:00:21. > :00:24.We are in Guildford tonight and On our panel here, the Communities
:00:24. > :00:29.and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, the Shadow Energy
:00:29. > :00:34.Secretary, Caroline Flint, the novelist, Will Self, Professor of
:00:34. > :00:38.Contemporary Thought at Brunel university, the Daily Mail
:00:39. > :00:48.columnist, Janice Atkinson and the singer originally discovered on Pop
:00:49. > :00:53.
:00:53. > :00:58.Idol, Will Young. Thank you very much and our first
:00:58. > :01:01.question from Katy Evans, please? I'm a politics student at the
:01:01. > :01:05.University of Surrey and my question is, considering the tragic
:01:05. > :01:08.deaths of six more soldiers, why is our withdrawal from Afghanistan
:01:08. > :01:12.still planned for 2014 and not sooner?
:01:12. > :01:17.Thank you very much. Of course, all our thoughts are with the families
:01:17. > :01:22.of those six soldiers who died. But the question is, whether this
:01:22. > :01:28.should lead to our withdrawal earlier than 2014. Eric Pickles?
:01:28. > :01:31.I've had the sad experience of having to go to the funeral of a
:01:31. > :01:35.young lad lost in my constituency and it's difficult talking to the
:01:35. > :01:39.parents. They always feel tremendously proud of what the
:01:39. > :01:44.young man's done and I think we should be very proud of these
:01:44. > :01:50.individuals. I think the hard truth is that these individuals made our
:01:50. > :01:55.streets that little bit safer. We went into Afghanistan, not to
:01:55. > :01:59.control the country, not to make that country a lot better run, we
:01:59. > :02:05.made it become stable. We went in there to ensure that Al-Qaeda could
:02:05. > :02:09.not operate, could not use it as a base to do another 9/11, they
:02:09. > :02:13.couldn't use it as a base to do that, and I think by and large, we
:02:13. > :02:18.have succeeded in doing that. Despite this dreadful occurrence,
:02:18. > :02:26.Afghanistan, for all its imperfections, is a lot more stable
:02:26. > :02:30.than it was. We I don't think are ready to leave in 2014, we are part
:02:30. > :02:37.of the process of trying to ensure that that country remains as
:02:37. > :02:41.reasonably stable as it is. The Al- Qaeda is a shadow of its former
:02:41. > :02:44.self. The Taliban is desperate, but we have experience of terrorism in
:02:44. > :02:48.Northern Ireland and we know that there may be people willing to talk
:02:48. > :02:53.to us who are terrorists, but there's always a faction that's
:02:53. > :02:58.willing to use the bomb and the gun to get their way. We can't allow
:02:58. > :03:05.those people to win because we can't allow a country like
:03:05. > :03:09.Afghanistan ever again to be the Centre for Terrorism that can
:03:09. > :03:13.launch attacks on us or any other part of the world. You used the
:03:13. > :03:16.word "reasonably" stable, suggesting you are not entirely
:03:16. > :03:21.convinced that withdrawal in 2014 will mean Al-Qaeda will never
:03:21. > :03:27.emerge in Afghanistan. Am I right in thinking that? I think it would
:03:27. > :03:31.be ridiculous to suggest a country that is harbouring people that are
:03:31. > :03:35.capable of organising a bomb of that dimension and one that we
:03:35. > :03:39.still have lots of questions about ensuring that the rights of women
:03:39. > :03:44.are properly protected would be regarded as stable. But what I am
:03:44. > :03:49.confident in saying is, I do not believe that there is a reasonable
:03:49. > :03:55.prospect of Al-Qaeda returning to the position that they had. The
:03:55. > :03:59.Taliban I think is broken up into different factions, some are very
:03:59. > :04:03.willing to talk but there are others, as we know, we have
:04:03. > :04:08.experience, 60-odd years expoorpbs of this, there are factions that do
:04:08. > :04:13.not want to negotiate at any price -- experience of this.
:04:13. > :04:18.Will Self? Well, Lord west for a long time, one of your advisers
:04:18. > :04:26.from the military, is in the paper this evening saying quite clearly
:04:26. > :04:30.that the business of extapating the bases and making it difficult to
:04:30. > :04:35.operate out of Afghanistan was achieved within weeks, if not
:04:35. > :04:40.months of the initial invasion, and what subsequently happened, Eric,
:04:40. > :04:44.was a failed exercise in nation- building, so I think you are on
:04:45. > :04:51.very shaky ground there. It's a very, very tough and sad business
:04:51. > :04:59.because now over 400 British lives have been lost in Afghanistan over
:04:59. > :05:04.a long period. And also, let us not forget, 10,000, the UN estimate,
:05:04. > :05:08.10,000 Afghan civilians' lives during this conflict. The heroin
:05:08. > :05:17.trade which fuels war and always follows in the wake of this kind of
:05:17. > :05:20.warfare, is bigger than ever. It's estimated by a UN report that that
:05:21. > :05:25.is so. It infiltrates into the heart of the Afghan government.
:05:25. > :05:29.Everyone knows Afghanistan will more or less collapse into a failed
:05:29. > :05:35.state as soon as the coalition forces pull out and it's like some
:05:35. > :05:40.ghastly and sickening game of kind of musical chairs where all the
:05:40. > :05:43.politicians are frightened to be the first one to drop us. Do you
:05:43. > :05:51.think that Britain should pull out before the planned date of 2014 in
:05:51. > :05:56.the light of these six deaths, as Katy Evans asked? It is a classic
:05:56. > :05:59.case of a-symmetrical warfare, very much like the forces of the
:05:59. > :06:07.Americans in Vietnam. It's going to fail sooner or later so we may as
:06:07. > :06:10.well pull out now. Pull out now, all right.
:06:10. > :06:15.APPLAUSE The woman up in the second row from
:06:15. > :06:19.the back? I would like to ask who Afghanistan is really safe for?
:06:19. > :06:26.President Karzai's just today endorsed the policy of women being
:06:26. > :06:31.second class citizens. Indeed. Janice Atkinson? My heart goes out
:06:31. > :06:37.to the families of those soldiers. Five of them were aged between 19
:06:37. > :06:40.and 21, I've got a 20-year-old son, so particularly poignant. Why? What
:06:40. > :06:47.have we achieved? As the lady up there just said, women are going to
:06:47. > :06:51.go back to the dark ages when we leave and that's tragic. Karzai's
:06:51. > :06:54.corrupt, it's going to fall apart as soon as we leave. Can we afford
:06:54. > :06:58.these foreign adventures? I don't think so any more. We are not
:06:58. > :07:02.equipping our troops properly, we have paired back our Armed Forces
:07:02. > :07:06.to the bone and in a few months' time or even two years' time, we
:07:06. > :07:09.might have to fight the Falklands again and, at the moment, we
:07:09. > :07:15.couldn't even fight the Isle of Wight, never mind the Falklands, so
:07:15. > :07:20.no, we pull out now. The man in the second row from the
:07:20. > :07:25.back? If we do pull out, how does that bear with the people who've
:07:25. > :07:31.lost all these sons and husbands over the last ten years, how will
:07:31. > :07:39.it affect them and what will the effect be on them? Will Young?
:07:39. > :07:44.think this is the difficulty. Hopefully we will have a legacy in
:07:44. > :07:50.Afghanistan that will support what we've been doing there for the last
:07:50. > :07:53.however many years. The problem is, Eric, I really can't agree with you
:07:53. > :07:57.on how you draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. The regime, the
:07:57. > :08:02.Government that we are leaving behind is not this stable as it was
:08:02. > :08:07.over there, there isn't a Gerry Adams figure. There was a leaked
:08:07. > :08:14.report two weeks ago from NATO saying that Al-Qaeda is stronger
:08:14. > :08:18.than ever. The message on what we have been doing in Afghanistan is
:08:18. > :08:24.and has been - you can shake your head - but it's been mixed.
:08:24. > :08:28.didn't move my head, you are putting words into my mouth. It's a
:08:28. > :08:37.liberal democracy where women are first class citizens, poignant that
:08:37. > :08:41.it's on International Women's Day, from, as Will said, bringing down...
:08:41. > :08:46.APPLAUSE Bringing down the heroin trade. I think we have to stay in
:08:46. > :08:52.there until 2014, even if it's riding on the coat tails of America.
:08:52. > :08:56.But it really saddens me that, at the moment, it looks like our
:08:56. > :09:01.legacy in Afghanistan is fairly bleak.
:09:01. > :09:07.APPLAUSE The woman there? Do you not feel
:09:07. > :09:11.that if we pull out immediately, Afghanistan may be seen as another
:09:11. > :09:14.Vietnam? Caroline Flint? In the light of what's happened this week,
:09:14. > :09:18.it's hard to believe that there isn't anyone to be honest that
:09:18. > :09:21.hasn't gone through their minds the thoughts about when shall we leave,
:09:21. > :09:26.shall we leave sooner - I think that's a totally natural reaction
:09:26. > :09:30.to what's happened this week. It is a hard question. Those young men
:09:30. > :09:33.who died this week were carrying out their duty along with other
:09:33. > :09:40.servicemen and women and listenings to some of those in our military
:09:40. > :09:44.today, praising their efforts, I think it's beholden on all of us to
:09:44. > :09:54.understand that the military, from this country, are doing a fantastic
:09:54. > :09:56.
:09:56. > :10:03.And they are doing this job in the interests of our national security.
:10:03. > :10:08.I suppose the outcome that we want to see is that Afghanistan does not
:10:08. > :10:14.become an incubator for terrorism again. That's why I think it's
:10:14. > :10:17.really important in the lead up to 2014 that we not only have a
:10:17. > :10:22.military strategy which I think in many ways is working very well, but
:10:22. > :10:26.we have a political strategy. I do think that the Prime Minister needs
:10:26. > :10:30.to be out there talking to the public about why we are still there,
:10:30. > :10:35.what we are doing and what is the exit strategy. I think that has to
:10:35. > :10:39.be a debate in the public domain much more often than it currently
:10:39. > :10:43.is. I understand that the Prime Minister will be meeting Barack
:10:43. > :10:49.Obama shortly. I hope this will be top of the agenda for discussion.
:10:49. > :10:53.There is a meeting of NATO in May and I hope before we get to that
:10:53. > :10:57.summit that there is a clearer understanding about what is the
:10:57. > :11:01.political strategy to take us forward. So your view is that
:11:01. > :11:05.there's been a strategy but it's not been explained? No, I think one
:11:05. > :11:08.of the problems is, and I can totally understand it, in the last
:11:08. > :11:13.few months, Syria, North Africa's dominated debate and I understand
:11:13. > :11:18.that, but actually, our number one interest in this country in terms
:11:18. > :11:21.of our security is Afghanistan. I just think we need to see more of
:11:21. > :11:26.that discussion. I'm not saying this in a partisan way, Eric, I
:11:26. > :11:29.just think it would help all of us to better understand what is
:11:29. > :11:32.happening, to hold the Government to account, if you like, but also
:11:32. > :11:39.have a better conversation with the public about why we are there and
:11:39. > :11:44.what we are achieving and what the end game is. Clearer exposition?
:11:44. > :11:48.want to be clear. I'm deeply unhappy with what's happening with
:11:48. > :11:53.regard to women in Afghanistan, I'm not over the moon in terms of the
:11:53. > :11:58.way in which women are treated in Saudi Arabia, but it's in our
:11:58. > :12:02.strategic interest to ensure there is a degree of stability in that
:12:02. > :12:08.country. Of course, talks have been taking place with people who're in
:12:08. > :12:11.the Taliban, those who're willing to sit down and to discuss a future
:12:11. > :12:16.for Afghanistan. That took place under Labour, this's taking place
:12:16. > :12:21.with us and... Can you go through with that even while fighting is
:12:21. > :12:25.going on and people are being blown up? The point I was trying to make,
:12:26. > :12:30.Mr Dimbleby, was this, you mustn't see the Taliban as one unit. It's
:12:30. > :12:34.made up of many different factions of many tribal leaders and many are
:12:34. > :12:39.absolutely engaged. It's true, you mustn't confuse Al-Qaeda with the
:12:39. > :12:44.Taliban. They are far from the same organisation or people. There are
:12:44. > :12:49.very few foreign fighters left in Afghanistan. It remains a problem
:12:49. > :12:55.in terms of getting people to give up their weaponry. You don't think
:12:55. > :13:01.they'll come back once NATO troops are withdrawn? I think what, I
:13:01. > :13:06.think the reason why we need to go about this process is to debate on
:13:06. > :13:12.that degree of stability. The woman in the second row from the back in
:13:12. > :13:18.the striped shirt? Caroline, you said that the reason for going into
:13:18. > :13:22.Afghanistan is because we don't want it to be an incubator for
:13:22. > :13:27.terrorism. Does that mean beshed go into Pakistan? This rose out of
:13:27. > :13:31.what happened on 9/11 and thousands of people killed. Also the biggest
:13:31. > :13:37.terrorist attack in terms of affecting the biggest number of
:13:37. > :13:41.British citizens we have seen. We had Bali, Madrid and 7/7. United
:13:41. > :13:44.Nations force was about tackling what happened in Afghanistan
:13:44. > :13:47.whereby the whole state had become the training ground for terrorism
:13:47. > :13:50.with Al-Qaeda. There are issues, you are absolutely right in terms
:13:50. > :13:53.of Pakistan, of course you are right about that, and there is both
:13:53. > :13:57.issues that have to be looked at in terms of internally in Afghanistan
:13:57. > :14:02.and security there and not having a situation whereby we withdraw and
:14:02. > :14:07.it all collapses in on itself. Also importantly in the talks, the
:14:07. > :14:11.regional issues as well. That is about Pakistan and India. You are
:14:11. > :14:14.right on that. Can I just say to the lady about Karzai's actions
:14:14. > :14:17.today. I'm bitterly disappointed that he signed up to that. It's not
:14:17. > :14:21.actually part of the legal constitution, if you like, it's a
:14:21. > :14:24.religious document he signed up to and I'm very disappointed but
:14:24. > :14:28.incredibly proud of the women who're now politicians in
:14:28. > :14:32.Afghanistan and all the women and girls who're going to school. Yes,
:14:32. > :14:36.that's really important. Whatever happens down the road, I hope, like
:14:36. > :14:46.with other countries, when we come away, we'll continue to shine the
:14:46. > :14:48.
:14:48. > :14:51.spotlight on lacks of human rights Would one of the best ways of
:14:51. > :14:56.supporting our fallen and troops currently serving in Afghanistan be
:14:56. > :15:00.to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan irrespective of the opinions of
:15:00. > :15:03.unelected judges in Europe? Would you like to see that happen but we
:15:03. > :15:08.can't go into that question because we have many other - yes, you Sir.
:15:08. > :15:16.We have other questions to come to. If the invasion was to protect our
:15:16. > :15:20.streets, why did 7 7/7 happen? It's all about British foreign policy,
:15:20. > :15:25.that's why we have terrorism. you don't thaeu the operations in
:15:25. > :15:30.Afghanistan are relevant s that what you are saying? Look at 7/7,
:15:31. > :15:34.they were all home grown terrorists. All schooled in Pakistan in the
:15:34. > :15:38.tribal territories, not in Afghanistan. New the front.
:15:38. > :15:41.seems to me it hasn't achieved that much over the last few years and we
:15:41. > :15:48.have been spending billions on it and there have been hundreds of
:15:48. > :15:52.deaths, and it doesn't seem to be worth it any more. It seems...
:15:52. > :15:55.deadline in two years, or should British forces be pulled out
:15:55. > :16:01.straightaway. The point about the Falklands war could happen.
:16:01. > :16:05.can't police the world. But we can't carry on doing this. The man
:16:05. > :16:09.up there. For all its imperfections, the state of Afghanistan is a much
:16:09. > :16:12.better situation than it was when we invaded in 2001, particularly
:16:12. > :16:16.for our national interest. But the key point I think in this area is
:16:16. > :16:23.that we owe it as a country to all those brave men and women who have
:16:23. > :16:29.given their lives in the service to us, sure we don't leave on an
:16:29. > :16:33.arbitrary timetable but ensure is done, to do otherwise would be
:16:33. > :16:37.disrespectful to those who have given their lives for this country.
:16:37. > :16:42.APPLAUSE. Just to clarify that, you don't
:16:42. > :16:45.think there should be a date of 2014 for withdrawal? I don't think
:16:46. > :16:52.there's anything wrong with having an aim but to have a date saying we
:16:52. > :17:02.will pull out at this point is unacceptable. If you are tweeting
:17:02. > :17:07.
:17:07. > :17:12.Let's go to a question now from William Dunnett now. Would a
:17:12. > :17:16.mansion tax be fairer than a 50p tax band for the highest earners.
:17:16. > :17:23.Vince Cable saying he is confident this is going to happen the 50p tax
:17:23. > :17:31.band is going to be reduced and some other kind of tax in its place.
:17:31. > :17:38.Will Self? I think both. APPLAUSE. Both will do very nicely.
:17:38. > :17:42.I am a 50p band payer and quite rightly so, I don't have a �2
:17:42. > :17:46.million house, very few people do actually. There's about 75,000 of
:17:46. > :17:50.them, most of them are in London and the vast majority of those are
:17:50. > :17:58.in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. So, both I think,
:17:58. > :18:04.frankly. Will Young? I don't have a �2 million house, I do pay the 50%.
:18:04. > :18:08.I am content with that. I guess the key thing here - I don't think it
:18:08. > :18:16.will happen by the way, I think the Government will probably focus more
:18:16. > :18:19.on pensions, but I think the key thing here is trying to find
:18:19. > :18:26.people's wealth and one of the ways of doing that is finding their
:18:26. > :18:32.assets, which is in their houses. Lots of people come over to the UK
:18:32. > :18:38.and avoid paying the tax by buying houses through companies. I am just
:18:38. > :18:43.wondering how it's going to be administered. Will it be based on
:18:43. > :18:48.market wealth? If you have a house that's, I don't though, �2.2
:18:48. > :18:52.million and then the he is state agent says this is worth �2.2
:18:52. > :18:57.million and you sell it for �1.99 which is more likely going to
:18:57. > :19:02.happen in this comes in, do you still get tax based on what it
:19:02. > :19:06.was... You know you have these valuations for council tax bands.
:19:06. > :19:10.It's not the real problem. The problem is whether or not Eric is
:19:10. > :19:17.going to let local authorities have the money or for central Government,
:19:17. > :19:20.that's the interesting thing. You believe as a primary article that
:19:20. > :19:27.introduced legislation to have greater autonomy for the council,
:19:27. > :19:30.presumably you are going to let them have it. He is keeping a
:19:30. > :19:36.straight face. Eric Pickles, do you think a mansion tax or a wealth tax
:19:36. > :19:41.of some sort will be fairer than a 50p tax band? It's been described
:19:41. > :19:44.as a granny tax because it will hit people with assets, but not
:19:44. > :19:50.necessarily the people that have the assets who also have have
:19:50. > :19:56.income. I have no problem about going against Russian oligarches or
:19:56. > :19:59.people buying houses through firms, but the problem is you have the
:20:00. > :20:05.unintended consequences of hitting people who actually don't have a
:20:05. > :20:09.lot of money. We are in Surrey, now the average price of a detached
:20:09. > :20:14.house in Surrey is half a million quid, so you are actually going to
:20:14. > :20:23.pick up a lot of people. How we would do it, of course, is we would
:20:23. > :20:27.probably split the top... You just button up my old chum and I will
:20:27. > :20:31.tell you, you probably have to do a full revaluation, we know from
:20:31. > :20:36.Wales that process means that people tend to jump two or three
:20:36. > :20:42.bands, so we probably have to do that. Which is going to cost �300
:20:42. > :20:46.million. No, �260. You can cross that bit off your notes there.
:20:46. > :20:51.APPLAUSE. Of course it will be an English tax because this is
:20:51. > :20:55.devolved in Wales and Scotland. England would have to bear the
:20:55. > :20:59.whole weight on a mansion tax. It will be very difficult to do, but
:20:59. > :21:02.of course what I should have said at the very beginning and I am kind
:21:02. > :21:05.of kicking myself for not doing so, this is a matter for the Chancellor
:21:05. > :21:08.and I am sure he will come to a sensible conclusion. And what do
:21:08. > :21:15.you make of your cabinet colleague Vince Cable saying he was pretty
:21:15. > :21:19.confident that it will happen? Is he right to be confident? He is
:21:20. > :21:22.indeed a suit-sayer of some importance, but I am just a mere
:21:22. > :21:27.functionary that would make this happen and it would be extremely
:21:27. > :21:30.difficult to do so. But this is a matter for the Chancellor, you are
:21:30. > :21:32.tempting me on things that will get me into trouble. You think the
:21:32. > :21:37.Liberal Democrats have more influence over this budget than you
:21:37. > :21:44.do as a Conservative with strong views about how taxation should
:21:44. > :21:54.be... It is a coalition, and all views are welcome. APPLAUSE.
:21:54. > :21:57.Flint Flint Flint? -- Flint Caroline Flint. There will be tears
:21:57. > :22:04.before bedtime, Eric. When is bedtime? That's for the coalition
:22:04. > :22:07.to decide. I am not really that concerned about how we help out the
:22:07. > :22:11.50p tax rate payers with a mansion tax. What I am actually concerned
:22:12. > :22:15.about is those on lower incomes who are having to pay more. One of the
:22:15. > :22:21.ways they're paying more is through VAT and that's why we are saying in
:22:21. > :22:26.the budget that we should have a temporary decrease in VAT to 17.5%
:22:26. > :22:29.for a year to put around �450 in the pockets of ordinary families,
:22:29. > :22:35.that's to me a priority, in order to help families but also to get
:22:35. > :22:38.spending going and get movement going in terms of our economy. On a
:22:39. > :22:43.mansion tax we are open to suggestions from the coalition
:22:43. > :22:50.Government. There are sometimes issues where somebody will live in
:22:50. > :22:53.a very high value home, but their income might not match that, there
:22:53. > :22:57.sense -- there is sensitivitying around that. We are seeing a number
:22:57. > :23:01.of people who are working hard on lower, middle incomes being
:23:01. > :23:05.affected by pay freezes, affected by shorter working hours and other
:23:05. > :23:08.pressures with inflation and cost of living and I would like to see
:23:09. > :23:16.those families prioritised over a discussion around mansion tax and
:23:17. > :23:21.50p rate. The 50p rate should stay. You sound indifferent towards it.
:23:21. > :23:25.Your Shadow Chancellor says Labour would support it. I said that, I
:23:25. > :23:30.said I am open to it. But I think - no, that means we are open to - we
:23:30. > :23:34.could have it. Would you support it if it came along? I think I can't
:23:34. > :23:39.say what our tax policy is going to be down the road, David. He said he
:23:39. > :23:42.will support it. What Ed has said is what I have said, we are open to
:23:42. > :23:45.look at these issues around raising money in different ways. If the
:23:45. > :23:49.Chancellor wants to go down that road we will support it. That's
:23:49. > :23:52.what I just said, David. But there are other issues we would like the
:23:52. > :23:56.Chancellor to spend sometime thinking about and that is those
:23:57. > :24:01.families on lower incomes who are being affected by their jobs being
:24:01. > :24:04.put at risk, by the cost of living and we would say focus on getting
:24:04. > :24:11.VAT reduced, put real money into the pockets of ordinary families.
:24:11. > :24:15.Thank you. I think the mansion tax is about as
:24:15. > :24:23.stupid as the old-fashioned window tax that happened in the 18th
:24:23. > :24:26.century. APPLAUSE. There are a lot of retired people, I am one of them,
:24:26. > :24:32.who live in a house which has gone up in value through no fault of
:24:32. > :24:35.mine, if my house was in the middle of Northumberland, or maybe the
:24:35. > :24:44.middle of Lincolnshire, I am told it wouldn't be worth the value it
:24:44. > :24:50.is because I happen to live in Surrey. To make people pay a tax on
:24:50. > :24:54.a house, a nominal value of �2 million plus is an unfair tax of
:24:54. > :25:02.all time. What would do you to avoid it, with the window tax they
:25:02. > :25:06.blocked up windows. What would do you? I don't know. Knock the house
:25:06. > :25:10.down. What are they going to achieve by... Do you already pay a
:25:10. > :25:14.property tax as it is, you are already paying a property tax.
:25:14. > :25:18.house is probably worth more than �2 million, it wouldn't be worth
:25:18. > :25:25.that money if it was... You are already paying a weighted local
:25:25. > :25:30.property tax. The issue is not some weird martial imposition out of the
:25:31. > :25:36.blue. I disagree. The man in the red tie. I think the mansion tax,
:25:36. > :25:39.there's so many flaws. I agree with Will Young, administering it would
:25:39. > :25:44.be very, very difficult. There's people that live in a �2 million
:25:44. > :25:48.house that might be in negative equity. I also read that 50% of the
:25:48. > :25:54.people that own these �2 million houses are retired. They may well
:25:54. > :25:59.be asset rich, but cash poor. I just can't see how it would ever
:25:59. > :26:03.work. All right. The woman there. Will, as I understand it, you have
:26:03. > :26:08.just said there's probably not an awful lot of houses, apart from the
:26:08. > :26:14.south-east and London London anyway over �2 million, so actually what
:26:14. > :26:19.is the point of it? I agree, it's not, you know, I didn't dream up
:26:19. > :26:24.the mansion tax actually. Curiously, they don't come to me for advice on
:26:24. > :26:30.this! Eric says the coalition is open to all views, but they've yet
:26:30. > :26:37.to solicit mine. I can safely say we won't be troubling you!
:26:37. > :26:43.All right. Let's go on, this from Susan Felton. Does the proposal to
:26:43. > :26:48.allow gay marriages undermine the institution of marriage as a whole?
:26:48. > :26:52.This is a hornets nest that's been stirred up because the Government
:26:52. > :26:59.is starting a consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage
:26:59. > :27:09.and card -- Cardinal O'Brien laid into them as a subversion and said
:27:09. > :27:11.
:27:11. > :27:19.it would shame the United Kingdom. Will Young? I am gay. APPLAUSE.
:27:19. > :27:26.am up firs. - first. I think he is mad that man. To begin with, as a
:27:26. > :27:34.gay man, gay marriage is not - was not the top of my agenda for gay
:27:34. > :27:39.rights. What was was actually the negative use of gay in schools,
:27:39. > :27:45.which was mentioned last week, so I won't go on about it. Since I have
:27:45. > :27:49.heard these disgusting, repellent words from various people,
:27:49. > :27:56.particularly that awful man in Scotland, I have got kind of more
:27:56. > :28:02.and more riled about it. This man said that it would be grotesque,
:28:02. > :28:06.grotesque gay marriage. He also likened it to slavery. He's also
:28:06. > :28:14.talking incidentally from an institution that is hardly being
:28:14. > :28:21.heralded as the paragone of moral virtue for the last two years. If
:28:22. > :28:27.this guy had been saying it, talking like this against race or
:28:27. > :28:32.religion, he would be in court now. But he is still allowed to go on
:28:32. > :28:36.the Today programme and then I read articles in the papers where people
:28:36. > :28:39.sort of say he did go a little bit over the top because he said
:28:39. > :28:46.grotesque and did liken gay marriage to slavery, but maybe he
:28:46. > :28:52.still has a point. So, he's crazy. He is out of the picture. I didn't
:28:52. > :28:56.realise that the institute of marriage was purely for
:28:56. > :29:04.heterosexual couples. I mean, most people that I know, straight and
:29:04. > :29:11.gay, use the term gay marriage. Where I have come to on this is
:29:11. > :29:17.when I get married, if and when I get married, I want now to have it
:29:17. > :29:26.legal, that I can say I am having a gay marriage. I think it is
:29:26. > :29:30.important and I think that there is a a latent, sleepy homophobia that
:29:30. > :29:33.runs underneath this receipt are toic that's -- rhetoric that's been
:29:33. > :29:37.going on, you know they've been given civil partnership, they
:29:37. > :29:42.shouldn't really have marriage. Call a spade a spade. Say you still
:29:42. > :29:46.don't agree with it, all this isn't getting to the true issue. That
:29:46. > :29:54.there is still a long way to go in gay rights. We have come so far in
:29:54. > :30:04.this country and I think that having gay marriage legalised is
:30:04. > :30:14.
:30:14. > :30:18.Janice Atkinson? Civil partnerships were brought in in 200. Since that
:30:18. > :30:22.time, 20,000 gay couples have got civil partnerships -- 2004. They
:30:22. > :30:25.don't seem to be rushing to the altar, in my view. My concern is
:30:26. > :30:29.that the state should not be involved in this argument
:30:29. > :30:33.whatsoever. It's no business of the state. The state and the church is
:30:33. > :30:38.separate. Now, let me declare a non-interest here. I have no faith,
:30:38. > :30:43.I have no religion, I got married twice, both times in a registry
:30:43. > :30:49.office, never had my children christened so don't hold a torch
:30:49. > :30:57.for any faith whatsoever. But what worries me here... Who recognised
:30:57. > :31:01.your marriages then, the state? just had a civil partnership.
:31:01. > :31:05.That's factually incorrect, you say you are concerned about the state
:31:05. > :31:13.not being involved. In this country, the church is part of the state, I
:31:13. > :31:17.don't know if you have noticed but. Should be complete separation.
:31:17. > :31:23.much-loved Monarch is defender of the faith and Head of The Anglican
:31:23. > :31:27.Church. She said the other day she was a Fed of Faiths. That was
:31:27. > :31:32.Prince Charles. What worries me here is that in this country we
:31:32. > :31:37.also have something called a hate crime, so if this goes through,
:31:37. > :31:42.what happens to those Imams, the priests and the vicars who have
:31:42. > :31:46.their views and I agree, some are abhorrent, but I'm no torch holder
:31:46. > :31:50.for faith. If they turn round and say no, this is wrong, this is
:31:50. > :31:54.abhorrent, and they used that language and I don't agree with
:31:54. > :32:04.that, then they can be called into account and into a police station.
:32:04. > :32:04.
:32:04. > :32:09.I think... Rightfully so. Do you think? Yes. Why? People used to use
:32:09. > :32:15.the same institution to say women were second class citizens, that
:32:15. > :32:21.women couldn't have the vote. are not second class citizens,
:32:21. > :32:26.absolutely not. I know that. All my gay friends say a marriage is a
:32:26. > :32:31.union between a woman and a man and they don't need a marriage.
:32:31. > :32:37.should a marriage be... It's been laid down by centuries, laid down
:32:37. > :32:42.by tradition. I read that in your article, some of it agreed with -
:32:42. > :32:46.very rude of me to point, I am sorry. We are not that far apart,
:32:46. > :32:51.Will. Marriage has allowed the woman to be subservient if we are
:32:51. > :32:55.going centuries back, rape to happen in marriage, abuse... We've
:32:55. > :33:01.moved on quite a bit from that? we have and we need to continue to
:33:01. > :33:05.move on. Marriage is about a union between two people. ALL SPEAK AT
:33:05. > :33:09.ONCE Eric Pickles? What is your view on
:33:09. > :33:14.this? I have to say, I've rather changed my mind on this in recent
:33:14. > :33:18.years, I'm rather in favour of gay marriages and what I've heard has
:33:18. > :33:22.just made me rather glad I have changed my mind. I've seen people
:33:22. > :33:26.in civic partnerships and the difference between friends of mine
:33:26. > :33:29.who're gay have now entered into this, it's given them a degree of
:33:29. > :33:33.stability, certainty about the future. I think if people want to
:33:33. > :33:37.make a commitment to one another, to agree to support one another, to
:33:37. > :33:40.look after one another in sickness and in health, then I think the
:33:40. > :33:44.state should provide that facility. What do you see the difference
:33:44. > :33:48.between a civil partnership and gamma Raj being? I don't think
:33:48. > :33:54.there is in practice any difference. There's no difference in law, all
:33:54. > :33:58.the various rights that will accrue from a marriage will also accrue in
:33:58. > :34:02.a civil partnership. I'm a very blunt sort of a chap, can't see the
:34:02. > :34:06.point of going through this pro tense of thinking that a civil
:34:06. > :34:12.partnership is anything other than a marriage. As for the church, we
:34:13. > :34:17.are not forcing the church. If the Catholic Church does not want to
:34:17. > :34:23.marry people in their churches that are homosexuals, we are not going
:34:23. > :34:29.to force the methodists or the Church of England. But Will is
:34:29. > :34:32.right, the state licences marriages and part of a civilised society and
:34:32. > :34:36.a normal, respectful to our population, for those who're gay,
:34:36. > :34:44.we should provide that service. APPLAUSE
:34:44. > :34:48.Hear, hear... I just wanted to pick up on the
:34:48. > :34:52.point about hate crime. On Sunday, every Catholic priest is going to
:34:53. > :34:57.stand up in church and say that they disagree with gay marriage or
:34:57. > :35:02.equal marriage which I prefer. I just think that's a hate crime
:35:02. > :35:06.actually, I just wondered what the panel thought of that. The point
:35:06. > :35:10.that Janice was making that even to oppose it will... No, I'm not
:35:10. > :35:14.saying that. Do you think that's a hate crime? No, I don't have a
:35:14. > :35:20.problem with people opposing it but to stand up and say this to
:35:20. > :35:24.everybody in a Catholic Church, to ask them to deny people to have the
:35:24. > :35:28.right. Caroline Flint that brings us back to those words, a gross
:35:29. > :35:34.subversion of a human right and shaming the United Kingdom as the
:35:34. > :35:38.Cardinal said? I totally disagree with those words and Susan's word,
:35:38. > :35:42.does gay marriage undermine the institution, I don't think it does.
:35:42. > :35:45.I'm on my second marriage, Janice is, this is giving the people a
:35:45. > :35:48.chance to actually define themselves as having a marriage.
:35:48. > :35:52.Civil partnership is already there and I'm really proud that that was
:35:52. > :35:56.one of the things as a Labour Government we undertook to support,
:35:56. > :36:01.along with other areas to tackle some discrimination against people
:36:01. > :36:06.on the grounds of their sexuality. I have to say, I've fought for some
:36:06. > :36:10.time -- thought for some time that it's ludicrous that we have
:36:10. > :36:13.registry office marriages and then we have civil partnerships. It's
:36:13. > :36:18.all about treating people equal under the law. The civil
:36:18. > :36:22.partnership was done by the registry office. That's my point,
:36:22. > :36:25.it's marriage. Don't you understand why we have that? Nobody seems to
:36:25. > :36:31.understand why the distinction is being made. Do you understand why?
:36:31. > :36:38.It's because we have an established church. Don't you get it? The
:36:38. > :36:41.logical move - no, no, follow the logic - if you say that the civil
:36:41. > :36:47.partnership is equivalent to a that rablg, you are beginning to chip
:36:47. > :36:53.away further at the establishment of the Anglican Church -- marriage.
:36:54. > :37:00.Let me just clarify this. What do you mean by, what do the words
:37:00. > :37:04."implement equal civil marriage mean", as opposed to "equal civil
:37:04. > :37:07.partnership" in your opinion? Labour introduced civil
:37:07. > :37:10.partnerships? It's everything Janice is talking about, the
:37:10. > :37:14.centuries of tradition she sees enshrined. She has no faith so
:37:14. > :37:19.really she has no right. But other people do. Five million Catholics
:37:19. > :37:24.have a right. Just a matter of words really? No, no, no, the point
:37:24. > :37:30.is that the Church of England and other churches can marry men and
:37:30. > :37:34.women and only wish to marry men and women so it's their
:37:34. > :37:39.susceptibilities that stop gay marriage being called marriage OK,
:37:39. > :37:44.that's why the loony bishop up in Scotland flipped his wig because he
:37:44. > :37:54.understands that once you allow it to be called gay marriage... It can
:37:54. > :37:54.
:37:54. > :37:58.happen in church? Yes. Am I right? Yes, of course I'm right? APPLAUSE
:37:58. > :38:03.Incidentally, heterosexuals do a very good job of undermining
:38:03. > :38:07.marriage in my experience. Caroline Flint? I think the time's
:38:07. > :38:10.come to harmonize what we have got at the moment which is civil
:38:10. > :38:13.partnerships and registry office marriages weddings into one, so
:38:13. > :38:17.whether you are heterosexual or gay, that you can go through the same
:38:17. > :38:20.process and, importantly, at the end of it, you have the same rights
:38:20. > :38:25.under the law. Those are rights that for a long, long time, were
:38:25. > :38:31.denied to gay people. It doesn't affect actually as Eric said, and
:38:31. > :38:34.I'm glad you've changed your views on this, Eric, it doesn't affect
:38:34. > :38:39.temples, synagogues, mosques, churches, from conducting their own
:38:39. > :38:44.affairs, but we have a law in which all people should be treated equal
:38:44. > :38:49.in this country. That will be the next step, don't you think? What
:38:49. > :38:54.will be? That's an excuse to deny people equality. The next step will
:38:54. > :39:00.be demanding marriages in churches and mosques and temples. Wait a
:39:00. > :39:05.minute. That would be dangerous. Explain that if gay marriages are
:39:05. > :39:10.what the Government is introducing, why shouldn't they be conducted in
:39:10. > :39:15.the church. That's what Will Self was saying Some vicars will be
:39:15. > :39:20.happy to conduct them. It's up to... If you are married in a church, it
:39:20. > :39:24.has to be recognised as a place that can solemnise marriage.
:39:24. > :39:30.they don't want to, that will be the next step for the extreme gay
:39:30. > :39:34.lobbyists in this country. Hang on, this is the kind of language that
:39:34. > :39:44.this is the kind of language that is scaremongering. We are not going
:39:44. > :39:47.
:39:47. > :39:48.to with giant disco balls and roller skates blaring Dolly Parton.
:39:48. > :39:54.roller skates blaring Dolly Parton. APPLAUSE
:39:54. > :40:01.It's this kind of language which I find terrifying because it's fear
:40:01. > :40:07.mongering, staring people up. It's what the lady said there. You know,
:40:07. > :40:13.this insipid homophobia beneath this. I'm not talking about you,
:40:13. > :40:16.Janice, I'm talking about the language being used. The man in the
:40:16. > :40:22.spectacles? Surely it's just a matter of assembly an stick ticks
:40:22. > :40:25.really what one calls it and we are one of the few countries in Europe
:40:25. > :40:32.where registry office or Mayoral marriage is not a requirement
:40:32. > :40:37.anyway prior to going through a religious ceremony -- sman ticks.
:40:37. > :40:44.Would you like to see the church marry gay couples? It wouldn't
:40:44. > :40:49.worry me. The man on the right? Calling it dangerous, a few years
:40:49. > :40:54.from now we'll think it's ridiculous, like interracial
:40:54. > :40:59.marriages years ago. I hope in years to come we'll be calling it
:40:59. > :41:04.marriage, not gay marriage or civil marriage, just marriage. Just
:41:04. > :41:10.marriage. Your concern is that you think gay
:41:10. > :41:15.couples will insist on being married in synagogues? Not the
:41:15. > :41:20.majority, no. There's always the extremists in these things.
:41:20. > :41:25.would be illegal not to marry a gay couple, is that what you are
:41:25. > :41:29.saying? Eric Pickles? With this moderating suggestion that the
:41:29. > :41:34.state should be able to offer a gay marriage, I would be really unhappy
:41:34. > :41:39.if we used this as a way of repressing free speech. I don't
:41:39. > :41:42.agree with the Archbishop but he has a right to speak from his
:41:42. > :41:47.pulpit. We know where the line is though. He doesn't have a right,
:41:47. > :41:51.and this is on a recent case involving another route, he doesn't
:41:51. > :41:57.have a right to stand up and say gay marriage is wrong and gay
:41:57. > :42:03.people should be hung. He doesn't have a right toe say gay marriage
:42:03. > :42:08.is wrong and gay people should be thrown out of the town. It comes a
:42:08. > :42:18.hate crime. To turn that into a hate crime would be the worst kind
:42:18. > :42:18.
:42:18. > :42:22.of repression. APPLAUSE Nicky Horley, please?
:42:22. > :42:29.How can the railway network justify the fare increases, especially as
:42:29. > :42:35.we are already the most expensive in Europe? Guildford is an area
:42:35. > :42:39.presumably with many commuters who have to pay lots? The main way to
:42:39. > :42:45.London or Portsmouth. Announcements that they are going to increase
:42:45. > :42:49.prices one way or another. Caroline Flint? I think it's �4 billion of
:42:49. > :42:54.public money goes into the rail operators and it was a few weeks
:42:54. > :42:58.back where they stepped back from the brink of giving themselves
:42:58. > :43:01.bonuses too. The truth is that for many people here and in the south-
:43:01. > :43:05.east in particular, the cost of getting to work and partly actually
:43:05. > :43:09.affected by trying to find cheaping housing further out from London and
:43:09. > :43:14.then the knock-on effect of having to travel into London for work is
:43:14. > :43:18.becoming ever more difficult. What really worries me about some of the
:43:18. > :43:21.announcements today - I've not gone through them all in detail - is the
:43:21. > :43:27.idea that they are going to focus particularly on those commuters
:43:27. > :43:30.who're travelling at peak times and looking to push up the price even
:43:30. > :43:36.further. If you have got a job to go to, you ain't got much choice
:43:36. > :43:39.about travelling in peak times and I think that is an ask too much. I
:43:39. > :43:44.really think the Government needs to look at some of the decisions
:43:44. > :43:49.it's made in recent times about raising the cap over which prices
:43:49. > :43:53.can be increased because we have seen an 11% increase above
:43:53. > :43:56.inflation and we are looking to another 6% over the next few years
:43:56. > :43:59.until they say we can get to the point where they don't have to do
:44:00. > :44:09.that any more. I'm not sure many people will bear that in the next
:44:10. > :44:10.
:44:10. > :44:16.Eric Pickles, the questioner says we have the most expensive fares
:44:16. > :44:19.already in Europe. How can it be justified to increase them further?
:44:19. > :44:23.I represent a constituency that relies heavily on the trains, but
:44:23. > :44:28.respect to Caroline, she had 13 years to sort this out and today we
:44:28. > :44:35.start that process. We need to understand why we are where we are
:44:35. > :44:38.when the railways were privatised they were underresourced. There had
:44:38. > :44:42.been little investment. Since privatisation there's been a whole
:44:42. > :44:49.raft of investment going in. I think in the spending review there
:44:49. > :44:54.is still another �8 billion to be put -- �18 billion in terms of
:44:54. > :44:59.infrastructure. The regular increases that goes on to the
:44:59. > :45:05.passenger and the regular subsidy coming in from the public, that
:45:05. > :45:10.time is rapidly coming to an end. Which bit of it, the subsidies?
:45:10. > :45:15.think both has. That's what the report says and the report
:45:15. > :45:20.identifies a way in which we can get a much closer co-operation
:45:20. > :45:27.between rail and track in which we can bear down on the costs and try
:45:27. > :45:30.and start to embrace the 21st century. I mean, my constituency is
:45:30. > :45:35.getting giddy with excitement at the prospect we might get an oyster
:45:35. > :45:39.card to be able to pay. I find it immensely confusing buying a ticket
:45:39. > :45:42.for the railways, you can go just about any different price,
:45:42. > :45:48.depending on the time when you go. I think we have got to use this to
:45:48. > :45:52.start bearing down on the railways. They have been a success. What's
:45:52. > :46:02.been a success? More people travel by rail than they did before.
:46:02. > :46:04.
:46:04. > :46:10.doesn't mean the railway - the roads are a shambles. APPLAUSE.
:46:10. > :46:14.doubt as you waft luxuriously on your way. But for lots of ordinary
:46:14. > :46:18.people who go to work they have to face this and in terms of
:46:18. > :46:21.delivering with the tickets we have to bear down on those costs and
:46:21. > :46:24.what this report suggests is that it should be implemented and it
:46:24. > :46:32.should be and we should bear down on this and the days in which we
:46:32. > :46:35.can expect the taxpayer to pay for - the day in which we canen to
:46:35. > :46:40.expect the passenger to continue to pay I think are over. Why is it the
:46:40. > :46:48.most expensive in Europe? If it has so much subsidy from the taxpayer?
:46:48. > :46:52.That's one of the reasons. Taxpayer... My dear friend,...
:46:52. > :46:56.Never mind calling me my dear friend! May I quickly explain the
:46:57. > :47:00.economics of the railway. The which in which the rail... Why don't you
:47:00. > :47:06.explain it to him since you have talked long enough as it is, you
:47:06. > :47:11.may as well go on and explain it. APPLAUSE. I am quite happy to give
:47:11. > :47:17.way knocks doubt you have -- no doubt you have an interesting way.
:47:17. > :47:22.Go by canals, no doubt. The subsidy was �1 billion before they were
:47:22. > :47:26.nationalised in real terms, it's now �4 billion. You lot are all
:47:26. > :47:30.commuters. I bet you are often acutely aware of how brilliant
:47:30. > :47:34.privatisation has been for the railways. I bet you are you are
:47:34. > :47:37.often standing on Guildford station thinking there is a train from a
:47:37. > :47:41.different company coming in, I think I will take that that one T
:47:41. > :47:47.might be faster and cheaper. It's really cut through to the consumer,
:47:47. > :47:52.hasn't it! Real consumer choice. APPLAUSE. You never give a thought
:47:52. > :47:56.to the fat cat management structure or shareholders that are raking off
:47:56. > :48:00.all your hard earned money and taking bonuses. What you think is
:48:00. > :48:04.it's fantastic. The fundamental mistake, there were many mistakes
:48:04. > :48:10.about the privatisation of the rail system, the most fundamental
:48:10. > :48:13.mistake was your journey to work cannot be exchanged for anything
:48:13. > :48:18.else. You can't get to the station and think I won't go to work in
:48:18. > :48:21.London today, I will go to Mars on this new rocket train that's been
:48:21. > :48:25.provided by this splendid private company. It was a ludicrous idea
:48:25. > :48:30.from the get-go and the particular way they did it with the track
:48:30. > :48:34.hived off from the rail operators has caused absolute chaos, some
:48:34. > :48:40.dreadful crashes and the current predictment you find yourselves in.
:48:40. > :48:44.So what would do you? What would you do? I would
:48:44. > :48:49.renationalise it. And you would end up paying more through taxes to run
:48:49. > :48:54.a system that was run... Are you mystic Meg, do you know this for a
:48:54. > :48:58.fact? The woman at the back who is about to explode if she doesn't
:48:58. > :49:01.speak. I totally agree with what Will Self has come to say t comes
:49:01. > :49:05.down to privatisation in the first place and not only will this have a
:49:05. > :49:08.massive impact on the cost, but also on the safety standards. We
:49:08. > :49:17.are about to see the same thing possibly happen to our health
:49:17. > :49:21.service and it's appalling. APPLAUSE. Janice Atkinson? Before I
:49:21. > :49:27.came on today I looked up how much you hard-pressed commutersify get
:49:27. > :49:33.into London each day if you have to go to work. Your travel costs for
:49:33. > :49:37.an annual season ticket about �3,100. And those of you who have
:49:37. > :49:44.to drive, it's �1600 to park your car there. Under these proposals
:49:44. > :49:47.you could actually see your rail fares rise by 50%. That means
:49:47. > :49:52.�4,500 to get there. But don't think about using your car, because
:49:52. > :49:56.it costs actually around about �100 to fill up the average family car
:49:56. > :49:59.now. �82 of that goes to the Treasury. Even if do you get in the
:49:59. > :50:03.car and can afford that when you get to London you have the
:50:03. > :50:06.congestion charge and then I won't even go in to how much it costs to
:50:06. > :50:09.park your car. I thought that this Government was all about getting
:50:09. > :50:15.the economy moving. It's actually going to come to a grinding stop
:50:15. > :50:25.under these proposals. APPLAUSE.
:50:25. > :50:26.
:50:26. > :50:30.Will Young? I am confused. Our fares -- are fares going to rise?
:50:30. > :50:35.Under the new system that we are bring in, the report came today, we
:50:36. > :50:39.have a mechanism where we can going to start to drive down on the costs.
:50:39. > :50:43.We got a chap to look into the railways to make a number of
:50:43. > :50:47.serious recommendations in terms of thousand make it run better, by and
:50:47. > :50:52.large, Caroline, your side seemed to be accepting the ideas, and we
:50:52. > :50:57.have a simple message to be able to deal with this. Tpwu ain't going to
:50:57. > :51:01.be easy, Will. The old system didn't work terribly well before. I
:51:01. > :51:07.am old enough just to remember how lousy British Rail were. But sots
:51:07. > :51:15.expensive now. I was doing a play, a drama in Manchester and it was
:51:15. > :51:19.cheaper for me to drive up and back than to be getting trains. They're
:51:19. > :51:26.going to lift the price even more. More people are going to go on the
:51:26. > :51:30.roads. Prices have risen above inflation consistently. That's a
:51:30. > :51:35.mechanism. What I find amazing is the difference in the price for the
:51:35. > :51:38.same journey. If you are prepared to go on the internet and devote
:51:38. > :51:43.the rest of your life you can get cheap prices on that. And it is
:51:43. > :51:47.ridiculous that people should have to go through this long process in
:51:47. > :51:51.having to finding when it's clearly possible to be able to run a much
:51:51. > :51:55.better system. Let's hear from more commuters perhaps. Indeed we are
:51:55. > :51:59.suffering from high prices at the moment, and this risk of constant
:51:59. > :52:05.increases in the fares and only today returning on the train from
:52:05. > :52:07.London reading in the papers that your ideas for reducing the costs,
:52:07. > :52:12.of reducing guards and staff on the trains, which is going to provide
:52:12. > :52:15.us with a less safe network, so we are paying more and the system's
:52:15. > :52:21.going to be less safe, less secure, particularly if you are travelling
:52:21. > :52:25.in the later hours where already the number of staff is very limited.
:52:25. > :52:33.What is your response to that safety? Who do you blame for this,
:52:33. > :52:41.do you think this is Government or the rail companies? It seems to be
:52:41. > :52:44.bad collaboration between the two. All right. The man up there.
:52:44. > :52:48.I wondered whether perhaps it would be more efficient if Network Rail
:52:48. > :52:50.was actually broken up and perhaps regional routes were formed,
:52:50. > :52:56.networks and then they were integrated with the operators
:52:56. > :53:00.again? Of course it would be, that's what it was before British
:53:00. > :53:05.Rail and they managed to turn a profit and provide a service.
:53:05. > :53:11.think we are looking at it with pussyfooting around. What we need
:53:11. > :53:17.to do is someone with guts to look at the whole issue of transport and
:53:17. > :53:20.say we have an opportunity to make some changes. We have an
:53:20. > :53:28.opportunity to look - or we had before the Olympics, we have the
:53:28. > :53:33.opportunity to look at rail, road, air, all of these things, we could
:53:33. > :53:43.if we have enough brains and enough guts, come up with a joined up
:53:43. > :53:43.
:53:43. > :53:48.approach that provides jobs, that does not penalise people who travel
:53:48. > :53:52.on public transport. The Government was trying to say well look we will
:53:52. > :53:56.raise taxes on fuel so that people... This sounds like a job
:53:56. > :54:03.application! It is, it's vital that we do something! Someone with guts!
:54:03. > :54:07.All right, thank you very much. APPLAUSE.
:54:07. > :54:12.I am going to go on to a final question from Chloe Mead, I will
:54:12. > :54:17.only have time to go around the panel on this one. Gender equality
:54:17. > :54:23.is constantly on the agenda. So why are steupl still underpresent --
:54:23. > :54:27.women still underrepresented? are women underrepresented? Janice
:54:27. > :54:30.Atkinson? I stood as a parliamentary candidate at the last
:54:30. > :54:34.general election and the Conservative Partys and Labour
:54:34. > :54:37.tried very, very hard to get women to go in, there aren't a lot of
:54:37. > :54:41.women actually queuing up to become MPs and to go into public life. You
:54:41. > :54:45.get to a certain age, you have a background, a lot of people earn
:54:45. > :54:48.more than the �67,000 a year. If you are a female living in the
:54:48. > :54:52.north of England and a single mother you couldn't actually afford
:54:52. > :55:01.to go into parliament because the high cost of child care. That's one
:55:01. > :55:05.of the reasons. We are not queuing up to get there. We have skwrepbd
:55:05. > :55:10.eequality -- gender equality. We have to look at the pipeline coming
:55:10. > :55:15.through companies as well. We have - the under 30s at the moment are
:55:15. > :55:17.actually earning more than men. Women are equally educated and we
:55:17. > :55:20.are going to have a problem because when they start having children
:55:20. > :55:24.there's a problem of child care. We have the highest costs of child
:55:24. > :55:33.care in the land and we are not looking at fixing that leaky
:55:33. > :55:38.pipeline as well. Thank you. I have to stop you. Eric Pickles? Chairman
:55:38. > :55:40.of the Conservative Party, and we had a rotten record in terms of
:55:40. > :55:46.getting Conservative women and it was part of my yob to get the
:55:46. > :55:50.process through -- to - part of my job. I was talking to Janice before,
:55:50. > :55:53.the weird thing I found is once you could get it past that initial
:55:53. > :55:56.selection committee and out to the members there was absolutely no
:55:56. > :55:59.problem but there is a kind of glass skaoeling in politics that
:55:59. > :56:04.makes certain assumptions about women and I haven't got the
:56:04. > :56:07.slightest doubt that because of work of the Labour Party went a
:56:07. > :56:11.different route and pause we made a big effort, that the chamber of the
:56:11. > :56:14.House of Commons and the quality of debate and the quality of
:56:14. > :56:20.representation has been vastly improved by increasing the number
:56:20. > :56:24.of women and I hope to see more. Caroline Flint. In terms of
:56:24. > :56:27.parliament the Labour Party's got more women MPs than all the other
:56:27. > :56:30.parties put together of which I am very proud. It's still not enough
:56:30. > :56:33.but that's also the reason we have got that is that we recognised it
:56:34. > :56:38.wasn't about Janice, about not having women who wanted to be MPs,
:56:38. > :56:41.it was because to be honest there were things happening in our party
:56:41. > :56:45.that were acting as barriers to women, because too often it was the
:56:45. > :56:49.favoured son who was supported through politics and women weren't
:56:49. > :56:52.given equality in terms of having success at those selection meetings.
:56:52. > :56:59.That's why I am afraid to say you do need sometimes a phebg tphoeufpl
:56:59. > :57:02.give the process -- mechanism to give the process a shove. There's
:57:02. > :57:06.many walks of life. You are not telling me on boards of companies
:57:06. > :57:10.dominated by men the golf club doesn't play a factor in the terms
:57:10. > :57:14.of the men who end up on those boards. We need to address this. We
:57:14. > :57:18.are better than we were, but there's a long way to go and having
:57:18. > :57:20.International's Women's Day is one way to repine us of that and the --
:57:20. > :57:28.remind us of that and the other challenges women face around the
:57:28. > :57:36.world. Thank you. I agree with you, Caroline. We
:57:36. > :57:39.still exist in a patriarcial society. I don't agree that you
:57:39. > :57:46.still find it that women lecturers will get paid less than men, we
:57:46. > :57:53.need more women in the boardroom. Men are babies and women are far
:57:53. > :57:59.stronger creatures, in my opinion. Will Self? Well, I think it largely
:57:59. > :58:03.comes down to the business of who bears the children and until we
:58:03. > :58:06.look to societies in which they've managed to equalise more or less
:58:06. > :58:11.equalise representation and see what they do with child care
:58:11. > :58:16.provision, and how they bring men into the loop in terms of child
:58:16. > :58:20.care, and no longer penalise women who take time out to bring up
:58:20. > :58:27.children and encourage men to take time out to bring up children,
:58:27. > :58:32.which is fundamentally an erosion of this patriarhial society, you
:58:32. > :58:36.won't get equiff Lance. We must stop there.
:58:36. > :58:40.We are going to be in Scotland in St Andrews next week. We are going
:58:40. > :58:43.to have Charlie Kennedy, former Liberal Democrat leader on the
:58:43. > :58:48.panel, as well as the new leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland,
:58:48. > :58:52.Ruth Davidson. The week after that we are in Grimsby. Either St
:58:52. > :59:02.Andrews or Grimsby. Visit our website if you want to apply or