0:00:00 > 0:00:07Tonight we are in Shrewsbury. Welcome to Question Time.
0:00:07 > 0:00:13With me on the panel in Shrewsbury, from the Cabinet, the Conservative
0:00:13 > 0:00:17Party co-chairman Sayeeda Warsi. The man who famously defeated
0:00:17 > 0:00:21Portillo in 97 and is now a Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg.
0:00:21 > 0:00:24Green MP and leader of her party, Caroline Lucas. Author and critic
0:00:24 > 0:00:34Germaine Greer and the columnist who has edited the Spectator, the
0:00:34 > 0:00:39
0:00:39 > 0:00:46Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore.
0:00:46 > 0:00:52Stephen Twigg. I slightly mispronounced your name. And on
0:00:52 > 0:00:56that happy note, our first question from Roger Fildes. Should taking
0:00:56 > 0:01:01away Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood be the first step towards ethical
0:01:01 > 0:01:06capitalism. Sir Fred Goodwin, who was knighted by Tony Blair in 2004,
0:01:06 > 0:01:10I think. Stephen Twigg. Yes, he should lose his knighthood. There
0:01:10 > 0:01:14is a wide public consensus and it would be a symbolic move. But we
0:01:14 > 0:01:17need to do far more than that to deal with the very real crisis that
0:01:17 > 0:01:21Ed Miliband and others have been speaking about in recent weeks,
0:01:21 > 0:01:24where we see the scandal of the gap between the highest paid and the
0:01:24 > 0:01:28average paid in our financial institutions getting to the level
0:01:28 > 0:01:32that we have got to do something serious about this. It is
0:01:32 > 0:01:35interesting, David, that when Ed Miliband spoke about this at the
0:01:35 > 0:01:38Labour Party conference last year, he was derided by Conservatives and
0:01:38 > 0:01:42media commentators. Now we see David Cameron and Nick Clegg
0:01:42 > 0:01:46jumping on the bandwagon. Better late than never, because we have to
0:01:46 > 0:01:50deal with this crisis. It strikes at the heart of the kind of society
0:01:50 > 0:01:54we are, the kind of economy that we are for the future. We are living
0:01:54 > 0:01:57through very difficult times with austerity, and it is vital that we
0:01:57 > 0:02:03have fairness in the solutions. what grounds would you take away
0:02:03 > 0:02:06the man's knighthood? Because of the scandal of what happened with
0:02:06 > 0:02:10RBS and the amount of taxpayers' money that had to be used to bail
0:02:10 > 0:02:14out this bank. I regret the fact that we gave him that honour. It
0:02:14 > 0:02:24was the Labour government that did that. Let's have a cross-party,
0:02:24 > 0:02:24
0:02:24 > 0:02:29cross-community consensus to take this knighthood from him. Do you
0:02:29 > 0:02:33agree? I do, and the forfeiture committee does have the right to
0:02:33 > 0:02:36forfeit an honour which was, especially if it was given for a
0:02:36 > 0:02:39specific purpose. In this case, the Labour Government gave him a
0:02:39 > 0:02:43knighthood for services to banking, and clearly that was the reason why
0:02:43 > 0:02:47he should not have been given a knighthood. So there is a specific
0:02:47 > 0:02:50condition which the forfeiture committee can look back. What Fred
0:02:50 > 0:02:54Goodwin represented, and this is why people have so much anger
0:02:54 > 0:03:00towards him as an individual, is because it showed an endemic and
0:03:00 > 0:03:04rooted problem where over a period of time the link between hard work
0:03:04 > 0:03:08and reward had been broken. And the link between success and reward had
0:03:08 > 0:03:12been broken. We ended up with a culture, and banking was the worst
0:03:12 > 0:03:16form, where a bank would fail but the executives would get huge
0:03:16 > 0:03:19bonuses, where even if you look in other parts of society where people
0:03:19 > 0:03:22who went out to work could not afford to live in houses equivalent
0:03:22 > 0:03:27to those people who did not work and were may be on housing benefit.
0:03:27 > 0:03:31That is the kind of culture we need to tackle. How do you do that?
0:03:31 > 0:03:36First of all in relation to banking. You make sure banking is never
0:03:36 > 0:03:40again put in a position where it cannot afford to fail. So would you,
0:03:40 > 0:03:47as a first step, prevent Stephen Hester, the present RBS boss,
0:03:47 > 0:03:51getting his bonus this year? Last year, we negotiated that nobody
0:03:51 > 0:03:58should get more than 2000 cash bonus by effectively a state-owned
0:03:58 > 0:04:02bank. According to the Financial Times, he is still going to get a
0:04:02 > 0:04:08�1.3 million bonus in a bank that is largely owned by all of us. Are
0:04:08 > 0:04:11you in favour of that? No. It is right for the Government to say,
0:04:11 > 0:04:14where you have been bailed out, where taxpayers have had to bail
0:04:14 > 0:04:18you out because of the risks he took, it is unacceptable for you to
0:04:18 > 0:04:24be getting millions in bonuses when everybody else is having to pay the
0:04:24 > 0:04:27price of you getting that. It is reported that the board of RBS is
0:04:27 > 0:04:31reported as saying that they are unequivocal and unanimous that the
0:04:31 > 0:04:35Chancellor of the Exchequer does not set a bonus for the chief
0:04:35 > 0:04:41executive of RBS. In other words, you can go hang. Let's see what
0:04:41 > 0:04:45happens. You think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position
0:04:45 > 0:04:49to say no? The Chancellor is in no position to say, because he manages
0:04:49 > 0:04:52the finances, the tax that people around the country pay, to say it
0:04:52 > 0:04:57is not acceptable, like we did last year, for people to be given
0:04:57 > 0:05:00bonuses in excess of �2,000 cash. The question to start with was
0:05:00 > 0:05:05whether he should have his knighthood taken away from him.
0:05:05 > 0:05:11That makes me wonder what is the point of the honours system? Really,
0:05:11 > 0:05:15what is the point of it? I think the question is slightly
0:05:15 > 0:05:21wider than this because payee is set for boardrooms by remuneration
0:05:21 > 0:05:24committees. -- pay is set. Remuneration committees are made up
0:05:24 > 0:05:27of non-executives who go around supporting each other on the
0:05:27 > 0:05:33remuneration committees. Until you sort out governance on that, we
0:05:33 > 0:05:37will always have this problem. woman at the back. The scary thing
0:05:37 > 0:05:41about bonuses of �1.3 million is not so much the argument between
0:05:41 > 0:05:45work and reward, although I cannot see the connection, but it is what
0:05:45 > 0:05:49is the value of �1.3 million? People paid this amount of money
0:05:49 > 0:05:52have lost sight of what that means. In Shropshire we went through a
0:05:52 > 0:05:57devastating period of looking at closing schools, some of which,
0:05:57 > 0:06:00some fantastic schools, have closed, for a deficit in the county of
0:06:00 > 0:06:05approximately �1 million. And you are talking about one person being
0:06:05 > 0:06:08given a bonus, not a salary, but a bonus of more than the amount that
0:06:08 > 0:06:18caused the closure of valuable schools in Shropshire. It is just
0:06:18 > 0:06:19
0:06:19 > 0:06:24ridiculous. Charles Moore, do you share that view? Yes, but first of
0:06:24 > 0:06:28all, we should be fair to Mr Hester. He was brought in to sort this out.
0:06:28 > 0:06:32He has not been bailed out for his mistakes. He has been brought in to
0:06:32 > 0:06:36set this bright. I think it is absolutely fair that if he does set
0:06:36 > 0:06:42it right, he should get a reward. But the reward should come when
0:06:42 > 0:06:46that has happened. What we are dealing with, effectively, with RBS
0:06:46 > 0:06:49is a nationalised industry, 83% owned by the state. In those
0:06:49 > 0:06:52circumstances I do think it is wrong for him to get that money.
0:06:52 > 0:06:59Because this is something that we, the taxpayer, have had to take on
0:06:59 > 0:07:03board. We have at least potentially lost an absolutely enormous sum of
0:07:03 > 0:07:07money on it. And I do not really understand why Mr Hester should not
0:07:07 > 0:07:12be treated like any other reasonably highly paid successful,
0:07:12 > 0:07:16capable executive. What is still in the minds of these bankers is that
0:07:16 > 0:07:20somehow this has not really happened. Therefore, they will keep
0:07:20 > 0:07:24on saying, we have to pay very well to get the right people. But they
0:07:24 > 0:07:29are, as it were, wearing a dunce's cap in the corner of the room, and
0:07:29 > 0:07:34they do not seem to recognise that. I have no objection to people
0:07:34 > 0:07:38making large sums of money, if they have taken the risk and the risk
0:07:38 > 0:07:45has succeeded. What is scandalous and against the principles of free
0:07:45 > 0:07:47markets is that people who took enormous risks, made a lot of money
0:07:47 > 0:07:52in the good times, and then when all of their risks went wrong, we
0:07:52 > 0:07:55have to go on giving them a lot of money in the bad times, and we have
0:07:55 > 0:08:01to back the risk. I interviewed Mervyn King last year and he said,
0:08:01 > 0:08:05a very good sentence, he said, there is no place in a market
0:08:05 > 0:08:15economy for the concept of too big to fail. And that is what we are
0:08:15 > 0:08:17
0:08:17 > 0:08:22really suffering from right now. you wrote recently that you were
0:08:22 > 0:08:27starting to think that the Left might actually be correct about
0:08:27 > 0:08:34capitalism, and that the system is reporting to advance the many and
0:08:34 > 0:08:40his perverted to enrich the few. Briefly, is that still your view?
0:08:41 > 0:08:46Yes. I believe very strongly in a free-market and the creation of
0:08:46 > 0:08:51wealth in a free country. That all goes wrong if capitalism is grabbed
0:08:51 > 0:08:55for themselves by the capitalists. It is for everybody. And the moment
0:08:55 > 0:08:59it starts being grabbed, then we are losing, the whole point of it
0:08:59 > 0:09:02has gone. We have heard a lot about fair capitalism and for
0:09:02 > 0:09:06understandable reasons there has been a lot of focus on the banking
0:09:06 > 0:09:10industry, but what about the supermarket industry? There is a
0:09:10 > 0:09:13report out today which says that the big four are not paying all
0:09:13 > 0:09:19staff the UK living wage. Does something need to be done about
0:09:19 > 0:09:22that? I think it is important to understand what bankers are paid
0:09:22 > 0:09:26for. There was fuss about not enough regulation of the banks, and
0:09:26 > 0:09:29people seem to think if we brought in more regulation the banks might
0:09:30 > 0:09:35behave better. They actually, it seems to me, misunderstand what
0:09:35 > 0:09:38people get paid for in banks. They get paid for finding ways around
0:09:39 > 0:09:42the regulation. The attitude towards the regulation is not one
0:09:42 > 0:09:48of responsibility. That is one of, this is something we are going to
0:09:48 > 0:09:52find a way around. We have always had knights errant, even at the
0:09:52 > 0:09:56round table there were treacherous nights. I think it is quite
0:09:56 > 0:10:01important that you realise what a knighthood really is. If you looked
0:10:01 > 0:10:05at the list of people who have been knighted over my lifetime, about a
0:10:05 > 0:10:08third of them were rogues and vagabonds. And we might just as
0:10:08 > 0:10:13well know that, instead of imagining that it really is a kind
0:10:13 > 0:10:23of kite mark of excellence. It is not. It is a kite mark of cronyism,
0:10:23 > 0:10:28
0:10:28 > 0:10:32Caroline Lucas, the question was, would taking away Fred Goodwin's
0:10:32 > 0:10:35knighthood be the first step towards ethical capitalism. I agree
0:10:35 > 0:10:39that the knighthood should be taken away from him. It would be an
0:10:39 > 0:10:42important symbolic act, but we must not let offering him as a
0:10:42 > 0:10:46sacrificial lamb let people off thinking that is all we need to do,
0:10:46 > 0:10:50as others have said. I think what we need to do is to have a far more
0:10:50 > 0:10:55radical look at our economy and what it is there to do. We have
0:10:55 > 0:10:58talked about RBS. That is a bank that we own. This �1.3 million is
0:10:58 > 0:11:01our money that is going to the chief executive of that bank. That
0:11:01 > 0:11:06is simply wrong. If we genuinely owned the bank, we should take
0:11:06 > 0:11:09control of it, break it up and make it into a proper People's Bank. We
0:11:09 > 0:11:13should make sure that money goes to the small businesses that are
0:11:13 > 0:11:18crying out for proper loans so they can get going again. I think we
0:11:18 > 0:11:22should have a whole raft of policies like the kind of proposals
0:11:22 > 0:11:25that were in the High Pay Commission. We need to be looking
0:11:25 > 0:11:30at the grotesque profits that get paid. The supermarkets were
0:11:30 > 0:11:34mentioned a moment ago. The supermarkets are the largest
0:11:34 > 0:11:38employers after the NHS. Their bosses are getting in the region of
0:11:38 > 0:11:42�3 million at the same time as they are not paying their own workers
0:11:42 > 0:11:47even a decent living wage. That means those workers are having to
0:11:47 > 0:11:49basically get tax credits. That means the taxpayer is essentially
0:11:49 > 0:11:53propping up and subsidising the chief executives who are getting
0:11:53 > 0:11:57these big payouts. We need a complete overhaul of our economies.
0:11:57 > 0:12:01We need to start by who controlled the banks. We need to break them up
0:12:01 > 0:12:06into smaller areas. We need to look at the because report and separate
0:12:06 > 0:12:15retail banking from Casino banking. Fred Goodwin's knighthood is just
0:12:15 > 0:12:25the start. We will stick with the issue of the economy for a moment
0:12:25 > 0:12:32
0:12:32 > 0:12:35for another question. If you are The question from Nicola Blakeway.
0:12:35 > 0:12:40How can the Labour Party call themselves the opposition when they
0:12:40 > 0:12:44are not opposed to the Government's economic policies? We know this
0:12:44 > 0:12:49week they have been falling over themselves to say it is not quite
0:12:49 > 0:12:54clear what about Labour's cups. Nobody seems to quite follow it.
0:12:54 > 0:12:57Stephen Twigg. We are opposed to the Government's economic policy
0:12:57 > 0:13:01and we have said consistently since his Government was formed that they
0:13:01 > 0:13:05are cutting too far, too fast, and the evidence is bearing up what Ed
0:13:05 > 0:13:10Balls and Ed Miliband have been saying. But we are going to have to
0:13:10 > 0:13:15keep the cuts, Ed Balls says. has talked about two things and we
0:13:15 > 0:13:17reaffirm that we disagree with the Government's economic policy. It is
0:13:17 > 0:13:21self-defeating because we are seeing borrowing rising despite the
0:13:22 > 0:13:25cuts. But if we were to win the next election in 2015, of course we
0:13:25 > 0:13:29would have to make a hard-headed assessment of what we would do. If
0:13:29 > 0:13:32we were in power now, Caroline, we would not do the same thing, we
0:13:32 > 0:13:38would not be cutting as they are cutting. We have set out our own
0:13:38 > 0:13:42plan for jobs and growth. We talked about bankers, we would have kept
0:13:42 > 0:13:45the banker's bonus tax that the Conservative Party got rid of that
0:13:45 > 0:13:48raised �3.5 billion. That money could then have been used so we
0:13:48 > 0:13:52would not have the rising unemployment we are facing. When
0:13:52 > 0:13:56Labour left power in 2010, unemployment was falling and we had
0:13:56 > 0:13:59economic growth. As a consequence of the scale and speed of the cuts
0:14:00 > 0:14:03in the public sector, we see stagnant growth in this country,
0:14:04 > 0:14:10rising unemployment and Government borrowing going up. It is not
0:14:10 > 0:14:14working, it is hurting, we need a change of course. Do you agree with
0:14:14 > 0:14:17Ed Balls, saying that all of Gordon Brown's talk about no more boom and
0:14:17 > 0:14:21bust was a mistake and he should never have said it? Of course it
0:14:21 > 0:14:25was a mistake. The Government cannot say we will abolish the
0:14:25 > 0:14:30economic cycle. He said it year after year and nobody stopped him.
0:14:30 > 0:14:33It was a mistake. One Government in one country cannot abolish the
0:14:33 > 0:14:43economic cycle. As Chancellor, he achieved some good things but that
0:14:43 > 0:14:48
0:14:48 > 0:14:52Baroness Warsi. I suppose they are in opposition in that sense.
0:14:52 > 0:14:57Stephen, you are usually quite a reasonable part of the Labour Party,
0:14:57 > 0:15:00and I'm therefore sad to hear you say this. What Ed Balls is
0:15:00 > 0:15:08effectively saying is we will oppose any difficult decision that
0:15:08 > 0:15:12you put forward, but not ever take the decision of reversing that
0:15:12 > 0:15:16because we don't believe in what we are saying when we oppose, so it's
0:15:16 > 0:15:19the worst form of politics. The whole point of this coalition
0:15:19 > 0:15:22Government, when two parties came together to form the Government,
0:15:22 > 0:15:26was because we heard what the public said, which is why can't you
0:15:26 > 0:15:31guys just put your differences aside and deal with things in the
0:15:31 > 0:15:35national interest? Things out there are too tough for you to be playing
0:15:35 > 0:15:38party politics. Two came to do that, whether you agree or not with the
0:15:38 > 0:15:43decisions, they are difficult ones that are taken in the national
0:15:43 > 0:15:48interest. What saddens me is here was a great opportunity for Labour
0:15:48 > 0:15:53to say, "Look, we were part of creating this mess and we were
0:15:53 > 0:15:57responsible and we'll play our part." They play the worst form of
0:15:57 > 0:16:07politics. What makes you think they are saying that on reversing the
0:16:07 > 0:16:08
0:16:08 > 0:16:12cuts. Or the spending cuts and tough if you don't like it, said Ed
0:16:12 > 0:16:15Miliband. I would like them to say we will stop opposing you and
0:16:15 > 0:16:19holding up legislation, because ultimately they would be doing what
0:16:19 > 0:16:27we are doing. Actually, they haven't got the guts to admit it.
0:16:27 > 0:16:30It's weak. Would it be good if they stopped opposing you? No, it
0:16:30 > 0:16:34wouldn't. The chairman of the Conservative Party says,
0:16:34 > 0:16:39"Opposition, stop opposing us." would like them to be a good
0:16:39 > 0:16:42opposition. The public at large do not want us to oppose for the sake.
0:16:42 > 0:16:47The public at large don't want us to play politics, but sort the mess
0:16:47 > 0:16:57out. We should work together to sort that mess out, especially when
0:16:57 > 0:17:00
0:17:00 > 0:17:08you created most of it. How do you read Labour in this?, do you think
0:17:08 > 0:17:14they are not opposing plorm? They are absolutely not opposing --
0:17:14 > 0:17:21opposing properly? They are absolutely not opposing plorply.
0:17:21 > 0:17:24Two Tories parties is -- properly. Two Tory parties is enough. I think
0:17:25 > 0:17:32people who voted Labour would expect them to be opposing the cuts
0:17:32 > 0:17:35and to say not only are they socially devastating, but also
0:17:35 > 0:17:39economically illiterate, so you don't do it through more and more
0:17:39 > 0:17:43austerity. I find it so depressing that the notion of economic
0:17:43 > 0:17:47credibility has now been defined entirely as meaning more and more
0:17:47 > 0:17:50austerity and there's now some kind of contest going on to see who can
0:17:50 > 0:17:54cut in the most sharp and strong way, when what we should do is
0:17:54 > 0:18:03invest in jobs and getting people back to work. That is where the
0:18:03 > 0:18:06real crisis is. I think there is the false dichotomy that Ed Balls
0:18:06 > 0:18:14is saying we have to have pay restraint otherwise there's not
0:18:14 > 0:18:20going to be enough money to create more jobs. I would love there to
0:18:20 > 0:18:26have pay restraints on huge amounts that the executives are earning.
0:18:26 > 0:18:29Not on low-paid workers. You don't create other jobs in the economy.
0:18:29 > 0:18:35If we are serious about having a genuine opposition, then what I
0:18:35 > 0:18:40think they should do is calling for the roll-out of the living wage and
0:18:40 > 0:18:43calling for proper taxation in terms of cracking down on tax
0:18:43 > 0:18:47evasion, and cancelling Trident. There a whole range of things,
0:18:47 > 0:18:51including quantitative easing and putting that money directly into
0:18:51 > 0:19:01the economy into jobs, not cutting our throats by more and more
0:19:01 > 0:19:01
0:19:01 > 0:19:06cutting on the poorest people. only it was that easy. Of course we
0:19:06 > 0:19:11need to do more on tax evasion and avoidance. Ed Balls has been very,
0:19:11 > 0:19:15very clear. He said that if there is to be pay restraint the higher
0:19:15 > 0:19:19paid in the public sector should bear a bigger part of that pain.
0:19:20 > 0:19:23He's rin to George Osborne to say that. On the -- written to George
0:19:23 > 0:19:27Osborne to say that. On the immediate challenges, the
0:19:27 > 0:19:31Government is borrowing for austerity. We think it should be to
0:19:31 > 0:19:37create jobs and foster growth. It's a fundamental difference between us
0:19:37 > 0:19:44and the Conservatives. The two criticisms can't both be true,
0:19:44 > 0:19:49because you are completely opposite. If we were in power now we would
0:19:49 > 0:19:52not cut in the way that the Government is cutting. We can't say
0:19:52 > 0:19:56now what we would do in 2015, because we don't know what the
0:19:56 > 0:20:01position would be. That's common sense. What I find surprising is
0:20:01 > 0:20:07both of you are saying we should be spending more. We are in a debt
0:20:07 > 0:20:10crisis. We are borrowing more because of you. How can you solve a
0:20:10 > 0:20:16debt crisis by borrowing more? How do you deal with the credit card
0:20:16 > 0:20:24debts by going out and getting more debts? It absolutely falls in the
0:20:24 > 0:20:34wrong place. It means borrowing is going up. It's not strue, Stephen.
0:20:34 > 0:20:40
0:20:40 > 0:20:45Germane -- it's not true. I wasn't listening to that last bit for this
0:20:45 > 0:20:49reason - which is when a party loses it has a huge crisis and it
0:20:49 > 0:20:52has a sort of nervous breakdown and consider the past record, which is
0:20:53 > 0:20:55very unpopular. That happened to the Tories and now it is happening
0:20:55 > 0:20:58to Labour. There is a period when nobody in the public is interested
0:20:58 > 0:21:03in them and nobody believes what they say. In particular, the polls
0:21:03 > 0:21:08that they are looking at say they've got no ecredibility on the
0:21:08 > 0:21:18economy and that is -- got no credibility on the economy and that
0:21:18 > 0:21:18
0:21:18 > 0:21:21is not surprising. I don't criticise Labour. I just think that
0:21:21 > 0:21:24that's what they are trying to sort out. It's very difficult. I feel
0:21:24 > 0:21:32sorry for them and I think we should pay no attention to them for
0:21:32 > 0:21:37quite a long time. APPLAUSE
0:21:37 > 0:21:41I just ram home that point by quoting Clement atly, when he had a
0:21:41 > 0:21:44rebel Cabinet minister whom he was fed up with and he said, "A period
0:21:44 > 0:21:46This is BBC News. The headlines: of silence from you for a long time
0:21:46 > 0:21:50would be very welcome." The trade Jude Law and other victims of the
0:21:50 > 0:21:52phone hacking scandal are paid unions are having a whale of a time.
0:21:52 > 0:21:54hundreds of thousands of pounds by Do you think Ed Miliband has
0:21:54 > 0:21:56News International. deliberately set out to irritate
0:21:56 > 0:21:58Figures reveal a big jump in the them in order to reposition Labour?
0:21:58 > 0:22:01numbers of robberies. No, I think he's worried about the
0:22:01 > 0:22:04An investigation has begun into the polls and he rushed into this and
0:22:04 > 0:22:08deaths of two babies in a Belfast got frightened and he has had to
0:22:08 > 0:22:10hospital. Then maybe to a links to an infectious disease.
0:22:11 > 0:22:14pull back. How can Labour have any Two explosions have gone off in
0:22:14 > 0:22:17Londonderry. There are no reports of injuries.
0:22:17 > 0:22:20legitimacy when they have 13 years A crushing defeats for England in
0:22:20 > 0:22:27on the control of the banks wrong cricket. A 10 wickets last against
0:22:27 > 0:22:33and sold off all our gold. Mr Twig said if Labour get into power of --
0:22:33 > 0:22:37in 20 15, well he will never get into power. The trade unions will
0:22:37 > 0:22:40hold them to account for it. What words in particular are you
0:22:40 > 0:22:46thinking of? Exactly what the question is about, saying are they
0:22:46 > 0:22:56in opposition or not? The words today, this week that came from Mr
0:22:56 > 0:23:03
0:23:03 > 0:23:08Miliband could have come from anyone in the Government. Then
0:23:08 > 0:23:12Unite talking about the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You
0:23:12 > 0:23:15look proud. No, I'm not. These are difficult issues. The reasons he
0:23:16 > 0:23:21included me was that I made comments last week about the scale
0:23:21 > 0:23:23of the Government's cuts to education. And how we could make
0:23:23 > 0:23:27savings in school buildings, but without the scale of the cuts that
0:23:27 > 0:23:31the Government is making. There is a very big difference between the
0:23:31 > 0:23:35two. I think we didn't always get value for money, but it doesn't
0:23:35 > 0:23:38mean I support cancelling the whole programme. Are you surprised to
0:23:38 > 0:23:43have the trade unions as your enemy? I don't think they are.
0:23:43 > 0:23:47That's what he was saying. doesn't think he is our enemy.
0:23:47 > 0:23:50There is a long, long history of disagreements between trade union
0:23:50 > 0:23:58leaders and the Labour Party leaders. It goes back decades as
0:23:58 > 0:24:02I'm sure you will be aware. The unions have to stand up for their
0:24:02 > 0:24:06members, but Ed has to stand up for the entire country. Houp of your
0:24:06 > 0:24:13money comes from the trade -- how much of your money comes from the
0:24:13 > 0:24:17trade unions? About half. Some say a great deal more. Germaine Greer?
0:24:17 > 0:24:20The oddest thing is the timing. Why did he make it? If politics is the
0:24:20 > 0:24:26art of the possible, he just destroyed it by doing something
0:24:26 > 0:24:30extremely unwise. I couldn't see what the cue was for that statement
0:24:30 > 0:24:35at the time. I have to think, being a Lib Dem myself, that the
0:24:35 > 0:24:39opposition is probably in bed with the Prime Minister. That happens in
0:24:39 > 0:24:47many marriages and the person who is fighting the Prime Minister is
0:24:47 > 0:24:51Nick Clegg, in a rear-guard action, trying to hang on to rags of Lib
0:24:51 > 0:24:54Dem policy and trying to insert imagination. This image is
0:24:54 > 0:24:58terrible! LAUGHTER
0:24:58 > 0:25:02It's a very common image when the coalition first began. We don't
0:25:02 > 0:25:07understand coalition politics, so we talk about who is winning, when
0:25:07 > 0:25:10the whole point of a coalition is it's an on-going negotiation. I
0:25:10 > 0:25:14think that is something that English people have to learn to
0:25:14 > 0:25:20understand, because it probably is the government of the future.
0:25:20 > 0:25:25hugely important and it goes to the heart of why we are in such a mess,
0:25:25 > 0:25:28because Baroness Warsi said we have a big deficit and we need to stop
0:25:29 > 0:25:32spending. If you were a household you have to stop spending. If a
0:25:32 > 0:25:35whole country starts to do that and the country stops spending that
0:25:35 > 0:25:42means there is no way we are ever going to get out, because you throw
0:25:42 > 0:25:46people out of work and you lose the money into the revenue and it means
0:25:46 > 0:25:50you are paying for benefits. The way to get out is through
0:25:50 > 0:25:53investment. Which country in Europe, or in the world has adopted the
0:25:53 > 0:25:59policy you are describing? Why is it that the whole of Europe is
0:25:59 > 0:26:04doing what this Government is doing? They are not doing what they
0:26:04 > 0:26:08are suggesting. The United States is doing more than we are. Standard
0:26:08 > 0:26:11& Poor's are saying that the reason the nine countries have been
0:26:11 > 0:26:16downgraded because they have been pursuing an austerity agenda that
0:26:16 > 0:26:21doesn't work. Think of this like a mortgage, if you do it that way you
0:26:21 > 0:26:23pay bits off over a much longer period, rather than thinking of it
0:26:23 > 0:26:33as a household budget that you have to cut down immediately, because it
0:26:33 > 0:26:34
0:26:34 > 0:26:37doesn't work when you do that on a nation level.
0:26:37 > 0:26:40APPLAUSE The politicians are asking us to take austerity measures.
0:26:40 > 0:26:47Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians offered to take a cut
0:26:47 > 0:26:50themselves? The point from you and then we must go on. There is a
0:26:50 > 0:26:54criticism of Labour but we need to remember who is in Government.
0:26:54 > 0:26:57Labour have a five-point plan for jobs. When will we hear something
0:26:57 > 0:27:01if the Government on how they plan to create jobs in the country,
0:27:01 > 0:27:09because the private sector jobs we were promised to replace the public
0:27:09 > 0:27:13sector jobs being lost through cuts, are not materialising. And you
0:27:13 > 0:27:19there. I respect the passion that Caroline Lucas shows on this point,
0:27:19 > 0:27:23I want to ask the question, where she thinks the money would come
0:27:23 > 0:27:26from? Who would continue to lend to us in circumstances where they see
0:27:26 > 0:27:29spending out of control? They wouldn't see it out of control.
0:27:29 > 0:27:32What they would see is investment in jobs and through that money
0:27:32 > 0:27:35coming back into the economy. If you look at what Ireland has done
0:27:36 > 0:27:40after the last few years, they have cut and cut and the deficit is
0:27:40 > 0:27:43higher. It doesn't work. Last comment. On the pay cut for
0:27:43 > 0:27:46politicians, you may be interested to know that Gordon Brown cut the
0:27:46 > 0:27:50salary of the Prime Minister and he timed the cut so it came it only
0:27:50 > 0:27:58just before he lost the election LAUGHTER
0:27:58 > 0:28:04We must go onment another question. This from -- go on. Another
0:28:04 > 0:28:09question. This from Nigel Molding. With the 30th anniversary of the
0:28:09 > 0:28:18Falklands War looming, would this be the time to consider giving them
0:28:18 > 0:28:22back to Argentina? Germaine Greer? I've never quite understood the
0:28:22 > 0:28:32position of the Falklands, because as far as I understand it, we don't
0:28:32 > 0:28:34
0:28:34 > 0:28:36do as the French do and have constituencies over seas so they
0:28:36 > 0:28:41don't have Parliamentary existence at all and yet we somehow think
0:28:41 > 0:28:45that they belong to us. I don't quite get that. We know they don't
0:28:45 > 0:28:48want to belong to Argentina, as least as far as we can tell from
0:28:48 > 0:28:53the sort of information that we get. That is probably the thing we have
0:28:53 > 0:28:58to consider ultimately. They want to be a bit of Little Britain, so
0:28:58 > 0:29:03it's either give them representation and let them join
0:29:03 > 0:29:10the Great Britain in some form or another, or give them to Argentina.
0:29:11 > 0:29:14You mean in a colonial status like other places do? Like where?
0:29:14 > 0:29:19Gibraltar. Terrific. Along with - I'm not going through the whole
0:29:19 > 0:29:24list. Along with the apes of Gibraltar of which one is called
0:29:24 > 0:29:29Germane. I think we have to do something and either bring them
0:29:29 > 0:29:32into political existence or we have to let them become Argentinean, but
0:29:32 > 0:29:42it's something we immediate to talk about. We are sending Prince Harry,
0:29:42 > 0:29:51
0:29:51 > 0:29:54so it's going to be fine. Prince Charles Moore, the Argentinians are
0:29:54 > 0:30:00building the propaganda campaign as the 30th anniversary of the seizure
0:30:00 > 0:30:03of the Falklands happens, and the Ministry of Defence are saying
0:30:03 > 0:30:07there are contingency plans in place. Do you think we are building
0:30:07 > 0:30:12up to a crisis, and what do you make of the point that we should
0:30:12 > 0:30:18now get rid of Las Malvinas anyway? Jermaine said that we seem to think
0:30:18 > 0:30:22they belong to ask. We don't. They do belong to us. But the crucial
0:30:22 > 0:30:26point in this is what do the people of the Falkland Islands think. One
0:30:26 > 0:30:29of the extraordinary things about Argentina is that it has laid claim
0:30:29 > 0:30:33to this place for a long time and only about 10 Argentines have lived
0:30:33 > 0:30:37there in the whole of its history. The people who live on the Falkland
0:30:37 > 0:30:41Islands are overwhelmingly of British descent and overwhelmingly
0:30:41 > 0:30:44pro-British. They do not want to be part of Britain in the sense that
0:30:44 > 0:30:48Germaine Greer raises the question. They want to have the Falkland
0:30:48 > 0:30:53Islands as what it is, a British dependency. Why should that not be
0:30:53 > 0:30:56upheld? What reason was there before going back on that? Why I
0:30:56 > 0:30:59think there is a bit of a crisis, the difference between now and 30
0:30:59 > 0:31:06years ago is that we have 3000 service people down there because
0:31:06 > 0:31:11we learnt the lesson. So you would really have to be even more insane
0:31:11 > 0:31:15than the Argentine junta was 30 years ago to have a crack. This is
0:31:16 > 0:31:19a bit expensive, but have the luxury. If it is a luxury, it is a
0:31:19 > 0:31:24luxury that has been going on all this time. I think it is valuable
0:31:24 > 0:31:27for all of the training. I think if we have dependencies and the people
0:31:27 > 0:31:31there want to be part of us, then we have to defend that. We learnt
0:31:31 > 0:31:37that 30 years ago. We did it successfully but at terrible cost.
0:31:37 > 0:31:40We want to avoid that cost and go on defending them. Surely we should
0:31:40 > 0:31:47treat the Falklands the same way as Scotland and give the people the
0:31:47 > 0:31:52vote. They have the vote. They could vote. Let the people of the
0:31:52 > 0:31:56Falklands choose where they want to be. I think we know the answer.
0:31:56 > 0:32:01Isn't it much more about the fishing and mineral reserves that
0:32:01 > 0:32:07exist around the Falkland Islands? The Argentinian club, or our
0:32:07 > 0:32:10defence? Probably both. Caroline Lucas, where does the Green Party
0:32:10 > 0:32:14stand on this? I would support the observation that the reason this is
0:32:14 > 0:32:18back in the news is precisely because people are gearing up again
0:32:18 > 0:32:22around the mineral Resources, up for oil and gas in the seas around
0:32:22 > 0:32:25the area. I agree with the principle of people's right to
0:32:25 > 0:32:30self-determination. That is an important principle. Having said
0:32:30 > 0:32:34that, I think it is extremely strange that these islands so far
0:32:34 > 0:32:38away still feel they want to be part of Britain, that we are paying
0:32:38 > 0:32:41for 3000 service people to have a constant garrison there. I would
0:32:41 > 0:32:48love it if we could find a way of negotiating with the Argentinians
0:32:48 > 0:32:53so that we could... Ride roughshod over people's wishes? I said
0:32:53 > 0:32:57negotiate. You started by saying self-determination. Yes, that is
0:32:57 > 0:33:02the principle and that is where I stand. But I am also saying it
0:33:02 > 0:33:05would be nice in some -- if in the future some way could be found so
0:33:05 > 0:33:09that we do not have an anomalous situation, a throwback to ancient
0:33:09 > 0:33:14times where we think we own a bit of rock because at one point many
0:33:14 > 0:33:17years ago we put a flag there. spent six months in the Falkland
0:33:17 > 0:33:22Islands shortly after the war and I never met a single Falkland
0:33:22 > 0:33:27Islander that wanted to be under the control of Argentina. They were
0:33:27 > 0:33:31passionate about being of British descent, a dependency. They have a
0:33:31 > 0:33:35very different way of life than we can even imagine. It is not the
0:33:35 > 0:33:44most attractive island. And if they want to keep it, we should help
0:33:44 > 0:33:48them keep it. I think for those soldiers who died
0:33:48 > 0:33:55in that conflict, British soldiers, it would be a disgrace just to hand
0:33:55 > 0:33:57it back. Maybe we should frighten the
0:33:57 > 0:34:04Argentinians by sending an aircraft carrier out there. Let's just hope
0:34:04 > 0:34:07they have not found out we have not got any planes to go on them.
0:34:07 > 0:34:10think this is an issue of self- determination. I do not think you
0:34:10 > 0:34:13can qualify that, and clearly the people of the Falkland Islands want
0:34:13 > 0:34:17the current status to remain. As long as that is the wish of the
0:34:17 > 0:34:20people of the Falkland Islands we must make sure that continues. I
0:34:20 > 0:34:24agree with the gentleman in the audience, that people gave their
0:34:24 > 0:34:28lives in that war. I do not think there are options to be talking to
0:34:28 > 0:34:31the Argentinians about shared sovereignty. Those conversations
0:34:31 > 0:34:35happen before Falklands War. Argentina effectively made that an
0:34:35 > 0:34:38impossible option because of what they did 30 years ago. So long as
0:34:38 > 0:34:41the people of the Falkland Islands wished to remain British, they
0:34:41 > 0:34:51should do and we should be prepared to spend the money so they remain
0:34:51 > 0:34:54British. I completely agree with what Stephen has just said. I think
0:34:54 > 0:34:58I would probably slightly disagree with the question in the sense that
0:34:58 > 0:35:01it is not for us to give back the Falkland Islands, but it is for the
0:35:01 > 0:35:06people of the Falkland Islands to decide what they want to do. It is
0:35:06 > 0:35:08not ours to give back. What I find surprising and sad, Caroline, is
0:35:08 > 0:35:12that you find it strange that the people of the Falkland Islands
0:35:12 > 0:35:16would want to be a part of Britain which is thousands of miles away. I
0:35:16 > 0:35:20think we should be deeply humbled by that. I feel really proud that
0:35:20 > 0:35:23they want to be a part of us. Why would they want to be a part of
0:35:23 > 0:35:26Argentina? I think we should be deeply proud of the fact that there
0:35:26 > 0:35:30is this island and this group of people out there, many miles away
0:35:30 > 0:35:35from us, who want to be part of this great nation and wants to be
0:35:35 > 0:35:39part of our territories. If they want to be part of this nation in
0:35:39 > 0:35:44that way, how are their views represented in any governance
0:35:44 > 0:35:48structures, for example. It is an anomalous situation. But they want
0:35:48 > 0:35:51to be one of our dependent territories. They want to have the
0:35:51 > 0:35:57right to say and the right to choose to remain a part of the
0:35:57 > 0:36:01United Kingdom. Why should we question that? What does it mean to
0:36:01 > 0:36:04be part of the United Kingdom? does it mean when you are on the
0:36:04 > 0:36:07other side of the world, not part of any government structures? It
0:36:07 > 0:36:13means you get 3000 people there to defend you, but what does it
0:36:13 > 0:36:16actually mean in terms of the future of our country? The reason
0:36:16 > 0:36:18why you don't understand that, Caroline, is probably because I
0:36:18 > 0:36:21come from a background where despite the fact that where my
0:36:22 > 0:36:26parents originate from was a colony of the United Kingdom, they do not
0:36:26 > 0:36:30feel any hostility towards that. They felt, to England was coming to
0:36:30 > 0:36:35the motherland. Face felt a deep sense of affection, connection to
0:36:36 > 0:36:39the values of this great island. -- they felt. That is why I completely
0:36:39 > 0:36:45understand how the Falkland islanders move. I do not understand
0:36:45 > 0:36:52why you can't. Because I thought we might have moored beyond
0:36:53 > 0:36:56colonialism in the 21st century. -- moved beyond. It is wrong to couch
0:36:56 > 0:37:03this in terms of colonialism. The attempt at colonialism was by a
0:37:03 > 0:37:09fascist regime in Argentina 30 years ago, not by us. Do we have
0:37:09 > 0:37:14the military assets to send a task force, like 30 years ago? I think
0:37:14 > 0:37:17we would struggle now. We have no aircraft carrier, for starters.
0:37:17 > 0:37:21It might be interesting if we asked the people of the Falkland Islands
0:37:21 > 0:37:25if they wanted the right for some kind of governments about what goes
0:37:25 > 0:37:29on here, because I am not sure they would. They want to carry on being
0:37:29 > 0:37:32what they are. When you give people the right to governments, it
0:37:32 > 0:37:39implies that they want to have a bit of a say in what happens here.
0:37:39 > 0:37:42I am not sure about that. They govern themselves, effectively.
0:37:42 > 0:37:45could probably send the entire royal family in a taxpayer-funded
0:37:45 > 0:37:53new royal yacht, accompanied by Boris Johnson's flotilla, because
0:37:53 > 0:37:58we do not have a Royal Navy to do it. I was going to keep this
0:37:58 > 0:38:01question until the end, but since you have raised it, Jane Lloyd.
0:38:01 > 0:38:05Would private sponsorship of the new royal yacht devalue the brand
0:38:05 > 0:38:09of the monarchy? This is the proposal which it seems the Prime
0:38:09 > 0:38:14Minister is in favour of, to have a new royal yacht to mark the Jubilee,
0:38:14 > 0:38:19but not paid for by the taxpayer but paid for by who knows who?
0:38:19 > 0:38:23Would it devalue the royal yacht, the monarchy, rather, the brand of
0:38:23 > 0:38:28the monarchy, and his -- is it a good idea anyway? Germaine Greer,
0:38:28 > 0:38:33what do you think of royal yachts and how they should be paid for?
0:38:33 > 0:38:36Are you a Republican or a monarchist? I am a republican. If
0:38:36 > 0:38:41we are going to ask the Fulton does what they want, perhaps we ought to
0:38:41 > 0:38:51ask the Queen what she wants. I am sure she does not want a yacht
0:38:51 > 0:38:53
0:38:53 > 0:38:58courtesy of Marmite. I am wondering, actually, I wish that, listening to
0:38:58 > 0:39:02all of this, I am trying to imagine what look is on the Queen's face. I
0:39:02 > 0:39:06am wandering, at what point does she come out and say, look, my
0:39:06 > 0:39:16people are suffering, the last thing I need is another flaming
0:39:16 > 0:39:19
0:39:19 > 0:39:25What do you think? Labour backbencher Kate Hoey is in favour
0:39:25 > 0:39:28of this. Are you with her? Germaine Greer makes a good point, this is a
0:39:28 > 0:39:32time of austerity. Initially Michael Gove was proposing this
0:39:32 > 0:39:35would be publicly funded. Initially the proposal was for �60 million of
0:39:35 > 0:39:38public money. There is no way that could be justified. If people want
0:39:38 > 0:39:42to club together and raise money and the Queen wants it, that is
0:39:42 > 0:39:46fine, it becomes a private matter. But I think there are ways to
0:39:46 > 0:39:51celebrate the Queen's Jubilee without having his enormous
0:39:51 > 0:39:55expenditure in a time of austerity. It is too late anyway, miles too
0:39:55 > 0:39:59late. If Michael Gove wants to pay for it out of taxpayers' money, is
0:39:59 > 0:40:03he a suitable person to be in charge of children's education? If
0:40:03 > 0:40:08we are getting free schools from Barclays Bank, surely we should be
0:40:08 > 0:40:15spending taxpayers' money on schools.
0:40:15 > 0:40:20Would Fergie be in charge of marketing? I think the problem here
0:40:20 > 0:40:24comes down to the word "yacht". People think it is just the rich
0:40:24 > 0:40:27man's luxury, but the Royal Yacht Britannia, if you called at the
0:40:27 > 0:40:31Royal ship, or some other name, you would understand more clearly what
0:40:31 > 0:40:35it was. Although of course it was able to keep the royal family in
0:40:35 > 0:40:39comfort when they went on certain visits, it was already used a great
0:40:39 > 0:40:44deal to promote Britain in all sorts of ways, culturally, in trade,
0:40:44 > 0:40:48you could rent it for receptions and so on. And it was a very
0:40:48 > 0:40:53beautiful and elegant affair which stood very well for this country.
0:40:53 > 0:40:57And believe me, because I have seen it. I saw it in the handover in
0:40:57 > 0:41:01Hong Kong. When people came on to that yacht, they were really
0:41:01 > 0:41:05excited and honoured and had a good idea about Britain. And they
0:41:05 > 0:41:08associate it, rightly, with the Queen. I think the only time the
0:41:08 > 0:41:12Queen has been seen to cry in public was when the royal yacht was
0:41:12 > 0:41:15got rid of, because she did understand its romance and the way
0:41:15 > 0:41:19it symbolised something about a maritime nation, something the
0:41:19 > 0:41:23royal family is very close to. So I believe it is a good idea to have
0:41:23 > 0:41:26the royal yacht, but get rid of the word yacht if you like. I would be
0:41:26 > 0:41:30in favour, if it came to it, of spending public money. But if
0:41:30 > 0:41:33people are putting up private money, that is wonderful, because it is a
0:41:33 > 0:41:40celebration of a great event for a great woman and something which is
0:41:40 > 0:41:44great for Great Britain. I would be totally in favour of it. Surely,
0:41:44 > 0:41:53the amount of air miles that Prince Andrew has drummed up over the
0:41:53 > 0:42:00years would easily pay for it. late. Should we not just call it
0:42:00 > 0:42:10the German boat? Isn't it about time we went the
0:42:10 > 0:42:10
0:42:10 > 0:42:13whole way and had the whole lot of the monarchy privately-funded?
0:42:13 > 0:42:18just having that image and seeing the logo as they might have on
0:42:18 > 0:42:21their clothes! Fascinating. I do think the idea, when it was still
0:42:21 > 0:42:24the idea of it being publicly funded, was quite grotesque and
0:42:24 > 0:42:29suggested that Michael Gove spends an awful lot of time on another
0:42:29 > 0:42:32planet. Because the idea that that is a good way of spending �60
0:42:32 > 0:42:36million is very strange. In terms of it being privately funded, I go
0:42:36 > 0:42:41back to what the others have said and I would say, as anybody asked
0:42:41 > 0:42:44the Queen if she wants this? If she did not, it would be difficult to
0:42:44 > 0:42:47flog it on eBay the next day, like you might with socks from your
0:42:47 > 0:42:51Aunty Jane, because it would be difficult to move it again. So
0:42:51 > 0:42:55let's find out what she thinks would be a fitting tribute for her
0:42:55 > 0:42:59jubilee. Presumably she is capable of making it known if she does not
0:42:59 > 0:43:06want it. She sees the Prime Minister once a week. She could say,
0:43:06 > 0:43:10forget it. Let's hope she is able to say what she thinks. I am very
0:43:10 > 0:43:16much in favour of having a royal yacht and very uneasy that it
0:43:16 > 0:43:20should be purely through sponsorship and non public money.
0:43:20 > 0:43:24What about the chance for us, as a people, to show our appreciation of
0:43:24 > 0:43:28the Queen's 60 years? I thought Cameron was quite wrong to come out
0:43:28 > 0:43:32and immediately dismiss any public money because what about the
0:43:32 > 0:43:35Commonwealth? Why haven't they been consulted? She is not just Queen of
0:43:35 > 0:43:39the UK, she is head of the Commonwealth. I think it would have
0:43:39 > 0:43:42been courteous to ask them if they would also like to fund this
0:43:42 > 0:43:47wonderful project. I would like to see the boat and I am very uneasy
0:43:47 > 0:43:53about, as I think I read the other day, having names on the tops of
0:43:53 > 0:44:02cabins - this is the McDonald's cabin, the Virgin Atlantic cabin.
0:44:02 > 0:44:06How naff is that? Poor Queen. you are chairman of the
0:44:06 > 0:44:09Conservative Party, what on earth is going on? The Prime Minister
0:44:09 > 0:44:14says he is in favour and then does not want public money spent. What
0:44:14 > 0:44:24is the position? Give us what the Cabinet decided, which you sit and
0:44:24 > 0:44:25
0:44:25 > 0:44:29When Charles said that the word that is kind of got everyone
0:44:29 > 0:44:33excited is yacht and I think it's Michael Gove. What people don't
0:44:33 > 0:44:43realise is that this project which quaz initially called the
0:44:43 > 0:44:45
0:44:45 > 0:44:49university of the oceans what started in late 1999 when Brit Tana
0:44:49 > 0:44:53was decommissioned. A Rear Admiral had to decide what would replace it.
0:44:53 > 0:44:58Their idea was to have a ship that could be used as a learning tool
0:44:58 > 0:45:03and scientific endeavour, which could be used as a trade tool and
0:45:03 > 0:45:11used as a beacon to promote Britain and also used as a place for the
0:45:11 > 0:45:14Royal Family to use when they were on their travels. What about
0:45:14 > 0:45:17Michael Gove? The reason why this became a press story is because
0:45:17 > 0:45:20this particular letter was leaked to the guard guard and they
0:45:20 > 0:45:25therefore leaked it back to Michael Gove and he was the Cabinet
0:45:25 > 0:45:29minister and everyone pulled this all out. What she is trying to say
0:45:29 > 0:45:37is that it was leaked by a fellow Cabinet minister, Chris Huhne.
0:45:37 > 0:45:42never said that. Charles, don't you get me into trouble. Who was trying
0:45:42 > 0:45:51to make a point. The Lib Dems are against this. Are the Conservatives
0:45:51 > 0:45:55in favour? As chairman of the party, I - you talked about the
0:45:55 > 0:45:58Commonwealth. The first private donation has been pledged from
0:45:58 > 0:46:03Canada, apparently 10 million, so therefore we have 10 million there
0:46:03 > 0:46:07already. I think this, funded by private donations, not in the tacky
0:46:07 > 0:46:11way, but actually funded by generous private donations, which
0:46:11 > 0:46:14will be a great advert. We talk about increasing Britishness and
0:46:14 > 0:46:18selling more and growing as a economy. We are not going to sell
0:46:18 > 0:46:22to the US and the EU. We are going to be selling around the
0:46:22 > 0:46:25Commonwealth and selling to places around the world like India, like
0:46:25 > 0:46:30Pakistan, like the African nations, like Brazil and a ship like this,
0:46:30 > 0:46:36which can be a great example of how Great Britain can be, would be a
0:46:36 > 0:46:40great asset for us to help grow economically as well. Before we go
0:46:40 > 0:46:43on, can you clarify one point - are you saying no taxpayers' money will
0:46:43 > 0:46:47be spent on this at in time? Is that the Prime Minister's point,
0:46:47 > 0:46:52that it has to be private? Prime Minister's point is it should
0:46:53 > 0:46:57be funded privately. We need 80 million for the ship to be ready to
0:46:57 > 0:47:02go. If you can't get the money privately it wouldn't happen?
0:47:02 > 0:47:06It has to be funded privately. We can't say we are making difficult
0:47:06 > 0:47:11decisions in relation to welfare, education and other areas, but then
0:47:11 > 0:47:19say that we think this is a good amount of money to be spent for a
0:47:19 > 0:47:23ship. I'll take one more point. wonder about the focus on the
0:47:23 > 0:47:26monarchy from the Government in a week of cuts and austerity. Is it a
0:47:26 > 0:47:30way to promote national pride or does it mean anything?
0:47:30 > 0:47:36Government didn't focus on it. The Government didn't wake up one day
0:47:36 > 0:47:39and make an announcement it was a letter that was apparently leaked.
0:47:39 > 0:47:44It was leaked to The Guardian apparently and they ran the story.
0:47:44 > 0:47:48This is actually - if anybody is to blame for bringing this up, when
0:47:48 > 0:47:52there are more important issues, speak to The Guardian. It's Chris
0:47:52 > 0:47:56Huhne LAUGHTER
0:47:56 > 0:48:03Another question from Jonathan highfield. Does London need another
0:48:03 > 0:48:06airport? This again one of these things that has suddenly re-emerged
0:48:06 > 0:48:13as an issue with the Conservatives saying they'll look at it, having
0:48:13 > 0:48:20been the party that was vote blue, go green. Germaine Greer, does
0:48:21 > 0:48:23London need another airport and looking at the estuary? Well, it
0:48:23 > 0:48:28depends how you feel about air travel in general, whether you
0:48:28 > 0:48:32think that London needs another airport. We do understand that the
0:48:32 > 0:48:37Earth needs us to stop flying about for a while, at least until we have
0:48:37 > 0:48:40less devastating ways of doing it. We have to reduce our carbon
0:48:40 > 0:48:45footprint. Building more airports is not the way. The thing that
0:48:45 > 0:48:50bothers me is we have been talking about the second runway at shairp,
0:48:50 > 0:48:55which - because it's only half an airport -- Stansted Airport, which
0:48:55 > 0:48:59- because it's only half an airport, so it seems odd to run a second
0:48:59 > 0:49:08runway and let it turn into a proper airport, instead of a
0:49:08 > 0:49:12holiday bus station. The idea of putting it in the estuary is so
0:49:12 > 0:49:21unbelievably crazy. I don't understand why nobody has pointed
0:49:21 > 0:49:26out that the estuary is a Ramsar site. Those are the wetlands that
0:49:26 > 0:49:29are globally important and if we are going to just ignore an
0:49:29 > 0:49:33international convention, which is to do with conservation, then we
0:49:33 > 0:49:38can't really stop everybody else doing the same thing. We are very
0:49:38 > 0:49:43good at hypocrisy. It is suddenly inconvenient that we signed the
0:49:43 > 0:49:49convention. It also happens to be an EU special protection area under
0:49:49 > 0:49:52the bird directive. Apparently what is going on in Europe is people are
0:49:52 > 0:49:56getting impatient with the directives under the special
0:49:56 > 0:50:03protection areas and there is a general move to just knock them
0:50:03 > 0:50:12down and get rid of them. Ramsar? That is the town where the
0:50:12 > 0:50:15convention was signed. Ignorance on my part. It's not your fault at all,
0:50:15 > 0:50:20because people discussing the estuary proposal haven't even
0:50:20 > 0:50:24mentioned the fact that it is in fact an area of very special
0:50:25 > 0:50:30scientific interest. It is quite extraordinary. The poor old RSPCA
0:50:30 > 0:50:34owns most of the land and they were tudly asked yesterday what they
0:50:34 > 0:50:39thought and -- suddenly asked yesterday what they thought and
0:50:39 > 0:50:44they said, "You might get bird strike." You probably will. It
0:50:44 > 0:50:54looks as if these conventions have no legal clout. That is shocking,
0:50:54 > 0:50:55
0:50:55 > 0:50:59isn't it? All right. Stephen Twigg, Labour wanted a third runway at
0:50:59 > 0:51:03Heathrow Airport. Do you still want that? No, we don't. We have
0:51:03 > 0:51:09accepted that's off the agenda. These are the sorts of issues which
0:51:09 > 0:51:13are by their nature, long term and ideally taken forward on a cross-
0:51:13 > 0:51:19party basis. You reminded us about the vote blue, go green and this is
0:51:19 > 0:51:22a lot more to do with the may -- mayoral election in May. Before the
0:51:22 > 0:51:26election the Tories were thinking about Kent, but now they are
0:51:26 > 0:51:32thinking about what is best for Boris. There are a lot of
0:51:32 > 0:51:36objections, including the ones set out. We have got to have a balanced
0:51:36 > 0:51:39debate, because on the one hand, aviation does cause serious issues
0:51:39 > 0:51:43around the environment and climate change. On the other hand, our
0:51:43 > 0:51:47economic future and how we relate to other countries within Europe,
0:51:47 > 0:51:54partly depends on the capacity on aviation. I don't think you can
0:51:54 > 0:51:59entirely rule out expanding aviation, but you've got to do it
0:51:59 > 0:52:07in an evidence-based way. It's not easy and best done on a cross-party
0:52:07 > 0:52:15basis. I don't think the idea will take off, if you excuse the pun.
0:52:15 > 0:52:18Not just because of the wild fowl in the area, but the head of
0:52:18 > 0:52:23Ryanair said it was bonkers and the head of British Airways said it
0:52:23 > 0:52:27would kill Heathrow Airport. I don't know who looks worse, Boris
0:52:27 > 0:52:32Johnson or the Tory Party for allowing him to be this insane.
0:52:32 > 0:52:38he always looks like that. Baroness Warsi. I agree with Stephen, when
0:52:38 > 0:52:41he said we have to draw the balance and have a grown-up debate. The
0:52:42 > 0:52:46reason why the third runway, why we were against it and we will not
0:52:46 > 0:52:50build it, is because we felt that the environmental impact of it was
0:52:50 > 0:52:54too great. We also have to remember and again this comes back to what
0:52:54 > 0:52:59people talk about jobs and trade, my husband regularly flies to China
0:52:59 > 0:53:05for work and he has to fly to Paris and then to China, because the
0:53:05 > 0:53:10number of flights to China from the UK are 1,000 less a year from
0:53:10 > 0:53:14somewhere like Paris. I don't want Paris. I don't want France to be
0:53:14 > 0:53:18the hub of the economic driver for the EU. I want London to maintain
0:53:18 > 0:53:24and grow the status as a hub for flights coming in and out of Europe
0:53:24 > 0:53:27and where business will come in and out. What is your proposal? That we
0:53:27 > 0:53:32have - the Government is saying it will look at all options, including
0:53:32 > 0:53:35the one that Boris has spoken of. We'll send it out for consultation,
0:53:35 > 0:53:40but some serious discussions, cross-party discussions, have to
0:53:40 > 0:53:44take place, because I don't think anybody in this country wants us to
0:53:44 > 0:53:47be a republic which is left behind and nobody wants to trade with us.
0:53:47 > 0:53:52You are not against the estuary proposal that Boris put forward?
0:53:52 > 0:53:57I'm not for or against it. I'm open for a serious debate on aviation. I
0:53:57 > 0:54:01think we get side tracked by this project or that. What we need to
0:54:01 > 0:54:05have is a grown-up discussion about does Britain want to have a future
0:54:05 > 0:54:09as a serious economic player and if it does, it's going to have to let
0:54:09 > 0:54:14planes come in or out, because we can't live an isolated life and
0:54:14 > 0:54:21expect to grow. Surely if we need another one wouldn't it make more
0:54:21 > 0:54:31sense to build it at Birmingham and we would have some point for the
0:54:31 > 0:54:33
0:54:33 > 0:54:39wretched HST? Caroline Lucas? A serious debate. You know the
0:54:39 > 0:54:47statistics, 140 million passengers a year in 2010, 400 million in 2050,
0:54:47 > 0:54:52according to the GLA report. need to be clear, the same pressure
0:54:52 > 0:54:58being brought to bear by people saying there will be a hub
0:54:58 > 0:55:03elsewhere in Europe. The aviation industry is desperate to grow. I
0:55:03 > 0:55:06want to have a grown-up debate and the debate would start from the
0:55:06 > 0:55:10point of view that climate change is the greatest threat that we face
0:55:10 > 0:55:15right now. It's running far ahead of our ability to control it and if
0:55:15 > 0:55:20we were to sit back and say let's let aviation expand as much as we
0:55:20 > 0:55:25like, we'll not meet any of our climate change targets and it won't
0:55:25 > 0:55:28be a question of whether or not this is a country will grow, but
0:55:28 > 0:55:32whether we have a liveable planet. Also, the economic debate. No-one
0:55:32 > 0:55:37has mentioned yet this evening that aviation is actually subsidised in
0:55:37 > 0:55:41this country to be tune of �10 billion every single year. Because
0:55:41 > 0:55:45aviation doesn't pay tax on its fuel. It doesn't pay VAT on tickets.
0:55:45 > 0:55:50If you were to make aviation pay its way, it wouldn't necessarily
0:55:50 > 0:55:54look like this goose that laze golden eggs, but an expensive way
0:55:54 > 0:56:02of investing money. Baroness Warsi's point of businessmen going
0:56:02 > 0:56:07to China via pass ris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of
0:56:08 > 0:56:13the -- Paris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of the
0:56:13 > 0:56:19world like Paris. We have the biggest hub of any country in the
0:56:19 > 0:56:24EU with Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport. In that same debate -
0:56:24 > 0:56:30are nearly at the end, so Charles Moore. Why did Britain become a
0:56:30 > 0:56:33great civilisation? A lot was to do with being sea-borne and river-
0:56:33 > 0:56:38borne and London was the capital because of access to the sea and it
0:56:38 > 0:56:42was important that people were able to come freely up and down and
0:56:42 > 0:56:46trade. The modern equivalent of that is the airport. By the same
0:56:46 > 0:56:51token, that's why Heathrow Airport is bursting at the seams. We
0:56:51 > 0:56:55decided to build the airport in a very populated place, so that 25%
0:56:55 > 0:57:00of all the air noise sufferers in the the whole of Europe are the
0:57:00 > 0:57:04people around Heathrow Airport. But it is terribly important to
0:57:04 > 0:57:08maintain that civilisational and economic and cultural advantage of
0:57:08 > 0:57:12being this great centre. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense to
0:57:12 > 0:57:15look at an airport which is near London, but does not intrude over
0:57:15 > 0:57:19one million people, which is the problem with Heathrow Airport. I
0:57:19 > 0:57:25think it's quite a visionary scheme. Clearly, there are difficulty, but
0:57:25 > 0:57:29everybody says, oh, well, yes, maybe or let's think about it. In
0:57:30 > 0:57:34the ten years since the cancellation of the third runway
0:57:34 > 0:57:37China planned 52 new airports. All the time they are rushing ahead and
0:57:37 > 0:57:45we are just sitting around going on about it. It's a visionary idea and
0:57:45 > 0:57:50we should look at it fast. An end, because our time's up. That's it
0:57:50 > 0:57:54for this week. Our hour is over. We are going to be in Plymouth next
0:57:54 > 0:57:58week and the week after that we'll be in Southport, so if you would
0:57:58 > 0:58:08like to come to the programme in Plymouth or Southport, I'm sure you
0:58:08 > 0:58:09
0:58:09 > 0:58:18know what to do. My thanks to all of you on the panel and thank you
0:58:18 > 0:58:22to everyone who came. I will never get it right with the pronouncation.