:00:11. > :00:16.Yesterday, squatting became a criminal act in England and Wales.
:00:16. > :00:20.It's been welcomed by many householders who have suffered from
:00:20. > :00:26.having their properties squatted, but with homelessness rising
:00:26. > :00:36.sharply and three-quarters of a million empty properties in the UK,
:00:36. > :00:47.
:00:47. > :00:50.is it right not to allow squatters Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed and
:00:50. > :00:53.welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Yesterday, the Government
:00:53. > :00:58.effectively brought an end to squatters' rights, introducing
:00:58. > :01:05.negligence lags to criminalise squatting in residential builds. Up
:01:05. > :01:09.to 50,000 squatters now face eviction, but with homelessness
:01:09. > :01:14.rising sharply and hundreds of thousands of empty houses, is it
:01:14. > :01:22.really immoral to squat? The Government has just announced
:01:22. > :01:27.it is giving Ghana �87 billion as part of its overseas plan. Is
:01:27. > :01:32.helping poor nations the right thing to do even when times are
:01:32. > :01:36.tough? Nick Ferrari thinks we should put its own people first.
:01:36. > :01:41.This country must put its own people first.
:01:41. > :01:46.Last weekend, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman,
:01:46. > :01:51.made a speech attacking age discrimination against women on
:01:51. > :01:56.television. Should older women try harder to ensure they stay on
:01:56. > :02:03.screen in A warm welcome to my guests this
:02:03. > :02:06.week. David Aaronavitch is a journalist for the Times and a
:02:06. > :02:15.Tottenham Hotspur season ticket holderment
:02:15. > :02:22.Jenni Trent-Hughes is a life coach and psychologist and we're lucky to
:02:22. > :02:27.have her here today after she injured herself fencing.
:02:27. > :02:37.And Nick Ferrari is a broadcaster and journalist. Welcome to all of
:02:37. > :02:40.
:02:40. > :02:44.you. You can give your views on Twitter or Skype or phone.
:02:44. > :02:48.There are an estimated 50,000 squatters in England and Wales and
:02:48. > :02:52.since yesterday new legislation has effectively made them all criminals.
:02:52. > :02:57.But with homelessness a growing problem, is it actually immoral to
:02:57. > :03:03.squat? Squatting as long been part of
:03:03. > :03:11.British life, especially since the 17 century. These days, everyone
:03:11. > :03:15.from the improvished to students camp out in empty properties. But
:03:15. > :03:22.as of yesterday, squatting became a criminal offence. Squatters will
:03:22. > :03:26.now face up to six months in prison and a potential �5,000 fine.
:03:26. > :03:30.looked at all the available options and this is the clear most
:03:30. > :03:34.straightforward and sends the clearest message to squatters that
:03:34. > :03:40.you cannot steal someone else's home. And that's the message we
:03:40. > :03:43.want to get across. Ministers say this new legislation will help
:03:43. > :03:49.protect house owners and deter squatters. Up to now, trying to
:03:49. > :03:52.remove squatters has been a long and expensive process and when
:03:53. > :03:57.they've finally got them out, homeowners say their properties are
:03:57. > :04:03.wrecked. They say their rights have to come first. However, critics of
:04:03. > :04:07.the legislation, such as the charity, crisis, say that the
:04:07. > :04:12.majority of people who squat are vulnerable and we should tackle the
:04:12. > :04:17.cause of homelessness rather than criminalise the effect. And this
:04:17. > :04:22.new law alies to empty homes of which there are nearly three-
:04:22. > :04:26.quarters of a million in England alone and they are left to rot. Why
:04:26. > :04:32.shouldn't people be able to use those houses?
:04:33. > :04:38.So, this legislation is finally giving homeowners much-needed
:04:38. > :04:42.protect? Or is it a violation of human rights for the people who are
:04:42. > :04:46.already vulnerable in society. Is squatting always immoral, Nick?
:04:46. > :04:52.me, squatting is effectively a form of theft. If we're going to have
:04:52. > :05:00.laws they have to work for everybody and clearly they've
:05:00. > :05:10.failed house owners many times down the years. That is the subject of
:05:10. > :05:11.
:05:11. > :05:15.our public vote. Is squatting immoral. You can vote by text, on
:05:15. > :05:20.line and we'll show you how you voted at the end of the programme
:05:20. > :05:23.Jenni, you've heard all these stories of homeowners and landlords
:05:23. > :05:28.who have had their properties wrecked. You see it in the papers.
:05:28. > :05:32.Does it make you bothered about squatting? No. The thing for me is,
:05:32. > :05:38.first of all, I think there is a very important difference between a
:05:38. > :05:41.homeowner and a property owner. And I think that, of course, stealing
:05:41. > :05:47.is wrong. Appropriating someone else's property is wrong. And if it
:05:47. > :05:51.is my home and I go away on holiday and I come back and there are some
:05:51. > :05:56.strange people living there, yes, that is not correct. However. If it
:05:56. > :06:02.is true that there are some 700,000 properties in this country that are
:06:02. > :06:05.empty and not being used and there are people sleeping on the street
:06:06. > :06:13.because they cannot afford to have somewhere else to live. That, to me,
:06:13. > :06:18.is a much larger moral wrong. you see that distinction? No, it's
:06:18. > :06:23.ridiculous. People who don't have jobs, does that mean you can race
:06:23. > :06:28.to someone's office first and take over their job? Lots of people this
:06:28. > :06:35.weekend are probably buying school uniforms. They're far too expensive,
:06:35. > :06:38.do they take them off the shelves? That is wrong. You are nicking
:06:38. > :06:44.somebody else's house and you shouldn't be there. Do you buy the
:06:44. > :06:49.principle that it is theft? You can make that argument and I see it and
:06:49. > :06:53.it's largecal force. But taking London at the moment, one of the
:06:53. > :06:57.big problems we have is billionaires from abroad who buy up
:06:57. > :07:03.large sections of property and keep them empty because essentially
:07:03. > :07:07.they're an investment. So you have empty properties. And I find it
:07:07. > :07:12.difficult, really, to be morally outraged that somebody goes and
:07:12. > :07:18.lives in that property while it is not wanted. The difficulty always
:07:18. > :07:22.is what happens when that owner might want the property back. In
:07:22. > :07:28.London you have different kinds of squatters. You can have those who
:07:28. > :07:34.wreck them and some go in and make a joy of the place, frankly, in a
:07:34. > :07:41.place that is otherwise empty. own applies to residential property
:07:41. > :07:46.not empty commercial property. Chris Town from the residential
:07:46. > :07:50.landlords' association in Leeds, you've had first-hand experience of
:07:50. > :07:56.squatters and the troubles associated with it, can you tell us
:07:56. > :08:01.what happened to you? Yes, I had a property which had just become
:08:01. > :08:05.empty. The previous tenant had just moved out and before I could get
:08:05. > :08:10.back to the property a squatter had installed himself. I didn't know
:08:10. > :08:14.the law or how it worked. I was completely innocent of that and had
:08:14. > :08:19.no idea what to do, so I rang the police, which I think most people
:08:19. > :08:23.would do in a situation like that, not knowing the law. And the police
:08:23. > :08:28.said I could do nothing about this person and in fact if I entered the
:08:28. > :08:33.property I would be breaking the law even though it was my property.
:08:33. > :08:36.Didn't you have to stake it out to get back in? Yes, the advice of the
:08:36. > :08:41.police officer was that when the squatters left the property, there
:08:41. > :08:47.were two people in there, a male and a faem, and if they both left
:08:47. > :08:52.the property I could then make it secure and if they then entered by
:08:52. > :08:56.force I could call the police. Which I did. It took several days
:08:56. > :09:01.and ultimately they left the property. I boarded it up and they
:09:01. > :09:07.re-entered the property by breaking through the board I had installed
:09:07. > :09:13.and I rang the police and they said, "We have no witnesses" so we still
:09:13. > :09:18.couldn't do anything about it. get them out in the end, was it
:09:18. > :09:23.�1,000? It was, but added to that there was damage to the property.
:09:23. > :09:28.There was a small fire in the property which caused damage and
:09:28. > :09:33.the important thing for me was this property was for let. It denied the
:09:33. > :09:38.lawful use of the property by a tenant who wanted to move into the
:09:38. > :09:43.property. When people say a lot of these people are landlords and own
:09:43. > :09:46.lots of property, what do you say to that argument, that this is
:09:46. > :09:50.about people who have lots and people who have nothing and they
:09:50. > :09:58.need somewhere to live. Landlords who have property have to rent it
:09:58. > :10:03.out for a rent. That's the deal, it's a business. Land lorpbdz don't
:10:03. > :10:09.buy property to keep them empty, I certainly don't. We run a business.
:10:09. > :10:13.And these are people who steal the property from legitimate tenants
:10:13. > :10:17.and landlords and damage the property and that can't be right.
:10:17. > :10:23.That's a particular landlord experience. I don't know if it's
:10:23. > :10:28.typical or not. I've visited, as a journalist, several squats where it
:10:28. > :10:34.doesn't fit that template at all, where there hasn't effectively been
:10:34. > :10:38.a landlord waiting. I've been in large properties in leafy parts of
:10:38. > :10:43.London where properties have been empty for four or five years before
:10:43. > :10:47.anyone has gone into it and it's been bought up for development and
:10:47. > :10:55.sometimes people actually get more money effect yvly by leaving
:10:55. > :11:00.properties empty too. What is the truth about squatting? Exactly that.
:11:00. > :11:05.I -thighs with what he went through, but I know personally and for a
:11:05. > :11:09.fact of people who own 20, 30, 40, 50, 2hun47 properties which they
:11:09. > :11:14.have for tax purposes and all different kinds of things. So there
:11:14. > :11:18.needs to be a definite ringsation between what the property is bought
:11:18. > :11:23.for. If you're like Chris and you're buying it to rent out or
:11:23. > :11:30.live in that should be treated differently if someone squats in
:11:30. > :11:38.that than if you've a Russian oil billionaire and you've bought
:11:38. > :11:43.properties. That guy didn't look like a Russian oil billionaire.
:11:43. > :11:48.thighs with him. I don't care if houses have been boarded up for 45
:11:48. > :11:53.years, they've been bought with money. You can't go and take
:11:53. > :12:00.people's properties it's just wrong. If you have laws they have to
:12:00. > :12:04.protect everyone. I was talking to a teacher's assistant yesterday and
:12:04. > :12:11.she squats because she doesn't get paid enough to have a property.
:12:11. > :12:14.Many things in this world are unfair. Isle' right, we'll take
:12:14. > :12:20.things out of the supermarkets because the prices are too high.
:12:20. > :12:26.Where does it end. That's taking it to the extreme. David has a point,
:12:26. > :12:31.if they have 45 houses, that's different, but you'd have to have a
:12:32. > :12:39.very clever law to get through all that. And we have another viewer.
:12:39. > :12:45.Uge is a former squatter. Do you have any sympathy for the
:12:45. > :12:49.landlords? I feel sympathy that Chris was given incorrect advice by
:12:49. > :12:53.the police. Before Saturday there was existing provision for people
:12:53. > :12:59.like him. We haven't time to answer that now, but beyond that, what
:12:59. > :13:04.about the principle that he had this ordeal to get the squatters
:13:04. > :13:09.out and the mess they left him? Right now my greatest sympathy is
:13:09. > :13:15.for the thousands of squatters who have become criminals overnight who
:13:15. > :13:22.face the position of do they move out of their homes and become
:13:22. > :13:26.homeless or do they face sudden eviction and criminalisation.
:13:26. > :13:30.They're not moving out of their homes. They're moving out of
:13:30. > :13:38.somebody else's home and that is why they have to move. But there is
:13:38. > :13:44.a problem with lack of housing. doesn't justify criminal acts.
:13:44. > :13:50.ahead? OK, is it a criminal act? It is a criminal act now. You think
:13:50. > :13:55.that's wrong? You think people are going to be damaged by the law? The
:13:55. > :14:01.idea is it's going to redress an imbalance. Are you really saying
:14:01. > :14:05.that criminalising it will push it too far the other way? I think it's
:14:05. > :14:10.disproportionate to make vulnerable people in society criminals. I
:14:10. > :14:18.think that's disproportionate. Samira it's worth asking the
:14:18. > :14:28.question why it is we have had this law that came into force up until
:14:28. > :14:28.
:14:29. > :14:33.now? It came in in 1977 to stop people being evicted by skrup you
:14:33. > :14:38.lus landlords. Exactly. We have country principles. One of the
:14:38. > :14:42.reasons we called it squatters' rights is that if somebody sets up
:14:42. > :14:49.a home there and lives there undisturbed for a while we
:14:49. > :14:54.recognise that as their thom and that has been a principle in
:14:54. > :15:00.English law for many, many years up until now. I read that one in seven
:15:00. > :15:05.people on the planet is a squatter, so it is also about defining what
:15:05. > :15:10.exactly is a squatter, when are you squatting, when are you developing.
:15:10. > :15:17.Well, the Government has had to make a decision on this law. We
:15:17. > :15:21.have Mike joining us, who was a strong voice pushing this law. It
:15:21. > :15:26.is about social division. People who have lots of homes and leave
:15:26. > :15:33.some empty and people who cannot afford to live? No, it's stealing
:15:33. > :15:38.and we shouldn't be allowing it. Squatters tend to be web savvy and
:15:39. > :15:48.well-educated and they look on the internet to find the empty
:15:48. > :15:54.properties. And squatters are not right. The owners are on their
:15:54. > :16:00.knees calling for them to be removed. One old lady who was in
:16:00. > :16:08.hospital had to spend �10,000 to get the people out of her house and
:16:08. > :16:14.they union ruined it. Don't confuse squatters with homelessness. Do you
:16:14. > :16:19.really want a homeless person to go into a derelict property? No, we
:16:19. > :16:24.should be looking after our homeless and putting them into
:16:24. > :16:29.local authority care and looking after them properly. So that's
:16:29. > :16:34.50,000 more on the housing list, can this Government deal with it?
:16:34. > :16:39.don't agree with that figure? If you look at the statistics, in the
:16:39. > :16:43.last 50 years we've got the lowest homeless ever, apart from the past
:16:43. > :16:47.two years. The Government has put millions of pounds into the scheme
:16:47. > :16:54.for homeless people. We do need to look after these people, but they
:16:54. > :16:59.are not squatters. Squatters are entirely different, they're
:16:59. > :17:08.antisocial free loaders. Do you think that? Some of them are, and
:17:08. > :17:14.some are not. I can see why it's politically attractive, but an
:17:14. > :17:21.litcally it's irritating. Is it like the old right to roam, and the
:17:21. > :17:25.idea of people walking across your land was considered outrageous
:17:25. > :17:29.once? Landowners were incensed at the idea of the right to roam which
:17:29. > :17:34.was one of the good ideas of the last Labour Government which said
:17:34. > :17:40.people should be able to walk aCrosland. Land ownership is not
:17:40. > :17:43.like other forms of ownership. In some ways it is and some ways it
:17:43. > :17:49.isn't which is why we have distinctions in the law. There will
:17:49. > :17:54.be aspects of this law that, within two to three years, we will begin
:17:54. > :17:59.to regret. They will be in the region of what landlords do to
:17:59. > :18:03.tenants and make them squatters, but we will regret it. Thank you
:18:03. > :18:09.very much. It is our poll question today. One viewer says, "The full
:18:09. > :18:15.force of our law should be used to rid the people in our houses when
:18:15. > :18:20.they shouldn't be. Let's start with the House of Lords" that's another
:18:20. > :18:27.question. Another says, "Why not increase
:18:27. > :18:31.taxes on empty properties and nent vice people to use them." That --
:18:31. > :18:40.innocent vice people to use them" much
:18:40. > :18:44.That is the topic of our poll today. You have around 20 minutes before
:18:44. > :18:47.the poll close. And the deputy Prime Minister has been putting a
:18:47. > :18:56.ban on second homes bought in London, which is all part of the
:18:56. > :19:01.discussion. This week, the UK Government will
:19:01. > :19:05.commit �87 million to Ghana as part of its ongoing overseas aid commits.
:19:05. > :19:10.But in this time of austerity shouldn't we be helping the
:19:10. > :19:15.vulnerable and needy at home before countries overseas, or is it
:19:15. > :19:20.morally right that as a relatively prosperous nation we should be
:19:20. > :19:24.doing our bit. Here is Nick's Sunday stand This country must put
:19:24. > :19:30.its own people first and if that means others around the world have
:19:30. > :19:34.to suffer, well, tough. Autumn is on the way and with it
:19:34. > :19:38.the party political conference season. Yes, that dreary annual
:19:38. > :19:42.event in which our so-called political elite fight and fret over
:19:42. > :19:48.the issues they deem important to our lives, unemployment, the
:19:48. > :19:52.economy, the environment, you get the picture. But foreign aid, a
:19:52. > :19:57.scandal that costs us taxpayers billions of pounds that could be
:19:57. > :20:01.spent saving the lives of some of our most vulnerable will get hardly
:20:01. > :20:04.a mention. I present a daily radio breakfast
:20:04. > :20:11.show in London and I had the Prime Minister in my studio just last
:20:11. > :20:16.month. He was knocked for six when a woman who had just been diagnosed
:20:17. > :20:21.with cancer asked why her local NHS Trust could not afford her drugs
:20:21. > :20:27.but Britain could afford to fund sexual health clinics across Africa.
:20:27. > :20:32.Mr Cameron had no answer. Oh, he waffled on about moral obligations
:20:32. > :20:37.and not breaking promises to the poorest of the world. Well, I wish
:20:37. > :20:41.he'd tell that to the struggling pensioners who are likely to die
:20:41. > :20:46.this winter because they can't afford to turn up the gas or the
:20:46. > :20:51.families living in poverty due to the cuts. The �12 billion he spend
:20:51. > :20:57.on foreign aid could surely ease some of our domestic economic rot.
:20:57. > :21:01.This is the perfect example of the distance between politicians and
:21:01. > :21:06.ordinary people. How else can you justify sending �270 million to
:21:06. > :21:09.India, a country with its own space programme, a country that does
:21:10. > :21:15.little to help its own poor and with an economy that will be bigger
:21:15. > :21:20.than ours before you know it? I like this saying, I hold it dear,
:21:20. > :21:27.it might be an old one but it's still a good one, "Charity does
:21:27. > :21:32.begin at home." If you have a webcam you can make your point on
:21:32. > :21:40.Skype, or join in the conversation through Twitter e-mail or text.
:21:40. > :21:43.David, should charity begin at home? No. It's fundamently an
:21:43. > :21:49.immoral statement and of course you don't really mean that. Nick
:21:49. > :21:54.doesn't actually mean that his kid should have a third I pad if she
:21:54. > :21:59.wants it rather than pay taxation in order to help the disadvantaged.
:21:59. > :22:04.What it means is you keep all your money within this country. Firstly,
:22:04. > :22:09.we are a rich country, despite the fact that we have people who are
:22:09. > :22:15.disadvantaged. So we're talking about things like whether or not we
:22:15. > :22:20.should help to eradicate malaria. And we've done a good job on that.
:22:20. > :22:27.Should we not do it? What that be the moral thing not to do that.
:22:27. > :22:31.Nick is saying no. I am, because we are in the ridiculous situation now
:22:31. > :22:35.where we are borrowing money and printing other money to send to
:22:35. > :22:39.other countries so we get ourselves deeper in debt. People watching
:22:39. > :22:46.this programme may be about to lose their jobs and they are under
:22:46. > :22:51.pressure. We have to wake up to that. Isn't the money, as David
:22:51. > :22:55.says, going to people who really need it? Absolutely not. I agree
:22:55. > :22:59.with Nick but come at it from a different angering. I grew up in
:22:59. > :23:04.Jamaica and my father started an organisation on behalf of the
:23:04. > :23:09.government, where he went out and they taught local people how to
:23:09. > :23:15.produce things that were then sold. And so it is the old thing, give a
:23:15. > :23:21.man that fish you feed him for a minute, give the man a fishing net
:23:21. > :23:25.and he feeds himself for life. think aid is being badly spent.
:23:25. > :23:29.Absolutely. I have a very close friend who is a member of a very
:23:29. > :23:34.wealthy family in an African nation that I will not mention. And she
:23:34. > :23:38.said to me, and her family are millionaires, and she said to me,
:23:39. > :23:43."The worst thing that we do in this country is the government giving a
:23:43. > :23:49.lot of money to these countries because it almost never gets where
:23:49. > :23:53.it is meant to get." I'll let David answer that. We have a significant
:23:53. > :23:59.amount of effort trying to make sure that aid is effective. Not all
:23:59. > :24:03.of it is, but quite a lot of it is. But most of it is not. No, you've
:24:03. > :24:10.just said that off the top of your head. You don't actually know. We
:24:10. > :24:17.do have a body that looks at the efficacy of aid. I'm certain some
:24:17. > :24:21.of it is wrongly used but the chances are, the majority of it is
:24:21. > :24:27.correctly used. I think money from charities is better than the money
:24:27. > :24:32.the Government sends. That is a huge difference. I want to bring in
:24:33. > :24:38.a contributor. Max works with ox families and governments and we're
:24:38. > :24:42.talking about Government aid. Do you think we have focused on the
:24:42. > :24:47.attention of the money getting where it is meant and there is the
:24:47. > :24:52.question of admin. That's right. We're all under welcome scrutiny
:24:52. > :24:58.over how we spend our money better. The vast majority of British aid is
:24:58. > :25:02.spent very well indeed and there are concrete independent
:25:02. > :25:07.parliamentary Montego toreing of that money. I've lived in Africa
:25:07. > :25:14.for many years and seen the huge differences made. Think of HIV
:25:14. > :25:20.where British taxes are keeping people alive all over Africa. These
:25:20. > :25:26.are productive people, nurses, teachers, midwives. And if we take
:25:26. > :25:33.that money away, we're calling on them a death sentence. I don't want
:25:33. > :25:38.to know -- I want to know, Nick, why we're being forced to choose
:25:38. > :25:46.between ordinary people in Africa and Britain when the British
:25:46. > :25:53.bankers are getting away with...Oh, The bankers, I wondered when we'd
:25:53. > :25:57.get around to that. The reason we have to do it is because around
:25:57. > :26:02.25,000 elderly people will probably die this winter because they can't
:26:02. > :26:08.afford the gas bills. You've said it's marvellous we have people
:26:08. > :26:12.working in Africa. I'm delighted for them, but it is sad we have
:26:12. > :26:16.people in Britain dying because they can't afford the heat.
:26:16. > :26:22.when you had the Prime Minister there you didn't ask him why he
:26:22. > :26:26.didn't tax the banks more to help ordinary people at home as well as
:26:26. > :26:32.in Africa. We also work closely with the poorest people in Britain
:26:32. > :26:36.and I agree whole heartedly that it's scandalous that older people
:26:36. > :26:41.who have worked hard all their lives have to choose between heat
:26:41. > :26:46.and food during the winter time. That is a legitimate question to
:26:46. > :26:49.consider, about bailing out the bankess, but I want to bring in
:26:49. > :26:54.another viewer. Gordon has worked in international development and
:26:54. > :26:59.the UN and the UK Government. Now, the Government has made this moral
:26:59. > :27:04.claim that it's not cutting foreign aid, should we be applauding that?
:27:04. > :27:09.No, because I think there is a tremendous amount of waste in
:27:09. > :27:13.foreign aid. We could probably cut foreign aid by 50% and it would
:27:13. > :27:17.benefit developing countries. But most people do not appreciate when
:27:17. > :27:22.they support foreign aid that virtually all foreign aid goes
:27:22. > :27:29.direct to governments in the form of budget or sector support.
:27:29. > :27:33.Unfortunately this sort of aid is simply not auditable and it
:27:33. > :27:37.encourages governments to divert the money to other activities and
:27:37. > :27:43.we're unfortunately supporting a lot of corrupt governments. I
:27:43. > :27:46.support it on a microbasis but once you go into giving governments
:27:46. > :27:51.hundreds of millions of pounds you're encouraging waste and
:27:51. > :27:58.corruption. Can I ask specifically about Pakistan, which is a big
:27:58. > :28:03.recipient of UK aid, and foreign aid, and potentially it's supposed
:28:03. > :28:08.to reduce terrorism, do you think that's wrong? It is impossible for
:28:09. > :28:14.us to exert political power over foreign governments these days and
:28:14. > :28:18.it's impossible to audit this aid. It's a very vulnerable job. And
:28:18. > :28:23.although if they say they're auditing this aid they haven't got
:28:23. > :28:29.the staff or the power to be able to assess the hundreds of millions
:28:29. > :28:38.of pounds. We give �330 million to Ethiopia each year. Do you think
:28:38. > :28:43.it's possible to audit that? They've just ordered 10 Boeing
:28:43. > :28:48.Dreamliners. We could probably cut this aid in half. We need a better
:28:48. > :28:53.foreign aid programme and properly audited. David? It's quite
:28:53. > :28:57.difficult because it's clear you're going to have - I thought, actually
:28:57. > :29:01.the amount of Government-to- Government aid was 28% of the
:29:01. > :29:08.budget and it's just been presented as the whole thing, but I might be
:29:08. > :29:14.wrong about it. It is an disturb to say your aid to Ethiopia is not
:29:14. > :29:19.actually well-placed simply because their airline is now able to afford
:29:19. > :29:23.properly airliners to connect their country. What about India and the
:29:23. > :29:28.space programme? It depends what the programme is. India is a very
:29:28. > :29:36.large country. I could conceive of the situation where we're not
:29:36. > :29:40.aiding India in 25 years' time. point is, first of all, everything
:29:40. > :29:45.that Gordon was saying I was nodding, nodding, nodding, because
:29:45. > :29:49.from my experience of what I know he is completely right. I'm not
:29:49. > :29:55.saying we shouldn't aid other people. That is what I think Oxfam
:29:55. > :30:00.is brilliant for. It's government aid. He gave you a good example of
:30:00. > :30:07.the aid of AIDS, Jenni. You must be in favour of that. Yes, but that
:30:07. > :30:12.kind of aid, a lot of that is run by charities and monitored properly.
:30:12. > :30:17.But like Mr Bridges said a lot of the aid that goes from Government-
:30:17. > :30:24.to-Government we cannot monitor it and we don't know where it goes.
:30:24. > :30:27.I'm delighted to have a journalist from Uganda joining us. You're a
:30:27. > :30:31.journalist at the independent newspaper out there. How do you
:30:31. > :30:35.feel about what you've heard here and crucially you support aid but
:30:35. > :30:41.you have been critical of how aid has worked in the past.
:30:41. > :30:45.personally think that the debate in the studio is very limited. It is
:30:46. > :30:54.concerned with how the aid -- whether aid has been used well or
:30:54. > :30:59.poorly. The point I would like to make is that aid is a function
:30:59. > :31:03.instrument of the bod policy because aid tends to separate the
:31:03. > :31:09.state from the citizens. It separates the Government for its
:31:09. > :31:17.own people. If the government spends on its own people such a
:31:17. > :31:23.government is driven by self- interest to engage its citizens in
:31:23. > :31:26.improving productivity and gaining of wealth. So you're saying that
:31:26. > :31:33.aid creates dependency and it should be targeted to encourage
:31:33. > :31:40.people to use it in a more entrepreneurial way? On a broader
:31:40. > :31:44.level, aid tends to en courage things in a way that the Government
:31:44. > :31:51.searches for revenue rather than looking at the people, its own
:31:51. > :31:55.citizens, as people who should bring in the revenue. Because the
:31:55. > :32:00.government can get revenue by taxing its own people and if it
:32:00. > :32:08.taxes its own people it will soon realise it has to make them
:32:08. > :32:13.productive. So if you don't have aid you will greet a responsible
:32:13. > :32:17.government to be productive. sorry for the quality of line there,
:32:17. > :32:22.but thank you very much for joining us. My initial thought is that it
:32:22. > :32:26.will be difficult for Nick to agree with that, because he wants to
:32:26. > :32:31.encourage the same sort of welfare dependence by giving money to poor
:32:31. > :32:37.people in Britain. You can see it is true. I'm not arguing that all
:32:37. > :32:42.aid is well used everywhere, but I am arguing that a significant pour
:32:42. > :32:48.portion of our aid is well used in many places. And in any case,
:32:48. > :32:54.Nick's argument is not that it is well used, his argument is that
:32:54. > :33:02.you're not under obligation to provide it. But if it is used to
:33:02. > :33:08.reduce things that you hate, like Islamic terrorism what will you do?
:33:08. > :33:13.That almost sounds like blackmail. Until last year, we were giving
:33:13. > :33:17.money to Brazil and China. Giving money to China. We all know how
:33:17. > :33:21.huge China is going to be. It just seems wrong. I think the idea we
:33:21. > :33:27.heard from the former economist is there needs to be a greater
:33:28. > :33:35.diligence over the money, I agree. But David Cameron has written an
:33:35. > :33:42.entire page on the economy, not one word about the �12 billion on
:33:42. > :33:48.foreign aid. Not one word. One viewer says, "Aid pro-longs the
:33:48. > :33:56.problem" another says, "Foreign aid should be cut I pay tax for this
:33:56. > :34:01.country, not others." And another says, "Programmes that lift the
:34:01. > :34:08.developing countries out of poverty and into the economy is well worth
:34:08. > :34:14.being spent" Now, is ageism a problem aimed at
:34:14. > :34:19.women in society at large or just on television? You can make your
:34:19. > :34:29.views known by phone, e-mail or on- line. And do keep voting on the
:34:29. > :34:30.
:34:30. > :34:40.poll. You have about five minutes before
:34:40. > :34:41.
:34:41. > :34:46.the poll closes. It's time for our moral moments of
:34:46. > :34:53.the week when we can reflect upon the stories in the news. David, a
:34:53. > :34:59.story in today's paper. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has come out very
:34:59. > :35:05.critical about Bush and Blair on war crimes. Desmond Tutu pulled out
:35:05. > :35:09.of an event in Johannesburg in the last weeks, having agreed to appear
:35:09. > :35:14.at it, saying he could not reconcile his appearance with what
:35:14. > :35:21.Tony Blair had done over Iraq. He has now written a piece in the
:35:21. > :35:25.Observer, which has put it on its front page and he's further gone
:35:25. > :35:31.into it by suggesting that maybe Tony Blair and George Bush should
:35:31. > :35:37.be at the international war crimes...But His view is that all
:35:37. > :35:42.the African leaders are put on trial and not them. Well that
:35:42. > :35:48.applies to Charles Taylor who fomented a Civil War for certainly
:35:48. > :35:54.game in a neighbouring country. This is a war in Iraq, whatever you
:35:54. > :35:59.think about it, that took down one of the worst dictators in history.
:35:59. > :36:04.And Desmond Tutu should tell us what he thinks Western countries
:36:04. > :36:12.should have done about Saddam. this is about the number of people
:36:12. > :36:17.who have died in Iraq? Undoubtedly. When Archbishop Tutu agreed he knew
:36:17. > :36:20.Tony Blair was going to be on the platform. Tutu has not brought
:36:20. > :36:26.anything new to the equation. People have been banging on about
:36:26. > :36:30.it for a long time. There have been endless inquiries into Mr Blair's
:36:30. > :36:39.activities. At the moment there seems to be no charges, can we not
:36:39. > :36:47.just get on with our lives, I would suggest. Jenni, you've chosen a
:36:47. > :36:53.story about a couple who have rented an indyafpb womb? Yes, the
:36:53. > :36:58.first -- Indian womb. Yes, the first thing that came into my mind
:36:58. > :37:03.thought it must be wrong. This is a British couple who already had a
:37:03. > :37:10.child and wanted another child and she was not able to do it so they
:37:10. > :37:18.have rented a womb for �20,000 of a woman in India who will be the
:37:18. > :37:25.surrogate. So the woman in India will get between �2,000 and �3,000,
:37:25. > :37:30.so who is getting the rest of the money? First of all, I'm lucky
:37:30. > :37:37.enough to have a child so who I am to tell somebody else that they
:37:37. > :37:43.can't have another one, even though they already have a child, it is
:37:43. > :37:47.not economics. But you're not against IV if F? No. I'm all in
:37:47. > :37:51.favour of regulation. I'm not in favour of this woman's
:37:51. > :37:55.circumstances and so on should be highly regulated because people
:37:56. > :38:01.could be exploited and that's the issue. That's part of the problem
:38:01. > :38:05.for me. But in straightforward moral terms. Firstly, with IVF we
:38:05. > :38:11.have conceived the idea that people have some reproductive rights
:38:11. > :38:19.outside of what we wood have regarded as normal pro-creation
:38:19. > :38:23.before. Yes. So can you utilities someone else's rights - we've had
:38:23. > :38:28.surrogate motherhood before. So there is something about this
:38:28. > :38:34.situation which is the extra moral factor which is causing the problem.
:38:34. > :38:41.That's exactly right. To me I have a problem of renting a womb of a
:38:41. > :38:45.mother in a foreign country and she is not getting all of the money.
:38:45. > :38:50.And what about the Paralympics? This is one where Britain has a
:38:50. > :38:54.great moral standpoint. In the US they're doing very restricted
:38:54. > :39:02.highlights of the par Olympics and in Canada they're not showing
:39:02. > :39:09.anything of the opener is moan for three weeks. In India a country of
:39:09. > :39:14.over a billion pop police station they sent a handful of athletes. We
:39:14. > :39:19.have the best part of 300 people. I'm an old newspaper man in every
:39:19. > :39:23.sense of the word. When I came into the industry the idea of putting
:39:23. > :39:32.people with disabilities on the front pages, I'm ashamed to see you
:39:32. > :39:37.just didn't do it. Now we see people with no limbs and dwarfism.
:39:37. > :39:42.Now we're celebrating it and I think that puts us on a moral
:39:42. > :39:49.platform. Hrawi. Thank you very much. You've been voting this
:39:49. > :39:53.morning over is squatting moral. Now the poll is closed so please do
:39:53. > :40:01.not call because you may be charged. We'll bring you the result at the
:40:01. > :40:07.end of the show. Last weekend, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour
:40:07. > :40:11.leader speaking at the Edinburgh Television Festival said it was
:40:11. > :40:20.offencive and wrong that women were made invisible on television
:40:20. > :40:26.because you were past your reproductive ages, is she right.
:40:26. > :40:32.Julie Walters said at the age of 62 film roles for her were drying up.
:40:32. > :40:40.And other actors have said that women over 60 are ignored on film.
:40:40. > :40:48.And television has been even more vocal. Some speaking out include
:40:48. > :40:53.Miriam O'Reilly, sandy Toksvig and Joan Bakewell who are all taken off
:40:53. > :40:58.the television while male presenters can work well into their
:40:58. > :41:08.advancing years. Mark Thompson, the outgoing head of the BBC admitted
:41:08. > :41:13.
:41:13. > :41:18.However, undeniably many women on stage and screen starting out on
:41:18. > :41:23.stage and screen are chosen for their looks, not their talent. Is
:41:23. > :41:28.it right now to bite the hand that fed them so long or is television
:41:28. > :41:34.simply highlighting a wider problem in society where women of a certain
:41:34. > :41:37.age are ignored across the workplace or has the issue been
:41:37. > :41:42.exaggerated. There are others who are not well represented in the
:41:42. > :41:48.media. Should we not be focusing on them, rather than a select group of
:41:48. > :41:51.women who have done very well for a long time. So, are women forced
:41:51. > :41:57.from our screens after a certain time, or is this an issue that
:41:57. > :42:03.perhaps people don't really care about? You can join in by webcam or
:42:03. > :42:10.make your point by phone, text or exmail or on line. And we're joined
:42:10. > :42:14.for this discussion by Susan O'Keefe, who had a long career in
:42:14. > :42:19.television making programmes like World in Action and Panorama, and
:42:19. > :42:24.she is now a Senator in the Upper House of the Irish Government.
:42:24. > :42:31.Thank you very much for joining us. You were making documentries for 20
:42:31. > :42:34.years, is this a problem or are we more sensitive about it? I'm not
:42:34. > :42:38.sure whether the problem has gone worse but certainly we should be
:42:38. > :42:42.more aware of the responsibility we have on television to make sure
:42:42. > :42:45.that older women are part of television as they are of life.
:42:45. > :42:51.Part of the responsibility of television is to educate and inform
:42:51. > :42:55.and to entertain. And the BBC, for example, takes that very seriously.
:42:55. > :42:59.But it forgets also that television is about influencing and everything
:42:59. > :43:03.that comes from television influences our life and therefore
:43:04. > :43:09.if there is a dearth of older women on television or in public life
:43:09. > :43:14.that influences how we think, so if we're removing them, we're
:43:14. > :43:19.influencing life and what people are looking at all the time and I
:43:19. > :43:24.think television maybe forgets its strength of influence. And let's
:43:24. > :43:30.have more older women because they are an important part of our life.
:43:30. > :43:35.So I'm not sure whether we're more sensitive or not. Jenni, is this a
:43:35. > :43:40.British obsession, for someone who has lived in America as well?
:43:40. > :43:47.David and I are the same age and David is more on television, so
:43:47. > :43:53.maybe it's a fact. Is that right. About what the USA, they have high-
:43:53. > :43:57.profile women on television? Oki, I think it is a uniquely British
:43:57. > :44:01.situation. I agree with what has been said about on television, but
:44:01. > :44:05.I think as women it is a problem about how we feel about ourselves
:44:05. > :44:10.and how you feel about yourself, what you think is what you become.
:44:10. > :44:16.I've lived here 20 years and we have an enormous problem with women
:44:16. > :44:22.feeling that they're past their sell-by date. You get a group of
:44:22. > :44:29.women together our age with no men about and instantly, "I'm old, and
:44:29. > :44:35.grey, this is falling" and then they're expected to go out into the
:44:35. > :44:40.world as a vibrant woman. If you don't think of yourself as a
:44:40. > :44:46.vibrant woman, you're not going to look like that to the world. David,
:44:46. > :44:53.as the only man, does it bother you when you see really young women
:44:53. > :44:56.with much older men? I think you do notice. But there is an incredible
:44:56. > :45:01.irony here. We are an ageing society here and women live longer
:45:01. > :45:05.than men, so there are more and more older women than there have
:45:05. > :45:12.ever been and we're having this discussion. Gradually television
:45:12. > :45:17.should be taken over by older women, just by, if you like becoming the
:45:17. > :45:24.survivors. Until we value ourselves as continuing vibrant people it is
:45:24. > :45:28.not going to happen. If television doesn't value older woman, that
:45:28. > :45:33.influence comes back to women feeling they're not part of the
:45:33. > :45:39.screen and therefore those conversations are part of
:45:39. > :45:45.women's...if television were to take the lead. Let her finish.
:45:45. > :45:51.television have a role that older women having a role show that women
:45:51. > :45:56.watching will say, "You know what, there's an older woman, I can be
:45:56. > :46:01.like that." But you have to take responsibility for yourself. If you
:46:01. > :46:07.want to change perception about who are you are and what you're about,
:46:07. > :46:12.you have to start with yourself. Well, the fact that cases have been
:46:12. > :46:19.taken against television and been won by women, the situation is real.
:46:19. > :46:27.We know this problem. And Julie Walters says she has no roles lined
:46:27. > :46:33.up. And she's a wonderful actor. isle' give you two perfect English
:46:33. > :46:37.examples. Helen Mirren and Joanneian Lumley. They're seen
:46:38. > :46:45.everywhere. And Judi Dench. Exactly. What is the difference between how
:46:45. > :46:49.they present themselves? But you raised the point in the film, where
:46:50. > :46:55.were these people when they were younger actors and actresses? I
:46:55. > :47:00.don't think this has changed. Actually I think the roles for
:47:00. > :47:06.older actors is growing as we are more interested in it, what did
:47:06. > :47:12.they think happened before? It's it partially that you do have some
:47:12. > :47:17.extremely famous people who are finding out exactly what life is
:47:17. > :47:22.really like. And why are old men considered to have great wisdom and
:47:22. > :47:28.therefore it's OK for them to stay in front of the public, but we
:47:29. > :47:35.don't seem to have that image about women so they are dismiss. That's
:47:35. > :47:41.my point, that women men have this image about themselves, and women
:47:41. > :47:45.don't. Harriet Harman, thank you for joining us. It was your comment
:47:45. > :47:49.that sparked this decision. You're claiming that women are written out
:47:49. > :47:54.of the public dome main bay their lack of being on screen. Can you
:47:55. > :48:01.explain what you meant by that? think there is a particular form of
:48:01. > :48:11.discrimination that doesn't apply to older men, who can be described
:48:11. > :48:14.
:48:14. > :48:19.as having whizz dome -- wisdom and are old sages, and that does not
:48:19. > :48:23.apply to older women. You don't get the best people if you just write
:48:23. > :48:27.off a section 789 and it sends out a message about older women. And we
:48:27. > :48:33.have a new generation of older women whose lives have been very
:48:33. > :48:39.different to that of their mothers, who have gone out to work more and
:48:39. > :48:42.they don't appreciate being written out of the script and I think it's
:48:42. > :48:46.straightforward discrimination and TV should deal with it. What is the
:48:46. > :48:50.solution? The BBC and other broadcasters and even film
:48:50. > :48:55.companies are talking about equal opportunity of employers. I think
:48:55. > :48:59.the policies have to be put into action. It is good that we now see
:48:59. > :49:03.more women on our screens because women's lives have transformed.
:49:03. > :49:08.Women have really done things they have never done in the past but
:49:08. > :49:13.this still now, the discrimination is there for older women that
:49:13. > :49:20.somehow you have to be invisible if you're past your child-bearing
:49:20. > :49:25.years and these older, wise men, with the fresh, younger woman in
:49:25. > :49:30.the pairing on the TV is what is in. But there are a whole generation of
:49:30. > :49:35.older women who feel they have a contribution to make and are fit
:49:35. > :49:39.and healthy and playing a big role in their families, looking after
:49:39. > :49:44.grandchildren and older relatives as well, and working as well and
:49:44. > :49:50.volunteering, and they look on TV and they're written out of it.
:49:50. > :49:53.quotas a way of dealing with it? There are a number of ways. Firstly,
:49:53. > :49:59.you have to analyse it and measure it and then have to obtaining a
:49:59. > :50:06.range of ways of dealing with it. But getting rid of fantastic older
:50:06. > :50:12.women who are on TV. Like Arlene Phillips, getting rid of her on
:50:12. > :50:18.Strictly was absolutely....and I don't think you should blame the
:50:18. > :50:22.victim, it's not the older woman's fault it's that their pioneering
:50:22. > :50:28.role in society and the economy is not being recognised in the 2
:50:28. > :50:32.century. Thank you very much. I want to bring in a couple of other
:50:32. > :50:36.contributors. Michael Cole served with the BBC for 30 years before
:50:36. > :50:42.going into PR. This is about representing the whole nation and a
:50:42. > :50:46.whole part of society is being left off screen, which is damaging.
:50:46. > :50:52.casting is vitally important to the success of any television programme
:50:52. > :50:59.and producers and editors shouldn't have their hands tied by artificial
:50:59. > :51:03.constraints in any way whatsoever. They should be free to appoint who
:51:03. > :51:09.they think is right for the programme. Television is a medium
:51:09. > :51:13.and no-one has a right to be on it, and I'm afraid life isn't fair.
:51:13. > :51:17.Some people look pervert than others. We are all subjective and
:51:17. > :51:23.given a choice people really prefer to see younger, better-looking
:51:23. > :51:30.people on the screen. And you don't have a problem with that? No, I'm
:51:30. > :51:36.saying that if you take the case of news problems, male reporters, male
:51:36. > :51:40.news presenters are in varably, in fact, I can't think of one who is
:51:40. > :51:46.not, old, seasoned reporters who have many stories under their belt.
:51:46. > :51:54.The women presenters, I'm afraid this may come as news to you, are
:51:54. > :51:59.chosen at least in part for their looks and their ability to read the
:51:59. > :52:03.Autocue and they also wear lovely jackets. And when older women
:52:03. > :52:08.complain about not having their contracts renewed, I'm afraid
:52:08. > :52:13.they've had their moment in the sun. It's time to move on and allow
:52:13. > :52:19.other, younger people to have their chance. I'm sorry to cut you off,
:52:19. > :52:23.but I want to bring in another contributor. A man who knows a lot
:52:23. > :52:30.about issue of television. Greg Dyke, a former generally director
:52:30. > :52:37.of the BBC. You said the BBC was hideously white on screen, now, is
:52:37. > :52:43.it ageist about women? I didn't say the BBC was hideously white on
:52:43. > :52:51.screen, I said it was hideously white ie it had very few non-white
:52:51. > :52:56.staff in many, many areas. Sure, OK. On screen? Well, I don't think
:52:56. > :53:00.there has been talk about older women over a period of time. But as
:53:00. > :53:05.my generation reaches well into their 60s, it doesn't surprise me
:53:05. > :53:11.they all start complaining if they haven't got the jobs. I don't
:53:11. > :53:15.remember them complaining getting the jobs when they were younger and
:53:15. > :53:25.knocking older people off. This is about people being past their time.
:53:25. > :53:30.You have to distinct -- distinguish the areas between news and drama.
:53:30. > :53:36.Drama is about acting and writers and it's the writers who are
:53:36. > :53:39.writing the pieces. And by and large they are going to write about
:53:39. > :53:45.younger people. I don't think Harriet Harman was right saying
:53:45. > :53:51.there is a generation of older woman - and I think Mark tampson
:53:51. > :53:58.said we have to do something about it, I think you've just got to be
:53:58. > :54:03.careful that the Baby Boomers, when they reach their 60s have want to
:54:03. > :54:09.hang on to the power they had, and sometimes you have to give way.
:54:09. > :54:14.David? Nick Ferrari raised the question earlier about seeing
:54:14. > :54:20.disyapbld people on the front of newspapers, and -- disabled people
:54:20. > :54:25.on the front of newspapers and now we do. We have to reach a situation
:54:25. > :54:33.where the girl will be older and the man will be decorative. I'm
:54:33. > :54:43.sure that will come. Just before we started we had a discussion, Jennie,
:54:43. > :54:43.
:54:43. > :54:49.about how an actor walked into the room and the effect it had. We have
:54:49. > :54:54.to have decorative guys up there as well as the women. There are women
:54:54. > :55:00.now who have increasing ly amazing life stories and experiences in
:55:00. > :55:08.reporting and so on, who you don't want to kick out. Like you didn't
:55:08. > :55:14.want to kick out Arlene Phillips. Susan? Yes, that is a point.
:55:14. > :55:18.Television is about how you sound and look but that's very glib. If
:55:19. > :55:24.we just concentrated on that, the place would be full of people who
:55:24. > :55:29.have nothing more than a good face or a good sound. We have to move
:55:29. > :55:36.away from the idea of being decorative. Is it the way forward
:55:36. > :55:44.that you compart mentalise, and you have Top Greer and Loose Women, and
:55:44. > :55:48.some women hate Loose Women because it's just carping on about men.
:55:48. > :55:53.Television reflects society and as long as society. It doesn't reflect
:55:53. > :55:57.society. No, it reflects what society thinks and as long as
:55:57. > :56:01.society continues to think that older women are not viable and
:56:02. > :56:06.attractive that is what we're going to continue to see. There is a new
:56:06. > :56:15.Director General coming to the BBC. Here is an opportunity for him to
:56:15. > :56:23.show that the BBC will be sensible and won't follow the social
:56:23. > :56:29.thing...I Have a programme and you can make it. Done! A couple of
:56:29. > :56:34.contributions, Rob says "" only women who give up on themselves
:56:34. > :56:41.have become invisible, just like men." We have to end it there
:56:41. > :56:50.because the text and on-line poll votes are in. We asked is squatting
:56:50. > :56:57.immoral. 82% of you who voted said yes, it is and 18% said no. David,
:56:57. > :57:03.you were sympathetic, but people are against it. Yes, given the
:57:03. > :57:09.demographic of the people who will be watching the programme at this
:57:09. > :57:19.time of the morning, I'm not surprised by that vote. If you had
:57:19. > :57:20.
:57:20. > :57:27.asked younger people you would have got slightly less of a distinct
:57:27. > :57:31.distinctive vote. I agree. He did call it, he said 18 to 23. Susan?
:57:31. > :57:35.It's very difficult to stick a blanket position on squatting and
:57:35. > :57:41.say it's right or wrong, but when people are asked they will usually
:57:41. > :57:47.say it is wrong, I'm afraid. And of course, the law has only just come
:57:47. > :57:53.into force, so we'll have to see how the evictions go. Thank you all
:57:53. > :57:58.very much indeed. My thanks to everyone who has taken part in the
:57:58. > :58:04.programme today and all our guests who contributed via webcam or