12/01/2012 Question Time

We are in London for this first edition of the new year. Welcome to

Question Time. With me here, the Transport Secretary, Justine

Greening. The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander.

Former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown. The

Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon and the former

editor of the Sun, now Daily Mail Thank you very much. First question

tonight from Monika Flang, please. Nearly 33 billion is going to be

spent on high speed rail to get to Birmingham 30 minutes earlier. Is

there really no better way you can spend our money? �33 billion on

high-speed rail to get to Birmingham. No better way to spend

the money. Justine Greening, you can't give all the answers, but

what is your answer to that basic question. If it was 33 billion to

spend just going to Birmingham, it probably wouldn't be. It's 33

billion to do the entire line up to Leeds and Manchester. That will

save even more time for people and if you are heading up to Scotland

it will be 30 minutes faster after phase one, and after phase two, an

hour off the journey time and it will add the capacity that we need

to the network. We are still on the Victorian network, built over 100

years ago. It will make it faster and connect up some of the major

cities in the way they've never had before. All in all, it's a really

good thing we need to do. We have to plan ahead and that's what we

are doing. The Victorians got the public to pay. They didn't do it

through tax. They had companies set up. Why are the taxpayers having to

do this? We are hoping we may get private sector contributions, but

we have done the business case based on the assumption that the

taxpayer may well have to pay and I think that's the right thing. If

you look at the benefits, they are going to huge. I was up in

Birmingham, talk ing to them about the kind of impact that High Speed

Two can have on their city and the West Midlands. It is going to be

transformational in the way in which it connects up the country,

but most of all, we have got to get the capacity. The network was

always going to get full. We can't wait. We have to plan ahead and

that's what we are doing. The woman there. I don't really understand

why it's a spending priority for the Government at the moment. It

sounds like it's more of a nice to have, more than necessary given

other cuts, with people losing their jobs and healthcare. Kelvin

MacKenzie. Answer that. It's not a priority? I am puzzled at

everything I hear from the Prime Minister and the coalition

Government, that we are broke. Suddenly, to dream up 33 billion is

a hell of an investment. I have one other issue, my other issue is this

- I'm a daily commuter into London for work. It costs me �21 a day and

every night I go home and it's not a BO issue, I have to stand. Why is

it I'm treated like a sardine today? Why don't you take some of

that money and make the stations and platforms longer and get the

trains better? Why is it that this money has to be spent in this

direction, where actually the powerhouse that will drive our

country is London and the south- east and we are treated in such a

disgraceful manner? That's what we are doing. You will not find one

commuter in this country, in London and the south-east, who has one

decent word for the train system. It's a nightmare. We are putting in

the short-term investment. We got a deal with Bombardier and agreed

with southern railways for more carriages, but isn't the sluection

-- solution - When am I going to have extra carriages? We'll invest

in nearly 3,000 extra carriages, but isn't the ultimate answer to

your question, you took about standing. Surely the answer is more

capacity. That's what high speed rail will do. Not for his commute.

I don't want to go to Paris. Birmingham? Well - Not much by the

sound. Let's come back to this. is important, because when we have

high speed rail it is going to release capacity on the existing

network two, so the critical issues you have got can't be solved any

more by just adding more carriages. That network is full. We need a new

line, in the same way the motorways took the pressure off the A roads.

That is what the rail will do. running up and down. When people

are coming in from Essex. And probably in Scotland. Douglas

Alexander, what do you think? support this. In terms of the cost,

it's right that it is an expensive project, but equally it's not due

for completion even to Birmingham until 2026, so the expenditure will

be phased. Secondly, if we want a more balanced economy, with every

part of Britain contributing to that economic growth in the future,

then one of the things we should be investing in, in the years ahead is

the quality of the infrastructure. Look at the number of airports and

railways in China and other countries. The other point is there

is no free lunch. We upgraded the west coast main Lewin. -- West

Coast Main Line. It's an expensive business. It is conducting open-

heart surgery on a Victorian railway. That has increased the

capacity there, but the East Coast Main Line is filling up rapidly and

the Midland too. The Government had a choice and I think they made the

correct choice, which is not simply in a rather British way to patch

and mend, but to say, let's invest like others in 21st century

infrastructure. It doesn't just benefit Birmingham. I have got

assurances that trains will run through Birmingham, so trains can

travel at high speed and then on the existing track. It will cut the

journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh by an hour. We want to

see work starting work early on Manchester and Leeds so jobs are

created not just in the south but in the north of England as well.

There are real benefits that I think will be generated over the

years ahead, not just in terms of the kind of expenditure and

infrastructure we should be seeing at this time of economic downturn,

but long-term economic benefits for the whole of the United Kingdom.

The woman here. I do have a question regarding long-term

benefits of the high speed rail link. Shouldn't we look more into

international transport? Heathrow Airport is completely at capacity.

Shouldn't we look to expand that, so we can get to India, China,

South America, Russia. We can't fly to their airports. Shouldn't we

look at, seeing as we are falling behind in GDP, look ing to expand

that? Nicola Sturgeon? I support it. I don't think it's the be all and

end all, but I believe it's good for the economy and I believe it

will help link up different parts of the UK and help reduce

unnecessary air travel as well, so for all the things I think it's

good. I'm disappointed in the timescale set out earlier this week.

I'm depressed to work out that I'll be 61 when it gets to Leeds and

Manchester. It won't surprise anyone here for people to hear that

I would like it to link up Scotland more quickly. We have had good

discussions with Justine's colleagues this week to see how we

can play our part in trying to get it to Scotland much more quickly. I

have some sympathy when I hear people contrast this scale of

investment with the cuts that people are living through and

experiencing right now though. We have heard Justine and her

colleagues this week talk about the economic importance of an

investment like this. Not just the importance of having high speed

rail, but the economic impact of this kind of investment and

creating jobs around the construction. That does beg the

question, why the Government is cutting capital investment right

now, when the economy is teetering on the brink of recession by 30%.

Let's have more capital investment to create jobs and keep the economy

growing or get the economy growing. Political classes seem to be in

favour. Among the questions from the people, there was a lot of

opposition to it. The man in the blue. I'm against it because there

seems to be a preoccupation with time with the politicians. Douglas

Alexander goes on about the north- west and The Trainline going up

there. I have used that for 30 years and the trains used to stop

every train at Watford Junction. Now they don't any longer. There

are two a day and one of them is ten to six in the morning. You want

to get off there, do you? I want to go to Lime Street. What I have to

do is get on at Watford and get a train to London Euston and go up to

Lime Street. In the official literature it is saying that the

train time now is 2 hours and 40 minutes. That is because it doesn't

stop anywhere. People can't get on or off it.

LAUGHTER I'll put it to Justine in one

moment. Paddy Ashdown. Perhaps you know about the stopping places on

the route to Liverpool? No, I don't, I have to say. Look, the question I

think was is there another way. My answer is there is no other way

that is better than this. First the cost. At present there is going to

be no cost, because we are currently spending more Crossrail.

When the Crossrail project is finished in 2014, I think or 15,

that budget line is transferred to this. There is no extra cost at

present. There will be an extra cost that comes on in 2015 and 16,

because the budget spent on Crossrail will be transFord, but

hopefully the economy will be -- transferred, but hopefully the

economy will be growing. Kelvin's trains, we need to spend. You are

absolutely dead right and the Government is doing that. But the

fact that you are doing things to tackle the short-term problem

doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for the long-term one. This is about

long-term investment and giving the country a modern high-speed

infrastructure of the sort that France and Germany has. I don't

think doing what you want to see done, which I would argue the

Government is making some attempts to do, deminutishes the long-term

thinking. Then there is the very - You haven't travelled on my line.

travel on my own line and it like that. There is no point in

improving the air trant port to China, when businessmen can't

travel in the same way they can travel efficiently in other

countries. This about internal infrastructure. We are a crowded

island and small. The roads are clogged up and the rail system is

failing. Surely it is time to start investing in a proper, modern,

futuristic, long-term infrastructure for the country?

This does it and my view is that the reason why this is right is not

because of the Government's cost analysis, it's because it would

cost more not to do it in the long term. Justine Greening? Is it true

that three quarters of a billion has already been spent before even

a hole has been dug in the earth on the planning? We will spend that

over the course of the Parliament. We spent some of it already. We

have done a public consultation, but we have to do a lot of detailed

work to understand the very detailed environmental impact and

that is costly. How much will it cost to go to Birmingham standard?

The total project is 16.3 billion. If he wanted to go to Birmingham.

We projected that you would spend on the existing kind of journey, so

we are not doing an uplift. costs �80 roughly and it will cost

that when this comes on-line? have worked on the assumption you

would pay a comparable price. The point on the existing network, one

of the reasons we have lost connectivity we keep on having to

prioritise the carriages to stop at the places where most people are.

The best way to get more capacity for people like you is to relieve

the pressures on the existing network already there and that

means high speed rail. He is shaking his head. That is not true.

You are taking public money and there is a Government subsidy that

goes to Virgin Trains at the moment of �20 million a year. Public money

is going into the trains. I'm not getting any service whatsoever. For

30 years trains stopped at Watford Junction. They are not stopping

there any longer. Let's leave Watford for one moment. We have a

number of others there. I want to come back on Paddy's point, because

basically in France, yes, we have got a high-spread train and it's

really good, but it was costing me �30 to go on the same distance to

work. Here it is costing me �130. We should first make a point on the

commuting as a basic community where Westminster are using it

every day. You pay four times in The High Speed Two is estimated to

cost the taxpayer �1,000 each. If you want to generate the North,

wipe out some VAT and income taxes for the lowest paid instead if you

really want to regenerate the North now. Interestingly, that's not what

the North thinks. If you go to Manchester, Birmingham, Nicola's

talking about the benefits of high- speed rail and what it can do for

Scotland, that's not what people who live in that part of the

country think. They recognise just how vital this project is for them,

for connecting them up, for allowing their country and

companies to compete. High-speed one phase one will create 40,000

jobs alone. We have to do this, we have to solve that gentleman's

capacity problems. The best way is to get more capacity, meaning a new

line. If you are going to have a new line, why would you have a

conventional speed line when you can have a high-speed line? We'll

bring you back in 26 whenever it is and see whether your problem has

been solved... Buy you a ticket. Xanthe Mosley, please? Who would be

worse off if a marriage breaks up - England or Scotland? Kelvin

MacKenzie? Well, I think that, to be truthful, I think that David

Cameron's playing a very cunning game. I don't think he's in favour

of unity at all. In fact, he'd be absolutely nuts from his

perspective to be in favour of unity. Scotland has 41 Labour MPs.

They disappear in a tries and that would then lead to England being a

Conservative-controlled administration for as long as the

eye can see -- in a trice. So he's winning and saying, I want you to

all be unified. But behind his back, he's saying to the colleague, the

quicker we dump the Jocks, the better. When you think of the

advantage that any politician would make-over any other politician at

anything else, this time it's fantastic. He'd have an in-built

Conservative majority for ever and a day. That's not true. We have to

think about this, it's only once since the war that a Labour

Government's needed Labour votes in Scotland, Labour seats in Scotland

to stay in Government. Only Cameron this time, Cameron this time in

2010, would not have needed to form a coalition if you wipe out all the

Scottish MPs. Well, yes. Every Labour Government has had a

majority in England? Right, but hold on a second. I'm playing

Leveson. Where do you get this stuff from?! Tell you what, I'm

going to have to have a word with my researcher.

APPLAUSE The point is, Labour would be

massively under the cosh and, of course, if you reverse the idea and

ask the English do they wish to have these rather recalcitrant

neighbours who seem to be doing well with the free prescriptions

and university places for their people, not our people, you would

find it goes 70-30 in the other direction. I wish the Scots every

success as an independent country. I do not believe we need unity in

order to conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner. Scotland's a

lovely place and I think they should have their own independence.

I'm a massive admirer of Alex Salmond. The only politician in my

lifetime who's had one policy and stuck to it. God bless you, Alex,

let's have your free country. APPLAUSE

I was relying on Jock bashing from Kelvin to send Scottish

independence through the roof. You have disappointed me. David ruined

my argument before. That was the only argument you had,

was it? Yes. Oh, I see. Nicola Sturgeon?

Who will be worse off? We'll both be better off. Scotland would get

to stand on our own two feet, take responsibility. England it's often

said would lose a lodger and gain a neighbour is. England would no

longer have... Do you see yourself as a surly lodger? No, other people

do, I'm talking about Kelvin again. England wouldn't have Scottish MPs

like Douglas in the House of Commons voting to impose tuition

fees on English students when he can't do it in Scotland because the

Scottish Parliament hasen sured that tuition for Scottish students

is free. After independence, England and Scotland will be the

best of friends at the closest -- and the closest of allies and we'll

both be better off. Perhaps Scotland on occasion can show a

protkpresive alternative to some of the policies -- progressive. We are

not privatising our National Health Service, for example. We have shown

the way in other things as well, banning smoking in public places,

taking tough action on minimum pricing for alcohol. We care for

our elderly with free personal care, so sometimes we can show the better

alternative. At the English expense. Scotland's not sub Sid sized at all,

it pays her way and I won't let anybody say any different. Would

Douglas Alexander say any different. Scotland pays its way and show a

better example on many issues than Labour and the Tories? I think

Scotland and England would be diminished if we see the break-up

of Britain. There are issues of accountancy. We'd all benefit from

sharing risks, rewards and resources in this multinational,

multiethnic, multidull churl union of ours. This is not an issue of

accountancy. It's far more profound than that. This is about what we

believe and who we are -- multicultural. I'm proudly and

passionately Scottish but I've never believed to build up Scotland

you have to break up Britain. It's not simply that our parents and

grandparents fought together against fascism and then worked

together to build a National Health Service, it's not simply that we

share common institutions from the monarchy and Armed Forces to the

BBC and to the National Health Service. It's, I believe, a

quintessentially modern idea that we work together, that we are

stronger together and would be weaker apart in the 21st century.

That's why I think it's important that we reject a politics of grudge

and grievance and narrow nationalism on whichever side of

the border we find it and may common cause and say in the 21st

century we are stronger together and would be weaker apart.

APPLAUSE The man up there in the back? You,

Sir? Nicola Sturgeon makes a very impassioned case for Scottish

independence. I'm confused why they are trying to delay the referendum

to 2014. I put forward the point that it's down to the opinion polls

that show that support for Scottish independence is down to 38% and you

want to take the long-term case forward. I'll let you into a secret,

autumn 2014, we think Scotland's going to win the World Cup in the

summer of 2014. In the raeld world, there's two reasons why -- real

world. It's probably safe then. reasons why we have said awe full

2014. The first was, it was an election commitment. We said the

referendum would be in the second half But it wasn't in your

manifesto. It was a commitment made by the First Minister, he made it

clear. Four days before the election he suddenly said it would

be in the second half. You thought you might win? The second half of

the Parliamentary. It might be a novel concept but we think it's a

good idea to keep promises. SNP? The other point is a practical

point. We are about to consult on the arpbsments for the referendum -

- arrangements for the referendum. We are going to have legislation

over the course of next year. In 2007, the Scottish Parliament

elections were a bit of an administrative disaster. Douglas

was in charge of them but we won't go there just now. There was a

report and that said there has to be six months between legislation

for an election or referendum and that taking place. We don't want

into coincide with the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Autumn 2014 is

when it's going to be and let the people of Scotland decide. You are

frightened. Let the people have the debate. The border question

dominates. Do you think the Scottish aren't intelligent enough

to reach a decision. You are like a doctor that says, I can cure your

illness but I won't give it to you for two years.

What's the problem in waiting, Douglas Alexander? If Nicola is the

Deputy First Minister and Alex Salmond is the First Minister, her

whole raison detre in politics is to take the difficult decisions in

Government... Difficult decisions in Government are made every day.

We hear rubbish from the other parties about the economic

uncertainty. The Institute of Directors in Scotland have said

that is rubbish. I have a long list of companies investing in Scotland.

Scotland is doing well. It can do better with independence, I look

forward to the referendum. doesn't the UK Government encourage

Scotland to take a - maybe we can have another Bank Holiday to

celebrate the fact we are not subsidising Scotland any more.

Dueblg with subsidise Scotland -- do you believe we cub Sidise

Scotland? At the end of the day, we have a single economy. We both

benefit in terms of trade between Scotland and England. I do want to

see us stick together but a lot of people, as the gentleman said at

the back, are slightly confused about how can Alex Salmond feel

passionate about independence but doesn't seem to want to get on with

it. This week, we have said, right, we are going to consult on how

welcome remove a key legal barrier that might mean the referendum

might not be legal, we are going to consult on how to make it legal,

decisive and fair. I do think it's time that Scottish people had their

say, sooner rather than later. I think the reason for that, is that

business is in danger of being harmed in Scotland and the CBI in

Scotland are saying that. I think it's intuetive. If you have such a

fundamental question facing the country you are interested in or

investing in, you are bound to wonder what your plans ought to be

going forward if you don't know what the situation will be.

The man on the right? I think the argument for Scotland remaining in

the UK is eminently winnable in 2011. The problem we have in

Scotland in the Scottish Parliament is with don't have anyone credible

to articulate it. David Cameron is not the man to articulate it. Until

we find someone who does, the SNP will continue delaying until the

reisn'tment of a Tory government is at its maximum in 2014 and try and

use that opportunity to get a vote. People like Douglas Alexander have

gone down to Westminster and not fought? This is the problem.

would rather he went up there, would you? Paddy Ashdown?

answer to Xanthe Mosley's question is, who would suffer most, the

answer is, we both would. I've had experience of separatists who break

up their country and it's not a happy one. We are immensely strong.

You are talking about Bosnia- Herzegovina? I won't draw

comparisons but I have experience in those areas and it's not a happy

circumstance. The thing to learn today is to work together and not

break apart. We are immensely stronger together than we would be

apart. In what way? The United Kingdom stands much taller as a

United Kingdom than it would as a... Look, I have to tell you, I'm as

opposed to little Englanders as I am to little Scotland,, frankly and

I'm a Great Britain man. We stand taller doond better if we stand

together than breaking apart -- taller and do better if we stand

together than breaking apart. This debate is going to develop. It's

the most important debate we've had in Britain, constitutional debate

for 300 years. The people are going to make this decision - are the

Scottish people alone, speaking with a sovereign voice. But it's

right that the rest of Great Britain has a part in this, and the

United Kingdom Prime Minister has a part in it too. There's a legal

position that Justine's talked about. What worries me is that this

debate's now got off at a very, very bad pace. We have got two high

pressureed egos fighting each other on the TV screens. By the way,

recognise this, as well as being the biggest debate in our

constitutional future, it's a high profile debate, high noon, only one

of the two men will be standing at the end. David Cameron cannot

continue as Prime Minister of grun if he loses and, in my view, Alex

Salmond can't continue as Scottish Prime Minister. -- Prime Minister

of Great Britain. What is the... Let me answer this... You are

answering your own questions. gentleman was asking who's handled

this right, the answer is Michael Moore. He's taken a bungled launch

and bought this down to the level of statesmanship. We need to

discuss not who will win this referendum, but how can we give the

Scottish people the been fit of a referendum that is quick, as you

need to answer that question quickly, that is fair, in other

words it's overseen by the right body, and that is de-ice i? If

David will allow many, I'll try and address those. I'll come back

because you have had a long say if you don't mind -- -- decisive.

believe every country should be independent and the Scottish people

should be independent. I believe that if Scotland is going to be

Scotland, Wales should be Wales and Ireland should be Ireland. But

having said that, it's Scotland for 300 years who've been British, as

we are. So if Scotland after 300 years want their independence, how

long is it going to take the European Union countries of 27 to

realise that they are individual countries and they should have

their independence and make their own laws? They all leave the

European Union? Absolutely. In time they will, because we are all as

countries of one independent people. Douglas Alexander? I don't feel any

less Scottish because we are part of this United Kingdom. The truth

is, Paddy is correct to the extent that this is a momentous choice

that we face. But I think while we can celebrate our diversity on

those islands, we can strong do better and be stronger in the

future by working together. I didn't come into politics tond

Britain, I'm motivated by ending poverty, providing opportunity, but

something changed in Scotland in May. The Scottish National party

won a political mandate for a referendum. That is why I think

it's right to recognise the scale and significance of the choice that

we face and that is why I think it's vital that we reject a

politics of grudge and grievance and I think we have to conduct a

different quality of debate on this issue. So when Alex Salmond's

personal ministerial aide this afternoon in the Scottish

Parliament stood up and questioned the patriotism of those of us in

Labour who don't want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom,

I just think that is despicable and wrong. I would ask Nicola this

evening not to question the patriotism of the millions of Scots

who stand tall within the United Kingdom. The fact is, Alex Salmond

won an historic victory last May, nobody should pretend otherwise,

but he won it despite a commitment to independence, not because of it.

That's why support for independence tonight... We can't go on about

I want to agree with Paddy Ashdown. This is the most important decision

Scotland will have taken in 300 years and I want it to be a

positive debate. I I think it's a perfectly legitimate opinion for

somebody to say that Scotland should stay within the United

Kingdom. I don't believe it is anti-Scottish for people to want to

stay within the United Kingdom. What I think is wrong and what I

think - Was she wrong? What does a great disservice and you hear this

more often from politicians in Scotland than south of the border,

is when people say Scotland cannot be independent, that we are too

small or too poor or we are too weak. This should be a positive

debate. I'll make it positively, because I believe independence -

Was she wrong? The essence of independence is taking the matter

in Scotland. Please, say it. She was wrong. The links are strong,

but I believe Scotland should be proud. Would you answer his

question? APPLAUSE

John McAlpine was saying that politicians that politicians who

talk -- talk Scotland down are anti-Scottish. "I absolutely make

no apology for saying that the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the

Tories are anti-Scottish." She should be ashamed of herself.

talking Scotland down. That is what Joan mac an pine was talking about.

-- Joan McAlpine was talking about. The woman there. I'm still confused

about this argument that we want Scotland to stay as part of the

union. I don't know where I stand, but there is a lot of talk about we

are stronger together and it's all quite airy fairy and there doesn't

seem to be any strong argument. Is it that Scotland - I don't know, is

it that you think Barack Obama is thinking, "Oh, well they have

Scotland on their side, so I want to talk to them."? Paddy Ashdown,

you were the one who said it was visceral with you that the UK

should stay together. Economically stronger, politically stronger.

Why? If you are thinking about making a contribution to a

situation which threatens security of this country, there is just no

doubt in my mind that the United Kingdom armed forces will make a

better contribution than the individual armed forces of England

and Scotland. If you are talking about having a voice in the world

which is peace and issues related to the reform of the economy,

Britain's voice is going to be far stronger than the individual voices

of gland and Scotland, so that is the issue. Can I come back to a

really key issue, because all of these will be argued out in the

great campaign ahead. I'm really concerned to make sure that we get

the structure and context of that campaign right. What worries me and

if I may address this to Nicola, what worries me about the present

propositions are they seem designed with too much politics in mind and

too little trying to arrive at the right conclusion for the Scottish

people. Two issues worry me. Frankly, the timing issue doesn't,

if you fixed it by autumn 2014, I don't think we should make a great

issue. But not allowing the United Kingdom's Electoral Commission to

oversee this. If you are not going to and I'm sure you are not, going

to gerrymander and put your own cronies in to your own committee to

oversee the fairness of the referendum, why do you feel the --

fear the commission? Secondly and the bit that really worries me, you

seem to be proposing a three- question referendum. I was looking

up the figures. There have been six broadly constitutional multi-choice

referendums in four of those six they needed a second to sort out

and decide on the answer to the first. The answer is simple,

because what you get is 45% voting for A and 35 for B and 25 or

whatever it is that is left over for C. A is accepted at 45, but

more people voted against it. A three-question referendum does

absolutely nothing. This is the idea of a third question, if you

don't want independence. Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want one. That is

what they are proposing. "We want a straight yes or no." I believe in

independence for Scotland. We know that. We are not beginners in this

argument. Let me get a word in and I'll answer the question. That is

the question we want to see on the paper, but there is a strong body

of opinion in Scotland that says we should have more powers. That is a

different issue. Why? You have had devolution and Wales had a

referendum on whether it should get more powers. That was a specific

issue. This is a question about independence. It is quite different.

Why should by restrict the options Answer one question at a time.

of the politicians in their Scottish forms spent the last four

years trying to block a referendum. Now they want to restrict the

options. We believe it's the right of thepm to -- right of the people

to choose. We must close this down, because we'll go on forever. Surely

you understand that a three- question referendum leads to an

indecisive result. Is that what you want? We are about to consult. Let

people have their view. Would you recognise that? We have heard the

voluntary organisations in Scotland and the church there saying that

option should not be closed down. The referendum to set up the

Scottish parl ment -- Parliament, as people - asked people if they

wanted a Parliament and then one with taxation powers. The people

are perfectly capable of making the decisions. What is wrong with

allowing the people to have the choice? Paddy Ashdown has said what

he sees as wrong. There is one other issue, Justine Greening, you

were at the Treasury, and that's the question of Scotland, if it

does choose independence, does it A have to join the EU or as Alex

Salmond said last night, is it already in the EU? Secondly, does

it have to join the euro, or can it keep sterling? The Chancellor

seemed to be suggesting that they could not keep the pound unless

Westminster allowed it. What is the position? In terms of Scotland and

the EU, if you look at the population it would probably have

voting rights like Slovenia, substantially lower than the UK at

the moment and in terms of the currency, I think the Chancellor

was talking about the policy that we understand Alex Salmond has,

which is that he wants to go into the euro. I don't think it was a

threat that Scotland would be out of the pound, sterling system. I

think it was more reflecting the promise that Alex Salmond has made

to take Scotland into the euro. they wanted to retain sterling for

fairly obvious reasons, given the current state of the euro. Would it

be a question for Westminster to decide or would it be accepted that

Scotland could have the power? think it would be one of those

questions that we would have to have a discussion with the Scottish

Government about. It's not axiomatic? There is a difference

between a country that decides it wants independence, which is its

right to vote on. A difference between that and a country deciding

alongside other countries in a currency bloc about whether the

rest of the countries in that pound area want Scotland to remain within

it. It would be a rough little negotiation. I think what it shows

is that there are a number of very serious, important questions that

will arise as part of the independence, which is is it is

better to have it sooner. Kelvin MacKenzie you have been silent for

a very long time. I don't want to see the family fallouts. I don't

know whether anyone has tried to pass a Scottish five pound note in

London, which is a big enough problem. I wonder what trying to

pass off a Scottish euro would be like. There isn't any such thing,

as you well know. There might well be. My sense about England right

now is that they wish Scotland to be independent. They want them to

go out there and make their way in the world and see if they are as

clever as they believe they are and personally I wish them well.

have got to move on. I know you all have much more to say and no doubt

we'll come back to it many, many times, but Question Time depends on

answering questions from the audience. If you are twittering

remember the hash tag: A question from Jessica Caruth. Can the

tabloids survive the Leveson Inquiry? Douglas Alexander. You

have heard what has been going on this week. And all the allegations,

this week, the last two months. What do you make? The biggest

threat is not the inquiry, but the fact that increasing numbers of

people are choosing not to buy newspapers. It is the logic of

economics that is causing such difficulties for newspapers, rather

than an inquiry which I think was necessary and overdue. I think when

we see what emerged last summer in terms of hacking, it was right and

necessary that action be taken. Not because celebrities or politicians

needed to be protected, but as we have seen in the inquiry, because

ordinary people had their lives torn apart by practises and ethics

that are unjies final. I don't think responsible -- unjustifiable.

I don't think responsible newspapers have a thing to worry

about. We need a fearless and independent press. It's not a

popular thing to say, but we need good journalists holding public

figures and others to account. Uncovering wrongdoing. Journalism

matters, but my sense is that the journalism of the future is not

necessarily going to be bearing much resemblance to that which we

grew up. Younger people find it odd to pay for their news. In that

sense I think it's economics not the inquiry that journalists have

to worry about it. Kelvin MacKenzie, you appeared before Leveson. Your

music-hall act is on YouTube doing your John Major, for anyone who

wants to see it. What do you make of the effect of Leveson? You

seemed to rather give up the ghost and say that newspapers should be

fined if they gave false information to the PCC and all

that? That's not giving up the ghost. I was asked to make a

suggestion, which I thought might be helpful and that was my

suggestion, that since newspapers are commercial entities that if

they did something which misled the regulator, they should be fined in

the same way as they would be fined by Ofcom. The state would come in?

Not necessarily, but there would be a sort of arrangement. I suspect

that is what will happen. I do not expect Lord Leveson to come back

with licencing journalists or anything like that. I don't think

it's happening. Nor do I believe, in a sense it's going to fight an

old battle - there was an organised criminality. I don't know how many

people have been arrested so far. 17 people arrested and when they

start rounding up the rest of the police officers I suspect that

number may well go into the mid-20s. This investigation by the police is

the biggest single investigation by money in the history of the Met. It

is bigger than - it's bigger than Lockerbie and that kind of thing

and the great train robbery. This has been taken seriously. On the

question of what is the future of news - news can be delivered in

lots of different ways now. I agree. For newspapers, these are tough

times. However, if you are going to have news, you are still going to

need journalists and in a sense they are going to have to be

continued to be regulated. I do not believe that Lord Leveson, who

after all has made his entire career, out of the analysis of free

speech, the ability to go into a witness box and listen to evidence,

I do not believe he is going to do anything to curtail it and the Lord

Chief Justice has already made that clear. This is a massive wake-up

call. Perhaps it's a wake-up call for people like me. Certainly it is

for all the editors that I know, that the game has changed and that

the consumer himself or herself What did you make of what the

Editor of the Daily Express said today? He described the Daily Mail

as Britain's worst enemy, the tone of everything was so negative.

he's a competitor, he's hardly likely to say it's the greatest

paper under God's earth, he owns the Daily Express. The reality is

that the Daily Mail was massively successful, a counterer cyclical,

by the way, to the rest of the newspaper industry, selling well

over two million a day and, Richard Desmond who I know and like, his

paper sells 600,000. So the consumer is deciding what they

prefer. Is there such a thing as a

responsible editor any more though? Kelvin was when he was at the Sun?

If somebody comes with a story, the paper will probably run it because

they'll think, if they don't come to us, they'll go to another

newspaper. Where does this stop? Is it our fault because that's what we

want to read or your fault because you are publishing it? Kelvin gave

in his submission to Leveson, he said if a story sounded right, it

probably was right and we'd lob it in and I didn't spend too much time

pondering the ethics of how the story was gained. This is all you,

isn't it? Yes. You can watch it on ub tube. We felt -- ub tube. It's a

very cavalier attitude -- YouTube. It's uncomfortable to me. I can't

disagree with a word Kelvin's just said. Kelvin, just because the

question was would the tabloids survive, not would the news survive

- news will always survive and it grows in all sorts of different

ways in Twitter and the other new media ways as well, but will the

tabloids survive. My worry is that the tabloids will be the last to

survive. The people who'll go first with the broad sheets, the serious

newspapers, for the reason Douglas talked about, people aren't paying

for newspapers any more. The reality is, if you are in

newspapers on the one hand and books, and I write books, better

get used to the fact that the artefact, the piece of paper, is

going to be a thing of the past in ten or 15 years. That is one of the

reasons why the tabloid press has gone down market. That's one of the

reasons why they've broken some of the rules. The way you sell in this

increasingly competitive market place, is to be more sensationalist.

That doesn't sound as though I'm with Kelvin but I am to this extent.

I think the press is properly called the fourth estate. It holds

us to account. Frankly, I am dissatisfied that our Parliament is

good enough at holding the executive to account. We need a

powerful press. Sometimes, and this is a rather unusual thing perhaps

for me to say, sometimes I think having a powerful press that is

prepared to investigate means taking the risk of having from time

to time an irresponsible press. Now, they've gone beyond the limits,

they have to be, but I would be wholly opposed to any legislative

control of our press. We have to find other means to do this. The

preservation of the right of free speech, even especially win it's

uncomfortable to those in power is a crucial part of our democracy.

I'm clear Leveson will not go that far but there is a danger that the

pendulum will be allowed to swing too far and I strongly oppose it.

You at the very back? Kelvin said the game has changed. Isn't that

just it, that the press seem to act as if it's a game? Where are the

morals and responsibilities for the things they print and where's that

gone and how do we get that back? APPLAUSE

Justine Greening? Part of this question is what sort of a press do

we think we deserve? I think at the end of the day, part of what the

Leveson Inquiry can do is to part to build some trust between the

public and the newspapers they rely on to get their news from. One of

the questions we've all got to ask ourselves is, what standards of

journalism do we want and if we are buying papers that we know to have

low standards, in a sense, we are going to perpetuate that. I

actually hope, in many respects, that the broad sheets, where there

is more investment, can keep going. But I think what Leveson is doing

is absolutely right. It's time we got to the bottom of all of this.

There are clearly sharp practises that have happened across the

industry, not just necessarily in the tabloids. We have got to get

all of that out in the open, see what Lord Leveson thinks. He'll

report back in September this year and then I think we'll have some

very difficult discussions around how we can make sure we protect the

freedom of the press but make sure the press have some standards that

we can really rely on. Remember, it's not only about the Hugh Grants

of this world. One of the important modules of this will be the

relationship between the press and the politicians, including, of

course, your own Prime Minister, the leader of Conservative Party

who's wooed the Murdoch empiefr then immediately, as the wind

changed in its direction, called in Leveson as it began to come

slightly close on him -- Murdoch empire. He'll be in big trouble

himself and I suspect Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and the others will have

serious questions to answer. I believe there should be a massive

separation between the press and the politicians, rather than

everybody getting into each other's bed all the time. Nicola Sturgeon

wooed Murdoch as well didn't you? You are blushing? No, the Sun

backed the SNP in the election. there were no communications

between... I think any politician that would sit here and try to say

they had no conversations with the Murdoch press would be telling you

untruths. We all did. That's one thing that politicians have to

reflecten in terms of the relationship between politicians

and the press. I don't think there's anybody who doesn't have

some lessons to learn about what we saw unfold last year. P tabloids

brought Leveson on themselves, no two ways about that. I think it was

Paddy that said one of the ironies I suppose is that the way they were

hounding people who perhaps should have been held to account to some

extent, those people were getting off the hook. I hope Leveson does

act to improve the standards by which the tabloids operate, but

others have said it before, Leveson's not the big challenge for

the traditional media, that's the different ways in which people

access news. As a politician who used to buy piles of newspapers

every day, I don't buy newspapers like that any more, I get most of

my news online. A few years' time, I doubt there will be many people

picking up hard copies of newspapers. Those who adapt to that

will survive, those who don't won't. I believe passionately, like

everybody does, in a free press, but that can come in many ways and

I think everybody in the media has to think very hard about how they

adapt to that if they are going to Suhr vie. Time for one more

question -- survive. Alison McMillan? Should the NHS be

paying for the removal potentially for faulty breast implants

purchased privately for cosmetic reasons? A very complex question to

answer in a short time. The news today that Andrew Lansley supports

the NHS with these cosmetic breast implants that are dangerous or

supposedly dangerous. Justine Greening, is it right for the NHS

to pay for that and should they not pay for a replacement or something?

I gather they are only going to pay for removal of what could be

dangerous. Is that sensible or practical? For women who've had a

breast implant on the NHS, we are offering to have that replaced by

the NHS if it's a PIP implant. For women who've had that done

privately, we want to see their private health care companies who

did that operation remove the breast implant if there is a

medical opinion that says that is the right thing to do. If the

private provider refuses to do that or cannot do that, then the NHS

will, if there's a clinical opinion that it's needed, remove the

implant. But we'll seek to get the costs of those back from the

private sector provider who should have done that operation. Who say

they are going broke and can't afford to do it so you won't get

much back, will you? We'll try to get the money back that we've tried

to invest. The key thing is to understand what the clinical need

is of the patient concerned. At the end of the day, having an operation

is a risky matter in itself, so whatever the outcome, it has to be

one based on a clinical diagnosis and that has some agreement with

the patient. Are you a medical doctor? Yes, I am. What is your

view? This question was posed purely as a provocative question

and I'm not in that field because I couldn't make those decisions, so

I'm asking that question as a member of the public, as a taxpayer,

and I think I'm trying to propose the question in the future we are

going to have to make choices in the NHS and we are going to have to

decide how to spend the funding in the NHS as the public and as

taxpayer. You talk about people who had it done privately for cosmetic

reasons as though somehow this was less worthy of NHS support, is that

what your implication is? question was posed, it doesn't

express my opinion and my one solution would be as pop posed that,

as a caring society, we should help these people, we can provide the

service on the NHS but we should try and recoup the costs from the

private industry. Nicola Sturgeon, you're Health Secretary for

Scotland as well? I am. What do you think Our position is substantially

the same as the UK Government. For me, the well-being of the woman is

absolutely paramount. That's what's most important. In Scotland, we

don't think, as far as we can tell that, the NHS implanted PIP

implants into any woman, but if it's found that that has been the

case, the NHS will take full responsibility. Where a woman is

left high and dry by a private provider, the NHS will also provide

support, but make no mistake, I believe that the private providers

do have a moral duty to take responsibility. I don't believe the

NHS should be picking up the tab for this. APPLAUSE

For me, this is one of the problems of private medicine. The private

companies make the money when they do the operations. But when

something goes wrong, they often expect the NHS to pick up the

pieces. It's one of the many reasons I don't believe in the

privatisation of the Health Service. Presumably the doctors can be sued?

We have only got a minute left so I'm going to have to be brief here.

That is true, but let's just recognise there is a moral

obligation on the private providers, the private care homes and so on,

but there's also a moral obligation I think that rests with the health

and medicines and health care Regulatory Authority that said

these implants were fit for purpose. I can see where the NHS is coming

from and Lansley too, but at the end of the day, I think the phrase

that both Justine and Nicola used, which is the needs of the patient

must come first, is right, I think the moral and maybe legal

obligation is quite mixed here, so at the end of the day, my guess is

the NHS will end up having to pick up those that can't be done by any

other means. Shocking. Last night on the BBC 10 o'clock news they had

a smug chairman many there of one of the companies that had put the

implants in simply saying, we haven't got the money and that's

the end of it. B what I can't understand is why they weren't

insured and secondly, I think this should be tested. These guys were

literally, the mark-up on those breast implants is fantastic.

They've made a lot of money, I think we should go after them and

the directors. There's a very good point made, not very often aI agree

with Government ministers but if somebody sells you a car and the

clutch doesn't work, you don't say it wasn't our clutch, you got it

from Germany or something like that, so we should pursue these people

and make them pay and if they are not going to, we should bankrupt

them and flog their assets and hand out the money.

Douglas Alexander, very briefly? Very briefly, as you have heard,

there's not much that the panel agree on. This is one of them, the

safety and clinical needs of the women has to come first. There is a

moral obligation on the private providers and North and South of

the border, the Government has to meet the obligations. Our hour is

up. Next week, we'll be in Shrewsbury, the week after that,

Plymouth. If you want to come to either

programme, give us a call, go to the website if it's easier or ring

us. It would be good to see you and take part in the vigorous debate