19/01/2012 Question Time

Tonight we are in Shrewsbury. Welcome to Question Time.

With me on the panel in Shrewsbury, from the Cabinet, the Conservative

Party co-chairman Sayeeda Warsi. The man who famously defeated

Portillo in 97 and is now a Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg.

Green MP and leader of her party, Caroline Lucas. Author and critic

Germaine Greer and the columnist who has edited the Spectator, the

Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore.

Stephen Twigg. I slightly mispronounced your name. And on

that happy note, our first question from Roger Fildes. Should taking

away Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood be the first step towards ethical

capitalism. Sir Fred Goodwin, who was knighted by Tony Blair in 2004,

I think. Stephen Twigg. Yes, he should lose his knighthood. There

is a wide public consensus and it would be a symbolic move. But we

need to do far more than that to deal with the very real crisis that

Ed Miliband and others have been speaking about in recent weeks,

where we see the scandal of the gap between the highest paid and the

average paid in our financial institutions getting to the level

that we have got to do something serious about this. It is

interesting, David, that when Ed Miliband spoke about this at the

Labour Party conference last year, he was derided by Conservatives and

media commentators. Now we see David Cameron and Nick Clegg

jumping on the bandwagon. Better late than never, because we have to

deal with this crisis. It strikes at the heart of the kind of society

we are, the kind of economy that we are for the future. We are living

through very difficult times with austerity, and it is vital that we

have fairness in the solutions. what grounds would you take away

the man's knighthood? Because of the scandal of what happened with

RBS and the amount of taxpayers' money that had to be used to bail

out this bank. I regret the fact that we gave him that honour. It

was the Labour government that did that. Let's have a cross-party,

cross-community consensus to take this knighthood from him. Do you

agree? I do, and the forfeiture committee does have the right to

forfeit an honour which was, especially if it was given for a

specific purpose. In this case, the Labour Government gave him a

knighthood for services to banking, and clearly that was the reason why

he should not have been given a knighthood. So there is a specific

condition which the forfeiture committee can look back. What Fred

Goodwin represented, and this is why people have so much anger

towards him as an individual, is because it showed an endemic and

rooted problem where over a period of time the link between hard work

and reward had been broken. And the link between success and reward had

been broken. We ended up with a culture, and banking was the worst

form, where a bank would fail but the executives would get huge

bonuses, where even if you look in other parts of society where people

who went out to work could not afford to live in houses equivalent

to those people who did not work and were may be on housing benefit.

That is the kind of culture we need to tackle. How do you do that?

First of all in relation to banking. You make sure banking is never

again put in a position where it cannot afford to fail. So would you,

as a first step, prevent Stephen Hester, the present RBS boss,

getting his bonus this year? Last year, we negotiated that nobody

should get more than 2000 cash bonus by effectively a state-owned

bank. According to the Financial Times, he is still going to get a

�1.3 million bonus in a bank that is largely owned by all of us. Are

you in favour of that? No. It is right for the Government to say,

where you have been bailed out, where taxpayers have had to bail

you out because of the risks he took, it is unacceptable for you to

be getting millions in bonuses when everybody else is having to pay the

price of you getting that. It is reported that the board of RBS is

reported as saying that they are unequivocal and unanimous that the

Chancellor of the Exchequer does not set a bonus for the chief

executive of RBS. In other words, you can go hang. Let's see what

happens. You think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position

to say no? The Chancellor is in no position to say, because he manages

the finances, the tax that people around the country pay, to say it

is not acceptable, like we did last year, for people to be given

bonuses in excess of �2,000 cash. The question to start with was

whether he should have his knighthood taken away from him.

That makes me wonder what is the point of the honours system? Really,

what is the point of it? I think the question is slightly

wider than this because payee is set for boardrooms by remuneration

committees. -- pay is set. Remuneration committees are made up

of non-executives who go around supporting each other on the

remuneration committees. Until you sort out governance on that, we

will always have this problem. woman at the back. The scary thing

about bonuses of �1.3 million is not so much the argument between

work and reward, although I cannot see the connection, but it is what

is the value of �1.3 million? People paid this amount of money

have lost sight of what that means. In Shropshire we went through a

devastating period of looking at closing schools, some of which,

some fantastic schools, have closed, for a deficit in the county of

approximately �1 million. And you are talking about one person being

given a bonus, not a salary, but a bonus of more than the amount that

caused the closure of valuable schools in Shropshire. It is just

ridiculous. Charles Moore, do you share that view? Yes, but first of

all, we should be fair to Mr Hester. He was brought in to sort this out.

He has not been bailed out for his mistakes. He has been brought in to

set this bright. I think it is absolutely fair that if he does set

it right, he should get a reward. But the reward should come when

that has happened. What we are dealing with, effectively, with RBS

is a nationalised industry, 83% owned by the state. In those

circumstances I do think it is wrong for him to get that money.

Because this is something that we, the taxpayer, have had to take on

board. We have at least potentially lost an absolutely enormous sum of

money on it. And I do not really understand why Mr Hester should not

be treated like any other reasonably highly paid successful,

capable executive. What is still in the minds of these bankers is that

somehow this has not really happened. Therefore, they will keep

on saying, we have to pay very well to get the right people. But they

are, as it were, wearing a dunce's cap in the corner of the room, and

they do not seem to recognise that. I have no objection to people

making large sums of money, if they have taken the risk and the risk

has succeeded. What is scandalous and against the principles of free

markets is that people who took enormous risks, made a lot of money

in the good times, and then when all of their risks went wrong, we

have to go on giving them a lot of money in the bad times, and we have

to back the risk. I interviewed Mervyn King last year and he said,

a very good sentence, he said, there is no place in a market

economy for the concept of too big to fail. And that is what we are

really suffering from right now. you wrote recently that you were

starting to think that the Left might actually be correct about

capitalism, and that the system is reporting to advance the many and

his perverted to enrich the few. Briefly, is that still your view?

Yes. I believe very strongly in a free-market and the creation of

wealth in a free country. That all goes wrong if capitalism is grabbed

for themselves by the capitalists. It is for everybody. And the moment

it starts being grabbed, then we are losing, the whole point of it

has gone. We have heard a lot about fair capitalism and for

understandable reasons there has been a lot of focus on the banking

industry, but what about the supermarket industry? There is a

report out today which says that the big four are not paying all

staff the UK living wage. Does something need to be done about

that? I think it is important to understand what bankers are paid

for. There was fuss about not enough regulation of the banks, and

people seem to think if we brought in more regulation the banks might

behave better. They actually, it seems to me, misunderstand what

people get paid for in banks. They get paid for finding ways around

the regulation. The attitude towards the regulation is not one

of responsibility. That is one of, this is something we are going to

find a way around. We have always had knights errant, even at the

round table there were treacherous nights. I think it is quite

important that you realise what a knighthood really is. If you looked

at the list of people who have been knighted over my lifetime, about a

third of them were rogues and vagabonds. And we might just as

well know that, instead of imagining that it really is a kind

of kite mark of excellence. It is not. It is a kite mark of cronyism,

Caroline Lucas, the question was, would taking away Fred Goodwin's

knighthood be the first step towards ethical capitalism. I agree

that the knighthood should be taken away from him. It would be an

important symbolic act, but we must not let offering him as a

sacrificial lamb let people off thinking that is all we need to do,

as others have said. I think what we need to do is to have a far more

radical look at our economy and what it is there to do. We have

talked about RBS. That is a bank that we own. This �1.3 million is

our money that is going to the chief executive of that bank. That

is simply wrong. If we genuinely owned the bank, we should take

control of it, break it up and make it into a proper People's Bank. We

should make sure that money goes to the small businesses that are

crying out for proper loans so they can get going again. I think we

should have a whole raft of policies like the kind of proposals

that were in the High Pay Commission. We need to be looking

at the grotesque profits that get paid. The supermarkets were

mentioned a moment ago. The supermarkets are the largest

employers after the NHS. Their bosses are getting in the region of

�3 million at the same time as they are not paying their own workers

even a decent living wage. That means those workers are having to

basically get tax credits. That means the taxpayer is essentially

propping up and subsidising the chief executives who are getting

these big payouts. We need a complete overhaul of our economies.

We need to start by who controlled the banks. We need to break them up

into smaller areas. We need to look at the because report and separate

retail banking from Casino banking. Fred Goodwin's knighthood is just

the start. We will stick with the issue of the economy for a moment

for another question. If you are The question from Nicola Blakeway.

How can the Labour Party call themselves the opposition when they

are not opposed to the Government's economic policies? We know this

week they have been falling over themselves to say it is not quite

clear what about Labour's cups. Nobody seems to quite follow it.

Stephen Twigg. We are opposed to the Government's economic policy

and we have said consistently since his Government was formed that they

are cutting too far, too fast, and the evidence is bearing up what Ed

Balls and Ed Miliband have been saying. But we are going to have to

keep the cuts, Ed Balls says. has talked about two things and we

reaffirm that we disagree with the Government's economic policy. It is

self-defeating because we are seeing borrowing rising despite the

cuts. But if we were to win the next election in 2015, of course we

would have to make a hard-headed assessment of what we would do. If

we were in power now, Caroline, we would not do the same thing, we

would not be cutting as they are cutting. We have set out our own

plan for jobs and growth. We talked about bankers, we would have kept

the banker's bonus tax that the Conservative Party got rid of that

raised �3.5 billion. That money could then have been used so we

would not have the rising unemployment we are facing. When

Labour left power in 2010, unemployment was falling and we had

economic growth. As a consequence of the scale and speed of the cuts

in the public sector, we see stagnant growth in this country,

rising unemployment and Government borrowing going up. It is not

working, it is hurting, we need a change of course. Do you agree with

Ed Balls, saying that all of Gordon Brown's talk about no more boom and

bust was a mistake and he should never have said it? Of course it

was a mistake. The Government cannot say we will abolish the

economic cycle. He said it year after year and nobody stopped him.

It was a mistake. One Government in one country cannot abolish the

economic cycle. As Chancellor, he achieved some good things but that

Baroness Warsi. I suppose they are in opposition in that sense.

Stephen, you are usually quite a reasonable part of the Labour Party,

and I'm therefore sad to hear you say this. What Ed Balls is

effectively saying is we will oppose any difficult decision that

you put forward, but not ever take the decision of reversing that

because we don't believe in what we are saying when we oppose, so it's

the worst form of politics. The whole point of this coalition

Government, when two parties came together to form the Government,

was because we heard what the public said, which is why can't you

guys just put your differences aside and deal with things in the

national interest? Things out there are too tough for you to be playing

party politics. Two came to do that, whether you agree or not with the

decisions, they are difficult ones that are taken in the national

interest. What saddens me is here was a great opportunity for Labour

to say, "Look, we were part of creating this mess and we were

responsible and we'll play our part." They play the worst form of

politics. What makes you think they are saying that on reversing the

cuts. Or the spending cuts and tough if you don't like it, said Ed

Miliband. I would like them to say we will stop opposing you and

holding up legislation, because ultimately they would be doing what

we are doing. Actually, they haven't got the guts to admit it.

It's weak. Would it be good if they stopped opposing you? No, it

wouldn't. The chairman of the Conservative Party says,

"Opposition, stop opposing us." would like them to be a good

opposition. The public at large do not want us to oppose for the sake.

The public at large don't want us to play politics, but sort the mess

out. We should work together to sort that mess out, especially when

you created most of it. How do you read Labour in this?, do you think

they are not opposing plorm? They are absolutely not opposing --

opposing properly? They are absolutely not opposing plorply.

Two Tories parties is -- properly. Two Tory parties is enough. I think

people who voted Labour would expect them to be opposing the cuts

and to say not only are they socially devastating, but also

economically illiterate, so you don't do it through more and more

austerity. I find it so depressing that the notion of economic

credibility has now been defined entirely as meaning more and more

austerity and there's now some kind of contest going on to see who can

cut in the most sharp and strong way, when what we should do is

invest in jobs and getting people back to work. That is where the

real crisis is. I think there is the false dichotomy that Ed Balls

is saying we have to have pay restraint otherwise there's not

going to be enough money to create more jobs. I would love there to

have pay restraints on huge amounts that the executives are earning.

Not on low-paid workers. You don't create other jobs in the economy.

If we are serious about having a genuine opposition, then what I

think they should do is calling for the roll-out of the living wage and

calling for proper taxation in terms of cracking down on tax

evasion, and cancelling Trident. There a whole range of things,

including quantitative easing and putting that money directly into

the economy into jobs, not cutting our throats by more and more

cutting on the poorest people. only it was that easy. Of course we

need to do more on tax evasion and avoidance. Ed Balls has been very,

very clear. He said that if there is to be pay restraint the higher

paid in the public sector should bear a bigger part of that pain.

He's rin to George Osborne to say that. On the -- written to George

Osborne to say that. On the immediate challenges, the

Government is borrowing for austerity. We think it should be to

create jobs and foster growth. It's a fundamental difference between us

and the Conservatives. The two criticisms can't both be true,

because you are completely opposite. If we were in power now we would

not cut in the way that the Government is cutting. We can't say

now what we would do in 2015, because we don't know what the

position would be. That's common sense. What I find surprising is

both of you are saying we should be spending more. We are in a debt

crisis. We are borrowing more because of you. How can you solve a

debt crisis by borrowing more? How do you deal with the credit card

debts by going out and getting more debts? It absolutely falls in the

wrong place. It means borrowing is going up. It's not strue, Stephen.

Germane -- it's not true. I wasn't listening to that last bit for this

reason - which is when a party loses it has a huge crisis and it

has a sort of nervous breakdown and consider the past record, which is

very unpopular. That happened to the Tories and now it is happening

to Labour. There is a period when nobody in the public is interested

in them and nobody believes what they say. In particular, the polls

that they are looking at say they've got no ecredibility on the

economy and that is -- got no credibility on the economy and that

is not surprising. I don't criticise Labour. I just think that

that's what they are trying to sort out. It's very difficult. I feel

sorry for them and I think we should pay no attention to them for

quite a long time. APPLAUSE

I just ram home that point by quoting Clement atly, when he had a

rebel Cabinet minister whom he was fed up with and he said, "A period

This is BBC News. The headlines: of silence from you for a long time

would be very welcome." The trade Jude Law and other victims of the

phone hacking scandal are paid unions are having a whale of a time.

hundreds of thousands of pounds by Do you think Ed Miliband has

News International. deliberately set out to irritate

Figures reveal a big jump in the them in order to reposition Labour?

numbers of robberies. No, I think he's worried about the

An investigation has begun into the polls and he rushed into this and

deaths of two babies in a Belfast got frightened and he has had to

hospital. Then maybe to a links to an infectious disease.

pull back. How can Labour have any Two explosions have gone off in

Londonderry. There are no reports of injuries.

legitimacy when they have 13 years A crushing defeats for England in

on the control of the banks wrong cricket. A 10 wickets last against

and sold off all our gold. Mr Twig said if Labour get into power of --

in 20 15, well he will never get into power. The trade unions will

hold them to account for it. What words in particular are you

thinking of? Exactly what the question is about, saying are they

in opposition or not? The words today, this week that came from Mr

Miliband could have come from anyone in the Government. Then

Unite talking about the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You

look proud. No, I'm not. These are difficult issues. The reasons he

included me was that I made comments last week about the scale

of the Government's cuts to education. And how we could make

savings in school buildings, but without the scale of the cuts that

the Government is making. There is a very big difference between the

two. I think we didn't always get value for money, but it doesn't

mean I support cancelling the whole programme. Are you surprised to

have the trade unions as your enemy? I don't think they are.

That's what he was saying. doesn't think he is our enemy.

There is a long, long history of disagreements between trade union

leaders and the Labour Party leaders. It goes back decades as

I'm sure you will be aware. The unions have to stand up for their

members, but Ed has to stand up for the entire country. Houp of your

money comes from the trade -- how much of your money comes from the

trade unions? About half. Some say a great deal more. Germaine Greer?

The oddest thing is the timing. Why did he make it? If politics is the

art of the possible, he just destroyed it by doing something

extremely unwise. I couldn't see what the cue was for that statement

at the time. I have to think, being a Lib Dem myself, that the

opposition is probably in bed with the Prime Minister. That happens in

many marriages and the person who is fighting the Prime Minister is

Nick Clegg, in a rear-guard action, trying to hang on to rags of Lib

Dem policy and trying to insert imagination. This image is

terrible! LAUGHTER

It's a very common image when the coalition first began. We don't

understand coalition politics, so we talk about who is winning, when

the whole point of a coalition is it's an on-going negotiation. I

think that is something that English people have to learn to

understand, because it probably is the government of the future.

hugely important and it goes to the heart of why we are in such a mess,

because Baroness Warsi said we have a big deficit and we need to stop

spending. If you were a household you have to stop spending. If a

whole country starts to do that and the country stops spending that

means there is no way we are ever going to get out, because you throw

people out of work and you lose the money into the revenue and it means

you are paying for benefits. The way to get out is through

investment. Which country in Europe, or in the world has adopted the

policy you are describing? Why is it that the whole of Europe is

doing what this Government is doing? They are not doing what they

are suggesting. The United States is doing more than we are. Standard

& Poor's are saying that the reason the nine countries have been

downgraded because they have been pursuing an austerity agenda that

doesn't work. Think of this like a mortgage, if you do it that way you

pay bits off over a much longer period, rather than thinking of it

as a household budget that you have to cut down immediately, because it

doesn't work when you do that on a nation level.

APPLAUSE The politicians are asking us to take austerity measures.

Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians offered to take a cut

themselves? The point from you and then we must go on. There is a

criticism of Labour but we need to remember who is in Government.

Labour have a five-point plan for jobs. When will we hear something

if the Government on how they plan to create jobs in the country,

because the private sector jobs we were promised to replace the public

sector jobs being lost through cuts, are not materialising. And you

there. I respect the passion that Caroline Lucas shows on this point,

I want to ask the question, where she thinks the money would come

from? Who would continue to lend to us in circumstances where they see

spending out of control? They wouldn't see it out of control.

What they would see is investment in jobs and through that money

coming back into the economy. If you look at what Ireland has done

after the last few years, they have cut and cut and the deficit is

higher. It doesn't work. Last comment. On the pay cut for

politicians, you may be interested to know that Gordon Brown cut the

salary of the Prime Minister and he timed the cut so it came it only

just before he lost the election LAUGHTER

We must go onment another question. This from -- go on. Another

question. This from Nigel Molding. With the 30th anniversary of the

Falklands War looming, would this be the time to consider giving them

back to Argentina? Germaine Greer? I've never quite understood the

position of the Falklands, because as far as I understand it, we don't

do as the French do and have constituencies over seas so they

don't have Parliamentary existence at all and yet we somehow think

that they belong to us. I don't quite get that. We know they don't

want to belong to Argentina, as least as far as we can tell from

the sort of information that we get. That is probably the thing we have

to consider ultimately. They want to be a bit of Little Britain, so

it's either give them representation and let them join

the Great Britain in some form or another, or give them to Argentina.

You mean in a colonial status like other places do? Like where?

Gibraltar. Terrific. Along with - I'm not going through the whole

list. Along with the apes of Gibraltar of which one is called

Germane. I think we have to do something and either bring them

into political existence or we have to let them become Argentinean, but

it's something we immediate to talk about. We are sending Prince Harry,

so it's going to be fine. Prince Charles Moore, the Argentinians are

building the propaganda campaign as the 30th anniversary of the seizure

of the Falklands happens, and the Ministry of Defence are saying

there are contingency plans in place. Do you think we are building

up to a crisis, and what do you make of the point that we should

now get rid of Las Malvinas anyway? Jermaine said that we seem to think

they belong to ask. We don't. They do belong to us. But the crucial

point in this is what do the people of the Falkland Islands think. One

of the extraordinary things about Argentina is that it has laid claim

to this place for a long time and only about 10 Argentines have lived

there in the whole of its history. The people who live on the Falkland

Islands are overwhelmingly of British descent and overwhelmingly

pro-British. They do not want to be part of Britain in the sense that

Germaine Greer raises the question. They want to have the Falkland

Islands as what it is, a British dependency. Why should that not be

upheld? What reason was there before going back on that? Why I

think there is a bit of a crisis, the difference between now and 30

years ago is that we have 3000 service people down there because

we learnt the lesson. So you would really have to be even more insane

than the Argentine junta was 30 years ago to have a crack. This is

a bit expensive, but have the luxury. If it is a luxury, it is a

luxury that has been going on all this time. I think it is valuable

for all of the training. I think if we have dependencies and the people

there want to be part of us, then we have to defend that. We learnt

that 30 years ago. We did it successfully but at terrible cost.

We want to avoid that cost and go on defending them. Surely we should

treat the Falklands the same way as Scotland and give the people the

vote. They have the vote. They could vote. Let the people of the

Falklands choose where they want to be. I think we know the answer.

Isn't it much more about the fishing and mineral reserves that

exist around the Falkland Islands? The Argentinian club, or our

defence? Probably both. Caroline Lucas, where does the Green Party

stand on this? I would support the observation that the reason this is

back in the news is precisely because people are gearing up again

around the mineral Resources, up for oil and gas in the seas around

the area. I agree with the principle of people's right to

self-determination. That is an important principle. Having said

that, I think it is extremely strange that these islands so far

away still feel they want to be part of Britain, that we are paying

for 3000 service people to have a constant garrison there. I would

love it if we could find a way of negotiating with the Argentinians

so that we could... Ride roughshod over people's wishes? I said

negotiate. You started by saying self-determination. Yes, that is

the principle and that is where I stand. But I am also saying it

would be nice in some -- if in the future some way could be found so

that we do not have an anomalous situation, a throwback to ancient

times where we think we own a bit of rock because at one point many

years ago we put a flag there. spent six months in the Falkland

Islands shortly after the war and I never met a single Falkland

Islander that wanted to be under the control of Argentina. They were

passionate about being of British descent, a dependency. They have a

very different way of life than we can even imagine. It is not the

most attractive island. And if they want to keep it, we should help

them keep it. I think for those soldiers who died

in that conflict, British soldiers, it would be a disgrace just to hand

it back. Maybe we should frighten the

Argentinians by sending an aircraft carrier out there. Let's just hope

they have not found out we have not got any planes to go on them.

think this is an issue of self- determination. I do not think you

can qualify that, and clearly the people of the Falkland Islands want

the current status to remain. As long as that is the wish of the

people of the Falkland Islands we must make sure that continues. I

agree with the gentleman in the audience, that people gave their

lives in that war. I do not think there are options to be talking to

the Argentinians about shared sovereignty. Those conversations

happen before Falklands War. Argentina effectively made that an

impossible option because of what they did 30 years ago. So long as

the people of the Falkland Islands wished to remain British, they

should do and we should be prepared to spend the money so they remain

British. I completely agree with what Stephen has just said. I think

I would probably slightly disagree with the question in the sense that

it is not for us to give back the Falkland Islands, but it is for the

people of the Falkland Islands to decide what they want to do. It is

not ours to give back. What I find surprising and sad, Caroline, is

that you find it strange that the people of the Falkland Islands

would want to be a part of Britain which is thousands of miles away. I

think we should be deeply humbled by that. I feel really proud that

they want to be a part of us. Why would they want to be a part of

Argentina? I think we should be deeply proud of the fact that there

is this island and this group of people out there, many miles away

from us, who want to be part of this great nation and wants to be

part of our territories. If they want to be part of this nation in

that way, how are their views represented in any governance

structures, for example. It is an anomalous situation. But they want

to be one of our dependent territories. They want to have the

right to say and the right to choose to remain a part of the

United Kingdom. Why should we question that? What does it mean to

be part of the United Kingdom? does it mean when you are on the

other side of the world, not part of any government structures? It

means you get 3000 people there to defend you, but what does it

actually mean in terms of the future of our country? The reason

why you don't understand that, Caroline, is probably because I

come from a background where despite the fact that where my

parents originate from was a colony of the United Kingdom, they do not

feel any hostility towards that. They felt, to England was coming to

the motherland. Face felt a deep sense of affection, connection to

the values of this great island. -- they felt. That is why I completely

understand how the Falkland islanders move. I do not understand

why you can't. Because I thought we might have moored beyond

colonialism in the 21st century. -- moved beyond. It is wrong to couch

this in terms of colonialism. The attempt at colonialism was by a

fascist regime in Argentina 30 years ago, not by us. Do we have

the military assets to send a task force, like 30 years ago? I think

we would struggle now. We have no aircraft carrier, for starters.

It might be interesting if we asked the people of the Falkland Islands

if they wanted the right for some kind of governments about what goes

on here, because I am not sure they would. They want to carry on being

what they are. When you give people the right to governments, it

implies that they want to have a bit of a say in what happens here.

I am not sure about that. They govern themselves, effectively.

could probably send the entire royal family in a taxpayer-funded

new royal yacht, accompanied by Boris Johnson's flotilla, because

we do not have a Royal Navy to do it. I was going to keep this

question until the end, but since you have raised it, Jane Lloyd.

Would private sponsorship of the new royal yacht devalue the brand

of the monarchy? This is the proposal which it seems the Prime

Minister is in favour of, to have a new royal yacht to mark the Jubilee,

but not paid for by the taxpayer but paid for by who knows who?

Would it devalue the royal yacht, the monarchy, rather, the brand of

the monarchy, and his -- is it a good idea anyway? Germaine Greer,

what do you think of royal yachts and how they should be paid for?

Are you a Republican or a monarchist? I am a republican. If

we are going to ask the Fulton does what they want, perhaps we ought to

ask the Queen what she wants. I am sure she does not want a yacht

courtesy of Marmite. I am wondering, actually, I wish that, listening to

all of this, I am trying to imagine what look is on the Queen's face. I

am wandering, at what point does she come out and say, look, my

people are suffering, the last thing I need is another flaming

What do you think? Labour backbencher Kate Hoey is in favour

of this. Are you with her? Germaine Greer makes a good point, this is a

time of austerity. Initially Michael Gove was proposing this

would be publicly funded. Initially the proposal was for �60 million of

public money. There is no way that could be justified. If people want

to club together and raise money and the Queen wants it, that is

fine, it becomes a private matter. But I think there are ways to

celebrate the Queen's Jubilee without having his enormous

expenditure in a time of austerity. It is too late anyway, miles too

late. If Michael Gove wants to pay for it out of taxpayers' money, is

he a suitable person to be in charge of children's education? If

we are getting free schools from Barclays Bank, surely we should be

spending taxpayers' money on schools.

Would Fergie be in charge of marketing? I think the problem here

comes down to the word "yacht". People think it is just the rich

man's luxury, but the Royal Yacht Britannia, if you called at the

Royal ship, or some other name, you would understand more clearly what

it was. Although of course it was able to keep the royal family in

comfort when they went on certain visits, it was already used a great

deal to promote Britain in all sorts of ways, culturally, in trade,

you could rent it for receptions and so on. And it was a very

beautiful and elegant affair which stood very well for this country.

And believe me, because I have seen it. I saw it in the handover in

Hong Kong. When people came on to that yacht, they were really

excited and honoured and had a good idea about Britain. And they

associate it, rightly, with the Queen. I think the only time the

Queen has been seen to cry in public was when the royal yacht was

got rid of, because she did understand its romance and the way

it symbolised something about a maritime nation, something the

royal family is very close to. So I believe it is a good idea to have

the royal yacht, but get rid of the word yacht if you like. I would be

in favour, if it came to it, of spending public money. But if

people are putting up private money, that is wonderful, because it is a

celebration of a great event for a great woman and something which is

great for Great Britain. I would be totally in favour of it. Surely,

the amount of air miles that Prince Andrew has drummed up over the

years would easily pay for it. late. Should we not just call it

the German boat? Isn't it about time we went the

whole way and had the whole lot of the monarchy privately-funded?

just having that image and seeing the logo as they might have on

their clothes! Fascinating. I do think the idea, when it was still

the idea of it being publicly funded, was quite grotesque and

suggested that Michael Gove spends an awful lot of time on another

planet. Because the idea that that is a good way of spending �60

million is very strange. In terms of it being privately funded, I go

back to what the others have said and I would say, as anybody asked

the Queen if she wants this? If she did not, it would be difficult to

flog it on eBay the next day, like you might with socks from your

Aunty Jane, because it would be difficult to move it again. So

let's find out what she thinks would be a fitting tribute for her

jubilee. Presumably she is capable of making it known if she does not

want it. She sees the Prime Minister once a week. She could say,

forget it. Let's hope she is able to say what she thinks. I am very

much in favour of having a royal yacht and very uneasy that it

should be purely through sponsorship and non public money.

What about the chance for us, as a people, to show our appreciation of

the Queen's 60 years? I thought Cameron was quite wrong to come out

and immediately dismiss any public money because what about the

Commonwealth? Why haven't they been consulted? She is not just Queen of

the UK, she is head of the Commonwealth. I think it would have

been courteous to ask them if they would also like to fund this

wonderful project. I would like to see the boat and I am very uneasy

about, as I think I read the other day, having names on the tops of

cabins - this is the McDonald's cabin, the Virgin Atlantic cabin.

How naff is that? Poor Queen. you are chairman of the

Conservative Party, what on earth is going on? The Prime Minister

says he is in favour and then does not want public money spent. What

is the position? Give us what the Cabinet decided, which you sit and

When Charles said that the word that is kind of got everyone

excited is yacht and I think it's Michael Gove. What people don't

realise is that this project which quaz initially called the

university of the oceans what started in late 1999 when Brit Tana

was decommissioned. A Rear Admiral had to decide what would replace it.

Their idea was to have a ship that could be used as a learning tool

and scientific endeavour, which could be used as a trade tool and

used as a beacon to promote Britain and also used as a place for the

Royal Family to use when they were on their travels. What about

Michael Gove? The reason why this became a press story is because

this particular letter was leaked to the guard guard and they

therefore leaked it back to Michael Gove and he was the Cabinet

minister and everyone pulled this all out. What she is trying to say

is that it was leaked by a fellow Cabinet minister, Chris Huhne.

never said that. Charles, don't you get me into trouble. Who was trying

to make a point. The Lib Dems are against this. Are the Conservatives

in favour? As chairman of the party, I - you talked about the

Commonwealth. The first private donation has been pledged from

Canada, apparently 10 million, so therefore we have 10 million there

already. I think this, funded by private donations, not in the tacky

way, but actually funded by generous private donations, which

will be a great advert. We talk about increasing Britishness and

selling more and growing as a economy. We are not going to sell

to the US and the EU. We are going to be selling around the

Commonwealth and selling to places around the world like India, like

Pakistan, like the African nations, like Brazil and a ship like this,

which can be a great example of how Great Britain can be, would be a

great asset for us to help grow economically as well. Before we go

on, can you clarify one point - are you saying no taxpayers' money will

be spent on this at in time? Is that the Prime Minister's point,

that it has to be private? Prime Minister's point is it should

be funded privately. We need 80 million for the ship to be ready to

go. If you can't get the money privately it wouldn't happen?

It has to be funded privately. We can't say we are making difficult

decisions in relation to welfare, education and other areas, but then

say that we think this is a good amount of money to be spent for a

ship. I'll take one more point. wonder about the focus on the

monarchy from the Government in a week of cuts and austerity. Is it a

way to promote national pride or does it mean anything?

Government didn't focus on it. The Government didn't wake up one day

and make an announcement it was a letter that was apparently leaked.

It was leaked to The Guardian apparently and they ran the story.

This is actually - if anybody is to blame for bringing this up, when

there are more important issues, speak to The Guardian. It's Chris

Huhne LAUGHTER

Another question from Jonathan highfield. Does London need another

airport? This again one of these things that has suddenly re-emerged

as an issue with the Conservatives saying they'll look at it, having

been the party that was vote blue, go green. Germaine Greer, does

London need another airport and looking at the estuary? Well, it

depends how you feel about air travel in general, whether you

think that London needs another airport. We do understand that the

Earth needs us to stop flying about for a while, at least until we have

less devastating ways of doing it. We have to reduce our carbon

footprint. Building more airports is not the way. The thing that

bothers me is we have been talking about the second runway at shairp,

which - because it's only half an airport -- Stansted Airport, which

- because it's only half an airport, so it seems odd to run a second

runway and let it turn into a proper airport, instead of a

holiday bus station. The idea of putting it in the estuary is so

unbelievably crazy. I don't understand why nobody has pointed

out that the estuary is a Ramsar site. Those are the wetlands that

are globally important and if we are going to just ignore an

international convention, which is to do with conservation, then we

can't really stop everybody else doing the same thing. We are very

good at hypocrisy. It is suddenly inconvenient that we signed the

convention. It also happens to be an EU special protection area under

the bird directive. Apparently what is going on in Europe is people are

getting impatient with the directives under the special

protection areas and there is a general move to just knock them

down and get rid of them. Ramsar? That is the town where the

convention was signed. Ignorance on my part. It's not your fault at all,

because people discussing the estuary proposal haven't even

mentioned the fact that it is in fact an area of very special

scientific interest. It is quite extraordinary. The poor old RSPCA

owns most of the land and they were tudly asked yesterday what they

thought and -- suddenly asked yesterday what they thought and

they said, "You might get bird strike." You probably will. It

looks as if these conventions have no legal clout. That is shocking,

isn't it? All right. Stephen Twigg, Labour wanted a third runway at

Heathrow Airport. Do you still want that? No, we don't. We have

accepted that's off the agenda. These are the sorts of issues which

are by their nature, long term and ideally taken forward on a cross-

party basis. You reminded us about the vote blue, go green and this is

a lot more to do with the may -- mayoral election in May. Before the

election the Tories were thinking about Kent, but now they are

thinking about what is best for Boris. There are a lot of

objections, including the ones set out. We have got to have a balanced

debate, because on the one hand, aviation does cause serious issues

around the environment and climate change. On the other hand, our

economic future and how we relate to other countries within Europe,

partly depends on the capacity on aviation. I don't think you can

entirely rule out expanding aviation, but you've got to do it

in an evidence-based way. It's not easy and best done on a cross-party

basis. I don't think the idea will take off, if you excuse the pun.

Not just because of the wild fowl in the area, but the head of

Ryanair said it was bonkers and the head of British Airways said it

would kill Heathrow Airport. I don't know who looks worse, Boris

Johnson or the Tory Party for allowing him to be this insane.

he always looks like that. Baroness Warsi. I agree with Stephen, when

he said we have to draw the balance and have a grown-up debate. The

reason why the third runway, why we were against it and we will not

build it, is because we felt that the environmental impact of it was

too great. We also have to remember and again this comes back to what

people talk about jobs and trade, my husband regularly flies to China

for work and he has to fly to Paris and then to China, because the

number of flights to China from the UK are 1,000 less a year from

somewhere like Paris. I don't want Paris. I don't want France to be

the hub of the economic driver for the EU. I want London to maintain

and grow the status as a hub for flights coming in and out of Europe

and where business will come in and out. What is your proposal? That we

have - the Government is saying it will look at all options, including

the one that Boris has spoken of. We'll send it out for consultation,

but some serious discussions, cross-party discussions, have to

take place, because I don't think anybody in this country wants us to

be a republic which is left behind and nobody wants to trade with us.

You are not against the estuary proposal that Boris put forward?

I'm not for or against it. I'm open for a serious debate on aviation. I

think we get side tracked by this project or that. What we need to

have is a grown-up discussion about does Britain want to have a future

as a serious economic player and if it does, it's going to have to let

planes come in or out, because we can't live an isolated life and

expect to grow. Surely if we need another one wouldn't it make more

sense to build it at Birmingham and we would have some point for the

wretched HST? Caroline Lucas? A serious debate. You know the

statistics, 140 million passengers a year in 2010, 400 million in 2050,

according to the GLA report. need to be clear, the same pressure

being brought to bear by people saying there will be a hub

elsewhere in Europe. The aviation industry is desperate to grow. I

want to have a grown-up debate and the debate would start from the

point of view that climate change is the greatest threat that we face

right now. It's running far ahead of our ability to control it and if

we were to sit back and say let's let aviation expand as much as we

like, we'll not meet any of our climate change targets and it won't

be a question of whether or not this is a country will grow, but

whether we have a liveable planet. Also, the economic debate. No-one

has mentioned yet this evening that aviation is actually subsidised in

this country to be tune of �10 billion every single year. Because

aviation doesn't pay tax on its fuel. It doesn't pay VAT on tickets.

If you were to make aviation pay its way, it wouldn't necessarily

look like this goose that laze golden eggs, but an expensive way

of investing money. Baroness Warsi's point of businessmen going

to China via pass ris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of

the -- Paris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of the

world like Paris. We have the biggest hub of any country in the

EU with Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport. In that same debate -

are nearly at the end, so Charles Moore. Why did Britain become a

great civilisation? A lot was to do with being sea-borne and river-

borne and London was the capital because of access to the sea and it

was important that people were able to come freely up and down and

trade. The modern equivalent of that is the airport. By the same

token, that's why Heathrow Airport is bursting at the seams. We

decided to build the airport in a very populated place, so that 25%

of all the air noise sufferers in the the whole of Europe are the

people around Heathrow Airport. But it is terribly important to

maintain that civilisational and economic and cultural advantage of

being this great centre. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense to

look at an airport which is near London, but does not intrude over

one million people, which is the problem with Heathrow Airport. I

think it's quite a visionary scheme. Clearly, there are difficulty, but

everybody says, oh, well, yes, maybe or let's think about it. In

the ten years since the cancellation of the third runway

China planned 52 new airports. All the time they are rushing ahead and

we are just sitting around going on about it. It's a visionary idea and

we should look at it fast. An end, because our time's up. That's it

for this week. Our hour is over. We are going to be in Plymouth next

week and the week after that we'll be in Southport, so if you would

like to come to the programme in Plymouth or Southport, I'm sure you

know what to do. My thanks to all of you on the panel and thank you

to everyone who came. I will never get it right with the pronouncation.