30/05/2013 Question Time

London town. Welcome to Question Time.

And good evening to you at home, good evening to our audience and how

our panel, Labour's former Home secretary, Alan Johnson,

conservative health minister, Anna Soubry, one of the rising stars of

UKIP, Diane James, political director of Huffington Post UK,

Mehdi Hasan, and the Tory peer and creator of Downton Abbey, Julian

Our first question, Michael Kerr. Following the slaughter of Lee

Rigby, should adopt a big rubber approach to the surveillance of all

forms of communication? -- a Big Brother approach. I do not regard it

as a big rubber approach, but if the questioner is inferring that we

should adopt the communications data Bill, then I think we should. -- big

brother. There was an important and constructive contribution by joint

committee of both houses, because the bill was published in draft

form. They pointed to a number of problems. They said the bill was

widely drawn. But they said it still needed legislation. Intelligence and

Security Committee, which are members of the house of parliament

from both sides, and from all sides, chaired by Malcolm Rifkind, they see

all of the MI6 and MI5 intelligence. Before you go further... They

reported there was a problem that needed to be tackled by legislation.

What would you like to see? It is not the content of communications.

When people communicate by land line, or by mobile, security

services have always been able to look at who was ringing who at one

time, the duration of the call, nothing to do with the content. That

is a completely different system that has not been changed. But, as

new technology has advanced, there are new forms of technology and

communication that are not covered by that legislation. And everyone

who looked at this dash me, my successor, Theresa May, the

intelligence and security committee, and even the joint

committee of both houses - said this is a problem and it needs to be

addressed. It has disappeared from the Queen's Speech, it seems,

because the Liberal Democrats have vetoed it. It is nothing to do with

Woolwich, incidentally. This would be an issue with or without

Woolwich. It is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. It has been known for six

years that there is a flaw in the intelligence services' ability to

track was very necessary intelligence. 95% of all the cases

that security services have tracked, seven people due to take

off in planes to America, all of these other plots that have been

uncovered, 95% of them were uncovered through this very form of

tracking who was involved, who was ringing who, the jury should not the

calls, not the content. This is nothing to do with the content. --

the jubilation of the calls. said Theresa May should resign if

she does not do this through. the Home Secretary. It is her

primary responsibility to keep the public safe. She sees the need for

this, we hear. Behind-the-scenes, and she argued for it on Sunday. I

think it is so crucial to a Home Secretary's role that it is a

resignation issue. If I was Home Secretary and I could not get this

legislation through cabinet, and could not convince them, as the

voice of the security services and the police in these circumstances,

then I would not be able to do my job as Home Secretary. When you were

Home Secretary, you did not do it. There must be a good reason. There

is a very good reason, because I was Home Secretary in 2009 and there was

an election in 2010. The way the government have approached this is

the right way, publish a bill in draft before, give a year for

committees to look at it, take a measured approach. We did not have

time to do that before the election. Or you would have resigned? Yes.Is

Ed Miliband in favour? Ed Miliband agrees with the amendments made by

the joint committee, which are very important and were supposed to be in

the legislation in the Queen's Speech but have disappeared. There

is this loophole. I used to be a criminal barrister, so I am aware of

what we can do, and the evidential benefit that there is in looking at,

for example, contact between people on mobile phones. The mad mass of

this is that you cannot get the same sort of evidence on the basis of

people using the Internet. -- madness. It is not about the content

but about the communication, the timing, the fact that if people, the

intelligence forces and police, they put it together in a grid. It is

extremely useful evidence to show conspiracy or joint enterprise. And

I would like to see it am. And I think now is the time for all the

political parties, because this should not be a party political

issue, to sit down and work out a way that we can essentially tie up

and secure this loophole so we can get what we want, without the

legitimate concerns that people have about any encroachment of the state.

Have you thought of ignoring the Liberal Democrats and going along

with Labour? I do not think we should start to try and see this as

damaging the coalition, frankly playing cheap party political

politics. This is a national security issue. What is cheap about

it? Saying that Labour and the Tories should gang up on the

Liberals. That is not the approach at all. We need to sit down and work

out a way of achieving what we all want to achieve. If you put the bill

aside, Lee Rigby's killers were apparently known for being

activists. Should they not have been under surveillance anyway, apart

from the bill? It is a good point about the existing powers,

surveillance techniques and flaws in the system. The very worst time to

change your laws is in the immediate aftermath of what is a terrorist

attack, or an alleged terrorist attack. This is the worst time to

have knee-jerk responses. I was 100% with David Cameron may rare occasion

last week when he said we should carry on with business as usual. And

Alan Johnson is a voice of reason on many issues, but on issues of

counterterrorism and Civil Liberties the last person we should take

advice from is a former Labour Home Secretary. That is the sad truth of

the matter. Even I think that is harsh! The coalition, for all of its

faults, has done good work in terms of restoring Civil Liberties that

were lost under 13 years of labour. Thank God for the Lib Dems standing

up against this snooper's charter, whatever you want to label it. The

Lib Dems have not exactly been people who have stood up for in

recent years. But Nick Clegg is spot-on on this. You think this is

an encroachment of Civil Liberties. You are going after everybody's

e-mail. What happens in these situations is that it is innocent,

ordinary people who get surveilled on, and the criminals and terrorists

find the loopholes. So you believe security forces should not have the

ability to track phone calls over landlines and mobile phones? I think

a government that could not keep control of 25 million child benefit

records on a CD and lost it in the post should not be entrusted with

the data of the entire population. All government is negotiating the

exchange of freedom for security, and you give up certain freedoms in

order that you may be free to walk home at night, whatever it is. That

is the whole basis of government. In this instance, it does seem to me

that the existing situation, which is when they do have permission to

go in, when they have some reason to suspect, all that is needed, and I

am only speaking for one of the lobbies, is to loosen the rules that

bind them. They can only hold information for 30 days, only do

this for something or other, they cannot repeat the request. If we had

a situation within the existing laws whereby once they have a reason to

investigate and interfere and actually look at whatever somebody

is doing on their computer, their telephone, whatever, but they are

doing it unfettered and able to achieve a result, surely that is,

apart from anything else, more realistic than trying to screen 60

million people. This is one of the things, simply to make it easier for

investigative forces, and to take away the current rules that restrict

them. That would make a big difference. The Communications

Bill, if adopted, would only solve the symptom of the problem of

terrorism. The source of terrorism really is extremism. And that has to

come down to the aggressive British foreign policy. We had an attack in

the US, that bombings in France, and now in the UK. All of this had to do

with attackers saying they were upset with the Western foreign

policy. We will come to that in a moment. Then they bring in Diane

James on the first point about surveillance. How on earth are we

going to resource this is the bill goes through? Mehdi Hasan has made

the good point that, quite frankly, governments of every colour have a

lamentable record in terms of the way they have held the data in any

form of security. The quality of the information, how that has been

handled, as such. My understanding is that MI5 and MI6 have a budget

which is under considerable threat from the austerity measures that

this coalition government is bringing in. It is very well to say,

and I would agree with the point that this is a gross intrusion of

generalised Civil Liberties with no necessity. There is a small

proportion of the population that does need monitoring. But if we

suddenly embark on this huge, very costly exercise, without the budget

to do it, it will fail at the first hurdle. This is not surveillance. We

have to get this clear. This is not surveillance. It is about the sort

of access to data which we currently allow with mobile telephones and

landlines, and we merely seek to extend that to the Internet. It is

not about surveillance. You are making a distinction. You are asking

the Internet service providers to say, we keep track of all of the

things that have been done but not the content. Absolutely, and it

shows a Trail. And you can access that with permission from the Home

Secretary, if you choose to. This is about the ability to get data, just

as you can at the moment for mobile phones. It prevented a whole series

of plots that you have read about, and that people have been tried and

imprisoned for. If we have prevented lots of plots, why do we need a new

law? If you look at the way we collected data, for example on

mobile phones and landlines, it has been particularly successful in the

prosecution, for example, of drug rings. It is incredibly important

evidence which I have seen in court. It is an extension of that and it is

really about filling in this loophole. It is not surveillance and

it is not snooping. If you want to talk specifically about

surveillance, you can do that otherwise we will widen it to the

question that was put over here with a question from Edward Poole,

please. Would we see fewer terrorist attacks in this country if we did

not invade, or support the invasion of other countries? I do not know

whether this particular Woolwich attack, would this count as one of

the examples you are talking about? That sort of thing, yes. The short

answer is, I think, yes. And I am glad of this question. I wrote an

article on this subject today. I do not think foreign policy is the only

factor in terms of motivating and radicalising people. To pretend it

is not a factor and has nothing to do with it, as Boris Johnson and

David Cameron were suggesting last week, I think that is mad. If you

look at all of the people who have been captured in failed terrorist

attacks, or after terrorist attacks, they all say the same

thing. They all talk about invasions and occupations and support for

dictators, and support for patients. At some stage, you have to ask, are

we going to take seriously what they are saying? That does not mean you

change foreign policy on the basis of their demands, and it does not

mean they are justified in carrying out acts of violence, but it means

if you want to take a multifaceted approach to preventing

radicalisation, you have to put foreign policy in the mix. It cannot

just be other issues and not foreign policy. The former head of MI5

said, I warned the government that if we invade Iraq it will spur young

British Muslims towards terror, radicalising young men. And now when

you say that, you are accused of being some extreme anarchist, when

the former head of MI5 and various intelligence agencies all warned us

what our foreign policy would produce, and it has produced. The

Woolwich case is sub judice, but the general point. My point is with

regard to the total communication (Inaudible) community leaders and

the politicians and the agencies which are responsible for this. I

can see that the community leaders have not played their role that they

were expected to play. I think there's a serious crisis there. They

have to win the confidence of the community they are living in and to

pass on these, their aspirations, their ideas to the politicians and

to the people, the public in general, so they should know what

they are thinking and what their feelings are about it. History has

shown us that when you have disaffected often young people, they

may be angry, they may have other troubles in their lives that they

fall prey off on the radicalisation and to extremism and it can go to

all sorts of appalling levels. I think when we look at, and we do

have to be careful, because somebody has been charged, so we are in

difficult legal territory, but it is an important matter this, because we

know that too many, usually meals, in our Muslim community in

particular, have been radicalised in this way and it has caused much

upset and anger in the Muslim community, because the vast majority

of that faith are decent, law-abiding, honest, good people. I

just feel this with some passion, having seen two members of my

constituency today who happen to be Muslims. They came to lobby me on my

views on plain packaging of cigarettes, but I thought that this

is a story worth repeating. At the end of our very interesting

discussion they felt the need to apologise to me in some way because

of their faith and to make the point to me that not all Muslims were like

some that we've seen in recent events. And I interrupted them to

say, you don't have to apologise at all for your faith, because good,

sensible people in this country know exactly that the overwhelming

majority of people of your faith are good, decent citizens and we are

proud to have you in our country. APPLAUSE

When we talk of extremism isn't it more a case of lack of belonging for

men, and the same thing that draws somebody towards Islamic radicalism

is the same issue that draws someone towards gangs, the EDL or violent

groups? We have a Corp group of young men with a lack of sense of

belonging and it is not just about Islamic radicalism.

APPLAUSE Alan Johnson, I would like to bring

you back to the question: Would we see fewer terrorist attacks here if

we didn't invade or support the invasion of other countries? Well,

9/11 happened before any country was invaded there. Would still be

jihadists around, I believe, with or without what happened. In terms of

Kosovo, we went in to defend Muslims, who were being butchered. I

think the argument there is we should have gone in earlier. So

there'll always be people who want to make that link. And you can't

divorce it from foreign policy. I agree with Mehdi on that. Foreign

policy has to be part of the fix, but this kind of suggestion that

this is all because of usually about the invasion of Iraq, I don't think

that's the case at all. In fact you could make a very good case for

looking at the Middle East if Saddam was still there, if you want to draw

the kinds of what if questions and find a very difficult situation in

the Middle East, as we are finding in Syria. I do enjoy lective quote

quoting. In 20032 joint Joint Intelligence Committee told your

Government if we invade Iraq we will Huyton threat to the Al-Qaeda of

Al-Qaeda. Today you are saying it is not to do with Iraq. The point I

made was 9/11 was nothing to do with the invasion of any country. It was

an attack on America. Palestinians have been occupied for

decades. The West supported Saudi dictatorships. You can't start the

clock on 9/11 and forget the oppress eggs of the -- the oppression of the

Middle East. I have to say, Alan Johnson hit the nail on the head

precisely. Before 9/11, there was no question in our minds as a British

nation of having an involvement with invading other countries. Our

presence in our countries is as a result of what was even voiced by

the man who is now standing accused of an awful crime last week. He

said, or is reported to have said, "I want to start a war on London's

streets tonight." We live in a surreal world. We've been at war for

many years, and what we are doing is trying to protect our freedom and

the safety of our nation. So the excuses given by radicals and

terrorists is feeble. That was Michael Kerr who asked the first

question. Julian Fellowes? For me the issue is not really that is

terrorism the result of our intervention? If we were absolutely

sure that our intervention was the correct thing and terrorism was the

by product of doing the right thing it could be a much clearer issue.

Agreed. I'm not sure what we think we are achieving with much of this

invasion and involvement. We read today that Helmand province is as

disturbed and the rest of it as we arrived, that's for every 2,000 for

every man, woman and child in the country. I know it is not the money.

The truth is if we are spending this money, seeing young men and women

give their lives or be maimed or whatever, we've got to be sure we

are achieving something. I think we would do much to go in with aid

after a resolution has been reached rather than this inevitable stoking

up of the whole thing. We are at the moment on the edge of it in Syria

and we were told yesterday by our leaders if we arm the rebels it will

take them towards the peace table. Well huh, the next minute that the

Russian Russians come in with arms for the other side and were

escalating a kind of proxy war. It seems to me we are amateurish in a

way about this. We are dabbling in cultures that we don't understand

and not getting the results we think we ought to achieve. The one thing

all these countries have in common is the outsider who goes in to

meddle is the bad guy. That's true across the board. We seem not to be

able to take that on board. APPLAUSE

The woman in the second row there. have to dis disagree with Mehdi

Hasan actually. He is saying this radicalisation and the thoughts have

existed for decades. However, what sticks out in my mind, and I'm 27,

is 9/11. A lot of the people who are going out and becoming radicalised,

being extremists, look at the gentleman last week. He is of my

generation. This has happened since then. That's what you need to

target. Yes it has been happening for decades but a lot of people have

become aware of it only since 9/11. I agree. I was saying that Alan's

point was that it had come out of the blue. It hasn't. It is not a

controversial point. I think there's a direct correlation. The number of

statements we've heard from young people who've turned to radicalism

and extremism, what they are citing is quite frankly they want revenge

and retaliation. Fundamentally we've made some very bad decisions I

believe over the last few years. We followed the the US. We've been

asked by the US to go into scenarios, war situations around the

world with no good evidence. The weapons of mass destruction was one

of the clearest misleading statements to get introduce that

particular conflict. Syria could be the next one. We've got no

justification, no jurisdiction and no interest. And every single time

we follow what I believe is absolutely misguided policy we are

going to fuel young people who listening to individuals, who should

be deported, it is as simple as that. There should be none of this

allowing them to stay here and still radicalise people on the streets, we

are going to continue with the problem. I can't allow one of Mehdi

Hasan's comments to go unchallenged. He said, I speak as somebody whose

father fought at Monty Cass in inknow -- Monte Cassino in General

Alexander's Army. He said Palestine had been occupied for a long time.

46 years. I'm old enough to remember 1966, 1967, 1973. I don't know who

the aggressors were but that is a totally unjustified comment. The

State of Israel exists through the decision of the United Nations. This

radicalisation by our going into other countries might be a fact, but

we have to do what's right. We got rid of a dictator in Iraq, Saddam

Hussein. The situation there might be wrong now, but we got rid of a

dictator. If we do the same in Syria we risk doing the sill thing. The

opposition there are just as radical as Assad, just as bad. However, we

can't sit back and do nothing. We have to follow our beliefs. Thank

you. I'm going to... I'm going to move on to Syria. We've got a

question on Syria. Before we do, you can of course at home take part in

this debate either by using our # Or Chris lark, please. Is arming the

Syrian rebels in our national interest? We started on this really,

they have lifted the ban and Mr Hague suggests that it will

accelerate them towards the peace table to know this is a possibility.

I personally think Russia's joining in with the offer of other weapons

rather make it clear that the danger is that we will be living this kind

of proxy war. It is a very frightening prospect to me. Of

course I understand that the President Assad is ghastly. I don't

have any problem with that. I hope he falls resoon, but I'm not -- I

hope he falls very soon, but I'm not keen on what the Chinese are doing

in Tibet. Should we get on there? And when we finish invagd let's push

off to Moscow and sort out Putin. Where does it end? One has to

somehow keep a grip on areas where we do have a kind of responsibility.

I suppose I do feel that. Sometimes there is a kind of historic

responsibility to get in, but I think that kind of reckless just

being the kind of policeman of the world, we can't afford it. But

anyway I don't think anyone can, so for me it seems Mr Hague says we

won't have any troops on the ground, but yes we will, because people will

have have to explain how to work the weapons we were sending. He says it

will go to the good rebels as opposed to the bad rebels. Yes,

dear. These things are impossible. APPLAUSE

I have a slight, just a qualifying admiration, I do rather admire Mr

Hague and Mr Cameron for going with something that God knows would not

be popular and certainly wouldn't be a question of governing for votes. I

sort of like that in them but I think in this instance there's

nothing for us there until at the end when we can go in with aid and

help the new post-Assad state get settled and set up. OK. You Sir at

the back. I'm finding the real problem is not so much arming the

rebels, it is what happens very similar to the Americans and the Bay

of Pigs arming the rebels is well and good but when it doesn't work

out, what does the state do? That's the dangerous line that I find. If

it doesn't work out arming the rebels, where does the state come

in? Alan Johnson? The rebels are already armed. Syria is awash with

weapons. The decision made this week wasn't about other countries in

Europe making this decision. It was about Britain making this decision.

It required unaninity to keep the sanction as, because the decision

had run out after two years, the sanctions and the arms embargo were

taken together. France was in an equivocal decision but the rest of

Europe knew if they didn't go along with this they wouldn't keep the

sanction as, because Hague would have vetoed it. The Americans are

supposed to support arming the rebels but there is no chance of

Obama or America doing it themselves. This is purely British.

This is British arms that are going into a country that's awash with

weapons. Julian is right. We don't know whether they are going to get

to the good rebels, if you like. There is plenty of evidence that

Assad does have a large proportion of the population on side. The

Alawites for a start, from his sect. So I can't see how this will help

the Syrian people. Leave aside is it in the best interests of Britain? Is

it in the best interests of Syria, where we want to see a peaceful

solution? There is no options here that are good options. William Hague

is faced with a series of options, none of which is perfect, but this

seems to me to be the wrong thing to do, at exactly the wrong time. It

has led to a production from Russia. Although the idea of peace talks is

tenuous, at least it was there for June and July. This seems to have

scuppered that as well. You think it is something they are seriously

considering, not just a matter of putting pressure by saying they

might. I do not think it will put pressure, not with Russia stepping

in with the most sophisticated air missiles in the world. Has it been a

misjudgement? Not at all. One of the things we have to accept, and Allen

has this wrong, is the fact that it was us and the French that wanted

the embargo lifted, and quite rightly and properly so, because it

gives us the opportunity, should we so choose, to supply weaponry and

armament to those people who are fighting against Assad. We are not

saying we are definitely going to do it, but we are lifting the embargo

so that we have that there are. second point in the question, is

arming the Syrian revels in our national interest? It comes back to

the point the gentleman at the front made, sometimes you have to do what

you believe is the right thing. Allen, in the previous answer,

referred to Kosovo. There are other instances where we should have done

things which we did not and to our great regret. What is your view on

this one? Obviously, we want a proper they go shaded peaceful

settlement. That is the way forward. We are putting in aid because we

know that millions of people are being displaced. Many more tens and

hundreds of thousands of people, innocent women and children inputted

tiller, are being slaughtered. There is good evidence that this man is

using chemical weapons against his own people. Forgive me, but I do not

think we should sit back on that. I think we have a right and a duty to

say this is not acceptable in the modern world. To put the question to

you, I repeat again, is arming the rebels in our national interest? You

have not answered. We have not got to that stage. We have lifted the

embargo so that is an option we have. If we were to do it, as

William Hague has made clear, it would be done in a very cautious and

sensible and responsible way. It is a difficult situation, nobody is

going to pretend it is anything other, and it is hugely complicated

as well. Do you mind if I just make the point that William Hague appears

the only individual in the UK at this point in time who thinks arming

the rebels, whether it is a diplomatic ploy for a month or so,

or whether it does actually deliver weapons, he must be the only

individual who thinks that is going to resolve this, or in any way help.

I can almost imagine somebody saying, how are we going to take the

weapons to make sure they are allocated to the right rebel? Who is

going to be the right rebel, and when is that right rebel going to

start talking to somebody in the UK and leading to Morag, is eight here?

It is just a ridiculous piece of policy. -- more radicalisation here

in the UK. We will go there, we will arm the rebels, they will take over

the government and then in 20 years when we are not happy with them, we

will have to kick them out again. It is absolutely ridiculous. They are

sovereign. There are no good options in Syria, that is true. There is an

old saying that whoever fights monsters should see to it that they

do not become on in the process. Usher shall Assad is a monster who I

load. I loathed him when the US government was rendering terrorists

to Damascus to be tortured by their secret police a few years ago. His

regime is responsible for much of the violence in Syria, but many of

the rebels have come monsters in their own right. The Syrian

revolution began more than two years ago as an Arab spring style protest

against tyranny but it has morphed into something else, hijacked by six

Terry thugs, ex-military, foreign jihadists, gangsters. The UN,

Amnesty International, read the reports about what the rebels have

done, some of them - torture, beheadings, use of child soldiers.

There have been reports they have also used chemical weapons. A few

weeks ago some of us watched a foreign -- a rebel commander cut the

heart out of a dead man and bite into it, and yet a few weeks later

our Foreign Secretary pushes the rest of the EU into lifting an arms

embargo so we can potentially supply arms to his allies. So that we can

supply arms to rebels who include a group that has openly pledged

allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Let me get this straight, at home we are

fighting against extremism and countering radicalisation. Abroad,

we are sending bombs and bullets to radicals and extremists, we are

planning to. That is not just double standards, it is insanity! I would

like to say that I support the arming of the rebels. The reason I

support it is because the reason Assad has been so successful in

killing his own people is because of the support that he has had from

Russia and China, and those are two powers that do not seem to worry how

many people get killed if they are pursuing their own interests. I

think it absolutely right for us to now start to draw a line in the sand

and say that we are not accept ting any more of this support and

killing, that we will stand up and say that what is happening in the

Syria, supported IVs powers, Russia and China, is wrong, and we are

going to start to try and reverse this process. -- supported by these

powers. Surely, arming the rebels is

fuelling the fire. As you mention, we do not know where the materials

will go to. I would also say that previous interventions have failed.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We are leaving them in a bigger mess than

we found them. But mainly, is it any of our business? Is it our business

for the government to say that we have a right to get involved? Your

job is to represent Britain and put our interests first.

Is there a worry that this action may cause a bigger international

war? That is my worry on this matter. Yes, absolutely. They are

talking about this tenuous John Kerry goes over to Russia, they talk

about getting a peace conference, some diplomatic efforts underway. It

is essential that Russia is around that table, and Iran. They are

arming the Assad regime. It is essential to get all of the players

round that table. By the actions that William Hague is taking, he

does run the risk - I would not accuse William of doing this

deliberately - but it does run the risk of escalating the whole arms

race. And that means you are in a worse situation than before. It is

all right saying, put in more arms on the rebel side. There are plenty

of countries arming the rebels, but what is our object if? Our objective

is a peaceful solution. You do not get that by putting more weapons in

and killing more Syrians. It is keeping our options open. Let's

leave that and come back home, clearly domestic issues. Does the

fact that patients are more likely to die at the weekend demonstrate

the NHS's gradual deterioration? This survey showed you had a better

chance of living if you were operated on on a Monday than on a

Friday. Anna Soubry. Statistics show a fact but do not give the

explanation and the understanding behind the facts. The NHS medical

director, who is a heart surgeon by training, explained that when he was

operating as a heart surgeon, he would often have his most

difficult, most risky patients put into his surgery on a Friday, quite

deliberately, because he was not in surgery on a Saturday and Sunday.

The cause of the weekend, people would spend longer in intensive

care, and because he was not in surgery, he was available and able

to give them more attention over the weekend. Why do more people die when

operated on on a Friday? If you put more of your risky patients in on a

Friday, they run the risk, being risky, of unfortunately not

surviving the surgery. It is not as simple as saying, if you go in on a

Friday you run a higher risk because there is some failing in the system,

there is something wrong in the staff. It could be because you are,

in any event, more at risk of not surviving from your operation, that

you have been put there on a Friday specifically so that you can be

given extra care. But there is another story involved in this. It

is something that Sir Bruce Keogh is looking at, and that is making the

best use that we possibly can of our NHS, so that it reflects the real

lives that most of us live. That means looking at whether or not we

could do much better by having more parts of our hospitals open at the

weekend. If you have ever been in the unfortunate situation of going

into accident and emergency on Sunday night - and you may think I

am speaking from experience dash and then you are admitted but you cannot

have a scanner, because that part of the hospital is not open until

Monday, and so you wait in a bed on Sunday night until Monday comes

along. Because there is such a backlog Hamid cannot have the scan

on Monday, so they send you home. -- you cannot have the scan. So we

could have potentially much greater improvement in our NHS. That is what

this is about. Do you agree that gradual deterioration is not the

issue? This was analysis done by Doctor Foster at Saint Mary's

Hospital. They were looking at planned surgery, elective surgery,

not emergency care, but people planning to have a hip replacement,

etc. The mortality rate overall is something like 0.6%. It is tiny.

Over three years, they looked at the people who had died, that tiny

proportion, and equated it with this issue about the weekend. Anna Soubry

is right. I have plenty of political issues with her and her government

about the NHS, but this is not one of them. I goes you will find there

are reasons why the patients who are having a leg of surgery, the ones

least likely to come through our operated on later in the week. --

having elective surgery. This must not be pumped into another attack on

the NHS, as if people are dying on the operating table in huge numbers

at elective surgery. APPLAUSE

It seems that Anna Soubry was valued into a seven-day hospital, with

scanning and having scans available on Saturday and Sunday. One of the

main problems with more scanning facilities is that you need to put

more money in. The current climate, is that possible? Thank you for the

observation you have made. I would like to pick up on his point that he

has plenty of issues with the current coalition government's

policy on the NHS. When this reform was launched, part of it was that

the NHS had to find, before 2015, 20 billion in efficiency savings. I do

not know about you, but efficiency savings to me equals costs. Costs in

the NHS means you start to reduce things. One of the areas identified

very early on, and the audit commission costed this, was that 5

billion would be on staff alone. When you take staff out of the

system, they cannot man the equipment, cannot be on the wards,

cannot be doing surgery. So I go back to the question, which I

welcome, that this is a direct correlation. If you affect the NHS

in that way, and you supposedly ring fence it, when it is not being ring

fenced at all, you start to see problems. The accident and emergency

issue is just one of them. In the last few weeks we have had the

nonemergency number, and others. It just shows that it is seriously

creaking. �20 billion of efficiency savings was introduced under the

last government. This had cross-party agreement, and it is

ways of making sure money in the NHS is better spent. Forgive me, but it

is not about cuts, but about making sure you move money to better areas

and spend it more efficiently. On staff, there are more doctors than

before and the cuts that have been made in staff is to managers and

bureaucrats, which I would have thought you would have approved of.

Clinical Commissioning Group's have led to this. You take out one

element, primary care trusts, and you immediately launch into Clinical

Commissioning Group's, putting doctors into a situation where they

are trying to deal with bureaucracy when, quite frankly, they ought to

be treating patients. They are the people commissioning the services,

which is why we are seeing such an improvement in commissioning,

because we have trusted health professionals to do it. There are

many examples of where it is working exceptionally well. I am more than

happy to share them with you. essential truth of this is whether

or not more people die at the weekend, and I don't know enough

about it. We all have a better chance of surviving our illnesses

before there was an NHS. The fact is that the NHS is a marvellous element

of life in this country. Of course it is going through a crisis, it has

to deal with far more people, the treatments are more expensive and so

on. It is difficult to manage that. But this is a real area, Anna is

asking for a cross-party solution. We all want the same thing - an

efficient NHS that runs well and the rest of it. Surely this is one area

where the political parties could put their differences to one side

and work together as to what the NHS needs and the support it should get.

APPLAUSE I'm not argue arguing against

cross-party agreement. But when even the Royal Colleges don't support the

reforms, when David Cameron had to call a pause in terms of the launch

of the reform bill, haven't you really got a problem? You can have

cross-party support but when you haven't got the mechanics joined up,

I believe you've got a problem. Mehdi? I'm astonished to turn up to

Question Time and finding myself agreeing with UKIP on every issue

tonight. You can't have a cross-party consensus with some of

the things going on in the NHS. I'm with Julian, I'm a great fan of the

health service. But costs. Labour put in a lot of money to the NHS and

did improve quality. No doubt about that. But a lot of that money was

sucked up into salaries, the salaries of doctors, GPs and

consultants. We have some of the highest paid doctors in the world.

You look at any international league table. When it comes back to the

weekend point, and I'm not an expert on the weekend figures, it seems to

be the case that if you have weekend care surely there should be a

consultant covering hospitals at all times given what those consultants

are paid. I don't see why we shouldn't expect consultant-led

treatment at the weekend. The out of film for cuts - efficiency savings.

�20 million and the opposition bring in this unnecessary topdown

reorganisation, which nobody wants, which cost costs three to �4

billion, on a pointless reorganisation. A couple of points

from the audience. One of the issues being debated on the Conservative

policy this forum this week was to try and save money for the NHS by

restricting access to a GP and limiting the amount of times you can

visit your general practitioner. How is that improving the NHS and the

health of the nation It one idea among many and it is not my party's

policy and it will never come to fruition. I was one of the

bureaucrats made redundant from the NHS. I know from a lot of the people

I worked with, a lot of people lost their jobs at the PCTs at massive

public spent, with massive redundancy package as, and they've

been hired back to do the same jobs as they did before. Have you been

hired back? I work you GP's surgery now. Diane's policy is to have

elected county health boards. If there was ever a ridiculous idea,

that was it. You can't have politicians micromanaging the

commissioning of services. The evidence is clearly emerging that

they are proving to be extremely beneficial. We are seeing a

different approach to commissioning and in a way that we haven't seen

before. But public satisfaction in the NHS is falling under your

Government. This is led by the people at the sharp end. Doctors and

nurses and other health professionals are now controlling

those services and having a direct impact. It is for the benefit of

patients. Soubry sushgs you have made your -- Anna Soubry, you have

made your point and we will come back to it in six months no doubt.

Does the position on the UK's benefits policy mean it is finally

time to get out of the EU? This is the report that the EU is

going to take the UK to court on benefits. Cue Diane James. Of course

it is. What better example of the Prime Minister claiming he is going

to go to Brussels and repatriate powers and do this, that and the

other and there it is, it is almost as if he has been whacked around the

cheeks with a wet fish and told to go back and do his homework. It is

not something that he has got a leg to stand on quite frankly.

Employment law, right of access to all EU residents, cross-boundaries,

are it is there enshrined in law. You've got equality. You can't

fiddle with it. You either come out and start again and do your own

thing or stay in the party. I think it was one of the European heads who

said the UK always has this issue, is it goes on to the playing field

and plays wrong sports. You think the British Government will lose

this case? I believe it will.Do you believe that? No, I don't believe

that. It has been tested in the UK courts on several occasions and it

does not breach EU law. Someone in the commission is awe kip member,

because they are trying to help them at the moment. The simple fact is

this. The residents test we give to workers coming here is to ensure

that they have a spend a period of time here before they can claim

benefits like JSA. That's because we have a means-tested system. In other

European Union countries people go there. Don't forget Brits move to

other parts of Europe all the time. After Poland and Italy we are the

third biggest workforce in Europe. When we go to work in their

countries we have a contributory system, so you can't access benefit

until you've contributed so much. It is the same thing but done in a

different way. And that has been the case that the UK courts have upheld

all the time. It is one of the reasons why Europe needs to change.

Leaving Europe, in the economic mess we are in at the moment, with a

world that's increasingly dependent on regions to punch their weight, I

can think of nothing more self-destructive that we could do.

Would you like Labour to call... APPLAUSE

Would you like Labour to call for a referendum before the election so

that the public can have their say? No. Now is not the time to increase

uncertainty in the British economy and for British business. This is...

It might increase certainty nightn't it? You would have to have a debate.

Perish the thought! What I'm saying is we should be concentrating on

growth in our economy, getting young people back to work, recovering from

a terrible economic mess and having an in/out referendum on the European

Union would actually jeopardise that. Julian Fellowes? I don't know

whether we are going to win or lose this. The Alan thinks we might win

it and I hope we do, but I think there is a more central issue. The

whole thrust of European history over the last few centuries has been

driven by the desire for people to chrome the way they are Gordon, and

to have their voice heard by their governors. We have, in the ti we

have got ourselves into a situation where even if 100% of the population

of this country don't want something or do want something, that doesn't

mean it will happen. I don't believe, I agree with Alan, I don't

believe in leaving Europe. It seems the completely wrong time and very

destabilising and the rest of it. But I also believe that David

Cameron's desire to renegotiate is realistic. He sees it as a good

thing but appreciates that the terms we are living under are no longer

acceptable. But his instinct and I think it is a perfectly reasonable

one is first to see if they can be made acceptable, if they can be

renegotiated so we do feel we control our own Government, that we

are a free country. It is only after the failure of that effort that we

should even be having a conversation about whether we should stay in.

That's what I think. A brief point. I think it is quite ghastly what

we've heard today but I do believe that the UK is right on this matter.

The UK is particularly right on this matter and I agree with Alan Johnson

and Anna Soubry that the UK has policies in place that shouldn't be

Tam personed with. To leave the EU at this time would be particularly

destabilising to the markets. It is important that we remain for the

prosperity of our nation. Mehdi Hasan, do you think it is an own

goal for the commission? In terms of emboldening UKIP. In response to the

questioner, no of course we shouldn't pull out of the EU if one

legal decision goes against it. I'm not a lawyer. I want to make two

wider points. One is to echo what Alan said. There are two million

Britons working and studying in the EU, 800,000 in Spain alone, able to

access benefits on contributory principles. It is not just one way

traffic. Don't believe all the hype in your newspapers this morning.

It's a two-way road. And secondly, please, let's not use these

decisions or stories to scaremonger about the role that migrants play in

our society, especially in relation to the benefits system. All of the

studies show that migrants pay in more in tax than they take out in

benefits. They are less likely to be on the benefits system... I have to

stop you there. And less likely to abuse the NHS. So UKIP, please stop

demonise demonising them whether it is Bulgarians... We are into injury

time. Alan is right in his analysis. In the was a rule introduced in the

1990s and tested in the Supreme Court. Other countries support us.

We've supported other countries. The Austrians for example. You are

interrupting me and I didn't interrupt you. He is right in his

analysis. We need to renegotiate. We need to look at the way of doing

things in the European Union better. I think there is a groundswell of

opinion throughout the EU that's in agreement with us. So I look forward

to 2015, the return of a Conservative Government, and we'll

enter into all of that and then have a referendum. I hope we vote to stay

in the European Union but we need to have that referendum so we can lance

this boil once and for all. Time's up. Apologise Apologises to those

who wanted to get in on this. We had, if we had an hour and a half I

would bring you all in. But we can only do an hour. We are going to be

in Blackburn next week. Douglas Alexander will be on the panel for

Labour. And the writer and historian AN Wilson will be there. The week

after that we'll be in Edinburgh. Watch out if you can think of coming

to it. 16 and 17-year-olds only, because the first time in the United

Kingdom they are going to have a vote in the election for the

vote in the election for the referendum on independence. In

Edinburgh two weeks from now. Just 16 and 17-year-olds. And if you are

any age in Blackburn frankly, you are welcome to come. Apply via our

website or call. My thanks to our panel here, to all