08/03/2012 Question Time

We are in Guildford tonight and On our panel here, the Communities

and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, the Shadow Energy

Secretary, Caroline Flint, the novelist, Will Self, Professor of

Contemporary Thought at Brunel university, the Daily Mail

columnist, Janice Atkinson and the singer originally discovered on Pop

Idol, Will Young. Thank you very much and our first

question from Katy Evans, please? I'm a politics student at the

University of Surrey and my question is, considering the tragic

deaths of six more soldiers, why is our withdrawal from Afghanistan

still planned for 2014 and not sooner?

Thank you very much. Of course, all our thoughts are with the families

of those six soldiers who died. But the question is, whether this

should lead to our withdrawal earlier than 2014. Eric Pickles?

I've had the sad experience of having to go to the funeral of a

young lad lost in my constituency and it's difficult talking to the

parents. They always feel tremendously proud of what the

young man's done and I think we should be very proud of these

individuals. I think the hard truth is that these individuals made our

streets that little bit safer. We went into Afghanistan, not to

control the country, not to make that country a lot better run, we

made it become stable. We went in there to ensure that Al-Qaeda could

not operate, could not use it as a base to do another 9/11, they

couldn't use it as a base to do that, and I think by and large, we

have succeeded in doing that. Despite this dreadful occurrence,

Afghanistan, for all its imperfections, is a lot more stable

than it was. We I don't think are ready to leave in 2014, we are part

of the process of trying to ensure that that country remains as

reasonably stable as it is. The Al- Qaeda is a shadow of its former

self. The Taliban is desperate, but we have experience of terrorism in

Northern Ireland and we know that there may be people willing to talk

to us who are terrorists, but there's always a faction that's

willing to use the bomb and the gun to get their way. We can't allow

those people to win because we can't allow a country like

Afghanistan ever again to be the Centre for Terrorism that can

launch attacks on us or any other part of the world. You used the

word "reasonably" stable, suggesting you are not entirely

convinced that withdrawal in 2014 will mean Al-Qaeda will never

emerge in Afghanistan. Am I right in thinking that? I think it would

be ridiculous to suggest a country that is harbouring people that are

capable of organising a bomb of that dimension and one that we

still have lots of questions about ensuring that the rights of women

are properly protected would be regarded as stable. But what I am

confident in saying is, I do not believe that there is a reasonable

prospect of Al-Qaeda returning to the position that they had. The

Taliban I think is broken up into different factions, some are very

willing to talk but there are others, as we know, we have

experience, 60-odd years expoorpbs of this, there are factions that do

not want to negotiate at any price -- experience of this.

Will Self? Well, Lord west for a long time, one of your advisers

from the military, is in the paper this evening saying quite clearly

that the business of extapating the bases and making it difficult to

operate out of Afghanistan was achieved within weeks, if not

months of the initial invasion, and what subsequently happened, Eric,

was a failed exercise in nation- building, so I think you are on

very shaky ground there. It's a very, very tough and sad business

because now over 400 British lives have been lost in Afghanistan over

a long period. And also, let us not forget, 10,000, the UN estimate,

10,000 Afghan civilians' lives during this conflict. The heroin

trade which fuels war and always follows in the wake of this kind of

warfare, is bigger than ever. It's estimated by a UN report that that

is so. It infiltrates into the heart of the Afghan government.

Everyone knows Afghanistan will more or less collapse into a failed

state as soon as the coalition forces pull out and it's like some

ghastly and sickening game of kind of musical chairs where all the

politicians are frightened to be the first one to drop us. Do you

think that Britain should pull out before the planned date of 2014 in

the light of these six deaths, as Katy Evans asked? It is a classic

case of a-symmetrical warfare, very much like the forces of the

Americans in Vietnam. It's going to fail sooner or later so we may as

well pull out now. Pull out now, all right.

APPLAUSE The woman up in the second row from

the back? I would like to ask who Afghanistan is really safe for?

President Karzai's just today endorsed the policy of women being

second class citizens. Indeed. Janice Atkinson? My heart goes out

to the families of those soldiers. Five of them were aged between 19

and 21, I've got a 20-year-old son, so particularly poignant. Why? What

have we achieved? As the lady up there just said, women are going to

go back to the dark ages when we leave and that's tragic. Karzai's

corrupt, it's going to fall apart as soon as we leave. Can we afford

these foreign adventures? I don't think so any more. We are not

equipping our troops properly, we have paired back our Armed Forces

to the bone and in a few months' time or even two years' time, we

might have to fight the Falklands again and, at the moment, we

couldn't even fight the Isle of Wight, never mind the Falklands, so

no, we pull out now. The man in the second row from the

back? If we do pull out, how does that bear with the people who've

lost all these sons and husbands over the last ten years, how will

it affect them and what will the effect be on them? Will Young?

think this is the difficulty. Hopefully we will have a legacy in

Afghanistan that will support what we've been doing there for the last

however many years. The problem is, Eric, I really can't agree with you

on how you draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. The regime, the

Government that we are leaving behind is not this stable as it was

over there, there isn't a Gerry Adams figure. There was a leaked

report two weeks ago from NATO saying that Al-Qaeda is stronger

than ever. The message on what we have been doing in Afghanistan is

and has been - you can shake your head - but it's been mixed.

didn't move my head, you are putting words into my mouth. It's a

liberal democracy where women are first class citizens, poignant that

it's on International Women's Day, from, as Will said, bringing down...

APPLAUSE Bringing down the heroin trade. I think we have to stay in

there until 2014, even if it's riding on the coat tails of America.

But it really saddens me that, at the moment, it looks like our

legacy in Afghanistan is fairly bleak.

APPLAUSE The woman there? Do you not feel

that if we pull out immediately, Afghanistan may be seen as another

Vietnam? Caroline Flint? In the light of what's happened this week,

it's hard to believe that there isn't anyone to be honest that

hasn't gone through their minds the thoughts about when shall we leave,

shall we leave sooner - I think that's a totally natural reaction

to what's happened this week. It is a hard question. Those young men

who died this week were carrying out their duty along with other

servicemen and women and listenings to some of those in our military

today, praising their efforts, I think it's beholden on all of us to

understand that the military, from this country, are doing a fantastic

And they are doing this job in the interests of our national security.

I suppose the outcome that we want to see is that Afghanistan does not

become an incubator for terrorism again. That's why I think it's

really important in the lead up to 2014 that we not only have a

military strategy which I think in many ways is working very well, but

we have a political strategy. I do think that the Prime Minister needs

to be out there talking to the public about why we are still there,

what we are doing and what is the exit strategy. I think that has to

be a debate in the public domain much more often than it currently

is. I understand that the Prime Minister will be meeting Barack

Obama shortly. I hope this will be top of the agenda for discussion.

There is a meeting of NATO in May and I hope before we get to that

summit that there is a clearer understanding about what is the

political strategy to take us forward. So your view is that

there's been a strategy but it's not been explained? No, I think one

of the problems is, and I can totally understand it, in the last

few months, Syria, North Africa's dominated debate and I understand

that, but actually, our number one interest in this country in terms

of our security is Afghanistan. I just think we need to see more of

that discussion. I'm not saying this in a partisan way, Eric, I

just think it would help all of us to better understand what is

happening, to hold the Government to account, if you like, but also

have a better conversation with the public about why we are there and

what we are achieving and what the end game is. Clearer exposition?

want to be clear. I'm deeply unhappy with what's happening with

regard to women in Afghanistan, I'm not over the moon in terms of the

way in which women are treated in Saudi Arabia, but it's in our

strategic interest to ensure there is a degree of stability in that

country. Of course, talks have been taking place with people who're in

the Taliban, those who're willing to sit down and to discuss a future

for Afghanistan. That took place under Labour, this's taking place

with us and... Can you go through with that even while fighting is

going on and people are being blown up? The point I was trying to make,

Mr Dimbleby, was this, you mustn't see the Taliban as one unit. It's

made up of many different factions of many tribal leaders and many are

absolutely engaged. It's true, you mustn't confuse Al-Qaeda with the

Taliban. They are far from the same organisation or people. There are

very few foreign fighters left in Afghanistan. It remains a problem

in terms of getting people to give up their weaponry. You don't think

they'll come back once NATO troops are withdrawn? I think what, I

think the reason why we need to go about this process is to debate on

that degree of stability. The woman in the second row from the back in

the striped shirt? Caroline, you said that the reason for going into

Afghanistan is because we don't want it to be an incubator for

terrorism. Does that mean beshed go into Pakistan? This rose out of

what happened on 9/11 and thousands of people killed. Also the biggest

terrorist attack in terms of affecting the biggest number of

British citizens we have seen. We had Bali, Madrid and 7/7. United

Nations force was about tackling what happened in Afghanistan

whereby the whole state had become the training ground for terrorism

with Al-Qaeda. There are issues, you are absolutely right in terms

of Pakistan, of course you are right about that, and there is both

issues that have to be looked at in terms of internally in Afghanistan

and security there and not having a situation whereby we withdraw and

it all collapses in on itself. Also importantly in the talks, the

regional issues as well. That is about Pakistan and India. You are

right on that. Can I just say to the lady about Karzai's actions

today. I'm bitterly disappointed that he signed up to that. It's not

actually part of the legal constitution, if you like, it's a

religious document he signed up to and I'm very disappointed but

incredibly proud of the women who're now politicians in

Afghanistan and all the women and girls who're going to school. Yes,

that's really important. Whatever happens down the road, I hope, like

with other countries, when we come away, we'll continue to shine the

spotlight on lacks of human rights Would one of the best ways of

supporting our fallen and troops currently serving in Afghanistan be

to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan irrespective of the opinions of

unelected judges in Europe? Would you like to see that happen but we

can't go into that question because we have many other - yes, you Sir.

We have other questions to come to. If the invasion was to protect our

streets, why did 7 7/7 happen? It's all about British foreign policy,

that's why we have terrorism. you don't thaeu the operations in

Afghanistan are relevant s that what you are saying? Look at 7/7,

they were all home grown terrorists. All schooled in Pakistan in the

tribal territories, not in Afghanistan. New the front.

seems to me it hasn't achieved that much over the last few years and we

have been spending billions on it and there have been hundreds of

deaths, and it doesn't seem to be worth it any more. It seems...

deadline in two years, or should British forces be pulled out

straightaway. The point about the Falklands war could happen.

can't police the world. But we can't carry on doing this. The man

up there. For all its imperfections, the state of Afghanistan is a much

better situation than it was when we invaded in 2001, particularly

for our national interest. But the key point I think in this area is

that we owe it as a country to all those brave men and women who have

given their lives in the service to us, sure we don't leave on an

arbitrary timetable but ensure is done, to do otherwise would be

disrespectful to those who have given their lives for this country.

APPLAUSE. Just to clarify that, you don't

think there should be a date of 2014 for withdrawal? I don't think

there's anything wrong with having an aim but to have a date saying we

will pull out at this point is unacceptable. If you are tweeting

Let's go to a question now from William Dunnett now. Would a

mansion tax be fairer than a 50p tax band for the highest earners.

Vince Cable saying he is confident this is going to happen the 50p tax

band is going to be reduced and some other kind of tax in its place.

Will Self? I think both. APPLAUSE. Both will do very nicely.

I am a 50p band payer and quite rightly so, I don't have a �2

million house, very few people do actually. There's about 75,000 of

them, most of them are in London and the vast majority of those are

in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. So, both I think,

frankly. Will Young? I don't have a �2 million house, I do pay the 50%.

I am content with that. I guess the key thing here - I don't think it

will happen by the way, I think the Government will probably focus more

on pensions, but I think the key thing here is trying to find

people's wealth and one of the ways of doing that is finding their

assets, which is in their houses. Lots of people come over to the UK

and avoid paying the tax by buying houses through companies. I am just

wondering how it's going to be administered. Will it be based on

market wealth? If you have a house that's, I don't though, �2.2

million and then the he is state agent says this is worth �2.2

million and you sell it for �1.99 which is more likely going to

happen in this comes in, do you still get tax based on what it

was... You know you have these valuations for council tax bands.

It's not the real problem. The problem is whether or not Eric is

going to let local authorities have the money or for central Government,

that's the interesting thing. You believe as a primary article that

introduced legislation to have greater autonomy for the council,

presumably you are going to let them have it. He is keeping a

straight face. Eric Pickles, do you think a mansion tax or a wealth tax

of some sort will be fairer than a 50p tax band? It's been described

as a granny tax because it will hit people with assets, but not

necessarily the people that have the assets who also have have

income. I have no problem about going against Russian oligarches or

people buying houses through firms, but the problem is you have the

unintended consequences of hitting people who actually don't have a

lot of money. We are in Surrey, now the average price of a detached

house in Surrey is half a million quid, so you are actually going to

pick up a lot of people. How we would do it, of course, is we would

probably split the top... You just button up my old chum and I will

tell you, you probably have to do a full revaluation, we know from

Wales that process means that people tend to jump two or three

bands, so we probably have to do that. Which is going to cost �300

million. No, �260. You can cross that bit off your notes there.

APPLAUSE. Of course it will be an English tax because this is

devolved in Wales and Scotland. England would have to bear the

whole weight on a mansion tax. It will be very difficult to do, but

of course what I should have said at the very beginning and I am kind

of kicking myself for not doing so, this is a matter for the Chancellor

and I am sure he will come to a sensible conclusion. And what do

you make of your cabinet colleague Vince Cable saying he was pretty

confident that it will happen? Is he right to be confident? He is

indeed a suit-sayer of some importance, but I am just a mere

functionary that would make this happen and it would be extremely

difficult to do so. But this is a matter for the Chancellor, you are

tempting me on things that will get me into trouble. You think the

Liberal Democrats have more influence over this budget than you

do as a Conservative with strong views about how taxation should

be... It is a coalition, and all views are welcome. APPLAUSE.

Flint Flint Flint? -- Flint Caroline Flint. There will be tears

before bedtime, Eric. When is bedtime? That's for the coalition

to decide. I am not really that concerned about how we help out the

50p tax rate payers with a mansion tax. What I am actually concerned

about is those on lower incomes who are having to pay more. One of the

ways they're paying more is through VAT and that's why we are saying in

the budget that we should have a temporary decrease in VAT to 17.5%

for a year to put around �450 in the pockets of ordinary families,

that's to me a priority, in order to help families but also to get

spending going and get movement going in terms of our economy. On a

mansion tax we are open to suggestions from the coalition

Government. There are sometimes issues where somebody will live in

a very high value home, but their income might not match that, there

sense -- there is sensitivitying around that. We are seeing a number

of people who are working hard on lower, middle incomes being

affected by pay freezes, affected by shorter working hours and other

pressures with inflation and cost of living and I would like to see

those families prioritised over a discussion around mansion tax and

50p rate. The 50p rate should stay. You sound indifferent towards it.

Your Shadow Chancellor says Labour would support it. I said that, I

said I am open to it. But I think - no, that means we are open to - we

could have it. Would you support it if it came along? I think I can't

say what our tax policy is going to be down the road, David. He said he

will support it. What Ed has said is what I have said, we are open to

look at these issues around raising money in different ways. If the

Chancellor wants to go down that road we will support it. That's

what I just said, David. But there are other issues we would like the

Chancellor to spend sometime thinking about and that is those

families on lower incomes who are being affected by their jobs being

put at risk, by the cost of living and we would say focus on getting

VAT reduced, put real money into the pockets of ordinary families.

Thank you. I think the mansion tax is about as

stupid as the old-fashioned window tax that happened in the 18th

century. APPLAUSE. There are a lot of retired people, I am one of them,

who live in a house which has gone up in value through no fault of

mine, if my house was in the middle of Northumberland, or maybe the

middle of Lincolnshire, I am told it wouldn't be worth the value it

is because I happen to live in Surrey. To make people pay a tax on

a house, a nominal value of �2 million plus is an unfair tax of

all time. What would do you to avoid it, with the window tax they

blocked up windows. What would do you? I don't know. Knock the house

down. What are they going to achieve by... Do you already pay a

property tax as it is, you are already paying a property tax.

house is probably worth more than �2 million, it wouldn't be worth

that money if it was... You are already paying a weighted local

property tax. The issue is not some weird martial imposition out of the

blue. I disagree. The man in the red tie. I think the mansion tax,

there's so many flaws. I agree with Will Young, administering it would

be very, very difficult. There's people that live in a �2 million

house that might be in negative equity. I also read that 50% of the

people that own these �2 million houses are retired. They may well

be asset rich, but cash poor. I just can't see how it would ever

work. All right. The woman there. Will, as I understand it, you have

just said there's probably not an awful lot of houses, apart from the

south-east and London London anyway over �2 million, so actually what

is the point of it? I agree, it's not, you know, I didn't dream up

the mansion tax actually. Curiously, they don't come to me for advice on

this! Eric says the coalition is open to all views, but they've yet

to solicit mine. I can safely say we won't be troubling you!

All right. Let's go on, this from Susan Felton. Does the proposal to

allow gay marriages undermine the institution of marriage as a whole?

This is a hornets nest that's been stirred up because the Government

is starting a consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage

and card -- Cardinal O'Brien laid into them as a subversion and said

it would shame the United Kingdom. Will Young? I am gay. APPLAUSE.

am up firs. - first. I think he is mad that man. To begin with, as a

gay man, gay marriage is not - was not the top of my agenda for gay

rights. What was was actually the negative use of gay in schools,

which was mentioned last week, so I won't go on about it. Since I have

heard these disgusting, repellent words from various people,

particularly that awful man in Scotland, I have got kind of more

and more riled about it. This man said that it would be grotesque,

grotesque gay marriage. He also likened it to slavery. He's also

talking incidentally from an institution that is hardly being

heralded as the paragone of moral virtue for the last two years. If

this guy had been saying it, talking like this against race or

religion, he would be in court now. But he is still allowed to go on

the Today programme and then I read articles in the papers where people

sort of say he did go a little bit over the top because he said

grotesque and did liken gay marriage to slavery, but maybe he

still has a point. So, he's crazy. He is out of the picture. I didn't

realise that the institute of marriage was purely for

heterosexual couples. I mean, most people that I know, straight and

gay, use the term gay marriage. Where I have come to on this is

when I get married, if and when I get married, I want now to have it

legal, that I can say I am having a gay marriage. I think it is

important and I think that there is a a latent, sleepy homophobia that

runs underneath this receipt are toic that's -- rhetoric that's been

going on, you know they've been given civil partnership, they

shouldn't really have marriage. Call a spade a spade. Say you still

don't agree with it, all this isn't getting to the true issue. That

there is still a long way to go in gay rights. We have come so far in

this country and I think that having gay marriage legalised is

Janice Atkinson? Civil partnerships were brought in in 200. Since that

time, 20,000 gay couples have got civil partnerships -- 2004. They

don't seem to be rushing to the altar, in my view. My concern is

that the state should not be involved in this argument

whatsoever. It's no business of the state. The state and the church is

separate. Now, let me declare a non-interest here. I have no faith,

I have no religion, I got married twice, both times in a registry

office, never had my children christened so don't hold a torch

for any faith whatsoever. But what worries me here... Who recognised

your marriages then, the state? just had a civil partnership.

That's factually incorrect, you say you are concerned about the state

not being involved. In this country, the church is part of the state, I

don't know if you have noticed but. Should be complete separation.

much-loved Monarch is defender of the faith and Head of The Anglican

Church. She said the other day she was a Fed of Faiths. That was

Prince Charles. What worries me here is that in this country we

also have something called a hate crime, so if this goes through,

what happens to those Imams, the priests and the vicars who have

their views and I agree, some are abhorrent, but I'm no torch holder

for faith. If they turn round and say no, this is wrong, this is

abhorrent, and they used that language and I don't agree with

that, then they can be called into account and into a police station.

I think... Rightfully so. Do you think? Yes. Why? People used to use

the same institution to say women were second class citizens, that

women couldn't have the vote. are not second class citizens,

absolutely not. I know that. All my gay friends say a marriage is a

union between a woman and a man and they don't need a marriage.

should a marriage be... It's been laid down by centuries, laid down

by tradition. I read that in your article, some of it agreed with -

very rude of me to point, I am sorry. We are not that far apart,

Will. Marriage has allowed the woman to be subservient if we are

going centuries back, rape to happen in marriage, abuse... We've

moved on quite a bit from that? we have and we need to continue to

move on. Marriage is about a union between two people. ALL SPEAK AT

ONCE Eric Pickles? What is your view on

this? I have to say, I've rather changed my mind on this in recent

years, I'm rather in favour of gay marriages and what I've heard has

just made me rather glad I have changed my mind. I've seen people

in civic partnerships and the difference between friends of mine

who're gay have now entered into this, it's given them a degree of

stability, certainty about the future. I think if people want to

make a commitment to one another, to agree to support one another, to

look after one another in sickness and in health, then I think the

state should provide that facility. What do you see the difference

between a civil partnership and gamma Raj being? I don't think

there is in practice any difference. There's no difference in law, all

the various rights that will accrue from a marriage will also accrue in

a civil partnership. I'm a very blunt sort of a chap, can't see the

point of going through this pro tense of thinking that a civil

partnership is anything other than a marriage. As for the church, we

are not forcing the church. If the Catholic Church does not want to

marry people in their churches that are homosexuals, we are not going

to force the methodists or the Church of England. But Will is

right, the state licences marriages and part of a civilised society and

a normal, respectful to our population, for those who're gay,

we should provide that service. APPLAUSE

Hear, hear... I just wanted to pick up on the

point about hate crime. On Sunday, every Catholic priest is going to

stand up in church and say that they disagree with gay marriage or

equal marriage which I prefer. I just think that's a hate crime

actually, I just wondered what the panel thought of that. The point

that Janice was making that even to oppose it will... No, I'm not

saying that. Do you think that's a hate crime? No, I don't have a

problem with people opposing it but to stand up and say this to

everybody in a Catholic Church, to ask them to deny people to have the

right. Caroline Flint that brings us back to those words, a gross

subversion of a human right and shaming the United Kingdom as the

Cardinal said? I totally disagree with those words and Susan's word,

does gay marriage undermine the institution, I don't think it does.

I'm on my second marriage, Janice is, this is giving the people a

chance to actually define themselves as having a marriage.

Civil partnership is already there and I'm really proud that that was

one of the things as a Labour Government we undertook to support,

along with other areas to tackle some discrimination against people

on the grounds of their sexuality. I have to say, I've fought for some

time -- thought for some time that it's ludicrous that we have

registry office marriages and then we have civil partnerships. It's

all about treating people equal under the law. The civil

partnership was done by the registry office. That's my point,

it's marriage. Don't you understand why we have that? Nobody seems to

understand why the distinction is being made. Do you understand why?

It's because we have an established church. Don't you get it? The

logical move - no, no, follow the logic - if you say that the civil

partnership is equivalent to a that rablg, you are beginning to chip

away further at the establishment of the Anglican Church -- marriage.

Let me just clarify this. What do you mean by, what do the words

"implement equal civil marriage mean", as opposed to "equal civil

partnership" in your opinion? Labour introduced civil

partnerships? It's everything Janice is talking about, the

centuries of tradition she sees enshrined. She has no faith so

really she has no right. But other people do. Five million Catholics

have a right. Just a matter of words really? No, no, no, the point

is that the Church of England and other churches can marry men and

women and only wish to marry men and women so it's their

susceptibilities that stop gay marriage being called marriage OK,

that's why the loony bishop up in Scotland flipped his wig because he

understands that once you allow it to be called gay marriage... It can

happen in church? Yes. Am I right? Yes, of course I'm right? APPLAUSE

Incidentally, heterosexuals do a very good job of undermining

marriage in my experience. Caroline Flint? I think the time's

come to harmonize what we have got at the moment which is civil

partnerships and registry office marriages weddings into one, so

whether you are heterosexual or gay, that you can go through the same

process and, importantly, at the end of it, you have the same rights

under the law. Those are rights that for a long, long time, were

denied to gay people. It doesn't affect actually as Eric said, and

I'm glad you've changed your views on this, Eric, it doesn't affect

temples, synagogues, mosques, churches, from conducting their own

affairs, but we have a law in which all people should be treated equal

in this country. That will be the next step, don't you think? What

will be? That's an excuse to deny people equality. The next step will

be demanding marriages in churches and mosques and temples. Wait a

minute. That would be dangerous. Explain that if gay marriages are

what the Government is introducing, why shouldn't they be conducted in

the church. That's what Will Self was saying Some vicars will be

happy to conduct them. It's up to... If you are married in a church, it

has to be recognised as a place that can solemnise marriage.

they don't want to, that will be the next step for the extreme gay

lobbyists in this country. Hang on, this is the kind of language that

this is the kind of language that is scaremongering. We are not going

to with giant disco balls and roller skates blaring Dolly Parton.

roller skates blaring Dolly Parton. APPLAUSE

It's this kind of language which I find terrifying because it's fear

mongering, staring people up. It's what the lady said there. You know,

this insipid homophobia beneath this. I'm not talking about you,

Janice, I'm talking about the language being used. The man in the

spectacles? Surely it's just a matter of assembly an stick ticks

really what one calls it and we are one of the few countries in Europe

where registry office or Mayoral marriage is not a requirement

anyway prior to going through a religious ceremony -- sman ticks.

Would you like to see the church marry gay couples? It wouldn't

worry me. The man on the right? Calling it dangerous, a few years

from now we'll think it's ridiculous, like interracial

marriages years ago. I hope in years to come we'll be calling it

marriage, not gay marriage or civil marriage, just marriage. Just

marriage. Your concern is that you think gay

couples will insist on being married in synagogues? Not the

majority, no. There's always the extremists in these things.

would be illegal not to marry a gay couple, is that what you are

saying? Eric Pickles? With this moderating suggestion that the

state should be able to offer a gay marriage, I would be really unhappy

if we used this as a way of repressing free speech. I don't

agree with the Archbishop but he has a right to speak from his

pulpit. We know where the line is though. He doesn't have a right,

and this is on a recent case involving another route, he doesn't

have a right to stand up and say gay marriage is wrong and gay

people should be hung. He doesn't have a right toe say gay marriage

is wrong and gay people should be thrown out of the town. It comes a

hate crime. To turn that into a hate crime would be the worst kind

of repression. APPLAUSE Nicky Horley, please?

How can the railway network justify the fare increases, especially as

we are already the most expensive in Europe? Guildford is an area

presumably with many commuters who have to pay lots? The main way to

London or Portsmouth. Announcements that they are going to increase

prices one way or another. Caroline Flint? I think it's �4 billion of

public money goes into the rail operators and it was a few weeks

back where they stepped back from the brink of giving themselves

bonuses too. The truth is that for many people here and in the south-

east in particular, the cost of getting to work and partly actually

affected by trying to find cheaping housing further out from London and

then the knock-on effect of having to travel into London for work is

becoming ever more difficult. What really worries me about some of the

announcements today - I've not gone through them all in detail - is the

idea that they are going to focus particularly on those commuters

who're travelling at peak times and looking to push up the price even

further. If you have got a job to go to, you ain't got much choice

about travelling in peak times and I think that is an ask too much. I

really think the Government needs to look at some of the decisions

it's made in recent times about raising the cap over which prices

can be increased because we have seen an 11% increase above

inflation and we are looking to another 6% over the next few years

until they say we can get to the point where they don't have to do

that any more. I'm not sure many people will bear that in the next

Eric Pickles, the questioner says we have the most expensive fares

already in Europe. How can it be justified to increase them further?

I represent a constituency that relies heavily on the trains, but

respect to Caroline, she had 13 years to sort this out and today we

start that process. We need to understand why we are where we are

when the railways were privatised they were underresourced. There had

been little investment. Since privatisation there's been a whole

raft of investment going in. I think in the spending review there

is still another �8 billion to be put -- �18 billion in terms of

infrastructure. The regular increases that goes on to the

passenger and the regular subsidy coming in from the public, that

time is rapidly coming to an end. Which bit of it, the subsidies?

think both has. That's what the report says and the report

identifies a way in which we can get a much closer co-operation

between rail and track in which we can bear down on the costs and try

and start to embrace the 21st century. I mean, my constituency is

getting giddy with excitement at the prospect we might get an oyster

card to be able to pay. I find it immensely confusing buying a ticket

for the railways, you can go just about any different price,

depending on the time when you go. I think we have got to use this to

start bearing down on the railways. They have been a success. What's

been a success? More people travel by rail than they did before.

doesn't mean the railway - the roads are a shambles. APPLAUSE.

doubt as you waft luxuriously on your way. But for lots of ordinary

people who go to work they have to face this and in terms of

delivering with the tickets we have to bear down on those costs and

what this report suggests is that it should be implemented and it

should be and we should bear down on this and the days in which we

can expect the taxpayer to pay for - the day in which we canen to

expect the passenger to continue to pay I think are over. Why is it the

most expensive in Europe? If it has so much subsidy from the taxpayer?

That's one of the reasons. Taxpayer... My dear friend,...

Never mind calling me my dear friend! May I quickly explain the

economics of the railway. The which in which the rail... Why don't you

explain it to him since you have talked long enough as it is, you

may as well go on and explain it. APPLAUSE. I am quite happy to give

way knocks doubt you have -- no doubt you have an interesting way.

Go by canals, no doubt. The subsidy was �1 billion before they were

nationalised in real terms, it's now �4 billion. You lot are all

commuters. I bet you are often acutely aware of how brilliant

privatisation has been for the railways. I bet you are you are

often standing on Guildford station thinking there is a train from a

different company coming in, I think I will take that that one T

might be faster and cheaper. It's really cut through to the consumer,

hasn't it! Real consumer choice. APPLAUSE. You never give a thought

to the fat cat management structure or shareholders that are raking off

all your hard earned money and taking bonuses. What you think is

it's fantastic. The fundamental mistake, there were many mistakes

about the privatisation of the rail system, the most fundamental

mistake was your journey to work cannot be exchanged for anything

else. You can't get to the station and think I won't go to work in

London today, I will go to Mars on this new rocket train that's been

provided by this splendid private company. It was a ludicrous idea

from the get-go and the particular way they did it with the track

hived off from the rail operators has caused absolute chaos, some

dreadful crashes and the current predictment you find yourselves in.

So what would do you? What would you do? I would

renationalise it. And you would end up paying more through taxes to run

a system that was run... Are you mystic Meg, do you know this for a

fact? The woman at the back who is about to explode if she doesn't

speak. I totally agree with what Will Self has come to say t comes

down to privatisation in the first place and not only will this have a

massive impact on the cost, but also on the safety standards. We

are about to see the same thing possibly happen to our health

service and it's appalling. APPLAUSE. Janice Atkinson? Before I

came on today I looked up how much you hard-pressed commutersify get

into London each day if you have to go to work. Your travel costs for

an annual season ticket about �3,100. And those of you who have

to drive, it's �1600 to park your car there. Under these proposals

you could actually see your rail fares rise by 50%. That means

�4,500 to get there. But don't think about using your car, because

it costs actually around about �100 to fill up the average family car

now. �82 of that goes to the Treasury. Even if do you get in the

car and can afford that when you get to London you have the

congestion charge and then I won't even go in to how much it costs to

park your car. I thought that this Government was all about getting

the economy moving. It's actually going to come to a grinding stop

under these proposals. APPLAUSE.

Will Young? I am confused. Our fares -- are fares going to rise?

Under the new system that we are bring in, the report came today, we

have a mechanism where we can going to start to drive down on the costs.

We got a chap to look into the railways to make a number of

serious recommendations in terms of thousand make it run better, by and

large, Caroline, your side seemed to be accepting the ideas, and we

have a simple message to be able to deal with this. Tpwu ain't going to

be easy, Will. The old system didn't work terribly well before. I

am old enough just to remember how lousy British Rail were. But sots

expensive now. I was doing a play, a drama in Manchester and it was

cheaper for me to drive up and back than to be getting trains. They're

going to lift the price even more. More people are going to go on the

roads. Prices have risen above inflation consistently. That's a

mechanism. What I find amazing is the difference in the price for the

same journey. If you are prepared to go on the internet and devote

the rest of your life you can get cheap prices on that. And it is

ridiculous that people should have to go through this long process in

having to finding when it's clearly possible to be able to run a much

better system. Let's hear from more commuters perhaps. Indeed we are

suffering from high prices at the moment, and this risk of constant

increases in the fares and only today returning on the train from

London reading in the papers that your ideas for reducing the costs,

of reducing guards and staff on the trains, which is going to provide

us with a less safe network, so we are paying more and the system's

going to be less safe, less secure, particularly if you are travelling

in the later hours where already the number of staff is very limited.

What is your response to that safety? Who do you blame for this,

do you think this is Government or the rail companies? It seems to be

bad collaboration between the two. All right. The man up there.

I wondered whether perhaps it would be more efficient if Network Rail

was actually broken up and perhaps regional routes were formed,

networks and then they were integrated with the operators

again? Of course it would be, that's what it was before British

Rail and they managed to turn a profit and provide a service.

think we are looking at it with pussyfooting around. What we need

to do is someone with guts to look at the whole issue of transport and

say we have an opportunity to make some changes. We have an

opportunity to look - or we had before the Olympics, we have the

opportunity to look at rail, road, air, all of these things, we could

if we have enough brains and enough guts, come up with a joined up

approach that provides jobs, that does not penalise people who travel

on public transport. The Government was trying to say well look we will

raise taxes on fuel so that people... This sounds like a job

application! It is, it's vital that we do something! Someone with guts!

All right, thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

I am going to go on to a final question from Chloe Mead, I will

only have time to go around the panel on this one. Gender equality

is constantly on the agenda. So why are steupl still underpresent --

women still underrepresented? are women underrepresented? Janice

Atkinson? I stood as a parliamentary candidate at the last

general election and the Conservative Partys and Labour

tried very, very hard to get women to go in, there aren't a lot of

women actually queuing up to become MPs and to go into public life. You

get to a certain age, you have a background, a lot of people earn

more than the �67,000 a year. If you are a female living in the

north of England and a single mother you couldn't actually afford

to go into parliament because the high cost of child care. That's one

of the reasons. We are not queuing up to get there. We have skwrepbd

eequality -- gender equality. We have to look at the pipeline coming

through companies as well. We have - the under 30s at the moment are

actually earning more than men. Women are equally educated and we

are going to have a problem because when they start having children

there's a problem of child care. We have the highest costs of child

care in the land and we are not looking at fixing that leaky

pipeline as well. Thank you. I have to stop you. Eric Pickles? Chairman

of the Conservative Party, and we had a rotten record in terms of

getting Conservative women and it was part of my yob to get the

process through -- to - part of my job. I was talking to Janice before,

the weird thing I found is once you could get it past that initial

selection committee and out to the members there was absolutely no

problem but there is a kind of glass skaoeling in politics that

makes certain assumptions about women and I haven't got the

slightest doubt that because of work of the Labour Party went a

different route and pause we made a big effort, that the chamber of the

House of Commons and the quality of debate and the quality of

representation has been vastly improved by increasing the number

of women and I hope to see more. Caroline Flint. In terms of

parliament the Labour Party's got more women MPs than all the other

parties put together of which I am very proud. It's still not enough

but that's also the reason we have got that is that we recognised it

wasn't about Janice, about not having women who wanted to be MPs,

it was because to be honest there were things happening in our party

that were acting as barriers to women, because too often it was the

favoured son who was supported through politics and women weren't

given equality in terms of having success at those selection meetings.

That's why I am afraid to say you do need sometimes a phebg tphoeufpl

give the process -- mechanism to give the process a shove. There's

many walks of life. You are not telling me on boards of companies

dominated by men the golf club doesn't play a factor in the terms

of the men who end up on those boards. We need to address this. We

are better than we were, but there's a long way to go and having

International's Women's Day is one way to repine us of that and the --

remind us of that and the other challenges women face around the

world. Thank you. I agree with you, Caroline. We

still exist in a patriarcial society. I don't agree that you

still find it that women lecturers will get paid less than men, we

need more women in the boardroom. Men are babies and women are far

stronger creatures, in my opinion. Will Self? Well, I think it largely

comes down to the business of who bears the children and until we

look to societies in which they've managed to equalise more or less

equalise representation and see what they do with child care

provision, and how they bring men into the loop in terms of child

care, and no longer penalise women who take time out to bring up

children and encourage men to take time out to bring up children,

which is fundamentally an erosion of this patriarhial society, you

won't get equiff Lance. We must stop there.

We are going to be in Scotland in St Andrews next week. We are going

to have Charlie Kennedy, former Liberal Democrat leader on the

panel, as well as the new leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland,

Ruth Davidson. The week after that we are in Grimsby. Either St

Andrews or Grimsby. Visit our website if you want to apply or