12/09/2013 Question Time

Good evening from London start of a new series. Our audience

are here ready to question and argue with our panel. Welcome to Question

Time. As always, a big welcome to our

audience, a cross-section of political opinion in Britain, and to

our panel, International development Secretary Justine Greening,

Labour's shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, Green party MP

Caroline Lucas, The Times columnist David Aaronovitch, and a law

professor and former state department adviser under George W

Bush, Colleen Graffy. And, of course, the questions come

from the audience who are here to debate with the panel. They do not

come from us. The first one comes from Jane Eagles. Has written

shirked its global responsibility by a link to militarily intervene in

Syria? -- Britain. Yes, I think it has. This civil war in Syria started

in March 2011 with demonstrations by Democrats that were shot upon by the

Syrian government of Assad. They took up arms. At that stage there

was no talk of Al-Qaeda. There has been a gradual decline since then

into civil war, as a result of nobody doing anything about it.

100,000 people have died. Three United Nations Security Council

resolutions condemning Syria have been vetoed by China and Russia.

Russia has said it will be to further UN resolutions. And

President Obama, who has not been speedy to act, said there was a red

line, the use of chemical weapons. On August 21st, that was breached in

the most dramatic way and 1500 On August 21st, that was breached in

people lost their lives. And we know it. And yet the position that we

ended up in at the British Parliament was that we could not

agree about doing anything about it. We could not agree to

agree about doing anything about it. America if it did anything about it.

And in so far as the Syrians are now saying they are now prepared to join

the chemical weapons Convention and to disarm of their chemical weapons,

the chemical weapons Convention and that has only been in the sponsored

the chemical weapons Convention and to the threat of military action, of

which this country was not repaired to be a partner. So Parliament and

MPs should have ignored what appears to be the will of the British

people? Yes. One of the things that Parliament is for is to make

decisions about such matters. Caroline Lucas. It is a shame that

global responsibility is defined in terms of military engagement. The

idea that global responsibility only means lobbying missiles from one end

of the world to the other, to my mind, does not stack up. Absolutely,

just like everybody here, everybody around the country would have

deplored the use of chemical weapons. That goes without saying.

The images that we saw were etched on our minds. But the question in

front of Parliament and in front of all of us was, do we have evidence

that a military response will make matters better, or is there a very

that a military response will make real risk that it could escalate

things further? So it was a matter of practicality, not principle? If

somebody could have persuaded me that we could have ended the

suffering, would not have had a backlash, could have stopped the use

of chemical weapons and stop violence in the Middle East through

doing that, that would be a compelling argument, but none of

that seemed to be the case. To the contrary, there was a lot of

evidence, coming from quite distinguished military people,

saying this area is a powder keg, distinguished military people,

that the idea of putting a set of missiles there and not knowing what

the impact could the could missiles there and not knowing what

things a lot worse. I hope if we have learned anything over the

things a lot worse. I hope if we 20 years from Iraq and Afghanistan,

it is that a military response, firing off missiles to the Middle

East, often does not bring about the peace that we might hope it would.

Has a country like Australia shirked international responsibility, or

Canada, Germany, Sweden, good liberal countries, but they do not

feel the need, as Caroline was saying, to send bombs to a Middle

Eastern country. I think we have done our bit in the Security Council

and we should respect international law, because that may save more

lives going far into the future. Do you agree? The reason the Prime

Minister and the United States wanted to take military action was

because international law had been broken. There is a long-standing

lawn chemical weapons and Assad had breached that, brutally. At the end

of the day, we are a democracy. We had a debate in Parliament,

Parliament expressed its will, and ultimately, that is the most

important thing. We, as a government, respect that, so we will

not be part of that military action. Parliament respects it, except for

you. You did not vote. I am not going to dress it up into anything

that it is not. I went to Parliament fully intending to vote. It was not

a deliberate mistake? No.What about the issue of runcible, which David

Aaronovitch and Caroline Lucas were talking about? Do you believe we

should have done it, even though the public, or parliament, thought not?

Was the Prime Minister right? Yes. There was an international law that

was breached. We cannot turn a blind eye to that. I do not

was breached. We cannot turn a blind would have seen the steps now

possibly being taken by Syria, around being prepared to put

chemical weapons out of harms way, if we had not raised

chemical weapons out of harms way, way that we did. The issue, when we

were first recalled from recess, everybody expected, and indeed all

of the reporting was that the motion in front of us would have been about

taking military action very quickly. So there would have been no time for

the diplomatic space that has been allowed to open up. The rewriting of

history by the Conservative party needs to be called out. This was not

a threat of military action to happen after leaving a space of

time. It was military action to happen pretty soon, which was why we

were recalled from Parliament. There is a fantasy at the back of this,

which is the idea that somehow or other Assad has said he will get rid

of chemical weapons as a response to you not taking a vote in the House

of Commons. It is an absolute fantasy. If the parliament, and

after all, the resolution that was in front of the Commons was actually

a waiting resolution on the production of evidence. At that

point, you might well have had the Russian initiative about chemical

weapons then and there, if they were serious about it. You seem to be

suggesting, in a funny way, that the Russians and Syrians are not serious

about it. That is, essentially, in essence, the indication of what you

are saying. Caroline is right about the rewriting of history, because we

were being asked to sanction military action, basically a blank

cheque to take military action, which everybody knows was planned

for the weekend after the Thursday vote, and that would have happened

in advance of Assad agreeing to do anything we are seeing him agreeing

to this week. That was not the anything we are seeing him agreeing

motion in front of you. We were being asked to go along and sanction

military action in advance of us being provided with any legal basis

for military action proceeding, in advance of the weapons inspectors

never mind reporting that actually even leaving the Syria. That is not

true. The issue here, and we have learned, I suppose, from history, is

that before you act, you must make sure you actually understand the

evidence and go through a proper process, and you at least exhaust

the process at the UN. That had not happened at the point that we were

being asked to sanction military action. To go there to the question

asked, have we shirked global responsibility in not patching in a

military way -- not acting. I don't think so, because we have seen a

potential solution put on the table which does not involve military

action. It is not just an issue of the ongoing horrendous death and

destruction we are seeing. It goes without saying that the use of

chemical weapons is completely and utterly inexcusable. But we have a

mass humanitarian crisis, with over 2 million people displaced. Bombs

are not going to necessarily solve that issue. In a sense, you are --

you admire what the Russian president is doing? I don't think it

is a question of admiring anybody. It is a question of how to reach a

democratic, political and sustainable solution to this ongoing

civil war. It is about stopping people being victims of chemical

weapons. Of course. There is no disagreement on this panel about

that. Colleen Graffy.Let me pull it back a little bit, talking about

that. Colleen Graffy.Let me pull it global responsibility. Our starting

point is that the United Nations Security Council is supposed to

identify threats to peace and then do something about it. We are good

at identifying threats to peace and do something about it. We are good

not very good at doing something about it. We look at history, and we

see when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, the league of nations

voted 54-0 that this was contrary to our peace and security, but they did

not have the political will to do something about it. Now, we are

faced with Russia and China not wanting to be part of the

international community in identifying these threats to peace.

Two years ago, as David was pointing out, we have been trying to put

through resolutions to the Security Council and it has not been

possible. Parliament aside, it has been this brinkmanship of a threat

of use of force that has actually brought Putin to put pressure on his

ally, Assad, in order for them to say that they will be forthcoming

with the chemical weapons they said they did not have. Do you think that

is a good, sound move? Was Obama right to say America was not the

world's release man, because some right to say America was not the

people think America has been the world's police man? There have been

missteps and miscommunication, but we are where we are. If this is not

a delaying tactic I Syria and the Russians, it would be excellent to

find a way of getting hold of these chemical weapons, and most

find a way of getting hold of these importantly also having Syria sign

the chemical weapons Convention, because it will then hold them to

account. Had action taken place, do you think we would see what we are

seeing now happen? It would not have happened unless we had the threat of

use of force, I am sorry to say. And it did not have to be that way.

Though the first point that was made about the red line being crossed

with the use of chemical weapons, was the line not crossed the day

that the first innocent civilians died? Without chemical weapons being

used, do you mean? Why is it OK to kill with bombs and guns? It is not

OK, but we try to humanise warfare, as odd as that sounds, and chemical

weapons is one of those threshold points that countries can agree on.

The man with the red pullover. This crisis has been going on for such a

long time with 100,000 dead. We are talking about red line is being

crossed. It was crossed ages ago. Is it not just about having a return on

investment? We talk about learning from Iraq and Libya. It seems like

they have been pondering for years. Are we going to get anything out of

it? In terms of waiting for a UN resolution, Russia is already

selling arms to the regime, and they have a financial interest in this.

It seems like slowly trickling money into the rebels is prolonging this,

rather than taking it to an end. What is your view rush to mark that

America, France, Britain should have intervened military? I think the

West should intervene. They intervened in Libya couple of months

into the uprising. This has been going on for years. Why not

intervene now when there are so many people dying on both sides? I want

to come back to the idea that because we are not in favour of a

military response we are doing nothing. We need to be straining

every sinew on the diplomatic front, giving resources for

refugees, and a more consistent approach to foreign policy, because

I cannot help feeling frustrated about some of the inconsistency. We

I cannot help feeling frustrated have not talked about the use of

things like white phosphorus, depleted uranium. If you are on the

other end of those, they are hideous as well, and were used recently by

the US and Israel. We are not condemning that, so can we have some

consistency? If you are not consistent, that is

what makes people so angry. Chemical weapons are covered by a clear

convention. You said, "We should strain every diplomatic sinew."

Which do you think we have left unstrained? We have managed to get

people around a table. The Russians now - because this is a double proxy

war - you have the Russians, the US, Iran and Saudi. Because we have a

diplomatic space - I come back to what Chuka Umunna said. We didn't go

down the road that Parliament persuaded us to go down... You think

down the road that Parliament the Russians said, "This is

interesting. What a lovely moment. The British have been so nice in

delaying any vote, we think this is the appropriate moment..." You are

being ridiculous. That argument is ridiculous. David Aaronovitch, what

would your policy be? I was in favour of implementing a no-fly zone

back in 2011 to strengthen the pro-democracy rebels because we

could see what would happen if you didn't, arms strengthening would

happen to the Islamist rebels in Syria. How would that affect the use

of chemical weapons? It might not have prevented it. I think in order

to enforce a no-fly zone, it probably would have been necessary

to take out Assad's air force. What would you want to see happen now?

What would you like to have seen happened last week? I would like to

see a punishment of Assad's military, significant enough to tell

see a punishment of Assad's anyone else who wants to use

see a punishment of Assad's chemical weapons that that is what

they would face if they did. You wouldn't wait for the UN before you

did that? It is legal.It is not. The responsibility to protect

requires a UN Security Council The responsibility to protect

agreement. We don't have that. Let me go to the audience. The man

there? I was in the Public Gallery on the day of the vote and I

listened to MPs for five hours. Then I watched the news post the vote. I

couldn't understand why David Cameron said what he said. It wasn't

the mood of the House. The mood of the House was, "We need time."

No-one had taken military options off the table. The Labour Party,

Caroline and others were just calling for space. Whether it's

through luck - I think it has been partly through luck with Putin and

Obama acting subsequent to that. The diplomatic space has been allowed.

Other channels have been explored. I think that although the policy in

the first instance may not have been the correct one, it was David

Cameron's response which I found very odd. He put it off the table.

No-one in that House had put it off the table completely including the

most anti-war of the MPs in there, Caroline included. Why did David

Cameron say the issue is a dead issue? The motion was all about

giving a bit of space. It wasn't a motion about immediately taking

military action. The reason we can't get involved in military action is

because Parliament didn't vote to give us a space to keep that option

on the table. What he is saying is, you didn't have to have the Prime

Minister saying, "I get it" and that's it? Chuka Umunna's party

would have voted against it. No, we wouldn't. Let's deal with David

Cameron's party. Are you saying there is no circumstance in which

the Prime Minister could go back to the House of Commons now, despite a

vote, and say, "The situation has changed." Are you saying that is

politically impossible for him to do? What we have said unless

circumstances change, Parliament has had its debate on this motion and

basically said that military action cannot be pursued in relation to

this chemical weapons attack so we can't be part of that. You want to

this chemical weapons attack so we come back? They only said that based

this chemical weapons attack so we on the evidence before the House on

the day. They didn't say if things got worse and if more evidence was

given, hard evidence, and there was more international support for it,

not international support, just your friends, the UN General Assembly

support. The mood in the House that day was if it got to it, we would do

it. We have not got there yet. Had that vote been passed, the

Government would have had to come back to Parliament with the sort of

information, additional information before it actually had got the

ability to take any military action. This is all about saying in

principle can we consider this? What Parliament said was no. That is why

this option has come off the table. Parliament said provide us with the

evidence, the legal basis and tell us what the plan and the

consequences are. We did that.You did not. We were not provided with

that. That wasn'ts... It wasn't your subsequent position. What Cameron

was facing, however badly he might have handled it, was a situation

whereby the Labour Party would almost certainly have voted against

any further resolution he brought - he knew it. He knew at least 30 of

his backbenchers were unreliable as well. We were very clear that we

would consider military action if a certain number of criterias were

met. That was that we would be given the evidence and that was that we

would be given the plan after any action. We were not provided with

those things. That is why we didn't consider military action. At this

stage no would you vote for it? If the Prime Minister wanted to bring

stage no would you vote for it? If the issue back to the House of

stage no would you vote for it? If Commons as a responsible opposition,

which has a constitutional duty, of Commons as a responsible opposition,

course we would have to consider it. Do you take any account of what

President Obama wants and what would happen in Congress? Our number one

concern here has been will what we are being asked to do improve the

situation of the Syrian people or not? What is in the British national

interest? Other considerations... What do you call the British

nationalnational ? We have to think what is in our national interest. We

have all been... Is it being shocked by what we have seen on the

television? Do you think it is in our national interest to support

President Obama if he gets approval from Congress to take military

action? It is not a question of whether we support President Obama

action? It is not a question of or not. It is about doing the right

thing. The woman on the right? We are talking about an international

law being breached when it comes down to chemical weapons. It was the

UK which supplied Assad with chemicals from 2004 to 2010. Those

are the chemical weapons which could have possibly been used against the

Syrian people. What is the consequence of believing that to be

true? I didn't make it up.No, if it is true, how does it affect things?

It was the UK which supplied Assad with chemicaweapons and that was a

breach at its time. That is incorrect. Chemicals. It was a

breach at the time. You, Sir?And the Government did own up to it.

You, Sir? We have been sitting on our hands for two years. A red line

has been crossed. We are still debating party politics. The UN

doesn't work. The time for action is now. You, Sir?What part is the

United Nations now to play? We are saying they are redundant. So we are

talking about avoiding them and going around them and declaring war

ourselves on another nation. You shouldn't seek change in governments

purely for its own sake. Can I come back on that? I absolutely agree

that one of the lessons for this whole episode is that the UN does

need massive reform. The idea that you have five permanent members is

like something out of Animal Farm that some countries are more equal

than others. It doesn't work. There are mechanisms within the UN, which

is something that means that if you had two-thirds of the general

membership of the UN agreeing to something, if it were military

force, that could happen. So, what we need to do is look at the

mechanisms that are still there at the UN, reform the parts that need

to be reformed and... We shouldn't forget Mr Churchill's great

comments. I don't want to leave this topic but I want to go to a

different aspect of it. Busha al-Akraa has a question which I

would like to take. Is asking Assad to hand over chemical weapons an

invite for him to kill more using conventional weapons? This focus on

chemical weapons solely, David Aaronovitch? Allows him to - nobody

is talking about the Conventional weapons? The vast majority of the

100 -- 100,000 killed were killed by conventional weapons. We know what

100 -- 100,000 killed were killed by will be going on all the time while

that is happening, which is that his army and air force will continue to

flatten rebel-held areas and any areas which don't accede to him.

That is what is going to happen anyway. You are right. Colleen

Graffy, do you agree? First of all, getting his chemical weapons will be

incredibly important. It might be that what has to take place will be

somewhat of a ceasefire, maybe there can be some coming around of the

table. The difficulty is is how do you have a regime change and can and

what is going to come in its place? Do we know who are the moderate

rebels that we can support? The right to protect is still an

international law that is evolving. So, I think, that is our problem. We

feel absolutely frustrated at not being able to do anything, but

intervening in a civil war is going to be problematic. It doesn't mean

that we cannot find and identify those moderate Syrians who want a

secular state. I think we are kidding ourselves to say that it is

impossible to do. We can. I think we can. OK. The man in the middle?

Every major NGO is saying don't enter with troops on the ground. I

work for Oxfam. That is the main thing we are saying. It is not two

million displaced - it is five million. It is really important that

the UN needs to, as the lady mentioned, the mechanism is in place

in the UN, they need to be reformed. What happened last time in Iraq,

Britain and America went around, they were walking too slowly. It is

two years later... What would you do now? You can't sit about talking

about reforming the UN at this stage? No-one has asked him to step

down. No-one has told him, "You must stop now or we will enter." I stand

between, in the middle working for a charity. I don't want people to be

hurt. The decisions that people will make to go in don't - it isn't to do

with me. You, Sir?I suspect we should give some credit to Russia in

the sense that they have come up with a solution. At least even if it

is a starting point. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that -

this is to go back to an earlier question - I suspect we haven't

engaged with Russia and with China diplomatically. I think this is a

great deal... I don't think that is true. This is the first conflict

since Vietnam where we have not been able to get a Security Council

Resolution on the humanitarian access that is required to help the

two million refugees and the four to five million people displaced within

Syria. On Rwanda, Kosovo, we were able to get agreement to at least

have civilians protected, to have doctors not be targeted. We have not

been able to get a resolution on that. Why? The Russians have stood

in the way of that and China. Let's not have rose-tinted glasses about

the Russians now that they are choosing to enganl politically. They

the Russians now that they are could have done -- engage

politically. They could have done this months ago. We now need to -

you are right - focus on the politics of this because it is going

to be a diplomatic solution that solves this civil war. In the

meantime, we surely need to put pressure on Russia and China to at

least allow humanitarian access and to become a much part of providing

the money that we need to help support the millions of people who

have been affected by this crisis. Alright. Three million of them now

children. You have had your hand up since the beginning. I take pity. So

a last point from you, Sir? Alright. In 2011, the Libyan civil war began

a last point from you, Sir? Alright. in February. The same war ended in

October/November with the death of Colonel Gaddafi. It ended within a

October/November with the death of span of ten or 11 months. Every

single country condemned the actions of gad gad. They all supported the

rebels. They all bombed and targeted Gaddafi. Come to Syria.Why is it

the same level of military support is not being provided to the rebels?

OK. I will leave that, unless anybody wants to reply? It is a

different country. We were able to get a UN security Council Resolution

through. China and Russia abstained. Now, because a regime change took

place, that is why they are going to veto anything to do with Syria

because they don't want to see a regime change there because Putin

has billion dollars worth of weapons trade with Syria and a big

investment in their energy sector. I am going to move on to another

question. You can join in the debate by text or on Twitter. A question

now, domestic, Lewis Kershaw. Given that 70% of the public oppose it,

should the government privatise the Royal Mail. Chuka Umunna. They

should not, and I will tell you why. Royal Mail is doing very well at the

moment. It has just announced over the last year £400 million operating

profit. What the government is doing, and the government, by the

way, has taken on the historic pension liabilities of the Royal

Mail, so it has nationalised the debt, if you like, and now it is

privatising the profit at the very time that it is beginning to be a

really successful business in public ownership. That makes no sense to me

whatsoever. So if Labour were to win the

election you would reverse the decision? I would not be doing what

they are doing now. Just a moment, I am trying to answer the question. We

do not know how much they are going to raise from the sale which has

been announced today, and so we also have absolutely no idea how much it

would cost to buy it back after it is sold. So asking if we would

re-nationalise it is asking me to write a blank cheque and I am not

re-nationalise it is asking me to prepared to do that. Do you not get

the revenue from tax and corporation tax from a successful business? Why

does it need to be owned by the state? Let me give you two reasons.

The Post Office provides Royal Mail services. It is an important

relationship and there is an agreement between the two which

helps to maintain the viability of the Post Office. In the short term,

that agreement is secure. Long-term, there is no guarantee that Royal

Mail will continue to provide services through the Post Office.

Secondly, just think about it, your local Royal Mail delivery and

sorting offices are in prime locations. What is to stop a

privatise Royal Mail from selling locations. What is to stop a

off these assets to realise a profit, and meanwhile you as

consumers and business people will profit, and meanwhile you as

have to travel so much further? Another thing, it has been presented

as a big opportunity for the public to buy into the Royal Mail. The

minimum stake you would have to invest to buy a share as a member of

the public is £750. If you are in the cabinet earning a big sum of

money that might not seem much, but to my constituents in Streatham that

is out of the question. You have a holiday home in Beith.

As Justine may have seen, my family has property in another country. I

As Justine may have seen, my family think we should keep our families

out of lytic and stick on the issues, Justine. -- out of politics.

I think this is about allowing the Royal Mail to be able to compete in

what is a really tough and changing global market, ultimately. It needs

freedom, freedom to innovate, Freedom to get more investment. In

fact, it needs freedom from politicians interfering. Does that

mean we should allow it to do whatever it likes in future? No.

Which is why we have legislated to make sure there will be that

universal postal provision that we rely on. And as Chuka has admitted,

the Royal Mail has done a long-term deal with the Post Office and it is

inconceivable that those two organisations will not work closely

together because it is in both of their interests. Chuka talked about

how the Royal Mail may change. Ultimately, successful businesses

have to meet customer needs. This is about allowing the Royal Mail to be

have to meet customer needs. This is in a position to do that.

Ultimately, it will be a public listed company, so the whole public

can invest in it. What is it that it cannot do at the moment and that

resume the bleed your government is preventing it doing, that you feel

it should be freed to do. -- presumably your government is

preventing. It needs more investment. That can come from a

taxpayer, and that may be several billion pounds we cannot put into

schools or hospitals. Or it can come from the markets and shareholders.

Why not reinvest the profits? And we all know that a few years ago it was

not making profit. It is doing well, thanks to good management. You say

there is a risk of political interference. Are you saying that

the Cabinet are massively interfering in Royal Mail right now?

The Labour Party in 2009 fully supported privatisation, and now you

have changed your mind. We never opposed to put a majority stake into

private ownership. -- proposed. You are selling off this 300-year-old

institution that we all love, which was one of those things that binds

us together. Everybody knows their local Post Office. You are selling

that off for the sake of making a quick buck to fill a hole in the

public finances caused by the lack of growth. That is what this is

about. The way I understand it, the way the Post Office works is that no

matter where you live, you pay the same amount for postage. You could

live in the north, south, east, and pay the same amount. If you

privatise it, there are certain rural areas which would not get a

frequent delivery service because it will not be, in terms of

commercialism, it will not work. As it stands, the Royal Mail owes a

duty to the public. If it is privatised it will owe a duty to

shareholders, so the dynamics will change. If profit becomes the main

objective... You do not believe the government assurances? We have

legislated to make sure that provision you just talked about will

stay, so that by law the Royal Mail will have to continue providing

that. Until 2015, Justine.That is just wrong. It is true. It is up for

review in 2000 and Dean. Can you guarantee that it will stay the same

beyond 2015? You can change it by law if you want to, but we are not

going to. This is now enshrined in legislation, that the kind of

service you talked about will be continued to be provided, the

universal postage service that we rely on. It is in legislation. Only

Parliament can change it through law. I remember Margaret Thatcher

wanting to privatise, but not the Royal Mail. That was before the

internet, before internet shopping, before we had FedEx, UPS, and the

fact is that times have changed. In order for the Royal Mail to keep on

top of that, it needs a big influx of capital. It needs access to the

equity markets. If it rose now, for every £1 it rose, it borrows £1 on

the national debt. -- if it borrows. Unfortunately, this is the way

things need to happen. Angry, America will follow suit. Why do you

say unfortunately? Because there is that sentimental tied to it. The US

Postal Service is $16 million in debt. It is not sustainable. But the

Royal Mail is doing pretty well. It is making profit because it is

delivering those things that people order online. It is not enough to

keep up with the competition. Times have changed. I just think it is

very sad that we are losing a great British institution. I wonder how

many we have left. The BBC?It is sad because I think a lot of people,

myself included, have already started using other services to

deliver parcels and packages. My local Post Office, and I live in a

large area of London, is the smallest part of the building and

you cannot even tell it is a Post Office on the outside. We are losing

these identities and it is very sad. Office on the outside. We are losing

I do not really mind. That is a lot of good! You have nothing to say!

Parts of this discussion take me back 20 years, to the

nationalisation of British Telecom. The first thing to say to chuck a

macro is, Peter Mandelson, when he was you, except in government,

wanted to do 49%. -- Chuka. But he was you, except in government,

would have gone on to do the rest, actually. If this government had not

done it, I think if you came to power in 2015, after a couple of

years you would do it, too, because you would have a similar problem.

Although the Royal Mail is doing well, the parcels part is

undercapitalised, and it is actually significantly competing. Do you

accept that in order to get the capital, you have to go to the

market? It makes sense because it has been the case with other

industries, that you can raise more capital if you are privately owned.

The big question for users is what guarantees there are that the

service will be as good as it was before? This is not only locked in

by an act of Parliament, but also by bits of European legislation as

well, about the levels of service that have to be provided across by

Europe. So I am relatively happy that it will be OK. It seems like a

total conflict in time. We make £400 million, and then we trip ourselves

up trying to privatise something that is making money. Why can't we

sit back with the profit and let it run, and take a check of things and

think, this is making some money? The capital issue might answer my

question, but it seems the government makes money for itself

and then things, we will do something else, trip ourselves up. I

want to see future profits from the Royal Mail invested in the service,

not siphoned off to shareholders. If you are looking for capital to put

into it, the government can borrow at the lowest levels. You are also

likely to see more job losses. What really worries me is the link to the

Post Office, because I am not reassured by any of the language I

Post Office, because I am not have heard from this government that

somehow the link between worry or mail and the Post Office is secure

and it would be thinkable for it to be separated. -- Royal Mail. A few

years ago we might have thought it be separated. -- Royal Mail. A few

was unthinkable for the NHS to be privatised, and we have seen what

has happened. So I am really worried what will happen to our Post Office,

because post offices are not just bases where you buy stamps, they are

part of the glue that holds communities together, and one of the

few places where people can meet each other, can know each other. I

do not believe your protection. We are not talking about the Post

Office, but about the Royal Mail. You made the point for me that you

are going to be able to borrow money cheaper outside than you can inside

the government, so Royal Mail will be able to save money by borrowing

outside. I lost loads of post offices in my constituency. We have

detected that network and invested in it to make it better. I do not

think post offices are safe under either of your parties. Another

question. And yell Sherman. In the light of Michael Le Vell's

acquittal, should those accused of sexual crimes be granted the same

anonymity as their accusers? URA lawyer. Do you have a view on this?

I think the impact of being accused of that sort of crime is so much

greater than any other crime, really, that it is something we need

to seriously consider, yes. The Coronation Street actor had massive

publicity about the charge that he had repeatedly raped a child. Should

he be granted anonymity, as his accuser was? David Aaronovitch. No,

I don't think he should, but I can see why people argue about this. I

think it is a matter of some kind of fairness. Because his accuser has

anonymity in sexual cases of rape, the person who is accused should

have anonymity. Unfortunately, if you suggest that, you give this one

category of offence anonymity that no other offence, not even murder,

which is a fairly personal and intimate crime. And the second

consequence of that is that when somebody, it would mean they had to

be anonymous when they were charged or accused. One of the things that

often happens in rape cases is that you find you have a serial rapist,

often happens in rape cases is that somebody who has raped before. And

so when the accusation is made, other cases can come forward which

would not otherwise come forward, and can act as corroboration for

what is very often his word against her word. In this case it did not

happen. But in many other cases.And yet the opprobrium attached to him.

One of the things we think is how much opprobrium we attach to people

when they are accused of something, as opposed to convicted.

Colleen Graffy, what do you think? I appreciate the work the Crown

Prosecution Service does and it looks like they thought they had the

evidence on this one. But, the problem with allowing that

individual to have anonymity is that so often the strengthening of the

case comes about when the person has been named and you see his face and

you hear the stories, just like in the Jimmy Savile case. This is where

we had other individuals coming to light to say they had an incident

take place. We couldn't have anonymity. OK. Do any of you think

there should be anonymity? Justine Greening? There is an earlier stage

there should be anonymity? Justine where the police is investigating,

where there is anonymity. They can take a decision to waive that and

make that investigation public, which is what happened in the case

of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall. That can give people who have also

been affected the confidence to come forward and build the case.

Ultimately, as David said, you can't really have anonymity once the

charges have been brought. I do think that we have a system where

people are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that needs to be

borne more in mind. There was an argument about whether there should

be anonymity at the point of arrest and it should be retained if there

was no charge. At the moment, the police can have anonymity when

people are arrested and it is only when they are charged that it

becomes public. It is rare. Everybody seems to know who is

arrested. The woman on the right? I'm sorry, but this drives me up the

wall. The Crown Prosecution Service estimates that 0.3% of accusations

of rape are false and we spend so much time discussing the

consequences for the person that's been accused, how terrible it must

be for them. All these old men. It drives me up the wall. That is not

the problem. That is not what we should be focussing on at all. I

really think something should be done to address the way we have this

debate. We are missing the point in a very big way. And the point is?

Not that - the problem is whether they look a bit bad. The problem is

that it is very, very difficult to prosecute these cases. It is very -

the Crown Prosecution Service is in a very difficult position over

whether they choose to charge someone or not. From my

understanding, they have to have a reasonable level of evidence before

they do decide to charge someone. Caroline Lucas? I have a lot of

sympathy for what the lady just said. It would be unfortunate if one

of the conclusions was that there is more doubt over the cases that are

brought to court. It is incredibly difficult to secure convictions on

rape cases anyway. There is the difficulty in getting people to come

to court. When we consider the level of rape cases that are being

properly tried and so forth, it is a fraction of the number of rapes that

are happening. We shouldn't be discouraging women from coming

forward. We need to focus on them getting good justice. I would also

add to what Justine Greening was saying. The media has a bit of a

role here. You get trial by the Daily Mail as well as by the jury.

People have an outcry when they see how somebody appears to have been

tried in the media even though they turn out to be innocent. Let's sort

that out. Alright. Let's go on to our last question. This is from Fung

Wah Man. Has George Osborne won the argument on the economy? Has George

Osborne won the argument on the economy? I wonder who I should go to

first? Colleen Graffy? Well, I think that he has. I think that the

economy is turning a corner. I think that Ed Miliband - actually Ed Balls

saying the economy was going to flatline. I think it is Ed Balls'

career that will be flatlining and we might see a reshuffle coming up,

perhaps some were saying Alistair Darling needs to get in there to

freshen things up. Labour got it wrong. The Conservatives have got it

right. Again, it was a deep recession. It was a long recession.

It is not going to happen overnight. The signs are very good. What was

the argument that he won? We don't really know whether he did the right

thing. We only know the recession is very slowly receding? The concern is

that the austerity measures were happening and we were feeling the

pain. It was the British people and the sacrifices that they made. Now

we see 1.3 million people back in jobs. We see the unemployment going

down. These are really good indicators. Alright.If things stay

on course, he's done the right thing. Chuka Umunna, Mr Balls will

be out of a job? I don't think this is about George Osborne or Ed's

career. This is about people's lives. It is not a game. The

career. This is about people's question that you have to ask is how

do people feel? I am pleased to see encouraging data. We know it is

still quite a mixed picture. If you look in my constituency, in

Justine's, we have seen in both of our constituencies long-term

unemployment increase five times since the general election. Most

people have sustained a £1,500 pay cut since 2010. If you ask most

people do you feel better off now or worse off now compared to 2010,

people don't feel better off. There is no cause for anyone to celebrate.

Wait a minute, Ed Balls said Osborne's plan hadn't worked. Did

you agree with that? Do you agree it hasn't worked? There is need for a

Plan B? I do believe George Osborne's plan hasn't worked. We are

talking about this data after three years of a flatlining economy. I

don't think that is a cause for celebration. I don't think that is a

vindication - the fact we are seeing a recovery take hold again, this

does not mean he's been vindicated at all. The question, David, is what

are you doing to relieve the squeeze on middle and lower-income families?

I don't think, giving £100,000 tax cut to people who are earning

millions of pounds, at the same time that you are cutting VAT, you are

millions of pounds, at the same time cutting Working Tax Credit and

making life harder for most families is the way to go when we have got

this huge cost-of-living crisis. Alright. You, Sir? Recovery based

solely on artificially inflated house prices is hardly a recovery to

be proud of. Looking at working people where I live in East London,

seeing a public sector pay freeze that is punishing them, rising house

prices, making it almost impossible for them to make ends meet. If this

is the best he can do, he needs to try a lot harder. I agree. Justine

Greening? I think we are seeing unemployment now lower than when

this Government came into power. Employment is at an all time high.

There have never been more women Employment is at an all time high.

employed in the job market. We have seen businesses create 1.4 million

jobs. Ed Balls said it was a fantasy that the private sector would create

more jobs than were going to be lost. It's created three times more

jobs than have been lost in the public sector. We are getting growth

back into the economy. The economy is turning the corner. We are on the

right track. The argument that's been won by George Osborne is to

totally torpedo Labour's strategy which is that you borrow your way

out of a debt crisis. The only answer they have to problems in our

economy is spend, spend, spend. They want more spending, more borrowing,

more debt and the British people have made huge sacrifices to take

the steps we have done - let me finish - to take the tough choices

we have made to reduce the deficit by a third. In a year-and-a-half, we

will all have the choice about where we want to go next with our country.

We should not make the same mistakes that we have before. Hold on. I want

to come to the man with the spectacles there? I'm a public

sector worker. I'm also part of an endangered species, a public sector

trade unionist. Frankly, my colleagues at work, at a council in

North London, have paid the price for this so-called recovery. Over

the last four years in our council, we have seen more than 630

redundancies, most of them compulsory. We have seen a dramatic

erosion in living standards. My real pay has gone down by 15%. My wife is

a teacher of the deaf in East London. She has seen her real pay go

down and her pension contributions go up. At the same time that we are

seeing an upward redistribution of wealth in this society. Recovery for

whom? OK. Caroline, I will come back to you. I suspect you will agree

with much of what he said. David Aaronovitch? I don't think there is

any vindication of George Osborne in what has been an incredibly slow and

almost inevitable recovery after the crash of 2008. Of course, we have

got some element of recovery. What's imponderable is whether or not the

relatively small policy difference that Labour has with what the

Government has done in overall terms would have made any great difference

or not. That is the imponderable. I can't say whether it would or

whether it wouldn't. Somebody said to me, "I have read a lot of what

you write but you don't write about the economy." That is because I

don't know what to write about the economy. I don't know whether it is

true that we have been like Greece if we had borrowed a little bit

more, or whether we would become like chin that if we managed to pay

back our debt quicker. Is this like chin that if we managed to pay

because you are ignorant? Or that it is unknowable? It is both. As far as

I can tell - people occupy these great entrenched positions,

political positions and we have to try and guess who is right about it.

Caroline Lucas? I do want to come back to the gentleman from the back

who was talking about the experience in his community of how it is

essentially the poorest people who have paid the highest cost for

getting us out of this deficit. For the Government to somehow pat

themselves on the back when they have absolutely suppressed recovery

for so long by their Draconian measures and now we are supposed to

be grateful to them, maybe there is a small change happening, I think it

is ludicrous. It is like Osborne crashing the car and bringing the

wreck back and we are supposed to be terribly grateful to him for doing

it. Over the past few years, what I have seen is a growth of food banks,

a growth of people on zero contract hours, a growth of people who can't

afford to send their kids to school with uniform. It is a terrible

situation. Do you think Osborne crashed the car? I think it was the

response - there was an international debt - there was an

international banking crisis. What happened was that this Government

has made it ten times worse. Alright. We were living beyond our

means. We were not. This was a banking crisis. That is what you

call a structural deficit. It was a banking crisis, it was a crisis of

banking and this Government made it ten times worse. Alright. Time...

Time... I have to call time. Our hour is up. We are in Rochdale next

week. We have Harriet Harman and Shirley Williams among those on the

panel. The week after that, we will be in Uxbridge. You can apply via

www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. If you have been listening to this on Radio

Five Live, you can continue the debate on Question Time Extra Time.

My thanks to our panel and to all of you who came here tonight to take

part in this programme. From Question Time, the first in the new

run, in London, good night.