22/03/2012 Question Time

The day after the Budget, who are the winners and who are the losers?

Our audience in tkpwreupls has their -- in Grimsby has their say,

as welcome to Question Time. On our panel here in Grimsby the

Business Secretary Vince Cable, the shadow Business Secretary, Chuka

Umunna, the former shadow Home Secretary, leadership challenger,

David Davis, The Spectator columnist Melissa Kite and the

novelist Marina Lewycka. APPLAUSE.

Now, our first question from Matthew Thompson, please. With more

than one in six six people now aged over 60 isn't the Government right

to ask pensioners to pay their fair share? Chuka Umunna? I think this

was the big surprise in the Budget, wasn't it? So much had been leaked

before, so of course people focus perhaps on those things that the

Government didn't really want people to know about, and the fact

they're taking about �83 a year from 4.4 million pensioners in the

country from next year. I don't think this was the right thing to

do. Particularly when at the same time they're doing this to the

pensioners in this country, they're giving 14,000 millionaires a tax

break in the order of �41,000, I have nothing against people who

earn a lot of money and create wealth and jobs for our country,

but in a context where people are really struggling with squeezed

living standards, we have 2.6 million people out of work, I am

not sure I would have made giving 14,000 millionaire that is tax

break a priority in the current context. APPLAUSE.

Vince Cable, was the argument for freezing the tax allowances of the

pensioners, as Matthew Thompson says, getting them to pay a fair

share, is that what you are after? Not at all, five million pensioners,

the majority of course don't pay tax at all, and most of them are

poor people and the key theme of the Budget was giving them a

substantial increase in the basic state pension, more than I think

they've ever had. Take the last two years of this Government, they will

get I think �10 a week for a single person and that far outweighs the

extra cost to a minority of pensioners of the freezing of the

allowance. Nobody's been asked to pay more tax, it's just the

allowance is being frozen and depending on the rate of inflation,

which is currently low and falling, they will not have to pay any more.

If you have an allowance and people expect the allowance as normal to

go on up with inflation, you suddenly say it's not going to, you

can't then say you are not taking more money off them. You are taking

money off... If there is inflation... Let's go back to the

base quick question. There are elderly people, actually people

sort of late middle age, people of my generation, who do very well

actually, who have good post- retirement income and are asset-

rich and it's right they should pay more. The people who we are worried

about, the people who have been affected by this particular

proposal are people on fairly low incomes who have a small

superanation, for example. They will benefit considerably overall

from the Budget because of the increase in state pension, far

outweigh any losses. Looking to 2012-13, the gains to pensioners as

a whole from improving the state pension is something this

Government's done, it's protected it. Five times more important than

the losses that have been experienced with this group. The

big story in the Budget was about lifting allowances for 20 million

people, low and middle income, that's what was where most of the

money in the Budget's gone, it's something my party fought for and

it will do a great deal to help ordinary people, �220 a year extra

in tax cuts. And will particularly help low paid workers. APPLAUSE.

Marina Lewycka? Pensioners of that generation, they do want to pay

their fair share and so the question is really what is fair?

What is the fair share for for pension stphers. What's

particularly unfair about this tax, this sort of little theft of

people's money is that it actually comes, not from the well-off

pensioners, actually I checked, I am not affected because I earn too

much, it's people who have that little bit extra who are going to

be squeezed by this, they're the people who have worked, saved, done

all the right things, tried to contribute and actually I don't

think it's fair. APPLAUSE. David Davis? I came at this a

slightly different approach, I take the view generally with economic

policy that pensioners are in a unique position, they aren't able

to change much about their circumstances, the rest of us

stpheul work can do something, earn overtime, change the job maybe, but

pensioners can't. I was a little nervous when I heard this proposal

come out, as it were at the end of the Budget. So I had a look at it,

thinking it wouldn't be a good idea. Actually what the numbers show is

that if you take the whole package, not just one piece of it, but the

whole package, the state pension with - this horrible phrase triple

lot, borrowed from Gordon Brown, what that means is you either get

the higher of 2 2.5% or earnings or inflation increase, the highest of

those and you look at that against the freezing of the pension. The

pensioner ends up roughly, the worst off ends up �67 a year better

off, not very much, better off than under Labour policy. So, the answer

is they don't have to take something which is worse than was

reasonable. So I think it's a reasonable policy. It did worry me

when I first heard it because of the issue of pensioners not having

many options but I think it works. OK, up there on the far left.

think the biggest issue for me is that this Budget, unfortunately,

has done very little to address the massive gap in our society which is

very devisive between the average people and the small top end who

earn vast amounts of money, vast multiples of what the average

person earns and that's devisive for society and I think it's

morally indefencible and repug repugnant. We will come on to that

in a moment. The man at the back. am concerned about - the people

talk about the age group we are talking about, people who have

benefited from free university education, tax relief on their

mortgage when they were younger, and NHS when we had one, I think

they can afford to pay a bit back because it's our grandchildren who

will be paying for our mistakes in the future. You are in favour of

what the questioner said? Yeah. Melissa Kite? I agree with the last

speaker, he makes a very good point. I can totally understand why people

are upset about this because it was massively mishandled by George

Osborne. I have heard of rabbits out of hats, but this was a hound

from hell. It was not explained and dropped as a bombshell and as David

says when you actually look at the whole thing together it's not as

bad. But there's been a lot of Labour scaremongering as well,

talking about �60-�200 that earning pensioners with an income are going

to lose. But just to pick up on that point, yes, today's pensioners

have had chances and opportunities that I am afraid a generation

coming up now will never have. They had the free university education,

they had soaring house prices and they had final salary pension

schemes and so on. Now they can help pay? They can pay a little bit.

The point I am trying to make is we have to do something for society as

a whole and to get Britain moving again because this generation of

young people coming up are just not going to have these chances.

will move on in a moment. The woman in white in the back row. To me it

seems just another way of eroding my standard of living in retirement.

I work in the public sector. I was expecting to be out able to retire

at 60. I have been told now that my pension will actually be consumer

price linked, instead of inflation linked. In the past two years -

three years I have been told I can't get my state pension at 60.

It was going to be 63. Now I have I have recently had a letter and told

it's 65 years and three months. I feel the money I am trying to make

up that shortfall now is also being eroded because the amount of

interest I am getting in the bank is almost negative. I just feel

that at the moment I am really quite dreading my retirement. Can I

afford to retire? APPLAUSE. Vince Cable, do you want

to answer that? Well, I do acknowledge that a lot of people

feel squeezed. It has to be seen in the context of the massive crisis

that we have just been through. The country as a whole is actually 10%

worse off than before we had this massive financial crisis. We are

trying get back on to track and share the burden as fairly as

possible. The reason interest rates are very slow basically to stop the

economy collapsing. The last Government brought in low interest

rates, through the Central Bank. We have had to maintain that. It does

make it very hard for small savers, I understand that. It's more

important that we help the economy to recover from the terrible

economic heart attack it suffered because that's what we have been

through. Let's stick with the Budget, but from a different angle.

Shell done Ellis. Does cutting the 50p tax rate to 45p signal the end

of us all being in it together? APPLAUSE. It was introduced by

Labour, but Labour apparently are not prepared to say that they will

bring it back in 2015 if they're re-elected s that right? If there

was a general election tomorrow... There isn't going to be one. And we

won we would reverse it. We will be voting against it when it comes

before the House of Commons shortly. I am not going to write a manifesto

for 2015 now or start to spell out different types of spending

measures. Let me say this... not promise it, if you believe it

should be at 50p which is what your leader said? It's not a spending,

the Government gets the money. You can give it away to pensioners or

poorer people. Do something with it,... There is a balance of tax

and spending measures that you spell out at the time of a general

election before you expect to take Government. Look, the principle

that I think everybody here will agree with, is that when you are

going through tough economic times those with the broadest shoulders

should bear the heaviest burden and this measure, cutting it from 50 to

45 runs counterto that. And that is the problem that I think people

will have with this. I mean, 300,000 people are going to get a

tax break earning six times the average salary at a time when 2.6

million people are out of work, including tragically one million

young people, at a time when people who are in work are facing the

billingest -- biggest squeeze on living standards in a general raeug

and actually -- generation and the average family is very difficult.

Are these really the group of people should be prioritising in

that context? I don't think so. David Davis. You said you were

uneasy about the other change. Were you in favour of this one. This is

an astonishing piece of hypocrisy by the Labour Party. For 13 years,

this idea that those with the broadest shoulders carry the

biggest burden is not new, it's been a part of political life for

my lifetime and for the last 13 years of Labour Government Gordon

Brown first as Chancellor, then as Prime Minister, never thought it

worthwhile moving the rate from 40p, he said in private he thought that

was the level at which you got the most out of the rich. It's the key

point. You got to decide are you just trying to punish the rich or

trying to get the most from them? If you are trying to get the most

from them, then what we learned before with the Geoffrey Howe and

Lawson Budgets, the maximum rate, 60% didn't get the most. When they

cut down to 40, eventually end up double, triple the amount of money

coming from the rich. Why, because they stopped trying to avoid paying

tax, stopped leaving the country, did different things to earn money

and that's what we need to do. We are in an economy now that needs,

in my view, a shock and and awe to get to a growth phase. I have a son

in 20s, his generation getting jobs, real trouble. We have to run the

economy in a most sensible way, not the most political way which we

have had for the last 13 years. George Osborne blamed the revenue

that was coming in from the tax on 50p rate as not being sufficient,

there was a lot of avoidance issues. You we should be putting more

effort into recovering the tax He is doing that. I agree with that.

For example this idea that you could buy an expensive house using

a foreign corporation, to avoid capital gains and other taxes is a

dreadful idea and should have been shut down, and he has shut it down.

That's going to give us three quarters of a billion pounds. Well

worth having. I don't understand how you can say that by lowering

that they won't try to avoid it. They are going to try to avoid it

whatever it is. That's why they are so rich anyway. So the rich will

always avoid it? Yes, always. was a theory that they would stop

avoiding it if you lower the rate. They are certainly avoiding it now.

It is always amusing listening to Labour hearing them say how putting

up taxes it is going to work. It has never worked in the past.

They've tried it at 80 and 60 and every time the revenues fell. We

have to find a way to make the wealthy people stay and pay. And

50p just isn't doing it. It hasn't worked. OK. Well, it hasn't. It

raised �100 million. That isn't going to help. Vince Cable, you've

got form on this. You said some believe if taxes on the wealthy are

cut new revenue will miraculously appear - pull the other one. Is

that still your view? I am officially of the view that at a

time of hardship the wealthiest people in society should pay their

share. So you are against this stkphut I'm not against - - Against

this cut? I'm not against it but it is not my party's policy. This goes

back to David Davis's point. If you want the wealthiest people in

society to pay their share, you've got to find a way of doing it where

they actually pay. This particular gimmick which was dreamt up 57 days

before the end of the last Labour Government, after 13 years, didn't

work. It didn't bring in much money. We are replacing it with much more

effective measures, taxation on very valuable property, greatly

limiting the allowances which the wealthiest people in society can

pay and putting more effort into genuine tax avoidance to catch the

dodgers. This is ludicrous nonsense. The loophole they are clamping down

on in respect of properties worth �2 million or more, there are about

4,000 of those properties sold in the last year, whereas there are

300,000 very reasonably wealthy people who are going to be

benefiting from this measure. This notion that you don't do this out

of envy, that you do it because we have grave issues to deal with. We

have to reduce our debts, and therefore you get those who can

afford to contribute more to contribute a bit more for a period.

It is not true to say it wasn't working. What the Government has

done here by abolishing it, it is going to lead to an upfront cost of

�2.9 billion. No it is not. If it comes to �100 million, predicated

on a massive assumption, and that is that wealthy people will change

their behaviour and suddenly miraculously decide to pay more tax.

That's how you get to the �100 million. It is HMRC who says that

isn't it? The OBR, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said it is

very uncertain, because you can't actually make a proper evaluation.

They've only allowed a year to see what it brings in. When the

Institute for Fiscal Studies has said you should allow this tax to

be in place for a longer period to see how much it can raise. Is it

unreasonable for people on Sykes times the average salary to

contribute a bit more to help out. What happened the last time the

rate was dropped from 60% under Lawson? This isn't a 60p rate drop.

The answer is that the take went un. But hang on just a minute...

APPLAUSE No, you hang on. We've heard your point Chuka. I want to

hear from the audience. I'm an education student so I'm in and out

of school as lot of time, talking to young people. They think they

have got such an unfair deal. And they have. They'll be paying higher

tuition fees. The minimum wage hasn't gone up. Yet at the same

time they watch the Six o'clock News and they see millionaires

getting tax cuts. They feel under pressure to make up the deficit

that they never caused and it is so unfair.

APPLAUSE Marina Lewycka, do you think it will benefit the country

by people coming back and paying the tax they never paid? It is a

bizarre that somehow because people who are obviously in some sense

fiddling the 50% tax are going to suddenly stop fiddling because it

has gone down to 45 % seems odd to me. I don't think people are like

that. APPLAUSE The only way you are going

to do it is the same with seat belts. Bring in a law, a tax

avoidance law. If you tpwhring a tax avoidance law for everybody,

these people will stop avoiding, including Tony Blair by the way,

and stop avoiding the tax that they should be paying. David Davis, do

you think it should be 40p instead of 45p? If it had been me I would

have gone to 40. It could be cut to 40 providing... That's a funny way

of talking. Providing it was replaced with a proper tax on

wealth. What happened to your "mansion tax"? There's a small

mansion tax in the Budget. There isn't going to be a levy on large

mansions which are registered in companies. That's anti-tax

avoidance measure. It is making sure that you actually collect the

tax that the levy exists there already to do. Vince Cable, you

said in the Guardian in the autumn, clearly understood there's a trade-

off, if my colleagues will buy the idea of a "mansion tax" or some

variation of that tax, and I hope they will, we can look at the 50p

rate. If they are not willing to look at it, did 50p rate stays. Why

aren't you quitting this Government? Because there's been a

very good trade-off. APPLAUSE Two things have happened

in this Budget. Instead of having the 50p rate, which brought in very

little money, we now have much more effective taxation of wealth and

very high income. And in addition... The most important part of the

Budget is that �20 -- 20-million plus ordinary taxpayers have got a

substantial tax cut by raising the louns. It is the centrepiece of the

Budget. It is where most of the money has gone. As a consequence of

it, 20 million taxpayers get a reduction of �220. That is what the

budgets is essentially about. It is right also that we tackle extreme

wealth and income and that is what we are doing, in a more effective

way than before. Even that is so telling "extreme wealth". This is

about wealth as a dirty word almost. This Budget was trying to send out

a signal that we are not going to tax success, that we are not going

to hunt down people who've done well. But this is about wealth

creation as well. APPLAUSE OK. Surely Labour should

celebrate the fact that the Chancellor, a man with great

integrity, has had the moral courage to lift people out of

poverty by increasing the tax threshold to �9,000 a year. So they

should be celebrating what George Osborne has done. You Sir?

members of the BBC over �50,000 a year have avoided paying tax. It

seems everybody is able to avoid tax if you have the right money.

Where did you get that from? It is on the web and it is from the

information Act. You are not one of them! No. LAUGHTER

I'm not a member of the BBC. I just work for them. That is a

very narrow answer David. That was a politician's answer.

interesting thing is if you look at France for example, one of their

left-wing candidates is looking at introducing a supertax, 65-75 %.

They do believe that those who can afford more money pay the biggest

load. Warren Buffett said he wanted to pay more tax. What this Budget

is actually done is rewarded the frontbench team, most of which are

million airs and allowed them the skip more tax. We need to be

looking at those who can't afford it and making sure that they don't

have to suffer. More needs to be done. It is absolutely ridiculous.

APPLAUSE Just before we leave the point, is

your argument to do with encouraging enterprise or cutting

tax. Both are relevant, if it encourages enterprise that's good,

but the primary objective of the treatment of the tax at the top was

that if 50p rate did not raise very much money and there are much

better, more sensible ways of taxing wealth and very high income.

Let's move on the a different subject. Holly Brown. Why did the

British woman kidnapped in Somalia have to finance her own freedom?

Why did the Government not do more? Tebbutt theeb was released

yesterday. Apparently -- Judith Tebbutt was released yesterday.

Apparently it was reported that her family raised the money. Clearly

the Government couldn't do more. If they did pay the ransom more people

would be kidnapped. That is an agonising position to be in. All I

can say is I totally understand why they did absolutely everything they

could to pay it themselves. And I would have done the same. I would

have done the same knowing that probably by doing that I had stored

up future kidnaps. That just is an agonising position.

APPLAUSE David Davis. Ransoms are a bad idea

generally. I ran a hostage rescue operation in the '90s and we spent

a great deal of time trying to prevent the family of the victim

paying a ransom precisely because it would encourage, it was in

Colombia, it would encourage more people to be kidnapped. There were

75 Americans held at that time in Colombia. It was a trade. We

resolved it militarily. I'm afraid I feel great pain, agony really,

for the families involved in this, but when you pay ransom you get one

person back and hold out the prospect of another ten being

kidnapped later. I'm afraid it is the wrong way to do it. The only

answer to kidnap is to rescue the people, get them back, using

military force if necessary. Using negotiation if you can. Never pay

ransoms. APPLAUSE

The Government, I think this is correct, makes it a criminal

offence to pay terrorists a ransom. In other words if it had been Al-

Qaeda or alshe bab who had been proven to have held Mrs Judith

Tebbutt the Foreign Office could have banned the payment. Do you

think they should extend that to say no ransoms under any

circumstances should be paid? think they should. Criminally

prosecute the family? No, I can talk from my example. We just made

it difficult for it to be paid. this when you are in the SAS?

was in the Foreign Office! LAUGHTER The simple truth was we could

resolve it another way, by rescue. But I do think it is problematic.

It is impossible really for the parents or relatives or even

friends of the individuals who've been kidnapped. For them it is an

impossible circumstances. The Government really has to take a

hard line on it. Surely the point that needs to be considered is that

people need to take more responsibility for where they go.

It is not like people don't know the situation near Somalia and they

should take care not to go into ar area that's a hotbed of pirate

activity and then expect the Government to go there if you get

kidnapped. APPLAUSE It is fair to say there

had been no on-shore kidnaps from Kenya where this happened. Chuka

Umunna. I'm part Nigerian and I hope to go back to Nigeria soon. It

is not always seen necessarily as the safest place. There are

kidnappings that happen there. We had a tragic incident where a

couple of lives were lost in a rescue attempt in Nigeria. Does

that mean because of what you have said that I shouldn't seek to go

and see my family over there because of the risk involved?

do you think about the issue? think the Government has to take a

hard line on it. Notwithstanding that, I would say that I wouldn't

necessarily encourage people to do it but if a member of my family

were in that situation I'm damned sure I would try to find the

resources necessary to try to free them. It is not something that I

would encourage,s that would You make a distinction between what

you would do and society as a whole? If the principle is not to

do it and if it happened would you do it, which many people would.

Well, there is a question as to whether Government makes the

payment or the family should. I suppose I just think it will be

disingenuous to sit here and give a lie and pretend actually if it

happened in my family, the emotion of it and the attachment wouldn't

overcome you. It would. There was a case of the Chandlers, there was a

ransom paid and who knows that didn't encourage this operation.

agree with that. Although I agree with David's point of view, I think

if all avenues have been exhausted human life is more important than

money. So, if everything has been exhausted, every single option, you

can't just leave someone there to be killed. I do agree with what you

say. Would you pay the ransom? every avenue has been exhausted.

Human shraoeuf life -- life is more important than money. You can't put

a value on it. Unfortunately, it's not just the problem of human life

or money. It's a problem of human life now, as against the

possibility more human lives in the future. That's what makes it so

difficult. It makes - these things are terrifying because there is no

right answer and we become aware of how vulnerable we are. Vince Cable.

The distinction should be made between the role of the Government

and the individual, it's a very important one actually. I don't

think we can possibly say that as a matter of Government policy we will

pay up ransom. Kidnapping would just go completely out of control

and it would be a massive incentive for people to do it. But in an

individual circumstance, particularly a very tragic one like

this, I think the husband was killed in the first raid, and the

family, this is what they want to do. I don't think we can proheub

proheub -- prohibit them. In the case of terrorist organisations we

have to be very careful and payment to terrorist organisations is a

crime, I think if an individual family is caught up with a criminal

gang like that, one has to understand their situation and

their pressures and certainly it's not - I don't think it's our job to

stop them doing it. Pretending to take money, and getting the

situation where you are in contact with these people and then...

Deceiving them? That won't work a second time around. The person at

the back. Given comments that have been made what does this say about

our Government? We have had our foreign Minister saying that

Somalia and Sudan are failed states, we have had the pirating going on

in the seas. What action should our offices be taking in respect of the

diplomatic mission and the aid we give these countries in order to

ensure that their people don't do this to us? A brief answer, David

Davis. What should we do? There is a limit to what you can do. Somalia

is an enormous place and it's been in turmoil for, I can't remember

how many decades now, but certainly a couple of decades. You cannot go

into every lawless part of the world and pacify them, otherwise we

end up with a series of other problems. You just have to respond

to the circumstance when it arises. In my view, we should respond

forcefully, those countries that have responded forcefully have been

effective. When we responded forcefully in Columbia there were

no more Brits kidnapped for a significant time afterwards. That's

all you can do. Do you think that was considered by this Government?

I am sure they would have considered it, yes. But rejected?

Well, there's a practical issue, whether you can find them. Whether

you know where they are. Whether it's safe. You have got the

Nigerian circumstance, we went in and the two hostages died in the

course of the raid. You have to take all this on board and make a

judgment accordingly. We will move on to another question, but if you

want to join in the debate, you can on Twitter, or look at Ceefax to

see what others are saying. Georgeina Harris and the next

question. Should teachers in Grimsby be paid less for doing the

same job as their counterparts in the south of England? APPLAUSE.

This goes to the heart of what the Chancellor announced, that the

Government is looking to see if public sector pay can be made more

responsive to local pay. In other words, if public sector pay should

be locally negotiated. Chuka Umunna, you wanted local benefits made

different, region by region. Do you think that these teachers, for

instance, in Grimsby should be paid less because living costs in

Grimsby are less? Well, I mean perhaps if I just read out a quote

from a well known cabinet Minister it would cause all kinds of

problems if you had different shal pay within the public sector, would

you have people looking for promotion in one part of the

country and not working to get... was looking for your opinion, not

Vince Cable's. I happen to agree with Vince on this one. All right.

Vince. We certainly have to be very careful T may be actually there is

an argument for having higher teachers' pay in Grimsby if there

is a shortage of teachers in Grimsby. APPLAUSE.

That is the common sense point. What the Government's looking at, I

just want to stress this is a very preliminary look, this is not

imposing a policy. It's that there are one or two models already in

the court service, the last Labour Government introduced, where pay is

set locally, reflecting local conditions and it could be there is

a shortage of staff, that housing costs differ from one place to

another, and there is an argument for extending that. But I - for the

reasons that Chuka Umunna has quoted, I think imposing regional

variations in pay would be completely wrong and it wouldn't

work. You have just said that if there were a shortage of teachers

in Grimsby there might be an argument for paying more. Allowing

flexibility. Are you suggesting there should be a regional

marketplace for nurses and teachers where you would say in Liverpool we

have a shortage? Cow allow more variation -- you could avow more

Var vasion. - be - variation. In London, you have London weighting

for example. We don't want to be in a position where in relatively low

income parts of the country pay is then depressed and that would be

wrong and inappropriate. But there may be areas where the shortage of

labour in some areas, housing costs vary enormously, let's have a bit

more flexibility in the system as we have already seen in one or two

areas like the court service. quoted him, do you agree with him?

He's being rather contradictory, in the one sense he... Shouldn't

imposing. I am confused by the message that he is giving. It's

also at Var kwrepbts with what other Ministers are saying. David

Davis. I am sitting here thinking that you are saying this and as we

heard Labour introduced this exact thing for the court service. They

also changed quite dramatically the London weighting for the police in

the last - let me finish the point. I don't want to pick a row. The

simple problem we have here is that when a part of the country has high

unemployment the Government quite properly is prone to move public

sector work there, it happened in the north-east of England where my

family come from and other parts and Wales and other parts of the

country. Then what happens, of course, in Wales the people doing

exactly the same job in the public sector end up being paid 18, 20%

more than in the private sector. It then becomes really difficult for

anybody to start a company in that part of the world because they

can't get the staff. So have you the unemployment gets worse. We

have to solve this problem. We haven't decided exactly how to do

it but we will look at these options, it may be different for

teachers and nurses and other administerive staff. Wherever there

is high unemployment there are low private sector wages, relatively.

Not always, - naturally, the north- east of England where my family

came from, huge industrial tradition, huge tradition of energy

and enterprise there in the past. What would normally have happened

is that because because -- labour is cheap people have reinvested

there, it didn't happen because of the effect of large public sector

employment. So we have to find a solution. We can't just live with

long-term unemployment in some parts of the country. If you cut -

the question, if you cut the pay of teachers in Grimsby are you saying

that would help the private sector? What I was saying, David, is that

you probably have a different answer for teachers, where there is

more of argument for national scale than other general skills.

woman in the front row. Is it a a coincidence the Conservative

Government are looking at legislation or changing the

bargaining power of teachers that would undermine the power of

teaching unions? APPLAUSE. Marina Lewycka, you have been in the

teaching profession, what do you make of that point? Well, on the

point of regional pay, because what I think is that in places like

Grimsby or Sheffield where I live, the public sector, including

teachers, form a sort of - possibly a disproportionally large part of

the workforce and the fact that teachers' wages are higher than the

average wage actually raises the overall income of the community and

having that money coming into the community means that local

businesses, shops can stay open that would shut otherwise, you know,

cafes and restaurants stay open. There's a little bit more spending

power in the community. If you actually lower the public sector

wages then I don't think it creates, there's no testified creates jobs

in the private sector t drags down the whole economy. The woman in the

back row. I agree that the cost of living here is cheaper than it

would be in the south, but there is other issues other than the cost of

living. If we want to buy alcohol, for instance, it's a long way to go

down to the channel to cross and obviously more expensive for us,

also to go on holiday, regional airports charge more than they do

in the south. It wouldn't be fair in your view? No, I don't think

would be. The woman in the third row. I think you want to make sure

that you get decent teachers across the country. We all train the same

way. We go into the profession because we are keen and want to

make sure our children are well educated and to start to vary the

pay o could actually affect the amount of people who go into the

profession and cause social economic problems because you get

certain people moving to certain areas to do the jobs and it would

mean that certain areas would lose out and maybe the teaching in that

area would become worse as a result. Vince Cable, can you answer that

point, would you like to see teachers taken out of this study

that the Government is doing? mean this already happens. If there

are scarcity subjects, for example, and teachers are paid more. The

idea that there may be parts of the country, I don't know what the

position is like in Grimsby, where there may be a shortage of teachers,

surely the pay system should reflect that in some degree. Does

it? I don't know the position in Grimsby, but if it is, surely there

is some common sense in allowing local conditions to reflect that.

This does point out the differences between the life in the public and

private sector. If you work in the private sector it's a sort of given

that if you want to earn big wages you gravitate towards the areas

where the big wages are being paid. I grew up in the Midlands and a lot

of us decided that we had to go to London to earn more money. That

just is life in the private sector. And part of me thinks well, you

know, it's protecting people in the public sector from that is sort of

not living in the real world. But, I do think there are precious few

perks at the minute to working in the public sector and therefore if

this is one of them and if the security of knowing that wherever

you work you will be paid a certain rate keeps good teachers and so on

in the profession, then I think it's probably better to keep it

that way. All right. The woman there. I just think

regional variation in pay just creates more of a north-south

divide. Also, particularly for say young graduates or whatever, if

they settle in one part of the country they become trapped and

can't afford to move for that very reason, because there's more of a

divide throughout the country. Let's go on to another question.

George Wilson, please. Is this year a good time for the UK to consider

becoming a republic? Dare I ask your view? Well, I will

give you my view, I think the Queen's doing a pretty good job. I

have been perturned for a long time about the family. They seem to be

improving a bit and when you consider the alternative, God help

us, we might have President Blair or President Prescott.

OK. So the question Marina Lewycka, is this year, the Queen's Jubilee

year, a good time for the UK to consider becoming a republic?

this year I think. The Queen's doing a pretty good job. In a way,

when you think of all the things she has to put up with and all the

travelling around, I feel a bit sorry for her. She has to put up

with living with Prince Philip, has too be smiling all the time when

she feels cross about something. Definitely not this year. Possibly

when the Queen's ready to retire or passes away, that might be the time

to consider becoming a republic. Would you like Britain to be a

republic? Um... Yes. APPLAUSE

Melissa Kite? I think the Queen is such terrific value for money I

can't think of anything else that is as good value as the Queen...

APPLAUSE I was having this argument... You don't get much for

our money nowadays, but I was having this argument the other day.

I looked it up at the time on my BlackBerry and it was something

like 50p a year per person. What do we get for that? This is fantastic.

The tourists that come. The fact that every day outside Buckingham

Palace, crowds are waiting to see the Changing of the Guard. It is

fantastic value for money. So it is commercial judgment for you whether

we are a republic or a monarchy? is a bit of heart as well as head

for me. I do think even if you don't like the idea of a monarchy

you have to see that gives us such a fabulous identity. And it makes

us a bit special and a magnet for tourists. I think the general

public have had enough of politicians. There are far too many

of them around... APPLAUSE And the last thing we want

are more failed politicians as head of state. Far better to have

someone that considers duty before their own personal advancement.

APPLAUSE Do you want monarch cal rule really? You could say that.

You would like the Queen to rule rather than the politicians?

not really. You don't quite go that far. Her current role is quite

satisfactory as far as I'm concerned. What about the next

generation coming along, did you feel the same about them? That's

what a monarchy system is all about. You don't elect then. The man with

the beard, not, "In a beard" that makes it sounds like you have put

it on for the evening. I wear it. I agree the Queen is good value for

money. I come from experience of working abroad and travelling a lot.

What I hear about is a lot of time people drinking abroad and fighting

abroad, but whenever they mention the Queen it is always about what a

great country wefrplt it encourages growth and tourism. It is all-round

value for money, it is a great investment. Vince Cable. I'm not a

republican and I think this old saying of the it ain't broke, don't

fix it. The monarchy works perfectly well. It performs, the

Queen admishly performs the head of state, is popular, and is respected

overseas. Although I am a politician I rather agree with if

gentleman at the back - we should stick with what we are supposed the

do and throw monarch to do her job, which she does very well. Chuka

Umunna. I met the Queen for the first time this week. What has that

got to do with it? I tweeted that I think she does a superb job. I

describe myself as a default monarchist. I don't agree with the

hereditary principle but I can't think of what is better to put in

its place. If you doingle the Queen, our Queen comes up. She is a

fantastic asset and puts us on the map. The President of Germany

stepped down the other day. I don't even know whether a new one has

been appointed. I doubt anybody knows the name of the last German

President. But everybody knows the name of our Queen. I'm with the

rest of the panel on this. We haven't heard from you yet David.

Maybe you are a shock republican. I'm smiling at the idea of being

asked about the hereditary principle by a Dimbleby!

APPLAUSE We don't go back so far. Not yet. I travelled up on the

train with El Presidene and his ambitions only extent to the police

at the moment. But that's bad enough. The best comment came from

Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He once said that one of the things

that keeps Britain from becoming a dictatorship is having to kneel

before the Queen once a week and explain your job to her. That is a

really wise insight. We are fabulously lucky in this country

that the most powerful people have to bend their knee to somebody else.

That's what keeps us as civilised as wefrplt so long may she reign.

APPLAUSE Are there any republicans in our

Grimsby audience? You are? We've talked about how great value for

money the Queen is, but I'm wondering whether Prince Charles

will have that same sort of international love drawn to him. I

agree with Melissa Kite that perhaps this year is not the -- I

agree with Marina Lewycka that perhaps this year is not the year.

Rob Connor. Is David Cameron's idea to private as a vast swathe of our

road network not just another excuse to fleece the already put

upon motorist? APPLAUSE This is a complex idea

that not everybody understood except people who smelt a rat. The

Treasury is going to carry out a feasibility study of new ownership

and financing models for the road system in England, where private

contractors would take over the roads and get a share of the road

taxes. I'm lost. I'm not sure I can help you! There is an argument for

getting private funding and private enterprise into the highways system.

There are, I don't know how many people in the audience have used

the M6 toll. It is an efficient, reasonably cheap addition to the

motorway system that wouldn't have been funded simply with taxpayers'

money. If there are big, important roads that need to be wilt, --

built, there is an argument for getting it done that way. If people

have travelled in France, and that is a way of improving the network

and introducing a toll system. I know people in this part of the

world have experience of the Humber Bridge. It has aroused strong

feelings because of the charges. But big infrastructure like that in

future are not likely to come from public funding. We have to be

pragmatic about it. I agree with the original intervention that we

should not be fleecing the motorist that. Shouldn't be the motivation.

If the infrastructure is going to be improved it is probably going to

require private capital. Chuka Umunna, are you in favour of this

study? Would Labour back trunk roads and motorways being given to

private contractors? I think we are all a bit lost because we don't

know the details. Apparently the Prime Minister said it would apply

to new roads and trunk roads but it seems new roads would include an

extra lane on an existing road. I do think where people are finding

rising living costs, a VAT hike and credits being taken away, this is

probably not a welcome measure. Wasn't it daerblgs your Chancellor,

who recommended -- wasn't it Alistair Darling, your Chancellor,

who recommended road charging? need to see the details. It is also

a question of timing as well. I think Alistair Darling was in

charge of the transport department some time ago when the economic

climate was perhaps a bit different. People often, as Vince Cable did,

talk about the French system. But the issue there is that alongside

the toll roads is an excellent national road system that you can

use at the same time. You don't think we have that? No, we are too

crowded for that to happen. Melissa Kite. Can someone please explain to

me how there is not enough money that's been taken from the motorist

to pay for our roads? APPLAUSE Perhaps your neighbour on

your right confirm Fuel prices, vehicle exice duty. Am I did only

one to notice ta our roads are booby-trapped nowadays. You can't

go in your car and go outing with being fined for something. Speeding.

Speeding, doing 31 in a 30, there's speed guns everywhere, cameras,

CCTV. You can't stop anywhere because it is a bus lane or a taxi

pull-up. You get to the point where you think, I can't bear to get in

my car. It is an assault course, like the Krypton factor. I feel

that there must be money in there somewhere. The they use the money,

taken from us in these charges, the stealth taxes that are already

being imposed on us, they must be able to pay for roads. Perhaps the

option is we offer the Chancellor a deal. We'll have road tolling but

halve the price of petrol. That would do. I'm going to beg to

differ on this. I think that actually unfortunately we need in

the long term to be working towards a situation where we have fewer

cars on the roads, rather than just carrying on building roads. The

truth is that there'll never be enough roads to mop up all the cars

that want to be on them. We need a more radical way of organising our

transport system. You would charge more for if fuel and you want cars

off the road? We have to look hard at other forms of transport, to

make them cheaper, accessible, nicer, quicker. I'm with Melissa, I

think the motorists already pay enough. I can't see that giving a

private company an extra slice of money out of everything we pay is

going to make things better. But I don't think it is going to solve

the problem. We have to stop. You had the intriguing idea of halving

the price of petrol and using it on the roads. Is that a serious

question. You think the motorist is fleessed, yes or no? Yes. Thank you

David. APPLAUSE You've got me out of a

hole and got warm applause from the hole and got warm applause from the

audience. We are going to be in Portsmouth next week. We are off

air during the Easter recess. We're back in Leeds on 19th April. It is

Portsmouth next Thursday and Leeds on 19th April. If you want to join

the audience, the number is on the screen.