:00:18. > :00:22.welcome to Question Time. Good evening to you at home. Welcome
:00:23. > :00:27.to our audience and our panel, Liberal Democrat chief Secretary
:00:27. > :00:30.and, Danny Alexander, Labour's chair of the Public accounts committee,
:00:30. > :00:37.who has been grilling multinational companies on tax affairs, Margaret
:00:37. > :00:40.Hodge, the doctor who became a Tory MP, Sarah Wollaston, contributing
:00:40. > :00:50.editor of the Spectator, Douglas Murray, and actor and television
:00:50. > :01:03.
:01:03. > :01:12.Maulkin. How can MPs justify a pay rise when the rest of us have run
:01:12. > :01:17.out of notches on our belts to tighten?
:01:17. > :01:24.This is the proposal to put salaries up from 66,000 up to over �70,000.
:01:24. > :01:29.Tony Robinson. This is one of the questions where the question will
:01:29. > :01:33.get more applause than any of the answers. We have to recognise that
:01:33. > :01:39.as far as all of the Western democracies are concerned, our MPs
:01:39. > :01:47.are among the lowest. There are only two below us in terms of pay.
:01:47. > :01:52.Nevertheless, my response to that is, so what? I don't think that they
:01:52. > :02:01.deserve to be paid any more. And the reason I don't think they deserve it
:02:01. > :02:04.goes back to the expenses scandal a few years ago.
:02:04. > :02:09.APPLAUSE I still do not think that the
:02:10. > :02:14.majority of MPs, even those who were not directly involved, realise the
:02:14. > :02:19.offence that that scandal caused within the country. It was as though
:02:19. > :02:23.they thought that because they had not broken the law, it did not
:02:23. > :02:28.matter whether what they had done was morally right or not. And
:02:28. > :02:32.clearly, it was morally wrong. We know why they did it. They did it
:02:32. > :02:35.because they felt they had not had a pay rise for a long time, so they
:02:35. > :02:41.went round the back way and got higher expenses to justify the fact
:02:41. > :02:46.that they had not got higher wages. Why does that make it wrong for them
:02:46. > :02:52.to be granted, by an independent body, a wage rise? May I develop my
:02:52. > :02:58.argument first? Yes, as long as you do not take too long because we have
:02:58. > :03:04.others eager to get in. Now I understand. The fact is that they
:03:04. > :03:08.were so hoity-toity about the whole thing, weren't they? I understand
:03:08. > :03:13.that it was an independent committee which gave them money, and I can see
:03:13. > :03:16.why they did it, because our MPs are paid somewhat less than other MPs.
:03:16. > :03:21.Nevertheless, it is going to take them a long time before they are on
:03:21. > :03:25.the right to come back to us and say that we should have a pay rise,
:03:25. > :03:35.particularly when it is these MPs who, every day the decision that
:03:35. > :03:42.
:03:42. > :03:47.they make are cutting our standard Danny Alexander, is this going to be
:03:47. > :03:50.accepted or blocked, the proposed increase? My answer to the question
:03:50. > :03:54.is that it is not justified. We are going through difficult economic
:03:54. > :03:58.times as a country. Millions of people who work in the public sector
:03:59. > :04:03.have had pay frozen for three years and will seek pay rises of only 1%
:04:03. > :04:09.this year and two years after that. Millions in the private sector have
:04:09. > :04:13.seen wages in many cases reduced, or have chosen to work fewer hours to
:04:13. > :04:17.maintain employment in this country. Under those circumstances, it would
:04:17. > :04:21.be totally wrong for MPs, who are also public sector workers, to see a
:04:21. > :04:25.pay rise that is out of keeping with what everyone else in the country is
:04:25. > :04:31.experiencing. Is it possible to block it, having set up an
:04:31. > :04:34.independent body to recommend a salary? The independent body is not
:04:34. > :04:38.accountable to Parliament, so MPs do not have the power to block it, but
:04:38. > :04:42.it is going to be running a consultation. I would urge members
:04:42. > :04:46.of the public and MPs who have strong views, as I do, to make them
:04:46. > :04:50.known. The body was set up to be independent for the reasons that
:04:50. > :04:57.Tony gave, because of what happened in the expenses scandal, so that MPs
:04:57. > :05:02.would not have any power over their pay. What are you saying?Let me
:05:02. > :05:06.develop my argument. If you all develop your arguments we will never
:05:06. > :05:13.get to the end of the first question. We may get some
:05:13. > :05:16.interesting answers. The audience will be the judge of that. It should
:05:16. > :05:19.not ignore the reality, which is that millions of people are on a pay
:05:19. > :05:23.restraint. We do not know what they will bring forward yet, but I think
:05:23. > :05:28.the most important thing is that MPs are not seen to be having an
:05:28. > :05:32.experience in terms of pay that is different. If the independent body
:05:32. > :05:35.comes in with the recommendation that is being suggested, is there a
:05:35. > :05:42.mechanism by which Parliament can say, it is very kind of you to
:05:42. > :05:52.suggest that, but we do not want it? Not except for changing the law. MPs
:05:52. > :05:57.
:05:57. > :06:01.could refuse the pay rise. Why macro the expenses scandal. It is
:06:01. > :06:05.demoralising to have this accusation levelled at you. The public demanded
:06:05. > :06:08.that the pay of MPs was set externally and I think that is
:06:08. > :06:13.right. If MPs had been deciding on their salary for the next election,
:06:13. > :06:17.we probably would not have voted for a rise. It is the outside body that
:06:17. > :06:20.is doing that. Why? I feel passionately that we need more
:06:20. > :06:23.people from all sorts of different backgrounds in Parliament.
:06:24. > :06:26.Parliament needs to look much more like modern Britain. But there are
:06:26. > :06:31.many people who would find it difficult, for example had teachers,
:06:31. > :06:37.many doctors. I was not put off by the salary, but I know some that
:06:37. > :06:42.are. To put this in context, a GP working the hours that I work would
:06:42. > :06:47.be earning �40,000 more than I do as an MP. I am happy to have done that.
:06:47. > :06:50.I knew what the salary was before I applied and I am privileged to be
:06:50. > :06:55.there, so I am not asking for a rise. But I think we need to
:06:55. > :06:57.recognise that the public also do not want MPs with outside jobs. They
:06:57. > :07:02.do not want a parliament full of people who are independently
:07:02. > :07:07.wealthy. M independent body set the job and then get on with it. I would
:07:07. > :07:11.like to get rid of expenses altogether, set a rate for the job
:07:11. > :07:16.and get on with it. APPLAUSE
:07:16. > :07:21.And would you like to see the 70,000 figure that has been suggested?
:07:21. > :07:27.think it should be set independently of MPs. That CNN is to MPs with
:07:28. > :07:34.conflicting outside interest and other jobs. -- let us see an end to
:07:34. > :07:39.MPs with conflicting other jobs. do not know why MPs are saying there
:07:39. > :07:43.is some difficulty with saying no to this pay recommendation. When the
:07:43. > :07:49.teachers pay review body came up with a recommendation for teachers
:07:49. > :07:54.salaries, the MPs said, no, we are not going to increment that in full.
:07:54. > :08:01.Why are they having difficulty in curbing their own pay rise? Margaret
:08:01. > :08:07.Hodge. This timing is absurd. It is completely wrong at this time to
:08:07. > :08:11.think that MPs could have a 10% pay increase, if that is what it is. I
:08:11. > :08:15.agree, why should we be treated differently from teachers, public
:08:15. > :08:19.sector workers, or people on zero hours contract, who used to have a
:08:19. > :08:24.full-time job, or people in the private sector who have had to go
:08:24. > :08:30.part-time. I agree with that. We used to set our own pay and we got
:08:30. > :08:35.into trouble when we did that. With the expenses scandal. So we then set
:08:35. > :08:39.up this body, completely independent of us, drives lots of us mad lots of
:08:39. > :08:44.the time when we have to deal with them, completely independent of us,
:08:44. > :08:50.to set it. That is not working. My question goes back to you. What is
:08:50. > :08:53.the best way of settling this issue? How can we have a really grown-up
:08:53. > :08:59.conversation about what we are prepared to pay for politics? It is
:08:59. > :09:03.partly about the pay for MPs, partly about funding political parties,
:09:03. > :09:09.where talks broke down today, partly about what you expect your MPs to
:09:09. > :09:13.do, whether full-time or part-time, and about how MPs are selected. It
:09:13. > :09:17.is that whole bunch of things. I think politics matters. The fact
:09:17. > :09:21.that you have all come out on an evening shows that you think so too.
:09:21. > :09:25.But we always get stuck on this debate about how we are going to
:09:25. > :09:31.decide how we pay for our politicians. Let's hear from the
:09:31. > :09:36.audience. Sarah made the most important point. The salary of the
:09:36. > :09:40.MPs is not as critical as this other issue that we have, which is the
:09:40. > :09:45.secondary jobs that a number of MPs have. In my view, that is a corrupt
:09:45. > :09:50.system in itself. APPLAUSE
:09:50. > :09:55.What should happen is that MPs should, in my view, get a rise
:09:55. > :09:58.according to the independent party, but they should be banned from
:09:58. > :10:04.having secondary jobs, because that is corrupting the way that MPs
:10:04. > :10:10.operate. MPs should be 100% behind their constituents, no other
:10:10. > :10:14.parties. APPLAUSE
:10:14. > :10:18.I am not really sure why this issue is being raised right now. It seems
:10:18. > :10:24.like it is wasting valuable time when their arm or important issues
:10:24. > :10:32.we could be sorting out. Whether MPs should have a pay rise is the least
:10:32. > :10:36.of my problems at the moment. Everyone has said the timing could
:10:36. > :10:44.not be worse. It is obvious that the system is a mess. The two things
:10:44. > :10:49.that keep coming up, the expenses matter and that of MPs pay. Public
:10:49. > :10:54.sector workers are having pay frozen, increased by 1%, and MPs get
:10:54. > :10:58.a 10% rise. Obviously, it looks terrible. However, there is an
:10:58. > :11:02.argument to be made, as Sarah has a ready mention, an argument for
:11:02. > :11:07.increasing the pay. In my opinion, that should only happen if, among
:11:07. > :11:12.other things, something comes back to the general public for that. I
:11:12. > :11:18.think, for instance, if you increase the paver MPs at this point, either
:11:18. > :11:21.that means we should sort out, scrap the expenses system, or it could
:11:21. > :11:25.mean there are fewer MPs. I would love to have seen the boundary
:11:25. > :11:30.review that was proposed, where we could save the money of the increase
:11:30. > :11:32.they could get from having fewer MPs.
:11:32. > :11:37.APPLAUSE My own view is that people should
:11:37. > :11:41.not be able to get pay rises unless the opposite is possible as well. If
:11:41. > :11:46.you only ever reward people and there is no disincentive. Dot. I
:11:46. > :11:49.discovered today that in Singapore, admittedly not a thriving democracy,
:11:49. > :11:56.but bear with me, in Singapore, politicians have performance related
:11:56. > :12:05.pay. I would not mind seeing that. I am not sure how you would arrange
:12:05. > :12:13.it. How do they do it?I am not sure. Isn't our performance assessed
:12:13. > :12:17.by the electorate at an election? Barely. You would find unnecessary
:12:17. > :12:21.papers being written to meet the performance targets. Margaret Hodge
:12:21. > :12:26.says you should let the electorate decide, but if you are in opposition
:12:26. > :12:29.you would get paid less and in office you would get more, right?
:12:29. > :12:33.Isn't it extraordinary that you can have some MPs who only turn up twice
:12:33. > :12:39.to make two speeches in Parliament this year, for example, Gordon
:12:39. > :12:45.Brown, and he gets the same pay as an MP who speaks regularly. That is
:12:45. > :12:51.what is wrong. There is no performance management. More Gordon
:12:51. > :12:56.Brown. I'Anson pathetic to the argument that MPs should spend
:12:56. > :13:02.full-time on the job. It is a lot to do. -- I am sympathetic to that
:13:02. > :13:07.argument. Sarah made a good point about attracting people into
:13:07. > :13:10.politics. Aside from the other interests that many MPs have, they
:13:10. > :13:14.are already independently wealthy and it does not really matter to
:13:14. > :13:19.them. Sarah makes a very good point, although I agree that it is perhaps
:13:19. > :13:24.not, talking about whether they get a pay rise right now is not top of
:13:24. > :13:29.my priority list. Would you rather see a bigger salary to attract
:13:29. > :13:34.people who did not have private means? Yes.
:13:34. > :13:38.I was going to add a word of caution in terms of performance related
:13:38. > :13:46.pay. I work in the NHS and we know how successful Pullman --
:13:46. > :13:49.performance and targets are in the NHS, so we should be cautious.
:13:49. > :13:53.the past, politicians did have second jobs and still did a super
:13:53. > :14:02.job. Take Churchill, right up until the Second World War, he had to make
:14:02. > :14:07.his money by writing articles for newspapers. I thinks -- I think this
:14:07. > :14:11.idea that politicians get �70,000 or �80,000 a year when they don't even
:14:11. > :14:15.work 52 weeks of the year has got to be at the key end of the debate. I
:14:15. > :14:19.think Margaret was right as well when she said it was to do with
:14:19. > :14:24.selection. If you want ordinary people do come into politics, you
:14:24. > :14:28.have got to select ordinary people. It's no good just looking at Falkirk
:14:28. > :14:32.at the moment and maybe we'll Dom that later, they've already
:14:32. > :14:37.preselected the person who's going to win, or so they think. But that
:14:37. > :14:43.doesn't mean that that's necessarily representative of the people who're
:14:43. > :14:46.going to vote. Let's go to Falkirk, since you raise it. Emily Rivers has
:14:46. > :14:52.a question on it. How much control over the Labour
:14:52. > :14:56.Party do the unions really have? This is Falkirk, of course, where
:14:56. > :15:03.Len McCluskey is alleged to have been manipulating his own person in
:15:03. > :15:06.as the Labour Party candidate. Tony Robinson? First thing we need to do
:15:06. > :15:11.is recognise the fact that at the beginning of the 20th century,
:15:11. > :15:13.working people didn't have any representation at all and the trade
:15:13. > :15:17.unions decided that if they were going to be able to do something
:15:18. > :15:21.about that, they needed to form their own Parliamentary party in
:15:21. > :15:26.order to ensure there was legislation for working people. That
:15:26. > :15:29.worked very well. So Trade Union worked very well. So Trade Union
:15:29. > :15:34.culture's always been central to The Labour Party and indeed Trade Union
:15:34. > :15:39.money has. Although I know some people raise an eye at that, the
:15:39. > :15:43.fact that shed loads of money goes to the Conservative party from
:15:43. > :15:47.private capital means that unless actually you did have that kind of
:15:47. > :15:57.funding from the Trade Unions, we would. Able to run a two-party
:15:57. > :16:00.democracy. So I'm just saying that because I think it's important to
:16:00. > :16:03.understand why it's important to have theyed unions. As far as this
:16:03. > :16:08.issue is concerned, every party now and then has a problem about
:16:09. > :16:13.somebody trying to muscle in to get the nomination because people are
:16:13. > :16:19.attracted by power, absurdly thinking that MPs have power, so
:16:19. > :16:23.they want to become MPs. This particular one happens to, or
:16:23. > :16:27.appears to have happened to involve Trade Unionists. What is really
:16:27. > :16:31.important and what I think will answer your question is how well or
:16:32. > :16:37.badly that's been dealt with. It seems to me that by and large, it's
:16:37. > :16:42.been dealt with pretty well. The party itself has been frozen. The
:16:42. > :16:44.nomination has been frozen. Tom Watson, the minister in charge,
:16:44. > :16:51.resigned today and I think it was absolutely appropriate that he did
:16:51. > :16:56.because one of the people in his office was the successful candidate
:16:56. > :17:02.in the original Falkirk elections. So I think it's been conducted
:17:02. > :17:05.pretty well. That would seem to imply that inappropriate Trade Union
:17:05. > :17:13.intervention into the Labour Party is by and large a thing of the past.
:17:13. > :17:20.I think you can see that by the macho bullish outrage of Ken
:17:20. > :17:30.McCluskey who clearly feels absolutely thwarted. Alexander
:17:30. > :17:38.election. Do you think this thing has been properly handled? I called
:17:38. > :17:42.you Danny I called you Douglas then. I might have given you you a
:17:42. > :17:47.different answer! You have a state of affairs where Ed Miliband was
:17:47. > :17:50.elected not by the members who voted for his brother, but by the unions
:17:50. > :17:55.whose block vote overturned the views of the members of the party.
:17:55. > :18:00.You now have a situation where it appears - and none of us have seen
:18:00. > :18:10.this famous report kept so secret - that the union's been trying to
:18:10. > :18:13.manipulate the selection to get its own MP elected. I think I would be
:18:13. > :18:18.frustrated that this union was trying to thwart my choice and try
:18:18. > :18:23.to force its own person on me. As Chief Secretary, I've spent time
:18:23. > :18:29.negotiating with the TUC and Trade Unions on public sector pay and on
:18:29. > :18:31.public service pension reform and so on. I think Trade Unions play a very
:18:31. > :18:36.important role in industrial relations, speaking up for members
:18:36. > :18:41.in the work place, doing so effectively and making
:18:41. > :18:50.representations. They do themselves a disservice by getting mixed up in
:18:50. > :18:53.one political party. Much better for the Trade Unions if they were much
:18:53. > :18:57.less entangled in the Labour Party and focussed more on their day job
:18:57. > :19:02.and speaking up for their members would be better.
:19:02. > :19:05.Margaret Hodge, do you agree with that? Well, the question was, do the
:19:05. > :19:08.Trade Unions control the Labour Party - that was actually the
:19:08. > :19:13.question that Emily asked and I think the answer to you, Emily, is
:19:13. > :19:18.no, they don't. But let's look at the argument. The Genesis, the
:19:18. > :19:23.traditions, the routes of the Labour Party are that we came about because
:19:23. > :19:26.we are there to protect and promote the interests of working people and
:19:26. > :19:31.policies in that direction, and those are very similar routes to the
:19:31. > :19:35.ones from the Trade Union. In fact, we sprung out of the Trade Union
:19:35. > :19:39.movement. Of course, there's a close partnership link in the idealogy and
:19:39. > :19:45.the values that underpin the Trade Union movement today, which I think
:19:45. > :19:50.does play an important role and that underpins the Labour Party. But, it
:19:50. > :19:53.is completely and utterly and totally unacceptable that any
:19:53. > :19:58.secondtional interest, any Trade Union, ought to intervene or
:19:58. > :20:04.interfere in the selection of a candidate for a particular seat.
:20:04. > :20:09.That is just plain wrong. What Ed Ed Miliband did was immediately stop
:20:09. > :20:13.that, immediately suspend the selection. He's called it in, he's
:20:13. > :20:17.suspended a number of people in the party, including the person who was
:20:17. > :20:22.hoping to be the candidate, and we'll now have an open, transparent
:20:22. > :20:26.system. But there is an agenda here. You describe it as being slightly
:20:26. > :20:30.improper, but there is an agenda. think it's really wrong. There is an
:20:30. > :20:34.agenda on the part of Unite and Tom Watson who talks about Tony Blair
:20:34. > :20:38.having marched Labour into the desert of pragmatism. This is a
:20:38. > :20:43.deliberate attempt to move to party to the left, that's how it seems?
:20:43. > :20:48.Let me just say this. If it were that - we would haven't Unite week
:20:48. > :20:53.after week after week getting up on the airwaves and complaining about
:20:53. > :20:57.the policies that the Labour Party's putting forward. Let's just think -
:20:57. > :21:02.they've complained about public sector pay, they've complained about
:21:02. > :21:06.our attitude to the spending cuts, they've complained about the benefit
:21:06. > :21:12.cap. These are three... That's what I'm trying to say, they are trying
:21:12. > :21:16.to move the party to the left? they controlled the Labour Party,
:21:16. > :21:22.you wouldn't see this independent side. It's a partnership, it's not
:21:22. > :21:25.control. Just last year, notes were found from one of your Shadow
:21:25. > :21:30.ministers' meetings, Ministry of Justice, saying we should raise this
:21:30. > :21:34.issue, but we need to double check with the Trade Union concerned
:21:34. > :21:39.before we do so we make sure it doesn't upset them. There's a deeper
:21:39. > :21:43.more problematic thing going on here than you describe. I've got to come
:21:44. > :21:49.back on this because it's not true. If you work in partnership with
:21:49. > :21:53.organisations - you do, Sarah does and you will always consult your
:21:53. > :21:58.stakeholders on anything you do and the trade Trade Unions are
:21:58. > :22:05.important. To say they control either the policy, they control the
:22:05. > :22:09.selections, they control the direction, is plain wrong. It really
:22:09. > :22:13.offends me, I've got a lot of people in my Labour Party who're individual
:22:13. > :22:19.Trade Unionists. They would be as offended by what Unite did here in
:22:19. > :22:27.Falkirk as actual actually everybody sheer in the audience and we are
:22:27. > :22:31.here on the panel. Margaret Hodge, with the amount Trade Union bosses
:22:31. > :22:36.and Labour Party MPs, when was the last time you had a working class
:22:36. > :22:40.wage because you earn so much money and union bosses earn so much money,
:22:40. > :22:46.when was the last time? You say you represent the working class. When
:22:46. > :22:52.was the last time you had a working class wage of say �20,000 odd. You
:22:52. > :22:55.are talking crap. APPLAUSE.
:22:55. > :22:59.Well, I think the point has been well made that we need a more
:22:59. > :23:03.representative body. What I really think is that the way Sarah
:23:03. > :23:07.Wollaston was selected is a really good model and we have in her
:23:07. > :23:11.somebody who's got a lot of experience because she was a doctor
:23:11. > :23:17.who's pretty independent. She probably offends her whips every now
:23:17. > :23:21.and then. She really contributes to Parliament. So let's open up the
:23:21. > :23:25.selections and, you know, I'm the first to be with you and I think one
:23:25. > :23:28.of the problems with politics is there are too many people coming
:23:28. > :23:32.into it who've never done anything else before and who live in the
:23:32. > :23:37.Westminster bubble and don't really understand what's going on. Sarah
:23:37. > :23:41.Wollaston? There is a wider problem here. Falkirk is a constituency. It
:23:41. > :23:44.hasn't changed hands since 1935. That's why this is so important,
:23:44. > :23:48.because the selection effectively will decide who is going to be the
:23:48. > :23:52.MP for Falkirk, maybe for decades, and that's why this is so offensive.
:23:52. > :23:55.There are safe seats like this all around the country, both
:23:55. > :23:59.Conservative and for Labour and it's Elle equally important this issue
:23:59. > :24:05.for both. Why is it that just a handful of people get to decide that
:24:05. > :24:09.MP? The thing about open primaries, and I was the beneficiary of an open
:24:09. > :24:14.primary, is that everybody, whatever their party political afilliation,
:24:14. > :24:19.gets to have a stake in what type of MP you have within a safe seat. So,
:24:19. > :24:23.for example, in my case, they were able to choose a centre right
:24:23. > :24:26.Conservative MP. In Falkirk, perhaps the people would like the
:24:26. > :24:31.opportunity to have a centre-left MP, but they won't get the
:24:31. > :24:35.opportunity to do that if the votes are rigged by Unite. That's why it's
:24:35. > :24:39.so offensive. I'm delighted to hear what Margaret said and I think it
:24:39. > :24:43.would be fantastic if the Labour Party would also pilot an open
:24:43. > :24:47.primary. They don't have to be expensive. The criticism in my case
:24:47. > :24:50.was that it was too expensive. There are lots of ways you could pilot
:24:50. > :24:52.making open primaries much cheaper so I would really like to see the
:24:52. > :24:56.Labour Party take that forward and maybe Unite could fund it. That
:24:56. > :25:05.would be great, wouldn't it? T?! APPLAUSE
:25:05. > :25:08.You, Sir? I agree with David. I think the unions are finding it very
:25:08. > :25:12.difficult to reconcile and support them under New Labour. They would
:25:12. > :25:16.like to go more to the left and they are finding it difficult to do that
:25:16. > :25:20.under New Labour because there's little difference, in my opinion,
:25:20. > :25:25.between policies with the Tories, Liberal Democrats and New Labour.
:25:25. > :25:35.I think McCluskey wants to get involved with that and pull them to
:25:35. > :25:41.the left. You, Sir, on the gangway? This goes back to the black adder
:25:41. > :25:46.episode episode where Balderick becomes the MP for Rotten Town and
:25:46. > :25:53.he's voted MP 16 times. I'd support the two last speakers on the panel.
:25:53. > :25:57.I think the best way to clean what appears to be the Aegean stable here
:25:57. > :26:01.would be to have an open election. A lot of people in Falkirk think the
:26:01. > :26:05.same thing. I welcome that last point that you made, that there's no
:26:05. > :26:08.point any political party being high minded about this and saying, it's
:26:08. > :26:14.just happening in the Labour Party. This kind of thing happens in all
:26:14. > :26:17.parties and what's important is that it's always stamped on quickly.
:26:17. > :26:22.Douglas Murray? This is the problem isn't it? Every party has this
:26:22. > :26:27.problem. It's the unions in the case of the Labour Party, major
:26:27. > :26:31.businessmen, fund-raisers in the case of the Conservative Party and
:26:31. > :26:35.the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to an extent as well. It's the
:26:35. > :26:39.circular firing squad that we keep seeing in politics. The question of
:26:39. > :26:43.how it's to be funded is not an easy question. Very few would want state
:26:43. > :26:47.funding of political parties like other countries have. There are two
:26:47. > :26:51.problems to cite about this quickly. One is the fact that this plays once
:26:51. > :26:55.again, this story, into the perception which I think is correct
:26:55. > :26:59.that, across the party, effectively politics is a type of closed club.
:26:59. > :27:02.If you join at an early age and dedicate yourself to the machine and
:27:02. > :27:07.you are part of it, butter up the right people and so on, politics is
:27:07. > :27:11.for you. That is a perception which I think rightly occurs across all
:27:11. > :27:14.political parties. So few people are engaged in political parties now.
:27:14. > :27:18.That, I would say, is one of the reasons for it. Another point and
:27:18. > :27:22.I'll finish with this, it's very striking to me tonight, and this
:27:22. > :27:25.isn't a criticism of David or the producer, but it's striking that we
:27:25. > :27:29.have had two questions and they are both about procedural issues of
:27:29. > :27:39.politics. This is about how the thing is done, how Parliament works
:27:39. > :27:41.
:27:41. > :27:43.and so on, but this is a world away from what most of us care about.
:27:43. > :27:46.APPLAUSE Most of us who're slightly
:27:46. > :27:50.interested in politics, we care about all sorts of things, how our
:27:50. > :27:55.children are going to be educated, how the NHS is or isn't going to
:27:55. > :27:58.work, a whole set of things, where Britain is in the world, how we fund
:27:58. > :28:02.things and instead in this country, we have got into this situation
:28:02. > :28:07.where, you know, we end up talking about how much George Osborne spent
:28:07. > :28:12.on a Hamburger. It's such a pitiful situation for a state like Britain
:28:12. > :28:22.to be in. APPLAUSE
:28:22. > :28:27.
:28:27. > :28:32.agenda of the audience. The reason we chose those questions was because
:28:32. > :28:37.we had more questions on that than on any other topic. So put that in
:28:37. > :28:47.your pipe and smoke it. You can join into my's debate at home by text or
:28:47. > :28:57.
:28:57. > :29:01.Johnson. Will a �200 a year NHS levy on non-EU migrants crackdown on
:29:01. > :29:07.health tourism. In view of my rebuke to you, I will let you start on
:29:07. > :29:13.that. That is very kind. It is not going to sort out the issue,
:29:13. > :29:18.obviously, but I think it addresses a legitimate concern of the public.
:29:18. > :29:22.Somebody said the other day that it is a National Health Service, not an
:29:22. > :29:26.international health service. There is a major problem when people are
:29:26. > :29:31.able to take out of the system that they have not put into. And I think
:29:31. > :29:34.it is the least that can be expected of people, if they have not paid
:29:34. > :29:40.into the NHS at any point and then they find themselves in Britain and
:29:40. > :29:45.need to use the NHS, that people who have paid for it all their lives do
:29:45. > :29:50.not pay for those people. APPLAUSE
:29:50. > :29:54.And I must say, I am rather sad to notice that in the last few days,
:29:54. > :29:58.since this has been mooted, the extent to which people have
:29:58. > :30:02.basically avoided that fundamental and rather obvious issue, and have
:30:03. > :30:06.instead tried to deflect part of the debate by pretending this is somehow
:30:06. > :30:12.bigoted, xenophobic or something like this. Is it we think it would
:30:13. > :30:19.be common sense, even if we were not in recession. Labour's shadow
:30:19. > :30:26.public-health Mr, Diane Abbott said, what price xenophobia, stigmatising
:30:27. > :30:30.foreigners accessing NHS help create a public risk. Do you agree? This
:30:30. > :30:36.was one of the most depressing stories of the week. I will tell you
:30:36. > :30:42.why. My committee looks at the finances of the NHS and they are in
:30:42. > :30:46.dire straits. We probably have up to a half of NHS trusts which are
:30:47. > :30:50.basically bust, in deficit, bankrupt. At the same time we have
:30:50. > :30:56.all of the pressure on accident and emergency. I know about it down the
:30:56. > :31:02.road in Romford. And we have things like the 111 dozen work. These are
:31:02. > :31:07.the big issues in the NHS. -- the 111 does not work. I want an NHS
:31:07. > :31:11.free at the point of use for everybody in Britain. To divert us,
:31:12. > :31:16.not that I disagree with the policy particularly, but to divert us onto
:31:16. > :31:20.this issue rather than tackling that, to always slag off the NHS,
:31:20. > :31:26.which is what he does all the time, he divides it and is critical of it,
:31:26. > :31:29.I think it is just a terrible way forward. I want my Secretary of
:31:29. > :31:35.State to tell me how are the hospitals and GPs going to cope with
:31:35. > :31:40.declining finances. How is the quality going to improve? How are we
:31:40. > :31:43.going to get this 111 service working? When he has done that, this
:31:43. > :31:51.is a tiny amount of money in the totality of everything that is
:31:51. > :31:57.spent. 110 billion, something like that. 12,000,100 and 9 billion, get
:31:57. > :32:05.the big picture. Focus on the big Victor and give us the NHS we
:32:05. > :32:15.deserve. -- the big picture. clarify, you are against the �200.
:32:15. > :32:19.Let me just say some. Just that.I am an MP from down the road in
:32:19. > :32:23.Barking, where we have had a total transformation of our community
:32:23. > :32:27.through migration. For years and years, I have been saying things
:32:27. > :32:33.that have been considered very radical. I think if new migrants
:32:34. > :32:39.come in, they have to spend a bit of time. They have to earn their time
:32:39. > :32:43.here, spend time here before they can access services. The services I
:32:43. > :32:47.am talking about are actually services which are rationed by us.
:32:47. > :32:50.For example, social housing, council housing. There is not a council
:32:50. > :32:56.house for everybody and you ought to have time spent in your community
:32:56. > :33:01.before you get it. Come to the end because we have to stick to the
:33:01. > :33:06.question. Benefits is the same. I do not know why Polish workers are
:33:06. > :33:11.sending child benefit to families in Poland. But on the NHS and
:33:11. > :33:16.education, think about it, if you have a newly arrived migrant with
:33:16. > :33:21.children, it puts pressure on school places, but should we not give a
:33:21. > :33:26.child a place? When it goes to the NHS, there are pretty good rules. We
:33:26. > :33:32.get most of the money end. There is 12 million we do not get in. Let's
:33:32. > :33:36.tighten it up a bit, but this is not the big picture. It is not the big
:33:36. > :33:40.picture. Do not let him get you on this and think, if we get a little
:33:40. > :33:47.bit more out of migrants we will solve the real difficult issues
:33:47. > :33:50.facing us, to give us the NHS we want. I think this proposal is
:33:50. > :33:55.sensible, just doing what many countries around the world already
:33:55. > :33:59.do, as you will know if you have applied for a Visa to go to
:33:59. > :34:02.Australia, New Zealand, or if you have looked at Finland and other
:34:02. > :34:07.European countries. When someone applies for a Visa to come to the
:34:07. > :34:10.UK, we say they should make a small financial contribution to disarray
:34:10. > :34:17.the costs of using our National Health Service when they are here.
:34:17. > :34:19.It will not mean that if someone turns up at accident and emergency
:34:19. > :34:22.needing emergency treatment, they will be denied it. It is about
:34:22. > :34:26.ensuring that people who come here to use the NHS make a financial
:34:26. > :34:29.contribution towards doing so. Margaret is right that the amounts
:34:29. > :34:34.of money involved are small, compared to the budget of the
:34:34. > :34:37.National Health Service. We are making major changes. Last week we
:34:37. > :34:42.announced one of the most radical reforms in the health system,
:34:42. > :34:46.linking health and social care with a shared pot of money to be jointly
:34:46. > :34:49.commissioned by health bodies and local councils, to end the scandal
:34:49. > :34:53.of elderly vulnerable people falling down the cracks between the health
:34:53. > :34:58.service and the social care service. By joining those up, we can get
:34:58. > :35:02.better services for elderly people with less money to go around.
:35:02. > :35:06.Genuinely radical change, we spent a lot of time talking about last week.
:35:06. > :35:12.But it is important that people who come to our country should make a
:35:12. > :35:18.financial contribution for using the health service. I agree with your
:35:18. > :35:23.point that you get out what you put in. But I think we are missing a
:35:23. > :35:30.crucial point, which is the fact that the decision-makers in the NHS
:35:30. > :35:34.are at fault as well. I have a close family member who is in the coal
:35:34. > :35:40.face at the NHS. And she is seeing it disintegrate in front of her
:35:40. > :35:45.eyes. Money is being put in the completely wrong places. And people
:35:45. > :35:49.are definitely seeing a shift towards much more privatisation in
:35:49. > :35:53.the NHS. It might not be happening completely now, but that is
:35:53. > :35:57.definitely where it is going, and I do not want to see that happen. And
:35:57. > :36:03.I know that my close family member who is in the coalface of the NHS
:36:03. > :36:08.does not want to see it either. you think this �200 fee is a step
:36:08. > :36:14.towards asking other people to pay for the services of the NHS? It is
:36:14. > :36:19.perhaps. But I also think we need to take an inward look at where this
:36:19. > :36:25.�10 million budget for NHS spending is being spent already, and reject
:36:25. > :36:29.that and examine where money is being spent.
:36:29. > :36:34.I was a GP before I retired some years ago, and I remember the first
:36:34. > :36:38.time a patient came from overseas and I did not know the procedures.
:36:38. > :36:41.This was an American who was insured up to the years with a reasonably
:36:41. > :36:46.minor problem. I phoned the organisation we were answerable to
:36:46. > :36:51.come the family practitioner committee, and I said, what do I do
:36:51. > :36:57.about this guy? Do I charge him? He said, you can see him as a private
:36:57. > :37:02.patient yourself, or if you cannot be bothered to do that, sign him on
:37:02. > :37:09.as a temporary resident, which means we will pay you to see him. He was
:37:09. > :37:15.willing to pay everything. He was insured. But the NHS could not be
:37:15. > :37:23.bothered to take the money. What is your view about the �200 flat fee?
:37:23. > :37:29.If you are going to do it, it is not enough. How is �200 going to help?
:37:30. > :37:34.Sarah Wollaston, you were a GP. do not know how much health tourism
:37:34. > :37:38.costs us, because there is a positive incentive for hospitals not
:37:38. > :37:42.to find out if somebody is chargeable. The extent is probably
:37:42. > :37:47.greater than 12 million, but we can't be sure. The incentive is that
:37:47. > :37:51.if you declare that somebody is not entitled to NHS treatment, you then
:37:51. > :37:54.have to chase them for the money. If they default on the debt and
:37:54. > :37:58.disappear, you do not get paid at all. It is much better for hospitals
:37:58. > :38:04.to keep quiet, not to detect people, because then they will be paid
:38:04. > :38:09.anyway. We do not know the extent of it. Like the gentleman there, I have
:38:09. > :38:12.come across people desperate to pay for treatment in hospitals, who have
:38:12. > :38:17.been trying to pay, and hospitals will not accept it because it is too
:38:17. > :38:20.bureaucratic for them to handle. That is totally unacceptable and
:38:20. > :38:24.that is partly why we need to review, to say what systems can we
:38:24. > :38:27.put in place to collect the money due to the NHS. We do not want to
:38:27. > :38:32.see doctors having to collect money at the surgery and I do not think
:38:32. > :38:35.that is going to happen. What we want from doctors is for them to be
:38:35. > :38:38.compassionate and focused on the patient in front of them, but there
:38:38. > :38:43.is no doubt that there are problems within the system and great
:38:43. > :38:48.uncertainty. To give you an example, I have a constituent who
:38:48. > :38:53.was injured in an industrial accident, had paid into our tax
:38:53. > :38:57.system for many years, went abroad, and as an ex-patria, came home and
:38:57. > :39:02.was honest and said he was living abroad. Because of that, he was not
:39:02. > :39:05.entitled to any treatment. The student coming from exactly the same
:39:05. > :39:10.country would have been entitled to have free treatment the minute they
:39:10. > :39:14.stepped off the plane. That is clearly not a fair system. I think
:39:14. > :39:19.this is about fairness to all of you in the audience, because NHS
:39:19. > :39:25.resources are tight. We want a compassionate NHS that will respond
:39:25. > :39:28.to people with no questions asked in an emergency situation. And
:39:29. > :39:32.absolutely right that we have a review to make sure there are not
:39:32. > :39:36.any unforeseen consequences on public health, and perhaps people
:39:36. > :39:40.who are homeless. We do not want widening health inequalities because
:39:40. > :39:50.of this measure, but it is fundamentally about fairness and the
:39:50. > :39:51.
:39:51. > :39:54.fact that NHS resources are limited. The man at the back. Is it not true
:39:54. > :39:58.that the reason the current government and the government before
:39:58. > :40:07.are leaving the NHS to go to ruin is because they have got outside
:40:07. > :40:11.business interests which will profit from privatisation of the NHS?
:40:11. > :40:18.I just wanted to come back to a couple of the panel. I am a doctor
:40:18. > :40:23.as well. I think we have a room full of doctors tonight. And I agree with
:40:23. > :40:27.a couple of you that it is a principle, and we probably should be
:40:27. > :40:32.charging to make it fairer. But I also tend to agree with Margaret
:40:32. > :40:37.Hodge, that the danger is that it is not only about principle but about a
:40:37. > :40:40.limited attention that we have, and this is a very small issue.
:40:40. > :40:50.Everything is falling apart around us and we are focusing on, you
:40:50. > :40:52.
:40:52. > :40:57.know, my new shirt. Minutiae. �200 is minimal and I doubt it would
:40:57. > :41:02.be possible to cover the cost of supervising and enforcing that rule
:41:02. > :41:10.and leave any money for the Treasury. Are you a doctor to, by
:41:10. > :41:14.any chance? No, I am not. I am glad the debate has swung in the way that
:41:14. > :41:18.it has because when it started it was as if there was this one line
:41:18. > :41:22.proposal which keyed into our anxieties, that it should be people
:41:22. > :41:26.who contribute to the NHS who get proper service from the NHS, which
:41:26. > :41:30.is something most people would agree with. But I felt as though we were
:41:30. > :41:33.not going to scrutinise what the proposal itself actually meant. I
:41:33. > :41:37.think the point the gentleman made up their earlier is terribly good,
:41:37. > :41:41.which is that it is going to be so difficult to get that money back,
:41:41. > :41:49.that you are going to have to set up this cumbersome admin is fitted
:41:49. > :41:51.system. And as it is only going to save �12 million, it is going to be
:41:51. > :41:56.a bit more of a gesture than something which is going to
:41:56. > :42:02.transform the NHS in any profound way. The other thing that concerns
:42:02. > :42:05.me is a public health issue. I do not want us ever to be in a
:42:05. > :42:09.situation where people come to our country, have a little cough, it
:42:09. > :42:15.gets a bit bigger, you and I would go to the doctor but they don't, and
:42:15. > :42:18.it turns out to be some terrible disease. They have spots, they just
:42:18. > :42:24.scratch them and rub on some cream and do not go to the doctor and we
:42:24. > :42:28.have a huge break-out of something awful. That is what I fear from this
:42:28. > :42:31.kind of attitude. The proposal precisely is not that this should be
:42:31. > :42:35.something paid over-the-counter when someone turns up at a hospital. It
:42:35. > :42:39.is to avoid those problems that what is being suggested is that when
:42:39. > :42:44.someone applies for a Visa in their home country, in addition to paying
:42:44. > :42:48.for the Visa, they pay �200, or whatever the number turns out to be,
:42:48. > :42:54.to use the National Health Service. This is not about distracting from
:42:54. > :42:57.the issues in the NHS. This is the 65th anniversary of our national
:42:57. > :43:03.health service and there are big issues. There are issues about care
:43:03. > :43:06.for the elderly, about the culture of secrecy that built up over many
:43:06. > :43:08.years, particularly when the Labour Party was in government, which made
:43:08. > :43:12.it harder than it should be for people to blow the whistle when
:43:12. > :43:16.there are problems. We should have an open debate about those things,
:43:16. > :43:19.but that does not mean it is wrong to ask people from overseas who are
:43:19. > :43:25.coming to the country to make a small financial contribution for
:43:25. > :43:30.using the National Health Service. The woman in the fourth row. It is
:43:30. > :43:33.the principle of the thing, actually, that we are trying to give
:43:34. > :43:42.this impression that you cannot come here and get everything for free. So
:43:42. > :43:45.it does not matter how many people, or how much it is going to cost, it
:43:45. > :43:50.is actually giving that impression to people that, you know what, we
:43:50. > :43:55.are going to put a block on it now. You cannot scaremonger people by
:43:55. > :43:59.turning round and saying, we will get diseases. One minute you are
:43:59. > :44:04.saying there are not many people and the next minute you are saying we
:44:04. > :44:12.are going to get a disease. And as Danny said, they will not stop you
:44:12. > :44:17.going to accident and emergency. happy to assert principles but I
:44:17. > :44:21.want to see principles that work. My point is that I don't want to start
:44:21. > :44:25.shifting into a culture where public health is at risk and I want to make
:44:25. > :44:29.sure that the things we do actually make the National Health Service
:44:29. > :44:33.better. My fear is... We need to start somewhere. Yes, but the
:44:33. > :44:38.question really is whether this is the appropriate place to start.
:44:38. > :44:41.Labour are always afraid to start somewhere. There are far more
:44:41. > :44:44.serious issues which some of the other people in the audience have
:44:44. > :44:50.picked up that we should be addressing first and when we get
:44:50. > :44:56.those sorted out, then we'll have the debate bait on the NHS. You said
:44:57. > :44:59.something about what Margaret Hodge said? Well, at least this - I mean I
:44:59. > :45:05.don't support this particular Government now, they are dog lots
:45:05. > :45:09.and lots of welfare cuts that are really affecting a lot of people -
:45:09. > :45:13.but on this particular issue, they are not scared to say, actually, I
:45:13. > :45:20.think we should start charging people that come from abroad.
:45:20. > :45:26.Labour never did that. OK. A couple more points. The woman second row
:45:26. > :45:31.from the back? Considering we don't know how many illegal immigrants are
:45:31. > :45:36.over here, how are you going to charge them? Danny Alexander?
:45:36. > :45:41.look, one of the issues here is that our immigration system's been
:45:41. > :45:45.allowed to go to rack and ruin over very many years and when Labour were
:45:45. > :45:49.in office, they stopped counting the amount of people leaving the
:45:49. > :45:53.country. We have an idea of who is coming in, no idea of who is coming
:45:54. > :45:57.out, we are reintroducing those as a coalition Government. We are making
:45:57. > :46:03.it harder for certain groups ofp people to come into the country.
:46:03. > :46:07.stopped ID cards, Danny? We did, Marg resmt I think that was a huge
:46:07. > :46:11.invasion of the civil liberties of every single person in this country.
:46:11. > :46:17.It was wrong and we were right to stop it -- Margaret. What is your
:46:17. > :46:21.answer to the lady's point, what are you going to do about people
:46:21. > :46:25.illegally here now, because you won't be able to identify them?
:46:25. > :46:29.Well, this policy is about people who're coming into this country,
:46:29. > :46:34.applying for a visa, paying a charge upfront. It won't address that
:46:34. > :46:38.point. It's a point we are looking at and can we put resources into
:46:38. > :46:43.removing people who're here illegally because that's what should
:46:43. > :46:47.happen. You, Sir? Danny mentioned about visas and Tony mentioned about
:46:47. > :46:51.spots, would it not be sensible to have a health screen before they
:46:51. > :46:56.leave their home country? OK. The woman up there at the very back in
:46:56. > :46:59.the middle? I would like to say that after what seems to be a very
:46:59. > :47:06.depressing conversation, if the NHS is disintegrating at the rate that
:47:06. > :47:11.everybody seems to think it is, as a frequent user of it recently and
:47:11. > :47:14.having many family members who've used it, I would like to say they
:47:14. > :47:21.are dog an exceptional job. APPLAUSE
:47:21. > :47:25.We'll move on. Another question from Jan Kemal, please? Can the military
:47:25. > :47:29.coup and the overthrow of a democratically elected President
:47:29. > :47:35.ever be justified? Ever be justified? Of course, thinking of
:47:35. > :47:38.Egypt and the removal of President Morsi. Douglas Murray? I think there
:47:38. > :47:43.are situations where it can be, whether it's the most desirable
:47:43. > :47:47.thing I certainly question. I think I was on this programme a couple of
:47:47. > :47:51.years ago when President Mubarak had been overthrown and I said then that
:47:51. > :47:56.the likely snarl Joe was that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to
:47:56. > :48:01.power and that would be a catastrophe for Egypt. That's come
:48:01. > :48:07.to pass and the country is facing a much less easy to foresee future
:48:08. > :48:13.now. My own view on it is that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an
:48:13. > :48:16.idealogy of which is, I mean the easiest way I think of it is, it's
:48:16. > :48:21.basically a fascist political party, albeit a Muslim fascist political
:48:21. > :48:26.party. It's a terrible and corrosive ininfluence across the region and it
:48:27. > :48:30.cannot answer the basic needs and desires of the peoples of the
:48:30. > :48:33.countries it is now trying to govern. I think we have seen that.
:48:33. > :48:39.The Egyptian people have seen that and they have felt that for the last
:48:39. > :48:43.year. The minorities in Egypt - I haven't been there since the
:48:43. > :48:47.revolution, but one of my colleagues just got back and the treatment of
:48:47. > :48:52.religious minorities, women, is absolutely terrible in Egypt - the
:48:52. > :48:57.Egyptian people are suffering this. The Army have stepped in for those
:48:57. > :49:00.and many other reasons, most obvious of which is the fact that the Muslim
:49:00. > :49:05.Brotherhood cannot answer the Egyptian people's economic needs.
:49:05. > :49:12.The question is whether it can be justified. The gist of what you are
:49:12. > :49:18.saying is... My own view is that the Army's gone in too early. I think
:49:18. > :49:22.the Muslim Brotherhood, like the fascists, it has to be seen as
:49:22. > :49:28.defunct, incapable of ruling and a vicious thing that must be got out
:49:28. > :49:33.of the system of it. The Army's probably stepped in too early.
:49:33. > :49:36.Another few months even of Morsi would have clarified that. As it is,
:49:36. > :49:40.I fear very much that the brotherhood is going to continue and
:49:40. > :49:45.the embers are still obviously very hot and that they are going to hold
:49:45. > :49:49.on to the idea that although they didn't get it right necessarily this
:49:49. > :49:52.last year, that there is the possibility in the near future that
:49:52. > :50:00.the brotherhood could govern and govern well. I think that that
:50:00. > :50:09.idealogy of the Muslim Brotherhood what toss be obliterated like
:50:09. > :50:15.fascism was in 1945. -- has to be obliterated. Danny
:50:15. > :50:20.Alexander, the Foreign Secretary is saying he doesn't approve of the
:50:21. > :50:25.Governments being overthrown there. Do you awe I approve? I don't
:50:25. > :50:30.support military intervention to overthrow the democratically elected
:50:30. > :50:34.Government. It's not the right way to resolve disputes. We have to work
:50:34. > :50:38.with whoever is the Government of the day, we have British nationals
:50:38. > :50:44.living there and British people doing business there. We have to
:50:44. > :50:48.appeal to the Egyptian state to resolve this in a democratic way as
:50:48. > :50:51.quickly as possible. You also need to have in a democracy political
:50:51. > :50:54.parties and people from different perspectives working together to
:50:54. > :50:57.make the constitution work. It's clear from the protests on the
:50:57. > :51:00.streets of Egypt that there are a lot of Egyptians who feel that
:51:00. > :51:03.wasn't happening. It's a difficult situation but I certainly don't
:51:04. > :51:09.think that military intervention of the sort we have seen is the right
:51:09. > :51:15.way to resolve these sorts of disputes.
:51:15. > :51:19.It sets a dangerous precedent that when things go wrong, the Army can
:51:19. > :51:23.just go back in to solve it. We have seen the Arab Spring leave countries
:51:23. > :51:27.and it's a difficult process for many of the countries after if he
:51:27. > :51:31.coulded towards having proper democracies where governments change
:51:31. > :51:34.through elections. That must be the outcome that we are looking for and
:51:34. > :51:41.it's a shame this has happened to Egypt at this stage. The Americans
:51:41. > :51:43.fund the Egyptian Army to over $1 billion a year. Do you think the
:51:43. > :51:48.American administration has knowledge of this and gave it a
:51:48. > :51:54.nudge and wink approval? No idea whether the administration had
:51:54. > :51:59.knowledge of this. Some of the Western media appeared to report on
:51:59. > :52:04.it in advance of the military in Egypt considering intervention.
:52:04. > :52:09.Clearly as the government in the country was doing this before, that
:52:09. > :52:12.was always a risk. It's highly preferable, that in those
:52:12. > :52:16.circumstances, democratic politicians should work to resolve
:52:16. > :52:22.differences and government should be changed where the democratic will of
:52:22. > :52:26.the people is to that effect. Robinson? It shows, more than
:52:27. > :52:32.anything else, how hard democracy is, particularly if you come from a
:52:32. > :52:36.country which has had a dictator for 30 or 40 years. Probably the only
:52:36. > :52:39.reason that dictate got in was because different religions and
:52:40. > :52:44.factions were kicking lumps out of each other, so a strong man was
:52:44. > :52:48.unvitaled in. When the strong man is overthrown, do people suddenly go,
:52:48. > :52:55.we love democracy, no, they kick lumps out of each other again.
:52:55. > :52:59.That's what we are seeing here. So in a way, is it right for the Army
:52:59. > :53:05.to intervene doesn't seem to be the right question, it's a struggle for
:53:05. > :53:10.the Egyptian people to find their democracy and I don't think that we
:53:10. > :53:18.can just sit on the sidelines and tut tut. We have been through all
:53:18. > :53:24.this, we have had our Civil War, we have had our Peter Lou anded blood
:53:24. > :53:28.on the streets and we have this luxury that it wasn't our blood that
:53:28. > :53:33.was sacrificed, it was our forefathers and foremothers. When I
:53:33. > :53:38.see something like this, I think we tend to be cavalier about our own
:53:38. > :53:43.democracy in. The last two weeks, we've seen revelations about
:53:43. > :53:46.terrible incursions into our privacy by security, by the government
:53:46. > :53:50.security and private security. I think we have just been a bit lazy
:53:50. > :53:55.about this. When we see something like that happening in Egypt, I
:53:55. > :53:58.think that it's beholden on us to be absolutely rigorous to protect our
:53:58. > :54:08.own democracy because it's so valuable.
:54:08. > :54:13.
:54:13. > :54:17.on this, please do, but you, first? On the subject of whether they
:54:17. > :54:21.intervened too early, let's bear in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood was
:54:21. > :54:25.volunteering its members to start suicide bombing in the name of the
:54:25. > :54:30.cause. Well, it's not the best way to do this, but I'm not hearing any
:54:30. > :54:34.better way to have done it, wouldn't it have been nice if they sat at the
:54:34. > :54:39.table and talked, but it wasn't going to happen. So let's hope we
:54:39. > :54:44.get a decent secularing guy going and do our best to induce a
:54:44. > :54:50.democracy that's respectable. -zblf you, up there, please, on the right?
:54:50. > :54:54.The tourism trade - I was over there in January on holiday - it was said
:54:54. > :55:00.there needs to be six coaches going to the pyramids and there's only one
:55:00. > :55:06.now. The tourism trade's gone down the pan. One reason for that.
:55:06. > :55:10.President Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader until yesterday,
:55:10. > :55:14.very recently appointed among others as regional governors, one of the
:55:14. > :55:20.people engaged in the terrorist assault on tourists in 1997 in
:55:20. > :55:24.Luxor. This was when dozens of Swiss and other tourists were beheaded at
:55:24. > :55:27.the archaeological sites. For Morsi to make a man involved in that the
:55:28. > :55:35.governor, that is the ultimate insult, not only to Egypt, but to
:55:35. > :55:39.anyone who'd want to visit the country.
:55:39. > :55:46.APPLAUSE The same thing in Northern Ireland.
:55:46. > :55:55.Terrorists were elected in Stormont. That's an embarrassment. People died
:55:55. > :56:00.on the streets in Northern Ireland. I can assure you, I'm not wild about
:56:00. > :56:06.that either. I was born in Egypt and left at the age of 4-4, so I don't
:56:06. > :56:10.have an inside knowledge of the Egyptian politics or memory of it.
:56:10. > :56:17.We are asking too much. It's do years since the Arab Spring was
:56:17. > :56:22.sprung upon us. I think moving from, it wasn't 30 years, it's 50, 60
:56:22. > :56:27.years of military-led awe tockry sill into a mature democracy
:56:27. > :56:32.overnight is too big an asked, so we should try and hang on to the whole
:56:32. > :56:38.feel of the Arab Spring and feel some strength by that. I want to
:56:38. > :56:43.come back on Douglas on one thing because I hate to think this is
:56:43. > :56:47.about redown. I don't think it is. I think where Morsi failed, he was
:56:47. > :56:52.incompetent on the economy and on his politics. You gave an example of
:56:52. > :56:58.that. But remember also that the Muslim brotherhood had 80 years, am
:56:59. > :57:05.I right, when they were tortured and imprisoned by the previous despots
:57:05. > :57:10.who ruled Egypt. I think this is a danger in turning this into a proand
:57:10. > :57:13.antireligious thing. It's bad politics. One final thing. Sorry;
:57:13. > :57:19.Sarah Wollaston, because we have reached the end of the programme.
:57:19. > :57:24.This coup is worrying, we are trying to persuade extremists to turn to
:57:24. > :57:28.the ballot box and I think the message that sends to them is why
:57:28. > :57:32.bother. That's why it's worrying and I don't think it will end well and
:57:32. > :57:36.we should be concerned about that. The point is, this is for the
:57:36. > :57:40.Egyptian people, not for us and we should not be intervening.
:57:40. > :57:45.APPLAUSE OK. Sorry to those who had your
:57:45. > :57:49.hands up and the panelists who want hands up and the panelists who want
:57:49. > :57:52.to come back, but time is up. If you have been listening on Radio 5 Live,
:57:52. > :57:56.you can continue the debate. This is the last Question Time of the run.
:57:56. > :58:00.We are going to be back early autumn, Thursday 12th September, to
:58:00. > :58:05.be precise, in London. On the 19th September, in Rochdale.
:58:05. > :58:13.If you want to come or know anyone who'd like to come to take part in
:58:13. > :58:18.the programme, you can call us or apply on the website. I hope you've
:58:18. > :58:22.all enjoyed this run. Thanks for your Tweets and texts that have been