NHS and
:46:47. > :46:50.did improve quality. No doubt about that. But a lot of that money was
:46:50. > :46:53.sucked up into salaries, the salaries of doctors, GPs and
:46:53. > :46:58.consultants. We have some of the highest paid doctors in the world.
:46:58. > :47:03.You look at any international league table. When it comes back to the
:47:03. > :47:08.weekend point, and I'm not an expert on the weekend figures, it seems to
:47:08. > :47:12.be the case that if you have weekend care surely there should be a
:47:12. > :47:20.consultant covering hospitals at all times given what those consultants
:47:20. > :47:30.are paid. I don't see why we shouldn't expect consultant-led
:47:30. > :47:30.
:47:30. > :47:38.treatment at the weekend. The out of film for cuts - efficiency savings.
:47:38. > :47:44.�20 million and the opposition bring in this unnecessary topdown
:47:44. > :47:50.reorganisation, which nobody wants, which cost costs three to �4
:47:50. > :47:56.billion, on a pointless reorganisation. A couple of points
:47:56. > :48:01.from the audience. One of the issues being debated on the Conservative
:48:01. > :48:05.policy this forum this week was to try and save money for the NHS by
:48:05. > :48:10.restricting access to a GP and limiting the amount of times you can
:48:10. > :48:15.visit your general practitioner. How is that improving the NHS and the
:48:15. > :48:20.health of the nation It one idea among many and it is not my party's
:48:20. > :48:24.policy and it will never come to fruition. I was one of the
:48:24. > :48:30.bureaucrats made redundant from the NHS. I know from a lot of the people
:48:30. > :48:35.I worked with, a lot of people lost their jobs at the PCTs at massive
:48:35. > :48:40.public spent, with massive redundancy package as, and they've
:48:40. > :48:50.been hired back to do the same jobs as they did before. Have you been
:48:50. > :48:53.hired back? I work you GP's surgery now. Diane's policy is to have
:48:53. > :48:57.elected county health boards. If there was ever a ridiculous idea,
:48:58. > :49:05.that was it. You can't have politicians micromanaging the
:49:05. > :49:08.commissioning of services. The evidence is clearly emerging that
:49:08. > :49:12.they are proving to be extremely beneficial. We are seeing a
:49:12. > :49:17.different approach to commissioning and in a way that we haven't seen
:49:17. > :49:21.before. But public satisfaction in the NHS is falling under your
:49:21. > :49:24.Government. This is led by the people at the sharp end. Doctors and
:49:24. > :49:28.nurses and other health professionals are now controlling
:49:28. > :49:33.those services and having a direct impact. It is for the benefit of
:49:33. > :49:39.patients. Soubry sushgs you have made your -- Anna Soubry, you have
:49:39. > :49:44.made your point and we will come back to it in six months no doubt.
:49:44. > :49:52.Does the position on the UK's benefits policy mean it is finally
:49:52. > :50:02.time to get out of the EU? This is the report that the EU is
:50:02. > :50:03.
:50:03. > :50:10.going to take the UK to court on benefits. Cue Diane James. Of course
:50:10. > :50:15.it is. What better example of the Prime Minister claiming he is going
:50:15. > :50:20.to go to Brussels and repatriate powers and do this, that and the
:50:20. > :50:25.other and there it is, it is almost as if he has been whacked around the
:50:25. > :50:29.cheeks with a wet fish and told to go back and do his homework. It is
:50:29. > :50:35.not something that he has got a leg to stand on quite frankly.
:50:35. > :50:40.Employment law, right of access to all EU residents, cross-boundaries,
:50:40. > :50:44.are it is there enshrined in law. You've got equality. You can't
:50:44. > :50:50.fiddle with it. You either come out and start again and do your own
:50:50. > :51:00.thing or stay in the party. I think it was one of the European heads who
:51:00. > :51:01.
:51:01. > :51:05.said the UK always has this issue, is it goes on to the playing field
:51:05. > :51:10.and plays wrong sports. You think the British Government will lose
:51:10. > :51:18.this case? I believe it will.Do you believe that? No, I don't believe
:51:18. > :51:24.that. It has been tested in the UK courts on several occasions and it
:51:24. > :51:27.does not breach EU law. Someone in the commission is awe kip member,
:51:28. > :51:32.because they are trying to help them at the moment. The simple fact is
:51:33. > :51:38.this. The residents test we give to workers coming here is to ensure
:51:38. > :51:43.that they have a spend a period of time here before they can claim
:51:43. > :51:47.benefits like JSA. That's because we have a means-tested system. In other
:51:47. > :51:52.European Union countries people go there. Don't forget Brits move to
:51:52. > :51:57.other parts of Europe all the time. After Poland and Italy we are the
:51:57. > :52:01.third biggest workforce in Europe. When we go to work in their
:52:01. > :52:04.countries we have a contributory system, so you can't access benefit
:52:04. > :52:09.until you've contributed so much. It is the same thing but done in a
:52:09. > :52:13.different way. And that has been the case that the UK courts have upheld
:52:13. > :52:17.all the time. It is one of the reasons why Europe needs to change.
:52:17. > :52:21.Leaving Europe, in the economic mess we are in at the moment, with a
:52:21. > :52:25.world that's increasingly dependent on regions to punch their weight, I
:52:25. > :52:32.can think of nothing more self-destructive that we could do.
:52:32. > :52:36.Would you like Labour to call... APPLAUSE
:52:36. > :52:44.Would you like Labour to call for a referendum before the election so
:52:44. > :52:52.that the public can have their say? No. Now is not the time to increase
:52:52. > :52:59.uncertainty in the British economy and for British business. This is...
:52:59. > :53:02.It might increase certainty nightn't it? You would have to have a debate.
:53:02. > :53:06.Perish the thought! What I'm saying is we should be concentrating on
:53:07. > :53:12.growth in our economy, getting young people back to work, recovering from
:53:12. > :53:16.a terrible economic mess and having an in/out referendum on the European
:53:16. > :53:20.Union would actually jeopardise that. Julian Fellowes? I don't know
:53:20. > :53:25.whether we are going to win or lose this. The Alan thinks we might win
:53:25. > :53:29.it and I hope we do, but I think there is a more central issue. The
:53:29. > :53:34.whole thrust of European history over the last few centuries has been
:53:34. > :53:41.driven by the desire for people to chrome the way they are Gordon, and
:53:41. > :53:46.to have their voice heard by their governors. We have, in the ti we
:53:46. > :53:50.have got ourselves into a situation where even if 100% of the population
:53:50. > :53:55.of this country don't want something or do want something, that doesn't
:53:55. > :54:01.mean it will happen. I don't believe, I agree with Alan, I don't
:54:01. > :54:05.believe in leaving Europe. It seems the completely wrong time and very
:54:05. > :54:10.destabilising and the rest of it. But I also believe that David
:54:10. > :54:13.Cameron's desire to renegotiate is realistic. He sees it as a good
:54:14. > :54:19.thing but appreciates that the terms we are living under are no longer
:54:19. > :54:25.acceptable. But his instinct and I think it is a perfectly reasonable
:54:25. > :54:30.one is first to see if they can be made acceptable, if they can be
:54:30. > :54:34.renegotiated so we do feel we control our own Government, that we
:54:34. > :54:37.are a free country. It is only after the failure of that effort that we
:54:37. > :54:43.should even be having a conversation about whether we should stay in.
:54:43. > :54:47.That's what I think. A brief point. I think it is quite ghastly what
:54:48. > :54:52.we've heard today but I do believe that the UK is right on this matter.
:54:52. > :54:57.The UK is particularly right on this matter and I agree with Alan Johnson
:54:57. > :55:02.and Anna Soubry that the UK has policies in place that shouldn't be
:55:02. > :55:07.Tam personed with. To leave the EU at this time would be particularly
:55:07. > :55:13.destabilising to the markets. It is important that we remain for the
:55:13. > :55:23.prosperity of our nation. Mehdi Hasan, do you think it is an own
:55:23. > :55:23.
:55:23. > :55:26.goal for the commission? In terms of emboldening UKIP. In response to the
:55:26. > :55:30.questioner, no of course we shouldn't pull out of the EU if one
:55:30. > :55:37.legal decision goes against it. I'm not a lawyer. I want to make two
:55:37. > :55:43.wider points. One is to echo what Alan said. There are two million
:55:43. > :55:46.Britons working and studying in the EU, 800,000 in Spain alone, able to
:55:46. > :55:50.access benefits on contributory principles. It is not just one way
:55:50. > :55:55.traffic. Don't believe all the hype in your newspapers this morning.
:55:55. > :56:00.It's a two-way road. And secondly, please, let's not use these
:56:00. > :56:05.decisions or stories to scaremonger about the role that migrants play in
:56:05. > :56:10.our society, especially in relation to the benefits system. All of the
:56:10. > :56:16.studies show that migrants pay in more in tax than they take out in
:56:16. > :56:26.benefits. They are less likely to be on the benefits system... I have to
:56:26. > :56:32.stop you there. And less likely to abuse the NHS. So UKIP, please stop
:56:32. > :56:39.demonise demonising them whether it is Bulgarians... We are into injury
:56:39. > :56:42.time. Alan is right in his analysis. In the was a rule introduced in the
:56:42. > :56:49.1990s and tested in the Supreme Court. Other countries support us.
:56:49. > :56:53.We've supported other countries. The Austrians for example. You are
:56:53. > :56:57.interrupting me and I didn't interrupt you. He is right in his
:56:57. > :57:00.analysis. We need to renegotiate. We need to look at the way of doing
:57:00. > :57:04.things in the European Union better. I think there is a groundswell of
:57:04. > :57:08.opinion throughout the EU that's in agreement with us. So I look forward
:57:08. > :57:13.to 2015, the return of a Conservative Government, and we'll
:57:13. > :57:16.enter into all of that and then have a referendum. I hope we vote to stay
:57:16. > :57:24.in the European Union but we need to have that referendum so we can lance
:57:24. > :57:29.this boil once and for all. Time's up. Apologise Apologises to those
:57:29. > :57:35.who wanted to get in on this. We had, if we had an hour and a half I
:57:35. > :57:41.would bring you all in. But we can only do an hour. We are going to be
:57:41. > :57:46.in Blackburn next week. Douglas Alexander will be on the panel for
:57:46. > :57:51.Labour. And the writer and historian AN Wilson will be there. The week
:57:51. > :57:55.after that we'll be in Edinburgh. Watch out if you can think of coming
:57:55. > :57:58.to it. 16 and 17-year-olds only, because the first time in the United
:57:58. > :58:01.Kingdom they are going to have a vote in the election for the
:58:01. > :58:07.vote in the election for the referendum on independence. In
:58:07. > :58:14.Edinburgh two weeks from now. Just 16 and 17-year-olds. And if you are
:58:14. > :58:20.any age in Blackburn frankly, you are welcome to come. Apply via our
:58:20. > :58:25.website or call. My thanks to our panel here, to all