:00:11. > :00:21.Tonight we're in the north-east in the great city of Newcastle.
:00:21. > :00:25.
:00:25. > :00:30.And with me on our panel, the Scottish Secretary Michael Moore,
:00:30. > :00:34.the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves, the
:00:34. > :00:44.Conservative MP who rebelled over the vote on a European referendum,
:00:44. > :00:46.
:00:46. > :00:53.Nadine Dorries, a professor of neuroscience, Colin Blakemore and
:00:53. > :00:58.the editor of the Chronicle, Stephen Pollard. Thank you very
:00:58. > :01:00.much. And Jake Unsworth has our first question tonight.
:01:00. > :01:06.If a private company can run a hospital at the same or better
:01:06. > :01:11.standards for less, why shouldn't it? This, of course, a reference to
:01:11. > :01:15.today's news that Cambridge's Hinchenbrook Hospital is going to
:01:15. > :01:23.be taken over or run by a private company, Circle. If it can do it
:01:23. > :01:26.better, why shouldn't it, Rachel Reeves? I think in this case there
:01:26. > :01:30.are particular circumstances, and I think that the hospital has had
:01:30. > :01:34.difficulties for many years, and it was looked at first to try to find
:01:34. > :01:38.a NHS organisation to try to take it over. That didn't work. So now
:01:38. > :01:44.this private sector company is coming in to take over the hospital.
:01:45. > :01:49.But about - not about this particular instance... Ahh.
:01:49. > :01:52.thought Andy Burnham was being very critical about it, your Shadow
:01:52. > :01:57.Health Minister. What we were saying is this is an exceptional
:01:57. > :02:01.circumstance because this hospital has had huge difficulty, but in the
:02:01. > :02:05.future when this health and social care bill gets through if it gets
:02:05. > :02:09.passed in the House of Lords, this won't just be the exception. Any
:02:09. > :02:12.qualified provider can come in and run an NHS hospital. And I don't
:02:12. > :02:17.think that that is right because I think there are certain values at
:02:17. > :02:21.the heart of the NHS that are about cooperation, about working together
:02:21. > :02:25.that can't be replicated by the private sector. At the moment just
:02:25. > :02:29.3% I think of NHS services are provided by the private sector in
:02:29. > :02:33.cases where it can be proved that that'll meet a particular need, but
:02:33. > :02:38.just saying anyone can come in and set up a hospital, I don't think
:02:38. > :02:41.that that is right, and I don't think that that's what the British
:02:41. > :02:44.public want. Michael Moore. I think it's interesting how Rachel
:02:44. > :02:47.responded there because in fact the difficulties for this particular
:02:47. > :02:53.hospital began when Andy Burnham was the Health Secretary, and so
:02:53. > :02:59.there has been some time for this to be worked through. The critical
:02:59. > :03:03.thing is that without an innovative solution like this, that particular
:03:03. > :03:09.local community wouldn't continue to enjoy services in their NHS
:03:09. > :03:12.which they value and think are important, and what we have here is
:03:12. > :03:17.an operation that'll ensure that the, in shhh remains free at the
:03:17. > :03:20.point of use and available to everybody and which will also - the
:03:20. > :03:25.model of the company that is involved is like a John Lewis
:03:25. > :03:29.partnership arrangement. It involves clinicians and others, and
:03:29. > :03:33.I think it is an innovative and really smart solution to what would
:03:33. > :03:37.have otherwise been a withdrawal of service. It is listed on the stock
:03:37. > :03:41.markets. Private backers get money if it makes a profit. The point is
:03:41. > :03:45.that patients who are using the service will not pay for it. It is
:03:45. > :03:49.free and accessible to everybody. The principles upon which our NHS
:03:49. > :03:55.are founded are continued and maintained by this arrangement.
:03:55. > :04:01.Because are suspicious about it, Colin, aren't they? I think
:04:01. > :04:07.everybody is suspicious about the potential changes to our NHS, and
:04:07. > :04:12.ideal predict this Government would be judged as much by the impact of
:04:12. > :04:16.the Health and Social Care Bill as it is by any other piece of
:04:16. > :04:21.legislation. We're very defensive of the NHS for good reasons. That
:04:21. > :04:26.isn't to say the private sector shouldn't be involved. It doesn't
:04:26. > :04:33.make its own drugs. It buys them from the private sector. The
:04:33. > :04:39.question is if a company can do a job as good as the NHS, why not? I
:04:39. > :04:42.would say why not? Crucially, can the hospital not just deliver care
:04:42. > :04:46.and service, but maintain an environment for teaching, for
:04:46. > :04:51.skills, for research, for all the things the NHS is so good at? And I
:04:51. > :04:55.doubt that a lot. The woman, the second row from the back? Wouldn't
:04:55. > :04:59.it be possible to say that any circumstances are exceptional
:05:00. > :05:05.circumstances, and you could play with statistics so that anything in
:05:05. > :05:11.a particular circumstance was exceptional? Nadine Dorries, if
:05:11. > :05:15.that's the argument... Well, we could say, however that they were
:05:15. > :05:18.very exceptional circumstances here, and it's not just a case that this
:05:18. > :05:22.process was started under the previous Health Secretary. Actually,
:05:22. > :05:27.the process for this hospital - I'm not sure that it's good enough,
:05:27. > :05:30.Rachel, to say it's OK for this hospital and not OK for others. One
:05:30. > :05:35.thing this organisation have guaranteed to do which no other
:05:35. > :05:40.organisation did - and many looked at this and walked away, which is
:05:40. > :05:43.why it's taken so long - is because of the amount of debt this hospital
:05:43. > :05:47.is in. This organisation have guaranteed they'll pay that off
:05:47. > :05:52.within ten years, so I think it's probably quite premature to think
:05:52. > :05:56.that they'll be an organisation that'll be able to take vast
:05:56. > :06:00.profits, because there's huge debt that needs to be paid off first. I
:06:00. > :06:03.do think also that that hospital has the staff who work at the
:06:03. > :06:07.hospital - actually deserve better than they have been working under
:06:07. > :06:10.for the last ten years. The patients in that hospital deserve
:06:10. > :06:14.better care than they have had for the last ten years, and I think if
:06:14. > :06:18.a private organisation can come in and turn that around and give those
:06:18. > :06:21.patients better care, and if they understand the private sector -
:06:21. > :06:27.because one thing that's always baffled me, and in my previous life
:06:27. > :06:32.as a nurse, I have worked in the NHS and in private hospitals - why
:06:32. > :06:35.can't we give our patients in the NHS the same care we deliver in a
:06:35. > :06:39.private hospital? If this organisation can come in and raise
:06:39. > :06:42.the standards of care in that hospital and pay off the debts and
:06:42. > :06:46.give patients who go into that hospital better treatment, better
:06:46. > :06:50.care, a better standard of care and the staff in that hospital a better
:06:50. > :06:54.working environment, then so be it. That can only be a good thing for
:06:54. > :07:00.everybody. APPLAUSE
:07:00. > :07:07.The thing is, you make it sound, Nadine, as if the treatment people
:07:07. > :07:11.get in NHS hospitals is somehow second rate to what they get in
:07:11. > :07:14.private hospitals. I think up and down the country people who have
:07:14. > :07:18.had treatment in the National Health Service rate it at the
:07:18. > :07:22.highest levels they have ever rated it, so I just don't think this is
:07:22. > :07:28.the time to reintroduce a top-down reorganisation of the NHS and real-
:07:28. > :07:32.terms funding cuts for the NHS when waiting lists were falling under
:07:32. > :07:35.the last government. Cancer treatment is at its best ever and
:07:35. > :07:38.satisfaction in the NHS is at its highest ever level. Why rock the
:07:38. > :07:46.boat? APPLAUSE
:07:46. > :07:49.The man at back. As a replay to Nadine Dorries, we thought Southern
:07:50. > :07:53.Cross was a responsible provider, so I am not really sure you can
:07:53. > :07:57.justify the incoming providers based on that. You're against what
:07:57. > :08:01.has happened at this hospital? particularly, but I don't think the
:08:01. > :08:05.justification for it can be based on the reputation... We'll talk
:08:06. > :08:11.about that in a moment. Stephen Pollard. I do find the debate we
:08:11. > :08:15.have about health in this country to be bewildering. There is a
:08:15. > :08:21.polarity as if there is the NHS or some dreadful American private
:08:21. > :08:24.model but all you have to do is cross the channel and on the
:08:24. > :08:29.continent they think it's unexceptional that you have a mix
:08:29. > :08:35.of mutual provision, charity provision, all kinds of things, and
:08:35. > :08:38.what counts is what patients get. Yet here we have this notion of if
:08:38. > :08:42.it's somehow not provided through the state it's moral. The NHS was
:08:42. > :08:46.completed in 1948 in a completely different world to what we have now
:08:46. > :08:50.when open rationing was the norm, when the state did indeed provide
:08:51. > :08:55.so many different things that now it would never - we would never
:08:55. > :09:00.conceive of the state providing to us. I heard a comedian once dismiss
:09:00. > :09:03.a heckler as saying, "Who counts your hair, the council?" Everyone
:09:03. > :09:07.laughed. We don't think twice about the council educating their
:09:07. > :09:11.children - not the council, but the state providing health care for,
:09:11. > :09:18.and yet when we talk about the idea of going to the local authority to
:09:18. > :09:24.have your hair cut would be ridiculous. Actually, we need to go
:09:24. > :09:29.beyond our ridiculous inslairty and just cross the Channel. Does it
:09:29. > :09:35.mean, then, every time the public sector gets into problems, we have
:09:35. > :09:38.to turn to the private sector? Where will it end? Is this going to
:09:38. > :09:44.be rolled out as a solution? Because you were talking about it
:09:44. > :09:48.very much as if it was the coming thing... Can I answer his question?
:09:48. > :09:53.Answer that gentleman's question first. This hospital is an
:09:53. > :09:57.exceptional case. It has excessive debts, and there are - there is no
:09:57. > :10:00.other organisation that would take this on. But this is going to be -
:10:00. > :10:05.they already run NHS treatment centres and a private hospital
:10:05. > :10:11.already, so they're already running NHS services. How will they pay off
:10:11. > :10:14.the debt? I don't know the exact details, David. How much was it?
:10:14. > :10:18.�10 million? I don't know the business plan, but they're the only
:10:18. > :10:23.organisation that would take on this... Weird. We'll have to see.
:10:23. > :10:29.Michael Moore, how are they going to pay off... Their commitment is
:10:29. > :10:33.to ensure that they run the facilities more effectively, that
:10:33. > :10:36.they manage the way the workers run through the hospital more
:10:37. > :10:41.effectively. The clinicians will be right at the heart of the decision
:10:41. > :10:46.making, as they should be. But to answer the gentleman's question, I
:10:46. > :10:50.absolutely agree with you that this has to be an exceptional case. It
:10:50. > :10:55.started as a difficulty under the previous government. When you say
:10:55. > :10:59.it has to be an exception case, you don't want to see it applied to
:10:59. > :11:03.other hospitals? I don't see this as a model that's going to be
:11:04. > :11:09.rolled out... Nadine Dorries does? Why not, if it's successful? At the
:11:09. > :11:13.end of this pilot if we have a hospital that's running efficiently
:11:13. > :11:17.and providing excellent standards, why wouldn't we? You see the
:11:17. > :11:21.coalition! The thing is, as others have rightly said, we get first-
:11:21. > :11:26.class service from the NHS up and down the length of the country from
:11:26. > :11:30.doctors... The patients' association would disagree.
:11:30. > :11:35.course there are up and down the country instances - it's right we
:11:35. > :11:40.keep all of that under review. People want to know they can get
:11:40. > :11:43.the treatment in the local area... Why not now in the public sector?
:11:43. > :11:49.There are another 20 hospitals in trouble like this we were told
:11:49. > :11:54.today. Yeah. You think they won't all go the same way? I am going to
:11:54. > :12:00.go to the two women there side by side. You first. I am a
:12:00. > :12:08.radiographer. I have worked in the private sector under the NHS a long
:12:09. > :12:13.time. I have to agree with you, Nadine. I think that standards are
:12:13. > :12:22.far higher. What do you think? think it's appalling. I think when
:12:22. > :12:27.your motivation is profit, patient care suffers.
:12:27. > :12:30.The man up there on the right. the motive is profit that means
:12:30. > :12:34.surely people are choosing that care. For instance, if the private
:12:34. > :12:38.sector is providing good let care we want to pay for, surely that's a
:12:38. > :12:43.service that is worth paying for. The gentleman in the second row,
:12:44. > :12:48.and Rachel Reeves, you might pick up on this point. I think the track
:12:48. > :12:52.record of private companies running for whether it's PFI or public
:12:53. > :12:57.sector services has been so bad in the last 20 years, we all have no
:12:57. > :13:02.confidence, and often the owners of these businesses change hands. The
:13:02. > :13:07.assets strip, and they sell, and we see prisoners run and buy another
:13:07. > :13:13.company that is not committed to the same model or the same
:13:13. > :13:16.commitments in terms of the guarantees that they first pledged
:13:16. > :13:20.at the beginning of the acquisition. I think I might leave this and go
:13:20. > :13:24.on to another question. I am just puzzled about one thing which you
:13:24. > :13:27.could perhaps answer. How are they going to pay off this debt without
:13:27. > :13:33.money changing hands, and who is going to pay them to pay off the
:13:33. > :13:37.debt? The arrangement is around the way the hospital - the facilities
:13:37. > :13:41.are run, and they will look very carefully at all aspects of how
:13:41. > :13:45.that is done. I haven't looked at the business plan. I'm not the
:13:45. > :13:49.Health Secretary, but it is also about using the health resources in
:13:49. > :13:52.the hospital more effectively and efficiently. OK. Using the
:13:52. > :13:55.clinicians and the health staff the drive that. OK. Let's move on. By
:13:55. > :14:05.the way, if you want to join in this debate, of course, you know
:14:05. > :14:12.
:14:12. > :14:17.I should say one thing tonight - if you're a school pupil or teacher
:14:17. > :14:21.and want to get involved with the BBC's schools debate, go to our
:14:21. > :14:25.website, and you'll see how to do it there. Let's go on to another
:14:25. > :14:28.question, please. Julie Howells. a society that prides itself on
:14:28. > :14:33.freedom of expression, should we ban the burning of poppies? Should
:14:33. > :14:39.we be banning the burning of poppies? This is the decision by
:14:39. > :14:45.the Home Secretary to ban as from today a Muslim group called Muslims
:14:45. > :14:50.Against Cruisas who banned a poppy last year, and she's banned them -
:14:50. > :14:57.illegal to belong from midnight. Nadine Dorries, in a society that
:14:57. > :15:03.prides itself in froo freedom of expression, should this be done?
:15:03. > :15:06.think so, yes. I think what the poppy symbolises and represents is
:15:06. > :15:10.something quite special. I think not only does it represent the
:15:10. > :15:15.people whose lives - not just in the Great War, the Second World War,
:15:15. > :15:19.but young men who are losing their lives today for the sake of our
:15:19. > :15:23.freedom, and there is no greater sackify, and it is hugely symbolic,
:15:23. > :15:29.and I think also what it does is it lets those soldiers who are about
:15:29. > :15:39.to go to war on our behalf know we will remember them and they are
:15:39. > :15:39.
:15:39. > :15:44.These Muslim groups are opposed to the operations in Afghanistan.
:15:44. > :15:47.not think it is relevant that it is a Muslim group. Anyone who would
:15:47. > :15:51.want to have poppy burning ceremonies should be banned from
:15:51. > :15:57.doing so, because I think it goes very much against the grain of who
:15:57. > :16:07.we are, what we respect, what we stand for. I think it is the most
:16:07. > :16:09.
:16:09. > :16:14.incredibly disrespectful thing to I agree with what Nadine Dorries
:16:14. > :16:18.has said. On Sunday I will be at a remembrance service in Leeds and
:16:18. > :16:23.there will be veterans from wars gone by, but also families who will
:16:23. > :16:27.have husbands, wives, sons and daughters serving on the front line
:16:27. > :16:33.now. It sickens me that people would burn the poppy as some sort
:16:33. > :16:36.of symbol of defiance. I think it is right to ban these groups. I
:16:36. > :16:40.think whether or not you are in favour of a particular war, whether
:16:40. > :16:44.it be Afghanistan or Iraq, you should respect those people who
:16:45. > :16:48.fight him those wars, who give their lives in some cases, for the
:16:48. > :16:52.service of this country, to protect all of us. Whatever your view on
:16:52. > :16:59.the wall, you should respect those who serve in the war, and we should
:16:59. > :17:04.commemorate those who have died for us, but also the last serving today.
:17:04. > :17:10.Is it the act of burning the poppy, or the act of protesting on
:17:10. > :17:14.Remembrance Sunday, or as they did on the commemoration service for
:17:14. > :17:20.9/11? Is that what you object to and they should be banned for, or
:17:20. > :17:23.the symbolism of burning the flag or the poppy? In this case, it is a
:17:24. > :17:27.group that has been banned and I think it is right that group should
:17:27. > :17:31.be banned. It is just a manifestation of a previous group
:17:31. > :17:34.that has changed its name, so I think the Home Secretary is right
:17:34. > :17:39.to Bammer Group. I think most people would share the view that it
:17:39. > :17:42.is not appropriate or acceptable to behave in that way. It does not
:17:42. > :17:47.sound very effective if they are banned and they pop up under
:17:47. > :17:51.another name. I think it is effective if on Sunday they are not
:17:51. > :17:59.there by the Royal Albert Hall, or wherever they congregate, choosing
:17:59. > :18:02.disruption and for upsetting and angering people, and showing so
:18:02. > :18:07.little respect for people who have fought for this country and are
:18:07. > :18:14.fighting today. I think it is interesting what you say. I would
:18:14. > :18:18.like to add that, I think, by banning any groups who represent an
:18:18. > :18:21.extremist feeling of hatred, I do not think banning it is the right
:18:21. > :18:25.way to go about it. Banning it makes it go underground. It is
:18:25. > :18:29.still going to be there. You just cannot control it if you have
:18:29. > :18:35.banned it. We need to question why it is there in the first place and
:18:35. > :18:40.may be approached the cause, the prevention, rather than cause.
:18:40. > :18:43.agree with that. More important to identify the origins of hatred them
:18:43. > :18:47.to attack symbolic gestures like this. Five days ago we encourage
:18:47. > :18:54.our children to burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, a revolutionary who
:18:54. > :18:57.tried to blow up Parliament. It is not these futile, although hateful,
:18:57. > :19:07.gestures that matter, but the origin of those feelings that we
:19:07. > :19:09.
:19:09. > :19:14.I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. I would not
:19:14. > :19:17.disagree with anything that has been said, and clearly the people
:19:17. > :19:21.who would burn poppies are despicable human beings. But they
:19:21. > :19:26.are not being banned because they are burning poppies. If I took this
:19:26. > :19:30.off and tore it up, I would not be banned. They are being banned
:19:30. > :19:35.because they are in danger of inciting all kinds of racial hatred.
:19:35. > :19:38.They are banned for public order offences, for all kinds of reasons.
:19:38. > :19:42.We made reference to the fact that they previously existed under
:19:43. > :19:46.another name, Islam for UK, and they were banned as that. The issue
:19:46. > :19:51.is not whether it is appropriate to ban people for burning poppies, of
:19:51. > :19:54.course it is not appropriate to ban people simply for burning poppies.
:19:55. > :19:58.The real issue is whether the legislation we having is in any way
:19:58. > :20:02.effective, given that in a previous incarnation, all they needed to do,
:20:02. > :20:06.it appears, to simply create another organisation and simply
:20:06. > :20:10.there -- suddenly they were allowed to conduct their activities. If
:20:10. > :20:12.there is something wrong with the legislation. I think Colin is
:20:12. > :20:16.profoundly wrong when he talks about looking at their grievances,
:20:16. > :20:21.because these people do not have sensible grievances. They are
:20:21. > :20:26.committed to turning Europe into a Caliphate. They are not mainstream
:20:26. > :20:31.Muslims. Most Muslims are peaceable and want to live alongside us, like
:20:31. > :20:35.Jews, like Christians, like Hindus. These people are outside any
:20:35. > :20:45.recognisable mainstream. They are as near to terrorists that we at --
:20:45. > :20:46.
:20:46. > :20:51.As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by the panel
:20:51. > :20:56.with regards to poppy burning, I have to admit that I find it, I
:20:56. > :20:59.think we should be wary when it comes to banning organisations
:20:59. > :21:04.simply because we wholeheartedly and utterly disagree with them. I
:21:04. > :21:10.think that leads us into dangerous territory for future years. But it
:21:10. > :21:15.is not about his agreement, it is about an intrinsic threat to our
:21:15. > :21:19.existence as a society. -- it is not about disagreement. I disagree
:21:19. > :21:22.with Rachel, but I would not ban her. It is not about whether we
:21:22. > :21:28.disagree, it is about existing and operating completely outside the
:21:28. > :21:32.norms of the way democratic societies conduct themselves.
:21:32. > :21:35.question was about freedom of expression and our society. I think,
:21:35. > :21:40.if I might start by agreeing with everybody who has said it is
:21:40. > :21:43.utterly offensive that people should burn poppies. It would be
:21:43. > :21:46.offensive to the memories of people who gave their lives in the First
:21:46. > :21:51.World War, the Second World War, the many conflicts in between and
:21:51. > :21:54.more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. We have to
:21:54. > :21:58.remember the huge sacrifices people have made, and rightly this weekend
:21:58. > :22:02.we will pay tribute to that. The critical thing here is that freedom
:22:02. > :22:07.of expression, which we must promote at every turn, has to have
:22:07. > :22:11.limits. When it turns into promoting terrorism, which is what
:22:11. > :22:15.this group is dedicated to under whatever name it calls itself, then
:22:15. > :22:20.it has crossed a line. I think it is then legitimate for us to take
:22:20. > :22:24.further steps. In this country, tragically, in different parts of
:22:24. > :22:28.the UK we have experienced terrorism first hand. If we cannot
:22:28. > :22:32.tolerate a situation where we allow people to go out and openly do this.
:22:32. > :22:36.The offensiveness of what was being proposed hurts deeply, but the real
:22:36. > :22:44.danger from this group and others is about promoting terrorism, and
:22:44. > :22:50.that we should not allow. Do you want to come back on that? I accept
:22:50. > :22:55.what Michael Moore has just said, but, however, I do find it potent
:22:55. > :23:03.to point out that if you know what organisation to monitor, it is
:23:04. > :23:08.easier to do so. I am losing my words. But you can fight that level
:23:08. > :23:13.of extremism. Can we distinguish between what we know them to be
:23:13. > :23:17.like as individuals, and that will be handled appropriately by the
:23:17. > :23:21.security services, and what they seek to do, which, of itself, can
:23:21. > :23:27.be seen to promote terrorism? It is preventing those acts promoting
:23:27. > :23:30.terrorism that has to be where we are at a. I agree that burning the
:23:31. > :23:37.poppy is offensive, but if you say that we are banning it because it
:23:37. > :23:46.incites hatred and disrupts public order, why are the EDL march is not
:23:46. > :23:53.banned, because I would say that is promoting hatred? Can I point out
:23:53. > :23:58.that those marchers were banned, the EDL marches. The Home Secretary
:23:58. > :24:02.was not just talking about poppies, but glorifying terrorism. Let's go
:24:02. > :24:07.on to a question from Gary Day. Should we accept longer queues at
:24:07. > :24:12.our borders to protect our national security? Should we accept longer
:24:12. > :24:15.queues at our borders to protect our national security? This goes to
:24:15. > :24:20.the heart of what has been going on, if anyone knows what has been going
:24:20. > :24:26.on, at our borders. Nadine Dorries, longer queues, more security,
:24:26. > :24:30.shorter queues, less security. Which do you go for? Actually, it
:24:30. > :24:37.is neither of those. Let me focus on what did happen. What happened
:24:37. > :24:42.was that there were two things happened. One was that children...
:24:42. > :24:48.Let me explain why we are talking about, the row between the Home
:24:48. > :24:52.Secretary and the department. shorter queues delivered an
:24:53. > :24:58.increase in the number of illegal immigrants, 100% increase in
:24:58. > :25:02.illegal firearms, a 48% increase in forged documents. What are you
:25:02. > :25:07.talking about? I assume you are talking about the recent incident
:25:07. > :25:12.this week with regard to the Border Agency. I do think the pilot has
:25:12. > :25:16.been a success. If David will just let me explain why I think it has
:25:16. > :25:20.been a success. The queues were shorter, to a degree, because what
:25:20. > :25:24.was asked for was that only children coming from European
:25:24. > :25:29.economic Area countries did not go through the warning index checks.
:25:29. > :25:34.This was so that Border Agency staff could focus on those who were
:25:34. > :25:37.a higher risk coming from other countries, and that worked. That
:25:37. > :25:41.worked because of the statistics I have just given you. If the queues
:25:41. > :25:45.were shorter - I have no idea if they were - but the objective of
:25:45. > :25:50.the exercise was to free the staff up so they could work on the people
:25:50. > :25:54.that we knew would be a risk. And just by the 100% increase in
:25:54. > :25:58.illegal arms, the 10% increase in illegal immigrants which were
:25:58. > :26:03.detected and the 48% increase in illegal documentation brought into
:26:03. > :26:09.the country shows it was a success. Let's go to you, Rachel Reeves, do
:26:09. > :26:17.you agree it was a success, this experiment in cutting back on the
:26:17. > :26:21.Czechs? It increased security. Refined Nadine Dorries' answer to
:26:21. > :26:24.this question staggering. -- I find her answer staggering. We have no
:26:24. > :26:32.idea how many people were let in under this pilot, no idea of the
:26:32. > :26:37.scale of the breach in security. You let in 2.2 million! We still do
:26:37. > :26:41.not know which airports and which ports were operating this pilot.
:26:41. > :26:45.When a pilot is going on at a time when our threat level is severe,
:26:45. > :26:49.you would expect the Home Secretary to be monitoring the pilot, to see
:26:49. > :26:54.whether it is working, to see whether it is being implemented
:26:54. > :26:57.correctly. And yet none of that seemed to be going on. And the
:26:57. > :27:02.Government have already said that the number of people employed by
:27:02. > :27:06.the borders Agency is going to be cut by 1000 this year, by 5000 or
:27:06. > :27:10.more over the course of this Parliament. Unless the Government
:27:10. > :27:15.gets a grip on the UK Border Agency, I don't think that we can rest
:27:15. > :27:20.assured that this pilot and the Border Agency is going to have the
:27:20. > :27:24.handle on our national security and on people coming into this country.
:27:24. > :27:27.I think it is perfectly obvious that everybody in the room
:27:28. > :27:32.deceiving and everybody at home his first and foremost concern about
:27:32. > :27:35.the security of the country. -- everybody in the room this evening.
:27:36. > :27:39.That is our responsibility as a Government and we take that very
:27:39. > :27:43.seriously. What we recognise is that those trying to cheat the
:27:43. > :27:48.system have become smarter at it, using different techniques,
:27:48. > :27:54.different technology. So what the pilot was seeking to do was to
:27:54. > :27:57.ensure that we reduced the checks on young children travelling with
:27:57. > :28:03.their parents from Europe, all with school parties, so they did not
:28:03. > :28:08.have to be checked against the warning lists, that the European
:28:08. > :28:11.parents, adults, were not being checked against the biometric chip
:28:11. > :28:17.in the passport which confirms the picture matches the person in front
:28:17. > :28:20.of you. But every single passport was still being checked. The result,
:28:20. > :28:23.according to the Home Secretary, is that we will never know how many
:28:23. > :28:28.people enter the country who should have been prevented from doing so.
:28:28. > :28:31.Wait a minute. There are two distinctions. One is the point that
:28:31. > :28:35.Nadine Dorries has made, that as a result of the pilot, still being
:28:35. > :28:42.evaluated, but early indications are that it court increased numbers
:28:42. > :28:49.of attempts to come into the country illegally. It has trapped
:28:49. > :28:56.weapons and also... She has said that, but what went wrong? What
:28:57. > :29:00.went wrong? The point I'm trying to make... I am just trying to get you
:29:00. > :29:03.to answer the question. I am answering the question and
:29:03. > :29:07.particularly what happened here was that officials in the UK Border
:29:07. > :29:12.Force went further than they had been authorised and removed some of
:29:12. > :29:18.the Czechs for others who should have been checked. Unfortunately
:29:18. > :29:21.that does mean there are gaps in what we know. Is a forgivable
:29:21. > :29:25.foreign Home Secretary who puts in an experimental plan not to make
:29:25. > :29:29.sure it is monitored closely enough for that to happen? The inspectors
:29:29. > :29:32.were the ones who found out what was going on. The officials in the
:29:32. > :29:36.Border Agency, the chief executive of the Border Agency found out what
:29:36. > :29:41.was going on from the UK Border Force and the senior civil servant
:29:41. > :29:44.was suspended. That is entirely right and proper. There are three
:29:44. > :29:48.different inquiries going on into this, we will learn lessons from it
:29:48. > :29:51.and continue to evaluate the pilot so we can be clever and smart about
:29:51. > :30:01.how we get our border forces deployed, how we use the technology
:30:01. > :30:03.
:30:03. > :30:08.Let's go to the woman in the front and hear from some members of our
:30:08. > :30:13.audience about this. Of course everybody would choose security
:30:13. > :30:17.over shorter queues but if the coalition funded public sector
:30:17. > :30:19.departments correctly, we wouldn't have to choose. We would have the
:30:19. > :30:23.shorter queues and the security. APPLAUSE
:30:23. > :30:26.It is an interesting point whether national security is so important
:30:26. > :30:30.that it should have been outside the sphere of the cuts, isn't it?
:30:30. > :30:35.Colin Blakemore. I am really a bit confused here. I was out of the
:30:35. > :30:37.country when this issue blew up. Did you - I did manage, yes, only
:30:37. > :30:46.took 20 minutes. LAUGHTER
:30:46. > :30:53.If this pilot worked so brilliantly well, why on earth Hasbro bro been
:30:53. > :30:57.dismissed for extending it? Because it was only for countries were at
:30:57. > :31:05.high risk. What this really reveals is we just don't know enough about
:31:05. > :31:12.the best methods to control access, to select people for special
:31:12. > :31:15.selection. We need proper evidence. The only way is by proper data
:31:15. > :31:24.gathering, difficult when people trying to getly are not seen,
:31:24. > :31:29.difficult to know whether you have missed them or not. We need to
:31:29. > :31:33.introduce measures - people know when the planes are coming. Staff
:31:33. > :31:37.should be available to check people properly. The staff shouldn't be
:31:37. > :31:42.cut? If it's demonstrated a certain staffing level is needed to provide
:31:42. > :31:46.a level of security, obviously, yes. I'll come back to you in main. Yes.
:31:46. > :31:50.I don't think there is anything wrong with the principle of more
:31:50. > :31:53.targeted intelligence-led check, but the real problem that's caused
:31:53. > :31:57.this situation is the more discretion you give to people lower
:31:57. > :32:01.down the chain, the less watertight the system becomes because the less
:32:01. > :32:05.people that use the discretion, the less streamlined the policy becomes,
:32:05. > :32:09.the wider the gaps. You shouldn't give discretion? Not so much. There
:32:09. > :32:13.was a system. There was a policy, a procedure that was watered down,
:32:13. > :32:19.and that's how the gaps have developed. There is nothing wrong
:32:19. > :32:23.in principle, but when there are people involved, that's when risks
:32:23. > :32:26.develop. I think given the utter shambles that existed under the
:32:26. > :32:31.last Government, to hear Rachel Reeves berate this Government for
:32:31. > :32:35.one pilot programme that appears to have gone wrong is what in the
:32:35. > :32:39.Jewish Chronicle we'd certainly call chutzpah. We don't know what's
:32:39. > :32:43.happened. There is going to be in inquiry. Even if you take Theresa
:32:43. > :32:47.May's account at face value, what appears to be clear is she lost
:32:47. > :32:52.control of her department or the Border Agency. That's not
:32:52. > :32:54.necessarily a culpable offence. I spent about ten years ago I wrote a
:32:55. > :32:58.biography of David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary and spent quite
:32:58. > :33:03.a lot of time in the Home Office. It was very clear to me then that
:33:03. > :33:07.it was, as John Reid, Blunkett's successor referred to the Border
:33:07. > :33:10.Agency as not being fit for purpose. It was an absolute basket case. I
:33:10. > :33:15.think the absolute priority of any Home Secretary is to get a grip of
:33:15. > :33:18.the Border Agency. Now, clearly, Theresa May has not done that.
:33:18. > :33:21.Whether that's because of her own inadequacies or whether there is
:33:21. > :33:25.something so fundamentally wrong with it that no politician is
:33:25. > :33:29.capable of doing that is an issue I think we need to get to grips with.
:33:29. > :33:32.I mean, really, to have the Labour Party berate this Government for
:33:32. > :33:35.one pilot scheme that's gone wrong given the utter chaos that existed
:33:35. > :33:44.under the last Labour Government is preposterous.
:33:44. > :33:49.APPLAUSE It's a kind of - it is interesting
:33:49. > :33:53.that Theresa May was on Question Time when Beverley Hughes was
:33:53. > :33:58.Immigration Minister... Exactly. And she was attacked, Beverley
:33:58. > :34:04.Hughes, over her policy to admit immigrants to the UK without checks,
:34:04. > :34:11.and Theresa May said on Question Time, "I am and tired of the Labour
:34:11. > :34:15.Party who simply blame other people when things go wrong." If the hat
:34:15. > :34:19.fits... Didn't blame anybody. did. No, she did not. You must get
:34:19. > :34:24.the facts right. It was Rob Whiteman, his boss, who suspended
:34:24. > :34:28.him and who alerted Theresa May to the problem. Theresa May did not
:34:28. > :34:32.suspend him. It was not her inadequacy. It was the inadequacy
:34:32. > :34:36.of the member of staff who took the pilot too far and his boss who
:34:36. > :34:40.suspended him when he found out, as he should have done. There is going
:34:40. > :34:46.to be a court case now. So you're saying she's never uttered a word
:34:46. > :34:50.of, "It was not my fault"? What I am saying is - Rachel, to say there
:34:50. > :34:52.will be cuts in the Border Agency - there will be 18,000 staff working
:34:52. > :34:56.in the Border Agency at the end of this Parliament. That's exactly the
:34:56. > :35:02.same number of staff who were working in the Border Agency when
:35:02. > :35:06.Ed Miliband was deciding the budget when he was working at the Treasury.
:35:06. > :35:12.That is chutzpah... Is it true, what she says? I think it's going
:35:12. > :35:15.back to... Absolutely true. In 2006, we were increasing numbers, and
:35:15. > :35:20.numbers have been increasing in the Border Agency to deal with the
:35:20. > :35:24.scale of the challenges we're facing. They're coming down now.
:35:24. > :35:28.The challenge is you have 450,000 papers of asylum seekers locked in
:35:28. > :35:33.a cupboard somewhere. You let 2.2 million illegal immigrants into the
:35:33. > :35:37.country. You actually opened up our border when the rest of Europe said,
:35:37. > :35:43.no, we'll wait such years - let everybody pour in. This question
:35:43. > :35:46.was about a specific issue that arose about 15 months into this
:35:46. > :35:54.coalition Government. The pilot scheme. That went horribly wrong -
:35:54. > :35:58.a pilot scheme that went horribly wrong. OK. You don't take no
:35:58. > :36:04.responsibility for it, Nadine. Let's leave the point there. Let's
:36:04. > :36:09.go to the woman in the fourth row. Besides the fact I think the
:36:09. > :36:13.terrorist threat is majorly exaggerated, I also think the
:36:13. > :36:16.rhetoric and the action on these issues - you talk tough and try get
:36:16. > :36:23.votes through scare-mongering, but you're not actually believing what
:36:23. > :36:26.you're saying. Sorry? There's lot of talk and scare-mongering by the
:36:26. > :36:32.Conservative, but you obviously don't believe the terrorist threat
:36:32. > :36:37.is that big a deal, not as big as it was made out to be. Let's go on.
:36:37. > :36:42.Let's take this question from Erica Whyman, please.
:36:42. > :36:46.Do you agree that regions like the north-east are the UK's equivalent
:36:46. > :36:48.of the southern Europe states that are in so much trouble? And if you
:36:48. > :36:58.do, when are you going to bail us out?
:36:58. > :36:59.
:36:59. > :37:03.APPLAUSE Stephen Pollard, you're in southern
:37:03. > :37:06.Europe. It's a bit colder, but that's where you are tonight.
:37:06. > :37:11.Absolutely. I think the issue of bail-outs is actually at the heart
:37:11. > :37:14.of so much that's gone wrong with economic policy for so long and is
:37:14. > :37:19.obviously specifically about what's going on in Greece and Italy,
:37:19. > :37:22.possibly, and so on... Hold on. Let's do the first part. Do you
:37:22. > :37:27.accept that the north-east is the UK's equivalent to southern Europe
:37:27. > :37:30.in economic terms, in... Do we mean - if we're talking - the answer to
:37:30. > :37:34.that is no in that I don't think that workers in the north-east of
:37:34. > :37:38.the UK and the at tuds in the north-east are anything like the
:37:38. > :37:42.attitudes in Greece and in parts of Italy and other parts of southern
:37:42. > :37:45.Europe. In terms of being an impoverished part relative to the
:37:45. > :37:50.rest of the country, then clearly that's the case. The issue is what
:37:50. > :37:54.you do about it. I don't think you create economic growth by
:37:54. > :37:57.Government diktat the way you create Government growth is people
:37:57. > :38:02.set up businesses and start hiring. People take failing businesses, and
:38:02. > :38:05.they turn them around. How do you do that? I think one of the
:38:05. > :38:08.problems we have got with growth at the moment in this country is we
:38:08. > :38:13.have too much red tape, too much interference. I am an employer at
:38:13. > :38:17.my nu. I would love to be able -- newspaper. I would love to be able
:38:17. > :38:21.to take on people for short-term projects, to see whether they'd be
:38:21. > :38:26.worth keeping in the long term. I can't do that because the moment I
:38:26. > :38:31.start hiring, all kinds of laws come into effect, and I can't
:38:31. > :38:35.guarantee I'll be able to keep them on. The answer is we don't hire
:38:35. > :38:39.people. The real problem I think with prosperity in regions like the
:38:39. > :38:42.north-east and all kinds of areas across the UK is precisely this
:38:42. > :38:46.attitude that everything is going on solved through the Government.
:38:46. > :38:52.It's not the Government that's going to create prosperity. It's
:38:52. > :38:55.real people doing real jobs creating real prosperity, hiring
:38:55. > :39:02.people, spending money and buying, creating and investing our way out
:39:02. > :39:08.of poverty. Erarea, are you looking for a bail-out? Is that what you
:39:08. > :39:12.meant by the question? I didn't mean that we had any kind of
:39:12. > :39:15.lackadaisical attitude. You seem to be suggesting that teachers and
:39:15. > :39:20.nurses and those people who work in the public sector in the north-east
:39:20. > :39:25.don't have real jobs is that what you mean by that last remark?
:39:25. > :39:30.at all. Clearly you have teachers and public sector workers and all
:39:30. > :39:34.of those kinds of things. But they're not creating wealth. It's
:39:34. > :39:38.business. It's not teachers and nurses that create the wealth. They
:39:38. > :39:42.are part of the products of that wealth.
:39:42. > :39:45.I'm sorry. I completely disagree. The wealth of this country lies in
:39:45. > :39:49.our ability to have a coherent society and a community we're proud
:39:49. > :39:54.to live in, and that includes businesses that create profit, of
:39:54. > :39:58.course, but it also includes great schools, great universities, a
:39:58. > :40:01.great culture in our country, all of which is being cut... If you
:40:01. > :40:05.don't have business that is prosperous, you don't have any of
:40:05. > :40:08.that. No. You're taking it away. You're taking it away in the south-
:40:08. > :40:15.east and in many other parts of this country. Michael Moore.
:40:15. > :40:17.APPLAUSE First of all, I would disagree with
:40:17. > :40:22.the comparison. I don't think that the scale of the challenges within
:40:22. > :40:27.the UK are anything like what we're seeing in the south of Europe, but
:40:27. > :40:31.that is not to play down the very serious issues that areas like the
:40:31. > :40:35.north-east and other parts of the country fair, and I realise that
:40:35. > :40:39.we've got a big responsibility as a Government to assist whatever else
:40:39. > :40:42.is said about that, and as a Government, we're committed to
:40:43. > :40:46.supporting the north-east and the rest of the country with the
:40:46. > :40:51.enterprise zones, with our investment in infrastructure,
:40:51. > :40:54.whether it's the east coast main line improvement as the are coming
:40:54. > :40:59.along or another the regional growth funds which we have been
:40:59. > :41:02.able to support in recent months which support jobs of 15,000
:41:02. > :41:06.directly, another 25,000 indirectly. That's just some specifics for this
:41:06. > :41:11.part of the country, but more generally, our major task is to get
:41:11. > :41:16.the economy back on the right track and make sure we get it rebalanced
:41:16. > :41:19.away from the financial-services orientated south-east that we had
:41:19. > :41:22.for generations and exacerbated under the last Labour Government so
:41:22. > :41:26.that things that are really important in this part of the world
:41:26. > :41:29.like manufacturing get the support they need. And when we see world-
:41:29. > :41:33.class companies like Nissan and others based here producing cars to
:41:33. > :41:36.export all over the world, we want to support them, but - and the
:41:36. > :41:43.final thing is this about the context in which we're considering
:41:43. > :41:47.all of this - we export to Europe, to the eurozone a huge amount of
:41:47. > :41:51.what we produce in this country, and that means that we've got to
:41:52. > :41:55.see the problems there sorted out, and that's another urgent priority
:41:55. > :42:00.for us, but more importantly for the countries in the eurozone.
:42:00. > :42:03.me hear some views from the audience. You, sir, the man with
:42:03. > :42:08.the beard. I think one of the classic inconsistencies between the
:42:08. > :42:13.north and the south, for example is the duelling of Air One. We have
:42:13. > :42:19.fault for years, if not decades, to get that dual carriageway - it's
:42:19. > :42:24.one of the most dangerous roads in the country. Whichever party is in,
:42:24. > :42:30.they promise the earth, and it never happens, yet if they want a
:42:30. > :42:35.high-speed railway down south, they get that. Can't we support that
:42:35. > :42:39.particular project, which would create a lot of jobs and save a lot
:42:40. > :42:44.of lives? Infrastructure. APPLAUSE
:42:44. > :42:49.I think a lot of it has to do with the property prices. London
:42:49. > :42:52.property will always hold its value, whereas we're suffering more in the
:42:52. > :42:56.north-east, even though I am not originally from the north-east.
:42:56. > :43:00.But what do you think can be done about that? What would your bail-
:43:00. > :43:04.out scheme that was talked about... It would be difficult because
:43:04. > :43:08.London does always hold its value, always has done, always will do,
:43:08. > :43:11.but the north-east - we're suffering because of the job
:43:11. > :43:17.situation and the recession. The north of the country always seems
:43:17. > :43:21.to suffer more in a recession. Rachel Reeves. Well, representing a
:43:21. > :43:26.northern constituency, these are the issues that I know from where I
:43:26. > :43:30.live. Can I just come back to the follow-up point that Erica made. I
:43:31. > :43:36.think she was absolutely right when she said that the economy benefits
:43:36. > :43:39.from teachers, doctors and nurses, and, you know, of course we need
:43:39. > :43:43.businesses to pay taxes to fund public services, but businesses
:43:43. > :43:47.would not succeed unless we have fantastic teachers, fantastic
:43:47. > :43:51.hospitals, fantastic nurses because they're the people who make sure
:43:51. > :43:57.that we're healthy and make sure we've got a well-educated workforce,
:43:57. > :44:02.so we need both to make a successful economy. That's
:44:02. > :44:05.important Under Labour this problem was still as it is now. There were
:44:05. > :44:10.fewer start-up businesses here under Labour. If you look at cities
:44:10. > :44:14.like Newcastle, like Liverpool, like Leeds, there has been huge
:44:14. > :44:18.regeneration, and it has made a big difference. The universities have
:44:18. > :44:22.grown and expanded, theatres, art, but also business. If you look at
:44:22. > :44:27.Nissan and the Leaf car investment - you know, making a huge
:44:27. > :44:33.difference to jobs and growth in this region, but now unemployment
:44:33. > :44:36.in theest. 11.3%. In the UK as a whole it's 8.1%. We know what the
:44:36. > :44:40.scale of the challenge is and Michael Moore says we need the
:44:40. > :44:44.regional growth fund. We had a Regional Development Agency in the
:44:44. > :44:48.north-east, One North-east. That had three times as much money as
:44:48. > :44:51.the fund that's replaced it, so if this Government are really serious
:44:51. > :44:54.about jobs and growth in the north- east, they need to put their money
:44:54. > :44:56.where their mouth is because the north-east is not getting the
:44:56. > :45:01.investment, the support for offshore wind, for manufacturing or
:45:01. > :45:05.for public services, and that's why the north of England is back in
:45:05. > :45:10.recession. You would increase Government spending to...
:45:10. > :45:16.reality is... I never understand the Labour policy on money at the
:45:16. > :45:19.moment. Our jobs and growth plan includes a cut in VAT and a
:45:19. > :45:23.National Insures... That would all be directed here? No, there would
:45:23. > :45:26.be national programmes but we'd have a future jobs fund
:45:26. > :45:30.guaranteeing jobs for young people. We have almost a million young
:45:30. > :45:39.people out of work. At the moment we're paying for economic failure.
:45:39. > :45:48.The Government is borrowing more in Let's not get into the statistical
:45:48. > :45:54.How can you expect the north-east to catch up with the rest of the
:45:54. > :45:58.country when the number of jobs is decreasing in the north-east?
:45:58. > :46:03.completely that they have been huge disadvantages for the north-east. -
:46:03. > :46:06.- I accept completely. There are divergences in opportunity across
:46:06. > :46:10.the country. The variation even within London between south of the
:46:10. > :46:14.river and north of the river is huge. It is a cause of great social
:46:14. > :46:18.discontent which has to be addressed. Bail outs are not a
:46:18. > :46:21.permanent solution to this kind of problem, but they are a help, to
:46:21. > :46:25.improve the infrastructure, increase the opportunities for the
:46:25. > :46:30.north-east to do what it is capable of, improving its own lot. But it
:46:30. > :46:34.needs help to get there, a helping hand. And it is within our country.
:46:34. > :46:39.We need more social coherence. We need the Big Society, which the
:46:39. > :46:44.Prime Minister tells us so much about, and that has to include you.
:46:44. > :46:48.When you say it is a help but not a solution, what is the solution?
:46:48. > :46:54.solution, of course, is for every region Tapper capacity to do its
:46:54. > :46:58.own job. As the -- as Stephen said, bail-outs are not a permanent
:46:58. > :47:04.solution. But the opportunity to work your way up to the point where
:47:04. > :47:08.you can sustain yourself is essential. I work for one of the
:47:08. > :47:12.area's biggest property lawyers and we are having to merge with other
:47:12. > :47:16.companies because people are scared of the future. In the last few
:47:16. > :47:20.weeks, six or seven solicitors went bust. We are eager to give billions
:47:20. > :47:24.to foreign countries but a few million would make a massive
:47:24. > :47:29.difference in Newcastle. Nadine Dorries. This week the Prime
:47:29. > :47:32.Minister has announced a �95 million fund. One problem is that
:47:32. > :47:37.many businesses are not able to borrow because the banks are not
:47:37. > :47:40.lending, which is ironic, really. The point that the lady made about
:47:40. > :47:43.the house prices in the south-east retaining value, one of the reasons
:47:43. > :47:49.why that is is because the banks were bailed out and people kept
:47:49. > :47:51.their jobs and property prices kept their levels. So they insulated the
:47:51. > :47:58.south-east because of the bank bail out, which had a huge contribution
:47:58. > :48:03.to that. But the north-east has to take the brunt of that.
:48:03. > :48:06.completely agree with you. But this fund, the Prime Minister recognise
:48:06. > :48:13.this, the Government recognises this. The banks that have been
:48:13. > :48:18.bailed out are not lending to businesses. So this fund is being
:48:18. > :48:22.created and businesses can apply and borrow up to �500,000 when the
:48:22. > :48:26.banks will not lend to them. It is a measure which has been introduced
:48:26. > :48:30.to bypass the banks, who frankly needs sorting out, if the
:48:30. > :48:34.Government has to lend the money and the banks are not. You can
:48:34. > :48:42.borrow up to 500,000, so it would only help 200 companies. It depends
:48:42. > :48:48.how many companies applied. course, but... They do not have to
:48:48. > :48:52.borrow half a million. I was just trying to test... Without
:48:52. > :48:55.investment in education, there are a lot of children at risk of
:48:55. > :49:00.actually not being able to be employed in those jobs because they
:49:00. > :49:04.are already in areas of multiple deprivation. Things like cuts to
:49:04. > :49:12.the people premium that has been introduced are going to make a
:49:12. > :49:16.massive difference in schools. woman in red. I agree with Rachel
:49:16. > :49:19.Reeves that we need to have a more educated workforce, and it is
:49:19. > :49:24.interesting that the amount of university applications has fallen
:49:24. > :49:30.this year. I would be interested to see how many have gone down in the
:49:30. > :49:34.north-east, compared to the south. I believe the Government are doing
:49:34. > :49:37.little or nothing for the north- east. We have heard about
:49:37. > :49:41.investment in business. Over the last 20 years we have lost an
:49:41. > :49:48.enormous amount of industry, a lot of jobs. I cannot see that being
:49:48. > :49:52.made up. The small employer cannot borrow, so he cannot employ more.
:49:52. > :49:59.The answer is to encourage some large employer to come in, like
:49:59. > :50:02.Petacci, but that is only going to create 500 jobs. We keep hearing
:50:02. > :50:05.about Nissan, the only large employer around here. We are in the
:50:05. > :50:15.wilderness at the moment and the quicker the Government realise that
:50:15. > :50:15.
:50:15. > :50:21.and help the people of the north- Are you talking about willful
:50:21. > :50:25.neglect of the north-east? Yes. both governments? By both
:50:25. > :50:30.governments, definitely. Why do you think there would be wilful
:50:30. > :50:35.neglect? We are miles away from Parliament, from London, miles away
:50:36. > :50:40.from the rich counties round London. I think we are forgotten, and there
:50:40. > :50:45.is a lot... Durham University is about the third best university in
:50:45. > :50:49.the ratings. We have some wonderful educational opportunities appear.
:50:49. > :50:59.And the quicker that people in the south realise that and help us in
:50:59. > :50:59.
:50:59. > :51:04.the north-east, the better. The man in the glasses. It is pretty rich
:51:04. > :51:09.for Michael Moore to say that the the Lib Dems were keen on investing
:51:09. > :51:12.in business and developing the region. The region, a few years ago,
:51:12. > :51:17.was a hub for computer games development. In the last few years
:51:17. > :51:20.that has collapsed. Before the election, yourself and the
:51:20. > :51:23.Conservatives both supported tax breaks for the computer games
:51:23. > :51:26.industry to give us a level playing field to compete with the
:51:26. > :51:34.international market. As soon as the election happened and you got
:51:34. > :51:39.into power, you changed your mind completely. Very briefly.
:51:39. > :51:43.understand the point, but what we have sought to do is to make sure
:51:43. > :51:47.we get the economy as a whole rebalance and sorted out.
:51:47. > :51:53.Considering the mess we inherited from the last government, as the
:51:53. > :51:57.gentleman said at the front, there were 20 years of neglect. That
:51:57. > :52:07.predates this government by some distance. It actually goes back to
:52:07. > :52:09.the last Conservative government! And as a Liberal Democrat, I am
:52:10. > :52:14.happy for Nadine Dorries to answer on that particular point. The
:52:14. > :52:17.important point is that we get the tax system sorted, reduce
:52:17. > :52:20.corporation tax to help all businesses wherever they run the
:52:20. > :52:24.country and whatever they do, help them with getting finance, whether
:52:24. > :52:27.it is through the project Merlin that is increasing the amount that
:52:27. > :52:31.goes to businesses, and through things like the regional growth
:52:31. > :52:35.fund, which will ensure that we get investment in the north-east and
:52:35. > :52:39.other parts of the country. promise that you could speak
:52:39. > :52:43.because you have been patient. Michael Moore says the Government
:52:43. > :52:51.cares about the north-east. We have the highest unemployment rate in
:52:51. > :52:59.the country and it has been going up. Frankly, he is lying. I have
:52:59. > :53:03.just had a fairly acute point made. The lady at the top made a really
:53:03. > :53:06.important point about the people premium, which as a Liberal
:53:06. > :53:09.Democrat I'm delighted we have introduced. I am also delighted we
:53:09. > :53:13.are reducing the tax burden on hard-working families and also
:53:13. > :53:20.ensuring that for pensioners we have a guarantee that they will get
:53:20. > :53:24.better treatment than they ever did under the last government. Really!
:53:24. > :53:27.Living in a parallel universe, if Michael Moore thinks that the
:53:27. > :53:32.policies being pursued by this conservative-LED Government are
:53:32. > :53:35.going to help the north-east. You talk about corporation tax being
:53:35. > :53:38.cut but capital allowances are being cut, which will hurt
:53:38. > :53:42.manufacturing industry in this region. The woman at the front who
:53:42. > :53:45.said about unemployment, it is the highest in the country and it is
:53:46. > :53:50.going up. Youth unemployment in many parts of this region, long-
:53:50. > :53:53.term youth unemployment has doubled in the last nine months. Instead of
:53:53. > :53:58.just saying, everything is fine and we are doing great things, things
:53:58. > :54:07.are getting better, it does not hold water. We go to a last
:54:07. > :54:12.question from Daniel bottom, please. Was Tom Watson right to compare
:54:12. > :54:16.James Murdoch to the head of the Mafia? The Labour MP, Tom Watson,
:54:16. > :54:22.St James Murdoch, you must be the first Mafia boss in history who did
:54:22. > :54:27.not know he was running a criminal enterprise. -- saying to germs --
:54:27. > :54:33.saying to James Murdoch. Mr Murdoch said, I think that is inappropriate.
:54:33. > :54:37.No, he was not right. Forget whether it is true or not. In terms
:54:37. > :54:40.of coverage and demeaning himself in the hearing, he was completely
:54:40. > :54:45.wrong to do that because there was a lot of forensic questioning going
:54:45. > :54:49.on, serious questioning, and Tom Watson, who has really lead this,
:54:49. > :54:57.behaved stupidly in doing that. I am probably the only person in the
:54:57. > :55:01.country remains a fan of Rupert Murdoch and News International. We
:55:01. > :55:04.want a broad and a free and prosperous press in this country.
:55:04. > :55:10.If it was not for News International, for Rupert Murdoch,
:55:10. > :55:13.the Times would not exist. It loses millions of pounds every year.
:55:13. > :55:18.Murdoch puts that money in. The Times is a wonderful newspaper. I
:55:18. > :55:22.do not write for it. Just cutting through this, did you say he is a
:55:22. > :55:28.man who has done more to enrich our lives than any other single cumin
:55:28. > :55:34.being of the past generation? Absolutely. And he should be a hero
:55:34. > :55:38.for his commitment to freedom. Absolutely. We will take Sky, and
:55:38. > :55:41.when it was introduced it look like it would collapse his business. He
:55:41. > :55:46.was regarded as a maniac for gambling the business on it, and it
:55:46. > :55:48.is now regarded as a licence to print money. What went on at the
:55:48. > :55:51.News of the World was clearly criminal and the people involved
:55:51. > :55:56.should serve a long prison sentences. It brings disgrace to
:55:56. > :56:00.the profession of journalism. But that is not what freedom, not what
:56:01. > :56:04.the Times is about, not what Sky was about, not what many of the
:56:04. > :56:08.great things Rupert Murdoch has done for this country are about.
:56:08. > :56:14.Rachel Reeves, did Tom Watson go over the top by calling him a Mafia
:56:14. > :56:18.boss? There were a criminal activities going on at News
:56:18. > :56:22.International. I am not saying he is a mafia boss. I think what Tom
:56:22. > :56:27.Watson said was, are you a Mafia boss? He said, you must be the
:56:27. > :56:32.first Mafia boss in history. say that Rupert Murdoch is some
:56:32. > :56:37.great bring her of freedom. I would just say one other name to you,
:56:37. > :56:41.Milly Dowler. I said what went on at the News of the World was
:56:41. > :56:44.despicable and criminal and they should serve long prison sentences.
:56:44. > :56:48.Either James and Rupert Murdoch knew about it, which is disgraceful,
:56:48. > :56:57.or they did not know, in which case they were incompetent at running
:56:57. > :57:00.News International. You can have it one way or the other. Exactly
:57:00. > :57:04.Rachel's point. I used to run a news organisation and I would have
:57:04. > :57:06.been out of the door if something like this had gone on and I had not
:57:07. > :57:10.known about it. It is either incompetence or criminal and we
:57:10. > :57:14.will discover that through the legal process. I would object to
:57:14. > :57:19.the notion that what the Murdoch empire has achieved in this country
:57:19. > :57:25.is great and glorious. One good outcome from this will be to change
:57:25. > :57:29.the attitude of politicians to media moguls, and their insidious
:57:29. > :57:37.single individual influences on policy in this country we hope will
:57:37. > :57:47.be eliminated. I would say to Rupert Murdoch about James, it was
:57:47. > :57:52.the Sun wot lost it. We have the coalition here. Do you both have to
:57:52. > :57:56.answer? I think what has gone on his absolutely outrageous. People
:57:56. > :58:00.are sickened by what has happened within News International. I think,
:58:00. > :58:04.sadly, this has been a sideshow and a distraction from some serious
:58:04. > :58:09.questioning and it is important to continue with those questions.
:58:09. > :58:16.you believe Rupert Murdoch is one of the few genuinely great men of
:58:16. > :58:20.our times, as Stephen wrote? No. told you, I was the only person in
:58:20. > :58:25.the country. I think Tom let himself down today. To his credit,
:58:25. > :58:29.he has pursued this and has not let it go. I think perhaps he has got a
:58:29. > :58:33.bit close to it, because someone described him as having jumped a
:58:33. > :58:38.shock today. When you make comments like that, you begin to lose your
:58:38. > :58:44.integrity. He has done more than anyone else. He has been fantastic
:58:44. > :58:49.but sometimes we get carried away. I think he is angry, like most of
:58:49. > :58:53.us. On that happy note of unity, except for the Murdochs, we come to
:58:53. > :58:58.the end of Question Time because our time is up. Next week we will
:58:58. > :59:08.be in Aberystwyth, and the week after that in Bath. If you want to
:59:08. > :59:11.