24/11/2011 Question Time

Tonight we're in the old roaman city of Bath, and welcome to

And on our panel here, the Energy and Climate Change secretary Chris

Huhne, Liz Kendall, from the European Parliament, the

Conservative Daniel Hannan, the Chief Executive of Sainsbury,

Justin King and the founder of Wikipedia, the website that settles

all arguments except those on Question Time, Jimmy Wales.

Thanks. Our first question tonight from Patrick Wenter please. Is the

Prime Minister right to call next week's strike irresponsible?

Daniel Hannan. I think it is irresponsible. We have negotiations

still under way, and the - a number of the unions had already balloted

on strike action weeks ago. I think we have to remember why these

changes are being made. The Government has inHeathrow Airported

this enormous hole in finances. We have a deficit the size of Greece's.

We were teetering on the brink of going the way of Greece and some of

the eurozone countries. Part of solving that deficit has to be to

restore order and sanity to our long-term liability. Are you saying

it's irresponsible to take a different view from the Government

on the way to handle the deficit? Of course it's not. If I wanted to

say that, that's what I would have said. Why are you saying it's

irresponsible? Because calling a strike at a time like this, costing

the economy even more lost revenue and inconveniencing enormous

numbers of people who are going to have to take day office work

because their children aren't in school and is on, seems to me a

dispros portionate reaction when the Government has put on the table

an offer which would leave lower paid public sector workers better

off in terms of pensions than they are now and would leave almost all

public sector workers better off than almost all people in the

private sector. We have all had hard times recently since the crash

hit, and my constituents who work in the public sector, as always of

us have, had to take a decline in their standard oflying. There is a

gap in pay and pensions. Even now what's on the table is something

most people working in the real economy would kill for. Thank you.

APPLAUSE Liz Kendall. I don't think the

public services - our NHS schools and hospitals are unproductive.

APPLAUSE Neither is Daniel right in saying

that the negotiations are ongoing. I think Ministers have had a take-

it-or-leave-it final offer, no more negotiations. What I think is

irresponsible is for the Prime Minister not to get back to the

table and find a solution. The Government needs to have what is

effectively a 3% tax increase on public sector workers - a proposal

that wasn't in John Hutton's original plan, but I also think

that the trade unions need to give ground because as people are living

longer, they going to have to work longer and make more contribution

to have a decent income in retirement, but strikes are

avoidable if people get back around the table, and that's what we're

urging both the Government and the trade unions to do.

APPLAUSE You're - your party leader, Ed

Milliband, said this evening that Government Ministers in this are

agitators and that they're relishing the prospect of a strike.

Do you agree with that? No, I don't think so. I think probably David

Cameron would like a strike to take place next week. Oh. I think that

he thinks - you know, we've heard reports in the newspapers that he's

rubbing his hands with kind of glee about it. I think what is

responsible is for people to get back round the table, and we need a

- you can only get sustainable reform of public sector pensions if,

you know, we actually have proper reform going ahead. OK. Are you

glufl? I'm certainly not gleeful, and I don't recognise that

description of the Prime Minister or anybody else around the Cabinet

table at all. The reality is we were very careful on the subject

because it does touch people's interests directly. We appointed a

former Labour Cabinet Minister, John Hutton, to look into this.

These stem directly from his recommendations. It's partly a

result of the good news story that we're all living ten years longer

even than in the 1970s when David Lloyd George, a proud Liberal,

introduced the old-age pension. It was set literally 18 months before

the point on average which people were expected to die. We now live

far, far longer. We're far, far fitter. The only way we can have

better pensions at the end of the day is either we work longer the

pay for them, or we pay more for them. John Hutton I think has

proposed a fair way forward. Why is it irresponsible to oppose that?

Simply because in current circumstances the state of the

economy, the way in which so many people are out of work - we're

trying to make ends meet and close what has been the largest budget

deficit, inheritance from Labour. As a Liberal Democrat I am gutted

to have had to take many of the decisions we have had to to clean

up Labour's mess. Frankly then to have a strike over something like

this is irresponsible. The man in the front. Do you think that during

the Thatcher years the unions actually took a bit of a bashing,

and I think it has been a long time coming, this, because it's a new

breed of union bosses now. I think you said something about the

Government relishing actually taking on the unions. I think the

unions are actually relishing taking on the Government especially

because it's a Conservative Government. Do you think both sides

are relishing it? I think they're rubbing their hands with joy, to be

honest. If you think of all the children... Justin King, please.

I'll come back to you. Justin King. My own view... On his point - is it

being relished on both sides? think that's the irresponsibility

if that's indeed the case. I think the fact that both the Prime

Minister and union leaders are trading brick-backs in public is

irresponsible. The reality is unions are forced to operate to a

very specific timetable through balloting their members before they

can strike. It's therefore not new news or a surprise that we're

heading towards this industrial action, and so for the leaders of

the alternate sides to your point of relishing it to be currently

trading publicly on this issue rather than sitting down behind

closed doors and sorting it out that to me is the irresponsibility.

OK. The man up there with the white jacket on. When is the right time

to strike, then? When is the right time to take action? You're taking

money off us all over the place - rich bankers, politicians who rip

us off. When is the right time to strike? Jimmy Wales. I think that

this question of whether this particular strike - whether - is

this the right time? Is this irresponsible? I am not enough of

an expert on the details of the negotiations and where things stand

to be able to say. I think the gentleman who just asked the

question made a valid point. We live in a world in which we have

bailed out the banks who promptly then paid themselves bonuses after

running their companies into the ground. Now we're broke. We have to

make these difficult decisions. That's outrage. That's criminal.

APPLAUSE The woman up there in the back row.

I actually fine it quite patronising you think we'd choose

to strike simply to be gleeful. We'll all stand to lose pay, and

how else would you like us to protest? Daniel Hannan.

APPLAUSE I haven't suggested anybody is

doing this gleefulfully. It is, however, matter of record many of

these ballots were taking place in September long before we got to

this impasse. A number of these trade unions had already embarked

on this course. It takes on a momentum, as these things do. Let's

just remember why we're in this mess. Out of every �4 that the

Government is spending, one of them is bag borrowed, right? The state

is already spending more than half our total GDP. We just can't afford

to carry on with this. So it's not really a question of - in a sort of

playground way of who started it and is it fair and so on - we

simply don't have the option of not making savings. If you don't

believe me, look at what's happening on our doorstep in those

countries in Europe which haven't tried to live within their means,

and look at the chaos that's in store. The man up there in the

spectacles, the man in the third row there. If the panel believe

these pension terms are fair and reasonable, will they be trading

their pension conditions for those being offered?

APPLAUSE Chris Huhne. We've got exactly the

same terms, and in fact, we took a pay cut when we came into

Government as Ministers compared with what the last Government was

being paid. These are tough times. You have to lead from the front. If

you don't do that quite rightlys people will ask, what -- rightly,

people will ask, what are you doing? We have to do that in order

to safeguard the national interests, clear up the mess we inherited in

terms of that enormous side of the budget deficit. It's a reality! And

since we first said that remember, the Labour Party at that time was

saying, "Oh, it's only Greece. We're completely unlike Greece."

Since then we have had crises hitting Ireland, Portugal, Spain,

now even Italy. One of the great achievements this Government has to

its credit so far is getting us out of that danger zone so we don't

have the same sort of problems that have beset so many countries in

southern Europe. The woman at the very back there with the spectacles

in the back row on the right there. What people resent is the pay gap.

It's all relative. You may have taken a cut in your income, but

what about somebody who earns �20,000? It makes a huge difference.

What do you think about the strikes? Well, I think it's part of

democracy. Unfortunately for Daniel Hannan, we live in a democracy. You

have to take what comes with it. You, sir, over there. Presumably,

at some stage, the Government is going to have to give concessions

in order to end this. Can I make a plea as a pensioner that the

concessions come in the form of better pensions for pensioners.

Maybe they can be deferred because the fact is, our pot is going to be

reduced by these extra concessions that would be made otherwise to the

public servants. One more point - the man in the blue tie. This is

not democracy. This is actually a subversion of democracy. What we

have here is three unions - the vast majority of their members have

not voted to take part in the strike. It's a minority decision to

go on strike. The unions are trying to hold the country to ransom. In

the meantime, we learned yesterday that the Labour Party is accepting

almost 90% of its funding from these unions, and is entirely in

the pocket of them. We have a subversion of democracy and not a

democracy at all. APPLAUSE

Justin King, we know around about 30% of the union members voted in

all the different unions that voted. Would that, from your point of view,

count as a legitimate test of union opinion? I think ultimately every

trade union member had the opportunity to vote. Those that

didn't vote, in effect, gave up that opportunity to express their

voice. Those that did, clearly within those unions voted in favour

of industrial action. You think we should seek to second-guess that. I

would like to take it back to what is the real issue here? The real

issue is a piece of good news. We're all living longer, healthier

lives. The reality is very few of us have provided adequately for the

life we're going to enjoy beyond our working lives. I think those of

us that are a bit older - I consider myself one of those - have

to ask ourselves tough questions about whether we're going to

ourselves pay for the retirement we wish to enjoy or to pass that bill

on to our children. We've got plenty of opportunity to change the

way we plan for retirement now both in the private and public sector.

This is not a private versus public issue in my view so that those of

us that are young enough and in the working population can provide

differently for our futures because otherwise, it's our children that

are going to pay that bill. Let's bring this to an end and move to

another question. Liz Kendall, presumably, a Labour Government

would be doing something not entirely dissimilar to what this

coalition Government has been doing? I don't think we'd be

looking at what is effectively a 3% tax increase which is going to hit

800,000 of the lowest part-time workers, nine out of ten of whom

are women, but we have always believed in reform. That's what we

did when we were in Government around public sector reform, but

the way we did that was getting people around the table. The only

way - I think somebody said - they're going to have to give

concessions at some point. What we did was we negotiated. Both sides

have to give ground. That's what we would be doing when we're in

Government, and that's what we're urging on the... A fact here - the

proposals actually lead to better pensions for... That's not for

part-time workers. I don't want the two of you to sit here and

negotiate the deal that's for the unions and the Government.

Absolutely trucially to low-paid... Not part-time, Chris. We can't

debate fact. We can only debate opinion I am afraid. We mustn't

make up facts either, David. you're tweeting... Very happy to

have a disagreement on opinions, but I want to get the facts

straight. Your proposal... Do you mind? This is turning into

pantomime. If you want to join the I'm going to Edward Turner. Is it

time for the Government to legislate for a privacy law and

punish future immediate why misconduct. Jimmy Wales? I think on

this issue I come from the United States and we have a strong first

amendment tradition and the risk that we are running here, because

of this misconduct of the media is losing the distinction between

freedom of speech and criminal behaviour. I think the criminal

behaviour and some of the most out rageous behaviour needs to be very

severely punished. The idea that we should rein in the media, is a

dangerous road. In terms of people going to jail for stealing

information, for hacking into phones, blagging to get people's

personal details unethically, you know, toss them in jail.

APPLAUSE What about the apparently perfectly

legal methods of invading people's previouscy that we have heard about

during the inquiry? We need to look at all of those and decide whether

or not they should be legal. If we are talking about behaviour that

amounts to stalking and harassing, if it happened to people in

ordinary lives we would say that's a bit too far and a bit too much.

In general, if it's just publishing some footballer's affair and if

they expect they can go around and behave in an out rageous way and

not be called to task by the public - Sienna Miller said today she was

chased down a dark Ali by -- alley by eight men and the fact they were

carrying cameras - To me that is clear harassment. Chasing anyone

down a dark alley, it's not right. APPLAUSE

Justin King. Well, I rather agree with Jimmy. Ethink we shouldn't

throw the baby out with the bath water and I think actually our

country and society is all the better for the ability of our free

press to hold those of us in power and those politicians in power to

account. We should be very careful that we don't give that up. What do

you make of what Hugh Grant said? You can distinguish between the

baby and the bath water, you lift the baby out and let the bath water

runaway. That is the point that Jimmy makes, that most of us can

see clearly that a lot of the behaviour is unacceptable. Some may

require a change in the law to provide clarity, but I think also

people have to remember that they have incredible power already. The

reason the News of the World is not on sale today is that the public,

you, said you are simply not going to buy that newspaper again,

because of the way it behaved. You have transmitted a very clear

message, which brought about the situation that we are now in, this

inquiry, so we shouldn't forget that we as consumers and readers

have real power to exercise. Toughening up the legislation, the

Press Complaints Commission, or the Government getting involved direct,

no? I think it's clear. It is impossible for the media to seek to

continue to argue that they have been able to actually keep their

own house in order, so it's clear that wherever this inquiry goes and

we should allow the inquiry to complete its work, I would suggest,

that we are going to need a PCC that is truly independent and has

real teeth. APPLAUSE

Chris Huhne, you may sometimes think you are a victim of press

harassment, I don't know. The Time's -- Times yesterday was

ferocious. Is that fair? I was a journalist for 19 years and so

contrary to what you might expect, I would firmly defend the right of

a free press. I think it's absolutely crucial and the

Government's trespass into the whole area of attempting to control

what happens in the media is very, very dangerous. The inquiry is

dangerous? It will be interesting, because it will be absolutely

crucial to see what conclusions he draws. Maybe he'll say we should

enforce the law properly and clearly we didn't here. The

Metropolitan Police did not investigate adequately when they

should have done, what was going on at the News of the World. Some of

us, I said this before the election, said it very loud and clear, we

needed a judicial quieary and a proper police investigation --

inquiry and a proper police investigation. It is now confessed

by The Metropolitan Police Commissioner and they need to get

to the bottom of this. Maybe that's enough. But we have a situation as

well and we have for example the editor of the Daily Mail success

that the PCC needs to be beefed up, self-regulation, yes, but with

proper penalties and proper rights of redress and I think that is

right. We have to be very careful, because the press is a crucial part

of bringing excessively powerful people to account. Whether they are

in business or whether they are in Government, the press is a crucial

part of that process and we mustn't feteer the ability to do so.

have - APPLAUSE

You have no complaint about the on- going story about who was at the

wheel of your car speeding down the motorway? I have masses of

complaipt, very constantly about the treatment of all -- complaints,

very constantly about all the treatment of the press and that's

what goes with the public life. If you can't stand the heat get out of

the kitchen. What is happening with that? Please ask the Crown

Prosecution Service? You are waiting to hear? Yes. Will you

plead not guilty? Absolutely. haven't been on the programme since

you had that little - Is that right? That is very remiss of you,

David. The woman in red and yellow there.

Isn't it about time that the media cleaned up its act? There is a

difference between the heroic journalism and on the sleazy end

and it's about time there is an external independent regulatory

body. The problem with that is how do you distinguish, if you allow

the law to distinguish between sleazy against responsible, you may

get another minister at some point who has got some trouble with the

press, who is not as upstanding about freedom of the press who says

it is sleazy to talk about my driving record and who was driving

my car, we are going to suppress that and that is dangerous for

democracy and for all of us. APPLAUSE

I'm a staunch defender of the free press in this country. I think it's

vital for our democracy, but in answer to Edward's question, we

also need a press that is fair and responsible and act within the crim

fal law. -- criminal law. That's what we have heard today,

particularly the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. It's appalling.

It's not just disgusting, but criminal. I think one of the most

important thing that we make sure we get out of the inquiry is proper

rights for individuals of redress, so that if the press oversteps the

mark they are properly held to account. What about a privacy law?

Well, I think the House of Commons has got a committee looking at that

at the moment and it is something we need to debate, but what we have

seen this week is about people breaking the existing law and not

being held to account. You heard JK Rowling says that messages were put

in her daughter's satchel at school, wanting to make contact. It doesn't

sound it's illegal, but the privacy law would prevent that. People have

a right to private life, but I think we need to be careful about a

privacy law, because smoims if people or politicians are doing

things -- sometimes if people or politicians are doing things that

they are doing in public life sometimes need to be exposed. It's

really important when we come out of the inquiry that we focus, I

think, particularly on ordinary people, who have not had the money

or power or the celebrity and what has been happening to those people

is also bad, but it's the ordinary people who don't get the right.

man on the gangway there. How is it that we are talking about criminal

acts and a PPC dealing with it when the place to deal with the criminal

acts is the police? Why have the Metropolitan Police failed us so

badly Apart from that, what is your view on the on-going control of the

press? I think self-regulation is fair. Then we had the banks and the

press and then they were hacking murder small girl's phones. I would

have an independent regulator independent of the press. Would you

have that? We had the crash after the creation of the FSA. It was

Government regulation that have failed. There have been times when

I have felt ashamed of the British press, even when the behaviour was

legal, it was cruel, callous, stupid, insensitive. There were

moments during this inquiry when I think any person of sensitivity

would have flinched in horror to think people didn't have an intern

fal compass holding them back from some of the actions -- internal

compass holding them back from some of the actions. The problem with

regulation is two-fold. First, nobody will agree on what ought not

to be published. Everyone can think of something that they think

shouldn't be in the public domain, but no two people will agree on

what. I have yet to hear two people agreeing. There is a real

difficulty of definition. Secondly, the whole debate has been overtaken

by technology. We were in the situation when we had the super-

injunctions where the whole country knew who was behind the legal

action. When you could tweet it. When you could text it. When it was

talked about in every dinner party, but even now it would be illegal

for me to mention on the BBC who the people behind the super-

injunctions were. Certainly! What should we do instead? Well, firstly,

I strongly agree with Jimmy, we need properly to enforce the law on

harassment. There are perfectly good common law remedies for people

who behave awfully. If you are chased by photographers you could

claim that? Or anybody else. There is a well-understood common law

definition of harassment, but there is another. Editors should be more

afraid of printing something that untrue than of something that is

intrusive and if you listened to the testimony over the last two or

three days, the thing that most upset a number of the people giving

evidence, the McCanns particularly, were the lies that appeared about

them. The quid pro quo of not having a privacy law and external

regulation and I'm against both, is that if a newspaper prints

something that is untrue the damages should not be set by the

hurt feeling of the victim, they should be actually punitive damages.

They should be a level of damages that makes the newspaper not want

to do it again. APPLAUSE

You talk about the cool, callous way in which people's privacy was

invaded and that you flinked at it. Do you flinch at the fact that your

leader is best friends with Rebekah Brooks? I don't think he is. They

spent Christmas together. You know what, I would think less of anybody

who walked out on a personal relationship for political vention.

We know that David Cameron got quite close to the Murdoch family

and your former leader got close. Do you approve? You need to be

brief. I think you raise an important point, which is that one

of the reasons why some of the laws may not have been enforced is

because either people have been too frightened to take on the powerful

parts of the media, or they've wanted to cosy up to them to get

their message across. Politicians have to use the media to

communicate with people. I actually think this comes back to the point

about the internet and Twitter, which is something I use, because I

find it's a direct way to communicate. There is a real

problem, because the only party consistently that stood up to News

International, neither Labour nor the Conservatives, were the Liberal

Democrats and Nick Clegg and through decision after decision,

the one political party that News International and Rupert Murdoch

could never get to was the Liberal Democrats and I do not believe we

would be where we are with the inquiry. I don't think if we had

not had the coalition Government and not had the hew and cry, it's

all the same thing would have happened that has happened before,

and it would have been shoved away. Labour had an awful record in

Government in dealing with Murdoch. I called for a police inquiry and

we had the Home Secretary and his deputy apologising in the Commons

for doing absolutely nothing to ensure that there was a proper

police inquiry into the clear evidence that this went March

beyond one rogue journalist. Labour lapped it up, because they were

hoping to get Rupert Murdoch's No-one wants to get rid of our free

press. We all need that. Surely, it's just down to people power. If

we don't buy the newspapers, they don't get the money. Money talks.

That worked with The News of the World. We're halfway through the

programme. We have only done two questions. I want to ask the

panellists to be more succinct in their answers. Sue Thorne. Yeah,

applause for that. Sue Thorne. executive salaries out of control?

Are executive salaries out of control? We know the FTSE 100

companies - executive salaries went up by half, 50%, as opposed to 2%

for the rest of us and cuts for many people too. Justin King,

you're a well-paid executive. I don't know whether you want to

share with us what you earn before you start your answer or not.

can look it up on Wiki peedya. -- Wikipedia.

APPLAUSE But is it always accurate?

LAUGHTER As it happens... You beat me to it

because, as it happens, I did check my Wikipedia entry before I came on

the panel, but it's not on there. My salary is a matter of public

record. It's 900,000. And I am the Chief Executive of a public company,

and the company I work for report in a very straight forward way. The

salary I earn and of all the other Chief Executives in our company and

the bonuses we earn and how we earn those. That's good model, and I am

proud to say that's the approach our company takes. That said, it is

inescapable, and the High Pay Commission this week have simply

given voice to this - that the vast majority of the UK population think

there is something rotten at the top of the big corporations in the

UK, so those of us that run big corporations better listen, because

if we don't, we're not going to be in a job much longer, and our

customers are not going to shop with us, and our employees aren't

going to want to work for us. What's rotten? I said people think

there is. Is there something rotten? I think the big issue is

there is no sense at all that the rewards people are earning is

connected to the performance they're delivering. Which side are

you on? I think many companies - I would include my own - actually do

have that very clear connection. We lay out in very clear terms the

earnings and the way people earn. We also have a policy in our

company the pay rewards we give all of our employees are the maximum

that we give. What about an RBS Chief Executive getting nearly

eight million and Lloyds getting over �13 million - do you approve

of that? Both of those figures assume success, and as it stands at

the moment, they're clearly not successful. I think we should

remember, of course, in those two organisations, they're

organisations that we as taxpayers and members of public actually own

large chunks of at the moment, and the best thing that can possibly

happen for us is those two banks become successful and profitable

again so we can sell the shares for a profit as taxpayers. We have

already bailed them out. We can't change history. We can only change

the future. Are salaries out of control or not? I think clearly

they are in some organisations because they're clearly not

transapparently linked to performance.

APPLAUSE Jimmy Wales. I think that in

general, yes, salaries are out of control, and I think the real risk

here is we view this as a class divide - rich-versus-poor issue,

and we think all high salaries need to go out the window. The problem

is when salaries are clearly linked to performance for shareholders

this is pear fecically good thing. One of the problems we have right

now is corporate governance has gotten messed up so too many

members of the management for companies are not accountable to

the shareholders. Therefore they loot the company for their own

benefit against true interests of the owners who have retirement

investments and so on. They're really looting? I would say the

word looting, yes. You, sir. agree with both of those comments.

I agree high pay should be linked to performance. I think that's

right. As the UK Plc argument, let's try to promote business in

the UK. There is an argument of when you look at yourself in the

mirror thinking, am I being too greedy, and should I lead by

example by giving away some of what I have? Particularly when we're in

a tough time, people are struggling and leading by example people at

the top and the director levels. I accept the UK Plc argument. But I

think there is a question to be asked in these times. The High Pay

Commission which was set up by a Labour-supporting pressure group,

of course, said all executive pay packages should be published, that

there should be employees on the boards and that the method of

deciding salaries is wrong. Do you agree with all of these points? Do

you think the Government should act on them? The Government already has

because Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, Liberal Democrat, in his

conference speech in the autumn laid out a set of proposals we're

consulting on. But are you going to have... Well, we'll have to see

what comes out of it. No, it's not. We have set out a series of

proposals. One is doing it, and one is not doing it. If you in

Government try to do something without going through the statutory

period for consultation, you get into tremendous trouble, so it is

actually important to consult. We're determined that there is

clearly a problem. I have my personal views about why the

problem arises. I think there are too many people who are on each

other's remuneration committees, so one director scratchs the back of

another and gives another a pay rise. There is another a very per

vasive argument in board rooms a that we have to pay top dollar to

get the top people. Every board room says the same thing. As a

result, there is a steady creep upwards because they're all

actually chasing paying somebody in the top sector. Then there is size

because as soon as the company gets bigger, as soon as there is an

acquisition, they say, a big company like this, we need to exee.

We need a pay rise. There are all sorts of ratchets here. I don't

think anybody should begrudge really good pay for really good

performance, but I think what there is a lack of trust in at the moment

is the link between pay and performance. That's something I

know Vinces is derled to put right and the Government will be put ing

proposals on during the consultation period.

Does it matter that people dislike the salaries people have at the

top? They may think Justin King's sausages may not all they're

cracked up to be and shouldn't get �900,000? Does it matter? What did

you say? His sausages are very nice? Yeah. You can't curry favour.

I think it does matter, precisely because we're all living in the

same society. We need to have trust that people are performing their

roles properly and are being remunerated for that you lose

motivation from employees if you don't. Do you agree? It's ludicrous

for me to say what Justin King should be paid. I have only met him.

I enjoy his sausages, but neither I nor anyone else in the audience is

in a position to say. I agree with Jimmy Wales that we could do much

more to make shareholders think of themselves as proprietors rather

than just investors, and I think there could be a real change in the

climate of corporations if that simple shift were made, but the

idea that a Government remuneration committee could decide what level

of pay is proper - I mean, just think about that for five minutes,

and you'll see it leads to bankruptcy, to the worst kind of

favoritism. If that worked, we'd have lost the Cold War, and the

Soviet Union would have won. Do you think there should be employee

representatives onboard? No. I think the answer is to go down the

road towards proper accountability to the people who own the company,

which is the shareholders. I also strongly agree with what the

gentleman there said about giving away - if the system is working

properly, a man or a woman who has done very well and then chooses to

give to good causes seems to me a much preferable situation than that

chairman or that CEO loading the costs on to his shareholders, his

customers and his clients in the name of corporate social

responsibility or indeed loading it on to everyone else in tax rises.

It was your party that famously said, "We're intensely relaxed

about people getting -" the adverb was "filthy rich" - Peter Mandelson.

Executives' salaries out of control or... Can I say I didn't agree with

that comment at the time, and I don't agree with it now. I think

there is a very strong sense of fairness. Sue's initial question

was, do people think pay is getting out of control? I do think that

when people on median wages are actually seeing a 3.5% cut to their

pay once inflation is taken into account, and yet some people who

have, you know, not been successful at getting big rewards - they think

that's unfair - I think it's very important what Justin has said

about his recognition that people need to feel a system is

transparent and fair. I hope that Justin leads that call amongst

other Chief Executives. I do believe we need more transparency,

and I also do believe that having an employee on remuneration

committees is a bit of a test and a challenge there if you're trying to

agree a very high pay packet for yourself, but you have an employee

on the remuneration committee and says, "What's actually happening to

us?" I do think that gives a bit of a challenge in the system. I'll go

to you, sir, over there. I agree that success should be linked to

wage, but I don't agree that there shouldn't be a limit - there should

be limits to it, and I think even 900,000 is immoral because it could

make hundreds of people's lives better, and I think they should be

moderated by the consumers. The Government could help, but it's

really in the power of everyone in the audience who can choose to

boycott companies who have big bonuses and really big wages.

You, sir, up there in the white jacket? Last it into on Newsnight,

there was an energy executive on �1.9 million. What does that say

about when old people are dying of cold?

APPLAUSE And you in the middle.

APPLAUSE Justin, are you really worth 40

times per year the average man and woman? Are you 40 times as

productive as them? That, of course, is an impossible question to answer.

The only people that can really answer that question are, as you've

heard from Daniel, the shareholders in our company. Ultimately, my

responsibility is to deliver a successful business and successful

results. As I said earlier, we're very clear and open about our pay

policy in Sainsbury. We put that to a vote every year with our

shareholders. Last year 98% of our shareholders supported our policy

on pay and remuneration. Ultimately they're the judges of whether we as

a management team - including me - are delivering the results that

we're worth the money they pay us. What he's asking - I am curious -

you know, you can't work more than 365 days a year. What is it that

you do that is so special that - LAUGHTER

That makes it 40 times... But I think you can't - I mean, you can't

equate one type of work to another in terms of market forces in our

society. The reality is that in all walks of life, people that are

doing specific jobs that very few other people are able to do are

sports stars, are entertainment stars, are media stars, David, do

attract... Don't get paid much. Would you like to tell us how much?

No, it's gone down. We had the cuts. But then it's the reality - the

people at the top of professions - actually, I started out as a young

person in business really aspiring to the idea if I did a great job

over a long period of time, I could get to the top of an organisation

and have the great privilege, which I consider it to be, of leading an

organisation with 150,000 people in it. That's something that I am very

proud to have achieved. I am going to take two more questions. The

woman on the gangway there. That's you, yes. So could you carry a

truss up on to a roof, then? Because I think that people are

doing hard, physical jobs and getting paid significantly less

than people like you. Could you carry bricks up on to a

roof? I expect he probably could if he - I don't know. You probably

could. The woman over there on the left. You say that success is

linked to ages. What about the nurses, the doctors, the teachers

who all do such an amazing job for our community? They don't get paid

that much. Chris Huhne, I want you to be very brief. Pick up on what

he said about the green money going to Monaco and all of that.

entirely agree with the gentleman who raised the tax... That's what

Nick Clegg said to me when I asked him in Bath Hall. Honestly, I

interpreted his reply as being "Don't ask silly questions." If you

would let me tell you what we're actually doing about it, I'll tell

you. We have been trying to close all the loopholes we can. We, for

example, have been signing agreements with countries that have

traditionally been boltholes for funk money like Switzerland to make

sure that hay they're actually reporting back, people who are

evading British taxes, because I entirely agree with you - it's

completely unacceptable for the rest of us who honestly pay our tax

to have a few people managing to get their money out from under and

come and enjoy the right of citizenship in our country but

aren't prepared to pay for it, and they should. We'll speed on to a

question from Mark Simpson, please. Is the coalition living up to its

promise of being the greenest Government ever? Chris Huhne

actually said it was going to be that. Is it? Daniel Hannan.

Worryingly, it is in the sense of fuel bills shooting up and

burdening our economy, as if we didn't have enough on our plate

already without these arbitrary and unforced additional costs. I mean,

there are lots of things you can do to get an economy going again. You

can make it easier to hire and fire people. You can cut the regulation.

You can cut the taxes. One thing that'll always jolt an economy is

cheaper energy. It makes exports more attractive. The one thing that

seems to be jolting the United States out of the mess they were in

is the sudden discovery of all the shale gas they have started getting

on tap. The good news is we have similar deposits in this country -

not as large. So it seems to me a bizarre thing that we should be

choosing to burden our economic recovery at a time like this for

the sake of making a point because anything that we do unilaterally,

when it isn't being matched by the rest of the world, is simply using

legislation to show what nice people we are. It isn't affecting

any outcome in the real world. It isn't having any impact on climate

change, and the worst reason to pass a law is simply in this

Jimmy Wales, do you agree with Daniel on that one? Are you for

greening? I think it's a very complicated issue and I am not

enough of an expert to be able to offer a sensible opinion. OK. Thank

you. I can just say I have no idea because I'm not a politician.

kin King. Well -- Just kin King? Justin King. Well, I would like to

take Chris back to an answer to an earlier question, where I think he

said and I'll par phrase, it was not Government -- para phrase, it

was not Government policy regarding the consultation. They have

announced one that does not conclude until after the change

that they are consulting on is brought into effect on 12th

December. The consequence of that is that actually it has stopped in

its tracks a massive investment in certain energies in our country and

disappointingly that has a second effect, which we saw people

marching on Parliament, protesting, only a couple of days ago, probably

cost �25 -- 25,000 jobs in that industry. You mean solar panelling.

That's it. Chris Huhne, would you like to answer this? You've always

been a believer in the green stuff and prices will go up and we'll all

be better off using less fuel, even if we are a bit colder - you didn't

a that bit - and then you are in a Government that has halved the

tariff for sticking up the solar panels? Are you behind that?

reason for that is very simple. you approve? Of course, I've been

defending it. The reason why the tariff has been halved is because

the prices have come down so much. We have had an enormous reduction

in the cost of solar panels. Unfortunately, under the scheme

that was introduced by my predecessor, now the Labour leader,

there was no recognition of the real world and what would happen if

you had a 30% and 70% reduction in the cost and you have to bring the

subsidy down, otherwise the costs go through the roof and I'm

delighted I'm being attacked by the right from Dan, who thinks we are

massively adding to bills and then from left, from the Chief Executive

of Sainsbury's, who thinks we are cutting too much off. If we had

left the scheme to run on we would have been adding �26 to every

single family's energy bill by 2020. The scheme, as you well know,

finished at the end of March next year. What you have done is to

catch a load of companies out that have already made decisions about

investments by in effect retrospectively changing the scheme.

That is not true, Justin. Firstly, nobody who has installed any

installation now is going to have the tariffs changed. It will go on

being paid for 25 years at a rate of return which is frankly

wonderful for people who got in there. Anything in real terms

between 10% and 16%. That is not a sensible use of bill payers' or

taxpayers' money. There are tens of thousands of householders who have

paid deposits and made commitments to have these systems installed in

the next six months, so they are not going to get the benefit of the

system that they believed existed when they made that commitment.

What will you say to those houses? APPLAUSE

Firstly, the scheme that we are consulting on, which involves a

halving of the tariff, still leads to a real return for those

householders of 5% in real terms for 25 years. It is very generous

and it brings it back into line with the original intention of the

scheme, when the Labour Party introduced it in April 2010. What

does Liz think. No, they are not the greenest Government ever. It's

not only what they are doing on feeding tariffs, it's that they

have cancelled one of our carbon capture and storage projects, which

was another move towards clean energy. Whatever Chris says, the

CBI, the businesses say, we are not going to invest in this any more

and let's just see what other countries are doing. Last month,

Germany announced it's going to be investing 85 billion into renewable

energy over the next five years. That is not just great for the

environment, but creating huge numbers of jobs. We need to get

into the business, not just for the planet, but for the future of our

economy. We have just done that with the consultation. If the

Government taxed 100% and employed everyone surely we would be well

off. I know you are not - One at a time. The key point is we have

encouraged renewable energy. If you look at what is happening with the

renewable obligation, which is our main way of encouraging big-scale

renublz and off-shore -- re nubl -- renewables and and off-shore

energies. We were 25th out of 27 EU states. With regard to Germany, OK,

they've pulled out of the nuclear industry and they have an amazingly

strong renewable industry. UK has decided to go the other way. Why is

it? No, we haven't. Absolutely not. Can I just request that Chris stops

referring to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. We had a message from

the man at the back that said 30% of people voted in the unions. How

many of our country voted for the Government that we have got now?

APPLAUSE The Government has increased the

amount of nuclear power plants. I read it in the newspapers. You are

increasing if you clear power. You can't say you are not. The man

there. I run a company based nearby and we have created 350 jobs. We

are also responsible for putting in free solar cells and I don't have

an objection to you reducing the feed-in tariff. My objection is

that you believe that you can make a company turn around in a six-week

period. You make an announcement and within six weeks you believe

that we can make that change and we will see in my company there will

be 300 people who lose their jobs as a result of the decision you

made because you haven't made it on a timely basis. That is what you

should be thinking about. APPLAUSE

I want to take a last question. You can talk to him after about that

issue. How would you react to a letter of apology from a criminal

convicted of burgling you? Jimmy Wales, you know the policy of

getting the criminal to write to the person they've upset or

attacked or whatever. There is this letter, which everyone has seen

today and we have got it here. "I don't know why I'm writing a letter

to you. I've been forced to right this. To be honest I'm not bothered

or sorry about the fact I burgled your house. Basically, it was your

fault anyway. I'm going to run you through the dumb mistakes you made.

You didn't shut your curtains. Second I you're dumb to think you

can live in your area and you are thick enough to leave your

downstairs kitchen window open. I wouldn't do that in a million years.

I don't feel sorry for you and I won't show you any sympathy or

remorse.." It's a classic letter. This idea of the criminal

apologising? In favour of that? Yeah, I think I'm in favour in

general that criminals should be forced to apologise. I'm a little

annoyed for the BBC for making a huge story about this. It's a

delicious letter. No question. Everyone enjoyed reading this, but

apparently it never went to the family at all, so it's not quite as

out rageous as we might hope. was put about by the police, to

show the kind of letters people shouldn't write? Something like

that. Odd story. Clearly, if we can get criminals to somehow

acknowledge what they've done wrong and make an apology to the relevant

person, why not? It seems like a good thing to do. Do you think the

press will apologise to the people in the Leveson inquiry? Daniel

Hannon? I'm all in favour of people apologising in a part of a system

that uses other issues. You wonder of the moral vacuum or the people

who are taking the metal of the war memorials. You wonder what has gone

wrong that people have got themselves into a position where

they thought this was an acceptable thing to do. I don't think

governments have the power to stop this. Governments do things badly.

We have had a demonstration on energy policy and they are bad at

building planes and running schools and bad at instilling morality, but

the rest of us have a real duty to try to ensure that we are bringing

people up in a way it wouldn't occur to them. I agree with Jimmy,

if it's done properly and the criminals can take responsibility

for what they've done and to apologise to the victims that, can

work. We have also had community pay-back schemes in my constituency,

which I strongly support, but it has to be done in the right way.

believe that if such letters are institutionalised it will simply

become a form of words that people use to get out of it. Maybe that is

what the 16-year-old was doing. This doesn't mean anything unless I

really mean it. That's absolutely the key point. If you are forced to

do it it doesn't mean anything, but there is evidence about restorative

justice when someone is genuinely apologising and the evidence is and

particularly if they have met the victim and genuinely apologised,

it's good for the victim, because it helps reconcile them to what has

happened, but also means they are much less likely to re-offence, so

-- re-offend, so if they are remorseful then that is a good

thing and should be encouraged, but this is learning by rot it's bad

news. Who is the one to judge? Surely if this young man has the

audacity not to show remorse the community punishment should have

been increased to something far harsher? Justin King? It is clear

that you can't force people to make an apology and that letter

demonstrates that the young person involved had no concept of the

crime that they had committed or the impact that would have had on

the people he committed that crime against. Therefore, you have to

come back and I agree with Chris on this issue, which is we have to re-

connect criminals to the idea that their crime has consequence and in

many areas I think that does lead to changed behaviour. Thank you

very much. Our time is up. We have overrun and Andrew Neil will be

very cross. We'll be in Dagenham next week. On the panel we have the

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, we have a member from Labour, and

Deborah immediate an from the dragons' den and an American

political writer David Frumm and the teachers' union leader. The

week after, we'll be in Stoke-on- Trent. I don't have any details on

who will be there, but if you want to come to either you know what to