23/06/2011 Question Time

Tonight, we've come to Huddersfield and welcome to Question Time.

On our panel here, the Euro-sceptic Conservative backbencher who twice

challenged for the leadership of his party, John Redwood. The

Liberal Democrats Transport Minister, Norman Baker. The

economist Rachel Reeves, now an MP. The comedian and writer, the star

of Peep Show and many other programmes, David Mitchell and the

television presenter, Fern Britton. Thank you. Now let's take our first

question, from Irene Harrop, please. Why shouldn't we let Greece just go

bust? John Redwood? Well, I think Britain

should make it very clear that we tonight wish to be any part of the

attempted bail out. The Government in part is doing that. If Greece

has to go bankrupt, some would say she is already because she cannot

meet her bills in the normal way, it is best if it is managed. My

worry is they are going to cobble together another package of loans

which Greece cannot afford. They will enforce more horrible

austerity on the Greek people, which they don't want. There could

be more political riots and trouble in Greece. Later on there'll be a

bankruptcy, when more has been lent and false hopes created. Your

answer is let them go bust now? would say manage the crisis now.

That means doing something different to what Mrs Merkel and

Sarkozy would want to do. My advice would be to go for a different plan.

You need a plan to manage the debt. They will not be able to repay all

on the terms which it has been granted. You need to have some

proposals which will allow growth in the Greek economy. The current

lethal mixture of cuts and no devaluation is going to mean more

trouble for Greece in the months ahead. They'll borrow more in the

first six months of this year than they did last year as a whole. They

are meant to be on a programme to slim the deficit. The plan is not

working. They need to do something else. Should they get out of the

euro, go their own way and be on their own and save all this

trouble? If you look back at what happened to Lehman Brothers when

they collapsed, that was one bank on Wall Street, in America. The

repercussions were felt around the world. I fear that if Greece

collapses, if it defaults on its debt, if it leaves the euro, that's

not just going to have ramifications for people in Greece.

It'll have massive ramifications for people in the UK. Half of our

trade is with Europe. Our banks have exposure to banks across

Europe. I think that while we shouldn't contribute to any bail

out for Greece, I think a solution does need to be found if we're not

going to have another global crisis. I would echo what John said. You

know, Greece has been forced down this route of austerity. They've

had to come back for a second bail out. Unless Greece starts to ren

rate growth it will not be able -- generate growth it will not be able

pay back this either. If the economy is stuck in recession it

will not grow again. That is what we're having here in the UK. This

is an attack on the UK Government? Greece had a bail out a year ago.

It's had to come back again because the first didn't work. It said cut

spending, increase taxes and you'll get out of these problems. Well,

the Greek economy continues to shrink. They are not able to pay

back their loans. What they need and Britain needs is a strategy for

jobs. If we're condemning more people to the strap heap and

there's not jobs available it will be harder to pay back the loans and

deficit. We need a strategy for jobs in this country, but also for

Greece. APPLAUSE

We come to our third politician - Norman Baker, you're in the

Government. They are there in Europe trying to decide what to do.

What would you do? Should we let them go bust? The answer is it

would be very unwelcome. It would have repercussions for the UK and

more widely as well. But, the fact of the matter is, this is a

eurozone problem, essentially, primary rilly, it is for the

eurozone countries, who have that currency to sort out initially. I

don't think we should be any part of any bail out. It is not our

currency to deal with. Also we have an interest in making sure that

Greece doesn't go down the pan. If it did, it would destabilise the

our and cause problems with our trade, with oh -- the euro and

cause problems with our trade. It is in our interest to have a stable

euro and stable European Union. I hope the European Union countries

in the eurozone are able to find a package, which not only makes sense,

which does create jobs in Greece, which the Greek people recognise as

making sense and are prepared to accept. Part of the problem has

been the reluctance of some in Greece to recognise the need for

severe measures. Surely Greece needs to be given money by other

euro countries if they are going to survive or she needs to pull out so

she can devalue and compete herself back into prosperity. Would we with

some who gave money? No. If you need a single currency you need a

single currency to back it up. about the stabilisation. We should

not go near using that. We can stop doing it, do you say? It is

majority voting t thing you dislike so much - it's majority voting. We

could be compelled. Britain has to be extremely tough and say, we

don't think this applies any more. There'll have to be changes in the

treaties and arrangements. Britain has a veto on those. We need to use

that opportunity to say we're not paying those bills and if you want

a single currency you have to have a single country to back it up and

send money to poor parts of the areas which are suffering because

of the single currency. Aidan O'Brien? I wish I could -- Fern

Britton? I wish I could understand it as well as you all do. We are in

this all together as world citizens, let alone partners, at least work

the EU. Earlier John was talking to me about the EU and the IMF. Now

the IMF has obviously some cohesion with the EU.

Pots of cash, does it? Do we inject money into the IMF which helps them

It is lend 30 in the first package. The real crime was a European

political elite tried to force countries as diverse as Greece and

Portugal in with Germany and France - I mean, who thought that was a

good idea? David Mitchell? probably thought that was a good

idea, to be honest. APPLAUSE

I mean I wasn't directly consulted, but I would have gone along with it.

I felt that by Sod's law the fact we were staying out of the euro

would mean it would turn out to be a good thing. Are you going to

apologise now? All of those decisions I made back then, I

withdraw. But I think this decision about what we do now, or what

Europe does know is one of those decisions with -- now, is one of

those decisions we should take with hind site later. If it turns out

that Greece is going to go bust any way and essentially they are going

to default and that will trigger a global crisis, then we have to have

it at some point, we might as well before we have injected billions

and billions uselessly. If we can stop it becoming an Leighmen's

brother, we -- a Lehman's brothers, we might find it money well spent.

I have no idea. Do you? They've had a horrible black market for many

decades. They have avoided paying taxes A lot of the Greek people are

being taxed properly. That is nothing to do with us. That is

their Government sorting their own people. We have been brought in to

bail them out. I don't think it is right. You, Sir, on the left?

don't feel that Rachel Reeves ought to have been in Mr Brown's

Government and talking about lending money. If he had been more

prudent we would not have been in the position we are now too.

APPLAUSE She only came in after the election.

She could not have been. Let my say -- me say, this was a global crisis.

Every country has seen, as a result, the budget deficit and debt

increase. When the crisis hit our debt was the second lowest in the

G7. David Cameron and the Conservatives supported plans until

2008. The massive increase in the deficit and debt was due to

irresponsible decisions by bankers in the UK, but also globally. That

is why we've got the mess, not just in the UK, but around the world now.

This wasn't global...: APPLAUSE Places like Australia, Canada,

India, they coped well. This was a western crisis, particularly acute

in the United Kingdom, because the Government grossly overspent and

because they didn't regulate the banks properly.

It seems there is a fundamental weakness in the euro, which covers

such a diverse range of countries, where individual economies are not

able to either devalue or set their own interest rates, which are two

major tools for recovery. Let me go back to the question now

and then we'll move on. There are a couple of points I just want to

raise. My question is about Greece, not the mess we're in or not in.

It's.: When you say, you know, we're not in the euro, so we can

effectively opt-out, or it's not our problem, however we did put

money into Ireland - if I'm not mistaken. They're in the euro. On

the news, we hear of Greece selling their assets, selling all their

companies, their buildings. What happens when they've sold up?

There'll be no more buildings, no more institutions to sell. So,

they're not going to be able to raise any money to pay anybody back.

Surely it is better to bite the bullet now! The idea of the euro

was you'd have a number of countries together. If one got into

trouble there was prowess there for others to help out. That would

provide stability, so they would help each other out. I recognise

there are two sorts of countries in the euro, those performing well and

those less well. It is a tension within the euro. A lot of our trade

with Ireland, it's one of our biggest trading partners, there's

long historical relationships there. It is in our interest to make sure

the Irish economy recoverers. far down the line? Spain next?

Portugal next? While we are worrying about our own little bit,

the euro's going to take us to the cleaners.

Do you have any consolation for the lady? She is right. The scheme is

very badly constructed. It's going to lose a lot of money and destroy

a lot of jobs and livelihoods. I am very worried. In this country as

well? They do owe.... No, not in this country. They owe it to us to

hammer out a solution to the underlying problem. Greece is

insolvent. She doesn't need another loan. She needs to do something

more fundamental than borrow more money. We must move on. If you

A question please from Sharika Saeed.

Would the panel be happy to accept a lower pension, have to work

longer to get it and pay more for it? The predicament of many people.

Fern Britton? I have thought about this a lot. I am in that category

that I will be one of the women who As a feminist, we have fought a

long battle to receive the same money for the same job as a band.

That hasn't, as we know, happened 100%. Some kind of benevolent

sexism has allowed women to retire a little bit earlier. Now that has

been turned on its head. Maybe as feminists we have to bite the

bullet and take the rough with the smooth. I'm not sure. I think

they're Ratu issues. There is the issue of what is happening to the

state pension for women and the issue of public sector pensions.

Let's concentrate on the state pension average and what is

happening there. I totally agree that it is right that the state

pension age for men and women is equalised. As we live longer, we

know we will have to work longer before we can get the state pension,

if it is going to be affordable. If we are going to make changes to the

state pension age, you have to give people the time they need to

prepare for that change. That change should be spread across all

of us, it should be that one particular group has to wait much

longer before they get they state pension. The problem with the

Government proposals is that 500,000 women will have to wait for

up to two years longer. These were men, aged 56 and 57 now, just a few

years away from retirement, that is what I think is particularly unfair.

These women don't have huge private pensions. Many of them have taken

time off to bring up a family. Many of them are now caring for elderly

parents or grandchildren. To moved the goalposts for the second time,

so close to the retirement date, that is what I think is unjust. So

move that, yes, but give fair In general terms we have to

recognise that we are all living longer, which is a very good thing.

The number of working people, compared to the number of

pensioners, the ratio is changing. There were nine people working by

every pensioner in 1926. There are three people working for every

pensioner now. Clearly, the system is becoming different to manage and

unbalanced. It has to change. If we want to have decent pension

arrangements for the future for people, to make sure there is a

decent pension to live on, we have to make sure sufficient money is

there. That means raising the pension age. It's something that

all three parties have historically recognised. Rachel raises a

perfectly fair point about the way it might affect women who are 57 or

thereabouts. My understanding is that there are 33,000 people in

that category, 1% of the women affected that are badly affected.

The Work and Pensions secretary Iain Duncan-Smith said this week

that he recognised there was an issue there, and was willing to see

if anything to be done to ease that problem. I think we are trying to

approach this matter in a sensible and sensitive way. There is nothing

particularly dogmatic about this. It's an issue that I hope all three

parties can work together to bring forward proposals on. That includes

the point racial has raised. -- Rachel. Sharika Saeed, were you

thinking about women that are about 57, that were going to be affected,

or people in public sector pensions? In public sector pensions.

The people going on strike in a week's time and others? David

Mitchell? Basically, there is a regrettable financial reality

underlining nests that, ultimately, because people are living longer

and because more of the population have retired, we need to pay them a

out for less time. But that doesn't mean that it isn't horribly unfair

for people that have planned their lives expecting to retire for a

certain time and spend a certain amount of money, suddenly it is

like climbing a mountain and you realise that there is another climb

to go. That is very unfair. Obviously, there are very unfair

things in the whole situation. The average age of death is going up,

but not at the same rate in all sectors of society. For some people,

they can retire at 66 and expect 20 years of pleasure. For other people,

they would be very lucky to get that. For less lucky people, they

would be lucky to get that... If that makes sense! I think what this

highlights is how unfair our society is in lots of ways. You

can't make the pensions is unfair because society is unfair. Society

isn't fair on women that have taken time out to raise children and

don't qualify for the same pensions as men. It's not fair on people

that work hard for low wages in areas of the country where life

expectancy is not going up, who have to retire later and pay more

or pensions and will not enjoy a long retirement. Really, the core

of the unfairness is not the cake - - pensions, it's a myriad of other

For those of us that work in the private sector, we have already had

these imposed on ourselves anyway. We already have to work longer, pay

more. For me, it's the simple fact that we have to get with the Times

and the public sector has to catch up with the reforms that have

already happened in the private The point about biting the bullet,

may be that we should have the same pension ages as men, I think we

should all have also have the same pay as men, so when it does come to

retiring we are on the same pay bracket. Equality of pay has to be

100% now, it's ridiculous. John Redwood? As a well-paid City public

sector worker, I think I should work longer and make a bigger

contribution to my attention. Your viewers will be delighted to know

that is what is going to happen. Subject to the electors, because

they might disagree, I think some of us are willing to go one for a

little bit longer because we understand people are living a lot

longer and that it is not affordable to offer people 20 years

plus at the decent pension rates we would qualify for, when people

thought it would be 10 or 15 years when that they were planned. Do you

get a final-salary scheme? Yes. Does anybody else get final-salary

here? You know that the public sector is going to go over to an

average scheme. I haven't seen the details of what the changes are

going to be. I think we are, David. You are not going to be protected?

I don't think so. We certainly have the highest contribution rate in

the public sector, which is entirely appropriate. Public sector

schemes are a lot more generous than most private sector schemes.

Most private sector schemes have been closed down, the final salary

ones. We do have to do something about it, it's right that the

Government is going to do something to protect people on low earnings.

They shouldn't be hit, it should be those on better earnings. We have

to take a series of measures to make things affordable. The woman

in the orange... Apricot? I don't know what colour it is. You, madam.

While I agree with equality for women, and the person down here

that spoke for equality on pay also, I also agree with some of the

things David has said about unfairness in society. I thought

that equality was about changing those unfairnesses, not increasing

them. Also, it's not about equalling those in the private

sector, because the pay is not equal in the private sector as it

is in the public sector. So, why should the pensions be the same

question that is that true? lower. On average, it is lower.

says it is lower in the private sector. The private sector has

recently overtaken, after a good period of years of growth. The man

in spectacles, on the 4th row? public sector problem built up

gradually. It deserves a gradual submission. It is political

ineptitude that has not caused a gradual improvement over the last

20 or 30 years. This knee-jerk reaction is just too harsh. This is

all parties, you're talking about? The woman on the right. What about

people in their 60s, who at work as prison guards? A 60 year-old prison

guard trying to hold back a violent 20 year-old inmate, how does that

work? In terms of what? Because he is a public sector worker. And he

has to stay working? He has to keep working in his 60s, dealing with

that the 20 year-old. I think it's always been accepted that there

will be exceptions to this for hazardous and difficult tasks.

There are tasks that are not as severe as you are suggesting in

prisons, so it might be a distribution of duties. And the

public sector worker in the fire service and I already pay 11% of my

wage to a pension scheme. Its proposed I pay another 3% over the

next three years, starting from next April. I'm sick of being... I

feel like I am being treated like a second-class citizen, it that this

problem we have got is actually the public sector's fault when it isn't.

You need to go after some of the private sector, I'm not saying all

of the private sector, but the people that God is in the mass --

got us in the mess in the first Let me say, it is absolutely not

about attacking the public sector. It absolutely isn't. I hope we have

all got tremendous respect for those that work in the fire service,

police, ambulance and all of the other emergency services, indeed

the teachers and everything else. What it is about is recognising

that there is a problem with funding pensions in the public

sector and we have to address that. The gentleman at there is quite

right to say that it has been left on the back-burner for 20 years,

when it should have been addressed earlier. We have tried to get

cross-party agreement. John Hutton, former Labour minister, has drawn

up the proposals. By and large, the Government has agreed to adopt them.

We are trying to get a fair deal, protecting the age is already in

place, for people that have accrued their pensions up to now, a fair

deal for the future that balances the need to make sure we can afford

it and that somebody get a decent patient -- pension. There is no

negotiation, is there? Danny Alexander has more or less said,

this is what we are going to do, like it or lump it. He hasn't said

that. He was taken out of context. That must be his arrogant character.

We are basing our proposals on the Labour minister, John Hutton. We

are trying to get cross-party consensus. John Hutton, the man who

did the report, said that the Government need to get back around

the negotiating table and that any solution needs to be negotiated.

The gentleman from the private sector who says that it is right

that the public sector reforms, that is absolutely right. But what

the Government are trying to do, it seems to me, his force a solution

on the public sector, whereas what they should be doing is getting

around the negotiating table. Nobody wants strikes next week.

People in the private sector who rely on public services do not want

strikes. I taught to dinner ladies, teachers in my constituency, they

want to go to work and do their job next Thursday. But they also feel

that the Government, as you said, is pre-empting negotiations and

forcing the deal rather than negotiating. Rather than going to

television studios, as Danny Alexander did last Friday and say

what the outcome of the negotiations was going to be, he

needs to sit down with people under fire service, with teachers, and

negotiate a deal. That is what people and the public sector want,

and what people in the private Just before we leave this, John

Redwood, as a Conservative backbencher, you are nodding in

agreement with what Rachel Reeves is saying. You think the Government

haven't handled it properly? think they need to negotiate

earnestly and sensibly with their workforce. I think it's difficult

to read it through the media, better to do it face-to-face.

Myself, having some experience of industrial relations in other

contexts, I think the media is often wonderful for the media, but

not helpful for the negotiations. I would ask them to sit down in

private with their employees and respect them. Can I just add, I

agree with that but I think the Government has been quite cynical

recently in the way it has encouraged people to demonise the

public sector. David Cameron has made them out as being bureaucrats.

In the way the conversation has happened, people are saying, I am

in the public sector, I am in the private sector, never the twain

will show respect for each other. I think that's a shame and it's not

the right approach. It needs to be properly negotiated. At times, the

Government has tried to make public opinion turned against the public

sector and make people think of people and the public sector as

Do you accept John Redwood's rebuke about the way this is being handled

by the coalition? I don't. I accept that there is a perception that is

happening. I think there is a willingness to negotiate properly

and sit down with people. I also don't expect -- accept that there

is an attempt to demonise the public sector. It is very important

in this country and keeps our society together, why would we want

to demonise it? Let's go on to another question from Jackie Grant.

British troops are pulling out daily -- early out of Afghanistan.

374 men and women died in vain? troops are pulled out early? Is

that it, will 374 men and women have died in vain? Well, I think

the situation in Afghanistan is, in many ways, a very regrettable one.

People talk about the reason we went in there, in a very confused

way. We talk about rebuilding Afghanistan as a country, which

wasn't the reason we went in there. We went in there to fight global

terrorism. I'm not sure whether that is what we should have done,

to fight global terrorism. I'm not sure that has done any good. Now we

are there, you see a country with a lot of problems and I am sure that

our troops and the American troops are doing their best to make it a

better country. Whether that is an appropriate role for Western

countries, or doing any good in terms of our initial aims of

fighting terrorism, I don't know. Should we stick there? Or should we

start withdrawing, like the American president is proposing?

think we have set a timetable to leave. The American President has

haste and to that somewhat. My feeling is that we probably do need

to leave because it's not a country that it is our role to rebuild. I

hope we will have done more good than harm at the end of that. But I

don't really know. John Redwood, the implication in the question is

Well, I hope it will prove not to be so. We'll only know how good it

was after we've withdrawn and see what kind of political society

exists in Afghanistan. I am sure it was well intended. Our troops have

been brave and loyal. They have done enormously positive work. I

would not want to detract from that commitment they have made. I am one

who wants us out as quickly as possible. I want the Government

here and in America to get on with it. There must be a limit as to how

much training we need to give the forces. The right people to police

Afghanistan are Afghans. We have spent a lot of time and trouble

training their army. Can we please get out of there as quickly as

possible? You imply by that that''ve done as much as we can do

- is that what you feel? Some of the servicemen, Richard Dannatt,

for example, is saying he says this is not done for political reasons.

Implying it. And Obama because he has elections coming up next year?

There'll always be brave and talented soldiers what will say we

could do a good job if we could carry on and the Afghans are not

perfect yet. That is true. I don't deny the honesty of the advice they

are giving. The best is the enemy of the good. Let the Afghans get on

wit. Do the best job we can and get out and leave it to these large

forces the Afghans have. Fern Britton? It's a very dangerous

place. Your question was did those 374 servicemen and women die in

vain. If I was a parent I would say, God, I hope not. We know how brave

those people are. However, if my child was fighting there now, I'd

be saying, can you please get out yesterday, because I want you home.

That's a purely personal, you know, feeling about it. I think it boils

down to, obviously we hope we've trained the Afghan police force

well enough to look after themselves. It boils down to money.

We can't afford it. We saw the price of Libya today. I was working

out, it's something like �3 million a day - the conflict in Libya has

cost us already. We were told that was only going to cost, just in the

tens of millions, it's now in the hundreds and there's no real end in

sight. We said we'd be there six months. We've done three months.

Can we afford this? Can we afford any of it this? Are we talking to

these people. We talk about, there are negotiations happening. But

talk is so much cheaper and easier and friend liar and, I know this

sound a little bit wishy-washy, but surely it's better than going in

and bombing civilians, killing our own troops with friendly fire and

everything else. APPLAUSE

The figures seem to be imcome pabl. It is interesting to note it is 374

servicemen. What about the hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis

who have died? What about them? APPLAUSE Norman Baker? Every

Wednesday in the House of Commons, we hear the Prime Minister stand up

and read out the names of British soldiers what've died in action,

whether in -- who've died in action, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. It

is people making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. He does

not read out the Afghan nationals or Iraqis, of whom there are

frankly more. Equally we need to bear those in mind. Any Parliament

needs to think seriously because it commits its troops to military

action. Has it been worth it? Have they died in vain? I hope not. We

are told by our military advisers that the surge has been successful,

that the transfer of power has now, is now taking place, seriously to

the Afghan forces T conditions are right to do so. John Redwood is

right. We went there and we don't know whether it is right until we

have left the country. The Government has said we want all

combat troops out by 2015, at the latest. I share the view of many,

saying the sooner we can leave and have the conditions right for the

Afghans to run their own country, the better. The man in the second

row from the back there? Fern said about talking to these people. I

believe the Afghan Government and American Government are starting

talks with the Taliban. As they are sending in suicide bombers are they

the sort of people who can sit around a table and talk about

ending it peacefully. And the British Government is talking to

them as well. Rachel Reeves? those 374 lives aren't going to

have been given in vain, then we need to negotiate a solution with

people in Afghanistan. That means that the Government in Afghanistan,

as John said training the police and army, but it means talking with

those people who we might not share their values. We might not agree

with everything they do, but if we want to make sure there is a stable

future in Afghanistan, we ned to be talking to people who use -- need

to be talking to people who used to be our enemy. You don't make peace

with your friends. You make peace by talking to those people you

disagree with. APPLAUSE Second row from the back? It seems as though

we are putting a price on people's lives. When we went into war, we

knew it would cost us a lot of money. Now it has gone on longer

than what we anticipated. We are pulling out because, as Fern said,

you know, the money, the money implication. How can we justifyably

put our money on a person's live, by withdrawing? Do you mean we

should find the money to stay there until the job is done in the sense

that the military want to see the job done? I think so, yes. You do?

I realise that people are losing their lives. There'll always be a

first and always be a last. It's the ones inbetween and you know,

their lives are very, very crucial at the time when they lost them,

unfortunately. If we pull out now, all that is lost.

Weapons of mass destruction - at the end of it, you found out he

doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. You walk into

Afghanistan. Start killing them. You say you should negotiate. You

should negotiate in the first place before going into Afghanistan and

killing so many people. APPLAUSE The man in the black jacket.

what point will we sit down and negotiate with Al-Qaeda?... Given

the basis we negotiate with our enemies - it's a rude, ludicrous

situation. We ended up negotiating the IRA in Northern Ireland. They

had a clear political objective. Obviously their methods were

completely unacceptable. They had a clear objective, therefore there

was a national policy to negotiate with. Al-Qaeda - they seem to want

to simply behave in a way that blows themselves up, blow other

people up. Their objective seems to be the destruction of western

civilisation. It cannot be negotiated in the same way. There

is a difference between Taliban and Al-Qaeda. He said Al-Qaeda.

other gentleman next to you was talking about Taliban. There is a

vast and long spectrum of Taliban members, Al-Qaeda members and some

of them are probably the majority are reasonable enough to sit and

talk with, I am hoping. The woman there in green? I was thinking,

what about the other people who are not part of the Taliban? Are we

just abandoning them? There are an awful lot of people who don't agree

with the Taliban and they want us to stay. Are we just walking out on

them? We have to remember our aim is to leave Afghanistan as a more

stable country which can govern itself, which can sort out all its

disagreements by word and arguments rather than by bombs and bullets.

It is a difficult task. I don't see how you can do it until you talk to

all the groups. You will not like some of them. They will be hostile

to others. They will not have an established civil society until

they can deal with those things by argument rather than bombs.

last point from the man there? country has an amazing army. Isn't

it time the Government realise we cannot just solve the problems and

invade these countries. The cost implications, for example. Let's go

on. Is David Cameron a saviour by suggesting the U-turn is a strength

of strength? APPLAUSE

David Cameron, in his press conference at Downing Street said,

in reference to the dropping of the proposal to give 50% remission of

sentence if you pleaded guilty, he said that a U-turn would be a sign

of strength. John Redwood, do you see it as a sign of strength?

good U-turn is a sign of strength. One U-turn.... Deserves another.

You turn if you want to.... If you have too many of them then your

critics will be hostile and say, why don't you make up your mind in

a sensible way. They've had NHS reforms, the forests, milk, books,

cutting down on two deliveries to one of waste. Too many. I would

suggest they have a period without U-turns. I think it would be much

welcome. I think the latest one on sentencing, which is presented as a

U-turn - a little unfair - they consulted on an idea. Practically

everybody, including the judges, and a lot of Conservative

backbenchers told them it was not a wise idea, so they went back to

what they inherited. The Justice Secretary was famously clear in

that interview when he talked about rape and serious rape. He said, in

a case where a judge thinks it's right and where the charged man has

shown contrition, isn't making things worse, he can get a half off.

He was committed to that policy, so it is a U-turn. It was presented

later as discussion. Actually Ken Clarke wanted it. I think Ken

Clarke is trying to do some brave and good things. The idea of trying

to get drugs out of prison is superb. It is amazing how many

drugs there are in prisons. 70% of all offenders use drugs before they

go into prison. It would be great if he can do that. He is spending

time thinking about decent programmes so they can work and get

the habit of work in prison. They might not commit offences again.

Our prisons are not working properly. There are too many people

in them. Too many of them go back in. There'll be more in them now as

a result of the Government's refusal to give the 50% cut.

aim of the policy.... The aim is to stabilise the population. There are

things going on, one area that lots would agree is to get the

foreigners out of prison. Why when we could send them home and say we

don't want them back. There's something interesting you have just

said is that the Government consulted, people said it was a bad

idea. If the Government didn't consult and did a U-turn that would

be different. It's two different sides. Can the Government consult

people or can't they? It depends how you consult, does it. Norman

Baker? Have you done U-turns? Transport Minister, I'm always

doing usm turns. I know that U- turns can be a sensible manoeuvre.

Illegal? Only if you have a no U- turn sign up. The reality is that

we've had Governments, often we elected minority of the vote,

ramming through policies, which the majority of the people don't like,

then telling the people they there is no alternative, we must carry on,

you must bring this policy through. Then you end up with a disaster,

three or four years down the track, like the poll tax which you have to

change. It is better. Of course it is better get the policy right in

the first place, so there's no need for a U-turn. If you get the policy

in a way that needs to be changed, it is better to do so, having

listened to people, having consulted. Having been open as a

Government, as this Government is, as a coalition Government, as a

matter of fact. To admit that and then make changes. It is a sensible

man who can admit he's wrong, or woman, admit they are wrong and do

a U-turn. The weakness lies in the fact that the Prime Minister

allowed this to get through in the first place. Ridiculous!

APPLAUSE It is logical to make a decision

after you have consulted with people. Not make a decision and

then consult and go, oh, I've made a mistake, and then change your

Let me just say, is it a sign of strength? Well, what is a sign of

strength is to talk to the people who do decisions are going to

affect, then decide what your policy is going today. On NHS

reform, on sentencing, on forests, the Government made up its mind, it

announced the policies. Then when they heard direction of their

people, they changed their mind. I don't think that is a sign of

strength, but I do welcome the David Mitchell? I wouldn't say U-

turn was a sign of strength, is not necessarily a sign of weakness. In

all of these cases, the public consultation is quite a blunt

instrument. It basically means, how loud have the media screamed about

this? We are eight democracy where the main consultation is supposed

to be the General Election. After that, people are supposed to govern

as they see fit, if we don't like it, we throw them out. I don't feel

that... I'm all right with politicians taking a view and doing

that. If it's wrong, someone else can put it right. I don't see the

role of the politician to be just to listen, I want them to have some

views and some convictions. Some of their views, it might not seem a

good idea. Maybe they will subsequently be proved right. With

this section will never find out. They would just go, hang on, the

papers turned against us, we will U-turn as a sign of strength, and

we'll never know if it might have been a brilliant idea. You think

the U-turn was from listening to what the press said, rather than

the public as a whole? Obviously some of the public agreed with what

the press said. But what is the system, how do they know? Do you

put your head outside of Parliament and listen for cheering or going?

It's almost a danger issue of democracy, that you elected

government for five years, except what they do without complaint and

then elected new one. I think a proper democracy is one where

people have a chance to input and contribute during a parliament so

that we hear those voices. If the Government is going off-track, they

can say so loudly and clearly and reverse the judgment. And do that

on everything? Have you listened on tuition fees, as Liberal Democrats?

Let me say this, my party got our manifesto wrong on tuition fees.

Let me say that bluntly now. No, we did. Actually, we did listen, the

policy on tuition fees at the end is much better than it was at the

beginning. Which isn't to say it is perfect. The NHS, coming back to

that, the question is, do you want the NHS to have the U-turn that it

had, which now has a much better policy, having listened to the

public, the doctors, the medical profession? Or would you have had a

his ploughing on ahead, listening to nobody and saying, well, we are

the Government but we are not going to listen to anyone? He tried to

listen to people when they have legitimate complaints and just

policy. There have been too many baulks already commits coming

across as weak leadership. While Margaret Thatcher got the poll tax

wrong, she got a lot of things right. She came across as a strong

leader, whether you agree with her or not. That has divided the

audience! The woman in pink? seems clear to me at times that the

liberal... De MPs, they are enjoying the fact that they are now

in power and forgetting what their Our U-turns symptomatic of a

coalition government, as opposed to a government with a strong mandate

that can push through its own policies? Norman Baker? On that

last point, pushing through policies when you why elected on a

minority of a vote is not necessarily very democratic.

Sometimes the majority of parliament, in their heart of

hearts, the majority of the public disagree with what is being done.

In the coalition government, nobody wins, we didn't win the election,

the Conservatives didn't, so we have to compromise. 65% of our

manifesto is being delivered, that is what we were able to negotiate

when we went to the Conservatives after the election. The woman on

the left? One or two baulks suggests a government that listens.

Any more than that suggests that the ministers that put them forward

don't know what they are about. That's quite worrying with a

government. I think a lot of the people making the policies don't

know what they're talking about, otherwise they would not have so

many U-turns. The man in the brown jacket? There may be a case for

occasional U-turns. I think the lady that was not for turning had a

damaging and detrimental effect on our society, mainly. I agree with

David Mitchell, it would be refreshing to have a government

that had the courage of its convictions, that believed in

something and followed through on that. You, sir? I think that she

needs to listen to people, he needs to know what people are going

through. It's not just having a big idea alone. On the U-turn, I think

there is a right time that the Lib- Dems also have a U-turn as well,

because it might be good for the country. Have a U-turn, you know.

Which way do you want them to turn? Have a U-turn and think about

people. At the moment, they are not representing that, thinking about

people. Just one point, Norman Baker, there was an interesting

thing that David Cameron said on Tuesday. There has been all this

argument about 50% reductions in sentencing if you pleaded guilty.

He certainly put it forward and said we are consulting. But when

Tuesday came, the Prime Minister said, I'll quote him, the 50%

sentence would be too lenient, the wrong message would be sent to the

criminal and it would erode public confidence in the system. Surely

that is the kind of thing that should have been thought out before

the position was ever put to the public for them to give their

opinion on? It seemed so categoric. He's not saying, having consultants

-- consulted, we think this, that and the other. He says it is too

lenient, the wrong message would be sent out. Did he not know that

before? I don't think he did, otherwise it would not have got us

are. There was a reason for pursuing the policy, which has been

long-standing, I think the Labour government introduced it, a

discount on the tariff for pleading guilty. It was proposed to have an

extension of that. It became a clear when it was made public that

the public were concerned about that. John Redwood, would you agree

with that? Or do you think they slipped up on this one? Clearly,

they didn't see the significance of this when they launched it. What

happened was a blanket discount for all kinds of crimes and sentences

was offered. Naturally, their critics picked out the most

difficult ones, where none of us agreed with it, and they

immediately saw the point and said, well, we won't do it banned. -- do

it then. A last question from Katie Frank? Why should circuses still

subject animals to such abuse? There is a context for this, an MP

today, a Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, moved, to his surprise, I think,

his motion was accepted, that there should be a ban on wild animals

performing in English circuses. Rachel Reeves? I think that, in the

end, the right decision was reached today in Parliament. Wild animals,

as Katie mentioned, will not be able to perform in circuses because

of the bill that was passed today in Parliament. I think that is

excellent news. There was a consultation started by the last

Labour government. 10,000 people responded, 94% thought it was wrong

to have wild animals in circuses. With a Conservative MP, Liberal

Democrat, and a Labour MP, they took a bill to the house of Commons.

At the last minute, the Government decided to accept that, not to vote

it down. I think that's good news. I think it is wrong, frankly, for

elephants, lions, tigers, to perform for our enjoyment. I don't

think many people do get enjoyment out of it. But I think it's

barbaric, in a civilised society, to treat animals like that. I think

the right decision was made. completely agree. It is upsetting

when wild animals, some of which are endangered, are made to do

things which are not natural to them. You know, I don't know...

Personally, I find dressage a bit weird as well. Do we want to

explain that for the benefit of viewers? It is an Olympic sport

which involves horses doing things which I consider to be very

unnatural. That probably sounds worse than it is now. I'm sure it

is absolutely... For The Record, I'm sure it's fine and the horses

are the Bennett. Today, they look confused. John Redwood, what do you

make of what the backbencher said? Were you in the house? Did you hear

what he said? I heard what he said, but I was coming to Question Time.

He said he had been threatened by Number Ten and told yesterday that

the Prime Minister would look upon it dimly if he went ahead with the

debate. He said, I may just be a little council house lad from a

poor background, but that background gives me backbone. I was

offered incentive and reward and then it was ratcheted until last

night I was threatened. What is that about? Is he telling the

truth? This is an insider whip story. Who knows what would say

when they are trying to persuade somebody to do something they don't

want to do? Why were they so fussed about it? I don't know, I think the

right answer has been reached. I have always hated animal cruelty. I

think it is wrong to take big cats and try and tame them in cages. It

is not a bill, it is a motion that has been passed, an instruction to

the Government to come forward with legislation. I hope they do so. I

hope that, perhaps by voluntary subscription, we can raise some

money so that the animals can have a decent retirement in a safe

location. There are not many of them, I'm pleased to say.

according to the RSPCA. We need to think about compensation and so

forth. A great end to this tyranny, we need to stop it. You can't talk

out my question, what on earth is Number Ten doing directly ringing

up a backbencher and threatening him? He says he was contacted by

Number Ten. I don't imagine the Prime Minister himself spoke to

this little backbencher. Let's hope it was a mistake. Why? Why are they

so keen... After all, they didn't throw out the vote and try to vote

the motion down. It was at the very last minute! I think there was

intention originally to vote it down. I think it wise not to want

Parliament has had a great day. Surely, they must have been

something behind it? There was another agenda, why on earth would

they be strong-armed? It's the performing elephants will be again.

There was one news channel, I will not mention which, the one that you

sometimes workforce... Channel 4, that is it. I had forgotten. There

There was something about someone in Witney, who had an interest in

animals in circuses or something. They denied it. I don't think it

could possibly be that. Nearly has I'm delighted by today's decision.

I spent many years in opposition tried to get a ban on wild animals

in circuses. It's not just the performing and humiliation, it's

also the fact that you cannot keep animals sensibly of that nature in

conditions were you are in a travelling circus. You can't give

them the space to exercise and perform in a natural way. I think

it is a really good move and I'm delighted it has all-party support.

I hope it can go forward as soon as possible that legislation.

woman up there, then I'll come to you. While I think it's a nice

thing that they have voted against animals being in circuses, why are

we wasting so much time and money on discussing things like this when

there are so many bigger issues, like the stuff we have talked about

tonight, that is supposed to be voted in Parliament? We voted them

in, not animals. Just to be clear, the motion this afternoon was

raised by a backbench committee. We allow time in the House of Commons

to allow backbenchers to decide what to debate, it is their choice.

It did follow a big debate on hospitals of great interest to us.

You, sir? Did the same wing threatened David Cameron on the 50%

U-turn on prison sentences? I don't think he would have done. I think

it's very important to the animals concerned, I think they would think

it is important. If we think that animals should not be caged for

people's enjoyment, why should we not go one further and talk about

zoos as well? A brief point for new question are can I just agree with

Mr Redwood? I think it's been a fantastic day in Parliament. The

Bill before was about children, children's heart surgery. The

stopping and thinking a little bit more about that consultation

process. But children and animals all in one day, today was a great

day in Parliament. Democracy at its Well, we have to free these caged

animals on the panel now. Question Time is going to be in Birmingham

next week. The week after that we My thanks to all of our panellists