Episode 10 Sunday Morning Live

Yesterday, squatting became a criminal act in England and Wales.

It's been welcomed by many householders who have suffered from

having their properties squatted, but with homelessness rising

sharply and three-quarters of a million empty properties in the UK,

is it right not to allow squatters Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed and

welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Yesterday, the Government

effectively brought an end to squatters' rights, introducing

negligence lags to criminalise squatting in residential builds. Up

to 50,000 squatters now face eviction, but with homelessness

rising sharply and hundreds of thousands of empty houses, is it

really immoral to squat? The Government has just announced

it is giving Ghana �87 billion as part of its overseas plan. Is

helping poor nations the right thing to do even when times are

tough? Nick Ferrari thinks we should put its own people first.

This country must put its own people first.

Last weekend, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman,

made a speech attacking age discrimination against women on

television. Should older women try harder to ensure they stay on

screen in A warm welcome to my guests this

week. David Aaronavitch is a journalist for the Times and a

Tottenham Hotspur season ticket holderment

Jenni Trent-Hughes is a life coach and psychologist and we're lucky to

have her here today after she injured herself fencing.

And Nick Ferrari is a broadcaster and journalist. Welcome to all of

you. You can give your views on Twitter or Skype or phone.

There are an estimated 50,000 squatters in England and Wales and

since yesterday new legislation has effectively made them all criminals.

But with homelessness a growing problem, is it actually immoral to

squat? Squatting as long been part of

British life, especially since the 17 century. These days, everyone

from the improvished to students camp out in empty properties. But

as of yesterday, squatting became a criminal offence. Squatters will

now face up to six months in prison and a potential �5,000 fine.

looked at all the available options and this is the clear most

straightforward and sends the clearest message to squatters that

you cannot steal someone else's home. And that's the message we

want to get across. Ministers say this new legislation will help

protect house owners and deter squatters. Up to now, trying to

remove squatters has been a long and expensive process and when

they've finally got them out, homeowners say their properties are

wrecked. They say their rights have to come first. However, critics of

the legislation, such as the charity, crisis, say that the

majority of people who squat are vulnerable and we should tackle the

cause of homelessness rather than criminalise the effect. And this

new law alies to empty homes of which there are nearly three-

quarters of a million in England alone and they are left to rot. Why

shouldn't people be able to use those houses?

So, this legislation is finally giving homeowners much-needed

protect? Or is it a violation of human rights for the people who are

already vulnerable in society. Is squatting always immoral, Nick?

me, squatting is effectively a form of theft. If we're going to have

laws they have to work for everybody and clearly they've

failed house owners many times down the years. That is the subject of

our public vote. Is squatting immoral. You can vote by text, on

line and we'll show you how you voted at the end of the programme

Jenni, you've heard all these stories of homeowners and landlords

who have had their properties wrecked. You see it in the papers.

Does it make you bothered about squatting? No. The thing for me is,

first of all, I think there is a very important difference between a

homeowner and a property owner. And I think that, of course, stealing

is wrong. Appropriating someone else's property is wrong. And if it

is my home and I go away on holiday and I come back and there are some

strange people living there, yes, that is not correct. However. If it

is true that there are some 700,000 properties in this country that are

empty and not being used and there are people sleeping on the street

because they cannot afford to have somewhere else to live. That, to me,

is a much larger moral wrong. you see that distinction? No, it's

ridiculous. People who don't have jobs, does that mean you can race

to someone's office first and take over their job? Lots of people this

weekend are probably buying school uniforms. They're far too expensive,

do they take them off the shelves? That is wrong. You are nicking

somebody else's house and you shouldn't be there. Do you buy the

principle that it is theft? You can make that argument and I see it and

it's largecal force. But taking London at the moment, one of the

big problems we have is billionaires from abroad who buy up

large sections of property and keep them empty because essentially

they're an investment. So you have empty properties. And I find it

difficult, really, to be morally outraged that somebody goes and

lives in that property while it is not wanted. The difficulty always

is what happens when that owner might want the property back. In

London you have different kinds of squatters. You can have those who

wreck them and some go in and make a joy of the place, frankly, in a

place that is otherwise empty. own applies to residential property

not empty commercial property. Chris Town from the residential

landlords' association in Leeds, you've had first-hand experience of

squatters and the troubles associated with it, can you tell us

what happened to you? Yes, I had a property which had just become

empty. The previous tenant had just moved out and before I could get

back to the property a squatter had installed himself. I didn't know

the law or how it worked. I was completely innocent of that and had

no idea what to do, so I rang the police, which I think most people

would do in a situation like that, not knowing the law. And the police

said I could do nothing about this person and in fact if I entered the

property I would be breaking the law even though it was my property.

Didn't you have to stake it out to get back in? Yes, the advice of the

police officer was that when the squatters left the property, there

were two people in there, a male and a faem, and if they both left

the property I could then make it secure and if they then entered by

force I could call the police. Which I did. It took several days

and ultimately they left the property. I boarded it up and they

re-entered the property by breaking through the board I had installed

and I rang the police and they said, "We have no witnesses" so we still

couldn't do anything about it. get them out in the end, was it

�1,000? It was, but added to that there was damage to the property.

There was a small fire in the property which caused damage and

the important thing for me was this property was for let. It denied the

lawful use of the property by a tenant who wanted to move into the

property. When people say a lot of these people are landlords and own

lots of property, what do you say to that argument, that this is

about people who have lots and people who have nothing and they

need somewhere to live. Landlords who have property have to rent it

out for a rent. That's the deal, it's a business. Land lorpbdz don't

buy property to keep them empty, I certainly don't. We run a business.

And these are people who steal the property from legitimate tenants

and landlords and damage the property and that can't be right.

That's a particular landlord experience. I don't know if it's

typical or not. I've visited, as a journalist, several squats where it

doesn't fit that template at all, where there hasn't effectively been

a landlord waiting. I've been in large properties in leafy parts of

London where properties have been empty for four or five years before

anyone has gone into it and it's been bought up for development and

sometimes people actually get more money effect yvly by leaving

properties empty too. What is the truth about squatting? Exactly that.

I -thighs with what he went through, but I know personally and for a

fact of people who own 20, 30, 40, 50, 2hun47 properties which they

have for tax purposes and all different kinds of things. So there

needs to be a definite ringsation between what the property is bought

for. If you're like Chris and you're buying it to rent out or

live in that should be treated differently if someone squats in

that than if you've a Russian oil billionaire and you've bought

properties. That guy didn't look like a Russian oil billionaire.

thighs with him. I don't care if houses have been boarded up for 45

years, they've been bought with money. You can't go and take

people's properties it's just wrong. If you have laws they have to

protect everyone. I was talking to a teacher's assistant yesterday and

she squats because she doesn't get paid enough to have a property.

Many things in this world are unfair. Isle' right, we'll take

things out of the supermarkets because the prices are too high.

Where does it end. That's taking it to the extreme. David has a point,

if they have 45 houses, that's different, but you'd have to have a

very clever law to get through all that. And we have another viewer.

Uge is a former squatter. Do you have any sympathy for the

landlords? I feel sympathy that Chris was given incorrect advice by

the police. Before Saturday there was existing provision for people

like him. We haven't time to answer that now, but beyond that, what

about the principle that he had this ordeal to get the squatters

out and the mess they left him? Right now my greatest sympathy is

for the thousands of squatters who have become criminals overnight who

face the position of do they move out of their homes and become

homeless or do they face sudden eviction and criminalisation.

They're not moving out of their homes. They're moving out of

somebody else's home and that is why they have to move. But there is

a problem with lack of housing. doesn't justify criminal acts.

ahead? OK, is it a criminal act? It is a criminal act now. You think

that's wrong? You think people are going to be damaged by the law? The

idea is it's going to redress an imbalance. Are you really saying

that criminalising it will push it too far the other way? I think it's

disproportionate to make vulnerable people in society criminals. I

think that's disproportionate. Samira it's worth asking the

question why it is we have had this law that came into force up until

now? It came in in 1977 to stop people being evicted by skrup you

lus landlords. Exactly. We have country principles. One of the

reasons we called it squatters' rights is that if somebody sets up

a home there and lives there undisturbed for a while we

recognise that as their thom and that has been a principle in

English law for many, many years up until now. I read that one in seven

people on the planet is a squatter, so it is also about defining what

exactly is a squatter, when are you squatting, when are you developing.

Well, the Government has had to make a decision on this law. We

have Mike joining us, who was a strong voice pushing this law. It

is about social division. People who have lots of homes and leave

some empty and people who cannot afford to live? No, it's stealing

and we shouldn't be allowing it. Squatters tend to be web savvy and

well-educated and they look on the internet to find the empty

properties. And squatters are not right. The owners are on their

knees calling for them to be removed. One old lady who was in

hospital had to spend �10,000 to get the people out of her house and

they union ruined it. Don't confuse squatters with homelessness. Do you

really want a homeless person to go into a derelict property? No, we

should be looking after our homeless and putting them into

local authority care and looking after them properly. So that's

50,000 more on the housing list, can this Government deal with it?

don't agree with that figure? If you look at the statistics, in the

last 50 years we've got the lowest homeless ever, apart from the past

two years. The Government has put millions of pounds into the scheme

for homeless people. We do need to look after these people, but they

are not squatters. Squatters are entirely different, they're

antisocial free loaders. Do you think that? Some of them are, and

some are not. I can see why it's politically attractive, but an

litcally it's irritating. Is it like the old right to roam, and the

idea of people walking across your land was considered outrageous

once? Landowners were incensed at the idea of the right to roam which

was one of the good ideas of the last Labour Government which said

people should be able to walk aCrosland. Land ownership is not

like other forms of ownership. In some ways it is and some ways it

isn't which is why we have distinctions in the law. There will

be aspects of this law that, within two to three years, we will begin

to regret. They will be in the region of what landlords do to

tenants and make them squatters, but we will regret it. Thank you

very much. It is our poll question today. One viewer says, "The full

force of our law should be used to rid the people in our houses when

they shouldn't be. Let's start with the House of Lords" that's another

question. Another says, "Why not increase

taxes on empty properties and nent vice people to use them." That --

innocent vice people to use them" much

That is the topic of our poll today. You have around 20 minutes before

the poll close. And the deputy Prime Minister has been putting a

ban on second homes bought in London, which is all part of the

discussion. This week, the UK Government will

commit �87 million to Ghana as part of its ongoing overseas aid commits.

But in this time of austerity shouldn't we be helping the

vulnerable and needy at home before countries overseas, or is it

morally right that as a relatively prosperous nation we should be

doing our bit. Here is Nick's Sunday stand This country must put

its own people first and if that means others around the world have

to suffer, well, tough. Autumn is on the way and with it

the party political conference season. Yes, that dreary annual

event in which our so-called political elite fight and fret over

the issues they deem important to our lives, unemployment, the

economy, the environment, you get the picture. But foreign aid, a

scandal that costs us taxpayers billions of pounds that could be

spent saving the lives of some of our most vulnerable will get hardly

a mention. I present a daily radio breakfast

show in London and I had the Prime Minister in my studio just last

month. He was knocked for six when a woman who had just been diagnosed

with cancer asked why her local NHS Trust could not afford her drugs

but Britain could afford to fund sexual health clinics across Africa.

Mr Cameron had no answer. Oh, he waffled on about moral obligations

and not breaking promises to the poorest of the world. Well, I wish

he'd tell that to the struggling pensioners who are likely to die

this winter because they can't afford to turn up the gas or the

families living in poverty due to the cuts. The �12 billion he spend

on foreign aid could surely ease some of our domestic economic rot.

This is the perfect example of the distance between politicians and

ordinary people. How else can you justify sending �270 million to

India, a country with its own space programme, a country that does

little to help its own poor and with an economy that will be bigger

than ours before you know it? I like this saying, I hold it dear,

it might be an old one but it's still a good one, "Charity does

begin at home." If you have a webcam you can make your point on

Skype, or join in the conversation through Twitter e-mail or text.

David, should charity begin at home? No. It's fundamently an

immoral statement and of course you don't really mean that. Nick

doesn't actually mean that his kid should have a third I pad if she

wants it rather than pay taxation in order to help the disadvantaged.

What it means is you keep all your money within this country. Firstly,

we are a rich country, despite the fact that we have people who are

disadvantaged. So we're talking about things like whether or not we

should help to eradicate malaria. And we've done a good job on that.

Should we not do it? What that be the moral thing not to do that.

Nick is saying no. I am, because we are in the ridiculous situation now

where we are borrowing money and printing other money to send to

other countries so we get ourselves deeper in debt. People watching

this programme may be about to lose their jobs and they are under

pressure. We have to wake up to that. Isn't the money, as David

says, going to people who really need it? Absolutely not. I agree

with Nick but come at it from a different angering. I grew up in

Jamaica and my father started an organisation on behalf of the

government, where he went out and they taught local people how to

produce things that were then sold. And so it is the old thing, give a

man that fish you feed him for a minute, give the man a fishing net

and he feeds himself for life. think aid is being badly spent.

Absolutely. I have a very close friend who is a member of a very

wealthy family in an African nation that I will not mention. And she

said to me, and her family are millionaires, and she said to me,

"The worst thing that we do in this country is the government giving a

lot of money to these countries because it almost never gets where

it is meant to get." I'll let David answer that. We have a significant

amount of effort trying to make sure that aid is effective. Not all

of it is, but quite a lot of it is. But most of it is not. No, you've

just said that off the top of your head. You don't actually know. We

do have a body that looks at the efficacy of aid. I'm certain some

of it is wrongly used but the chances are, the majority of it is

correctly used. I think money from charities is better than the money

the Government sends. That is a huge difference. I want to bring in

a contributor. Max works with ox families and governments and we're

talking about Government aid. Do you think we have focused on the

attention of the money getting where it is meant and there is the

question of admin. That's right. We're all under welcome scrutiny

over how we spend our money better. The vast majority of British aid is

spent very well indeed and there are concrete independent

parliamentary Montego toreing of that money. I've lived in Africa

for many years and seen the huge differences made. Think of HIV

where British taxes are keeping people alive all over Africa. These

are productive people, nurses, teachers, midwives. And if we take

that money away, we're calling on them a death sentence. I don't want

to know -- I want to know, Nick, why we're being forced to choose

between ordinary people in Africa and Britain when the British

bankers are getting away with...Oh, The bankers, I wondered when we'd

get around to that. The reason we have to do it is because around

25,000 elderly people will probably die this winter because they can't

afford the gas bills. You've said it's marvellous we have people

working in Africa. I'm delighted for them, but it is sad we have

people in Britain dying because they can't afford the heat.

when you had the Prime Minister there you didn't ask him why he

didn't tax the banks more to help ordinary people at home as well as

in Africa. We also work closely with the poorest people in Britain

and I agree whole heartedly that it's scandalous that older people

who have worked hard all their lives have to choose between heat

and food during the winter time. That is a legitimate question to

consider, about bailing out the bankess, but I want to bring in

another viewer. Gordon has worked in international development and

the UN and the UK Government. Now, the Government has made this moral

claim that it's not cutting foreign aid, should we be applauding that?

No, because I think there is a tremendous amount of waste in

foreign aid. We could probably cut foreign aid by 50% and it would

benefit developing countries. But most people do not appreciate when

they support foreign aid that virtually all foreign aid goes

direct to governments in the form of budget or sector support.

Unfortunately this sort of aid is simply not auditable and it

encourages governments to divert the money to other activities and

we're unfortunately supporting a lot of corrupt governments. I

support it on a microbasis but once you go into giving governments

hundreds of millions of pounds you're encouraging waste and

corruption. Can I ask specifically about Pakistan, which is a big

recipient of UK aid, and foreign aid, and potentially it's supposed

to reduce terrorism, do you think that's wrong? It is impossible for

us to exert political power over foreign governments these days and

it's impossible to audit this aid. It's a very vulnerable job. And

although if they say they're auditing this aid they haven't got

the staff or the power to be able to assess the hundreds of millions

of pounds. We give �330 million to Ethiopia each year. Do you think

it's possible to audit that? They've just ordered 10 Boeing

Dreamliners. We could probably cut this aid in half. We need a better

foreign aid programme and properly audited. David? It's quite

difficult because it's clear you're going to have - I thought, actually

the amount of Government-to- Government aid was 28% of the

budget and it's just been presented as the whole thing, but I might be

wrong about it. It is an disturb to say your aid to Ethiopia is not

actually well-placed simply because their airline is now able to afford

properly airliners to connect their country. What about India and the

space programme? It depends what the programme is. India is a very

large country. I could conceive of the situation where we're not

aiding India in 25 years' time. point is, first of all, everything

that Gordon was saying I was nodding, nodding, nodding, because

from my experience of what I know he is completely right. I'm not

saying we shouldn't aid other people. That is what I think Oxfam

is brilliant for. It's government aid. He gave you a good example of

the aid of AIDS, Jenni. You must be in favour of that. Yes, but that

kind of aid, a lot of that is run by charities and monitored properly.

But like Mr Bridges said a lot of the aid that goes from Government-

to-Government we cannot monitor it and we don't know where it goes.

I'm delighted to have a journalist from Uganda joining us. You're a

journalist at the independent newspaper out there. How do you

feel about what you've heard here and crucially you support aid but

you have been critical of how aid has worked in the past.

personally think that the debate in the studio is very limited. It is

concerned with how the aid -- whether aid has been used well or

poorly. The point I would like to make is that aid is a function

instrument of the bod policy because aid tends to separate the

state from the citizens. It separates the Government for its

own people. If the government spends on its own people such a

government is driven by self- interest to engage its citizens in

improving productivity and gaining of wealth. So you're saying that

aid creates dependency and it should be targeted to encourage

people to use it in a more entrepreneurial way? On a broader

level, aid tends to en courage things in a way that the Government

searches for revenue rather than looking at the people, its own

citizens, as people who should bring in the revenue. Because the

government can get revenue by taxing its own people and if it

taxes its own people it will soon realise it has to make them

productive. So if you don't have aid you will greet a responsible

government to be productive. sorry for the quality of line there,

but thank you very much for joining us. My initial thought is that it

will be difficult for Nick to agree with that, because he wants to

encourage the same sort of welfare dependence by giving money to poor

people in Britain. You can see it is true. I'm not arguing that all

aid is well used everywhere, but I am arguing that a significant pour

portion of our aid is well used in many places. And in any case,

Nick's argument is not that it is well used, his argument is that

you're not under obligation to provide it. But if it is used to

reduce things that you hate, like Islamic terrorism what will you do?

That almost sounds like blackmail. Until last year, we were giving

money to Brazil and China. Giving money to China. We all know how

huge China is going to be. It just seems wrong. I think the idea we

heard from the former economist is there needs to be a greater

diligence over the money, I agree. But David Cameron has written an

entire page on the economy, not one word about the �12 billion on

foreign aid. Not one word. One viewer says, "Aid pro-longs the

problem" another says, "Foreign aid should be cut I pay tax for this

country, not others." And another says, "Programmes that lift the

developing countries out of poverty and into the economy is well worth

being spent" Now, is ageism a problem aimed at

women in society at large or just on television? You can make your

views known by phone, e-mail or on- line. And do keep voting on the

poll. You have about five minutes before

the poll closes. It's time for our moral moments of

the week when we can reflect upon the stories in the news. David, a

story in today's paper. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has come out very

critical about Bush and Blair on war crimes. Desmond Tutu pulled out

of an event in Johannesburg in the last weeks, having agreed to appear

at it, saying he could not reconcile his appearance with what

Tony Blair had done over Iraq. He has now written a piece in the

Observer, which has put it on its front page and he's further gone

into it by suggesting that maybe Tony Blair and George Bush should

be at the international war crimes...But His view is that all

the African leaders are put on trial and not them. Well that

applies to Charles Taylor who fomented a Civil War for certainly

game in a neighbouring country. This is a war in Iraq, whatever you

think about it, that took down one of the worst dictators in history.

And Desmond Tutu should tell us what he thinks Western countries

should have done about Saddam. this is about the number of people

who have died in Iraq? Undoubtedly. When Archbishop Tutu agreed he knew

Tony Blair was going to be on the platform. Tutu has not brought

anything new to the equation. People have been banging on about

it for a long time. There have been endless inquiries into Mr Blair's

activities. At the moment there seems to be no charges, can we not

just get on with our lives, I would suggest. Jenni, you've chosen a

story about a couple who have rented an indyafpb womb? Yes, the

first -- Indian womb. Yes, the first thing that came into my mind

thought it must be wrong. This is a British couple who already had a

child and wanted another child and she was not able to do it so they

have rented a womb for �20,000 of a woman in India who will be the

surrogate. So the woman in India will get between �2,000 and �3,000,

so who is getting the rest of the money? First of all, I'm lucky

enough to have a child so who I am to tell somebody else that they

can't have another one, even though they already have a child, it is

not economics. But you're not against IV if F? No. I'm all in

favour of regulation. I'm not in favour of this woman's

circumstances and so on should be highly regulated because people

could be exploited and that's the issue. That's part of the problem

for me. But in straightforward moral terms. Firstly, with IVF we

have conceived the idea that people have some reproductive rights

outside of what we wood have regarded as normal pro-creation

before. Yes. So can you utilities someone else's rights - we've had

surrogate motherhood before. So there is something about this

situation which is the extra moral factor which is causing the problem.

That's exactly right. To me I have a problem of renting a womb of a

mother in a foreign country and she is not getting all of the money.

And what about the Paralympics? This is one where Britain has a

great moral standpoint. In the US they're doing very restricted

highlights of the par Olympics and in Canada they're not showing

anything of the opener is moan for three weeks. In India a country of

over a billion pop police station they sent a handful of athletes. We

have the best part of 300 people. I'm an old newspaper man in every

sense of the word. When I came into the industry the idea of putting

people with disabilities on the front pages, I'm ashamed to see you

just didn't do it. Now we see people with no limbs and dwarfism.

Now we're celebrating it and I think that puts us on a moral

platform. Hrawi. Thank you very much. You've been voting this

morning over is squatting moral. Now the poll is closed so please do

not call because you may be charged. We'll bring you the result at the

end of the show. Last weekend, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour

leader speaking at the Edinburgh Television Festival said it was

offencive and wrong that women were made invisible on television

because you were past your reproductive ages, is she right.

Julie Walters said at the age of 62 film roles for her were drying up.

And other actors have said that women over 60 are ignored on film.

And television has been even more vocal. Some speaking out include

Miriam O'Reilly, sandy Toksvig and Joan Bakewell who are all taken off

the television while male presenters can work well into their

advancing years. Mark Thompson, the outgoing head of the BBC admitted

However, undeniably many women on stage and screen starting out on

stage and screen are chosen for their looks, not their talent. Is

it right now to bite the hand that fed them so long or is television

simply highlighting a wider problem in society where women of a certain

age are ignored across the workplace or has the issue been

exaggerated. There are others who are not well represented in the

media. Should we not be focusing on them, rather than a select group of

women who have done very well for a long time. So, are women forced

from our screens after a certain time, or is this an issue that

perhaps people don't really care about? You can join in by webcam or

make your point by phone, text or exmail or on line. And we're joined

for this discussion by Susan O'Keefe, who had a long career in

television making programmes like World in Action and Panorama, and

she is now a Senator in the Upper House of the Irish Government.

Thank you very much for joining us. You were making documentries for 20

years, is this a problem or are we more sensitive about it? I'm not

sure whether the problem has gone worse but certainly we should be

more aware of the responsibility we have on television to make sure

that older women are part of television as they are of life.

Part of the responsibility of television is to educate and inform

and to entertain. And the BBC, for example, takes that very seriously.

But it forgets also that television is about influencing and everything

that comes from television influences our life and therefore

if there is a dearth of older women on television or in public life

that influences how we think, so if we're removing them, we're

influencing life and what people are looking at all the time and I

think television maybe forgets its strength of influence. And let's

have more older women because they are an important part of our life.

So I'm not sure whether we're more sensitive or not. Jenni, is this a

British obsession, for someone who has lived in America as well?

David and I are the same age and David is more on television, so

maybe it's a fact. Is that right. About what the USA, they have high-

profile women on television? Oki, I think it is a uniquely British

situation. I agree with what has been said about on television, but

I think as women it is a problem about how we feel about ourselves

and how you feel about yourself, what you think is what you become.

I've lived here 20 years and we have an enormous problem with women

feeling that they're past their sell-by date. You get a group of

women together our age with no men about and instantly, "I'm old, and

grey, this is falling" and then they're expected to go out into the

world as a vibrant woman. If you don't think of yourself as a

vibrant woman, you're not going to look like that to the world. David,

as the only man, does it bother you when you see really young women

with much older men? I think you do notice. But there is an incredible

irony here. We are an ageing society here and women live longer

than men, so there are more and more older women than there have

ever been and we're having this discussion. Gradually television

should be taken over by older women, just by, if you like becoming the

survivors. Until we value ourselves as continuing vibrant people it is

not going to happen. If television doesn't value older woman, that

influence comes back to women feeling they're not part of the

screen and therefore those conversations are part of

women's...if television were to take the lead. Let her finish.

television have a role that older women having a role show that women

watching will say, "You know what, there's an older woman, I can be

like that." But you have to take responsibility for yourself. If you

want to change perception about who are you are and what you're about,

you have to start with yourself. Well, the fact that cases have been

taken against television and been won by women, the situation is real.

We know this problem. And Julie Walters says she has no roles lined

up. And she's a wonderful actor. isle' give you two perfect English

examples. Helen Mirren and Joanneian Lumley. They're seen

everywhere. And Judi Dench. Exactly. What is the difference between how

they present themselves? But you raised the point in the film, where

were these people when they were younger actors and actresses? I

don't think this has changed. Actually I think the roles for

older actors is growing as we are more interested in it, what did

they think happened before? It's it partially that you do have some

extremely famous people who are finding out exactly what life is

really like. And why are old men considered to have great wisdom and

therefore it's OK for them to stay in front of the public, but we

don't seem to have that image about women so they are dismiss. That's

my point, that women men have this image about themselves, and women

don't. Harriet Harman, thank you for joining us. It was your comment

that sparked this decision. You're claiming that women are written out

of the public dome main bay their lack of being on screen. Can you

explain what you meant by that? think there is a particular form of

discrimination that doesn't apply to older men, who can be described

as having whizz dome -- wisdom and are old sages, and that does not

apply to older women. You don't get the best people if you just write

off a section 789 and it sends out a message about older women. And we

have a new generation of older women whose lives have been very

different to that of their mothers, who have gone out to work more and

they don't appreciate being written out of the script and I think it's

straightforward discrimination and TV should deal with it. What is the

solution? The BBC and other broadcasters and even film

companies are talking about equal opportunity of employers. I think

the policies have to be put into action. It is good that we now see

more women on our screens because women's lives have transformed.

Women have really done things they have never done in the past but

this still now, the discrimination is there for older women that

somehow you have to be invisible if you're past your child-bearing

years and these older, wise men, with the fresh, younger woman in

the pairing on the TV is what is in. But there are a whole generation of

older women who feel they have a contribution to make and are fit

and healthy and playing a big role in their families, looking after

grandchildren and older relatives as well, and working as well and

volunteering, and they look on TV and they're written out of it.

quotas a way of dealing with it? There are a number of ways. Firstly,

you have to analyse it and measure it and then have to obtaining a

range of ways of dealing with it. But getting rid of fantastic older

women who are on TV. Like Arlene Phillips, getting rid of her on

Strictly was absolutely....and I don't think you should blame the

victim, it's not the older woman's fault it's that their pioneering

role in society and the economy is not being recognised in the 2

century. Thank you very much. I want to bring in a couple of other

contributors. Michael Cole served with the BBC for 30 years before

going into PR. This is about representing the whole nation and a

whole part of society is being left off screen, which is damaging.

casting is vitally important to the success of any television programme

and producers and editors shouldn't have their hands tied by artificial

constraints in any way whatsoever. They should be free to appoint who

they think is right for the programme. Television is a medium

and no-one has a right to be on it, and I'm afraid life isn't fair.

Some people look pervert than others. We are all subjective and

given a choice people really prefer to see younger, better-looking

people on the screen. And you don't have a problem with that? No, I'm

saying that if you take the case of news problems, male reporters, male

news presenters are in varably, in fact, I can't think of one who is

not, old, seasoned reporters who have many stories under their belt.

The women presenters, I'm afraid this may come as news to you, are

chosen at least in part for their looks and their ability to read the

Autocue and they also wear lovely jackets. And when older women

complain about not having their contracts renewed, I'm afraid

they've had their moment in the sun. It's time to move on and allow

other, younger people to have their chance. I'm sorry to cut you off,

but I want to bring in another contributor. A man who knows a lot

about issue of television. Greg Dyke, a former generally director

of the BBC. You said the BBC was hideously white on screen, now, is

it ageist about women? I didn't say the BBC was hideously white on

screen, I said it was hideously white ie it had very few non-white

staff in many, many areas. Sure, OK. On screen? Well, I don't think

there has been talk about older women over a period of time. But as

my generation reaches well into their 60s, it doesn't surprise me

they all start complaining if they haven't got the jobs. I don't

remember them complaining getting the jobs when they were younger and

knocking older people off. This is about people being past their time.

You have to distinct -- distinguish the areas between news and drama.

Drama is about acting and writers and it's the writers who are

writing the pieces. And by and large they are going to write about

younger people. I don't think Harriet Harman was right saying

there is a generation of older woman - and I think Mark tampson

said we have to do something about it, I think you've just got to be

careful that the Baby Boomers, when they reach their 60s have want to

hang on to the power they had, and sometimes you have to give way.

David? Nick Ferrari raised the question earlier about seeing

disyapbld people on the front of newspapers, and -- disabled people

on the front of newspapers and now we do. We have to reach a situation

where the girl will be older and the man will be decorative. I'm

sure that will come. Just before we started we had a discussion, Jennie,

about how an actor walked into the room and the effect it had. We have

to have decorative guys up there as well as the women. There are women

now who have increasing ly amazing life stories and experiences in

reporting and so on, who you don't want to kick out. Like you didn't

want to kick out Arlene Phillips. Susan? Yes, that is a point.

Television is about how you sound and look but that's very glib. If

we just concentrated on that, the place would be full of people who

have nothing more than a good face or a good sound. We have to move

away from the idea of being decorative. Is it the way forward

that you compart mentalise, and you have Top Greer and Loose Women, and

some women hate Loose Women because it's just carping on about men.

Television reflects society and as long as society. It doesn't reflect

society. No, it reflects what society thinks and as long as

society continues to think that older women are not viable and

attractive that is what we're going to continue to see. There is a new

Director General coming to the BBC. Here is an opportunity for him to

show that the BBC will be sensible and won't follow the social

thing...I Have a programme and you can make it. Done! A couple of

contributions, Rob says "" only women who give up on themselves

have become invisible, just like men." We have to end it there

because the text and on-line poll votes are in. We asked is squatting

immoral. 82% of you who voted said yes, it is and 18% said no. David,

you were sympathetic, but people are against it. Yes, given the

demographic of the people who will be watching the programme at this

time of the morning, I'm not surprised by that vote. If you had

asked younger people you would have got slightly less of a distinct

distinctive vote. I agree. He did call it, he said 18 to 23. Susan?

It's very difficult to stick a blanket position on squatting and

say it's right or wrong, but when people are asked they will usually

say it is wrong, I'm afraid. And of course, the law has only just come

into force, so we'll have to see how the evictions go. Thank you all

very much indeed. My thanks to everyone who has taken part in the

programme today and all our guests who contributed via webcam or