:00:11. > :00:16.The day after the Budget, who are the winners and who are the losers?
:00:16. > :00:24.Our audience in tkpwreupls has their -- in Grimsby has their say,
:00:25. > :00:29.as welcome to Question Time. On our panel here in Grimsby the
:00:29. > :00:34.Business Secretary Vince Cable, the shadow Business Secretary, Chuka
:00:34. > :00:44.Umunna, the former shadow Home Secretary, leadership challenger,
:00:44. > :00:46.
:00:46. > :00:56.David Davis, The Spectator columnist Melissa Kite and the
:00:56. > :00:58.
:00:58. > :01:02.novelist Marina Lewycka. APPLAUSE.
:01:03. > :01:06.Now, our first question from Matthew Thompson, please. With more
:01:06. > :01:15.than one in six six people now aged over 60 isn't the Government right
:01:15. > :01:19.to ask pensioners to pay their fair share? Chuka Umunna? I think this
:01:19. > :01:22.was the big surprise in the Budget, wasn't it? So much had been leaked
:01:22. > :01:26.before, so of course people focus perhaps on those things that the
:01:26. > :01:30.Government didn't really want people to know about, and the fact
:01:30. > :01:33.they're taking about �83 a year from 4.4 million pensioners in the
:01:34. > :01:38.country from next year. I don't think this was the right thing to
:01:38. > :01:42.do. Particularly when at the same time they're doing this to the
:01:42. > :01:46.pensioners in this country, they're giving 14,000 millionaires a tax
:01:46. > :01:51.break in the order of �41,000, I have nothing against people who
:01:51. > :01:55.earn a lot of money and create wealth and jobs for our country,
:01:55. > :01:58.but in a context where people are really struggling with squeezed
:01:58. > :02:02.living standards, we have 2.6 million people out of work, I am
:02:02. > :02:11.not sure I would have made giving 14,000 millionaire that is tax
:02:11. > :02:17.break a priority in the current context. APPLAUSE.
:02:17. > :02:20.Vince Cable, was the argument for freezing the tax allowances of the
:02:20. > :02:25.pensioners, as Matthew Thompson says, getting them to pay a fair
:02:25. > :02:30.share, is that what you are after? Not at all, five million pensioners,
:02:30. > :02:34.the majority of course don't pay tax at all, and most of them are
:02:34. > :02:36.poor people and the key theme of the Budget was giving them a
:02:37. > :02:41.substantial increase in the basic state pension, more than I think
:02:41. > :02:46.they've ever had. Take the last two years of this Government, they will
:02:46. > :02:50.get I think �10 a week for a single person and that far outweighs the
:02:51. > :02:54.extra cost to a minority of pensioners of the freezing of the
:02:54. > :02:57.allowance. Nobody's been asked to pay more tax, it's just the
:02:57. > :03:04.allowance is being frozen and depending on the rate of inflation,
:03:04. > :03:08.which is currently low and falling, they will not have to pay any more.
:03:08. > :03:12.If you have an allowance and people expect the allowance as normal to
:03:12. > :03:16.go on up with inflation, you suddenly say it's not going to, you
:03:16. > :03:22.can't then say you are not taking more money off them. You are taking
:03:22. > :03:25.money off... If there is inflation... Let's go back to the
:03:25. > :03:30.base quick question. There are elderly people, actually people
:03:30. > :03:34.sort of late middle age, people of my generation, who do very well
:03:34. > :03:38.actually, who have good post- retirement income and are asset-
:03:38. > :03:42.rich and it's right they should pay more. The people who we are worried
:03:42. > :03:51.about, the people who have been affected by this particular
:03:51. > :03:55.proposal are people on fairly low incomes who have a small
:03:55. > :03:59.superanation, for example. They will benefit considerably overall
:03:59. > :04:05.from the Budget because of the increase in state pension, far
:04:05. > :04:07.outweigh any losses. Looking to 2012-13, the gains to pensioners as
:04:07. > :04:12.a whole from improving the state pension is something this
:04:12. > :04:15.Government's done, it's protected it. Five times more important than
:04:15. > :04:19.the losses that have been experienced with this group. The
:04:19. > :04:23.big story in the Budget was about lifting allowances for 20 million
:04:23. > :04:27.people, low and middle income, that's what was where most of the
:04:27. > :04:33.money in the Budget's gone, it's something my party fought for and
:04:33. > :04:39.it will do a great deal to help ordinary people, �220 a year extra
:04:39. > :04:46.in tax cuts. And will particularly help low paid workers. APPLAUSE.
:04:46. > :04:49.Marina Lewycka? Pensioners of that generation, they do want to pay
:04:49. > :04:52.their fair share and so the question is really what is fair?
:04:52. > :04:58.What is the fair share for for pension stphers. What's
:04:58. > :05:02.particularly unfair about this tax, this sort of little theft of
:05:02. > :05:06.people's money is that it actually comes, not from the well-off
:05:06. > :05:10.pensioners, actually I checked, I am not affected because I earn too
:05:10. > :05:13.much, it's people who have that little bit extra who are going to
:05:13. > :05:16.be squeezed by this, they're the people who have worked, saved, done
:05:16. > :05:25.all the right things, tried to contribute and actually I don't
:05:25. > :05:29.think it's fair. APPLAUSE. David Davis? I came at this a
:05:29. > :05:33.slightly different approach, I take the view generally with economic
:05:33. > :05:36.policy that pensioners are in a unique position, they aren't able
:05:36. > :05:41.to change much about their circumstances, the rest of us
:05:42. > :05:45.stpheul work can do something, earn overtime, change the job maybe, but
:05:45. > :05:50.pensioners can't. I was a little nervous when I heard this proposal
:05:50. > :05:54.come out, as it were at the end of the Budget. So I had a look at it,
:05:54. > :06:00.thinking it wouldn't be a good idea. Actually what the numbers show is
:06:00. > :06:04.that if you take the whole package, not just one piece of it, but the
:06:04. > :06:09.whole package, the state pension with - this horrible phrase triple
:06:09. > :06:14.lot, borrowed from Gordon Brown, what that means is you either get
:06:14. > :06:19.the higher of 2 2.5% or earnings or inflation increase, the highest of
:06:19. > :06:24.those and you look at that against the freezing of the pension. The
:06:24. > :06:28.pensioner ends up roughly, the worst off ends up �67 a year better
:06:28. > :06:32.off, not very much, better off than under Labour policy. So, the answer
:06:33. > :06:36.is they don't have to take something which is worse than was
:06:36. > :06:39.reasonable. So I think it's a reasonable policy. It did worry me
:06:39. > :06:47.when I first heard it because of the issue of pensioners not having
:06:47. > :06:51.many options but I think it works. OK, up there on the far left.
:06:52. > :06:57.think the biggest issue for me is that this Budget, unfortunately,
:06:57. > :07:01.has done very little to address the massive gap in our society which is
:07:01. > :07:05.very devisive between the average people and the small top end who
:07:05. > :07:11.earn vast amounts of money, vast multiples of what the average
:07:11. > :07:17.person earns and that's devisive for society and I think it's
:07:17. > :07:24.morally indefencible and repug repugnant. We will come on to that
:07:24. > :07:26.in a moment. The man at the back. am concerned about - the people
:07:26. > :07:29.talk about the age group we are talking about, people who have
:07:29. > :07:34.benefited from free university education, tax relief on their
:07:34. > :07:38.mortgage when they were younger, and NHS when we had one, I think
:07:38. > :07:41.they can afford to pay a bit back because it's our grandchildren who
:07:41. > :07:48.will be paying for our mistakes in the future. You are in favour of
:07:48. > :07:52.what the questioner said? Yeah. Melissa Kite? I agree with the last
:07:52. > :07:58.speaker, he makes a very good point. I can totally understand why people
:07:58. > :08:02.are upset about this because it was massively mishandled by George
:08:02. > :08:05.Osborne. I have heard of rabbits out of hats, but this was a hound
:08:06. > :08:09.from hell. It was not explained and dropped as a bombshell and as David
:08:09. > :08:16.says when you actually look at the whole thing together it's not as
:08:16. > :08:22.bad. But there's been a lot of Labour scaremongering as well,
:08:22. > :08:28.talking about �60-�200 that earning pensioners with an income are going
:08:28. > :08:31.to lose. But just to pick up on that point, yes, today's pensioners
:08:31. > :08:35.have had chances and opportunities that I am afraid a generation
:08:35. > :08:40.coming up now will never have. They had the free university education,
:08:40. > :08:45.they had soaring house prices and they had final salary pension
:08:45. > :08:48.schemes and so on. Now they can help pay? They can pay a little bit.
:08:48. > :08:51.The point I am trying to make is we have to do something for society as
:08:51. > :08:56.a whole and to get Britain moving again because this generation of
:08:56. > :09:02.young people coming up are just not going to have these chances.
:09:02. > :09:08.will move on in a moment. The woman in white in the back row. To me it
:09:08. > :09:13.seems just another way of eroding my standard of living in retirement.
:09:14. > :09:21.I work in the public sector. I was expecting to be out able to retire
:09:21. > :09:25.at 60. I have been told now that my pension will actually be consumer
:09:25. > :09:28.price linked, instead of inflation linked. In the past two years -
:09:28. > :09:33.three years I have been told I can't get my state pension at 60.
:09:33. > :09:37.It was going to be 63. Now I have I have recently had a letter and told
:09:37. > :09:42.it's 65 years and three months. I feel the money I am trying to make
:09:42. > :09:46.up that shortfall now is also being eroded because the amount of
:09:46. > :09:50.interest I am getting in the bank is almost negative. I just feel
:09:50. > :09:54.that at the moment I am really quite dreading my retirement. Can I
:09:54. > :09:59.afford to retire? APPLAUSE. Vince Cable, do you want
:10:00. > :10:04.to answer that? Well, I do acknowledge that a lot of people
:10:04. > :10:08.feel squeezed. It has to be seen in the context of the massive crisis
:10:08. > :10:12.that we have just been through. The country as a whole is actually 10%
:10:12. > :10:16.worse off than before we had this massive financial crisis. We are
:10:16. > :10:21.trying get back on to track and share the burden as fairly as
:10:21. > :10:24.possible. The reason interest rates are very slow basically to stop the
:10:24. > :10:27.economy collapsing. The last Government brought in low interest
:10:27. > :10:32.rates, through the Central Bank. We have had to maintain that. It does
:10:32. > :10:37.make it very hard for small savers, I understand that. It's more
:10:37. > :10:40.important that we help the economy to recover from the terrible
:10:40. > :10:45.economic heart attack it suffered because that's what we have been
:10:45. > :10:54.through. Let's stick with the Budget, but from a different angle.
:10:54. > :11:00.Shell done Ellis. Does cutting the 50p tax rate to 45p signal the end
:11:00. > :11:03.of us all being in it together? APPLAUSE. It was introduced by
:11:03. > :11:08.Labour, but Labour apparently are not prepared to say that they will
:11:09. > :11:12.bring it back in 2015 if they're re-elected s that right? If there
:11:12. > :11:16.was a general election tomorrow... There isn't going to be one. And we
:11:16. > :11:20.won we would reverse it. We will be voting against it when it comes
:11:20. > :11:24.before the House of Commons shortly. I am not going to write a manifesto
:11:24. > :11:29.for 2015 now or start to spell out different types of spending
:11:29. > :11:33.measures. Let me say this... not promise it, if you believe it
:11:33. > :11:36.should be at 50p which is what your leader said? It's not a spending,
:11:36. > :11:41.the Government gets the money. You can give it away to pensioners or
:11:41. > :11:44.poorer people. Do something with it,... There is a balance of tax
:11:45. > :11:47.and spending measures that you spell out at the time of a general
:11:47. > :11:51.election before you expect to take Government. Look, the principle
:11:51. > :11:55.that I think everybody here will agree with, is that when you are
:11:55. > :12:00.going through tough economic times those with the broadest shoulders
:12:00. > :12:04.should bear the heaviest burden and this measure, cutting it from 50 to
:12:04. > :12:10.45 runs counterto that. And that is the problem that I think people
:12:10. > :12:14.will have with this. I mean, 300,000 people are going to get a
:12:15. > :12:18.tax break earning six times the average salary at a time when 2.6
:12:18. > :12:22.million people are out of work, including tragically one million
:12:22. > :12:24.young people, at a time when people who are in work are facing the
:12:24. > :12:29.billingest -- biggest squeeze on living standards in a general raeug
:12:29. > :12:32.and actually -- generation and the average family is very difficult.
:12:32. > :12:39.Are these really the group of people should be prioritising in
:12:39. > :12:44.that context? I don't think so. David Davis. You said you were
:12:44. > :12:49.uneasy about the other change. Were you in favour of this one. This is
:12:49. > :12:53.an astonishing piece of hypocrisy by the Labour Party. For 13 years,
:12:53. > :12:57.this idea that those with the broadest shoulders carry the
:12:57. > :13:00.biggest burden is not new, it's been a part of political life for
:13:00. > :13:04.my lifetime and for the last 13 years of Labour Government Gordon
:13:04. > :13:08.Brown first as Chancellor, then as Prime Minister, never thought it
:13:08. > :13:13.worthwhile moving the rate from 40p, he said in private he thought that
:13:13. > :13:16.was the level at which you got the most out of the rich. It's the key
:13:16. > :13:20.point. You got to decide are you just trying to punish the rich or
:13:20. > :13:25.trying to get the most from them? If you are trying to get the most
:13:26. > :13:30.from them, then what we learned before with the Geoffrey Howe and
:13:30. > :13:34.Lawson Budgets, the maximum rate, 60% didn't get the most. When they
:13:34. > :13:37.cut down to 40, eventually end up double, triple the amount of money
:13:37. > :13:41.coming from the rich. Why, because they stopped trying to avoid paying
:13:41. > :13:45.tax, stopped leaving the country, did different things to earn money
:13:45. > :13:52.and that's what we need to do. We are in an economy now that needs,
:13:52. > :14:00.in my view, a shock and and awe to get to a growth phase. I have a son
:14:00. > :14:04.in 20s, his generation getting jobs, real trouble. We have to run the
:14:04. > :14:11.economy in a most sensible way, not the most political way which we
:14:11. > :14:17.have had for the last 13 years. George Osborne blamed the revenue
:14:17. > :14:23.that was coming in from the tax on 50p rate as not being sufficient,
:14:23. > :14:30.there was a lot of avoidance issues. You we should be putting more
:14:30. > :14:35.effort into recovering the tax He is doing that. I agree with that.
:14:35. > :14:40.For example this idea that you could buy an expensive house using
:14:40. > :14:45.a foreign corporation, to avoid capital gains and other taxes is a
:14:45. > :14:50.dreadful idea and should have been shut down, and he has shut it down.
:14:50. > :14:54.That's going to give us three quarters of a billion pounds. Well
:14:54. > :14:58.worth having. I don't understand how you can say that by lowering
:14:58. > :15:04.that they won't try to avoid it. They are going to try to avoid it
:15:04. > :15:10.whatever it is. That's why they are so rich anyway. So the rich will
:15:10. > :15:15.always avoid it? Yes, always. was a theory that they would stop
:15:15. > :15:20.avoiding it if you lower the rate. They are certainly avoiding it now.
:15:20. > :15:25.It is always amusing listening to Labour hearing them say how putting
:15:25. > :15:30.up taxes it is going to work. It has never worked in the past.
:15:30. > :15:37.They've tried it at 80 and 60 and every time the revenues fell. We
:15:37. > :15:44.have to find a way to make the wealthy people stay and pay. And
:15:44. > :15:48.50p just isn't doing it. It hasn't worked. OK. Well, it hasn't. It
:15:48. > :15:53.raised �100 million. That isn't going to help. Vince Cable, you've
:15:53. > :15:58.got form on this. You said some believe if taxes on the wealthy are
:15:58. > :16:02.cut new revenue will miraculously appear - pull the other one. Is
:16:02. > :16:06.that still your view? I am officially of the view that at a
:16:06. > :16:16.time of hardship the wealthiest people in society should pay their
:16:16. > :16:16.
:16:16. > :16:20.share. So you are against this stkphut I'm not against - - Against
:16:20. > :16:23.this cut? I'm not against it but it is not my party's policy. This goes
:16:23. > :16:28.back to David Davis's point. If you want the wealthiest people in
:16:28. > :16:34.society to pay their share, you've got to find a way of doing it where
:16:34. > :16:38.they actually pay. This particular gimmick which was dreamt up 57 days
:16:38. > :16:47.before the end of the last Labour Government, after 13 years, didn't
:16:47. > :16:52.work. It didn't bring in much money. We are replacing it with much more
:16:52. > :16:54.effective measures, taxation on very valuable property, greatly
:16:54. > :17:01.limiting the allowances which the wealthiest people in society can
:17:01. > :17:04.pay and putting more effort into genuine tax avoidance to catch the
:17:04. > :17:08.dodgers. This is ludicrous nonsense. The loophole they are clamping down
:17:08. > :17:13.on in respect of properties worth �2 million or more, there are about
:17:13. > :17:16.4,000 of those properties sold in the last year, whereas there are
:17:16. > :17:19.300,000 very reasonably wealthy people who are going to be
:17:20. > :17:24.benefiting from this measure. This notion that you don't do this out
:17:24. > :17:27.of envy, that you do it because we have grave issues to deal with. We
:17:27. > :17:31.have to reduce our debts, and therefore you get those who can
:17:31. > :17:35.afford to contribute more to contribute a bit more for a period.
:17:35. > :17:41.It is not true to say it wasn't working. What the Government has
:17:41. > :17:46.done here by abolishing it, it is going to lead to an upfront cost of
:17:46. > :17:51.�2.9 billion. No it is not. If it comes to �100 million, predicated
:17:51. > :17:56.on a massive assumption, and that is that wealthy people will change
:17:56. > :18:02.their behaviour and suddenly miraculously decide to pay more tax.
:18:02. > :18:07.That's how you get to the �100 million. It is HMRC who says that
:18:07. > :18:11.isn't it? The OBR, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said it is
:18:11. > :18:15.very uncertain, because you can't actually make a proper evaluation.
:18:15. > :18:19.They've only allowed a year to see what it brings in. When the
:18:20. > :18:27.Institute for Fiscal Studies has said you should allow this tax to
:18:27. > :18:30.be in place for a longer period to see how much it can raise. Is it
:18:30. > :18:35.unreasonable for people on Sykes times the average salary to
:18:35. > :18:44.contribute a bit more to help out. What happened the last time the
:18:45. > :18:50.rate was dropped from 60% under Lawson? This isn't a 60p rate drop.
:18:50. > :18:56.The answer is that the take went un. But hang on just a minute...
:18:56. > :19:01.APPLAUSE No, you hang on. We've heard your point Chuka. I want to
:19:02. > :19:05.hear from the audience. I'm an education student so I'm in and out
:19:05. > :19:11.of school as lot of time, talking to young people. They think they
:19:11. > :19:15.have got such an unfair deal. And they have. They'll be paying higher
:19:15. > :19:20.tuition fees. The minimum wage hasn't gone up. Yet at the same
:19:20. > :19:25.time they watch the Six o'clock News and they see millionaires
:19:25. > :19:28.getting tax cuts. They feel under pressure to make up the deficit
:19:28. > :19:37.that they never caused and it is so unfair.
:19:37. > :19:42.APPLAUSE Marina Lewycka, do you think it will benefit the country
:19:42. > :19:46.by people coming back and paying the tax they never paid? It is a
:19:46. > :19:51.bizarre that somehow because people who are obviously in some sense
:19:52. > :19:57.fiddling the 50% tax are going to suddenly stop fiddling because it
:19:57. > :20:04.has gone down to 45 % seems odd to me. I don't think people are like
:20:04. > :20:09.that. APPLAUSE The only way you are going
:20:09. > :20:13.to do it is the same with seat belts. Bring in a law, a tax
:20:13. > :20:18.avoidance law. If you tpwhring a tax avoidance law for everybody,
:20:18. > :20:24.these people will stop avoiding, including Tony Blair by the way,
:20:24. > :20:32.and stop avoiding the tax that they should be paying. David Davis, do
:20:33. > :20:42.you think it should be 40p instead of 45p? If it had been me I would
:20:42. > :20:47.have gone to 40. It could be cut to 40 providing... That's a funny way
:20:47. > :20:54.of talking. Providing it was replaced with a proper tax on
:20:54. > :20:59.wealth. What happened to your "mansion tax"? There's a small
:20:59. > :21:06.mansion tax in the Budget. There isn't going to be a levy on large
:21:06. > :21:10.mansions which are registered in companies. That's anti-tax
:21:10. > :21:17.avoidance measure. It is making sure that you actually collect the
:21:17. > :21:22.tax that the levy exists there already to do. Vince Cable, you
:21:22. > :21:26.said in the Guardian in the autumn, clearly understood there's a trade-
:21:26. > :21:31.off, if my colleagues will buy the idea of a "mansion tax" or some
:21:31. > :21:36.variation of that tax, and I hope they will, we can look at the 50p
:21:36. > :21:39.rate. If they are not willing to look at it, did 50p rate stays. Why
:21:39. > :21:44.aren't you quitting this Government? Because there's been a
:21:44. > :21:48.very good trade-off. APPLAUSE Two things have happened
:21:48. > :21:54.in this Budget. Instead of having the 50p rate, which brought in very
:21:54. > :22:00.little money, we now have much more effective taxation of wealth and
:22:00. > :22:09.very high income. And in addition... The most important part of the
:22:10. > :22:14.Budget is that �20 -- 20-million plus ordinary taxpayers have got a
:22:14. > :22:18.substantial tax cut by raising the louns. It is the centrepiece of the
:22:18. > :22:24.Budget. It is where most of the money has gone. As a consequence of
:22:24. > :22:28.it, 20 million taxpayers get a reduction of �220. That is what the
:22:28. > :22:32.budgets is essentially about. It is right also that we tackle extreme
:22:32. > :22:38.wealth and income and that is what we are doing, in a more effective
:22:38. > :22:43.way than before. Even that is so telling "extreme wealth". This is
:22:43. > :22:47.about wealth as a dirty word almost. This Budget was trying to send out
:22:47. > :22:52.a signal that we are not going to tax success, that we are not going
:22:52. > :23:01.to hunt down people who've done well. But this is about wealth
:23:01. > :23:05.creation as well. APPLAUSE OK. Surely Labour should
:23:05. > :23:10.celebrate the fact that the Chancellor, a man with great
:23:10. > :23:18.integrity, has had the moral courage to lift people out of
:23:18. > :23:25.poverty by increasing the tax threshold to �9,000 a year. So they
:23:25. > :23:34.should be celebrating what George Osborne has done. You Sir?
:23:34. > :23:39.members of the BBC over �50,000 a year have avoided paying tax. It
:23:39. > :23:46.seems everybody is able to avoid tax if you have the right money.
:23:46. > :23:53.Where did you get that from? It is on the web and it is from the
:23:53. > :23:59.information Act. You are not one of them! No. LAUGHTER
:23:59. > :24:03.I'm not a member of the BBC. I just work for them. That is a
:24:03. > :24:09.very narrow answer David. That was a politician's answer.
:24:09. > :24:15.interesting thing is if you look at France for example, one of their
:24:15. > :24:21.left-wing candidates is looking at introducing a supertax, 65-75 %.
:24:21. > :24:25.They do believe that those who can afford more money pay the biggest
:24:25. > :24:30.load. Warren Buffett said he wanted to pay more tax. What this Budget
:24:30. > :24:34.is actually done is rewarded the frontbench team, most of which are
:24:34. > :24:38.million airs and allowed them the skip more tax. We need to be
:24:38. > :24:43.looking at those who can't afford it and making sure that they don't
:24:43. > :24:53.have to suffer. More needs to be done. It is absolutely ridiculous.
:24:53. > :24:53.
:24:53. > :24:58.APPLAUSE Just before we leave the point, is
:24:58. > :25:02.your argument to do with encouraging enterprise or cutting
:25:02. > :25:08.tax. Both are relevant, if it encourages enterprise that's good,
:25:08. > :25:12.but the primary objective of the treatment of the tax at the top was
:25:12. > :25:17.that if 50p rate did not raise very much money and there are much
:25:17. > :25:24.better, more sensible ways of taxing wealth and very high income.
:25:24. > :25:29.Let's move on the a different subject. Holly Brown. Why did the
:25:29. > :25:34.British woman kidnapped in Somalia have to finance her own freedom?
:25:34. > :25:40.Why did the Government not do more? Tebbutt theeb was released
:25:40. > :25:46.yesterday. Apparently -- Judith Tebbutt was released yesterday.
:25:46. > :25:51.Apparently it was reported that her family raised the money. Clearly
:25:51. > :25:57.the Government couldn't do more. If they did pay the ransom more people
:25:57. > :26:00.would be kidnapped. That is an agonising position to be in. All I
:26:00. > :26:05.can say is I totally understand why they did absolutely everything they
:26:05. > :26:10.could to pay it themselves. And I would have done the same. I would
:26:10. > :26:14.have done the same knowing that probably by doing that I had stored
:26:14. > :26:24.up future kidnaps. That just is an agonising position.
:26:24. > :26:26.
:26:26. > :26:32.APPLAUSE David Davis. Ransoms are a bad idea
:26:32. > :26:38.generally. I ran a hostage rescue operation in the '90s and we spent
:26:38. > :26:43.a great deal of time trying to prevent the family of the victim
:26:43. > :26:47.paying a ransom precisely because it would encourage, it was in
:26:47. > :26:56.Colombia, it would encourage more people to be kidnapped. There were
:26:56. > :27:00.75 Americans held at that time in Colombia. It was a trade. We
:27:00. > :27:07.resolved it militarily. I'm afraid I feel great pain, agony really,
:27:07. > :27:11.for the families involved in this, but when you pay ransom you get one
:27:11. > :27:14.person back and hold out the prospect of another ten being
:27:14. > :27:18.kidnapped later. I'm afraid it is the wrong way to do it. The only
:27:18. > :27:22.answer to kidnap is to rescue the people, get them back, using
:27:22. > :27:28.military force if necessary. Using negotiation if you can. Never pay
:27:28. > :27:34.ransoms. APPLAUSE
:27:34. > :27:38.The Government, I think this is correct, makes it a criminal
:27:38. > :27:45.offence to pay terrorists a ransom. In other words if it had been Al-
:27:45. > :27:49.Qaeda or alshe bab who had been proven to have held Mrs Judith
:27:49. > :27:52.Tebbutt the Foreign Office could have banned the payment. Do you
:27:52. > :27:56.think they should extend that to say no ransoms under any
:27:56. > :28:01.circumstances should be paid? think they should. Criminally
:28:01. > :28:07.prosecute the family? No, I can talk from my example. We just made
:28:07. > :28:16.it difficult for it to be paid. this when you are in the SAS?
:28:16. > :28:20.was in the Foreign Office! LAUGHTER The simple truth was we could
:28:20. > :28:26.resolve it another way, by rescue. But I do think it is problematic.
:28:26. > :28:29.It is impossible really for the parents or relatives or even
:28:30. > :28:33.friends of the individuals who've been kidnapped. For them it is an
:28:33. > :28:38.impossible circumstances. The Government really has to take a
:28:38. > :28:41.hard line on it. Surely the point that needs to be considered is that
:28:41. > :28:45.people need to take more responsibility for where they go.
:28:45. > :28:51.It is not like people don't know the situation near Somalia and they
:28:51. > :28:55.should take care not to go into ar area that's a hotbed of pirate
:28:55. > :29:00.activity and then expect the Government to go there if you get
:29:00. > :29:07.kidnapped. APPLAUSE It is fair to say there
:29:07. > :29:12.had been no on-shore kidnaps from Kenya where this happened. Chuka
:29:12. > :29:16.Umunna. I'm part Nigerian and I hope to go back to Nigeria soon. It
:29:16. > :29:19.is not always seen necessarily as the safest place. There are
:29:19. > :29:23.kidnappings that happen there. We had a tragic incident where a
:29:23. > :29:26.couple of lives were lost in a rescue attempt in Nigeria. Does
:29:26. > :29:30.that mean because of what you have said that I shouldn't seek to go
:29:30. > :29:37.and see my family over there because of the risk involved?
:29:37. > :29:44.do you think about the issue? think the Government has to take a
:29:44. > :29:48.hard line on it. Notwithstanding that, I would say that I wouldn't
:29:48. > :29:52.necessarily encourage people to do it but if a member of my family
:29:52. > :29:56.were in that situation I'm damned sure I would try to find the
:29:56. > :30:04.resources necessary to try to free them. It is not something that I
:30:04. > :30:07.would encourage,s that would You make a distinction between what
:30:07. > :30:11.you would do and society as a whole? If the principle is not to
:30:11. > :30:14.do it and if it happened would you do it, which many people would.
:30:14. > :30:17.Well, there is a question as to whether Government makes the
:30:17. > :30:21.payment or the family should. I suppose I just think it will be
:30:21. > :30:26.disingenuous to sit here and give a lie and pretend actually if it
:30:26. > :30:31.happened in my family, the emotion of it and the attachment wouldn't
:30:31. > :30:35.overcome you. It would. There was a case of the Chandlers, there was a
:30:35. > :30:38.ransom paid and who knows that didn't encourage this operation.
:30:38. > :30:44.agree with that. Although I agree with David's point of view, I think
:30:44. > :30:49.if all avenues have been exhausted human life is more important than
:30:49. > :30:54.money. So, if everything has been exhausted, every single option, you
:30:54. > :31:00.can't just leave someone there to be killed. I do agree with what you
:31:00. > :31:03.say. Would you pay the ransom? every avenue has been exhausted.
:31:04. > :31:07.Human shraoeuf life -- life is more important than money. You can't put
:31:07. > :31:12.a value on it. Unfortunately, it's not just the problem of human life
:31:12. > :31:14.or money. It's a problem of human life now, as against the
:31:15. > :31:19.possibility more human lives in the future. That's what makes it so
:31:19. > :31:23.difficult. It makes - these things are terrifying because there is no
:31:23. > :31:26.right answer and we become aware of how vulnerable we are. Vince Cable.
:31:26. > :31:29.The distinction should be made between the role of the Government
:31:29. > :31:33.and the individual, it's a very important one actually. I don't
:31:33. > :31:38.think we can possibly say that as a matter of Government policy we will
:31:38. > :31:42.pay up ransom. Kidnapping would just go completely out of control
:31:42. > :31:44.and it would be a massive incentive for people to do it. But in an
:31:44. > :31:49.individual circumstance, particularly a very tragic one like
:31:49. > :31:55.this, I think the husband was killed in the first raid, and the
:31:55. > :31:58.family, this is what they want to do. I don't think we can proheub
:31:58. > :32:02.proheub -- prohibit them. In the case of terrorist organisations we
:32:02. > :32:05.have to be very careful and payment to terrorist organisations is a
:32:05. > :32:09.crime, I think if an individual family is caught up with a criminal
:32:09. > :32:13.gang like that, one has to understand their situation and
:32:13. > :32:21.their pressures and certainly it's not - I don't think it's our job to
:32:21. > :32:27.stop them doing it. Pretending to take money, and getting the
:32:27. > :32:31.situation where you are in contact with these people and then...
:32:31. > :32:34.Deceiving them? That won't work a second time around. The person at
:32:35. > :32:38.the back. Given comments that have been made what does this say about
:32:38. > :32:41.our Government? We have had our foreign Minister saying that
:32:41. > :32:46.Somalia and Sudan are failed states, we have had the pirating going on
:32:47. > :32:50.in the seas. What action should our offices be taking in respect of the
:32:50. > :32:56.diplomatic mission and the aid we give these countries in order to
:32:56. > :33:01.ensure that their people don't do this to us? A brief answer, David
:33:01. > :33:04.Davis. What should we do? There is a limit to what you can do. Somalia
:33:04. > :33:10.is an enormous place and it's been in turmoil for, I can't remember
:33:10. > :33:14.how many decades now, but certainly a couple of decades. You cannot go
:33:14. > :33:17.into every lawless part of the world and pacify them, otherwise we
:33:17. > :33:21.end up with a series of other problems. You just have to respond
:33:22. > :33:26.to the circumstance when it arises. In my view, we should respond
:33:26. > :33:29.forcefully, those countries that have responded forcefully have been
:33:29. > :33:34.effective. When we responded forcefully in Columbia there were
:33:34. > :33:37.no more Brits kidnapped for a significant time afterwards. That's
:33:37. > :33:41.all you can do. Do you think that was considered by this Government?
:33:41. > :33:44.I am sure they would have considered it, yes. But rejected?
:33:44. > :33:48.Well, there's a practical issue, whether you can find them. Whether
:33:48. > :33:52.you know where they are. Whether it's safe. You have got the
:33:52. > :33:55.Nigerian circumstance, we went in and the two hostages died in the
:33:55. > :33:58.course of the raid. You have to take all this on board and make a
:33:58. > :34:08.judgment accordingly. We will move on to another question, but if you
:34:08. > :34:09.
:34:09. > :34:13.want to join in the debate, you can on Twitter, or look at Ceefax to
:34:13. > :34:18.see what others are saying. Georgeina Harris and the next
:34:18. > :34:23.question. Should teachers in Grimsby be paid less for doing the
:34:23. > :34:28.same job as their counterparts in the south of England? APPLAUSE.
:34:29. > :34:33.This goes to the heart of what the Chancellor announced, that the
:34:33. > :34:37.Government is looking to see if public sector pay can be made more
:34:37. > :34:44.responsive to local pay. In other words, if public sector pay should
:34:44. > :34:47.be locally negotiated. Chuka Umunna, you wanted local benefits made
:34:47. > :34:50.different, region by region. Do you think that these teachers, for
:34:50. > :34:56.instance, in Grimsby should be paid less because living costs in
:34:56. > :34:59.Grimsby are less? Well, I mean perhaps if I just read out a quote
:34:59. > :35:03.from a well known cabinet Minister it would cause all kinds of
:35:03. > :35:06.problems if you had different shal pay within the public sector, would
:35:06. > :35:10.you have people looking for promotion in one part of the
:35:10. > :35:13.country and not working to get... was looking for your opinion, not
:35:13. > :35:17.Vince Cable's. I happen to agree with Vince on this one. All right.
:35:17. > :35:21.Vince. We certainly have to be very careful T may be actually there is
:35:21. > :35:26.an argument for having higher teachers' pay in Grimsby if there
:35:26. > :35:30.is a shortage of teachers in Grimsby. APPLAUSE.
:35:30. > :35:35.That is the common sense point. What the Government's looking at, I
:35:35. > :35:39.just want to stress this is a very preliminary look, this is not
:35:39. > :35:44.imposing a policy. It's that there are one or two models already in
:35:44. > :35:47.the court service, the last Labour Government introduced, where pay is
:35:47. > :35:51.set locally, reflecting local conditions and it could be there is
:35:51. > :35:56.a shortage of staff, that housing costs differ from one place to
:35:56. > :36:01.another, and there is an argument for extending that. But I - for the
:36:01. > :36:04.reasons that Chuka Umunna has quoted, I think imposing regional
:36:05. > :36:10.variations in pay would be completely wrong and it wouldn't
:36:10. > :36:15.work. You have just said that if there were a shortage of teachers
:36:15. > :36:18.in Grimsby there might be an argument for paying more. Allowing
:36:18. > :36:23.flexibility. Are you suggesting there should be a regional
:36:23. > :36:29.marketplace for nurses and teachers where you would say in Liverpool we
:36:29. > :36:39.have a shortage? Cow allow more variation -- you could avow more
:36:39. > :36:42.Var vasion. - be - variation. In London, you have London weighting
:36:42. > :36:47.for example. We don't want to be in a position where in relatively low
:36:47. > :36:51.income parts of the country pay is then depressed and that would be
:36:51. > :36:55.wrong and inappropriate. But there may be areas where the shortage of
:36:55. > :36:58.labour in some areas, housing costs vary enormously, let's have a bit
:36:58. > :37:03.more flexibility in the system as we have already seen in one or two
:37:03. > :37:11.areas like the court service. quoted him, do you agree with him?
:37:11. > :37:15.He's being rather contradictory, in the one sense he... Shouldn't
:37:15. > :37:21.imposing. I am confused by the message that he is giving. It's
:37:21. > :37:25.also at Var kwrepbts with what other Ministers are saying. David
:37:25. > :37:30.Davis. I am sitting here thinking that you are saying this and as we
:37:30. > :37:34.heard Labour introduced this exact thing for the court service. They
:37:34. > :37:40.also changed quite dramatically the London weighting for the police in
:37:40. > :37:45.the last - let me finish the point. I don't want to pick a row. The
:37:45. > :37:50.simple problem we have here is that when a part of the country has high
:37:50. > :37:54.unemployment the Government quite properly is prone to move public
:37:54. > :37:57.sector work there, it happened in the north-east of England where my
:37:57. > :38:02.family come from and other parts and Wales and other parts of the
:38:02. > :38:07.country. Then what happens, of course, in Wales the people doing
:38:07. > :38:11.exactly the same job in the public sector end up being paid 18, 20%
:38:11. > :38:13.more than in the private sector. It then becomes really difficult for
:38:13. > :38:16.anybody to start a company in that part of the world because they
:38:16. > :38:22.can't get the staff. So have you the unemployment gets worse. We
:38:22. > :38:25.have to solve this problem. We haven't decided exactly how to do
:38:25. > :38:28.it but we will look at these options, it may be different for
:38:28. > :38:34.teachers and nurses and other administerive staff. Wherever there
:38:34. > :38:38.is high unemployment there are low private sector wages, relatively.
:38:38. > :38:43.Not always, - naturally, the north- east of England where my family
:38:43. > :38:47.came from, huge industrial tradition, huge tradition of energy
:38:47. > :38:52.and enterprise there in the past. What would normally have happened
:38:52. > :38:55.is that because because -- labour is cheap people have reinvested
:38:55. > :38:59.there, it didn't happen because of the effect of large public sector
:38:59. > :39:04.employment. So we have to find a solution. We can't just live with
:39:04. > :39:07.long-term unemployment in some parts of the country. If you cut -
:39:07. > :39:11.the question, if you cut the pay of teachers in Grimsby are you saying
:39:11. > :39:14.that would help the private sector? What I was saying, David, is that
:39:14. > :39:18.you probably have a different answer for teachers, where there is
:39:18. > :39:21.more of argument for national scale than other general skills.
:39:21. > :39:25.woman in the front row. Is it a a coincidence the Conservative
:39:25. > :39:27.Government are looking at legislation or changing the
:39:27. > :39:34.bargaining power of teachers that would undermine the power of
:39:34. > :39:38.teaching unions? APPLAUSE. Marina Lewycka, you have been in the
:39:38. > :39:41.teaching profession, what do you make of that point? Well, on the
:39:41. > :39:49.point of regional pay, because what I think is that in places like
:39:49. > :39:54.Grimsby or Sheffield where I live, the public sector, including
:39:54. > :39:59.teachers, form a sort of - possibly a disproportionally large part of
:39:59. > :40:05.the workforce and the fact that teachers' wages are higher than the
:40:05. > :40:10.average wage actually raises the overall income of the community and
:40:10. > :40:14.having that money coming into the community means that local
:40:14. > :40:17.businesses, shops can stay open that would shut otherwise, you know,
:40:17. > :40:20.cafes and restaurants stay open. There's a little bit more spending
:40:20. > :40:25.power in the community. If you actually lower the public sector
:40:25. > :40:34.wages then I don't think it creates, there's no testified creates jobs
:40:34. > :40:38.in the private sector t drags down the whole economy. The woman in the
:40:38. > :40:43.back row. I agree that the cost of living here is cheaper than it
:40:43. > :40:48.would be in the south, but there is other issues other than the cost of
:40:48. > :40:52.living. If we want to buy alcohol, for instance, it's a long way to go
:40:52. > :40:57.down to the channel to cross and obviously more expensive for us,
:40:57. > :41:03.also to go on holiday, regional airports charge more than they do
:41:03. > :41:07.in the south. It wouldn't be fair in your view? No, I don't think
:41:07. > :41:10.would be. The woman in the third row. I think you want to make sure
:41:10. > :41:15.that you get decent teachers across the country. We all train the same
:41:15. > :41:18.way. We go into the profession because we are keen and want to
:41:18. > :41:22.make sure our children are well educated and to start to vary the
:41:22. > :41:25.pay o could actually affect the amount of people who go into the
:41:25. > :41:28.profession and cause social economic problems because you get
:41:28. > :41:32.certain people moving to certain areas to do the jobs and it would
:41:32. > :41:36.mean that certain areas would lose out and maybe the teaching in that
:41:36. > :41:40.area would become worse as a result. Vince Cable, can you answer that
:41:40. > :41:45.point, would you like to see teachers taken out of this study
:41:45. > :41:49.that the Government is doing? mean this already happens. If there
:41:49. > :41:52.are scarcity subjects, for example, and teachers are paid more. The
:41:52. > :41:57.idea that there may be parts of the country, I don't know what the
:41:57. > :42:01.position is like in Grimsby, where there may be a shortage of teachers,
:42:01. > :42:05.surely the pay system should reflect that in some degree. Does
:42:05. > :42:12.it? I don't know the position in Grimsby, but if it is, surely there
:42:13. > :42:17.is some common sense in allowing local conditions to reflect that.
:42:17. > :42:22.This does point out the differences between the life in the public and
:42:22. > :42:27.private sector. If you work in the private sector it's a sort of given
:42:27. > :42:31.that if you want to earn big wages you gravitate towards the areas
:42:31. > :42:36.where the big wages are being paid. I grew up in the Midlands and a lot
:42:36. > :42:42.of us decided that we had to go to London to earn more money. That
:42:42. > :42:46.just is life in the private sector. And part of me thinks well, you
:42:46. > :42:50.know, it's protecting people in the public sector from that is sort of
:42:51. > :42:54.not living in the real world. But, I do think there are precious few
:42:54. > :42:57.perks at the minute to working in the public sector and therefore if
:42:57. > :43:02.this is one of them and if the security of knowing that wherever
:43:02. > :43:06.you work you will be paid a certain rate keeps good teachers and so on
:43:06. > :43:14.in the profession, then I think it's probably better to keep it
:43:14. > :43:18.that way. All right. The woman there. I just think
:43:18. > :43:28.regional variation in pay just creates more of a north-south
:43:28. > :43:31.divide. Also, particularly for say young graduates or whatever, if
:43:31. > :43:36.they settle in one part of the country they become trapped and
:43:36. > :43:42.can't afford to move for that very reason, because there's more of a
:43:42. > :43:48.divide throughout the country. Let's go on to another question.
:43:48. > :43:57.George Wilson, please. Is this year a good time for the UK to consider
:43:57. > :44:02.becoming a republic? Dare I ask your view? Well, I will
:44:02. > :44:07.give you my view, I think the Queen's doing a pretty good job. I
:44:07. > :44:11.have been perturned for a long time about the family. They seem to be
:44:11. > :44:15.improving a bit and when you consider the alternative, God help
:44:15. > :44:25.us, we might have President Blair or President Prescott.
:44:25. > :44:30.
:44:30. > :44:34.OK. So the question Marina Lewycka, is this year, the Queen's Jubilee
:44:34. > :44:38.year, a good time for the UK to consider becoming a republic?
:44:38. > :44:43.this year I think. The Queen's doing a pretty good job. In a way,
:44:43. > :44:50.when you think of all the things she has to put up with and all the
:44:50. > :44:54.travelling around, I feel a bit sorry for her. She has to put up
:44:54. > :44:58.with living with Prince Philip, has too be smiling all the time when
:44:58. > :45:03.she feels cross about something. Definitely not this year. Possibly
:45:03. > :45:07.when the Queen's ready to retire or passes away, that might be the time
:45:07. > :45:16.to consider becoming a republic. Would you like Britain to be a
:45:16. > :45:20.republic? Um... Yes. APPLAUSE
:45:20. > :45:24.Melissa Kite? I think the Queen is such terrific value for money I
:45:24. > :45:32.can't think of anything else that is as good value as the Queen...
:45:32. > :45:36.APPLAUSE I was having this argument... You don't get much for
:45:36. > :45:41.our money nowadays, but I was having this argument the other day.
:45:41. > :45:45.I looked it up at the time on my BlackBerry and it was something
:45:45. > :45:50.like 50p a year per person. What do we get for that? This is fantastic.
:45:50. > :45:56.The tourists that come. The fact that every day outside Buckingham
:45:56. > :46:00.Palace, crowds are waiting to see the Changing of the Guard. It is
:46:00. > :46:06.fantastic value for money. So it is commercial judgment for you whether
:46:06. > :46:10.we are a republic or a monarchy? is a bit of heart as well as head
:46:10. > :46:15.for me. I do think even if you don't like the idea of a monarchy
:46:15. > :46:24.you have to see that gives us such a fabulous identity. And it makes
:46:24. > :46:29.us a bit special and a magnet for tourists. I think the general
:46:29. > :46:35.public have had enough of politicians. There are far too many
:46:35. > :46:40.of them around... APPLAUSE And the last thing we want
:46:40. > :46:44.are more failed politicians as head of state. Far better to have
:46:44. > :46:54.someone that considers duty before their own personal advancement.
:46:54. > :46:57.
:46:57. > :47:01.APPLAUSE Do you want monarch cal rule really? You could say that.
:47:01. > :47:07.You would like the Queen to rule rather than the politicians?
:47:07. > :47:11.not really. You don't quite go that far. Her current role is quite
:47:11. > :47:15.satisfactory as far as I'm concerned. What about the next
:47:15. > :47:20.generation coming along, did you feel the same about them? That's
:47:20. > :47:28.what a monarchy system is all about. You don't elect then. The man with
:47:28. > :47:36.the beard, not, "In a beard" that makes it sounds like you have put
:47:36. > :47:41.it on for the evening. I wear it. I agree the Queen is good value for
:47:41. > :47:48.money. I come from experience of working abroad and travelling a lot.
:47:48. > :47:53.What I hear about is a lot of time people drinking abroad and fighting
:47:53. > :47:58.abroad, but whenever they mention the Queen it is always about what a
:47:58. > :48:04.great country wefrplt it encourages growth and tourism. It is all-round
:48:04. > :48:09.value for money, it is a great investment. Vince Cable. I'm not a
:48:09. > :48:15.republican and I think this old saying of the it ain't broke, don't
:48:15. > :48:20.fix it. The monarchy works perfectly well. It performs, the
:48:20. > :48:24.Queen admishly performs the head of state, is popular, and is respected
:48:24. > :48:29.overseas. Although I am a politician I rather agree with if
:48:29. > :48:35.gentleman at the back - we should stick with what we are supposed the
:48:35. > :48:44.do and throw monarch to do her job, which she does very well. Chuka
:48:44. > :48:50.Umunna. I met the Queen for the first time this week. What has that
:48:50. > :48:56.got to do with it? I tweeted that I think she does a superb job. I
:48:56. > :49:00.describe myself as a default monarchist. I don't agree with the
:49:00. > :49:07.hereditary principle but I can't think of what is better to put in
:49:07. > :49:10.its place. If you doingle the Queen, our Queen comes up. She is a
:49:10. > :49:15.fantastic asset and puts us on the map. The President of Germany
:49:15. > :49:19.stepped down the other day. I don't even know whether a new one has
:49:19. > :49:23.been appointed. I doubt anybody knows the name of the last German
:49:23. > :49:26.President. But everybody knows the name of our Queen. I'm with the
:49:26. > :49:33.rest of the panel on this. We haven't heard from you yet David.
:49:33. > :49:37.Maybe you are a shock republican. I'm smiling at the idea of being
:49:37. > :49:47.asked about the hereditary principle by a Dimbleby!
:49:47. > :49:48.
:49:48. > :49:58.APPLAUSE We don't go back so far. Not yet. I travelled up on the
:49:58. > :50:00.
:50:00. > :50:06.train with El Presidene and his ambitions only extent to the police
:50:06. > :50:09.at the moment. But that's bad enough. The best comment came from
:50:09. > :50:14.Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He once said that one of the things
:50:14. > :50:19.that keeps Britain from becoming a dictatorship is having to kneel
:50:19. > :50:22.before the Queen once a week and explain your job to her. That is a
:50:22. > :50:26.really wise insight. We are fabulously lucky in this country
:50:26. > :50:31.that the most powerful people have to bend their knee to somebody else.
:50:31. > :50:41.That's what keeps us as civilised as wefrplt so long may she reign.
:50:41. > :50:42.
:50:42. > :50:48.APPLAUSE Are there any republicans in our
:50:48. > :50:52.Grimsby audience? You are? We've talked about how great value for
:50:52. > :50:56.money the Queen is, but I'm wondering whether Prince Charles
:50:56. > :51:04.will have that same sort of international love drawn to him. I
:51:04. > :51:14.agree with Melissa Kite that perhaps this year is not the -- I
:51:14. > :51:14.
:51:14. > :51:20.agree with Marina Lewycka that perhaps this year is not the year.
:51:20. > :51:27.Rob Connor. Is David Cameron's idea to private as a vast swathe of our
:51:27. > :51:31.road network not just another excuse to fleece the already put
:51:31. > :51:35.upon motorist? APPLAUSE This is a complex idea
:51:35. > :51:42.that not everybody understood except people who smelt a rat. The
:51:42. > :51:47.Treasury is going to carry out a feasibility study of new ownership
:51:47. > :51:50.and financing models for the road system in England, where private
:51:50. > :52:00.contractors would take over the roads and get a share of the road
:52:00. > :52:03.taxes. I'm lost. I'm not sure I can help you! There is an argument for
:52:03. > :52:09.getting private funding and private enterprise into the highways system.
:52:09. > :52:13.There are, I don't know how many people in the audience have used
:52:13. > :52:18.the M6 toll. It is an efficient, reasonably cheap addition to the
:52:18. > :52:24.motorway system that wouldn't have been funded simply with taxpayers'
:52:24. > :52:28.money. If there are big, important roads that need to be wilt, --
:52:28. > :52:32.built, there is an argument for getting it done that way. If people
:52:32. > :52:36.have travelled in France, and that is a way of improving the network
:52:36. > :52:43.and introducing a toll system. I know people in this part of the
:52:43. > :52:47.world have experience of the Humber Bridge. It has aroused strong
:52:47. > :52:52.feelings because of the charges. But big infrastructure like that in
:52:53. > :52:57.future are not likely to come from public funding. We have to be
:52:57. > :53:00.pragmatic about it. I agree with the original intervention that we
:53:00. > :53:05.should not be fleecing the motorist that. Shouldn't be the motivation.
:53:05. > :53:10.If the infrastructure is going to be improved it is probably going to
:53:10. > :53:15.require private capital. Chuka Umunna, are you in favour of this
:53:15. > :53:20.study? Would Labour back trunk roads and motorways being given to
:53:20. > :53:24.private contractors? I think we are all a bit lost because we don't
:53:24. > :53:30.know the details. Apparently the Prime Minister said it would apply
:53:30. > :53:36.to new roads and trunk roads but it seems new roads would include an
:53:36. > :53:42.extra lane on an existing road. I do think where people are finding
:53:42. > :53:46.rising living costs, a VAT hike and credits being taken away, this is
:53:46. > :53:51.probably not a welcome measure. Wasn't it daerblgs your Chancellor,
:53:51. > :53:59.who recommended -- wasn't it Alistair Darling, your Chancellor,
:53:59. > :54:02.who recommended road charging? need to see the details. It is also
:54:02. > :54:05.a question of timing as well. I think Alistair Darling was in
:54:05. > :54:13.charge of the transport department some time ago when the economic
:54:13. > :54:18.climate was perhaps a bit different. People often, as Vince Cable did,
:54:18. > :54:22.talk about the French system. But the issue there is that alongside
:54:22. > :54:28.the toll roads is an excellent national road system that you can
:54:28. > :54:35.use at the same time. You don't think we have that? No, we are too
:54:35. > :54:40.crowded for that to happen. Melissa Kite. Can someone please explain to
:54:40. > :54:49.me how there is not enough money that's been taken from the motorist
:54:49. > :54:55.to pay for our roads? APPLAUSE Perhaps your neighbour on
:54:55. > :55:01.your right confirm Fuel prices, vehicle exice duty. Am I did only
:55:01. > :55:07.one to notice ta our roads are booby-trapped nowadays. You can't
:55:07. > :55:15.go in your car and go outing with being fined for something. Speeding.
:55:15. > :55:20.Speeding, doing 31 in a 30, there's speed guns everywhere, cameras,
:55:20. > :55:25.CCTV. You can't stop anywhere because it is a bus lane or a taxi
:55:25. > :55:30.pull-up. You get to the point where you think, I can't bear to get in
:55:31. > :55:36.my car. It is an assault course, like the Krypton factor. I feel
:55:36. > :55:42.that there must be money in there somewhere. The they use the money,
:55:42. > :55:47.taken from us in these charges, the stealth taxes that are already
:55:47. > :55:53.being imposed on us, they must be able to pay for roads. Perhaps the
:55:53. > :56:00.option is we offer the Chancellor a deal. We'll have road tolling but
:56:00. > :56:05.halve the price of petrol. That would do. I'm going to beg to
:56:05. > :56:09.differ on this. I think that actually unfortunately we need in
:56:09. > :56:14.the long term to be working towards a situation where we have fewer
:56:14. > :56:17.cars on the roads, rather than just carrying on building roads. The
:56:17. > :56:24.truth is that there'll never be enough roads to mop up all the cars
:56:24. > :56:30.that want to be on them. We need a more radical way of organising our
:56:30. > :56:35.transport system. You would charge more for if fuel and you want cars
:56:35. > :56:42.off the road? We have to look hard at other forms of transport, to
:56:42. > :56:47.make them cheaper, accessible, nicer, quicker. I'm with Melissa, I
:56:47. > :56:50.think the motorists already pay enough. I can't see that giving a
:56:50. > :56:54.private company an extra slice of money out of everything we pay is
:56:54. > :57:00.going to make things better. But I don't think it is going to solve
:57:00. > :57:05.the problem. We have to stop. You had the intriguing idea of halving
:57:05. > :57:11.the price of petrol and using it on the roads. Is that a serious
:57:11. > :57:16.question. You think the motorist is fleessed, yes or no? Yes. Thank you
:57:17. > :57:21.David. APPLAUSE You've got me out of a
:57:21. > :57:25.hole and got warm applause from the hole and got warm applause from the
:57:25. > :57:35.audience. We are going to be in Portsmouth next week. We are off
:57:35. > :57:35.
:57:35. > :57:39.air during the Easter recess. We're back in Leeds on 19th April. It is
:57:39. > :57:44.Portsmouth next Thursday and Leeds on 19th April. If you want to join
:57:44. > :57:49.the audience, the number is on the screen.