03/11/2011 Question Time

Just over 400 years ago, Guy Fawkes stood trial here in Westminster

Hall, for trying to blow up Parliament. We have different ways

of calling our leaders to account these days. Welcome to Question

On our panel tonight, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, the Shadow

Chancellor Ed Balls, from the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrat peer

Shirley Williams, the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens and

poet and author who left school at 13 and is now a Professor of

Creative writing at Brunel university Benjamin Zephaniah.

Thanks. Our first question tonight from Geraldine hauxs please.

Is it right for the public sector workers to strike when they've been

offered a better deal? -- Geraldine Hawkes. We have seen at the very

last moment after months of non- negotiation, the Government

suddenly bring out a new offer and say that's take it or leave it,

just at the last minute and I think the unions are right to say they

want to look at the detail of this now. But I don't think it's the

right way to do things. I would - there was a comment in The

Telegraph today which said David Cameron is privately delighted that

thedown-ons have rejected the deal, the view in Number Ten is that they

have been craftily manoeuvred into a trap. I have to say, I don't

think that's the right way to make decisions like this when you're

talking about the long-term needs of the country. But also, low-paid

people in the public sector, dinner ladies, nursing assistants who've

worked hard for many years and deserve to be treated better than

that. I think both sides should be round the table talking. The unions

will have to give some ground, but the Government will have to give

some more ground because at the moment what's being proposed isn't

fair. This strike is entirely avoidable. When you say that,

surely the Government's given ground, saying the offer is 8% more

generous than what they had ten days ago which is the point? If you

look at the details, it's only come out at the last minute, after many

months of procrastination, finally some ground given. It's good the

fooft's taken the negotiation seriously, but it's still the case

that low-paid public sector workers are very hard hit by this. I was

looking... -- the Government's taken the negotiation seriously.

Would you like to see the strike called off now or is it not time

for it to be called off, in your view. You know there's been a

ballot by UNISON. I don't want a strike. Nobody wants it. Do you

want it called off now as a result of what the Government has

suggested? No, we do not need to have a strike but it requires both

sides to give some ground. If you are a nurse, part-time nurse, on

�17,000 a year, you are going to lose �900 a year as a result of

this deal at the moment. That is deeply, deeply unfair. What

happened was, the increase in contributions, which was sprung

upon people before the Hutton Report hits the lowest paid workers,

particularly women, hardest. It's not fair. Both sides must be given

some ground. That's a way to avoid an unnecessarily strike. I think

David Cameron wants a strike, that's the problem. Theresa May?

The answer to the question is, no, I don't think it's right for them

to strike. There have been negotiations now over several

months about this pensions deal and the reality is that we are all

living longer, that's good news, but that means people have to work

longer and actually are being asked from the public sector to

contribute more to their pensions. What I think is fair is ensuring

that we have an arrangement for public sector pensions that gives

public sector workers who work hard on our behalf but gives them a

decent pension in their retirement, but also is a fair deal for the

taxpayer. And the reality of the deal that's been struck is that yes,

we have said that we will allow the pensions to accrue at a faster rate,

meaning it will be a better deal, also for low and middle earners,

many will find themselves receive ago larger pension than they would

have done otherwise. As a result of paying more in? They will be paying

more in. Then you expect to get more of a pension if you pay more

in? Well, no, people will have to pay more in, they'll have to work

longer as everybody else will. But crucially, these pensions, many of

them, will be a lot better than people in the private sector.

People remember, it's people in the private sector who've seen their

pensions devastated. The taxpayers are paying for the public sector

pensions. Baroness Williams? Theresa May is right about this. If

you look at the expectation of life, which has gone up by eight years in

the last 20 years, it's quite staggering how much longer we all

live. That has to be paid for. If you want decent pensions for people

living into their 80s, you have to accept that those current pensions

will have to accept retiring later and possibly paying rather more

towards their pension -- current pensioners. My feeling is that the

Government, maybe at the last minute, as Ed suggests, came up

with a very decent proposal which benefitted the lowest paid, the

very nurses and teachers and so on that we are concerned about. If you

retire on �38,000 as a teacher, you get �25,000 in a pension, a hell of

a lot better than the private sector. The unions should say, we

have to make a sacrifice. Even has to do that. It isn't to extreme,

we'll accept it. APPLAUSE

The man in the fourth row from the back on the gangway? You, Sir?

a teacher and everyone's talking about fairness. Initially, the

Government talked about the pensions being unaffordable. When

that argument fell flat, they talk about fairness now. What's fair is

the fact that eight years ago when I came into the proprofession, the

Government promised me a deal and said if you work until you're 60,

or now 65, they would guarantee me that retirement age. What you are

doing now because I'm not within this golden ten year that the new

deal is, it's not an improved deal for me, I've effectively lost eight

years of my retirement and that's if by the time I reach 67 or 68 it

hasn't upped again. Is that foyer on me not to honour what you

promised me eight years ago? Peter Hitchens? The problem that you face

is a similar thing to what other people face in the private or

public sector. People face broken promises because we simply can't

afford to pay the levels of pensions which we expected to be

able to do. The real point about this is, if you go on strike and

you are in the public sector, who are you striking against? You are

striking against the public. Governments have no money, the

money that you are requiring for your pension will come from the

public. You can look at it in two ways, one you are disrupting

services you provide for them, the other is saying, give me your money

or I'll carry on misbehaving. That's not a moral way to behave.

That is the case. So many people... We all sympathise with your problem,

who could not, but so many people have no pensions at all to look

forward to in the private sector and so many others have suffered

grave losses worse than yours, you can't go do them and say, I've got

to be special, you've got to pay for mine, it's just wrong.

OK. Benjamin Zephaniah? I think when workers go on strike, they are

making a sacrifice, they don't strike because it's fun or because

they want to simply go on strike. I don't know the details of the

negotiations that are going on, but if the Government comes to a point

where it says take it or leave it, that is wrong. I'm going to answer

the question very simply. Should they strike - yes they should. In a

time when people feel their rights have been taken a I way from them,

that ways of expressing themselves have been taken away from them, the

right to withdraw your labour is probably the only real right

workers have now and they have the right to strike.

APPLAUSE Let me hear from some members of

the panel with their comments. The woman in the fourth row, please?

I think it's a shame this issue has come up in relation to pensions

just now because I look at this a bit broader in that it's about how

we view our Public Services and the people that work in them. I do

think that there is a difference between the public and private

sector in the fact that there are lower wages and also about what

that gives to... What those people are giving to us as citizens and we

need to recognise that in some way. Even though it's a special case

unlike the private sector? Do you think they're a special case?

I do actually, but wshedn't divide people in that way in terms of who

is working where -- werbgdn't divide people. -- we shouldn't

divide people. The man on the left? I wonder if

the Members of Parliament on the panel could tell us what's

happening to their pensions as public sector pensions themselves.

I wonder if they know. Contributions are going up. It's

been frozen as much as anybody else's. Ed Balls, you are looking a

bit... There's a discussion happening between MPs and the IPSA

authorities and they'll naught. chance of a strike, I suppose?

such luck! It might be very popular, yes. The point is though, MPs on

higher salaries get bigger pensions and we need to accept that we need

to pay more and work longer to get our pensions. Theish you here is

the lowest paid workers of the UK being asked to take huge cuts in

their pensions, no MPs will get cuts, so why should that happen to

nurses... Sorry, I must interrupt for a moment. That's not really

fair. I agree that the Government was late many making the last offer,

but the last offer clearly was directed towards the lowest paid

public workers and gave nurses and teachers and others with an under

�30,000 or �40,000 income a substantially better deal than

before. You are saying that is right? Of course it is. I want to

address Zephaniah though because Zephaniah is calling for a strike.

I'm not calling for one, I'm just saying they have to right to strike.

This particular case, to be honest, it's a strike of the better paid

and the better pensioned against the less well pension because

there's clearly the Government's made a clear bias towards the

lowest paid pensions. The woman up there?

So, some of the panel, are you saying that the lowly paid private

sector worker should continue to subsidise the public sector worker?

Ed Balls? That's a separate issue. Public sector workers and private

sector workers will have to work longer and make bigger

contributions to get their pensions. But nurses and teachers are not the

lowest paid. If you look under �15,000, I checked today with the

House of Commons library, a pre- nurse qualified, a nursing

Assistant will see their pension cut by �500 a year and they're

paying not just more VAT but extra contributions. But the woman there

is talking not about that I don't think, make the point again?

Earlier, you said about the lowest paid public sector worker which

fine, I appreciate that. But what I'm saying, and I agree with

Shirley and the others that, you know, the public sector has been

asking and demanding for the private sector worker to continue

to subsidise their pension at a time when the private sector worker

can barely make their own ends meet, let alone make their own ends meet.

The lowly paid worker, whether a bus driver or window cleaner and so

forth can barely make their own ends meet yet they're expected to

continue to subsidise the pensions. You are against the strike? Yes, I

am. Have the unions "given up" on Ed Miliband and the Labour Party

about pension reform. Why do you say that? Because the union leader

said she'd given up about her pension reform. I don't understand

you, that Labour aren't fighting hard enough? Yes, actually, yes.

And you Sir, over here? I think it's rich that the Home Secretary

thinks that people going on strike is wrong when she's dealing with a

group of work,, police officers, who're not allowed to strike. When

she came into office, she didn't realise that we paid 11% into our

pension. They are now asking us to pay another 3.1%. How Mr Peter

Hitchens can sit there and criticise people for withdrawing

their labour when it's the last resort. When you go on strike, you

don't get paid, it's a last resort. I take it you are a police officer?

Yes. What happens to you if you strike? We can't strike. Theresa

May, answer that, please, then another question. It's absolutely

right that police officers aren't allowed to strike and they were

making higher contributions to their pensions than most people in

the rest of the public sector. 11%. And they were get ago more

significant benefit out of their pension than other workers in the

This is BBC News. The headlines at public sector. We are paying an

extra 3.1%. Everybody in the public 11pm: Turmoil in Greece. George

Papandreou faces a confidence vote sector is being asked to make

tomorrow after a day of political increased contributions. It's being

confusion and calls for his staggered, so to make it easier for

resignation. Inside the Greek parliament tonight still no sign of

certainty for the Greek Prime Minister.

We want a deal that is fair to those in the public sector but fair

World leaders meet in Cannes. to taxpayers as well. Public sector

Three of Pakistan top cricketers pensions are being paid by the

are jailed for their role in taxpayer. People in public sector

cheating at Lord's last year. will continue to retire on

guaranteed benefit pensions which are not available to the vast

majority of people in the private A mass strike planned for British

I would ask all panellists to be help workers.

A very good evening. After a day of endless twists and turns police

could be moving towards a new Luke Hilton Pierce, please. Does

Coalition government -- Greece. the UK need special laws in place

That is according to the Prime to stop protesters setting up

Minister. George Papandreou will seemingly permanent residents in

start talks with the opposition important public areas like St

tomorrow. He also faces a vote of Paul's, or Parliament Square?

Hitchens, do we need laws to stop confidence tomorrow. For the latest

this? We already have laws to stop from Athens, our correspondent,

this if anybody wants to use them. The problem is that the Church of

Matty price. At the Greek parliament tonight

England... Why are they not being they're waiting and watching,

used? Because the Church of England fearful of where the country is

does not want to use them. And now I think the Corporation of London

says it does not want to use them heading.

Inside the Prime Minister is against people outside St Paul's.

That is their right. The last thing we need are any more laws. We have

millions of laws and each government that comes in thinks it

can solve the problems by making more. It is a question of whether

we enforce them. Are you saying that we think these people ought to

be compelled to move off the land in front of St Paul's Cathedral?

There were protesters in Parliament Square for almost 10 years now.

There are going to the protesters outside St Paul's for hundreds of

years because they are anti- capitalist protesters. Do you

object to that question mark I object to anti-capitalist

protesters. It is protesting over something that is seemingly never

going to change. Seemingly, it is protest for protest's sake. How can

you say that? These people represent a lot of people in this

country who are sick of the way that capitalism is going. They are

absolutely sick of it. There are people all over the world rising up

against their role is in different ways, and these people have said

that they are sick of political corruption, sick of politicians

doing favours for big business. Even if you want capitalism, why

can't we create a new capitalism that puts people first? When banks

have problems, we recapitalise the banks. Why do we not recapitalise

people? We do not care about people. So these people have gone out there.

They are desperate. I saw a slogan saying, where would Jesus be? Of

course, Jesus would be up there with the protesters. How do you

know that? Regardless of how religious you are, you can read

writers around the Bible who have said that Jesus walked among the

poor. And not only would Jesus be out there. You know you have the

Archbishop of Canterbury saying that he shows support and

understand the feelings of these people. In my humble opinion, the

Archbishop of Canterbury should be out there, too. The Church should

be out there because that is the work of the Church, defending the

poor against big business and big institutions, so they should be

demonstrating. In response to the question, which referred to the

protesters outside St Paul's and Parliament Square, we have now

passed further legislation which will make it easier to deal with

the protesters in Parliament Square. Easier to deal with, that is a

politician's expression. Dock that mean they will not be there in six

months when it is past? -- does it mean they will not be there? There

will be extra powers for the Greater London Authority and they

will be working with the police to decide what to do. Would you like

to see the protesters go, and the protesters outside St Paul's?

Personally, yes, I would like to see them go. Why? I would like to

see them go because I think St Paul's is an important site. What

we are looking at is an image of the UK and it is important that

people coming to the UK are able to visit sites like that and they are

able to carry on operating. But the point is, are there are issues

about what we need to do in terms of how capitalism operates? I was

very interested. These are anti- capitalist protesters but we have

seen them drinking Starbucks coffee and using Apple Mac computers. But

we do need to rebalance our economy. You think you cannot be an anti-

capitalist campaigner and have a cup of coffee? I think you can be

an anti-capitalist campaign and have a cup of coffee. But why is

Starbucks there and why are Apple computers available, it is because

of capitalism. I think we do need to rebalance our economy between

financial services and manufacturing, look at issues

around banks and corporate governance, but they do not think

these are issues that are being raised by protesters outside St

Paul's. It's come back to the St Paul's camp. In light of David

Cameron's comments last week and what Theresa May has said, do we

have a Government that cares more about tourism revenues them the

right to protest? One good way of getting them to

move on would be to address their concerns. Perhaps someone could

drive the Robin Hood tax that the Archbishop suggested. Far they

could try the robin and tax. It is not about Starbucks or Apple

Mac computers, it is about unregulated casino bankers who have

taken risks with taxpayers' money for so long. The second row from

the back. With any protest, there are some people were there for

protest's sake, I think these people have a genuine message, or

the I do not think being at St Paul's is doing anything for the

cause. I do not understand why they chose that in the first place.

did not want to get beaten up by the police, so they went there. The

idea of the police coming to St Paul's and beating them up would

not look very good in Syria, would it? Exactly what is happening in

Oakland, California. The question was, do we need special laws to

stop people setting up permanent residence in St Paul's and

Westminster? The laws are there but it is good that the Church is

discussing with the protesters how to do this in a negotiated and

peaceful way. I am sure that is what the Home Secretary should be

doing about the protesters in Parliament Square. But this is

getting simplistic. In the last hundred years, there is no doubt

society is better off and we have made progress through our economic

system, a capitalist economic system. There is no doubt about

that, and alternative systems have failed. But there are different

kinds of capitalism. There might be people representing my constituency

in Yorkshire outside St Paul's, but there are also many who feel that

they work hard and the rules of the game do not work in the interests

of them and their children. They are not anti- Starbucks, but they

say, why did we have a global financial crisis, why did we not

have more investment in skills, investment in our economy? And why

didn't the Labour Party do it? politicians, we cannot dismiss this

as a bunch of middle class coffee drinkers. These are real concerns

in communities up and down the country and politics has to rise to

a better level and say we are going to make the system work in a more

fair and long-term way for the future. If we cannot do that, how

can we expect respect for our democracy from young people. So you

support the protesters outside St Paul's? Either you do or you do not.

I support the right to protest in our country. I do not know the

protesters and there will be many different points of view. But the

idea that if you say you are going to protest you are anti-capitalist,

and tea Starbucks and not legitimate, what a load of nonsense.

People have real concerns. If the Government want to make a

difference, they should repeat the bank bonus tax and use a Tikrit

100,000 jobs for young people. That would be to address the issues.

Bank levy we have introduced will raise more money each year than the

bonus tax the Labour Party had. Shirley Williams. I think it is a

very serious message from the protesters. I think the fact that

we are such an unequal country that the top 10% get 31% of the income

and the bottom 10% get 1.3%, and that is nothing to do with politics

because it happen under Labour and the Conservative Party and around

the world, I think it is really serious. People are angry as hell

about the degree of inequality and I think the gentleman who is said

that are above all what people resent is the feeling that their

money has gone into saving the banks and yet the banks seem to be

able to push out bonuses to on huge sums of money at a time when the

banks have been saved by the taxpayer, that makes people

absolutely furious. We can have different arguments that the best

way to deal with it but I want to just say that the people sitting in

tents in St Paul's, I hope they will agree to go in the end because

it is just bankrupting St Paul's at the moment, rather than where they

wanted to be, the London Stock Exchange, where they could not ever

get. But they are saying something we ought to listen to, as are the

people, don't forget Parliament Square began with a protest about

the invasion of Iraq and Britain's involvement in it. So it is a way

of watching all the time public anger and fury with what they think

is happening without fairness to the general board of the British

people. The man in the blue shirt. There is a slight difference

between the people who are outside here and Parliament Square, who

have been there for 10 years, and their gripe was against Iraq and

the Afghanistan war. The people at St Paul's, rather than gun as the

gentleman down the end said, speaking for all of us, half of

them go home every night and they are not in their tents. Half of the

tents are empty. If they represent the people, why

did they not stand for Parliament to make change the democratic way?

Because they see this little game going on about taxing them a bit

more, and the Labour Party not doing anything when they were in

power, and then the Tories coming in, and they see no change. Can ask

why an entirely self-appointed group of people who decide to

clutter up a beautiful public space in the heart of our capital should

be treated with such exaggerated respect? I went down day yesterday

afternoon and talk to a lot of them. They have nothing interesting to

say about economics. They know nothing about it. They have nothing

interesting to say about anything. They are simply a bunch of

protesters who are against poverty, war and injustice. Who is not? All

this stuff about what would Jesus 2, Jesus had nothing to do with

politics and specifically rejected it. My kingdom is not of this world.

These people should not be treated as if they deserve exaggerated

respect. It is time they went home. They are making a mess and they are

actually rather silly. I am going to move on. Sarkozy said today, if

the euro explodes, so does Europe. Was he right? The French President

said, if the euro explodes, so does Europe. It centres on what is going

on in Greece and probably even tomorrow we will not know what is

happening in Greece, or maybe even for a few weeks. Shirley Williams?

Not necessarily, but there is no doubt it would do a great deal of

damage to the morale of the European Union. They are not the

same thing, but nevertheless the point is well taken. Let me be

quick about it. I think George Papandreou, a courageous Prime

Minister in Greece, called for a referendum at first because he

wanted see whether the Greek people would actually vote in favour of

the desperately tough measures that are being taken, the way people

here did in fact vote to some extent for accepting austerity

measures. When they voted a minority Tory party into office?

they voted Lib Dem they were voting against it. Earth did they vote

against Labour, or in favour of Tory? Let me get back to what you

were saying. The crucial point is that the eurozone was created out

of a lot of optimism which was misjudged. They brought in people

like Greece and Portugal, which were extremely poor, and tried to

blend them into a single currency zone with countries like Germany

and the Netherlands and the other countries around which were

powerful countries with strong, good economies. I think it was a

mistake. I think it was led to some extent by an illusion. But I also

think that the idea that if the eurozone falls apart we should hope

that European Union would fall apart would be a huge mistake for

this country. You think the eurozone might fall apart if Greece

falls out? The eurozone, not the European Union. So everybody would

go back to their own currency? some members of the eurozone would

fall out, starting with Greece. Essentially, the question is

whether it would be followed by Italy, in which case you would have

eight non-Mediterranean zone. One last point which I want to make

strongly. I think it is crucial that in Italy the people of Italy

decide that their president should go and that they should actually

start making some serious provision for the situation of debt. You are

calling for Berlusconi's I always thought it was

Parliamentary etiquette that you didn't call for heads of state in

other countries. Some gentlemen don't deserve etiquette.

Theresa May, this is a fairly explosive statement that Europe

will explode if the eurozone explodes. Do you believe it? Or was

he saying it for the sake of effect? I'm not sure I do agree

that the if the eurozone explodes then the whole European union would

cease to exist. It's important we remember how significant it is for

us and our economy that the eurozone doesn't explode, that what

we need to see happening is this issue being brought to conclusions

in the sense of something being done. Last week, the agreement

bought a degree of stability, the market showed positive reaction to

it. Obviously, what's been happening in the last couple of

days has brought back a degree of uncertainty and instability. What

we do need to see happening is Europe to reinforce the bail out

fund, the firewall, we need to recapitalise banks, we need to see

the Greek debt crisis resolved. blunt terms, are we threatened here

in Britain by what's going on in Greece? Oh, what's happening in the

eurozone economy is actually impacting on our economy, yes.

Fortunately, because of decisions that we have taken as a Government

to bring stability into our economy, the decisions we have taken to

ensure that we are going to deal with the deficit that was left by

the last Government, and that has involved taking some tough

decisions, we have put our economy in a better position, but there is

no doubt that economies around the world are affected by what's

happening in the eurozone. Ed Balls, can I restate the

question. Nicolas Sarkozy said if the euro explodes, so does Europe.

Hyperbole? Ffrpblgts Europe explodes, it would be an absolute

and total catastrophe for Europe, Britain and the world. It's

absolutely essential that it doesn't happen. Leaders have to

rise to the challenge and make sure it doesn't happen. I, as a pro-

European, have always been very cautious and sceptical about the

euro, precisely because it was such a risky venture. That's why Britain

didn't join. However, now it's there, they've got to sort it out.

The idea that the leaders are sitting in Cannes watching what's

happening in Athens, as if that is the biggest event, that isn't the

big event. The big event is what will happen potentially in Italy,

in Spain, and we need some leadership. First of all to say

you've got to have the financial clout, the detail to to stand

behind these big powerful systemic countries on the other hand is not

there. Despite the promises of last week, there is no deal which can be

fit for purpose. Secondly, people have got to realise in Greece, in

Portugal, in Italy, in other countries too, simply ploughing on,

saying cut more, raise more taxes, have higher unemployment, austerity

will solve the problem, is not solving the problem if Greece, the

deficit is getting wore, the debts are getting worse, the policy is

getting worse, we lived through this in the REM0 years ago when

people said stay the course, stick with it, throw more money at it, it

was an unmitigated catastrophe and leaders have to show leadership.

That includes our Prime Minister and Chancellor. At the moment, we

are on a very, very dangerous road indeed. If Greece falls out...

APPLAUSE If Greece falls out, is that the

euro exploding, as Sarkozy put it? No. So you could wear Greece going?

The thing about Greece is that it's a small country with high debts

which had no real access to financial markets and it's

supported by Governments telling the Greek people to do things which

aren't working. However, Italy and Spain, massive countries, huge

exposure to banks, a real question mark politically, but also is the

European Central Bank going to be a Central Bank? We are being told by

the Prime Minister the IMF may need to step in to solve it. The

eurozone should step in and solve the problem. They've got to accept

the reality of the monetary union, the mutual obligation, the need for

financial fire power, all of this procrastination is unbelievably

dangerous for Europe and the world. Unbelievably dangerous. Let me hear

from the audience, then I'll come to the two other members of the

panel. You with the blue shirt and the red 250. Mr Doze koz said it

was a mistake to let Greece enter the euro -- Mr Sarkozy. It's a

problem of their own making. The British Government shouldn't be

worried about it at all. You Sir, here? I'm worried that the nature

of the bail out doesn't fix the issue of solvency, it only solves

liquidity and I'm concerned that's pushing the problem down the track

The problem is two fold. Firstly, there's nothing within the eurozone

treaty to allow any member to exit. Secondly, more importantly, when

you look at the amount of tain the last austerity measures put on to

the Greek nation, then essentially it's similar to what was imposed on

Germany after the First World War with the treaty. Do you mind if

Greece falls out of the eurozone or not? Personally it doesn't concern

me but it concerns me about... it affect us? Of course. Well then

it must concern you? The exit doesn't concern me, the nature of

the exit. Stkpwh right. The woman with the green scarf? Would it be

less damaging for Greece to leave the eurozone now than to lurch from

one bail out to another? Peter Hitchens? It needs to be sorted out

soon. Huge amountss of money be being hurled on to a bonfire at the

moment. Ed Balls was quite right to recall the exchange rate mechanism

which we were told by all our leaders we had to stay in over and

over and over again, and again, we tossed hospitals and warships and

schools into the sea, billions and billions and billions of pounds

trying to keep our status in the REM, then when we left it, we

embarrassed on probably the most prosperous economic period of our

recent history. I think the euro, and those of us, like me, who

opposed it on principle from the beginning were derided by much of

conventional politics as xenophobes and little Englanders and worse

words than that for saying it. Also said from the start, this is a

crazy project, the economical equivalent of making water Flo up

hill, building the roof of the house before you've built the walls,

it was never going to work. The question now is how they are going

to get out of it doing the least damage. My suspicion is, as with

the ERM, the sooner they begin to think seriously about getting out

of it, the better for all of us. that Greece you are talking about?

Or collapsing the whole system? Greek people having austerity

measures imposed on them will make no difference to the state of the

country which seems to be collective punishment. You can see

the frustration and despair that the perfectly honest,

straightforward hard-working people in Greece are undergoing at the

moment. I can't see any advantage in that. To sit here and say let it

get out and fall out seems to be irresponsible because of the

disastrous consequences that might follow in the banking industry if

it fell out. I think those in charge should stop clinging

dogmatically and ideologically to their belief that preConservativing

this crazy Single Currency project is the most important thing for

Europe to be doing. It was a mistake. Reversing out of it doing

the least possible damage is what has to be done. The woman with the

spectacles. I would like to know how the Greeks are expected to work

their way out of the problem? In nine years' time, they will still

owe 120% of GDP. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel for those

people? Benjamin Zephaniah? It's interesting the talk about this

subject. The gentleman was the only person that talked about the people

of Greece. The people of Greece have been - sorry to talk about the

people again - they've been on the streets protesting for month after

month lately and now their leader says or suggests there may be a

referendum, it's actually too late. Will the project collapse - I don't

think it will. Greece got in because it cooked the books. And

Portugal probably the same. And Italy, our friend there, probably

the same. So they got in on false pretences anyway. If you believe in

the European project, which I don't, you've got to play the game, you've

got to play by the rules and they didn't in the first place so I

think the euro, lots of things have happened to the euro, but the

European project I think why not let a country leave if they want to

leave or have to leave? It's important to say, our Prime

Minister and Chancellor have been saying to Greece for the last year-

and-a-half, you should raise more taxes, raise VAT and cut spending

like we are doing in Britain, because it will work for you.

What's happened in Britain, our economy's flatlined for a year,

unemployment is rising, austerity, I'm afraid, Theresa May, is leading

to slow growth in Britain. We shouldn't lecture other people to

do what's not working in Britain and we should put our own house in

order. Theresa May? And we all know what

your answer to that is, Ed, your answer is that actually we should

go and do more borrowing, even more, because you seem to think that the

way to get out of having a debt on your credit card is taking out

another loan and we all know that's not the way to do things. If we

follow what you are suggestling, what would happen is the markets

would turn against us, interest rates would go up, it would be

costly for businesses and even will be paying more on their mortgages

that.'s the impact of what you are proposing. That is economic

incoherence. The idea you can talk about a country in that way - we

were told a year ago if we cut faster than every other country

we'd grow strongly and the economy would create more jobs. The

economy's flatlined, we've grown slowly than other European

countries. Has the private sector created jobs? Unemployment is

falling and -- rising and employment is slowing. It's time

for a Plan B. As a fellow supporter of the

Government along with Theresa May, Baroness Williams? The dilemma is

we have an Italy paying nearly 7% interest rate, we are paying 5%

below that, and of course, what happens is, if you cannot persuade

the markets of what you are doing, you are punished very hard indeed.

Italy is being punished beyond its capacity to respond. I'll take a

couple more points from the audience. You in the front please?

Just a comment, if you would, not a question. I guess I feel that the

economies of the countries in Europe around the world are much

too reliant on the markets. You mentioned that if we were to change

our austerity measures, then we would not be supported by the

markets. What's happened in Greece has made the markets go crazy,

maybe this is something the protesters outside St Paul's are

saying, but maybe wshedn't be so reliant on the markets -- we

shouldn't. Sarkozy said there shouldn't be a referendum in Greece.

It would have been the moral authority to the Government to

enact those austerity measures. This strikes me as anti-democratic

on the part of Sarkozy and the others who said the same thing.

OK. You Sir at the very back? just want to correct Shadow

Chancellor, the economy is not flatlining, it recently grew by

0.6%. Reduce your hands at PMQs because it's really annoying.

on. Our camera didn't catch you doing the gesture, perhaps you

would do it again? He does that at PMQs. I'm afraid over the last year,

the economy's barely grown at all. His point is it's gone up 5%?

bit, down a bit, across the year, basically flat, that's why

unemployment's rising and borrowing is going up too. It's not working.

It's still growing, that's the point. There's a light at the end

of the tunnel. Why wront you welcome the growth there has been?

Your Plan B would involve more bow rowing yuend can't borrow your way

out of a debt crisis -- -- more borrowing and you can't borrow your

way out of a debt crisis. We are here in Westminster Hall in

Parliament. It's interesting. A specialised question from Anthony

Ryan, please? In a democracy, should members of the Royal Family

be allowed a veto? This was the revelation this week that Prince

Charles has been invited to comment and can complain and object and

have removed items from 17 Bills since 2005 where they apply to his

private concerns and private company. Theresa May? Is it right

that Prince Charles should have legislation handed to him with a

letter like this saying would you like to comment, I need your

agreement? I need your consent? Are we a democracy, or is Prince

Charles separate? We are a democracy and the decisions, final

decisions are taken by elected representatives, ministers and

Members of Parliament through the debates that take place. I think

it's been well-known for a number of years that Prince Charles does

make his views known to people. Sorry, you say that laws are made

by Parliament, but here you are, I write to formally request the

consent of His Royal Highness to provisions in the Government's

prosed local democracy, economic development and construction Bill.

There are 17 of these, you must have followed this story, you are

I am not responsible for letters from Prince Charles. This is not a

letter from Prince Charles. He is allowed to strike out legislation

in his role as Prince of Wales. Do you think that is right? I think it

is right that final decisions are taken by elected representatives.

On planning issues, there are statutory console tease, who have

an opportunity to put forward views on any proposals taking place. What

matters is that at the end of the day the decisions are brought to

Parliament and are taken by Parliament. It was Baroness Andrews

who wrote this letter. You must know this story. What do you think

of the constitutional propriety of it? The truth is I don't know

anything about the story. should, shouldn't you? About a

junior minister in the communities to palm and writing about a

planning issue to Prince Charles. No, a lead story in two national

papers saying they had written to Prince Charles to seek consent to

introduce legislation. I do not know the details but I will answer

the question which is, do I think Prince Charles should have the

right to veto legislation about his planning issues, tax issues, many

issues, absolutely not. We have a democracy in which we have a

monarch and beacons of the monarch on budgets and tax matters but in

the end, should they have a right to veto, of course not. That does

not mean you cannot politely ask people. I think if the minister had

written and said, Prince Charles, take it or leave it on our deal, he

might have thought that was rather confrontational. Maybe the previous

Labour government was going about things in a better way. Benjamin

Zephaniah. This goes to the heart of our democracy. Our royal family,

this royal family, should not meddle in politics. We are told we

elect our politicians and they do the business of running the country

and that the royal family stay out of it. I think Prince Charles

should have nothing to do with vetoing. It is obviously true that

he has been doing this. He should be told off, told not to do it. A

long time ago, there is an island called Diego Garcia, and British

citizens were moved off that Ireland for an American base to

come on. In the British courts, the people of Garcia won the right to

return. And because of some antiquated law, some rule, people

went into a room with the Queen and they stood up and the Queen just

overrode the decision of the court. When we say we have a democracy in

this country, this is why a lot of people are angry. We vote every

four or five years but when we go on the street and get angry about

things, people say we are being anti-democratic, messing up the

streets. Really, we are not being democratic if politicians make

decisions and members of the royal family can veto them. That is not

democracy. The issue of Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall

is a technical one and hugely exaggerated by republican

newspapers which ate the monarchy anyway. Thank heaven, we are not a

democracy in this country. Repeat that. Thank heaven, we are not a

democracy in this country. The politicians hit the -- sit at the

head of parties relying entirely on dodgy billionaires and state

support to keep themselves going, they are themselves immensely

incompetent and inexperienced. They have brought us nothing but

disaster, mass immigration, and controlled crime. I could do a

better job than you any day of the week. Why should we be so glad to

be run by these people who have no experience of anything, no nothing

and make a mess of everything they do? The crisis at the moment is

caused by democratically-elected politicians, allegedly. Why should

we not be glad that somewhere there are restraints on them? I think

there should be more. I think the democratically-elected politicians

have messed up, but are you seriously saying the country should

be run by the monarchy? No, but this is a constitutional monarchy,

the best form of government known to man if it is properly run. Is it

is run by the dead political parties we have at the moment, it

needs restraints on what they do. Let's call for a lovely general

like it Idi Amin or Gaddafi. That would be a great alternative!

Straightforwardly, Prince Charles should be free to express his view

but should be not be free to have a veto. Which he has at the moment?

If that is right. Let's go to another question. We have 10

minutes left. A question from Simon Marshall. Do fathers have the right

to equal access to their children once they divorce? This is because

of a report which has just come out which says that legislation, no

legislation should be introduced that allows a parental right to

shared or equal time for both parents. It was a question about

the role of the fathers when families split up. The report said

that there should be no legislation creating a risk of a perception

there is a parental right. Benjamin Zephaniah. I am not sure I

understand this. So the father does not have the right... Statutory

right, equal with the mother. cannot keep telling fathers to have

equal responsibility and not give them equal rights. Theresa May,

will this be adopted by Government? I cannot say whether we will adopt

that particular part of the proposals. This is a report that

was commissioned by the last Government. By you? This has caused

concern for Members of Parliament across the house in all parties for

some time. There are some issues in there that I know we will be

wanting to take on, things like the speeding up the care process. But

one of the things that I have been concerned about for some time, and

when I spoke for the party and family policy in opposition I very

much thought that there should be a legal presumption of shared

parenting. I think there should be more emphasis on mediation. Because

what happens when couples split up and children are involved, sadly we

see bitter disputes going through the courts. It is an adversarial

system. I do not think it does the best for any body and certainly not

for the children involved. Sir mediation up front. There has been

good work in parts of the United States and Australia about shared

parenting plans. I wanted to ask, what would happen, a lot of the

times when mothers move to different countries with their

children, what would you propose to make sure fathers also get a chance

for custody if the child is in a different country? Ed Balls, you

called for this in your capacity as Children's Secretary. What do you

make of this particular clause in the review? This is a complex legal

matter and I am not a lawyer. I commissioned the report precisely

because I was worried about issues around access of fathers and

grandparents. In the interim report, he said he wanted to look at the

issue of having a legal right for fathers. And then he went and

studied some of the international experience, in particular the

Australian experience where this was done five or six years ago, and

the result of establishing the legal right was a huge increase in

the number of child custody cases which moved from mediation into

long, protracted court battles, making it more likely, as I

understand it, that you would end up with legal battles, which are

damaging for children, rather than being sorted out through mediation.

When the Home Secretary says she wants mediation, I think the review

is saying that is why you should make sure you change the culture of

the courts and the way in which the process operates. If you simply go

for changing the legislation, you move away from mediation and back

to children being badly damaged in Court processes. It is a complex

area but we do not want kids dragged through long court battles,

so I think that is why he has made the recommendation he has.

should not be about the sex of the parent comet should be about the

content of the character. But there is this issue about fathers finding

it more difficult to have access. There definitely should be a move

towards more mediation, but if you're making it harder for a court

case to come into power, sometimes children need that. Sometimes

mediation is out of the question and one of the parents is abusive,

not able to look after a child. The powers-that-be seem to fall

over themselves to apply human rights and equality to different

sections of society, but why can't they give divorced fathers the same

courtesy? Peter Hitchens. Of course fathers ought to have the freedom

to see their children but in practice it will not work out that

way. There is a huge mass of case law since the 1969 divorce law

reform which makes it harder and harder for fathers both to have

custody of the children and indeed to have any say in the disposition

of the property of the broken marriage. The real question here is

not in the arrangements you make after the divorce but in the fact

that we have a disastrous divorce law. Another part of this report

speaks of making it possible to begin a divorce now on the internet.

Divorce in this country is far too easy. It is easier to break up a

marriage than it is to get out of a car leasing agreement. This was an

arrangement made in the 1960s when we thought it would be a tremendous

liberation for adults trapped in unhappy marriages. It may well have

been such a thing, but the problem is that people who paid the price

of that were the now millions of children who have been the victims

of their parents divorcing. It does not matter what sort of

arrangements you make for custody or Child Support or anything else,

every time a marriage breaks up, the children suffer. It is time we

re-examine the divorce reforms of the 1960s and realise that at the

very least the divorce law should distinguish between parents with

children and parents who do not have any. It has been immensely

crawl and disastrous for children. Great for selfish adults, not so

good for children. Shirley Williams, briefly. I think it is right for

the report to say the primary issue should be the welfare of the child.

I think we are selfish in many ways in seeing children as secondary to

the interests of adults. In that sense, I have some sympathy with

what Peter has said. I think we have to face up to the fact that

UNICEF and other people find that British children are among the most

unhappy in the Western world and we have to address that. We should

address that. In that respect, Theresa May and Ed Balls are right

to say this is an attempt to get it right. We just have time, since you

mention happiness, for one more question. What do you think is the

essential ingredient of GWB, general wellbeing? This is the

Government proposal through the Office for National Statistics to

measure wellbeing as alongside gross national product and the rest

of it. What do you think is the essential ingredient? I will just

go round the panel. One of the things, are you satisfied with life,

with your husband, do you trust Parliament? Benjamin Zephaniah,

what would it be for you? Are you happy with your personal income,

perhaps? What makes me happy his breathing. That may sound crazy but

I wake up in the morning, I am happy I am alive. And I do not

expect too much from this life. am tempted to stop there, but thank

you. Theresa May, what do you think is the essential ingredient of

general wellbeing, leaving aside whether it is sensible for the

taxpayer to be paying for the investigation? The trouble is that

with something like this you are always going to get a raft of

things because for any individual it is something different. For you?

Power? For me, I think it is actually a good solid relationship

with somebody else. Ed Balls. do not say that, I will be in

trouble! For me, it is easily seeing our children growing up and

flourishing and our obligation is to make sure the world is fit and

proper and fit for purpose for them for the future. Undoubtedly, seeing

your kids grow up and develop his most fabulous thing in the world.

They have three months to decide these questions, so everybody can

contribute. Has Prince Charles been consulted? Shirley Williams.

best things in life are free - family relationships, friends and

the countryside. Faith in God. is not down here either. I did not

think it would be. The BBC do not believe in God. It is not the BBC!

This is not the BBC! Have a care, Peter Hitchens. This is the Office

for National Statistics. Which may I am sorry, we have to stop. This

has been the first edition of Question Time from inside the house

of parliament in the splendid setting of Westminster Hall. Next

week, we will be in the Northern Stage in Newcastle and a week after

in Aberystwyth, Wales will stop if you would like to come to either of

those, call the number. Or you can go to the website and apply. It is

great to have people to these programmes who plays such a lively