10/11/2011 Question Time

Tonight we're in the north-east in the great city of Newcastle.

And with me on our panel, the Scottish Secretary Michael Moore,

the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves, the

Conservative MP who rebelled over the vote on a European referendum,

Nadine Dorries, a professor of neuroscience, Colin Blakemore and

the editor of the Chronicle, Stephen Pollard. Thank you very

much. And Jake Unsworth has our first question tonight.

If a private company can run a hospital at the same or better

standards for less, why shouldn't it? This, of course, a reference to

today's news that Cambridge's Hinchenbrook Hospital is going to

be taken over or run by a private company, Circle. If it can do it

better, why shouldn't it, Rachel Reeves? I think in this case there

are particular circumstances, and I think that the hospital has had

difficulties for many years, and it was looked at first to try to find

a NHS organisation to try to take it over. That didn't work. So now

this private sector company is coming in to take over the hospital.

But about - not about this particular instance... Ahh.

thought Andy Burnham was being very critical about it, your Shadow

Health Minister. What we were saying is this is an exceptional

circumstance because this hospital has had huge difficulty, but in the

future when this health and social care bill gets through if it gets

passed in the House of Lords, this won't just be the exception. Any

qualified provider can come in and run an NHS hospital. And I don't

think that that is right because I think there are certain values at

the heart of the NHS that are about cooperation, about working together

that can't be replicated by the private sector. At the moment just

3% I think of NHS services are provided by the private sector in

cases where it can be proved that that'll meet a particular need, but

just saying anyone can come in and set up a hospital, I don't think

that that is right, and I don't think that that's what the British

public want. Michael Moore. I think it's interesting how Rachel

responded there because in fact the difficulties for this particular

hospital began when Andy Burnham was the Health Secretary, and so

there has been some time for this to be worked through. The critical

thing is that without an innovative solution like this, that particular

local community wouldn't continue to enjoy services in their NHS

which they value and think are important, and what we have here is

an operation that'll ensure that the, in shhh remains free at the

point of use and available to everybody and which will also - the

model of the company that is involved is like a John Lewis

partnership arrangement. It involves clinicians and others, and

I think it is an innovative and really smart solution to what would

have otherwise been a withdrawal of service. It is listed on the stock

markets. Private backers get money if it makes a profit. The point is

that patients who are using the service will not pay for it. It is

free and accessible to everybody. The principles upon which our NHS

are founded are continued and maintained by this arrangement.

Because are suspicious about it, Colin, aren't they? I think

everybody is suspicious about the potential changes to our NHS, and

ideal predict this Government would be judged as much by the impact of

the Health and Social Care Bill as it is by any other piece of

legislation. We're very defensive of the NHS for good reasons. That

isn't to say the private sector shouldn't be involved. It doesn't

make its own drugs. It buys them from the private sector. The

question is if a company can do a job as good as the NHS, why not? I

would say why not? Crucially, can the hospital not just deliver care

and service, but maintain an environment for teaching, for

skills, for research, for all the things the NHS is so good at? And I

doubt that a lot. The woman, the second row from the back? Wouldn't

it be possible to say that any circumstances are exceptional

circumstances, and you could play with statistics so that anything in

a particular circumstance was exceptional? Nadine Dorries, if

that's the argument... Well, we could say, however that they were

very exceptional circumstances here, and it's not just a case that this

process was started under the previous Health Secretary. Actually,

the process for this hospital - I'm not sure that it's good enough,

Rachel, to say it's OK for this hospital and not OK for others. One

thing this organisation have guaranteed to do which no other

organisation did - and many looked at this and walked away, which is

why it's taken so long - is because of the amount of debt this hospital

is in. This organisation have guaranteed they'll pay that off

within ten years, so I think it's probably quite premature to think

that they'll be an organisation that'll be able to take vast

profits, because there's huge debt that needs to be paid off first. I

do think also that that hospital has the staff who work at the

hospital - actually deserve better than they have been working under

for the last ten years. The patients in that hospital deserve

better care than they have had for the last ten years, and I think if

a private organisation can come in and turn that around and give those

patients better care, and if they understand the private sector -

because one thing that's always baffled me, and in my previous life

as a nurse, I have worked in the NHS and in private hospitals - why

can't we give our patients in the NHS the same care we deliver in a

private hospital? If this organisation can come in and raise

the standards of care in that hospital and pay off the debts and

give patients who go into that hospital better treatment, better

care, a better standard of care and the staff in that hospital a better

working environment, then so be it. That can only be a good thing for

everybody. APPLAUSE

The thing is, you make it sound, Nadine, as if the treatment people

get in NHS hospitals is somehow second rate to what they get in

private hospitals. I think up and down the country people who have

had treatment in the National Health Service rate it at the

highest levels they have ever rated it, so I just don't think this is

the time to reintroduce a top-down reorganisation of the NHS and real-

terms funding cuts for the NHS when waiting lists were falling under

the last government. Cancer treatment is at its best ever and

satisfaction in the NHS is at its highest ever level. Why rock the

boat? APPLAUSE

The man at back. As a replay to Nadine Dorries, we thought Southern

Cross was a responsible provider, so I am not really sure you can

justify the incoming providers based on that. You're against what

has happened at this hospital? particularly, but I don't think the

justification for it can be based on the reputation... We'll talk

about that in a moment. Stephen Pollard. I do find the debate we

have about health in this country to be bewildering. There is a

polarity as if there is the NHS or some dreadful American private

model but all you have to do is cross the channel and on the

continent they think it's unexceptional that you have a mix

of mutual provision, charity provision, all kinds of things, and

what counts is what patients get. Yet here we have this notion of if

it's somehow not provided through the state it's moral. The NHS was

completed in 1948 in a completely different world to what we have now

when open rationing was the norm, when the state did indeed provide

so many different things that now it would never - we would never

conceive of the state providing to us. I heard a comedian once dismiss

a heckler as saying, "Who counts your hair, the council?" Everyone

laughed. We don't think twice about the council educating their

children - not the council, but the state providing health care for,

and yet when we talk about the idea of going to the local authority to

have your hair cut would be ridiculous. Actually, we need to go

beyond our ridiculous inslairty and just cross the Channel. Does it

mean, then, every time the public sector gets into problems, we have

to turn to the private sector? Where will it end? Is this going to

be rolled out as a solution? Because you were talking about it

very much as if it was the coming thing... Can I answer his question?

Answer that gentleman's question first. This hospital is an

exceptional case. It has excessive debts, and there are - there is no

other organisation that would take this on. But this is going to be -

they already run NHS treatment centres and a private hospital

already, so they're already running NHS services. How will they pay off

the debt? I don't know the exact details, David. How much was it?

�10 million? I don't know the business plan, but they're the only

organisation that would take on this... Weird. We'll have to see.

Michael Moore, how are they going to pay off... Their commitment is

to ensure that they run the facilities more effectively, that

they manage the way the workers run through the hospital more

effectively. The clinicians will be right at the heart of the decision

making, as they should be. But to answer the gentleman's question, I

absolutely agree with you that this has to be an exceptional case. It

started as a difficulty under the previous government. When you say

it has to be an exception case, you don't want to see it applied to

other hospitals? I don't see this as a model that's going to be

rolled out... Nadine Dorries does? Why not, if it's successful? At the

end of this pilot if we have a hospital that's running efficiently

and providing excellent standards, why wouldn't we? You see the

coalition! The thing is, as others have rightly said, we get first-

class service from the NHS up and down the length of the country from

doctors... The patients' association would disagree.

course there are up and down the country instances - it's right we

keep all of that under review. People want to know they can get

the treatment in the local area... Why not now in the public sector?

There are another 20 hospitals in trouble like this we were told

today. Yeah. You think they won't all go the same way? I am going to

go to the two women there side by side. You first. I am a

radiographer. I have worked in the private sector under the NHS a long

time. I have to agree with you, Nadine. I think that standards are

far higher. What do you think? think it's appalling. I think when

your motivation is profit, patient care suffers.

The man up there on the right. the motive is profit that means

surely people are choosing that care. For instance, if the private

sector is providing good let care we want to pay for, surely that's a

service that is worth paying for. The gentleman in the second row,

and Rachel Reeves, you might pick up on this point. I think the track

record of private companies running for whether it's PFI or public

sector services has been so bad in the last 20 years, we all have no

confidence, and often the owners of these businesses change hands. The

assets strip, and they sell, and we see prisoners run and buy another

company that is not committed to the same model or the same

commitments in terms of the guarantees that they first pledged

at the beginning of the acquisition. I think I might leave this and go

on to another question. I am just puzzled about one thing which you

could perhaps answer. How are they going to pay off this debt without

money changing hands, and who is going to pay them to pay off the

debt? The arrangement is around the way the hospital - the facilities

are run, and they will look very carefully at all aspects of how

that is done. I haven't looked at the business plan. I'm not the

Health Secretary, but it is also about using the health resources in

the hospital more effectively and efficiently. OK. Using the

clinicians and the health staff the drive that. OK. Let's move on. By

the way, if you want to join in this debate, of course, you know

I should say one thing tonight - if you're a school pupil or teacher

and want to get involved with the BBC's schools debate, go to our

website, and you'll see how to do it there. Let's go on to another

question, please. Julie Howells. a society that prides itself on

freedom of expression, should we ban the burning of poppies? Should

we be banning the burning of poppies? This is the decision by

the Home Secretary to ban as from today a Muslim group called Muslims

Against Cruisas who banned a poppy last year, and she's banned them -

illegal to belong from midnight. Nadine Dorries, in a society that

prides itself in froo freedom of expression, should this be done?

think so, yes. I think what the poppy symbolises and represents is

something quite special. I think not only does it represent the

people whose lives - not just in the Great War, the Second World War,

but young men who are losing their lives today for the sake of our

freedom, and there is no greater sackify, and it is hugely symbolic,

and I think also what it does is it lets those soldiers who are about

to go to war on our behalf know we will remember them and they are

These Muslim groups are opposed to the operations in Afghanistan.

not think it is relevant that it is a Muslim group. Anyone who would

want to have poppy burning ceremonies should be banned from

doing so, because I think it goes very much against the grain of who

we are, what we respect, what we stand for. I think it is the most

incredibly disrespectful thing to I agree with what Nadine Dorries

has said. On Sunday I will be at a remembrance service in Leeds and

there will be veterans from wars gone by, but also families who will

have husbands, wives, sons and daughters serving on the front line

now. It sickens me that people would burn the poppy as some sort

of symbol of defiance. I think it is right to ban these groups. I

think whether or not you are in favour of a particular war, whether

it be Afghanistan or Iraq, you should respect those people who

fight him those wars, who give their lives in some cases, for the

service of this country, to protect all of us. Whatever your view on

the wall, you should respect those who serve in the war, and we should

commemorate those who have died for us, but also the last serving today.

Is it the act of burning the poppy, or the act of protesting on

Remembrance Sunday, or as they did on the commemoration service for

9/11? Is that what you object to and they should be banned for, or

the symbolism of burning the flag or the poppy? In this case, it is a

group that has been banned and I think it is right that group should

be banned. It is just a manifestation of a previous group

that has changed its name, so I think the Home Secretary is right

to Bammer Group. I think most people would share the view that it

is not appropriate or acceptable to behave in that way. It does not

sound very effective if they are banned and they pop up under

another name. I think it is effective if on Sunday they are not

there by the Royal Albert Hall, or wherever they congregate, choosing

disruption and for upsetting and angering people, and showing so

little respect for people who have fought for this country and are

fighting today. I think it is interesting what you say. I would

like to add that, I think, by banning any groups who represent an

extremist feeling of hatred, I do not think banning it is the right

way to go about it. Banning it makes it go underground. It is

still going to be there. You just cannot control it if you have

banned it. We need to question why it is there in the first place and

may be approached the cause, the prevention, rather than cause.

agree with that. More important to identify the origins of hatred them

to attack symbolic gestures like this. Five days ago we encourage

our children to burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, a revolutionary who

tried to blow up Parliament. It is not these futile, although hateful,

gestures that matter, but the origin of those feelings that we

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. I would not

disagree with anything that has been said, and clearly the people

who would burn poppies are despicable human beings. But they

are not being banned because they are burning poppies. If I took this

off and tore it up, I would not be banned. They are being banned

because they are in danger of inciting all kinds of racial hatred.

They are banned for public order offences, for all kinds of reasons.

We made reference to the fact that they previously existed under

another name, Islam for UK, and they were banned as that. The issue

is not whether it is appropriate to ban people for burning poppies, of

course it is not appropriate to ban people simply for burning poppies.

The real issue is whether the legislation we having is in any way

effective, given that in a previous incarnation, all they needed to do,

it appears, to simply create another organisation and simply

there -- suddenly they were allowed to conduct their activities. If

there is something wrong with the legislation. I think Colin is

profoundly wrong when he talks about looking at their grievances,

because these people do not have sensible grievances. They are

committed to turning Europe into a Caliphate. They are not mainstream

Muslims. Most Muslims are peaceable and want to live alongside us, like

Jews, like Christians, like Hindus. These people are outside any

recognisable mainstream. They are as near to terrorists that we at --

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by the panel

with regards to poppy burning, I have to admit that I find it, I

think we should be wary when it comes to banning organisations

simply because we wholeheartedly and utterly disagree with them. I

think that leads us into dangerous territory for future years. But it

is not about his agreement, it is about an intrinsic threat to our

existence as a society. -- it is not about disagreement. I disagree

with Rachel, but I would not ban her. It is not about whether we

disagree, it is about existing and operating completely outside the

norms of the way democratic societies conduct themselves.

question was about freedom of expression and our society. I think,

if I might start by agreeing with everybody who has said it is

utterly offensive that people should burn poppies. It would be

offensive to the memories of people who gave their lives in the First

World War, the Second World War, the many conflicts in between and

more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. We have to

remember the huge sacrifices people have made, and rightly this weekend

we will pay tribute to that. The critical thing here is that freedom

of expression, which we must promote at every turn, has to have

limits. When it turns into promoting terrorism, which is what

this group is dedicated to under whatever name it calls itself, then

it has crossed a line. I think it is then legitimate for us to take

further steps. In this country, tragically, in different parts of

the UK we have experienced terrorism first hand. If we cannot

tolerate a situation where we allow people to go out and openly do this.

The offensiveness of what was being proposed hurts deeply, but the real

danger from this group and others is about promoting terrorism, and

that we should not allow. Do you want to come back on that? I accept

what Michael Moore has just said, but, however, I do find it potent

to point out that if you know what organisation to monitor, it is

easier to do so. I am losing my words. But you can fight that level

of extremism. Can we distinguish between what we know them to be

like as individuals, and that will be handled appropriately by the

security services, and what they seek to do, which, of itself, can

be seen to promote terrorism? It is preventing those acts promoting

terrorism that has to be where we are at a. I agree that burning the

poppy is offensive, but if you say that we are banning it because it

incites hatred and disrupts public order, why are the EDL march is not

banned, because I would say that is promoting hatred? Can I point out

that those marchers were banned, the EDL marches. The Home Secretary

was not just talking about poppies, but glorifying terrorism. Let's go

on to a question from Gary Day. Should we accept longer queues at

our borders to protect our national security? Should we accept longer

queues at our borders to protect our national security? This goes to

the heart of what has been going on, if anyone knows what has been going

on, at our borders. Nadine Dorries, longer queues, more security,

shorter queues, less security. Which do you go for? Actually, it

is neither of those. Let me focus on what did happen. What happened

was that there were two things happened. One was that children...

Let me explain why we are talking about, the row between the Home

Secretary and the department. shorter queues delivered an

increase in the number of illegal immigrants, 100% increase in

illegal firearms, a 48% increase in forged documents. What are you

talking about? I assume you are talking about the recent incident

this week with regard to the Border Agency. I do think the pilot has

been a success. If David will just let me explain why I think it has

been a success. The queues were shorter, to a degree, because what

was asked for was that only children coming from European

economic Area countries did not go through the warning index checks.

This was so that Border Agency staff could focus on those who were

a higher risk coming from other countries, and that worked. That

worked because of the statistics I have just given you. If the queues

were shorter - I have no idea if they were - but the objective of

the exercise was to free the staff up so they could work on the people

that we knew would be a risk. And just by the 100% increase in

illegal arms, the 10% increase in illegal immigrants which were

detected and the 48% increase in illegal documentation brought into

the country shows it was a success. Let's go to you, Rachel Reeves, do

you agree it was a success, this experiment in cutting back on the

Czechs? It increased security. Refined Nadine Dorries' answer to

this question staggering. -- I find her answer staggering. We have no

idea how many people were let in under this pilot, no idea of the

scale of the breach in security. You let in 2.2 million! We still do

not know which airports and which ports were operating this pilot.

When a pilot is going on at a time when our threat level is severe,

you would expect the Home Secretary to be monitoring the pilot, to see

whether it is working, to see whether it is being implemented

correctly. And yet none of that seemed to be going on. And the

Government have already said that the number of people employed by

the borders Agency is going to be cut by 1000 this year, by 5000 or

more over the course of this Parliament. Unless the Government

gets a grip on the UK Border Agency, I don't think that we can rest

assured that this pilot and the Border Agency is going to have the

handle on our national security and on people coming into this country.

I think it is perfectly obvious that everybody in the room

deceiving and everybody at home his first and foremost concern about

the security of the country. -- everybody in the room this evening.

That is our responsibility as a Government and we take that very

seriously. What we recognise is that those trying to cheat the

system have become smarter at it, using different techniques,

different technology. So what the pilot was seeking to do was to

ensure that we reduced the checks on young children travelling with

their parents from Europe, all with school parties, so they did not

have to be checked against the warning lists, that the European

parents, adults, were not being checked against the biometric chip

in the passport which confirms the picture matches the person in front

of you. But every single passport was still being checked. The result,

according to the Home Secretary, is that we will never know how many

people enter the country who should have been prevented from doing so.

Wait a minute. There are two distinctions. One is the point that

Nadine Dorries has made, that as a result of the pilot, still being

evaluated, but early indications are that it court increased numbers

of attempts to come into the country illegally. It has trapped

weapons and also... She has said that, but what went wrong? What

went wrong? The point I'm trying to make... I am just trying to get you

to answer the question. I am answering the question and

particularly what happened here was that officials in the UK Border

Force went further than they had been authorised and removed some of

the Czechs for others who should have been checked. Unfortunately

that does mean there are gaps in what we know. Is a forgivable

foreign Home Secretary who puts in an experimental plan not to make

sure it is monitored closely enough for that to happen? The inspectors

were the ones who found out what was going on. The officials in the

Border Agency, the chief executive of the Border Agency found out what

was going on from the UK Border Force and the senior civil servant

was suspended. That is entirely right and proper. There are three

different inquiries going on into this, we will learn lessons from it

and continue to evaluate the pilot so we can be clever and smart about

how we get our border forces deployed, how we use the technology

Let's go to the woman in the front and hear from some members of our

audience about this. Of course everybody would choose security

over shorter queues but if the coalition funded public sector

departments correctly, we wouldn't have to choose. We would have the

shorter queues and the security. APPLAUSE

It is an interesting point whether national security is so important

that it should have been outside the sphere of the cuts, isn't it?

Colin Blakemore. I am really a bit confused here. I was out of the

country when this issue blew up. Did you - I did manage, yes, only

took 20 minutes. LAUGHTER

If this pilot worked so brilliantly well, why on earth Hasbro bro been

dismissed for extending it? Because it was only for countries were at

high risk. What this really reveals is we just don't know enough about

the best methods to control access, to select people for special

selection. We need proper evidence. The only way is by proper data

gathering, difficult when people trying to getly are not seen,

difficult to know whether you have missed them or not. We need to

introduce measures - people know when the planes are coming. Staff

should be available to check people properly. The staff shouldn't be

cut? If it's demonstrated a certain staffing level is needed to provide

a level of security, obviously, yes. I'll come back to you in main. Yes.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the principle of more

targeted intelligence-led check, but the real problem that's caused

this situation is the more discretion you give to people lower

down the chain, the less watertight the system becomes because the less

people that use the discretion, the less streamlined the policy becomes,

the wider the gaps. You shouldn't give discretion? Not so much. There

was a system. There was a policy, a procedure that was watered down,

and that's how the gaps have developed. There is nothing wrong

in principle, but when there are people involved, that's when risks

develop. I think given the utter shambles that existed under the

last Government, to hear Rachel Reeves berate this Government for

one pilot programme that appears to have gone wrong is what in the

Jewish Chronicle we'd certainly call chutzpah. We don't know what's

happened. There is going to be in inquiry. Even if you take Theresa

May's account at face value, what appears to be clear is she lost

control of her department or the Border Agency. That's not

necessarily a culpable offence. I spent about ten years ago I wrote a

biography of David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary and spent quite

a lot of time in the Home Office. It was very clear to me then that

it was, as John Reid, Blunkett's successor referred to the Border

Agency as not being fit for purpose. It was an absolute basket case. I

think the absolute priority of any Home Secretary is to get a grip of

the Border Agency. Now, clearly, Theresa May has not done that.

Whether that's because of her own inadequacies or whether there is

something so fundamentally wrong with it that no politician is

capable of doing that is an issue I think we need to get to grips with.

I mean, really, to have the Labour Party berate this Government for

one pilot scheme that's gone wrong given the utter chaos that existed

under the last Labour Government is preposterous.

APPLAUSE It's a kind of - it is interesting

that Theresa May was on Question Time when Beverley Hughes was

Immigration Minister... Exactly. And she was attacked, Beverley

Hughes, over her policy to admit immigrants to the UK without checks,

and Theresa May said on Question Time, "I am and tired of the Labour

Party who simply blame other people when things go wrong." If the hat

fits... Didn't blame anybody. did. No, she did not. You must get

the facts right. It was Rob Whiteman, his boss, who suspended

him and who alerted Theresa May to the problem. Theresa May did not

suspend him. It was not her inadequacy. It was the inadequacy

of the member of staff who took the pilot too far and his boss who

suspended him when he found out, as he should have done. There is going

to be a court case now. So you're saying she's never uttered a word

of, "It was not my fault"? What I am saying is - Rachel, to say there

will be cuts in the Border Agency - there will be 18,000 staff working

in the Border Agency at the end of this Parliament. That's exactly the

same number of staff who were working in the Border Agency when

Ed Miliband was deciding the budget when he was working at the Treasury.

That is chutzpah... Is it true, what she says? I think it's going

back to... Absolutely true. In 2006, we were increasing numbers, and

numbers have been increasing in the Border Agency to deal with the

scale of the challenges we're facing. They're coming down now.

The challenge is you have 450,000 papers of asylum seekers locked in

a cupboard somewhere. You let 2.2 million illegal immigrants into the

country. You actually opened up our border when the rest of Europe said,

no, we'll wait such years - let everybody pour in. This question

was about a specific issue that arose about 15 months into this

coalition Government. The pilot scheme. That went horribly wrong -

a pilot scheme that went horribly wrong. OK. You don't take no

responsibility for it, Nadine. Let's leave the point there. Let's

go to the woman in the fourth row. Besides the fact I think the

terrorist threat is majorly exaggerated, I also think the

rhetoric and the action on these issues - you talk tough and try get

votes through scare-mongering, but you're not actually believing what

you're saying. Sorry? There's lot of talk and scare-mongering by the

Conservative, but you obviously don't believe the terrorist threat

is that big a deal, not as big as it was made out to be. Let's go on.

Let's take this question from Erica Whyman, please.

Do you agree that regions like the north-east are the UK's equivalent

of the southern Europe states that are in so much trouble? And if you

do, when are you going to bail us out?

APPLAUSE Stephen Pollard, you're in southern

Europe. It's a bit colder, but that's where you are tonight.

Absolutely. I think the issue of bail-outs is actually at the heart

of so much that's gone wrong with economic policy for so long and is

obviously specifically about what's going on in Greece and Italy,

possibly, and so on... Hold on. Let's do the first part. Do you

accept that the north-east is the UK's equivalent to southern Europe

in economic terms, in... Do we mean - if we're talking - the answer to

that is no in that I don't think that workers in the north-east of

the UK and the at tuds in the north-east are anything like the

attitudes in Greece and in parts of Italy and other parts of southern

Europe. In terms of being an impoverished part relative to the

rest of the country, then clearly that's the case. The issue is what

you do about it. I don't think you create economic growth by

Government diktat the way you create Government growth is people

set up businesses and start hiring. People take failing businesses, and

they turn them around. How do you do that? I think one of the

problems we have got with growth at the moment in this country is we

have too much red tape, too much interference. I am an employer at

my nu. I would love to be able -- newspaper. I would love to be able

to take on people for short-term projects, to see whether they'd be

worth keeping in the long term. I can't do that because the moment I

start hiring, all kinds of laws come into effect, and I can't

guarantee I'll be able to keep them on. The answer is we don't hire

people. The real problem I think with prosperity in regions like the

north-east and all kinds of areas across the UK is precisely this

attitude that everything is going on solved through the Government.

It's not the Government that's going to create prosperity. It's

real people doing real jobs creating real prosperity, hiring

people, spending money and buying, creating and investing our way out

of poverty. Erarea, are you looking for a bail-out? Is that what you

meant by the question? I didn't mean that we had any kind of

lackadaisical attitude. You seem to be suggesting that teachers and

nurses and those people who work in the public sector in the north-east

don't have real jobs is that what you mean by that last remark?

at all. Clearly you have teachers and public sector workers and all

of those kinds of things. But they're not creating wealth. It's

business. It's not teachers and nurses that create the wealth. They

are part of the products of that wealth.

I'm sorry. I completely disagree. The wealth of this country lies in

our ability to have a coherent society and a community we're proud

to live in, and that includes businesses that create profit, of

course, but it also includes great schools, great universities, a

great culture in our country, all of which is being cut... If you

don't have business that is prosperous, you don't have any of

that. No. You're taking it away. You're taking it away in the south-

east and in many other parts of this country. Michael Moore.

APPLAUSE First of all, I would disagree with

the comparison. I don't think that the scale of the challenges within

the UK are anything like what we're seeing in the south of Europe, but

that is not to play down the very serious issues that areas like the

north-east and other parts of the country fair, and I realise that

we've got a big responsibility as a Government to assist whatever else

is said about that, and as a Government, we're committed to

supporting the north-east and the rest of the country with the

enterprise zones, with our investment in infrastructure,

whether it's the east coast main line improvement as the are coming

along or another the regional growth funds which we have been

able to support in recent months which support jobs of 15,000

directly, another 25,000 indirectly. That's just some specifics for this

part of the country, but more generally, our major task is to get

the economy back on the right track and make sure we get it rebalanced

away from the financial-services orientated south-east that we had

for generations and exacerbated under the last Labour Government so

that things that are really important in this part of the world

like manufacturing get the support they need. And when we see world-

class companies like Nissan and others based here producing cars to

export all over the world, we want to support them, but - and the

final thing is this about the context in which we're considering

all of this - we export to Europe, to the eurozone a huge amount of

what we produce in this country, and that means that we've got to

see the problems there sorted out, and that's another urgent priority

for us, but more importantly for the countries in the eurozone.

me hear some views from the audience. You, sir, the man with

the beard. I think one of the classic inconsistencies between the

north and the south, for example is the duelling of Air One. We have

fault for years, if not decades, to get that dual carriageway - it's

one of the most dangerous roads in the country. Whichever party is in,

they promise the earth, and it never happens, yet if they want a

high-speed railway down south, they get that. Can't we support that

particular project, which would create a lot of jobs and save a lot

of lives? Infrastructure. APPLAUSE

I think a lot of it has to do with the property prices. London

property will always hold its value, whereas we're suffering more in the

north-east, even though I am not originally from the north-east.

But what do you think can be done about that? What would your bail-

out scheme that was talked about... It would be difficult because

London does always hold its value, always has done, always will do,

but the north-east - we're suffering because of the job

situation and the recession. The north of the country always seems

to suffer more in a recession. Rachel Reeves. Well, representing a

northern constituency, these are the issues that I know from where I

live. Can I just come back to the follow-up point that Erica made. I

think she was absolutely right when she said that the economy benefits

from teachers, doctors and nurses, and, you know, of course we need

businesses to pay taxes to fund public services, but businesses

would not succeed unless we have fantastic teachers, fantastic

hospitals, fantastic nurses because they're the people who make sure

that we're healthy and make sure we've got a well-educated workforce,

so we need both to make a successful economy. That's

important Under Labour this problem was still as it is now. There were

fewer start-up businesses here under Labour. If you look at cities

like Newcastle, like Liverpool, like Leeds, there has been huge

regeneration, and it has made a big difference. The universities have

grown and expanded, theatres, art, but also business. If you look at

Nissan and the Leaf car investment - you know, making a huge

difference to jobs and growth in this region, but now unemployment

in theest. 11.3%. In the UK as a whole it's 8.1%. We know what the

scale of the challenge is and Michael Moore says we need the

regional growth fund. We had a Regional Development Agency in the

north-east, One North-east. That had three times as much money as

the fund that's replaced it, so if this Government are really serious

about jobs and growth in the north- east, they need to put their money

where their mouth is because the north-east is not getting the

investment, the support for offshore wind, for manufacturing or

for public services, and that's why the north of England is back in

recession. You would increase Government spending to...

reality is... I never understand the Labour policy on money at the

moment. Our jobs and growth plan includes a cut in VAT and a

National Insures... That would all be directed here? No, there would

be national programmes but we'd have a future jobs fund

guaranteeing jobs for young people. We have almost a million young

people out of work. At the moment we're paying for economic failure.

The Government is borrowing more in Let's not get into the statistical

How can you expect the north-east to catch up with the rest of the

country when the number of jobs is decreasing in the north-east?

completely that they have been huge disadvantages for the north-east. -

- I accept completely. There are divergences in opportunity across

the country. The variation even within London between south of the

river and north of the river is huge. It is a cause of great social

discontent which has to be addressed. Bail outs are not a

permanent solution to this kind of problem, but they are a help, to

improve the infrastructure, increase the opportunities for the

north-east to do what it is capable of, improving its own lot. But it

needs help to get there, a helping hand. And it is within our country.

We need more social coherence. We need the Big Society, which the

Prime Minister tells us so much about, and that has to include you.

When you say it is a help but not a solution, what is the solution?

solution, of course, is for every region Tapper capacity to do its

own job. As the -- as Stephen said, bail-outs are not a permanent

solution. But the opportunity to work your way up to the point where

you can sustain yourself is essential. I work for one of the

area's biggest property lawyers and we are having to merge with other

companies because people are scared of the future. In the last few

weeks, six or seven solicitors went bust. We are eager to give billions

to foreign countries but a few million would make a massive

difference in Newcastle. Nadine Dorries. This week the Prime

Minister has announced a �95 million fund. One problem is that

many businesses are not able to borrow because the banks are not

lending, which is ironic, really. The point that the lady made about

the house prices in the south-east retaining value, one of the reasons

why that is is because the banks were bailed out and people kept

their jobs and property prices kept their levels. So they insulated the

south-east because of the bank bail out, which had a huge contribution

to that. But the north-east has to take the brunt of that.

completely agree with you. But this fund, the Prime Minister recognise

this, the Government recognises this. The banks that have been

bailed out are not lending to businesses. So this fund is being

created and businesses can apply and borrow up to �500,000 when the

banks will not lend to them. It is a measure which has been introduced

to bypass the banks, who frankly needs sorting out, if the

Government has to lend the money and the banks are not. You can

borrow up to 500,000, so it would only help 200 companies. It depends

how many companies applied. course, but... They do not have to

borrow half a million. I was just trying to test... Without

investment in education, there are a lot of children at risk of

actually not being able to be employed in those jobs because they

are already in areas of multiple deprivation. Things like cuts to

the people premium that has been introduced are going to make a

massive difference in schools. woman in red. I agree with Rachel

Reeves that we need to have a more educated workforce, and it is

interesting that the amount of university applications has fallen

this year. I would be interested to see how many have gone down in the

north-east, compared to the south. I believe the Government are doing

little or nothing for the north- east. We have heard about

investment in business. Over the last 20 years we have lost an

enormous amount of industry, a lot of jobs. I cannot see that being

made up. The small employer cannot borrow, so he cannot employ more.

The answer is to encourage some large employer to come in, like

Petacci, but that is only going to create 500 jobs. We keep hearing

about Nissan, the only large employer around here. We are in the

wilderness at the moment and the quicker the Government realise that

and help the people of the north- Are you talking about willful

neglect of the north-east? Yes. both governments? By both

governments, definitely. Why do you think there would be wilful

neglect? We are miles away from Parliament, from London, miles away

from the rich counties round London. I think we are forgotten, and there

is a lot... Durham University is about the third best university in

the ratings. We have some wonderful educational opportunities appear.

And the quicker that people in the south realise that and help us in

the north-east, the better. The man in the glasses. It is pretty rich

for Michael Moore to say that the the Lib Dems were keen on investing

in business and developing the region. The region, a few years ago,

was a hub for computer games development. In the last few years

that has collapsed. Before the election, yourself and the

Conservatives both supported tax breaks for the computer games

industry to give us a level playing field to compete with the

international market. As soon as the election happened and you got

into power, you changed your mind completely. Very briefly.

understand the point, but what we have sought to do is to make sure

we get the economy as a whole rebalance and sorted out.

Considering the mess we inherited from the last government, as the

gentleman said at the front, there were 20 years of neglect. That

predates this government by some distance. It actually goes back to

the last Conservative government! And as a Liberal Democrat, I am

happy for Nadine Dorries to answer on that particular point. The

important point is that we get the tax system sorted, reduce

corporation tax to help all businesses wherever they run the

country and whatever they do, help them with getting finance, whether

it is through the project Merlin that is increasing the amount that

goes to businesses, and through things like the regional growth

fund, which will ensure that we get investment in the north-east and

other parts of the country. promise that you could speak

because you have been patient. Michael Moore says the Government

cares about the north-east. We have the highest unemployment rate in

the country and it has been going up. Frankly, he is lying. I have

just had a fairly acute point made. The lady at the top made a really

important point about the people premium, which as a Liberal

Democrat I'm delighted we have introduced. I am also delighted we

are reducing the tax burden on hard-working families and also

ensuring that for pensioners we have a guarantee that they will get

better treatment than they ever did under the last government. Really!

Living in a parallel universe, if Michael Moore thinks that the

policies being pursued by this conservative-LED Government are

going to help the north-east. You talk about corporation tax being

cut but capital allowances are being cut, which will hurt

manufacturing industry in this region. The woman at the front who

said about unemployment, it is the highest in the country and it is

going up. Youth unemployment in many parts of this region, long-

term youth unemployment has doubled in the last nine months. Instead of

just saying, everything is fine and we are doing great things, things

are getting better, it does not hold water. We go to a last

question from Daniel bottom, please. Was Tom Watson right to compare

James Murdoch to the head of the Mafia? The Labour MP, Tom Watson,

St James Murdoch, you must be the first Mafia boss in history who did

not know he was running a criminal enterprise. -- saying to germs --

saying to James Murdoch. Mr Murdoch said, I think that is inappropriate.

No, he was not right. Forget whether it is true or not. In terms

of coverage and demeaning himself in the hearing, he was completely

wrong to do that because there was a lot of forensic questioning going

on, serious questioning, and Tom Watson, who has really lead this,

behaved stupidly in doing that. I am probably the only person in the

country remains a fan of Rupert Murdoch and News International. We

want a broad and a free and prosperous press in this country.

If it was not for News International, for Rupert Murdoch,

the Times would not exist. It loses millions of pounds every year.

Murdoch puts that money in. The Times is a wonderful newspaper. I

do not write for it. Just cutting through this, did you say he is a

man who has done more to enrich our lives than any other single cumin

being of the past generation? Absolutely. And he should be a hero

for his commitment to freedom. Absolutely. We will take Sky, and

when it was introduced it look like it would collapse his business. He

was regarded as a maniac for gambling the business on it, and it

is now regarded as a licence to print money. What went on at the

News of the World was clearly criminal and the people involved

should serve a long prison sentences. It brings disgrace to

the profession of journalism. But that is not what freedom, not what

the Times is about, not what Sky was about, not what many of the

great things Rupert Murdoch has done for this country are about.

Rachel Reeves, did Tom Watson go over the top by calling him a Mafia

boss? There were a criminal activities going on at News

International. I am not saying he is a mafia boss. I think what Tom

Watson said was, are you a Mafia boss? He said, you must be the

first Mafia boss in history. say that Rupert Murdoch is some

great bring her of freedom. I would just say one other name to you,

Milly Dowler. I said what went on at the News of the World was

despicable and criminal and they should serve long prison sentences.

Either James and Rupert Murdoch knew about it, which is disgraceful,

or they did not know, in which case they were incompetent at running

News International. You can have it one way or the other. Exactly

Rachel's point. I used to run a news organisation and I would have

been out of the door if something like this had gone on and I had not

known about it. It is either incompetence or criminal and we

will discover that through the legal process. I would object to

the notion that what the Murdoch empire has achieved in this country

is great and glorious. One good outcome from this will be to change

the attitude of politicians to media moguls, and their insidious

single individual influences on policy in this country we hope will

be eliminated. I would say to Rupert Murdoch about James, it was

the Sun wot lost it. We have the coalition here. Do you both have to

answer? I think what has gone on his absolutely outrageous. People

are sickened by what has happened within News International. I think,

sadly, this has been a sideshow and a distraction from some serious

questioning and it is important to continue with those questions.

you believe Rupert Murdoch is one of the few genuinely great men of

our times, as Stephen wrote? No. told you, I was the only person in

the country. I think Tom let himself down today. To his credit,

he has pursued this and has not let it go. I think perhaps he has got a

bit close to it, because someone described him as having jumped a

shock today. When you make comments like that, you begin to lose your

integrity. He has done more than anyone else. He has been fantastic

but sometimes we get carried away. I think he is angry, like most of

us. On that happy note of unity, except for the Murdochs, we come to

the end of Question Time because our time is up. Next week we will

be in Aberystwyth, and the week after that in Bath. If you want to