:00:12. > :00:22.Tonight, unions and Government face our audience here in Birmingham.
:00:22. > :00:23.
:00:23. > :00:28.Welcome to Question Time. And on the panel with me here, the
:00:28. > :00:32.leader of the biggest teachers' union Christine Blower, from the
:00:32. > :00:36.Cabinet, the Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond. Labour's Shadow
:00:37. > :00:41.Business Secretary, John Denham. The former head of the employers'
:00:41. > :00:51.organisation the CBI, Richard Lambert and the Guardian columnist,
:00:51. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:04.APPLAUSE Our first question... Well maybe
:01:04. > :01:09.not such a big surprise. It comes from Hannah Priddey, please. What
:01:09. > :01:12.message are teachers sending to pupils by going on strike? Richard
:01:12. > :01:17.Lambert? The first question is why are they going on strike. That is
:01:17. > :01:21.not the first question, it is what message are teachers sending?
:01:21. > :01:25.tomorrow will be a tough day at school going back after a day out
:01:25. > :01:31.is hard. I think that a lot of kids will just not really understand
:01:31. > :01:34.what it's all about. The issues are complex. I don't think they'll have
:01:34. > :01:38.a clue about what it's all about. Do you think children will go back
:01:38. > :01:41.confused by what has happened? may be that some will. It may be
:01:41. > :01:45.that a lot don't. I think the point is that what we're saying by being
:01:45. > :01:50.on strike today is we have a genuine concern about public
:01:50. > :01:54.service. We know from our polling that if we don't do something about
:01:54. > :01:58.pensions, then quite a lot of young people considering coming into
:01:58. > :02:01.teaching may not come in. Quite a lot of young people currently in
:02:01. > :02:05.teaching may consider leaving a pension scheme, which would be very
:02:05. > :02:09.bad for the pension scheme. Quite a lot of people who are currently in
:02:09. > :02:12.teaching may simply leave teaching. I say that teaching is a fantastic
:02:12. > :02:16.job. Those people who are on strike today will have been teaching their
:02:16. > :02:20.children yesterday. They will be teaching them tomorrow and they
:02:20. > :02:28.work extremely hard. Will they answer questions put by their
:02:28. > :02:34.pupils like you have? I There's an issue about balance. You would not
:02:34. > :02:41.want teachers to be accused of indoctrinating. So it is a biased
:02:41. > :02:44.view? It is an issue about what it is that teachers may reasonable say
:02:44. > :02:48.in terms of the political context. I think it is perfectly reasonable,
:02:48. > :02:54.depending on the age of the children, in the context it is
:02:54. > :02:59.asked afrpbd the appropriateness of the curriculum in which it is being
:02:59. > :03:04.offered for teachers to answer questions. Have you given the NUT
:03:05. > :03:09.guidance? We have not. In terms of the citizenship curriculum, we
:03:10. > :03:12.could take about the role of trade unions and the right to strike.
:03:12. > :03:17.Philip Hammond? And of course everybody recognises the right to
:03:17. > :03:21.strike. I think this action today is premature and will be
:03:21. > :03:24.counterproductive. Diskuegs are still going on. The -- discussions
:03:24. > :03:27.are still going on. The trade unions have said they are
:03:27. > :03:31.productive. They said the Government is engaging with good
:03:31. > :03:37.faith. So long as they go on, we should not see strike action. The
:03:37. > :03:42.problem for teachers, frankly, is a good teacher is a tremendously
:03:42. > :03:46.infor mayive and influential person in a child's live. There is a bond
:03:46. > :03:50.of trust, which I think you recognise is put under strain when
:03:50. > :03:55.the teacher is not there for them. Many millions of families would
:03:55. > :04:00.have had their lives disrupted today, I would say needlessly.
:04:00. > :04:04.person in the black and white striped shirt? The message teachers
:04:04. > :04:08.are sending out to children and the country is as public sector workers
:04:08. > :04:12.they will not let the Government walk over all them and take them
:04:13. > :04:16.for granted by damaging their pensions and when something
:04:16. > :04:21.completely unacceptable like this proposed pension reform and like
:04:21. > :04:28.these proposed terms and conditions is threatening their jobs and
:04:28. > :04:33.livelihoods.... Are you a teacher? I'm not. Why do you think it is so
:04:33. > :04:35.unacceptable? Well, because MPs' pensions, they are looking at
:04:35. > :04:42.getting.... Private sector pensions, the reason they get less is because
:04:42. > :04:46.they are paid more for what they do. The private sector pension pay is
:04:46. > :04:49.better.... Simply not true. It's not true now. I think the message
:04:49. > :04:52.the teachers are sending out is when something like this threatens
:04:53. > :04:56.them and their children and their grandchildren and the children they
:04:56. > :05:02.teach and future generations they do something about it. They don't
:05:02. > :05:05.sit there and let themselves be walked over. They say, "No, we
:05:06. > :05:10.won't accept this." The man in yellow? Everybody is
:05:10. > :05:14.talking about teachers. Why are teachers so special? What about all
:05:15. > :05:18.the other public sector workers? I don't care about teachers. If you
:05:18. > :05:23.look at the public sector and split the private sector separate now,
:05:23. > :05:27.what has caused all this problem to happen? Why are all the public
:05:27. > :05:31.sector workers suffering? High, because of the Government. Why?
:05:31. > :05:37.What did the Government do? They made the banks crash. They didn't
:05:37. > :05:43.regulate the banks. He didn't do anything, the Bank of England
:05:43. > :05:48.governor skham what did he do? People are missing the global
:05:48. > :05:52.picture. All the politicians want to do is line their pockets. Polly
:05:52. > :05:56.Toynbee? I should point out he was not the Governor of the Bank of
:05:56. > :06:00.England. He was on the committee. It has been a successful day. It's
:06:00. > :06:05.a one day of action, one day of protest. It has focused attention
:06:05. > :06:09.on this issue. Suddenly, all over the news, every where else, people
:06:10. > :06:13.are analysing in detail, what is the truth about pensions? It's a
:06:13. > :06:17.hard truth. Two-thirds of people in the private sector get no pension
:06:17. > :06:27.at all. That's the real disgrace. It is not that we should race....
:06:27. > :06:30.
:06:30. > :06:35.APPLAUSE There is a big public, there is a
:06:35. > :06:39.big taxpayer subsidy for private pensions of over �37 billion a year.
:06:39. > :06:45.That goes almost entirely to the top 10% of people in the private
:06:45. > :06:50.sector. Most of the money goes upwards to subsidise people like
:06:50. > :06:56.the FTSE-100 boardrooms, who have enormous pensions. They do. They
:06:56. > :07:02.have an average of �3.4 million. You are reading figures there. You
:07:02. > :07:07.are saying it is subsidised by the taxpayer? Yes, because they get tax
:07:07. > :07:12.relief. I thought the Government tried to abolish it? They cut it
:07:12. > :07:15.down a bit. Dramatically. Dramatically. The biggest amount of
:07:15. > :07:22.public subsidy which goes into private pensions goes to the people
:07:22. > :07:29.in the top echelons. The idea it is only subsidising the
:07:29. > :07:34.public sector. They are subsidising in the private sector the very
:07:34. > :07:40.wealthy. Why this is an issue? It is because people are living longer.
:07:40. > :07:45.People retiring at 60 can expect to live 10 years longer than somebody
:07:45. > :07:51.who retired 30 years ago. There are four things you can do. You with
:07:51. > :07:55.work harder, work longer, pay a greater contribution, accept a
:07:55. > :07:58.smaller pension or rely on the taxpayer. You have to choose one of
:07:58. > :08:03.those four. The private sector.... I am not saying they have done a
:08:03. > :08:07.great job. They have taken three out of the four. What is the
:08:07. > :08:15.argument against the public sector, the workers paying a bit more and
:08:15. > :08:19.working a bit longer to reflect the fact their working lives have
:08:19. > :08:26.changed? As people get older you have to adjust the system. The
:08:26. > :08:31.system is not broke today. John hut hut's report showed the -- Hutton's
:08:31. > :08:35.report showed that the national wealth will fall...: There is an
:08:35. > :08:37.issue about how much the taxpayer has to pay. You have to sit down
:08:37. > :08:43.and negotiate with people how you deal with this. The problem, if you
:08:44. > :08:49.look over the last year, is when Phillip says they negotiate in good
:08:49. > :08:53.faith, they put 3% on to the contribution of every pension
:08:53. > :08:58.member without any negotiation. That is when people had got a pay
:08:58. > :09:06.freeze and inflation is at 3-4%. They cut the rate at which pensions
:09:06. > :09:10.will be updated dramatically, which in the long-term will make a
:09:10. > :09:14.difference to people's.... Without negotiation. The issue is this, I
:09:14. > :09:20.think, going back to the original question.... Sorry, can I interrupt
:09:20. > :09:24.you. The Government's line today seems to be, "We are talking."
:09:24. > :09:28.have done it without negotiation. What are the talks about? There are
:09:28. > :09:33.issues to negotiate, like the shift to what is called career-average
:09:33. > :09:38.pensions, all those issues. These are minor things. The question
:09:38. > :09:42.started off with the strike, David. I actually think the strike was a
:09:42. > :09:45.mistake, because I think children lost a day in school. It was not a
:09:45. > :09:49.day they should have lost. Many parents had to take time off work.
:09:49. > :09:53.I don't think it was justified. There are talks taking place.Vy to
:09:53. > :09:57.got to say, the Government has -- I have got to say, the Government has
:09:57. > :10:03.acted in a way over the past year, in imposing costs and changing
:10:03. > :10:06.systems and making speeches, saying "This is what the outcome will be."
:10:06. > :10:09.It has put a question mark over the credibility of those negotiations.
:10:10. > :10:14.The way to resolve this is to sit down and talk about the future,
:10:14. > :10:19.sensibly. It is not to have strike action that makes children stay at
:10:19. > :10:22.home and parents take days off work. The Government, Phillip, has got to
:10:22. > :10:26.take some responsibility for the way it has handled this over the
:10:26. > :10:33.past year, which is the reason high so many people voted in favour of
:10:34. > :10:40.strike action. Thank you. APPLAUSE
:10:40. > :10:45.Mary Bousted, the leader of the association of teachers and
:10:46. > :10:48.lecturers, said Ed Miliband's response to this was a disgrace. Do
:10:48. > :10:54.you think Ed Miliband was a disgrace today? It would have been
:10:54. > :10:57.nice if he felt he could have supported what we are doing....
:10:57. > :11:01.APPLAUSE The fact is that John Denham is right. Much of this has
:11:01. > :11:04.been imposed by teachers, without negotiation. When we say there is
:11:04. > :11:10.talks going on, it is true that the Government is talking, but it is
:11:10. > :11:13.not actually listening. APPLAUSE One of the issues we have, is as
:11:13. > :11:19.John Denham has just said, they have changed the rate, they have
:11:19. > :11:22.said, we want �2.8 billion, not in relation to, for example, the
:11:22. > :11:32.valuation of the teachers' pension scheme, because it has not been
:11:32. > :11:34.
:11:34. > :11:39.done. Any of you who listened to Adam Boulton, you would have heard
:11:39. > :11:43.this is about a different scheme. The fact is in 2007, we put in
:11:43. > :11:47.place arrangements for cap and share, so if.... You may lose
:11:47. > :11:53.people on this. I don't mean the argument, but I mean the
:11:53. > :11:56.technicalities of pensions. Because the arrangements were put in 2007,
:11:56. > :12:01.the teachers have to pay more, because the valuation has been done,
:12:01. > :12:05.they will pay it. We have not had that done. A lot of hands up. We
:12:05. > :12:08.have heard a lot of argument on the side of the teachers and on the
:12:08. > :12:14.side of the strike. I want to hear from somebody who takes the other
:12:14. > :12:19.view, that is to say about the private sector, a lot of hands go
:12:19. > :12:23.down now. The private sector by comparison. The man in the back.
:12:23. > :12:28.think the public sector workers today went on strike should take a
:12:28. > :12:32.few moments to think about the 15,000 people at Lloyds TSB today,
:12:32. > :12:36.who were made redundant and worry less about the perks of their job
:12:36. > :12:41.and take some time to worry about the people who'll have problems
:12:41. > :12:46.putting food on the table next month. Do you think that the public
:12:46. > :12:51.sector are cushions in terms of their pensions - with the taxpayer
:12:51. > :12:57.making up the balance? I think in times of austerity, it is important
:12:57. > :13:00.we take time to reflex and -- reflect and think about what we are
:13:00. > :13:05.doing to overcome these problems. If that means a large amount of
:13:05. > :13:09.society have got to make some sacrifices in their pensions, then
:13:09. > :13:13.what is a justifiable cost. You, Sir? It should be recognised that
:13:13. > :13:18.pensions in this country are not generous in comparison to Germany,
:13:18. > :13:23.pensions in this country are miserable. Typically in Germany, I
:13:23. > :13:26.know that, for instance, academics will retire on 80% of their salary.
:13:26. > :13:31.It is an entirely different ball game. We have to recognise this
:13:31. > :13:36.country has been far worse run for 20 years than Germany was.
:13:36. > :13:39.The problem, the real problem, as Polly Toynbee has said, is actually
:13:39. > :13:43.that the private sector has withdrawn these pension schemes.
:13:43. > :13:46.This is a disaster for the country, because these people when they
:13:46. > :13:51.retire, they have to have a reasonable standard of living. The
:13:51. > :13:56.fact that teachers and other people working in the public sector do
:13:56. > :14:06.have some reasonable pension to look forward to is a good thing.
:14:06. > :14:07.
:14:07. > :14:14.Two wrongs do not make a right. Should the private sector be doing
:14:14. > :14:20.more? It is not an excuse, it is a fact. If people are living much
:14:20. > :14:25.longer, defined benefit schemes - which I was fortunate enough to
:14:25. > :14:32.have - are not affordable and that is why in the private sector, where
:14:32. > :14:42.there are 23 million workers, there's one million with schemes
:14:42. > :14:48.
:14:48. > :14:54.that are as good as the public should be taken into consideration.
:14:54. > :15:00.sight of the porpbtd thing here. The Government is committed to high
:15:00. > :15:04.The Government is committed to high quality public sector pensions.
:15:04. > :15:09.They will still by some very considerable margin be among the
:15:09. > :15:13.best pensions available anywhere in this country. A teacher retiring on
:15:13. > :15:17.a salary of �32,000, to buy an equivalent pension to the pension
:15:17. > :15:21.that they will get in the teaching profession would need a �500,000
:15:21. > :15:24.pension pot if they worked in the private sector. There are very few
:15:24. > :15:29.people that have pension pots on that scale. So we are not talking
:15:29. > :15:33.about a race to the bottom. We are talking about necessary action now
:15:33. > :15:37.to be able to protect these very good quality pensions that we want
:15:37. > :15:41.to see remaining in the public sector because we understand that
:15:41. > :15:47.public sector workers regard their pensions as a very important part
:15:47. > :15:50.of... Hold on. You are right in terms of what we need to do to
:15:51. > :15:55.solve this problem. There are four things we can do. The fact remains
:15:55. > :15:59.that when these pensions were devised the cost of providing these
:15:59. > :16:03.was a lot less due to the fact that people are living a lot longer,
:16:03. > :16:08.inflation is higher. The value of those pensions has risen
:16:08. > :16:12.dramatically and the taxpayer is left to foot the cost. One of the
:16:12. > :16:18.points that I made earlier was that the taxpayer is not left to foot
:16:18. > :16:21.the cost. Public sector workers are taxpayers themselves. The fact is
:16:21. > :16:25.that the cost of public sector pensions is set to fall and the
:16:25. > :16:28.other thing is that younger teachers in teaching have a
:16:28. > :16:31.retirement age of 65. We have already dealt with the fact that
:16:31. > :16:36.people are living a bit longer by saying the retirement age will go
:16:36. > :16:40.up. When I came into teaching, the retirement age was 60. We have
:16:40. > :16:44.begun to address the issues. might have to pay an extra 3%. It
:16:44. > :16:49.is still a tiny fraction of the overall cost of providing these
:16:49. > :16:57.benefits? It is not a tiny amount. What it is is a 50% increase and
:16:57. > :17:01.you will find... Employers provide 14%? We do. The fact is there are
:17:01. > :17:10.plenty of young teachers who would not be able to find that omit of
:17:10. > :17:14.money. The 3% is a -- that amount of money. The 3% is not a figure
:17:14. > :17:22.based on calculations of the scheme. So if the Government came to us and
:17:22. > :17:27.said, "We value waited the scheme, this is what you will have to --
:17:27. > :17:35.valuated the scheme, this is what you will have to pay." You are a
:17:35. > :17:40.target? That is the case. It is �2.8 billion... You have not
:17:40. > :17:46.presented this as to do with their pension, you are saying 3% across-
:17:46. > :17:49.the-board? Christine is making the assertion again that the percentage
:17:50. > :17:53.of GDP taken by public sector pensions is going to fall. Those
:17:53. > :17:58.figures are based on the assumption that some of these measures we are
:17:58. > :18:04.proposing have already been taken. So we need to take these measures
:18:04. > :18:10.to achieve those figures. What you need to do is sit down and sort
:18:10. > :18:16.this out in a proper negotiation. That is what we are doing. It would
:18:16. > :18:20.have been a lot better if a number of things hadn't happened
:18:20. > :18:24.strike! If you hadn't... Only three unions are striking today. All the
:18:24. > :18:29.others are still talking to the Government. I think today's action
:18:29. > :18:34.was a mistake. However, you have got to bear responsibility for some
:18:34. > :18:38.of the things that the Government have done. We negotiated changes to
:18:38. > :18:43.the schemes that saved �1 billion in the last year. More needs to be
:18:43. > :18:48.done as John Hutton's report showed. The answer though is to negotiate
:18:48. > :18:53.seriously and get an agreement. Do please stop setting everything up
:18:53. > :19:03.as let's get everybody in the private sector resenting everybody
:19:03. > :19:05.
:19:05. > :19:09.in the public sector... APPLAUSE A bit more on to the politics of this.
:19:09. > :19:14.James Laurenson? Ed Miliband says that public sector strikes are a
:19:14. > :19:19.mistake. Should the trade unions regret their support for him in the
:19:19. > :19:25.Labour Leadership contest? Yes, well... APPLAUSE John Denham, you
:19:25. > :19:30.said it was a mistake. Ed Miliband got the leadership by virtue of the
:19:30. > :19:34.trade unions. Is it something the trade unions should regret? No, of
:19:34. > :19:38.course not. Why do you think it was a mistake to strike? Because I
:19:38. > :19:44.don't believe that it was justified to make children lose a day of
:19:44. > :19:48.school and to make parents make a day off work. I don't. I will say
:19:49. > :19:55.that clearly. Trade unions that support the Labour Party are none
:19:55. > :19:59.of the unions involved in today's action and what I saw of the
:19:59. > :20:02.opinion polls most of the members of the unions that were on strike
:20:02. > :20:07.today didn't vote for the Labour Party at the last election so this
:20:07. > :20:11.is a Labour Party issue out there today. Unions affiliate to the
:20:11. > :20:15.Labour Party because they believe as a Government we are more likely
:20:15. > :20:21.to deliver good services, create jobs and better working conditions
:20:21. > :20:25.for the sort of people that they represent. They don't affiliate to
:20:25. > :20:30.the Labour Party so the Labour Party is a cheerleader on the side
:20:30. > :20:34.of an industrial dispute. They know very well that in an industrial
:20:34. > :20:38.dispute we will take the side of the public, that we will always say
:20:39. > :20:45.you need to resolve the dispute. You always take the side of the
:20:45. > :20:51.public? Any strike? What does that mean? It means... No strikes? Did
:20:51. > :20:55.you mean to say that? What it means is we, if you look at any
:20:55. > :21:01.industrial dispute, we will always say what is the thing we can best
:21:01. > :21:07.do to help to resolve that dispute and not... Wait, Philip... And not
:21:08. > :21:15.make it worse? It is incredible... Let's have a little economy with
:21:15. > :21:20.words. Let me finish. To be clear... Very brief please? It is very
:21:20. > :21:23.difficult for me to imagine an industrial dispute that would be
:21:23. > :21:27.helped by the Labour Party coming out and saying we support a strike.
:21:27. > :21:33.It is not credible to take 85% of your funding from the trade unions
:21:33. > :21:39.and say that they do not call the shots. If they call the shots...
:21:39. > :21:49.Hang on... APPLAUSE Does Lord Ashcroft call the shots with you
:21:49. > :21:51.
:21:51. > :21:57.given the amount of funding he has given to your party? APPLAUSE It is
:21:57. > :22:02.curious... Individual trade... Sorry, David. It is curious that
:22:02. > :22:05.they are not supporting the strike. You can tell we have got teachers
:22:05. > :22:10.here tonight! It is clear they are not supporting the strike if you
:22:11. > :22:14.say they are in the pockets of the trade unions? The whole country was
:22:14. > :22:20.talking about the strikes today Ed Miliband pitched up to Prime
:22:20. > :22:24.Minister's Questions and he did not mention the action today. Hang on.
:22:24. > :22:27.I don't think strike action is going to help win the argument, it
:22:27. > :22:31.inconveniences the public, strikes must be the very last resort is
:22:32. > :22:38.what he said. What is wrong with that? He didn't say anything
:22:38. > :22:41.yesterday. The man at the very back. I'm slightly confused, John Denham
:22:41. > :22:45.and Ed Miliband seem to want to have it both ways, they are on the
:22:45. > :22:50.side of the people, not on the side of the Government or the unions,
:22:50. > :22:53.where are they? Polly Toynbee? have to remember how important
:22:53. > :22:57.unions turn out to be for the economy. If you look at what's
:22:57. > :23:00.happened in the last 30 years, since unions have lost their power,
:23:00. > :23:05.there's been an extraordinary shift in the distribution of wealth in
:23:05. > :23:09.this country. What's happened is that people in the middle to bottom
:23:09. > :23:14.have lost out hugely in terms of income and in terms of wealth to
:23:14. > :23:17.people at the top. There's been a massive shift. This has been proved
:23:17. > :23:23.on all of the figures that there are available. That is because if
:23:23. > :23:27.there is no power at all with employees, if it is all with
:23:27. > :23:32.employers, the near Liberal experiment is allowed to win, more
:23:32. > :23:36.money is sucked upwards from the bottom. People at the middle and
:23:36. > :23:42.the bottom have hardly made any progress at all. We have had a 34%
:23:42. > :23:48.increase in GDP, the people middle to bottom were almost static. That
:23:48. > :23:55.is what happens when there is no power whatsoever amongst ordinary
:23:55. > :23:59.working people. APPLAUSE Richard Lambert? I think the interesting
:23:59. > :24:04.thing is that unions like UNISON are holding back and they are
:24:04. > :24:09.saying - and they are saying there is still room for negotiation and
:24:09. > :24:13.we are ready to go into battle if we feel the need. That is strongly
:24:13. > :24:19.that that is the right way forward. These are complex issues. It is
:24:19. > :24:23.very important that a fair settlement are arrived at. To do it
:24:23. > :24:30.through head-butting - and it is fun to point our fingers at each
:24:30. > :24:34.other here - but this is serious stuff. Do you agree unions matter?
:24:34. > :24:38.Maybe they will in the future. have seen a big shift of
:24:38. > :24:43.distribution of wealth upwards? have seen a shift of distribution
:24:43. > :24:48.of wealth away from the middle sector. Middle and bottom. Up to a
:24:48. > :24:54.point. Unions also matter - the good news in Birmingham is the
:24:54. > :24:57.investment in the car industry couldn't have happened if it wasn't
:24:57. > :25:02.for the co-operation of the workforce here. The thing that
:25:02. > :25:05.worries about Prime Minister's Question Time is the Prime Minister
:25:05. > :25:08.raised it, but he raised it to score a political point. There are
:25:08. > :25:11.too many people, the Prime Minister, people like yourself who look at
:25:11. > :25:14.industrial disputes not as a problem to be resolved but as a way
:25:14. > :25:19.of trying to score political points off the Labour Party. That is one
:25:19. > :25:24.reason you are not putting the effort you should be into into
:25:24. > :25:32.resolving this matter. They are on strike. We can't discuss... The man
:25:32. > :25:36.in the white shirt? I belong, I was in a non-striking union today. I
:25:36. > :25:41.felt - well, I was supporting what the unions were doing. It is
:25:41. > :25:46.important that you can strike. That is the ultimate thing. I can
:25:46. > :25:54.withdraw my labour if I don't agree with what my employer is doing to
:25:54. > :25:58.me. I don't see how the Government is listening to me, how it is, how
:25:58. > :26:03.I can express myself in any other way when it comes to that point
:26:04. > :26:08.where I need to do that. The man at the back? The public sector
:26:08. > :26:11.pensions are amongst the lowest in the OECD countries. The private
:26:11. > :26:16.sector pensions we should be raising up to that standard.
:26:16. > :26:20.man in the blue shirt? I think it sends to the kids a wonderful
:26:21. > :26:27.message that democracy is alive and well here in Britain. Philip
:26:27. > :26:31.Hammond? Just pick up on the point about the private sector pensions
:26:31. > :26:37.being so bad and that the argument that is used constantly by the
:26:37. > :26:40.Conservative Party about it being unfair to the taxpayer is below -
:26:40. > :26:44.it is the private sector that should make up the pensions?
:26:44. > :26:49.would all like to see good quality pensions being offered much more
:26:49. > :26:54.widely. Richard has made the point that private sector employers have
:26:54. > :26:59.found that as life expectancy increases and the cost of providing
:26:59. > :27:03.good pensions increases, they simply cannot afford to do what the
:27:03. > :27:07.taxpayer has continued to do in the public sector. John Denham spoke
:27:07. > :27:13.just now about the positive engagement of private sector unions
:27:13. > :27:17.in the car industry for example. I 100% endorse that. The trade unions
:27:17. > :27:23.in the private sector in this country have engaged with their
:27:23. > :27:26.employers, have recognised they all operate in a competitive
:27:26. > :27:31.environment, their jobs depend on the employers being competitive and
:27:31. > :27:35.they have improved productivity. In the public sector, the unions have
:27:35. > :27:38.got to recognise the cost pressures and that the cost pressures on the
:27:38. > :27:43.taxpayer are also an issue in trying to keep Britain's economy
:27:43. > :27:47.competitive. We have all got to pull together. OK. Now before we
:27:47. > :27:51.move on, Christine Blower, you haven't answered the question from
:27:51. > :27:55.James Laurenson. Ed Miliband says public sector strikes are a mistake,
:27:55. > :28:03.should the unions regret supporting him for the leadership of the
:28:03. > :28:08.Labour Party. I'm in a position of being a General Secretary of a non-
:28:08. > :28:14.affiliated union. I would like to say that one of the things that we
:28:14. > :28:17.have also done is launch a petition for better pensions in the private
:28:17. > :28:21.sector and the public sector and indeed a better state pension. We
:28:21. > :28:24.were looking across the piece today and we support everybody making
:28:24. > :28:29.sure that we have decent pensions for everybody. Do you think Ed
:28:29. > :28:36.Miliband is the right person to lead the Labour Party? Given that I
:28:36. > :28:39.don't... Given your own individual... I don't feel it is
:28:39. > :28:43.appropriate for me to say who should lead the party to which we
:28:43. > :28:46.are not affiliated. I would very much have preferred though that he
:28:46. > :28:50.had been able to say that there is a question about fairness in public
:28:50. > :28:54.sector unions and a race to the bottom is not the thing to do and
:28:54. > :28:58.what we need to do is pay attention to the fact that the state pension
:28:58. > :29:01.is inadequate and we need also to make sure that private sector
:29:01. > :29:08.pensions are as good as they possibly can be and they are not at
:29:08. > :29:16.the moment. We must move on. These very contentious issues, if you are
:29:16. > :29:21.following us on Twitter, go to: You can text us with comments to 83981,
:29:21. > :29:28.Ceefax Page 155 will show what others are saying and you can see
:29:28. > :29:33.us on the red button. I must plead with our panel, to make sure we
:29:33. > :29:38.keep our remarks fairly concise so we can get through a number of
:29:38. > :29:48.questions. You don't need to blush! I thought you were looking at
:29:48. > :29:50.
:29:50. > :29:57.Philip. I was looking around the Is being able to stab a burglar one
:29:57. > :30:02.step too far? This was the comment made by Ken
:30:02. > :30:08.Clarke, this week. "if an old lady finds an 18-year-old burgling her
:30:08. > :30:14.house, picked up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not
:30:14. > :30:19.committed a criminal offence and we'll make that clear." I don't
:30:19. > :30:24.know how many old ladies pick up knives and stick them into burglars.
:30:24. > :30:29.I am sorry Ken Clarke has been driven off his position. He had a
:30:29. > :30:33.splendid idea for how best to prevent crime. Prisons don't make
:30:33. > :30:38.people better. Labour hugely increased the number of people in
:30:38. > :30:42.prison for no good reason at a time crime was falling. I wish Ken
:30:42. > :30:47.Clarke had stuck to his guns and said, prison is not the place, we
:30:47. > :30:52.want more people out of prison and better, more likely to be
:30:52. > :30:57.rehabilitated in the community. What about.... APPLAUSE
:30:57. > :31:03.What about hitting the burglar with a poker if he's in a house? Being
:31:03. > :31:09.an old lady, if a burglar came in and a burglar came in, you would be
:31:09. > :31:13.likely to hit them. Yes, you would. Is it one step too far? English law,
:31:13. > :31:17.as I understand it, has always allowed a right of self-defence.
:31:17. > :31:21.The trouble is the tests are complicated. What Ken is trying to
:31:21. > :31:26.do and has promised to do is to put a clear framework around the law
:31:26. > :31:29.that we already have. In the heat of the moment, when you find that
:31:29. > :31:34.burglar in your house you don't have time to consult a legal
:31:34. > :31:38.textbook to find out what you can and can't do. If you are genuinely
:31:38. > :31:42.acting in self-defence, you are not committing a crime. That's my
:31:42. > :31:46.understanding of the law. Equally, if the burglar is running away
:31:46. > :31:51.because you have disturbed him and you decide to stab him in the back
:31:51. > :31:56.then you probably are. People need to understand the clear
:31:56. > :32:02.distinctions where they can and can't act. Stabbing somebody with a
:32:02. > :32:09.knife could be quite dangerous. It could be. In the recent incident
:32:09. > :32:12.it has proved to be. You are saying that is fine. I am saying a
:32:13. > :32:16.householder who is genuinely acting in self-defence must have the right
:32:16. > :32:21.so to act. That is what the English law has always said. All Ken is
:32:21. > :32:25.trying to do is clarify it so that people can feel safe in their homes,
:32:25. > :32:30.know when and how they can act without falling on the wrong side
:32:30. > :32:36.of the law. Christine Blower? Clarke has a colourful to explain
:32:36. > :32:41.what he's trying to get across, doesn't he? I agree with Polly that
:32:41. > :32:46.if someone were in the house and someone were seeking to burgle it I
:32:46. > :32:54.would want to protect myself. The graphic description of sticking a
:32:55. > :32:58.knife into an old lady does not help! Not in the old lady in the
:32:58. > :33:03.burglar! That was a graphic way to describe it. The way I understand
:33:03. > :33:07.the common law is that actually you do have the right to, as it were,
:33:07. > :33:11.defend yourself and your property. The difficulty is that if someone
:33:11. > :33:15.is seeking to leave and you stick a knife in them, then that is an
:33:15. > :33:20.offence. I don't think his intervention has made it very much
:33:20. > :33:28.clearer today. I think the idea that we may be opening ourselves up
:33:28. > :33:31.to the sense that it is like being a vigilanty here and everybody
:33:31. > :33:37.needs a baseball bat under their bed in case someone comes to burgle
:33:37. > :33:44.them is not a society I want to be in. I am struggling to see the test
:33:44. > :33:49.of reasonable force and Ken Clarke's pros posed necessary force.
:33:49. > :33:53.It seems there is no real difference and all he's doing is
:33:53. > :33:58.just faking a change in the law, in order to appease the Conservative
:33:58. > :34:04.right. A fake change in the law. APPLAUSE
:34:04. > :34:10.Philip Hammond whisers in my ear that he -- whispers in my ear that
:34:10. > :34:14.he bets you are a lawyer. Is he right? Yes. That is a good point.
:34:14. > :34:18.The reality was that there had been no mention in changing this issue
:34:18. > :34:23.in the last year. A bill was published which had no changes to
:34:23. > :34:26.the law. Where did this come from? It came from Downing Street and Ken
:34:26. > :34:30.Clarke in the last few days. They have got into a terrible mess on
:34:30. > :34:36.their law and order policy. They decided to cut prison places, not
:34:36. > :34:40.by looking at how the law works, but to save money. They would going
:34:40. > :34:44.to have a 50% cut in sentences for rapists. They are cutting police
:34:44. > :34:48.officers. They got into a complete chaos and lack of sense in their
:34:48. > :34:53.law and order strategy. They have produced this out of nowhere, to
:34:53. > :34:58.say we're going to toughen up the law. Of course you are right, the
:34:58. > :35:01.test in law is there, it is reasonableness. What we do and it
:35:01. > :35:05.is not the best way to do it, you put the evidence in front of a
:35:05. > :35:09.judge and a jury. They listen to the circumstances of the individual
:35:09. > :35:14.case and they make their minds up. Nothing that Ken Clarke might do
:35:14. > :35:18.about changing this or that word in the legislation is going to
:35:18. > :35:20.fundamentally alter the way things work. This is a smoke screen for a
:35:20. > :35:23.Government which has lost control of law and order in so many
:35:23. > :35:29.different ways. APPLAUSE
:35:29. > :35:34.The man there. I think that in the Government's haste to save every
:35:34. > :35:37.penny they are undermining the rights of the victims of the crime.
:35:37. > :35:40.Ken Clarke's recent comments cover that up, by saying we are behind
:35:40. > :35:44.the victims you can do what you want to criminal. It is quite a
:35:44. > :35:49.farce. I don't think John was right this
:35:49. > :35:55.was pulled out of the blue. There have been cases of people being
:35:55. > :36:00.arrested for people sticking pokers around the back of burglars' heads.
:36:00. > :36:05.He is right to say, and make it clear, that this doesn't give
:36:05. > :36:13.vigilante permission - it does not allow you to bash them. It does not
:36:13. > :36:18.allow you to shoot them in the back of the head as they run out.
:36:18. > :36:28.Claefrbg -- Clarke has a powerful - - has a colourful way to describe
:36:28. > :36:28.
:36:28. > :36:32.The man in the shirt there. lady in orange...: Polly Toynbee.
:36:32. > :36:36.Sort of orange. That prisons don't work and we should rehabilitate
:36:36. > :36:42.them in the community. What does work is having them locked up and
:36:42. > :36:46.having them off the streets. It is safer than not having them on the
:36:46. > :36:49.streets. Lock them up really. man there in the stripped shirt.
:36:50. > :36:55.don't think we should be worrying about whether we're actually in the
:36:55. > :36:58.right or in the wrong when we've got people breaking into our houses.
:36:58. > :37:04.They should be deciding themselves whether it is right or wrong to
:37:04. > :37:12.break into our houses. The old lady with the knife may concentrate the
:37:12. > :37:16.mind. Exactly. This one now from Roshni Barot. After the recent
:37:16. > :37:19.attack on a well defended hotel in Kabul, is it too early to think
:37:19. > :37:23.about pulling troops out of Afghanistan?
:37:23. > :37:27.We had the British Government's plans for withdrawing troops and
:37:27. > :37:31.then this attack on the hotel, a number of people killed. Suicide
:37:31. > :37:38.bombers, gunmen, all the rest of it. Is it too soon to think about
:37:38. > :37:40.pulling troops out, as a result of pulling troops out, as a result of
:37:40. > :37:45.that? I think we have to recognise that ultimatdly we're not going to
:37:45. > :37:48.stop ef -- ultimately we're not going to stop every attack or
:37:48. > :37:54.atrocity through the military presence. The challenge is, as it
:37:54. > :37:58.has been for some time, to actually have an orderly transfer of power
:37:58. > :38:03.to the Afghan people, to engage politically where we can, with at
:38:03. > :38:07.least some of those who we have been fighting. Who will be part of
:38:07. > :38:13.the future of Afghanistan after we have gone. I don't think actually
:38:13. > :38:18.that strategy can be blown off track entirely by events as
:38:18. > :38:22.horrible as horrific or as frightening as we saw last week.
:38:22. > :38:28.Actually, I think the track on which there is broad cross-party
:38:28. > :38:33.support in this country is still the right one. It does focus every
:38:33. > :38:40.body's mind on the scale of the -- everybody's mind on the scale of
:38:40. > :38:45.the challenge that is there. Roshni Barot, do you agree? I believe
:38:45. > :38:49.there needs to be a strategy in place. It is too early to think
:38:49. > :38:54.about withdrawing troops, just because if a hotel of that size and
:38:54. > :38:58.its security can be breached, then surely there's going to be lots of
:38:58. > :39:03.other issues that, it's too early to withdraw people. I think it's
:39:03. > :39:07.not too soon to be thinking about an orderly withdrawal. I think the
:39:07. > :39:17.purpose of our mission there is getting increasingly unclear to me
:39:17. > :39:17.
:39:17. > :39:21.and I think to lots of people.... APPLAUSE
:39:22. > :39:28.British soldiers are still getting killed and we must all grieve for
:39:28. > :39:31.that. I think that on a mission that has gone on so long, and has
:39:31. > :39:35.such uncertain policies and such uncertain outcomes, the sooner we
:39:35. > :39:42.can get plans in shape for a proper withdrawal over a sensible period
:39:42. > :39:45.of time, the better. I go back to the questioner again. I completely
:39:45. > :39:51.agree with that, but at the same time all those soldiers who have
:39:51. > :39:56.gone out there, surely we owe it to them to finish a job they have
:39:56. > :40:01.started, or else aren't their lives lost in vain? We have 10,000 troops
:40:01. > :40:06.there. The Americans have 100,000 troops there. Still this terrible
:40:06. > :40:10.security breach occurred. The mission is clear, we need to pursue
:40:10. > :40:14.a political strategy in Afghanistan. We need to train and equip the
:40:14. > :40:18.Afghan Army and police. We, the Brits, are doing a great job in
:40:18. > :40:22.training the Afghan police., so that they can take over
:40:22. > :40:25.responsibility for their country. Not overnight, but over a sensible
:40:25. > :40:30.period of time. If you get a setback like this, right in the
:40:30. > :40:34.middle of Kabul, a hotel blown up and people, many people killed.
:40:34. > :40:39.agree with John. We mustn't be deflected from our clear strategy
:40:39. > :40:43.by these kind of events. They will occur. If you remember, as the
:40:43. > :40:49.Americans were reducing their presence on the streets in Iraq,
:40:49. > :40:53.there was a period when there were terrible -- was a terrible sequence
:40:53. > :40:57.of atrocities, day after day, after day. Eventually the Iraqi forces
:40:57. > :41:01.have got it under control. Are you saying if there is chaos on the
:41:01. > :41:05.streets of Kabul, then the withdrawal would be slowed down or
:41:05. > :41:09.halted? That you are looking to see improvements, as you bring the
:41:09. > :41:17.troops out? This is a programme over a period of time and this is a
:41:17. > :41:23.setback, of course, but I don't think... If you have setback after
:41:23. > :41:28.setback, would you change? There is a commitment to withdrawal troops
:41:28. > :41:33.over a period of time. Would you stop it if you found the damage was
:41:33. > :41:38.so great? You would stop it. With 100,000 American troops and other
:41:38. > :41:42.troops there, we are not able to stop this kind of tragedy occurring,
:41:42. > :41:45.is simply freezing up and saying, we're not moving anywhere, we are
:41:45. > :41:53.going to carry on doing what we are doing now, will that solve the
:41:53. > :41:56.problem? Because we have invested so much we
:41:56. > :42:01.should carry on. When you talk about orderly withdrawal and you
:42:01. > :42:05.say we have to do knit a dignified way, all we are doing is trying to
:42:05. > :42:09.save our faces. We are trying to train the Afghans. That is what
:42:09. > :42:15.we're trying to do. How long? your view we are pulling out
:42:15. > :42:19.regardless? I think we should get out soon. The last time I was there,
:42:19. > :42:24.the British ambassador who was there, he now, he, having supported
:42:24. > :42:27.the war before, now says we should go. He's the man who really knows.
:42:27. > :42:32.He's been there a long time. He knows the place well. He is saying
:42:32. > :42:36.it is time to go. I don't think because a lot of our brave soldiers
:42:37. > :42:41.have died that is a reason why more should die in order that we can
:42:41. > :42:44.keep a little dignity by going gradually. It's about keeping
:42:44. > :42:47.Britain safe. APPLAUSE
:42:47. > :42:50.Part of what we're doing in Afghanistan, remember, is very much
:42:50. > :42:55.in our own national interest. Afghanistan is still the
:42:55. > :42:58.headquarters of what is still a very potent global terrorist
:42:58. > :43:03.organisation. If we don't deal with them there, we will be dealing with
:43:03. > :43:07.them here. We need to talk with the Taliban. That's the only answer, a
:43:07. > :43:11.political solution. We may not like it much but it's the way. History
:43:11. > :43:16.proves we should never have gone in. We tried it 100 years ago, we
:43:16. > :43:20.failed T Russians 20 years ago. They failed. We should get out as
:43:20. > :43:22.soon as possible. No more British soldiers should die there. We
:43:22. > :43:27.should not be there in the first place.
:43:27. > :43:30.APPLAUSE Ten years ago we went into
:43:30. > :43:33.Afghanistan as a peace mission. I can distinctly remember that. It
:43:33. > :43:38.was distinctly said it was going to be a peace mission. There was not
:43:38. > :43:42.going to be any aGreg. It seems like Afghanistan is like Iraq. We
:43:42. > :43:46.have been misled again. What is your view of the question
:43:46. > :43:56.that was put, that if you've got things still going on in Kabul,
:43:56. > :43:59.
:43:59. > :44:04.you've got this hotel blown up, it Christine Blower? We should pull
:44:04. > :44:08.out as quickly as we possibly can. This awful thing has happened while
:44:08. > :44:12.there are 10,000 British troops there. I don't accept the argument
:44:12. > :44:17.that because British troops have died and it is regrettable that
:44:17. > :44:23.they have that we somehow must stay there and "finish" the job. It is
:44:23. > :44:27.not any longer clear what "finishing the job" means. An
:44:27. > :44:31.orderly withdrawal in the shortest time possible is what I think is
:44:31. > :44:35.appropriate. The woman on the left? I'm in agreement with the gentleman
:44:35. > :44:38.at the back, this is a classic case of "mission creep" and political
:44:38. > :44:41.fudge. We didn't know what your strategy was when our brave
:44:41. > :44:46.soldiers went into Afghanistan in the first place and they certainly
:44:46. > :44:49.the didn't know if you have been watching the programmes on the
:44:49. > :44:53.television recently. America has just, President Obama has said that
:44:53. > :44:57.they are going to withdraw their troops. This is the first time that
:44:57. > :45:04.we could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our American allies and make
:45:04. > :45:09.exactly the same announcement. APPLAUSE The woman up there? If you
:45:09. > :45:13.reach negotiated settlement with the Taliban, and then as happened
:45:13. > :45:17.in Northern Ireland, it is not working, do you go back in? Should
:45:18. > :45:22.you not stay and sort it out once and for all? Or do you come out
:45:22. > :45:26.hoping you won't have to go back in? Philip Hammond? We are trying
:45:26. > :45:31.to leave behind a stable, civil government in Afghanistan with
:45:31. > :45:35.forces that can keep order in the country. She is saying if you don't
:45:35. > :45:38.get that? The political deal that is done can be made to stick. I
:45:38. > :45:43.would like to come back to the point I made before. We are talking
:45:43. > :45:47.about this as if it is some foreign adventure for its own sake. We are
:45:47. > :45:51.in Afghanistan because emanating from Afghanistan is a very real
:45:51. > :45:56.threat to the west and to the UK and the US in particular. If we
:45:56. > :46:05.were to pull out tomorrow, I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda would be
:46:05. > :46:11.able to reorganise and launch further attacks on the West Do you
:46:11. > :46:15.have a Plan B if you come out and Plan A doesn't work? The Irish
:46:15. > :46:19.police got a 500-pound bomb. Northern Ireland is supposed to be
:46:19. > :46:24.sorted and calm and peaceful. We are a good way down the road and it
:46:24. > :46:28.is not. It is not as bothersome as it was. What happens? Are you
:46:28. > :46:33.prepared to go back into Afghanistan?
:46:33. > :46:38.John Denham? We cannot say, as you ask us to, yes, we will always go
:46:38. > :46:44.in every where and sort it out. "sorting it out" is enormously
:46:44. > :46:47.difficult. What we must not forget is that Afghanistan was the place
:46:47. > :46:52.where with total freedom Al-Qaeda was able to plan the attacks on the
:46:52. > :46:57.United States of America. I just think it is inconceivable that the
:46:57. > :47:01.world could watch the attack on the Twin Towers and say, "We will do
:47:01. > :47:06.nothing about where the place that Al-Qaeda operated from" and the
:47:06. > :47:11.soldiers that have been talked of have enabled this country to make
:47:11. > :47:14.that difference. We owe it to them now to move on because that was ten
:47:14. > :47:20.years ago. Nobody should say we should never have gone in there in
:47:20. > :47:26.the first place. How then would we Qaeda? Let's go on to another
:47:26. > :47:30.question. We have ten minutes left. Lucy Bellingham? Does the visit of
:47:30. > :47:33.the Chinese Prime Minister this week mean we are prepared to ignore
:47:33. > :47:38.China's human rights issues? Does the visit of the Chinese Prime
:47:38. > :47:42.Minister who landed here in Birmingham and went to Longbridge
:47:42. > :47:48.to the plant that builds MGs which are made here, does this visit mean
:47:48. > :47:53.we are prepared to ignore China's human rights issues? Christine
:47:53. > :47:58.Blower? I'm not. Human rights is a very significant issue for us. We
:47:58. > :48:02.genuinely believe that it is important that we engage
:48:02. > :48:06.constructively with other countries but also engaging constructively
:48:06. > :48:12.means if there are human rights abuses, you have to draw them to
:48:12. > :48:16.the attention of that leader. you do a trade agreement of �1.4
:48:16. > :48:21.billion with a clear conscience? is hard for me to see how you would
:48:21. > :48:26.do that if you were not making very clear statements about what it is
:48:26. > :48:31.to have a free society. So you don't ignore but you don't allow it
:48:31. > :48:34.to change your behaviour? What I am saying is that it has to be a
:48:34. > :48:38.precursor that we understand what human rights would look like in
:48:39. > :48:43.China and we press them to do something about it. You went with
:48:44. > :48:49.David Cameron to China, Richard Lambert? Yes. What is your view?
:48:49. > :48:53.think the question is the wrong way round, the question is are we
:48:53. > :49:00.places too much emphasis on human rights with our discussions with
:49:00. > :49:05.the Chinese? When Premier Wen was here he was visibly furious at the
:49:05. > :49:09.Prime Minister's approach on these issues. He made a point of signing
:49:09. > :49:13.quite small contracts here and buzzing off to Germany and signing
:49:13. > :49:17.contracts which were ten times the value which has implications for
:49:17. > :49:21.British jobs. Are you saying that the Chinese Prime Minister
:49:21. > :49:26.deliberately refused to sign trade deals with us which he was prepared
:49:26. > :49:29.to sign with Germany because Chancellor Merkel kept her mouth
:49:29. > :49:34.shut? More or less. The deals that were done here were modest, the
:49:34. > :49:39.deals that were done in Germany were substantial. What kind of
:49:39. > :49:43.deals are they? They own Longbridge? In Germany they were
:49:43. > :49:46.big investments in green technologies. I think, just to
:49:46. > :49:50.correct a misunderstanding, I think that the Prime Minister was right
:49:50. > :49:54.to express his views forcefully on human rights. He was right to do
:49:54. > :49:59.that. I don't think we should say that he didn't. The consequences
:49:59. > :50:03.are that in his parting press conference the Chinese Premier
:50:03. > :50:08.spoke very... I thought you began by saying we make too much of human
:50:08. > :50:13.rights and we lose trade as a result. Isn't that what he said?
:50:13. > :50:16.What I was saying is in this visit, this week, the issue was that the
:50:16. > :50:19.Chinese were very upset about the position we took on human rights
:50:19. > :50:23.which I think the Prime Minister was right to take but it was not
:50:23. > :50:27.cost-free and it was not the case that had he taken a different view
:50:27. > :50:31.the outcomes would have been different. Polly Toynbee? We always
:50:31. > :50:35.have to say the right thing about human rights knowing it will have
:50:35. > :50:40.very little effect, except perhaps bad effect on our trading
:50:40. > :50:46.relationships. We have to try, but we also have to know that in our
:50:46. > :50:50.dealings around the world we are always going to be hypocritical. If
:50:50. > :50:55.we went about invading every country whose human rights were
:50:55. > :50:59.being abused, we would be at war everywhere. We can't do that. We
:50:59. > :51:03.know we always have to be contained by what is possible. I think it is
:51:03. > :51:08.right that we should stand up to China rather than simply say we are
:51:08. > :51:12.open for business never mind the consequences. But we should be
:51:12. > :51:17.aware that we are never going to be all that honest. We can't be that
:51:18. > :51:22.honest. The woman in the centre? Richard said the Prime Minister did
:51:22. > :51:26.express his views quite forcefully. The most forcible ways would be to
:51:26. > :51:29.refuse to trade with China. If you strip it down, by trading with a
:51:30. > :51:34.country that has such bad human rights abuses we are funding those
:51:34. > :51:39.abuses and a government that has no regard for the rights of its people.
:51:39. > :51:47.Would you stop all imports from China? What would you do about
:51:47. > :51:52.Longbridge? I think really there's too much emphasis placed on
:51:52. > :51:57.international trade and I know it is important because we should be
:51:57. > :52:04.looking more at how we can increase trade within our economy? The lady
:52:04. > :52:08.is deluding herself if she thinks we are funding China. APPLAUSE
:52:08. > :52:12.idea we are funding China, the truth is that China is funding much
:52:12. > :52:16.of the West and most of the American deficit. This is going to
:52:16. > :52:20.be very shortly the world's biggest economy. The idea that we should
:52:21. > :52:25.deal with it by turning our back on it and somehow that will make the
:52:25. > :52:29.human rights problem better is ludicrous. We will see change in
:52:29. > :52:34.China as China gets richer, more engaged with the rest of the world
:52:34. > :52:38.and what David Cameron was saying on Monday, alongside economic
:52:38. > :52:41.development must go political and social development and it is a
:52:41. > :52:46.careful balancing act to engage with China to trade with China for
:52:46. > :52:49.the good of our own economy as well as to improve human rights in China
:52:50. > :52:54.but all the while making the point that China has to develop
:52:54. > :52:57.politically and socially. The woman there? I agree China will be the
:52:57. > :53:02.biggest economy in the future. We can't ignore the human rights
:53:02. > :53:07.issues. If... I didn't say we should ignore them. Shouldn't we
:53:07. > :53:10.liaise with our allies and make it an international problem rather
:53:10. > :53:13.than standing on our own two feet? It has to be something that the
:53:13. > :53:18.West and the rest of the world stand up against China. If they are
:53:18. > :53:25.going to rule the world, we continue ignore the human rights
:53:25. > :53:30.abuses? What do you think? If you think that you can simply trade
:53:30. > :53:35.with countries that don't have human right issues, if Gaddafi had
:53:35. > :53:39.a �1.4 trillion contract, would you be trading with him? We trade with
:53:39. > :53:43.lots of countries with whom we have very serious human rights issues. I
:53:43. > :53:47.think the point I'm making is that we need the way to get change in
:53:47. > :53:53.China will be to draw China more effectively into the world system,
:53:53. > :53:56.to engage with it and to continue to make our point as - Richard is
:53:56. > :54:01.right. David Cameron made the point quite forcefully on Monday and the
:54:01. > :54:04.Chinese were quite offended by it. I think David Cameron got the
:54:04. > :54:08.balance right. We are engaging with China but we have shown them that
:54:08. > :54:12.we will not stop making the point about human rights. That is the
:54:12. > :54:20.right way to do it. We invade some countries because of human rights
:54:20. > :54:23.issues - Libya for example. What do you make of this question? I don't
:54:24. > :54:27.think we have invaded Libya but we did intervene because there was
:54:27. > :54:32.about to be a genocide in the east of that country and yes, there have
:54:32. > :54:37.been circumstances where you take action to save mass slaughter. On
:54:37. > :54:41.China, I think the history of this country over the last 20 years has
:54:41. > :54:48.been pretty good and consistent. We have done two things. We have
:54:48. > :54:52.consistently argued about trying to bring the Chinese economy and the
:54:52. > :54:55.Chinese country into the world system whether it is with
:54:55. > :55:00.international institutions, the World Trade Organisation. We have
:55:00. > :55:04.said better to have a country that big and powerful as a fully-fledged
:55:04. > :55:08.global nation and secondly, we have consistently argued often more
:55:08. > :55:13.strongly an more sharply than other countries about human rights. I
:55:13. > :55:17.think we should pursue both of those strategies. We cannot ignore
:55:17. > :55:21.human rights nor can we ignore the size of the China economy. Nor
:55:21. > :55:25.would we be better off if a country that size with that power were
:55:25. > :55:30.outside the world system not participating and not engaging.
:55:30. > :55:35.wouldn't be in any position to stop them doing because they are so
:55:35. > :55:39.powerful? Bringing the Chinese nation, huge nation with its vast
:55:39. > :55:45.potential into the world system, which it wasn't 20 years ago, it
:55:45. > :55:49.was very much an outcast nation, is better for the world because it
:55:49. > :55:53.encourages that country to engage... My point is could you have kept
:55:53. > :55:57.them out? With the industry and the growth in China, are you saying
:55:57. > :56:02.there was a possibility China could have been side-lined? I don't think
:56:02. > :56:06.- it is a different point. It is a China that was economically
:56:06. > :56:09.powerful but not taking part with all the responsibilities as a full
:56:09. > :56:13.world nation with everything that that means they have to sign up to
:56:13. > :56:21.would have been more difficult for the world than a China where we
:56:21. > :56:27.have got with their relationship now. The man at the back? I don't
:56:27. > :56:31.think anybody is trivialising the human rights issues. We do have to
:56:31. > :56:35.make some concession in that area if we do want to keep living the
:56:35. > :56:41.standard of living that we do at the moment. Do you think the
:56:41. > :56:48.Government has got it right? think there has to be concessions.
:56:48. > :56:52.If the deal is done in Germany and it's on a scale that has been
:56:52. > :56:57.suggested, given the state our economy is in, possibly we did take
:56:57. > :57:00.the wrong line. Polly Toynbee? think we did take the right line.
:57:01. > :57:10.We are always in danger of deluding ourselves about who we are and how
:57:11. > :57:11.
:57:11. > :57:18.powerful we are and we have yet to recognise that. APPLAUSE One more
:57:18. > :57:25.from the man two along? What are we trying to say? Is it because China
:57:25. > :57:28.has this money that this Government would like to have the human rights
:57:28. > :57:32.can wait for a little longer while if we deal with another country
:57:32. > :57:36.that is not as rich as China, you would be hard on them. Is that what
:57:36. > :57:39.you are trying to say? There is no shortage of places in the world
:57:39. > :57:43.where there are human rights difficulties. It is incumbent upon
:57:43. > :57:47.us to say that it is important that human rights are important. I for
:57:47. > :57:49.one would like us to be saying a lot more about human rights in
:57:49. > :57:55.Colombia where to be a trade Unionist is a difficult and
:57:55. > :57:59.dangerous thing. We have to stop. Our time is up. We were going to be
:58:00. > :58:07.in Londonderry tonight but we are now going to be there on 15th
:58:07. > :58:14.September. Next week, the last of the series, we will be in
:58:14. > :58:21.Basingstoke. If you want to come to Basingstoke next week, or to
:58:21. > :58:23.Londonderry on 15th September, this is the number to call: Or go to