20/06/2013 Question Time

setting, City Hall on the south bank of the Thames, the home of London's

government, with the city of London behind us and the tower of London

over my shoulder, which used to stand as a warning to errant

citizens. Welcome to Question Time. To our audience at home, the

audience here, to our panel, we welcome them. The Conservative mayor

of London, Boris Johnson, the Liberal Democrat energy Secretary,

Ed Davey, Labour's former Olympic Minister, Tessa Jowell, Daily Mail

columnist, Melanie Phillips, and question, please. Should we jail

reckless bankers, and which bankers would the panel wish to be

prosecuted? Should we jail reckless bankers, a proposal which came up

this week, and which bankers would the panel wish to see prosecuted?

think you should certainly jail anybody guilty of criminal

behaviour. The trouble at the moment, what people find so

frustrating, is that for all the grievous mistake is, the

semi-criminal acts that bankers got up to in the period leading up to

the crash, absolutely nobody has been so far successfully prosecuted,

nobody has been sent to prison. There is a huge amount of anger

about that. What could you send about to prison for? At the moment,

the statute does not cope with the things that they were up to. You

would need to frame some law that said that if they were going to

imperil the asset 's, or the savings of their customers, with risky

behaviour, the addictively risky behaviour they got up to, they

should face some sort of penalty. You could imagine a criminal

sanction, a law against such behaviour. How do you distinguish

bad judgement as a banker from wilful, criminal attempts to take

people's savings offer them? That would be a matter for the court. I

do not think it would be very easily done. I think you have to be very

careful how you draw that up. The general point I would make, four or

five years after the whole thing exploded, is, yes, by all means

let's regulate these people and make absolutely clear to them that they

got it wrong. But I really do not see any long-term advantage to this

city, or this country, in continuing with an all G of anchor bashing,

bashing financial services, when, don't forget, there are hundreds of

thousands of people in this city who are not on big incomes, who do not

take huge bonuses, who are earning very modest salaries, but whose

livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families depend entirely on

the success of financial services in London. Don't forget that fact.

Don't imperil London's position as the greatest financial capital on

earth. Maybe we have bankers and financiers here. If anyone has read

the Stanford prison experiment, it shows that good people do bad things

if the system let them do it. I wonder how much the system is to

blame, rather than individuals. feel the gentleman has a point. The

interesting thing about this commission's report is that it does

not just say, jail the bankers. If there is a criminal offence, it will

be a high test and that will be the ultimate sanction. Commission also

talks about ensuring there is individual responsibility, that

systems are changed. What I found astonishing during the banking

crisis is some of the people at the top of the banks were able to say,

we did not know what was going on, we did not understand the risks that

our banks were taking. That is just not acceptable. Look at the mess it

has got our banking system and economy into. We are right to take

these measures. The government has been acting. We have the biggest set

of reforms to the British banking system ever. We have a new

regulatory system with the Bank of England in charge. We have ring

fenced the casino banks from the banks that you and I invest in. We

have the toughest regime on bonuses in the world. We have done a whole

range of things. The good thing about this banking commission is it

gives another set of ideas to make sure we reform our banks. Boris is

right, banks play a critical role in our economy. But I do not think

there is enough competition in the sector, so I would like to see these

reforms and take them further. would you like to see prosecuted?

Anybody? Before the offence has even been brought in, we should not start

retrospectively applying it. And all G of anchor bashing, Russell Brand,

do you think that is happening? -- banker bashing. That would be the

best kind of or GI can imagine. What you said was wicked, I thought. The

system encourages that behaviour. When looking for the culprits after

these transgressions, look for the people that after the crash where

people lost loads of money, look for people who got loads of bonuses and

loads of money. They are the people that are criminal. Those are the

people that need to be prosecuted. Whilst to a degree we have to

placate the city, don't you think it has happened too much, that they can

behave in this manner while ordinary people suffer? I think we need

punitive measures immediately employed so it does not continue to

occur. Not because of some weird, lefty agenda, but because if there

are not penalties, the behaviour will happen in cycles. People need

to go down, and it is the people that have got the money that need to

go down. If we are going to prosecute tankers for making

mistakes, surely we should also prosecute politicians? I have

sympathy with that point of view and I think that is what the previous

gentleman was getting at with reference to the system. There may

be good reason for bringing in a new criminal offence and there may be

individual bankers who should be deemed to be guilty and should be

prosecuted and found guilty of that or other offences. But I think it is

very easy to whip up a witchhunt atmosphere against bankers. One of

the reasons why the banking crisis happened, it was not simply the

greed of individual bankers, be that as it made. It was the fact that the

Bank of England took its eye off the ball. The Treasury basically said,

let rip. We are going to lift up the regulatory system in order to let

rip, because we want to get the money coming in. There is a

responsibility for politicians to bear in all of this. I am not saying

they should be prosecuted, but it is very easy to single out bankers.

Everyone hates bankers, don't they, because they are rich? It is so easy

to raise a cheer against bankers, isn't it? But it may be that other

people are responsible, and it may be that when you look at what they

actually did, is it always going to be so easy to decide when it was a

bad judgement, which is culpable, negligent, incompetent, and where

that shades into kind of deliberate and even malicious recklessness. I

think we all feel recklessness should be punished, but I think we

have to be very careful not to just dam everybody. Melanie, what I am

thinking is that incompetence of that degree, that has those

consequences, is indistinguishable from malice, in my opinion. Do you

think it might be likely that if 50% of Tory party funding comes from

bankers, it might be hard for them to think up ways of penalising their

mates? That is where they get their funding. If I was 50% funded by

people, I would be reluctant to Pina lies them. When you say politicians

and bankers, there is not much of a distinction, as far as I can work

out. I am with you, Russell, on that last point. The chap in spectacles,

who asked how you target the right culprits, that seems to be the key

problem. You probably could frame a law that would stop bankers who took

extreme risks with other people's money, but what about the Labour

government, who were in power in the period, as Melanie indicates,

leading up to the crisis? They were sitting there, deregulating. Gordon

Brown went to the city of London in June 2007 and said, we are entering

a golden age of banking in the city of London. What kind of signal did

that send to those people? Now, should Gordon Brown be sent to

prison? Yes.Tessa Jowell, she was part of that government. Should she

be sent to prison? I would go and visit a in prison. She might not

welcome that. First of all, to answer the question, yes, it is

right that criminal sanctions are introduced. Why? Because of the

scale of damage that the malpractice, the incompetence, the

malevolent practice by some bankers, completely unaccountable,

because of the scale of damage that it did to the economy. And yes, it

is right that our economy is heavily dependent, has been very heavily

dependent on the tax receipts from the financial services and from the

banks. And yes, it is right that financial services and the banks

were under regulated, and were under regulated while we were in

government. And we have recognised that. But what is also important to

recognise is that the Tories, and I think even you, Boris, were saying,

even in that under regulated time, the banks were to regulated. So

there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this. And the fact is

that criminal sanctions will be one thing, but also, let's hear it for

women on the trading floor, women in the boardrooms, changing the culture

of banking. Because it is the culture that was as much to blame as

the behaviour of irresponsible and reprehensible individuals.

women? Do they behave differently on the floor of banks? Are they less

competitive? There is plenty of evidence to show all that. You have

answered your own question. female Prime Minister would have

recklessly racked up the deficit in the way that Gordon Brown did.

Margaret Thatcher, for instance. know that we well that the deficit

was considered a cause, the global collapse of the financial sector.

am concerned about our expectation of bankers to be the moral barometer

of what is acceptable in that environment. There were no rules.

They were able to push the boundaries to the apex of what was

acceptable. So I think we do not need to look back on what we should

be doing, but we need to look forward about what we need to do to

make sure. Because they do, at the end of the day, it is a very

aggressive job and they do make money for our pensions. So we need

them, but we need them to be more responsible.

I agree that the Conservative party supported deregulation of the banks

and should not forget that. But I am one of the people that Boris

mentioned who works in one of these banks, one of these moderately paid

people who works in these banks. What I think is important is that

there are plenty of people there who do work hard and honestly. But there

are not enough of us. Something needs to be done to support people

who want to work honestly within these organisations to make them

better. I do not want to intrude on your professional life, but are you

in a position where you have people above you whose behaviour you are

critical of, or despise? Are you forced to do things you do not want

to do? Don't lose your job on hair! I have absolutely resigned my

position. You can answer them.I would never say I have been forced

to do anything wrong. But there are behaviours I have witnessed, almost

on a daily basis, that I am critical of all stop compliance issues that

people laugh off. That should not be allowed to happen. Perhaps there

needs to be some external, in-house regulation. Is this in a big trading

bank? An investment bank. The woman in the fourth row. I would like to

hear what Tessa thought of women in banks and boardrooms before she was

rudely interrupted. Probably by me. That's alright. That's part of the

game. Christine lag Aircast head of the IMF -- Christine Lagarde head of

the IMF said if it had been the Lehman Sisters it wouldn't have

started. You know if women are present, women act differently. More

consensually, more risk averse, more... Sexy.

LAUGHTER Maybe that too, Russell. Part of the problem has been the

macho male go for it, very gross, "I'm in it for my bonus at the end

of the year." That's the culture that's got to change. You were

absolutely right. There are thousand thousands of people, decent people,

working hard in banking in this City. It is important we remain the

banking capital, the financial capital of the world, with a decent

banking system. APPLAUSE

I can't say I entirely share Tessa's optimism about women being the

paragons of integrity and competence. We may come later to the

Care Quality Commission, headed by women. It is not exactly a great

advertisement. I don't think it is the case that men or women are more

susceptible to corruption or fraud or incompetence or malice or

reckless. I think we are all frail. We all need to have systems of

regulation put in place and we need to be in a society with a shared

culture of integrity and trust and honesty. That's what we have all

lost. APPLAUSE

We'll go on to another question. A lot of questions, including possibly

one on the NHS. You can of course join in tonight's

debate by text or on Twitter. Russell Brand, you have 6. 5 million

followers, I don't think Question Time has quite that, but it is

building up. We can unify our followers if we are allowed to

establish a single agenda. Particularly ton banking issue. Say

the banks - I heard this, nationalise them banks, because you

know how we have to bail them out when they lose our money. Don't flog

Lloyds Banking Group, as George Osborne said, to his mates, keep

them banks to us the so we'll reap the benefits as well as the

deficits. Peter less than even, please. Are UK drugs laws working?

Melanie Phillips, do you think the drug laws are working in this

country? According to the statistics that I read, fewer people now are

taking drugs. Drug use is going down, so from that point of view

drug laws are working. I think that they are working in so far as they

are working with it is against a background of a movement to stop

them working at all. This idea that it is not the drugs that are the

problem, it is the laws that are the problem, that we've had a failed war

on drugs. I don't see it that way myself. I see in the last few years,

or several years in fact, a policy which has been to have a move away

from law enforcement into what's called harm-reduction. What that

means that you don't try as a society to stop people using drugs,

on the basis that all illegal drug use is harmful to the person and a

sociality don't try and stop that. Harm reduction means that you accept

that it is going to happen and mitigate the harm. In my view that

gives a green light for people to take drugs and more people get

hooked on taking trust. On -- on taking drugs. In Sweden, they have a

kind of "zero tolerance" of drugs, which means not that every drug user

gets locked up but every drug user is regarded as a problem, not a

victim, who needs some kind of attention. He may, he or she may be

sent to prison, but not that often, especially if they are not dealing.

What they are made to do is have some sort of attention, which helps

them kick the habit, which helps them into treatment. It makes them

have whatever is considered appropriate. So you are not in

favour of criminalising in the sense that anyone found with drugs should

be sent to jail or banged up, you think there are other ways of

dealing with it? Is those are two different questions. You can

criminalise something by making the possession or use of something

illegal, but it doesn't mean you have to lock them up. That in my

view may be appropriate in some circumstances but not in others.

Russell Brand? Well, mate, I don't think drug laws are working, because

people taking drugs all the time. People take drugs because of social,

psychological and emotional reasons. Are Yous section lot are in the

young pad on-line you might not be the most vulnerable to addiction.

For me it is about treating people with addiction issues in a

compassionate and empathetic way, the opposite of what Melanie is

saying, who on a personal level is really lovely, I was chatting to

her. But on that issue I disagree with her wholeheartedly. When I was

using drugs, I don't care if they are illegal. If I'm in pain inside,

I'm taking drugs. If you criminalise them and marginalise them you place

an industry in the hands of criminals and you make it difficult

and shaming for them to get treatment. That's the wrong way to

handle the situation. We have to reach out to people compassionately

and then we have a chance of a solution. Would you like

decriminalisation of all drugs? Mate... Sir David. Just David will

do. I don't like to be drawn on that. People that are suffering from

drug problems don't care about the law. They care about getting the

right treatment, which I believe is abstinence-based treatment.

APPLAUSE Is it not sometimes necessary to

criminalise these people to show other people, such as young people

at college that I'm with at the moment, that that isn't the road to

go, and that in fact there is another path of education and

working towards a better future? Boris Johnson, due agree with that?

I think your drugs policies should be dictated by what you are trying

to achieve. We are trying to reduce drug use overall. And we are trying

to fight crime. The two most important things. Listening to what

Melanie had to say, I'm a huge admirer of Melanie generally, but

there was a contradiction. I began by saying rightly that drug use in

this country is at an all-time low. That is partly because we are

pursuing sensible rehabilitation policies, looking at the problems of

the users, trying to deal with their struggle with addiction, and so on

and so forth. That's right way to do it. You simultaneously have to have

a tough law and order response. That is working too. Crime is well down

in London over the last few years. By 6% in the last year alone.

Drugs-related crime is down. So in that context, I would myself be

pretty reluctant to change the law in order to make drugs more readily

available. I think I would, I think we've got the balance about right,

and when I look at other cities, which I don't need to name to you,

where they do... You had better not, you've got bad previous on that,

man! I don't mind being sent to apologise to the people of Amsterdam

or wherever it is. When I do look at areas where they have had an

experiment, I'm not convinced that the quality of life, the kind of

stuff that's associated with that area is the kind of thing we want to

see in London, so I'm pretty fixed on the way things are. OK. Aren't we

sending a conflicting message to people by having some drugs as

illegal and others such as alcohol and nicotine as being legal?

APPLAUSE Ed Davey? I think that question

shows we need to be evidence-led. We need to look at the evidence. I

think there is some evidence that drug policy is working on the

rehabilitation side, as Russell said. If we can treat people with

humanity when never got on addiction and try to help them get off this di

diction, that can make a difference to that person's life and to wider

society. But I'm not convinced yet we've won the war on drugs. There

are still thousands of people dying from drugs. They scar communities.

There are drug barons making billions from this. I think we do

need to review the drug laws. I think we need to look at the

evidence. Nick Clegg's asked our ministerial colleague Germany Brown

to look at the experience in Portugal, in Amsterdam, in the

United States, in the Czech Republic and other places, where they've

changed some of the laws. Let's look at the evidence. If changing the law

leads the a positive effect for society, we should consider that.

Can you clarify what changing the law means, in your mind? Abandoning

the legality of certain drugs -- illegality. There is a debate

whether we should decriminalise the use of cannabis. I've never been

convinced of that, but I'm determined we should review the laws

from the evidence. There's been a lack of policy based on evidence in

this area. That's what we should do. You've had evidence in Holland

haven't you? There's been some quite new changes. It is rather more

complicated than just following one particular country. There are a

number of places around the world in certain states in the US, in

Portugal and the Czech Republic, and in Amsterdam where they've made

changes. It may mean as a result we don't make any changes but we should

be based on evidence. But you are encouraging people to think that you

would. Boris is against change. Melanie is against change and you

are saying let's look at how it works and maybe we'll change.

already spending �500 million a year, rightly in my view, on

rehabilitation. We are spending lots more, billions more, on dealing with

the crimes. And a lot of money is going to these wicked organised

criminals. I'm wanting to make sure we are more effective. And if as a

result of the review of the laws we got a better policy, surely that's

From what I understand, the budgets for the treatment centres have gone

down in the last few years, so I don't think it is much of a sign of

commitment to the treatments that people have been referring to.

are seeing more people under rehabilitation. Downlike?I was

taken by -- Tessa Jowell? L?? I remember when I was Public Health

Minister many years ago now and we were very concerned to reduce

smoking and the harm caused by smoking, and if you are poor you are

more likely to die from smoking-related diseases. The Chief

Medical Officer at the time observed that if tobacco was being introduced

today it would be classed as an illegal drug, as there is no safe

level at which you can smoke. I agree with the balance in Boris's

answer - a combination of legislation, which is properly

enforced, but the point about treatment and help for people who

either don't want to form a habit, who want to kick the habit, is

absolutely vital. I think that, for me, what effects mean most about

this is the fact my constituents of Dulwich and West Norwood is about

three miles down the road. I see week in, week out, the effect on

young people of gang violence, gang intimidation, by people who've made

enormous amounts of money and destroyed the lives of young people,

and they were the drug barons. I would be absolutely horrified if we

did anything at all that made life easier or more profitable for them.

You say it is not working? I agree with you. We've got to make sure

these criminals are brought to book and aren't making billions of pounds

out of vulnerable people. The question is, what is the best drugs

policy? I think we've made some improvements over the years,

particularly on rehab, as I've said, but if there is evidence from abroad

that we can learn from to test whether we make the changes, surely

you would want to do that. I'm open minded about that. And prepared to

go a with the evidence. My question to others why not go with the

evidence? As a person who knows about addiction, the it is from the

Dark Ages, the way we are people with addiction we are a couple of

miles from Shoreditch where the streets are alive with people

affected by this disease. The treatment has to be available to

them. People do want to get clean and the more we stigmatise and

alienate them, the less likely it is that they are going to get help.

William Simmons. With MPs set to vote on arming rebels, will such an

action only lead to bloodshed? think that I would vote against

arming Syrian rebels, putting more arms into Syria. I think the

situation has changed over the last year. Those who are allied with the

rebels are not just Syrian national insurgents, but Al-Qaeda, other

jihadists groups. I think it defies belief that you can provide weapons

only to the people that you want to receive those weapons. I think what

we should be doing is twofold. First of all, taking a lead on the rather

paltry start that was made at the G8 earlier this week, to reach a

negotiated solution, which has got to include the Russians. And I think

with new leadership in Iran, it may also be the time to bring in Iran

into and around the negotiating table. And also, to redouble our

efforts to deal with the appalling humanitarian suffering of civilians

in Syria itself, but then also the displaced people in refugee camps on

the borders of Syria. That is where our effort ought to be going, not on

harming the rebels. -- arming. Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary

are at least considering arming the rebels. What is your view? The Prime

Minister and William Hague are doing the honourable thing in trying to

put pressure on Assad of Syria, who is running a nightmarish regime that

is killing hundreds, tens of thousands of its own citizens.

83,000-90,000 people have died. That is the diplomatic little objective

in talking about arming the rebels. -- political objective. It is trying

to get Vladimir Putin to focus on what is happening, to put pressure

on him, and trying to get Assad to draw back from carnage. I have to

tell you, and you agreed with me just now, that I do not share

anybody's optimism that you can get those arms to the right people. I

think you are right in what you say, Tessa, some of the people who are

fighting on behalf of the rebel army are some of the most unpleasant

jihadists that you can think of. You will have seen some of the stories

about atrocities they have been committing. As far as I can make

out, those are not false stories. There are some terrible things being

done in the name of the rebellion in Syria, and I do worry that any

engagement by us in trying to harm them will simply intensify that

conflict. Then we would be in the terrible position of trying to make

sure ourselves, physically, that we were getting arms to the right

people, to the so-called Democrats. I am not sure that we could ensure

that. Even if we could arm the rebels to the point where they

defeat Assad and install a new regime in Syria, it is far from

clear to me what kind of regime that would be. I am afraid this is one of

those appallingly difficult choices. I understand totally what David

Cameron is trying to do. I think he handled it very, very well at the G8

the other day. He is trying to put maximum pressure on the Russians.

But I would not vote for arming those rebels. You say you would not

vote for it, not that you have a vote in the House of Commons, but

isn't it dangerous to talk up the possibility of giving alms? You say

it is a way of getting Assad to the table, but if you do not intend to

use arms, is it right to say that you might? Of course, the UK

government is not alone in this and this is something that is an option

being canvassed by other EU countries and indeed the United

States. When the United States speaks, people around the world, in

the Middle East, know that they carry a big stick. People will be

aware of what has happened to regimes in the United States has

threatened in the past. It is not a wholly meaningless threat. But in my

own judgement, it would be absolutely impossible to carry it

out. Why are we even considering arming external forces when we are

sacking 5000 of our top troops with 15 years experience, recruiting new

recruits for our army at minimum salaries and sending them

ill-equipped into these war zones? Why are we sending millions

elsewhere? I am a former Army officer myself,

and that is complete rubbish. Our troops go into battle fully equipped

nowadays. It is rubbish that we are minus body armour, etc. I fully

disagree with arming the rebels. I know that arms change hands in the

blink of an eye in the Middle East. They would be used against us in a

matter of months. Leave the weapons out of it and look at humanitarian

I definitely agree that arming the Syrian rebels is wrong. I think it

is against UN policy, if I am not wrong. It is also the question of

the Syrian government's sovereignty. More should be done to work with

China and Russia to broker a peace deal. Sovereignty, meaning Assad

should be allowed to sort out his own country. Melanie Phillips, do

you agree? I agree with what has been said, that arming the Syrian

rebels would be a bad move. But this is a hideous situation. There are no

good outcomes for us, or for anyone, from this. What you have is a war

between on the one hand Assad, Iran and the soviet union, versus rebels,

Al-Qaeda, Islamist, and possibly America. I do not think the Prime

Minister had a good G8 at all. I think what he did was foolish in the

extreme, extremely stupid, anti diplomats see, made the British look

ridiculous and allowed President Putin, who does not seem to me to be

someone I would want to have acted tea with my grandma, look as if he

was running the show. -- back to tea with my grandma. And I read in the

press that it was Mr Cameron who tried to gee up a very reluctant

President Obama to think about arming the Syrian rebels, and thus

led him to the brink of doing that. And then he said, my goodness, I

cannot get it through my own parliament. What a mess! The fact is

that if the rebels, Al-Qaeda, win in Syria, nobody should be under any

illusion that there will be human rights and democracy. It will be

awful for the Syrians and awful for us. But no one should be under any

illusion that if Assad remains, it will be terrible for his people, who

he has butchered in such large number, but also terrible for us,

because Syria is a rogue state which has been funding, arming, organising

terror against Western interests for many years, and it is the porn of

Iran. And this is the bigger game going to do anything, we should have

our eye fixed on where our interests live. And where our interests lie,

as the West, is in neutralising Iran. We have allowed Iran the time,

over many years, through this farce of talking to people who cannot be

talked to, to pursue its pursuit of a nuclear bomb with which it

intends, it says, to commit genocide against Israel, a state which has

declared for the last 25 years war against us. That is the problem.

That is the problem, the defeatism of the British people against a

clear threat to this country's interest is. You are the problem.

was with you all the way until you said we have to neutralise Iran.

laugh. Neutralise Iran. The British audience laughs. How trivial of

you. How incredibly ignorant of you. Do you not understand what the

threat this country is to us? No, you do not. Paranoia? All right. Who

said paranoia? Maybe you want to comment, in large on what you said.

You do not want to speak. You do. This would turn into a proxy war

between America on one hand and Iran on the other. Wider she always had

to bring it back to Iran, and we cannot negotiate with Iran and

Israel. It is very irrational. Why can we not deal with Iran? Where is

your evidence that we cannot deal with Iran? And where is your

evidence that Syria... It is not rational to think you can negotiate

with Iran because it is currently run by people who believe, as a

matter of religious belief, that if they bring about the apocalypse,

literally the end of the world... Who said that? That is false.

you let me speak? Is it rational to stop somebody speaking? They believe

if they bring about the apocalypse they will bring to earth the

Messiah. That is the people you are dealing with. They do not believe

that. You are simply ignorant. Melanie Phillips said the Prime

Minister made a mess of the G8, in effect, by encouraging Obama to send

forces into Syria. Your comments, Melanie, on Iran, could not be more

poorly timed. There has just been an election in Iran. Oh, please!We

have a new president in Iran. In the Financial Times today, one of his

advisers has written about wanting to make sure that we can reach out,

and is telling the West that if we can reach out there are ways to deal

with the nuclear problem and the other tensions. Surely we should be

doing that, rather than some of the words we have just heard from

Melanie. Let him finish his point. Coming back to the question, which

was on Syria, there are a few things... This current government

broke promises to us. Who is to say the Iranians government will not

break promises? Do not put the microphone to people unless I call

them, if you don't mind. We are not arming the Syrian rebels. We are

giving huge amounts of human Terry and assistance. We are providing

non-lethal assistance to the rebels. -- humanitarian assistance. Far from

the prime and is the failing at the G8, quite the contrary. He managed

to get an agreement with seven actions, with all the members of the

G8 signing up to it. That was a real achievement and I think the

relationship between Balmer and Putin, between Kerry and Hague, has

been improving. -- between President Obama and Putin. We are going to

have to try to work with the Russians to turn this round, because

they are the biggest sponsor of the Assad regime. Unless we get the

diplomacy with the Russians right, nothing will happen. So diplomacy is

the main thing, and working with the Russians is right, and you could not

be more wrong. Just before we leave that, I will come to you rustle in a

moment, if you are not going to use weapons, why go to the trouble of

getting the EU to lift the ban on providing weapons? Boris was right,

it is about raising the pressure. it not dangerous, if you do not

intend to do it. He does not think the government is going to do it,

and Tessa Jowell says nobody will do it. It is a bluff. We have to raise

the pressure on the Assad regime, just like the Prime Minister was

talking about at the G8, that Assad had to go. The military regime under

Assad, we will work with them for a transitional government if they get

rid of Assad. All of this is about putting pressure on the Syrian

regime so we can get a peaceful solution, without resorting to

violence. I think that is a very constructive approach by the Prime

Minister. I lost my faith in what the Government thinks after the Iraq

works when they voted for that. APPLAUSE

I know you never voted for it but some of the other people here voted

for it. For me, my trust has been diminished. You are an Army officer

aren't you mate, so you know the score. We need to focus on the

humanitarian component. There's 4 million refugees inside the borders,

1 million outside the border. This is world refugee day, which no-one

seems to care about. Our leaders like to be heard being militant and

bellicose, but that's not helpful for us to exacerbate conflict in

Syria because there may be chemical weapons. I don't totally know the

deal on that, but Patrick Coburn says it is highly dubious that the

weapons are, there the same with weapons of mass destruction. And we

mead to be cautious, like our man said there.

APPLAUSE A couple of points and we'll go on.

We thought the same about Iraq when we decided that yes they have

weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons and now we seem to

be pointing the finger at Iran. They've just had a new President, so

they should be give an chance. at the back on the left. I have two

points. One point if you would.I'm from a Shia Muslim background and I

find that statement extremely offensive. You at the back there and

then the woman. I find it really concerning that this week the Prime

Minister said if conditions were right, he could arm the rebels as a

country without a vote. I would like Ed Davey's assurance as a Cabinet

Minister, as a coalition Government the Liberal Democrats won't let this

happen? There is no proposal to arm the rebels at the moment. We've

debated it at the Security Council... I'm a Liberal Democrat

myself. I'm pleading with you that, as a party, we won't let this

happen. We know there are lots of arguments against arming the rebels.

Just as Boris said, I've heard those concerns and we are debating those

concerns. The reason why we are not taking it off the table is we want

to ratchet up the pressure. What about the question, if there is a

vote in the House of Commons, the vote is no? If I answered that

question, I would undermine the ability to ratchet up the pressure.

There's got to be a vote, absolutely, there's got to be a

vote. The Prime Minister has said, if there was military action, there

would be a vote. And want would the vote be, advisory, or a vote which

the Speaker says it ought to be, decisive? If there is a vote against

the Government policy, the Government could would have to take

it as binding. So is that a vote at least? I think that's what you've

got. As I understand it, the Prime Minister said if there is military

action, we would have to... You sit in the Cabinet, so you should know

what is going on. And I sit in the Security Council, where we've

debated this on a number of occasions. We've debated is the

issue of Syria at length. We haven't debated the question that my

colleague has raised, but the Prime Minister has said, as I understand

it, if there was military action there would be a vote. OK. With the

new Iranian President Mr Rouhani, who has promised more nuclear

transparency, don't you think the international community should

demand the same thing from Israel? APPLAUSE

Boris Johnson? It is a curious fact that as far as I can make out Iran

is is not in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. I don't

think a lot of people realise this. Nor is there yet any convincing

evidence that I'm aware of that Iran is actually in the process of

developing a nuclear weapon. I don't mean to say that they don't intend

to or they don't want to, but studying the evidence that we've got

that is publicly available, I'm not aware of it. I think what is going

on at the moment is unquestionably to do with a desire to use the

nuclear issue, the ugly reprehensible things that the

Iranian regime has said as a means of driving regime change in Tehran.

I think that's basically what the United States wants. I'm not

convinced they are going to achieve it. The risk is on the contrary they

will just entrench that regime in power. I must go on, because we only

have ten minutes left. German Munoz, please. With UK with

average house price rising to new highs and wages falling in real

terms, should younger people get used to the idea of a lifetime of

renting? Russell Brand, house-owns, renting, price up. You know the

score. I think if we continue to organise a seat around protecting

the privileges of people that are already rich, not prosecuting

bankers, allowing people to cleverly avoid taxes, then yeah, ordinary

people are going to be penalised and aren't going to be able to pursue

the dream that Thatcher left us of owning council houses. Unless there

are changes where we get our revenue from, and I might suggest people in

the top tax bracket, like me, mate. I'm happy to pay more tax. I'm sure

the Government would accept a voluntary contribution.

APPLAUSE If I was going to voluntarily hand

over my money, it would not be to the Tory Government, man. I don't

trust them people, they exist solely to protect the interests of the rich

and powerful. They are not there for you, you are know that in your

heart, so yeah, get used to a lifetime of renting unless you want

to do something serious about it. Boris Johnson? It is absolutely

true, I think owner occupation in London is now beneath 50% for the

first time in our lifetimes. More and more people are driven to rent.

Rents are skyrocketing. We've got a terrible shortage of house housing

overall. The best answer is just to build more. We've got, you will see

in this fantastic volume which I make no excuse for plugging on this

show. What is that? You are not allowed to show things like that. It

is written we you! -- it is written by you! It is written by me.

LAUGHTER You will find in it just some of the 33 opportunity areas and

intensification areas in London. What about controlling rents in

London so people didn't have rents that go up? I don't have Rental

prices in London are becoming extortionate. Wait until the

microphone comes to you. When are you going to introduce a cap on

crippling rental prices in London, because it is now exceeding what an

average mortgage would cost somebody? It is.They have it in New

York. Why not here, Boris. You failed to meet your targets. You can

take the microphone away now. She says in New York it happens. And in

Germany. Why not in London, why not in Britain? In New York they are

moving away from it actually now. They are moving away from rent

controls. The difficulty is that you choke off supply. What we've got to

do is to increase the amount of housing. The point I was going to

make before you confiscated my report is that we've got within it

ambitions for opportunity areas. Contrary to what you have just said,

we built a record number of new affordable homes in London. Who are

they affordable for, mate? 44,000. They are affordable for people, they

are both for social people, who need homes for social rent, but they are

also there, and you slightly powered scorn on the idea of a home-owning

democracy but I think there are many hundreds of thousands of people in

this city who would welcome the opportunity to get just a share of

the equity. What's the answer about affordable that Russell wanted?

answer is to build more homes. about the ones you've been boasting

about, what price are they at, who can afford them? They are at normal,

they are about, 17 or 18% of the newest ones are at council, normal,

I think and we have a huge number that are part-buy, part rent. If you

look at what we've done over the last four years, it is a record

number. And the programme that we've got will deliver 100,000 over the

eight-year term. Now that is far more than the previous Government

achieved when they were awash with money. I'm not denying that there's

a massive shortage of housing. have to ask you to stop, as we only

have three minutes left. This is lick Just A Minute. You've had your

minute. You are supporting a lovely development on the outskirts of

cowls den and the first phase under pre-application isn't for affordable

housing but the ones at the top of the hill. There are 78 five-bed

proposed and 200 and something three beds. The little one and two beds,

I'm trying to talk to Croydon council about it and you are not

having it. Melanie Phillips? There's a need for more affordable housing.

Young people do have a difficult time of it at the moment in terms of

either getting on the housing lad tore boy a house or affording rents.

I don't think one can avoid saying that people of my generation, we saw

house prices in London become just dizzyingly go into the stratosphere.

Why that happened was quite a complicated procedure I think, but

part of the reason was that we were the victim of London's own success.

London attracts over this period a very large number of extremely

wealthy people who were pushing up house prices. Have young people got

to get used to the idea of renting now as a lifetime's way of living or

living with parents until they are 40? At the moment that's the case.

Whether it will endure, that's another matter. We have to press on.

I think young people have to get used to renting. When we come out of

university we are already in debt, so we have to pay off that debt

before anything else. Do you resent that? Yes, buzz the Lib Dems

promised they wouldn't put up the amount and it is now �9,000.

Davey? When you leave university you'll be paying back less a money

than under the old reef. It is going to be easier, with less money coming

from your pocket once you've graduated. There is no doubt that

housing is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem in London. I

have advice surgeries in London and the biggest problem has always been

since I became an MP in 1997 has been housing, overcrowding, poor

housing, people who are homeless. I see that every week in my surgery.

This is a problem. The person asking the question is right. What can we

do about it? The Government has been trying a huge number of initiatives

to get the housing market working again. One of the reasons why

developers weren't building houses is that house prices were going down

and down and they didn't want to build an asset that would reduce in

value, so getting the housing market working is critical. I hope we'll

see more house building promoted by this Government. You will see next

week when the Spending Review is announced that housing is a

priority. You must start adding also. I have to stop the programme.

A huge investment in London, which is housing as well. Town? The most

important thing, build more homes. The Mayor has to up his game on

this. I've done far better than Ken. Also let's take all the profiteering

out of the process of renting and let's get shared equity schemes.

There are 3,000 homes about to be let in the Olympic Park. Through for

keeping it short. 50%...Shush! This is a television programme, not a

mayoral press conference. I forget where I am! Our hour is up, sadly.

I'm sorry we couldn't get to the last question, who has more power,

politicians or pop stars, but our time's up. Next week we are in