20/10/2011 Question Time

Tonight we are in Glasgow at the University of Strathclyde. Welcome

to question final. -- to Question Time. With me tonight, the

Government's Deputy Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael. Margaret

Curran, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. The film star

and actor, Brian Cox. The Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The Scottish Education Secretary, Michael Russell. The Daily

Telegraph columnist, Cristina Odone. APPLAUSE

Just before we start, I should say we have six panellists and an

audience with a lot of questions, so I ask everybody to be succint if

they can be toe fight. For fear of terrible punishment! The first

question from Emma Fleming. Were we right in interfering in the

political affairs of Libya? Michael Russell? The UN resolution and it's

appropriate for countries who support the United Nations and to

see them enacted. The important thing is what happens next. Today,

the man who lived by the sword died by the sword. What we have to do

now is make sure the country has a fair opportunity to make sure the

people get what they want. I hope it will get a great deal of support

and not meddling. Cristina Odone? Yes. It was absolutely essential

for us to intervene and I always remember, it was the first time

that the social networks brought news to us that we otherwise

wouldn't have had, of people saying, please, please, come and save us

from this man. We can't do it on our own. Yes, the resolution was

important, because we didn't want to do an Iraqi-style intervention,

but I'm very proud of this Government for having gone in there,

because a bad man has come to a bad end.

APPLAUSE Brian Cox? Yes, unlike Iraq, it was

the right thing to do and it was done in the right way. In what was

was it the right way? Because it was done through the proper

channels, which clearly Iraq wasn't. I think they learnt the lesson of

Iraq, because actually it has come to great fruition. Do you think

that there are dangers ahead, Jacob Rees-Mogg and in that sense were we

wise to go in, in the first place? I thought I would answer the first

question first. I think the gentleman is right. We were right

it was striking leadership of David Cameron to do it and it was done

legally, which is crucial. I don't want us to become the world

policeman, so the fact we have been right once and it has worked and

Gaddafi has gone is all good news, but we don't want to do this on a

regular basis. Margaret Curran? Well, can I say in response to

Emma's question who is a young lady, I believe, that I agree with other

panel members. It seems to me that this is a momentous day in Libyan

history and perhaps Middle Eastern world history. We should remember

the victims of the Gaddafi regime and of course I think take one

moment to pay tribute to the servicemen and women who were part

of this, who undoubtedly there would have been slaughter in

Benghazi had they not acted. I do think that there are lessons here

for us to learn and we now need to think about the future of Libya.

There's a debate to be had about being the world's police officer,

but we have to recognise particularly with the Arab Spring

there is a place for international solidarity and to help people

develop a strong Libya that is democratic. Is there a place for us

to do something in Syria? We would need to have a world discussion

about that. The thing that happened in Libya was the fact we had the UN

resolution, 1973, and we had the Arab League supporting it also and

that is very important. Syria is desperate too. We have to

understand that. I think, as Jacob says, we don't want to get in the

situation where we are the world's police officer, but we have to

remember that there are peoples in Syria and gemen as well and should

we now turn there -- Yemen as well and should we now turn there to

intervene? I think the question about being the world's police

officer is a distraction from the main issue. Yes, we were obviously

right to go in there. To intervene in the way that we did, because

remember what the consequences would have been had we failed to do

so. Gaddafi had said that anybody who opposed him would be hunted

down like rats. We know that he would have done it, because he had

done it to his own people for decades. The important thing,

though, is the way in which we did it. It was done with all the proper

authority of the UN resolution and I think that the long-term solution,

the point at which we have seen the turning now, is that from here on

in we have been seen as being a country which will respect the rule

of law and not flaunt it, as was done when we invaded Iraq. If we

had managed to get a UN resolution on Iraq clearly it would have been

the right thing to do? If we had got the resolution, would you -- I

be in favour? You are hedging your bets. No, you said the difference

$here that we had backing from the UN and NATO. We were never going to

get it because the basis on which the UN mandate on Iraq was being

sought was an unfounded one. There is another judgment about whether

it is something you can achieve or get international backing also?

Which is why the authority is only the first step. I think we have to

remember, as the UN Secretary- General said earlier, that this is

not the end. It's a new beginning for many of the Libyan people. We

have had the suggestion that democratic elections will take

place in two years and if we have taken the step to intervene we need

to see that to the conclusion and ensure that stability and democracy

are implemented. You think we should be staying there? In the

short-term, yes. Apart from going into Iraq, we had no plan and no

ability to support. Making it up as we went along. What needs to happen

in the circumstances is the positive help for the provisional

government so there can be elections, but not meddling.

Support, not meddling. You don't think we should have people on the

ground. I don't think we should have the type of people on the

ground that we had in Iraq, because it didn't work out. To be honest,

I'm specifically talking about enemies, why don't we use people

like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. If we start using our soft power in

those countries people would rise more and solve their problems. We

won't need to go for the military solution. I think we have to be

very careful in our dealings with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They are

very important allies to us, that the oil that comes from Saudi

Arabia is essential to the British economy. Why don't we use the soft

powers for the allies, rather than interfering in other countries, and

you can't predict it, but there could be some kind of soft power

and some stand. In Bahrain protesters were being killed.

soft power, you can persuade your allies? Absolutely. We should

persuade the allies. I think you have to be very cautious about how

you interfere in the affairs of other sovereign states, because you

can make it worse. You can say we think it would be a good idea and

that can lead to opposition to it purely because it is you who are

saying it. We ran an empire in the past. We can't get back into that

business. I think it was the right thing to intervene in inia, but we

have to remember that a lot of people around -- in Libya, but we

have to remember that a lot of people around the establishment

were pro-Gaddafi for the years when we had reliable oil supplies,

despite the fact he was supporting international terrorism. Do you

criticise them for that? They don't really support the Libyan people

until it suits them and then they are all for freedom. Before there

was oil on the table - Thank you. think you are right. I think Libya

- or rather Gaddafi's demise has emposed the great hip pock siz that

western leaders have been very capable of -- but we have the great

confidence in the soft power that Britain enjoys. What came loud and

clear from the Arab Spring protesters was that in no way did

they think that the West had the perfect setup and in no way did

they think they would copy us. Yes, they wanted democracy, but not

necessarily the kind that we have put in place. Afghan began bay and

after the kind of hypocritical stuff that we have done both in

Iraq and Libya, I can see why. have one or two questions that were

asked whether Britain had blood on its hands. Does anyone - I don't

know who asked that question. Did you ask that question? Did you ask

it? I wonder what Tony Blair thinks about Gaddafi being killed today?

What were you going to say and we'll go on. We are talking about a

democracy in Libya and it's a shame we have missed the fact that

Gaddafi is dead now. A beacon of democracy in Libya could have been

him being tried and the results of that. It would have been a great

start. APPLAUSE

Thank you. We'll go on. Just a word if you are into tweeting. You can

get in touch: One other thing, if you are a school pupil or a school

teacher, we are running our usual annual Question Time-style debate

for schools and if you want to get involved, the address is on the

screen now. Another question from Anne Connelly. When is the UK going

to stand up to the energy companies and stop the profiteering? This is

in the light of the vague Government attempts to do things

about the price of oil and people are just starting to feel this as

the cold weather hits us. Alistair Carmichael, �125 per customer

profit, not �15 as it before? Indeed. I think the answer applies

not just within the hands of Government and I think there is a

lot more that the Government can be doing, but within ourselves as well,

because we as the consumers are given the opportunity - This is the

old Chris Huhne line that we heard all last week. Shop around, shop

around. Shop around. The fact is that by using your individual power

you have a real opportunity. It's not the whole answer and we

understand completely that the way in which the energy market is

regulated as got to change. It is changing. However, it is going to

be difficult. The Government understands that. The idea of us as

consumers it is like walking into a shop and you see all these things

on sale and you look for the price tag and either it's not there or

there are three different price tags on the same item and you think,

hold on a second. What kind of a shop am I in?

APPLAUSE These are the very changes that

Chris Huhne was talking about. he wasn't. He told us to check.

Little things like the fact that at the end of the year energy

companies are going to have to tell you how you can change. Michael

Russell? The people in the worst fuel poverty are those who are

furthest from the innet, so those people are the people who are least

able to choose from this absolutely extraordinary situation. Three

price tags would be fun. There are more than 30. Sorry, I clearly

didn't exaggerate enough. 400. What we need to have is companies that

offer their consumers the cheapest deal. That's not rocket science.

They should be made to do that and any Government that fails to make

them is condemning people not just to fuel poverty, but actually to

people to die of cold in this country.

APPLAUSE Maybe they should one the �1

billion they were going to spend on the Fife carbon capture in

providing cheaper energy to households. I thought they were

trying to save money. Let's not get into that. That's another one.

Margaret Curran? I think energy prices are one of the most

important issues today. I think the Government are completely out of

touch on this. What can they do? They are implementing a system that

We know that prices go up like a rocket and down like a feather.

What Labour are calling for is that they should share these excess

profits that have gone up particularly quickly over the past

few months. They should be told they have to put that back to help

people pay their bills. That is one thing the Government can do. This

problem has been around for a long time and Ed Miliband was energy

secretary. What did he do? One of the things that he did was to

insist Ofgem intervene and regulate more effectively. We have seen that

the rates have gone up particularly over the past six months, I think a

20%. Ed Miliband, in his position as leader of the Labour Party, has

said we need to introduce market reform and is calling for

significant market reform. What can you do? One proposal is to look at

the pool of prices and how you access to electricity. The figures

show you can bring down the bills in that way and that is something

they should be looked at immediately and we should do that.

But we cannot instruct Ofgem, because it is independent of

Government, and that is how your party set it up. You can pass a

simple all. We could draft it this evening. It would say, companies

have to publish prices simply m customers have to get the lowest

price. I think that would have a good effect. We could do it. I like

the idea of punishing customers if they don't get the lowest price,

implicit in what you said. The man in the white shirt. The answer to

this is that we should not hold our breath for the Government to stand

up to the companies, because I am sure the summit this week was

choreographed so David Cameron could rule with an iron fist and

give us a good deal. What happened? The energy companies stood their

ground and we had Chris Huhne saying we have to shop around.

kept something from the morning paper which says that 2700 people

die in freezing homes in a year. That is more than die on the roads.

That is terrible. And there are problems with the system as it

currently works which need to be addressed so actually you have more

competition, not more regulation, because competition brings prices

down. We also have to look at green initiatives. We are currently

talking �80 a year on bills from green initiatives, predicted to

double over the next five years. Can you explain what you mean by

green initiatives? Some of the things the Government is doing,

subsidies for feed in tariffs... Which the oil and electricity

companies have to do, hopes that they jump through. They have to pay

for electricity that is fed in at a higher rate than they can resell it.

Somebody has to pay for that and �80 extra on the bill for somebody

who is poor could be the difference between eating their home or not.

We have to be really serious about what we wish for in terms of the

green agenda. -- heating their home. The man up there with the

spectacles. With the green agenda, what is the Government going to do

with the finds that they impose on big energy companies when they do

not meet their carbon reduction targets? The under the green deal,

if the large energy companies do not hit carbon reduction targets,

they will be fined a percentage. Should they give it back to

consumers who have been paying for it? It is obscene. It is just

I think that some elderly person who does not know how to shop

around, these people are being marginalised more and more and

there are more of them. They are increasing. There are more elderly

people around. The whole notion of this kind of profit is obscene and

it is part of the whole horrible business of what has been going on,

how people are being ripped off systematically, day after day after

day, and it goes right back to banking, the whole system. Do you

think the six main companies to deliver the energy are in cahoots

with each other? Of course they are. There is no real competition. I

don't think you should talk about a market in heating an old lady's

home. I don't think you should say that is subject to the market. She

does not understand that, she is just trying to keep warm, and I

think it is obscene. The man on the right. The problem is that the

energy companies are controlled by shareholders. Shareholders only

care about profit. They do not answer to anyone other than

shareholders. My concern is that the 20% increase

in energy prices, how does that equate to civil servants who have

been told to take a two you pay freeze? Where is the justice?

you speaking as a civil servant? Yes. And the UK Government is

attempting to enforce a rise in pension contributions. It is

inequitable and it will lead to more fuel poverty and more deaths,

inevitably. I think it is patronising for Chris Huhne and

David Cameron to tell consumers to shop around, as if we do not have

the intelligence to do that already. I think the issue is that when you

do shop around it is so complex, in the amount of tariffs and the

amount of deals, it is not an easy process. I think the deals that are

on the market need to be simplified for consumers. You never meet

anybody who says they understand Most of the people tell me that it

is difficult for them to shop around on the computer. They are

unable to use the computer and it is really difficult for them to

find the right prices for the right tariff. The woman on the far side.

I am wondering when are the Government going to stop blaming

the previous Government and actually start acting and standing

on their own feet. It usually takes 13 years! I have shopped around in

the past four different energy suppliers and each time I have

changed, it has been a complete nightmare and the savings have been

minimal. The stress levels go up and the savings are just about hear,

and then you have to do it again. The companies should give us

savings if you are a loyal customer. It used to be that loyal customers

got a discount but now you have to find the discount. What goes wrong

when you change? It is a nightmare. Difficult instructions and

difficult complicated ways of doing it. It becomes a nightmare.

hidden charges. I wanted to change but I am paying by direct debit and

I thought another company look more interesting. They were trying to

lure me with a cheaper package. I found out that because I was direct

debit with the other one, I would have to pay a charge to get rid of

them. It is outrageous. When we are told by the Government that there

is nothing to do, that the wholesale fuel prices are so high

and they cannot help it, of course they cannot. But they certainly

could sit down with the six creatures and say to them, you are

not going to profit from other people's misery. Let's go on. This

question is from Michael Rossi, please. Why do the three main

National Party is not want a referendum on UK membership of the

EU? There has been this 100,000 signatories, and there is a debate

which was going to be next Thursday in the House of Commons and will

now be on Monday so that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary can

be there. It seems that all three major UK national parties are going

to tell their members to vote against the referendum, despite

what they have said at various times in their manifestos. Jacob

Rees-Mogg, why is everybody against a referendum? I think, to use a

word Margaret Thatcher once used, they have come to the conclusion

that most people in the UK do not actually like Europe, they think

the EU has failed, the euro is in desperate decline. This weekend we

will see whether it survives. Instead of saying we need a new

relationship with Europe speedily, we want to go back to free trade,

which we agreed to, and not be governed un-democratically from

Brussels, they hope the problem will disappear, but it will not. I

think we will have a referendum but not on the motion that has been put

forward but on new treaties that will be debated to work out where

Europe goes to deal with the collapse of the euro. How will you

vote on Monday? I have not finally decided. But... I have spoken to

the whips. I will probably support the motion. I do not think it is a

perfect motion, but I think it is an important symbol of how Euro-

sceptic this country is, and that we have to be clear that we need a

new relationship with Europe. And we have to work towards that with a

renegotiation of the treaties and powers coming back to the United

Kingdom, and possibly coming to the Edinburgh parliament as well,

depending on where the British people want them to go. But there

are powers. The Liberal Democrats said they were committed to a

referendum, Alistair Carmichael. Why are you and your irate Chief

Whip for the Liberal Democrats, why are you going to be telling your

people that if they don't vote for this they cannot look for

preferment in future? I will be saying no such thing to any of my

colleagues. How will you put it? will not reveal the secrets of the

whips office on national television, because it is much less exciting

than everybody thinks. Really! answer the question, I do not think

the three main parties are closed to a referendum. We are not

necessarily going to be supporting the motion on Monday, which as

Jacob has indicated, is somewhat defective in its terms. But I think

at some stage we are going to have to have this referendum and this

debate. The Government has already, actually, enacted the position that

we had stood on in our manifesto, which is that the next time there

will be a treaty change that sees a proposal for sovereignty to go from

the United Kingdom to the EU, there will be put to the British people.

I think that is absolutely necessary, speaking as somebody who

actually believes in the European Union and who wants to see it

succeed. What is wrong with this one? The deal that people were

given in 1976 was a very, very different one from what they have

now. I think if people like myself, who believe in the European Union,

who want to see it prosper, are going to be able to engage properly,

then we have to have a current mandate, not one for something

different that is 30 years old. This says you should have a

referendum in the next session of Parliament on whether the UK should

remain a member, or whether it should leave the European Union, or

whether it should renegotiate the terms of its membership to create a

new relationship. What is wrong with that? Simply because the final

part is they can leaves too much open. I think the real clincher is

that it would be a massive distraction at this time, when

every politician should be straining every sinew to

reconstruct our economy, to go off on a major exercise in

constitutional navel-gazing. cost of joining the European Union

is around �40 million a day, so how do the panellists justify what are

the benefits that we are deriving as being part of the European

Union? Does it balance with the �40 million a day? I stood in the May

election very clearly on a policy in favour of a referendum about

distant government. It was actually about Scottish independence and

distant government from London. are not having that one either, are

you? We are going to. You do not know when you're going to have it.

We do know exactly when we are going to have it, the second half

of this Parliament, which is what we said when we were elected. The

curious thing is that the party's muttering in the corner are the

ones who are trying to force this referendum early on the Scottish

people but are denying a referendum south of the border on other things.

What does forcing a referendum mean? Surely, a referendum can be

heard at any time. People know their own minds. The Scottish

government was elected on a clear platform. I am sure you were here.

Margaret and Alistair definitely worth. There was a clear commitment

to hold a referendum on independence in the second half of

the parliament. It is not in your manifesto. Now we are hearing from

south of the border that Labour thinks it is a good idea to have

the referendum at the time of the choosing of the Westminster

government, the Westminster Parliament, not the Scottish

Parliament. That would be an affront to democracy in Scotland.

In terms of the European issue, it is essential to recognise the

importance of Europe to a small country like Scotland. I am

unequivocally in support of that. hope to address the issue of the

Scottish referendum, too. To repeat the question, why do the three main

parties not want a referendum on membership of the EU? What is

interesting about this is the process that has got us here,

because I do think that this model that we have, where people can e-

mail in and say they think this is what Parliament should be debating

has been very useful. We saw a moving and powerful debate about

Hillsborough last week which was a reflection of what people wanted us

to discuss. And obviously this is important and the EU referendum is

part of that. We have rising unemployment and the Tories are

fighting about Europe. I have deja- vu. The one. I agree with, the big

issue is the economy and a lot of Tory MEPs want to talk about Europe

all the time. There is a bit of that but I do not want to indulge

because we have the issues to face. Why is Labour opposing the

referendum call? You say was a wonderful bit of democracy, 100,000

people asking for it and now you say you will vote against it.

policy is unequivocal. We said in our manifesto we do not support a

referendum. It seems, to answer the young gentleman's point, our

economic future is tied up with Europe. I think the eurozone is a

bigger issue we should be talking about and there is no point in

denying that our policy is very It seems to me that there's a fear

of the fact that people would say let's get out of Europe. I think

that's what really motivates the fact that three parties are not

wanting to have a referendum, because they are afraid of opening

that particular Pandora's box and what will happen. That to me is so

obvious. Europe is a massive problem. It was too quick, too soon,

too much happened too soon. It moved far too fast a pace and we

couldn't keep up and we now have the mess that we have got. All the

parties are afraid to face up to the fact that people might say,

"Let's get out of Europe." APPLAUSE

Should they take that risk, in your view, or are they right? I can

understand why they don't, because I'm pro-European as well, but

Europe does necessitated looking at. It's a big mess. Do you think a

referendum that had the option of pulling out of Europe, whatever

that may mean, entirely, would be successful? I'm not sure. I really

am not sure. This is all surely about democracy in action. The

people have asked for this debate. Surely a political leader should

give our representatives the option to vote freely on this matter and

respect the wishes of the democracy in asking for this debate.

Absolutely. You have taken the words right out of my mouth. I

can't bear the thought of the whips telling the politicians, "You must

follow up." Telling them not to listen to constituents. I think

it's not what I call real politics. It's certainly not part of

Parliamentary politics. Like most of the panellists, I do think that

Europe - that Britain should stay in Europe, but I think

renegotiation of the terms of engagement is probably called for

at this point, especially as we are watching the euro sink every day

more. I think we should have one, but stay in the EU. Mr Rees-Mogg,

you speak about the euro collapsing, as if it will have no vehicle on

Britain. British banks have one trillion euros in loans that would

be worthless. Alistair Carmichael, we have established that all three

political parties are ignoring the 100,000 people and telling - They

are right to get the debate. Is it not also true that however you vote

on one of these issues that has been raised by the public, it's not

binding on Parliament? That is the rules of Parliament. It is not

binding. You are still fussed about it even though it's not binding.

would be a brave Government that ignored the world Parliament.

went in 1976 and it was the Common Market, which I don't think anyone

has got problems with, but since then governments have creeded more

and more -- ceded more and more legislation away. Power has gone to

Europe and that's the problem that most people don't like. We have no

control in this country over our own affairs, basically none.

Everything is to be done the European way. Nobody voted for that

or got asked for that. That is what we want back. Mike Russell stresses

the fact that Scotland needs to make sure we don't forget about

Europe and how important it is. What he's forgetting is if we

achieve independence Europe will forget about Scotland. We'll get

chucked out of the I could give you chapter and verse -- EU. I could

give you chapter and verse saying that that is simply not true.

Scotland will continue to be a member, or actually neither part of

the old United Kingdom would continue to be a member. That's

what would apply. Would we be in the euro? We are similar to you and

the argument was at some stage it would be worth considering, but

using the sterling north and south of the border. A Scottish pound?

We have said we would like to keep sterling for the foreseeable future

and that's a reasonable currency. The Australians, when they were

independent in 1906 kept the pound for another ten years. One more

point from the audience. Scotland was to gain independence

would there be fi real point exiting one union and joining

another? -- there any real point exiting one union and joining

another? You talk about powers from Brussels. The vast amount of powers

in Brussels are nothing compared to Westminster. You would also have -

We have moved off the question. It was about the EU in the UK. It's

not often I actually agree with Brian Cox, - Does he know that?

I'm telling you now, yes, the Parliamentarians are scared of the

answer they might get from the referendum, but surely if the

answer is no it is strengthening the power that they'll have to go

to Europe and renegotiate terms? you think i Jacob, that the Prime

Minister and William Hague have handled this deftly, moving it from

Thursday to Monday and looking like a panic measure? I think the Prime

Minister and Foreign Secretary are the greatest geniuss we have ever

had in Government in the history of mankind. They have handled it well,

but this may not be quite deft enough for me to support them on

Monday evening. The whips are watching you. I think they know

where he stands. Another question. This one is from Holly McCormack.

Liam Fox has condemned the media frenzy following rezlations about

his relationship with -- relationship with Adam Werritty. Is

this another politician looking to blame others for his mistakes?

attacked the press and rather curiously said the Ministerial Code

has been found to be breached. That's an odd way of putting it.

Cristina Odone, what do you think of this affair and this attack on

the press? I think that the press was there when we needed it and I'm

very, very pleased that the man who was in charge of defence secrets

was caught bringing somebody who hadn't been cleared through

security, to American generals, where they were discussing the most

important security business. He brought him to conferences with

Arab leaders, who were also going to be discussing very, very

important security measures. And, continuously for many, many years -

well, not many years, but more than one year, we have had this man, Mr

Werritty, coming in to places where he had no business being. I think

that for the press to have flushed this out, for the press to have

protected our security, is a great thing. It is almost made me forgive

my industry, my profession, for the whole Murdoch mess, so, yes, I'm

pleased. Almost, but not quite. What he said was that it was

unacceptable that family and friends who are nothing to do with

central issues should be hounded and intimidated. Nobody was hounded

and intimidated. Questions were asked that should have been asked

by governments and politicians and all the generals. They all should

have said, "Who is this guy?" finally, the press did ask. I think

we did the write thing. Jacob Rees- Mogg? I'm with the Duke of

Wellington, publish and dedamned. We want a press that the

governments don't like. The Government likes the press then the

press isn't doing its job. Having said all that, I'm very sorry Liam

Fox has gone. I think he's a decent and honest pan, but it's not the

fault of the press - Honest? Well, - I'm sorry. What was honest about

that? He's not taken any money corruptly. He was clearly unwise to

travel with Mr Werritty. I'm not beginning to pretend he wasn't. I'm

saying - Mr Werritty could have been a terrorist. Mr Werritty could

have been anything. Let's ask the audience, if you've got a friend

you've known for 20 years who was your best man, do you think he's a

terrorist? Really? You don't. You have to allow politicians to have

long-standing friendships to people who aren't involved in poll -- in

politics and Cristina Odone is wrong. I'm a nurse and I'm sure he

would be thrilled to see me in a professional capacity and I brought

a close chum along. He knew from day one it was wrong

APPLAUSE Absolutely. I think what has

happened here is straggering, but there are many questions that still

remain. The fact that so many things seemed to have happened

outside government, that the Civil Service were unhappy about it, but

it wasn't properly resolved. We need to ask questions about that.

More than MIG else, what I want to know is are any other practises

going on in a similar nature in this Government, because the Prime

Minister seems to have been the last to know this and that is very

serious. The issue of security is not as easily dismded as he would

like it to be. -- dismissed as he would like it to be. We need to

know how many others were involved. What were the practises involved

and I don't think we have got to the bottom of this at all yet.

the report actually said was that as he went regularly overseas with

military top brass and other advisers, having Werritty him and

particularly seeing all the movements in the diary, posed a

security risk not only to Dr Fox, but also to the accompanying

official party. That was the security risk. Not that Werritty

was the terrorist, but anyone else could have become involved.

security risk was known by someone who was not in a secure area, but I

do think that public figures are entitled to a private life and that

security is there to protect the principle not to control his moves.

The Cabinet Secretary is wrong. think he's unreasonable, to say

that people should always in high office have their movements

determined by what the police say is wise. I think we have to make

the decisions for themselves and we see that the Queen sometimes

ignores security advice when she thinks it's the right thing to do.

I think that's absolutely proper, otherwise you get politicians

completly encapsulated in an area where -- completely encapsulated in

an area where they cannot get about. A politician shouldn't be

complaining about the press in this situation. The press can behave in

an appalling fashion. They are not angels, but the fault lies with

Liam Fox and nobody else. What do you mean by that in this context?

think I would call in the definition that just as it would

not always apply to matters of morality and money, but it would

apply to pretending yourself as something that you were not --

presenting yourself as something that you were not. He was running a

parallel foreign policy. It's an odd Government you are not a member

of. Brian Cox. I think it was David Cameron who said that the

Government was going to behave with probity. It seems to me that he

said this was very important that we didn't have the issues that we

had before. Liam Fox has not behaved with probity. He's behaved

stupidly. Absolutely stupidly. Then to be in the state of denial about

it and clearly this is - clearly, he's a gifted man, but the folly is

ridiculous. It is theatrical, actually. I don't see why he can't

see that. The fact that then to come back and say, "Well, you know,

friends and others are involved. They are involved ." That's the

level he's gone to. I think Mr Werritty has also behaved like a

Alistair Carmichael. Liam Fox was guilty of an error of judgment and

he admitted that. As a consequence, he has resigned. I think he did the

absolutely right and only thing he could do. Should he have criticised

the media when making his resignation statement? I do not

know. That is a question of judgment. In his circumstances, I

would not have done it that way. He was the one making the statement.

He was complaining about friends and family being harassed by the

press. I do not know what he meant, but I have known it happen to

others in the past. You do hear stories of people being doorstep to

about stuff they do not know anything about. I actually think

that instead of talking about our relationship with the press, the

real issue that comes out of this is the way in which politicians in

Westminster in particular interact with lobbyists. This has just

lifted the lid. David Cameron himself, in the last Parliament,

identified this as being the next political scandal coming down the

line. And I think, I hope that we as a government are now going to be

to move on with more speed and urgency on the work we have already

started. You think lobbying was involved? You think there was

unfair access to ministers, is that what you're saying? If we had a

proper registration system where those who were lobbying were doing

it openly and transparently and you knew what was going on and where

the money was coming from... Just to clarify, are you saying that

Werritty introduced lobbyists for to the Secretary of State? I do not

honestly know the detail of that, but I do not know the detail

because the practice of lobbying is so opaque. Advocacy of any cause is

a criminal offence for members. Our code as criminal... You cannot talk

to him Minister and say, we want this to happen. Advocacy from any

organisation to an MSP is a criminal offence. Isn't bad going a

bit far? What do you mean paid advocacy? Nobody can come to talk

to you about education? Paid advocacy is quite clear. I would

define it as when a company is giving money to any individual, as

they were in Werritty's case, and that individual is going round the

world with a minister. I think that comes pretty close to paid advocacy,

in my view. That is not right and should be illegal. I would say to

the member of the Government here today, it is simply not good enough.

We have had a report, which I tried to read, which gave no clear

answers. We saw his glorious resignation, where he fell on his

sword. There were no real answers. You have said yourself that you do

not know. This man was in charge of the Ministry of Defence, nothing

more important perhaps than that. There is too much smokescreen and

we need real answers. There are other investigations going on. So I

think there is still more to be looked at and doubtless more

answers will come. Let's go on to another question. Caroline Miller.

Would members of the panel be prepared to downsize their home to

make way for young families? I do not know how elderly the members of

the panel are, and whether they qualified. This is a report from

the Intergenerational Foundation, which I don't think anybody had

heard of until this report came out, but it was given a huge publicity

today, saying that about one-third of all homes are under occupied.

People over 65 now live in homes with two more bedrooms than they

need, and old people are urged to leave their homes and move into

smaller homes. Who would like to start on that? I have to be careful

who I go to first. Margaret Curran, what do you think of it? I was

quite shocked by this proposal and I daresay... Were you surprised by

the information, or not? That there were so many people living in half-

empty houses? No, I am not surprised by that. But I am shocked

that it has been said in such a blunt way. I do not know if that is

the solution to the problems we face. In Scotland we have a number

of housing issues, with the way the budget has been cut. In England

there are housing pressures. I do not see this as a solution to that,

and it is not fair to say to elderly people that somehow they

are at fault and to blame. I would rather get this Government get

their finger out, get the economy going and that is the way we saw

these kind of problems. What really upset me about this report, this

proposal, was that it was, yet again, away for this society to

sideline, marginalise and make feel about this big, the elderly. When

this is coupled with what happens to the elderly in care, when it is

coupled with what happens to the elderly and hospitals, it makes me

so ashamed. One thing that we could learn from Asian and African family

is his to cherish, cherish the older generation, because they are

wise, they have seen it all, because they are going to give you

their big house when they are ready, not when you are pushing them to

get out. There is another side of this. Earlier in the week you had

this Westminster Government telling people on housing benefit that they

would have to move house if they had a spare room. This is the most

extraordinary thing. I think this proposal is pretty daft. But when

people would be forced, as is the proposal, to move house because

they will not be paid housing benefit because they have a spare

room, I think we're getting to the obscene stage. That man, are you of

an age to want to kick an older person out? I work in a profession

around housing as a trainee solicitor. There is a severe lack

of affordable housing in this country. How many unoccupied houses

are there in Scotland? I am told 25,000. I do not know the figure,

but I know there are people wanting to get on the housing market but

they cannot because there is not affordable housing. That could help

the construction industry and help the economy as well. We need more

affordable housing. What do you think about putting pressure on

older people to move out? I think it is two things. It is endemic

that it would reduce the opportunity for family being

together, so instead of encouraging inter-generational relationships,

it would reduce that. And who is going to buy these so-called large

houses for the elderly? Young people can hardly buy smaller

houses. So who is expecting... It is just not practical. The problem

would be that it would reduce the opportunity for a build up of

family relationships and family coming together and gatherings,

rather than... So you need rooms for the grandchildren. I do and I'm

sure lots of people do. I was just going to say, old people

have big houses but very few friends. Young people have got lots

of friends but no houses. Maybe we could arrange some sort of trade-

off. I would like to agree with Mr

Dimbleby. Perhaps the company has done this because it will get

attention for a previously unknown company, because it is a ridiculous

report which cannot be legislated for and we are all speaking about

it. Jacob Rees-Mogg. It is the silliest idea anyone has ever come

up with. Surely people should be free to live in their house if they

own it. I am tempted to say an Englishman's home is his castle, an

IOC may Scotsman's home is his castle, as well, and indeed ladies,

too. You should be able to live in your house as long as you like. The

pressure from the state to be told to move house because you have too

many rooms, it is bonkers. I know many elderly people who do live on

their own and do not have family and friends who could move in and

make use of all their spare bedrooms, but the fact is there are

no social housing they could move into. There is not the same

sheltered housing accommodation available to them. They are stuck,

and those are the ones we are picked -- who are paying additional

fuel and heating bills. They cannot afford to heat their homes, so you

are perpetuating this because there is nowhere for them to go.

answer the question, I might well at some stage in the future want to

sell my house and get something smaller, come that happy day when

my children have grown up and flown the nest. It is not happy, it is

not happy! You are losing votes by the score. What is wrong with your

children? One of them plays the trumpet and the other one plays the

violin. There may well come that time, but I certainly would not do

it because they think tank told me I had to do it. I think if this

bizarre notion raises a question at all, it maybe should give us pause

to reflect on how we have changed as a society and how we have lost a

sense of community. Because this is only the sort of notion that can

come from a society that has lost the sense of community we used to

have, which we still have in places like Orkney, where I live. I think

there is a deeper and more serious problem. It is the fact that the

old people are under siege in some way. We had this report last week

about the NHS and how they were being treated, old people, which,

because I do not live here and I live in America, I was completely

shocked at this, the country that I come from, this was going on. And

when I hear something like this, we really have to establish, and as

people are getting older and we are going to have more older people, we

really have to get our act together in taking care of them and actually

honouring them in some kind of way. I would like to see more young

people involved. I kept thinking, wouldn't it be a great thing if

young people, as a service, as a public service, could going and

talk and take care and speak to these elderly people, who are

rapidly becoming more and more disenfranchised. And this is just

another way of disenfranchising them. I think it is an awful

situation. That is how life used to be, and we have lost that. The Boy

Scouts will be starting Bob Bird Job Week again. -- Bob a job. We

have come to the end of our time. Since you mentioned New York, what

is the electricity price in New York. You were pontificating about

prices here. It is all in. Where I live, it is all in, because it is

part of the rent. So you keep warm, 70 degrees. And I live on top of a

high-rise, so I get heat from everybody below. That brings us to

the end of the programme. Next week, we will be in Winchester and we

will have on the panel the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan-

Smith, and also Julian Alexander, who happens to be the creator of

Downton Abbey. The week after that, we will be somewhere that Question

Time has never been before, Westminster Hall in the Houses of

Parliament, at the invitation of the officials there. If you want to