:00:09. > :00:19.Tonight we're in the old roaman city of Bath, and welcome to
:00:19. > :00:26.
:00:26. > :00:29.And on our panel here, the Energy and Climate Change secretary Chris
:00:29. > :00:31.Huhne, Liz Kendall, from the European Parliament, the
:00:31. > :00:40.Conservative Daniel Hannan, the Chief Executive of Sainsbury,
:00:40. > :00:43.Justin King and the founder of Wikipedia, the website that settles
:00:43. > :00:53.all arguments except those on Question Time, Jimmy Wales.
:00:53. > :01:00.
:01:00. > :01:05.Thanks. Our first question tonight from Patrick Wenter please. Is the
:01:05. > :01:08.Prime Minister right to call next week's strike irresponsible?
:01:08. > :01:12.Daniel Hannan. I think it is irresponsible. We have negotiations
:01:12. > :01:17.still under way, and the - a number of the unions had already balloted
:01:17. > :01:21.on strike action weeks ago. I think we have to remember why these
:01:21. > :01:26.changes are being made. The Government has inHeathrow Airported
:01:26. > :01:32.this enormous hole in finances. We have a deficit the size of Greece's.
:01:32. > :01:36.We were teetering on the brink of going the way of Greece and some of
:01:37. > :01:41.the eurozone countries. Part of solving that deficit has to be to
:01:41. > :01:43.restore order and sanity to our long-term liability. Are you saying
:01:43. > :01:48.it's irresponsible to take a different view from the Government
:01:48. > :01:52.on the way to handle the deficit? Of course it's not. If I wanted to
:01:52. > :01:55.say that, that's what I would have said. Why are you saying it's
:01:55. > :01:58.irresponsible? Because calling a strike at a time like this, costing
:01:58. > :02:01.the economy even more lost revenue and inconveniencing enormous
:02:01. > :02:06.numbers of people who are going to have to take day office work
:02:06. > :02:09.because their children aren't in school and is on, seems to me a
:02:09. > :02:13.dispros portionate reaction when the Government has put on the table
:02:13. > :02:18.an offer which would leave lower paid public sector workers better
:02:18. > :02:22.off in terms of pensions than they are now and would leave almost all
:02:22. > :02:26.public sector workers better off than almost all people in the
:02:27. > :02:32.private sector. We have all had hard times recently since the crash
:02:32. > :02:37.hit, and my constituents who work in the public sector, as always of
:02:37. > :02:43.us have, had to take a decline in their standard oflying. There is a
:02:43. > :02:46.gap in pay and pensions. Even now what's on the table is something
:02:46. > :02:54.most people working in the real economy would kill for. Thank you.
:02:54. > :03:02.APPLAUSE Liz Kendall. I don't think the
:03:02. > :03:04.public services - our NHS schools and hospitals are unproductive.
:03:04. > :03:12.APPLAUSE Neither is Daniel right in saying
:03:12. > :03:19.that the negotiations are ongoing. I think Ministers have had a take-
:03:19. > :03:22.it-or-leave-it final offer, no more negotiations. What I think is
:03:22. > :03:26.irresponsible is for the Prime Minister not to get back to the
:03:26. > :03:30.table and find a solution. The Government needs to have what is
:03:30. > :03:34.effectively a 3% tax increase on public sector workers - a proposal
:03:34. > :03:38.that wasn't in John Hutton's original plan, but I also think
:03:38. > :03:41.that the trade unions need to give ground because as people are living
:03:41. > :03:45.longer, they going to have to work longer and make more contribution
:03:45. > :03:49.to have a decent income in retirement, but strikes are
:03:49. > :03:53.avoidable if people get back around the table, and that's what we're
:03:53. > :03:56.urging both the Government and the trade unions to do.
:03:56. > :04:01.APPLAUSE You're - your party leader, Ed
:04:01. > :04:04.Milliband, said this evening that Government Ministers in this are
:04:04. > :04:09.agitators and that they're relishing the prospect of a strike.
:04:09. > :04:14.Do you agree with that? No, I don't think so. I think probably David
:04:14. > :04:18.Cameron would like a strike to take place next week. Oh. I think that
:04:18. > :04:22.he thinks - you know, we've heard reports in the newspapers that he's
:04:22. > :04:27.rubbing his hands with kind of glee about it. I think what is
:04:27. > :04:32.responsible is for people to get back round the table, and we need a
:04:32. > :04:37.- you can only get sustainable reform of public sector pensions if,
:04:37. > :04:41.you know, we actually have proper reform going ahead. OK. Are you
:04:41. > :04:45.glufl? I'm certainly not gleeful, and I don't recognise that
:04:45. > :04:49.description of the Prime Minister or anybody else around the Cabinet
:04:49. > :04:55.table at all. The reality is we were very careful on the subject
:04:55. > :04:59.because it does touch people's interests directly. We appointed a
:04:59. > :05:02.former Labour Cabinet Minister, John Hutton, to look into this.
:05:02. > :05:07.These stem directly from his recommendations. It's partly a
:05:07. > :05:13.result of the good news story that we're all living ten years longer
:05:13. > :05:19.even than in the 1970s when David Lloyd George, a proud Liberal,
:05:19. > :05:23.introduced the old-age pension. It was set literally 18 months before
:05:23. > :05:28.the point on average which people were expected to die. We now live
:05:28. > :05:33.far, far longer. We're far, far fitter. The only way we can have
:05:33. > :05:42.better pensions at the end of the day is either we work longer the
:05:42. > :05:48.pay for them, or we pay more for them. John Hutton I think has
:05:48. > :05:50.proposed a fair way forward. Why is it irresponsible to oppose that?
:05:50. > :05:53.Simply because in current circumstances the state of the
:05:53. > :06:00.economy, the way in which so many people are out of work - we're
:06:00. > :06:05.trying to make ends meet and close what has been the largest budget
:06:05. > :06:09.deficit, inheritance from Labour. As a Liberal Democrat I am gutted
:06:09. > :06:13.to have had to take many of the decisions we have had to to clean
:06:13. > :06:17.up Labour's mess. Frankly then to have a strike over something like
:06:17. > :06:22.this is irresponsible. The man in the front. Do you think that during
:06:22. > :06:27.the Thatcher years the unions actually took a bit of a bashing,
:06:27. > :06:31.and I think it has been a long time coming, this, because it's a new
:06:31. > :06:36.breed of union bosses now. I think you said something about the
:06:36. > :06:39.Government relishing actually taking on the unions. I think the
:06:39. > :06:43.unions are actually relishing taking on the Government especially
:06:43. > :06:47.because it's a Conservative Government. Do you think both sides
:06:47. > :06:50.are relishing it? I think they're rubbing their hands with joy, to be
:06:50. > :06:55.honest. If you think of all the children... Justin King, please.
:06:55. > :06:58.I'll come back to you. Justin King. My own view... On his point - is it
:06:58. > :07:02.being relished on both sides? think that's the irresponsibility
:07:02. > :07:08.if that's indeed the case. I think the fact that both the Prime
:07:08. > :07:11.Minister and union leaders are trading brick-backs in public is
:07:11. > :07:15.irresponsible. The reality is unions are forced to operate to a
:07:15. > :07:19.very specific timetable through balloting their members before they
:07:19. > :07:22.can strike. It's therefore not new news or a surprise that we're
:07:22. > :07:26.heading towards this industrial action, and so for the leaders of
:07:26. > :07:30.the alternate sides to your point of relishing it to be currently
:07:30. > :07:33.trading publicly on this issue rather than sitting down behind
:07:33. > :07:40.closed doors and sorting it out that to me is the irresponsibility.
:07:40. > :07:44.OK. The man up there with the white jacket on. When is the right time
:07:44. > :07:49.to strike, then? When is the right time to take action? You're taking
:07:49. > :07:55.money off us all over the place - rich bankers, politicians who rip
:07:55. > :07:58.us off. When is the right time to strike? Jimmy Wales. I think that
:07:58. > :08:01.this question of whether this particular strike - whether - is
:08:01. > :08:05.this the right time? Is this irresponsible? I am not enough of
:08:05. > :08:09.an expert on the details of the negotiations and where things stand
:08:09. > :08:12.to be able to say. I think the gentleman who just asked the
:08:12. > :08:17.question made a valid point. We live in a world in which we have
:08:17. > :08:20.bailed out the banks who promptly then paid themselves bonuses after
:08:20. > :08:23.running their companies into the ground. Now we're broke. We have to
:08:23. > :08:33.make these difficult decisions. That's outrage. That's criminal.
:08:33. > :08:33.
:08:33. > :08:37.APPLAUSE The woman up there in the back row.
:08:37. > :08:41.I actually fine it quite patronising you think we'd choose
:08:41. > :08:47.to strike simply to be gleeful. We'll all stand to lose pay, and
:08:47. > :08:52.how else would you like us to protest? Daniel Hannan.
:08:52. > :08:55.APPLAUSE I haven't suggested anybody is
:08:55. > :08:59.doing this gleefulfully. It is, however, matter of record many of
:08:59. > :09:01.these ballots were taking place in September long before we got to
:09:01. > :09:06.this impasse. A number of these trade unions had already embarked
:09:06. > :09:10.on this course. It takes on a momentum, as these things do. Let's
:09:10. > :09:16.just remember why we're in this mess. Out of every �4 that the
:09:16. > :09:20.Government is spending, one of them is bag borrowed, right? The state
:09:20. > :09:25.is already spending more than half our total GDP. We just can't afford
:09:25. > :09:30.to carry on with this. So it's not really a question of - in a sort of
:09:31. > :09:34.playground way of who started it and is it fair and so on - we
:09:34. > :09:37.simply don't have the option of not making savings. If you don't
:09:37. > :09:40.believe me, look at what's happening on our doorstep in those
:09:40. > :09:44.countries in Europe which haven't tried to live within their means,
:09:44. > :09:49.and look at the chaos that's in store. The man up there in the
:09:49. > :09:52.spectacles, the man in the third row there. If the panel believe
:09:52. > :09:54.these pension terms are fair and reasonable, will they be trading
:09:54. > :10:00.their pension conditions for those being offered?
:10:00. > :10:06.APPLAUSE Chris Huhne. We've got exactly the
:10:06. > :10:09.same terms, and in fact, we took a pay cut when we came into
:10:09. > :10:12.Government as Ministers compared with what the last Government was
:10:12. > :10:18.being paid. These are tough times. You have to lead from the front. If
:10:18. > :10:23.you don't do that quite rightlys people will ask, what -- rightly,
:10:23. > :10:27.people will ask, what are you doing? We have to do that in order
:10:27. > :10:31.to safeguard the national interests, clear up the mess we inherited in
:10:31. > :10:34.terms of that enormous side of the budget deficit. It's a reality! And
:10:34. > :10:39.since we first said that remember, the Labour Party at that time was
:10:39. > :10:43.saying, "Oh, it's only Greece. We're completely unlike Greece."
:10:43. > :10:46.Since then we have had crises hitting Ireland, Portugal, Spain,
:10:46. > :10:50.now even Italy. One of the great achievements this Government has to
:10:50. > :10:55.its credit so far is getting us out of that danger zone so we don't
:10:55. > :11:00.have the same sort of problems that have beset so many countries in
:11:00. > :11:05.southern Europe. The woman at the very back there with the spectacles
:11:05. > :11:09.in the back row on the right there. What people resent is the pay gap.
:11:09. > :11:13.It's all relative. You may have taken a cut in your income, but
:11:13. > :11:18.what about somebody who earns �20,000? It makes a huge difference.
:11:18. > :11:22.What do you think about the strikes? Well, I think it's part of
:11:22. > :11:28.democracy. Unfortunately for Daniel Hannan, we live in a democracy. You
:11:28. > :11:31.have to take what comes with it. You, sir, over there. Presumably,
:11:31. > :11:37.at some stage, the Government is going to have to give concessions
:11:37. > :11:41.in order to end this. Can I make a plea as a pensioner that the
:11:41. > :11:48.concessions come in the form of better pensions for pensioners.
:11:48. > :11:54.Maybe they can be deferred because the fact is, our pot is going to be
:11:54. > :11:57.reduced by these extra concessions that would be made otherwise to the
:11:58. > :12:01.public servants. One more point - the man in the blue tie. This is
:12:01. > :12:04.not democracy. This is actually a subversion of democracy. What we
:12:04. > :12:07.have here is three unions - the vast majority of their members have
:12:07. > :12:11.not voted to take part in the strike. It's a minority decision to
:12:11. > :12:14.go on strike. The unions are trying to hold the country to ransom. In
:12:14. > :12:19.the meantime, we learned yesterday that the Labour Party is accepting
:12:19. > :12:23.almost 90% of its funding from these unions, and is entirely in
:12:23. > :12:28.the pocket of them. We have a subversion of democracy and not a
:12:28. > :12:34.democracy at all. APPLAUSE
:12:34. > :12:38.Justin King, we know around about 30% of the union members voted in
:12:38. > :12:46.all the different unions that voted. Would that, from your point of view,
:12:46. > :12:48.count as a legitimate test of union opinion? I think ultimately every
:12:48. > :12:52.trade union member had the opportunity to vote. Those that
:12:52. > :12:56.didn't vote, in effect, gave up that opportunity to express their
:12:56. > :13:01.voice. Those that did, clearly within those unions voted in favour
:13:01. > :13:05.of industrial action. You think we should seek to second-guess that. I
:13:05. > :13:10.would like to take it back to what is the real issue here? The real
:13:10. > :13:15.issue is a piece of good news. We're all living longer, healthier
:13:15. > :13:19.lives. The reality is very few of us have provided adequately for the
:13:19. > :13:23.life we're going to enjoy beyond our working lives. I think those of
:13:23. > :13:26.us that are a bit older - I consider myself one of those - have
:13:26. > :13:30.to ask ourselves tough questions about whether we're going to
:13:30. > :13:34.ourselves pay for the retirement we wish to enjoy or to pass that bill
:13:34. > :13:38.on to our children. We've got plenty of opportunity to change the
:13:38. > :13:42.way we plan for retirement now both in the private and public sector.
:13:42. > :13:46.This is not a private versus public issue in my view so that those of
:13:46. > :13:49.us that are young enough and in the working population can provide
:13:49. > :13:56.differently for our futures because otherwise, it's our children that
:13:56. > :13:58.are going to pay that bill. Let's bring this to an end and move to
:13:58. > :14:02.another question. Liz Kendall, presumably, a Labour Government
:14:02. > :14:06.would be doing something not entirely dissimilar to what this
:14:06. > :14:10.coalition Government has been doing? I don't think we'd be
:14:10. > :14:15.looking at what is effectively a 3% tax increase which is going to hit
:14:15. > :14:19.800,000 of the lowest part-time workers, nine out of ten of whom
:14:19. > :14:23.are women, but we have always believed in reform. That's what we
:14:23. > :14:26.did when we were in Government around public sector reform, but
:14:26. > :14:29.the way we did that was getting people around the table. The only
:14:29. > :14:34.way - I think somebody said - they're going to have to give
:14:34. > :14:37.concessions at some point. What we did was we negotiated. Both sides
:14:37. > :14:44.have to give ground. That's what we would be doing when we're in
:14:44. > :14:47.Government, and that's what we're urging on the... A fact here - the
:14:47. > :14:52.proposals actually lead to better pensions for... That's not for
:14:52. > :14:55.part-time workers. I don't want the two of you to sit here and
:14:55. > :15:03.negotiate the deal that's for the unions and the Government.
:15:03. > :15:06.Absolutely trucially to low-paid... Not part-time, Chris. We can't
:15:06. > :15:11.debate fact. We can only debate opinion I am afraid. We mustn't
:15:11. > :15:18.make up facts either, David. you're tweeting... Very happy to
:15:18. > :15:22.have a disagreement on opinions, but I want to get the facts
:15:22. > :15:32.straight. Your proposal... Do you mind? This is turning into
:15:32. > :15:37.
:15:37. > :15:43.pantomime. If you want to join the I'm going to Edward Turner. Is it
:15:43. > :15:50.time for the Government to legislate for a privacy law and
:15:50. > :15:56.punish future immediate why misconduct. Jimmy Wales? I think on
:15:56. > :15:59.this issue I come from the United States and we have a strong first
:16:00. > :16:04.amendment tradition and the risk that we are running here, because
:16:04. > :16:08.of this misconduct of the media is losing the distinction between
:16:08. > :16:14.freedom of speech and criminal behaviour. I think the criminal
:16:14. > :16:19.behaviour and some of the most out rageous behaviour needs to be very
:16:19. > :16:22.severely punished. The idea that we should rein in the media, is a
:16:22. > :16:27.dangerous road. In terms of people going to jail for stealing
:16:27. > :16:32.information, for hacking into phones, blagging to get people's
:16:32. > :16:41.personal details unethically, you know, toss them in jail.
:16:41. > :16:46.APPLAUSE What about the apparently perfectly
:16:46. > :16:52.legal methods of invading people's previouscy that we have heard about
:16:52. > :16:55.during the inquiry? We need to look at all of those and decide whether
:16:55. > :16:58.or not they should be legal. If we are talking about behaviour that
:16:58. > :17:02.amounts to stalking and harassing, if it happened to people in
:17:03. > :17:08.ordinary lives we would say that's a bit too far and a bit too much.
:17:08. > :17:12.In general, if it's just publishing some footballer's affair and if
:17:12. > :17:18.they expect they can go around and behave in an out rageous way and
:17:18. > :17:25.not be called to task by the public - Sienna Miller said today she was
:17:25. > :17:30.chased down a dark Ali by -- alley by eight men and the fact they were
:17:30. > :17:37.carrying cameras - To me that is clear harassment. Chasing anyone
:17:37. > :17:43.down a dark alley, it's not right. APPLAUSE
:17:43. > :17:46.Justin King. Well, I rather agree with Jimmy. Ethink we shouldn't
:17:46. > :17:51.throw the baby out with the bath water and I think actually our
:17:51. > :17:55.country and society is all the better for the ability of our free
:17:55. > :18:00.press to hold those of us in power and those politicians in power to
:18:00. > :18:04.account. We should be very careful that we don't give that up. What do
:18:04. > :18:09.you make of what Hugh Grant said? You can distinguish between the
:18:09. > :18:12.baby and the bath water, you lift the baby out and let the bath water
:18:12. > :18:16.runaway. That is the point that Jimmy makes, that most of us can
:18:16. > :18:19.see clearly that a lot of the behaviour is unacceptable. Some may
:18:19. > :18:23.require a change in the law to provide clarity, but I think also
:18:23. > :18:27.people have to remember that they have incredible power already. The
:18:27. > :18:31.reason the News of the World is not on sale today is that the public,
:18:31. > :18:35.you, said you are simply not going to buy that newspaper again,
:18:35. > :18:38.because of the way it behaved. You have transmitted a very clear
:18:38. > :18:42.message, which brought about the situation that we are now in, this
:18:42. > :18:47.inquiry, so we shouldn't forget that we as consumers and readers
:18:47. > :18:50.have real power to exercise. Toughening up the legislation, the
:18:50. > :18:54.Press Complaints Commission, or the Government getting involved direct,
:18:54. > :18:57.no? I think it's clear. It is impossible for the media to seek to
:18:57. > :19:01.continue to argue that they have been able to actually keep their
:19:01. > :19:05.own house in order, so it's clear that wherever this inquiry goes and
:19:05. > :19:09.we should allow the inquiry to complete its work, I would suggest,
:19:09. > :19:15.that we are going to need a PCC that is truly independent and has
:19:15. > :19:19.real teeth. APPLAUSE
:19:19. > :19:29.Chris Huhne, you may sometimes think you are a victim of press
:19:29. > :19:30.
:19:30. > :19:35.harassment, I don't know. The Time's -- Times yesterday was
:19:35. > :19:42.ferocious. Is that fair? I was a journalist for 19 years and so
:19:42. > :19:45.contrary to what you might expect, I would firmly defend the right of
:19:45. > :19:49.a free press. I think it's absolutely crucial and the
:19:49. > :19:55.Government's trespass into the whole area of attempting to control
:19:55. > :19:59.what happens in the media is very, very dangerous. The inquiry is
:19:59. > :20:03.dangerous? It will be interesting, because it will be absolutely
:20:03. > :20:07.crucial to see what conclusions he draws. Maybe he'll say we should
:20:07. > :20:09.enforce the law properly and clearly we didn't here. The
:20:09. > :20:14.Metropolitan Police did not investigate adequately when they
:20:14. > :20:19.should have done, what was going on at the News of the World. Some of
:20:19. > :20:23.us, I said this before the election, said it very loud and clear, we
:20:23. > :20:28.needed a judicial quieary and a proper police investigation --
:20:28. > :20:30.inquiry and a proper police investigation. It is now confessed
:20:30. > :20:34.by The Metropolitan Police Commissioner and they need to get
:20:34. > :20:37.to the bottom of this. Maybe that's enough. But we have a situation as
:20:37. > :20:42.well and we have for example the editor of the Daily Mail success
:20:42. > :20:46.that the PCC needs to be beefed up, self-regulation, yes, but with
:20:46. > :20:51.proper penalties and proper rights of redress and I think that is
:20:51. > :20:54.right. We have to be very careful, because the press is a crucial part
:20:54. > :20:58.of bringing excessively powerful people to account. Whether they are
:20:58. > :21:04.in business or whether they are in Government, the press is a crucial
:21:04. > :21:06.part of that process and we mustn't feteer the ability to do so.
:21:06. > :21:10.have - APPLAUSE
:21:10. > :21:15.You have no complaint about the on- going story about who was at the
:21:15. > :21:19.wheel of your car speeding down the motorway? I have masses of
:21:19. > :21:23.complaipt, very constantly about the treatment of all -- complaints,
:21:23. > :21:28.very constantly about all the treatment of the press and that's
:21:28. > :21:33.what goes with the public life. If you can't stand the heat get out of
:21:33. > :21:36.the kitchen. What is happening with that? Please ask the Crown
:21:36. > :21:40.Prosecution Service? You are waiting to hear? Yes. Will you
:21:40. > :21:46.plead not guilty? Absolutely. haven't been on the programme since
:21:46. > :21:53.you had that little - Is that right? That is very remiss of you,
:21:53. > :21:59.David. The woman in red and yellow there.
:21:59. > :22:04.Isn't it about time that the media cleaned up its act? There is a
:22:04. > :22:10.difference between the heroic journalism and on the sleazy end
:22:10. > :22:16.and it's about time there is an external independent regulatory
:22:16. > :22:22.body. The problem with that is how do you distinguish, if you allow
:22:22. > :22:25.the law to distinguish between sleazy against responsible, you may
:22:25. > :22:29.get another minister at some point who has got some trouble with the
:22:29. > :22:32.press, who is not as upstanding about freedom of the press who says
:22:32. > :22:36.it is sleazy to talk about my driving record and who was driving
:22:36. > :22:42.my car, we are going to suppress that and that is dangerous for
:22:42. > :22:47.democracy and for all of us. APPLAUSE
:22:47. > :22:52.I'm a staunch defender of the free press in this country. I think it's
:22:52. > :22:56.vital for our democracy, but in answer to Edward's question, we
:22:56. > :23:02.also need a press that is fair and responsible and act within the crim
:23:02. > :23:08.fal law. -- criminal law. That's what we have heard today,
:23:08. > :23:12.particularly the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. It's appalling.
:23:12. > :23:18.It's not just disgusting, but criminal. I think one of the most
:23:18. > :23:21.important thing that we make sure we get out of the inquiry is proper
:23:21. > :23:26.rights for individuals of redress, so that if the press oversteps the
:23:26. > :23:30.mark they are properly held to account. What about a privacy law?
:23:30. > :23:34.Well, I think the House of Commons has got a committee looking at that
:23:34. > :23:38.at the moment and it is something we need to debate, but what we have
:23:38. > :23:44.seen this week is about people breaking the existing law and not
:23:44. > :23:48.being held to account. You heard JK Rowling says that messages were put
:23:48. > :23:52.in her daughter's satchel at school, wanting to make contact. It doesn't
:23:52. > :23:57.sound it's illegal, but the privacy law would prevent that. People have
:23:57. > :24:01.a right to private life, but I think we need to be careful about a
:24:01. > :24:06.privacy law, because smoims if people or politicians are doing
:24:06. > :24:10.things -- sometimes if people or politicians are doing things that
:24:10. > :24:15.they are doing in public life sometimes need to be exposed. It's
:24:15. > :24:18.really important when we come out of the inquiry that we focus, I
:24:18. > :24:21.think, particularly on ordinary people, who have not had the money
:24:21. > :24:26.or power or the celebrity and what has been happening to those people
:24:26. > :24:34.is also bad, but it's the ordinary people who don't get the right.
:24:34. > :24:39.man on the gangway there. How is it that we are talking about criminal
:24:39. > :24:43.acts and a PPC dealing with it when the place to deal with the criminal
:24:43. > :24:49.acts is the police? Why have the Metropolitan Police failed us so
:24:49. > :24:55.badly Apart from that, what is your view on the on-going control of the
:24:55. > :25:02.press? I think self-regulation is fair. Then we had the banks and the
:25:02. > :25:05.press and then they were hacking murder small girl's phones. I would
:25:05. > :25:11.have an independent regulator independent of the press. Would you
:25:11. > :25:14.have that? We had the crash after the creation of the FSA. It was
:25:14. > :25:19.Government regulation that have failed. There have been times when
:25:19. > :25:24.I have felt ashamed of the British press, even when the behaviour was
:25:24. > :25:27.legal, it was cruel, callous, stupid, insensitive. There were
:25:27. > :25:32.moments during this inquiry when I think any person of sensitivity
:25:32. > :25:37.would have flinched in horror to think people didn't have an intern
:25:37. > :25:40.fal compass holding them back from some of the actions -- internal
:25:40. > :25:44.compass holding them back from some of the actions. The problem with
:25:44. > :25:47.regulation is two-fold. First, nobody will agree on what ought not
:25:47. > :25:53.to be published. Everyone can think of something that they think
:25:53. > :25:59.shouldn't be in the public domain, but no two people will agree on
:25:59. > :26:03.what. I have yet to hear two people agreeing. There is a real
:26:03. > :26:06.difficulty of definition. Secondly, the whole debate has been overtaken
:26:06. > :26:09.by technology. We were in the situation when we had the super-
:26:09. > :26:13.injunctions where the whole country knew who was behind the legal
:26:13. > :26:17.action. When you could tweet it. When you could text it. When it was
:26:17. > :26:22.talked about in every dinner party, but even now it would be illegal
:26:22. > :26:29.for me to mention on the BBC who the people behind the super-
:26:29. > :26:33.injunctions were. Certainly! What should we do instead? Well, firstly,
:26:33. > :26:37.I strongly agree with Jimmy, we need properly to enforce the law on
:26:37. > :26:42.harassment. There are perfectly good common law remedies for people
:26:42. > :26:49.who behave awfully. If you are chased by photographers you could
:26:49. > :26:52.claim that? Or anybody else. There is a well-understood common law
:26:52. > :26:56.definition of harassment, but there is another. Editors should be more
:26:56. > :26:59.afraid of printing something that untrue than of something that is
:26:59. > :27:04.intrusive and if you listened to the testimony over the last two or
:27:04. > :27:09.three days, the thing that most upset a number of the people giving
:27:09. > :27:13.evidence, the McCanns particularly, were the lies that appeared about
:27:13. > :27:18.them. The quid pro quo of not having a privacy law and external
:27:18. > :27:23.regulation and I'm against both, is that if a newspaper prints
:27:23. > :27:27.something that is untrue the damages should not be set by the
:27:27. > :27:30.hurt feeling of the victim, they should be actually punitive damages.
:27:30. > :27:39.They should be a level of damages that makes the newspaper not want
:27:39. > :27:43.to do it again. APPLAUSE
:27:44. > :27:49.You talk about the cool, callous way in which people's privacy was
:27:49. > :27:59.invaded and that you flinked at it. Do you flinch at the fact that your
:27:59. > :28:05.leader is best friends with Rebekah Brooks? I don't think he is. They
:28:05. > :28:10.spent Christmas together. You know what, I would think less of anybody
:28:10. > :28:14.who walked out on a personal relationship for political vention.
:28:14. > :28:19.We know that David Cameron got quite close to the Murdoch family
:28:19. > :28:22.and your former leader got close. Do you approve? You need to be
:28:22. > :28:26.brief. I think you raise an important point, which is that one
:28:26. > :28:30.of the reasons why some of the laws may not have been enforced is
:28:30. > :28:34.because either people have been too frightened to take on the powerful
:28:34. > :28:37.parts of the media, or they've wanted to cosy up to them to get
:28:37. > :28:40.their message across. Politicians have to use the media to
:28:40. > :28:43.communicate with people. I actually think this comes back to the point
:28:43. > :28:46.about the internet and Twitter, which is something I use, because I
:28:46. > :28:51.find it's a direct way to communicate. There is a real
:28:51. > :28:54.problem, because the only party consistently that stood up to News
:28:54. > :28:57.International, neither Labour nor the Conservatives, were the Liberal
:28:57. > :29:00.Democrats and Nick Clegg and through decision after decision,
:29:00. > :29:04.the one political party that News International and Rupert Murdoch
:29:04. > :29:09.could never get to was the Liberal Democrats and I do not believe we
:29:09. > :29:16.would be where we are with the inquiry. I don't think if we had
:29:16. > :29:20.not had the coalition Government and not had the hew and cry, it's
:29:20. > :29:26.all the same thing would have happened that has happened before,
:29:26. > :29:28.and it would have been shoved away. Labour had an awful record in
:29:28. > :29:33.Government in dealing with Murdoch. I called for a police inquiry and
:29:33. > :29:36.we had the Home Secretary and his deputy apologising in the Commons
:29:36. > :29:42.for doing absolutely nothing to ensure that there was a proper
:29:42. > :29:46.police inquiry into the clear evidence that this went March
:29:46. > :29:56.beyond one rogue journalist. Labour lapped it up, because they were
:29:56. > :29:57.
:29:57. > :30:00.hoping to get Rupert Murdoch's No-one wants to get rid of our free
:30:00. > :30:06.press. We all need that. Surely, it's just down to people power. If
:30:06. > :30:11.we don't buy the newspapers, they don't get the money. Money talks.
:30:11. > :30:14.That worked with The News of the World. We're halfway through the
:30:14. > :30:18.programme. We have only done two questions. I want to ask the
:30:18. > :30:23.panellists to be more succinct in their answers. Sue Thorne. Yeah,
:30:23. > :30:27.applause for that. Sue Thorne. executive salaries out of control?
:30:27. > :30:33.Are executive salaries out of control? We know the FTSE 100
:30:33. > :30:36.companies - executive salaries went up by half, 50%, as opposed to 2%
:30:37. > :30:40.for the rest of us and cuts for many people too. Justin King,
:30:40. > :30:46.you're a well-paid executive. I don't know whether you want to
:30:46. > :30:50.share with us what you earn before you start your answer or not.
:30:50. > :30:56.can look it up on Wiki peedya. -- Wikipedia.
:30:56. > :30:59.APPLAUSE But is it always accurate?
:30:59. > :31:05.LAUGHTER As it happens... You beat me to it
:31:05. > :31:11.because, as it happens, I did check my Wikipedia entry before I came on
:31:11. > :31:15.the panel, but it's not on there. My salary is a matter of public
:31:15. > :31:21.record. It's 900,000. And I am the Chief Executive of a public company,
:31:21. > :31:25.and the company I work for report in a very straight forward way. The
:31:25. > :31:28.salary I earn and of all the other Chief Executives in our company and
:31:29. > :31:34.the bonuses we earn and how we earn those. That's good model, and I am
:31:34. > :31:37.proud to say that's the approach our company takes. That said, it is
:31:37. > :31:41.inescapable, and the High Pay Commission this week have simply
:31:41. > :31:44.given voice to this - that the vast majority of the UK population think
:31:44. > :31:49.there is something rotten at the top of the big corporations in the
:31:49. > :31:53.UK, so those of us that run big corporations better listen, because
:31:53. > :31:57.if we don't, we're not going to be in a job much longer, and our
:31:57. > :32:03.customers are not going to shop with us, and our employees aren't
:32:03. > :32:07.going to want to work for us. What's rotten? I said people think
:32:07. > :32:11.there is. Is there something rotten? I think the big issue is
:32:11. > :32:14.there is no sense at all that the rewards people are earning is
:32:14. > :32:18.connected to the performance they're delivering. Which side are
:32:18. > :32:22.you on? I think many companies - I would include my own - actually do
:32:22. > :32:25.have that very clear connection. We lay out in very clear terms the
:32:25. > :32:30.earnings and the way people earn. We also have a policy in our
:32:30. > :32:35.company the pay rewards we give all of our employees are the maximum
:32:35. > :32:40.that we give. What about an RBS Chief Executive getting nearly
:32:40. > :32:43.eight million and Lloyds getting over �13 million - do you approve
:32:43. > :32:47.of that? Both of those figures assume success, and as it stands at
:32:47. > :32:51.the moment, they're clearly not successful. I think we should
:32:51. > :32:58.remember, of course, in those two organisations, they're
:32:58. > :33:02.organisations that we as taxpayers and members of public actually own
:33:02. > :33:06.large chunks of at the moment, and the best thing that can possibly
:33:06. > :33:11.happen for us is those two banks become successful and profitable
:33:11. > :33:16.again so we can sell the shares for a profit as taxpayers. We have
:33:16. > :33:19.already bailed them out. We can't change history. We can only change
:33:19. > :33:22.the future. Are salaries out of control or not? I think clearly
:33:23. > :33:25.they are in some organisations because they're clearly not
:33:25. > :33:27.transapparently linked to performance.
:33:27. > :33:31.APPLAUSE Jimmy Wales. I think that in
:33:31. > :33:36.general, yes, salaries are out of control, and I think the real risk
:33:36. > :33:41.here is we view this as a class divide - rich-versus-poor issue,
:33:41. > :33:44.and we think all high salaries need to go out the window. The problem
:33:44. > :33:48.is when salaries are clearly linked to performance for shareholders
:33:48. > :33:52.this is pear fecically good thing. One of the problems we have right
:33:52. > :33:57.now is corporate governance has gotten messed up so too many
:33:57. > :34:00.members of the management for companies are not accountable to
:34:00. > :34:04.the shareholders. Therefore they loot the company for their own
:34:04. > :34:08.benefit against true interests of the owners who have retirement
:34:08. > :34:13.investments and so on. They're really looting? I would say the
:34:13. > :34:16.word looting, yes. You, sir. agree with both of those comments.
:34:16. > :34:24.I agree high pay should be linked to performance. I think that's
:34:24. > :34:27.right. As the UK Plc argument, let's try to promote business in
:34:27. > :34:31.the UK. There is an argument of when you look at yourself in the
:34:31. > :34:34.mirror thinking, am I being too greedy, and should I lead by
:34:34. > :34:40.example by giving away some of what I have? Particularly when we're in
:34:40. > :34:47.a tough time, people are struggling and leading by example people at
:34:47. > :34:52.the top and the director levels. I accept the UK Plc argument. But I
:34:52. > :34:56.think there is a question to be asked in these times. The High Pay
:34:56. > :35:00.Commission which was set up by a Labour-supporting pressure group,
:35:00. > :35:05.of course, said all executive pay packages should be published, that
:35:05. > :35:08.there should be employees on the boards and that the method of
:35:08. > :35:11.deciding salaries is wrong. Do you agree with all of these points? Do
:35:11. > :35:16.you think the Government should act on them? The Government already has
:35:16. > :35:24.because Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, Liberal Democrat, in his
:35:24. > :35:29.conference speech in the autumn laid out a set of proposals we're
:35:29. > :35:33.consulting on. But are you going to have... Well, we'll have to see
:35:33. > :35:38.what comes out of it. No, it's not. We have set out a series of
:35:38. > :35:42.proposals. One is doing it, and one is not doing it. If you in
:35:42. > :35:45.Government try to do something without going through the statutory
:35:45. > :35:48.period for consultation, you get into tremendous trouble, so it is
:35:48. > :35:52.actually important to consult. We're determined that there is
:35:52. > :35:56.clearly a problem. I have my personal views about why the
:35:56. > :35:59.problem arises. I think there are too many people who are on each
:35:59. > :36:03.other's remuneration committees, so one director scratchs the back of
:36:03. > :36:07.another and gives another a pay rise. There is another a very per
:36:07. > :36:11.vasive argument in board rooms a that we have to pay top dollar to
:36:11. > :36:15.get the top people. Every board room says the same thing. As a
:36:15. > :36:20.result, there is a steady creep upwards because they're all
:36:20. > :36:24.actually chasing paying somebody in the top sector. Then there is size
:36:24. > :36:27.because as soon as the company gets bigger, as soon as there is an
:36:27. > :36:33.acquisition, they say, a big company like this, we need to exee.
:36:33. > :36:37.We need a pay rise. There are all sorts of ratchets here. I don't
:36:37. > :36:40.think anybody should begrudge really good pay for really good
:36:40. > :36:43.performance, but I think what there is a lack of trust in at the moment
:36:43. > :36:52.is the link between pay and performance. That's something I
:36:52. > :36:54.know Vinces is derled to put right and the Government will be put ing
:36:54. > :36:59.proposals on during the consultation period.
:36:59. > :37:03.Does it matter that people dislike the salaries people have at the
:37:03. > :37:07.top? They may think Justin King's sausages may not all they're
:37:07. > :37:14.cracked up to be and shouldn't get �900,000? Does it matter? What did
:37:14. > :37:18.you say? His sausages are very nice? Yeah. You can't curry favour.
:37:18. > :37:22.I think it does matter, precisely because we're all living in the
:37:22. > :37:25.same society. We need to have trust that people are performing their
:37:26. > :37:30.roles properly and are being remunerated for that you lose
:37:30. > :37:34.motivation from employees if you don't. Do you agree? It's ludicrous
:37:34. > :37:39.for me to say what Justin King should be paid. I have only met him.
:37:39. > :37:43.I enjoy his sausages, but neither I nor anyone else in the audience is
:37:44. > :37:48.in a position to say. I agree with Jimmy Wales that we could do much
:37:48. > :37:51.more to make shareholders think of themselves as proprietors rather
:37:51. > :37:54.than just investors, and I think there could be a real change in the
:37:54. > :37:58.climate of corporations if that simple shift were made, but the
:37:58. > :38:02.idea that a Government remuneration committee could decide what level
:38:02. > :38:06.of pay is proper - I mean, just think about that for five minutes,
:38:06. > :38:09.and you'll see it leads to bankruptcy, to the worst kind of
:38:09. > :38:12.favoritism. If that worked, we'd have lost the Cold War, and the
:38:12. > :38:15.Soviet Union would have won. Do you think there should be employee
:38:15. > :38:20.representatives onboard? No. I think the answer is to go down the
:38:20. > :38:23.road towards proper accountability to the people who own the company,
:38:23. > :38:27.which is the shareholders. I also strongly agree with what the
:38:27. > :38:31.gentleman there said about giving away - if the system is working
:38:31. > :38:35.properly, a man or a woman who has done very well and then chooses to
:38:35. > :38:40.give to good causes seems to me a much preferable situation than that
:38:40. > :38:43.chairman or that CEO loading the costs on to his shareholders, his
:38:43. > :38:48.customers and his clients in the name of corporate social
:38:48. > :38:53.responsibility or indeed loading it on to everyone else in tax rises.
:38:53. > :39:03.It was your party that famously said, "We're intensely relaxed
:39:03. > :39:06.about people getting -" the adverb was "filthy rich" - Peter Mandelson.
:39:06. > :39:09.Executives' salaries out of control or... Can I say I didn't agree with
:39:09. > :39:13.that comment at the time, and I don't agree with it now. I think
:39:13. > :39:18.there is a very strong sense of fairness. Sue's initial question
:39:18. > :39:23.was, do people think pay is getting out of control? I do think that
:39:23. > :39:27.when people on median wages are actually seeing a 3.5% cut to their
:39:27. > :39:31.pay once inflation is taken into account, and yet some people who
:39:31. > :39:35.have, you know, not been successful at getting big rewards - they think
:39:35. > :39:39.that's unfair - I think it's very important what Justin has said
:39:39. > :39:44.about his recognition that people need to feel a system is
:39:44. > :39:49.transparent and fair. I hope that Justin leads that call amongst
:39:49. > :39:53.other Chief Executives. I do believe we need more transparency,
:39:53. > :39:58.and I also do believe that having an employee on remuneration
:39:58. > :40:02.committees is a bit of a test and a challenge there if you're trying to
:40:02. > :40:05.agree a very high pay packet for yourself, but you have an employee
:40:05. > :40:11.on the remuneration committee and says, "What's actually happening to
:40:11. > :40:16.us?" I do think that gives a bit of a challenge in the system. I'll go
:40:16. > :40:20.to you, sir, over there. I agree that success should be linked to
:40:20. > :40:25.wage, but I don't agree that there shouldn't be a limit - there should
:40:25. > :40:30.be limits to it, and I think even 900,000 is immoral because it could
:40:30. > :40:33.make hundreds of people's lives better, and I think they should be
:40:33. > :40:38.moderated by the consumers. The Government could help, but it's
:40:38. > :40:42.really in the power of everyone in the audience who can choose to
:40:42. > :40:48.boycott companies who have big bonuses and really big wages.
:40:48. > :40:52.You, sir, up there in the white jacket? Last it into on Newsnight,
:40:52. > :40:54.there was an energy executive on �1.9 million. What does that say
:40:54. > :40:58.about when old people are dying of cold?
:40:58. > :41:04.APPLAUSE And you in the middle.
:41:04. > :41:07.APPLAUSE Justin, are you really worth 40
:41:07. > :41:17.times per year the average man and woman? Are you 40 times as
:41:17. > :41:17.
:41:18. > :41:21.productive as them? That, of course, is an impossible question to answer.
:41:21. > :41:26.The only people that can really answer that question are, as you've
:41:26. > :41:29.heard from Daniel, the shareholders in our company. Ultimately, my
:41:29. > :41:34.responsibility is to deliver a successful business and successful
:41:34. > :41:39.results. As I said earlier, we're very clear and open about our pay
:41:39. > :41:44.policy in Sainsbury. We put that to a vote every year with our
:41:44. > :41:48.shareholders. Last year 98% of our shareholders supported our policy
:41:48. > :41:51.on pay and remuneration. Ultimately they're the judges of whether we as
:41:51. > :41:56.a management team - including me - are delivering the results that
:41:56. > :42:01.we're worth the money they pay us. What he's asking - I am curious -
:42:01. > :42:05.you know, you can't work more than 365 days a year. What is it that
:42:05. > :42:11.you do that is so special that - LAUGHTER
:42:11. > :42:16.That makes it 40 times... But I think you can't - I mean, you can't
:42:16. > :42:21.equate one type of work to another in terms of market forces in our
:42:21. > :42:26.society. The reality is that in all walks of life, people that are
:42:26. > :42:30.doing specific jobs that very few other people are able to do are
:42:30. > :42:34.sports stars, are entertainment stars, are media stars, David, do
:42:34. > :42:41.attract... Don't get paid much. Would you like to tell us how much?
:42:41. > :42:46.No, it's gone down. We had the cuts. But then it's the reality - the
:42:46. > :42:49.people at the top of professions - actually, I started out as a young
:42:49. > :42:53.person in business really aspiring to the idea if I did a great job
:42:53. > :42:56.over a long period of time, I could get to the top of an organisation
:42:56. > :43:00.and have the great privilege, which I consider it to be, of leading an
:43:00. > :43:03.organisation with 150,000 people in it. That's something that I am very
:43:03. > :43:09.proud to have achieved. I am going to take two more questions. The
:43:09. > :43:13.woman on the gangway there. That's you, yes. So could you carry a
:43:13. > :43:16.truss up on to a roof, then? Because I think that people are
:43:16. > :43:23.doing hard, physical jobs and getting paid significantly less
:43:23. > :43:27.than people like you. Could you carry bricks up on to a
:43:27. > :43:30.roof? I expect he probably could if he - I don't know. You probably
:43:30. > :43:35.could. The woman over there on the left. You say that success is
:43:35. > :43:40.linked to ages. What about the nurses, the doctors, the teachers
:43:40. > :43:44.who all do such an amazing job for our community? They don't get paid
:43:44. > :43:50.that much. Chris Huhne, I want you to be very brief. Pick up on what
:43:50. > :43:53.he said about the green money going to Monaco and all of that.
:43:53. > :43:59.entirely agree with the gentleman who raised the tax... That's what
:43:59. > :44:05.Nick Clegg said to me when I asked him in Bath Hall. Honestly, I
:44:05. > :44:09.interpreted his reply as being "Don't ask silly questions." If you
:44:09. > :44:12.would let me tell you what we're actually doing about it, I'll tell
:44:12. > :44:17.you. We have been trying to close all the loopholes we can. We, for
:44:17. > :44:20.example, have been signing agreements with countries that have
:44:20. > :44:24.traditionally been boltholes for funk money like Switzerland to make
:44:24. > :44:27.sure that hay they're actually reporting back, people who are
:44:27. > :44:31.evading British taxes, because I entirely agree with you - it's
:44:31. > :44:36.completely unacceptable for the rest of us who honestly pay our tax
:44:36. > :44:41.to have a few people managing to get their money out from under and
:44:41. > :44:44.come and enjoy the right of citizenship in our country but
:44:44. > :44:49.aren't prepared to pay for it, and they should. We'll speed on to a
:44:49. > :44:53.question from Mark Simpson, please. Is the coalition living up to its
:44:53. > :44:58.promise of being the greenest Government ever? Chris Huhne
:44:58. > :45:02.actually said it was going to be that. Is it? Daniel Hannan.
:45:02. > :45:05.Worryingly, it is in the sense of fuel bills shooting up and
:45:06. > :45:11.burdening our economy, as if we didn't have enough on our plate
:45:11. > :45:14.already without these arbitrary and unforced additional costs. I mean,
:45:14. > :45:18.there are lots of things you can do to get an economy going again. You
:45:18. > :45:24.can make it easier to hire and fire people. You can cut the regulation.
:45:24. > :45:28.You can cut the taxes. One thing that'll always jolt an economy is
:45:28. > :45:32.cheaper energy. It makes exports more attractive. The one thing that
:45:32. > :45:36.seems to be jolting the United States out of the mess they were in
:45:36. > :45:41.is the sudden discovery of all the shale gas they have started getting
:45:41. > :45:48.on tap. The good news is we have similar deposits in this country -
:45:48. > :45:51.not as large. So it seems to me a bizarre thing that we should be
:45:51. > :45:55.choosing to burden our economic recovery at a time like this for
:45:55. > :45:59.the sake of making a point because anything that we do unilaterally,
:45:59. > :46:03.when it isn't being matched by the rest of the world, is simply using
:46:03. > :46:06.legislation to show what nice people we are. It isn't affecting
:46:06. > :46:10.any outcome in the real world. It isn't having any impact on climate
:46:10. > :46:20.change, and the worst reason to pass a law is simply in this
:46:20. > :46:23.Jimmy Wales, do you agree with Daniel on that one? Are you for
:46:23. > :46:29.greening? I think it's a very complicated issue and I am not
:46:29. > :46:36.enough of an expert to be able to offer a sensible opinion. OK. Thank
:46:36. > :46:46.you. I can just say I have no idea because I'm not a politician.
:46:46. > :46:49.
:46:49. > :46:53.kin King. Well -- Just kin King? Justin King. Well, I would like to
:46:53. > :47:01.take Chris back to an answer to an earlier question, where I think he
:47:01. > :47:11.said and I'll par phrase, it was not Government -- para phrase, it
:47:11. > :47:13.was not Government policy regarding the consultation. They have
:47:13. > :47:16.announced one that does not conclude until after the change
:47:16. > :47:23.that they are consulting on is brought into effect on 12th
:47:23. > :47:28.December. The consequence of that is that actually it has stopped in
:47:28. > :47:31.its tracks a massive investment in certain energies in our country and
:47:31. > :47:35.disappointingly that has a second effect, which we saw people
:47:36. > :47:45.marching on Parliament, protesting, only a couple of days ago, probably
:47:46. > :47:48.
:47:48. > :47:53.cost �25 -- 25,000 jobs in that industry. You mean solar panelling.
:47:53. > :47:58.That's it. Chris Huhne, would you like to answer this? You've always
:47:58. > :48:03.been a believer in the green stuff and prices will go up and we'll all
:48:03. > :48:08.be better off using less fuel, even if we are a bit colder - you didn't
:48:08. > :48:12.a that bit - and then you are in a Government that has halved the
:48:12. > :48:17.tariff for sticking up the solar panels? Are you behind that?
:48:17. > :48:20.reason for that is very simple. you approve? Of course, I've been
:48:20. > :48:24.defending it. The reason why the tariff has been halved is because
:48:24. > :48:29.the prices have come down so much. We have had an enormous reduction
:48:29. > :48:33.in the cost of solar panels. Unfortunately, under the scheme
:48:33. > :48:36.that was introduced by my predecessor, now the Labour leader,
:48:36. > :48:41.there was no recognition of the real world and what would happen if
:48:41. > :48:44.you had a 30% and 70% reduction in the cost and you have to bring the
:48:45. > :48:48.subsidy down, otherwise the costs go through the roof and I'm
:48:48. > :48:54.delighted I'm being attacked by the right from Dan, who thinks we are
:48:55. > :48:59.massively adding to bills and then from left, from the Chief Executive
:48:59. > :49:08.of Sainsbury's, who thinks we are cutting too much off. If we had
:49:09. > :49:14.left the scheme to run on we would have been adding �26 to every
:49:14. > :49:19.single family's energy bill by 2020. The scheme, as you well know,
:49:19. > :49:25.finished at the end of March next year. What you have done is to
:49:25. > :49:30.catch a load of companies out that have already made decisions about
:49:30. > :49:37.investments by in effect retrospectively changing the scheme.
:49:37. > :49:41.That is not true, Justin. Firstly, nobody who has installed any
:49:41. > :49:46.installation now is going to have the tariffs changed. It will go on
:49:46. > :49:49.being paid for 25 years at a rate of return which is frankly
:49:49. > :49:56.wonderful for people who got in there. Anything in real terms
:49:56. > :50:01.between 10% and 16%. That is not a sensible use of bill payers' or
:50:02. > :50:06.taxpayers' money. There are tens of thousands of householders who have
:50:06. > :50:10.paid deposits and made commitments to have these systems installed in
:50:10. > :50:13.the next six months, so they are not going to get the benefit of the
:50:13. > :50:17.system that they believed existed when they made that commitment.
:50:17. > :50:22.What will you say to those houses? APPLAUSE
:50:22. > :50:27.Firstly, the scheme that we are consulting on, which involves a
:50:27. > :50:32.halving of the tariff, still leads to a real return for those
:50:32. > :50:37.householders of 5% in real terms for 25 years. It is very generous
:50:37. > :50:42.and it brings it back into line with the original intention of the
:50:42. > :50:47.scheme, when the Labour Party introduced it in April 2010. What
:50:47. > :50:53.does Liz think. No, they are not the greenest Government ever. It's
:50:53. > :50:57.not only what they are doing on feeding tariffs, it's that they
:50:57. > :51:02.have cancelled one of our carbon capture and storage projects, which
:51:02. > :51:06.was another move towards clean energy. Whatever Chris says, the
:51:06. > :51:10.CBI, the businesses say, we are not going to invest in this any more
:51:10. > :51:16.and let's just see what other countries are doing. Last month,
:51:16. > :51:20.Germany announced it's going to be investing 85 billion into renewable
:51:20. > :51:23.energy over the next five years. That is not just great for the
:51:23. > :51:28.environment, but creating huge numbers of jobs. We need to get
:51:28. > :51:33.into the business, not just for the planet, but for the future of our
:51:33. > :51:37.economy. We have just done that with the consultation. If the
:51:37. > :51:43.Government taxed 100% and employed everyone surely we would be well
:51:43. > :51:46.off. I know you are not - One at a time. The key point is we have
:51:46. > :51:50.encouraged renewable energy. If you look at what is happening with the
:51:50. > :52:00.renewable obligation, which is our main way of encouraging big-scale
:52:00. > :52:01.
:52:01. > :52:11.renublz and off-shore -- re nubl -- renewables and and off-shore
:52:11. > :52:12.
:52:12. > :52:17.energies. We were 25th out of 27 EU states. With regard to Germany, OK,
:52:17. > :52:20.they've pulled out of the nuclear industry and they have an amazingly
:52:20. > :52:26.strong renewable industry. UK has decided to go the other way. Why is
:52:27. > :52:30.it? No, we haven't. Absolutely not. Can I just request that Chris stops
:52:30. > :52:34.referring to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. We had a message from
:52:34. > :52:38.the man at the back that said 30% of people voted in the unions. How
:52:38. > :52:48.many of our country voted for the Government that we have got now?
:52:48. > :52:49.
:52:49. > :52:53.APPLAUSE The Government has increased the
:52:53. > :52:57.amount of nuclear power plants. I read it in the newspapers. You are
:52:57. > :53:06.increasing if you clear power. You can't say you are not. The man
:53:06. > :53:10.there. I run a company based nearby and we have created 350 jobs. We
:53:10. > :53:14.are also responsible for putting in free solar cells and I don't have
:53:14. > :53:19.an objection to you reducing the feed-in tariff. My objection is
:53:19. > :53:22.that you believe that you can make a company turn around in a six-week
:53:22. > :53:26.period. You make an announcement and within six weeks you believe
:53:26. > :53:31.that we can make that change and we will see in my company there will
:53:31. > :53:34.be 300 people who lose their jobs as a result of the decision you
:53:34. > :53:40.made because you haven't made it on a timely basis. That is what you
:53:40. > :53:46.should be thinking about. APPLAUSE
:53:46. > :53:53.I want to take a last question. You can talk to him after about that
:53:53. > :53:57.issue. How would you react to a letter of apology from a criminal
:53:57. > :54:00.convicted of burgling you? Jimmy Wales, you know the policy of
:54:00. > :54:04.getting the criminal to write to the person they've upset or
:54:04. > :54:08.attacked or whatever. There is this letter, which everyone has seen
:54:08. > :54:12.today and we have got it here. "I don't know why I'm writing a letter
:54:12. > :54:17.to you. I've been forced to right this. To be honest I'm not bothered
:54:17. > :54:22.or sorry about the fact I burgled your house. Basically, it was your
:54:22. > :54:26.fault anyway. I'm going to run you through the dumb mistakes you made.
:54:26. > :54:30.You didn't shut your curtains. Second I you're dumb to think you
:54:30. > :54:33.can live in your area and you are thick enough to leave your
:54:34. > :54:38.downstairs kitchen window open. I wouldn't do that in a million years.
:54:38. > :54:45.I don't feel sorry for you and I won't show you any sympathy or
:54:45. > :54:52.remorse.." It's a classic letter. This idea of the criminal
:54:52. > :54:58.apologising? In favour of that? Yeah, I think I'm in favour in
:54:58. > :55:02.general that criminals should be forced to apologise. I'm a little
:55:02. > :55:05.annoyed for the BBC for making a huge story about this. It's a
:55:05. > :55:09.delicious letter. No question. Everyone enjoyed reading this, but
:55:09. > :55:16.apparently it never went to the family at all, so it's not quite as
:55:16. > :55:20.out rageous as we might hope. was put about by the police, to
:55:20. > :55:24.show the kind of letters people shouldn't write? Something like
:55:24. > :55:28.that. Odd story. Clearly, if we can get criminals to somehow
:55:28. > :55:32.acknowledge what they've done wrong and make an apology to the relevant
:55:32. > :55:37.person, why not? It seems like a good thing to do. Do you think the
:55:37. > :55:45.press will apologise to the people in the Leveson inquiry? Daniel
:55:45. > :55:49.Hannon? I'm all in favour of people apologising in a part of a system
:55:49. > :55:54.that uses other issues. You wonder of the moral vacuum or the people
:55:54. > :55:56.who are taking the metal of the war memorials. You wonder what has gone
:55:56. > :55:59.wrong that people have got themselves into a position where
:55:59. > :56:02.they thought this was an acceptable thing to do. I don't think
:56:02. > :56:06.governments have the power to stop this. Governments do things badly.
:56:06. > :56:09.We have had a demonstration on energy policy and they are bad at
:56:10. > :56:15.building planes and running schools and bad at instilling morality, but
:56:15. > :56:23.the rest of us have a real duty to try to ensure that we are bringing
:56:23. > :56:29.people up in a way it wouldn't occur to them. I agree with Jimmy,
:56:29. > :56:34.if it's done properly and the criminals can take responsibility
:56:34. > :56:38.for what they've done and to apologise to the victims that, can
:56:38. > :56:43.work. We have also had community pay-back schemes in my constituency,
:56:44. > :56:48.which I strongly support, but it has to be done in the right way.
:56:48. > :56:53.believe that if such letters are institutionalised it will simply
:56:53. > :56:57.become a form of words that people use to get out of it. Maybe that is
:56:57. > :57:03.what the 16-year-old was doing. This doesn't mean anything unless I
:57:03. > :57:09.really mean it. That's absolutely the key point. If you are forced to
:57:09. > :57:14.do it it doesn't mean anything, but there is evidence about restorative
:57:14. > :57:16.justice when someone is genuinely apologising and the evidence is and
:57:16. > :57:21.particularly if they have met the victim and genuinely apologised,
:57:21. > :57:26.it's good for the victim, because it helps reconcile them to what has
:57:26. > :57:28.happened, but also means they are much less likely to re-offence, so
:57:28. > :57:32.-- re-offend, so if they are remorseful then that is a good
:57:32. > :57:42.thing and should be encouraged, but this is learning by rot it's bad
:57:42. > :57:42.
:57:42. > :57:46.news. Who is the one to judge? Surely if this young man has the
:57:46. > :57:51.audacity not to show remorse the community punishment should have
:57:51. > :57:55.been increased to something far harsher? Justin King? It is clear
:57:55. > :57:58.that you can't force people to make an apology and that letter
:57:58. > :58:01.demonstrates that the young person involved had no concept of the
:58:01. > :58:05.crime that they had committed or the impact that would have had on
:58:05. > :58:11.the people he committed that crime against. Therefore, you have to
:58:11. > :58:14.come back and I agree with Chris on this issue, which is we have to re-
:58:14. > :58:17.connect criminals to the idea that their crime has consequence and in
:58:17. > :58:23.many areas I think that does lead to changed behaviour. Thank you
:58:23. > :58:28.very much. Our time is up. We have overrun and Andrew Neil will be
:58:29. > :58:34.very cross. We'll be in Dagenham next week. On the panel we have the
:58:34. > :58:40.Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, we have a member from Labour, and
:58:40. > :58:45.Deborah immediate an from the dragons' den and an American
:58:45. > :58:48.political writer David Frumm and the teachers' union leader. The
:58:48. > :58:52.week after, we'll be in Stoke-on- Trent. I don't have any details on
:58:52. > :58:58.who will be there, but if you want to come to either you know what to