26/04/2012 Question Time

Tonight we are in Romford, once an Essex market town, now part of

greater London. Welcome to Question On our panel here, the employment

Minister Chris Grayling, shadow health Minister Diane Abbott, the

deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes, the leader

of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage and The Guardian columnist,

Polly Toynbee. Thank you very much. Straight to

the heart of the matter with Janata Ali, please. How can we have

confidence in the Government's economic policy when we are in

recession again? Diane Abbott? we can't. The Tory-led Government

claimed they had a plan and like some crazed Victorian doctor they

argued the more they cut things, the healthier the patient would be.

Well, their plan has proved fatal. We are in recession again and we

are going into a slump. What we have argued, and we have argued it

ever since this new Tory-led Government came to power, is we

need a plan for jobs and growth. All Cameron and Osbourne have is sa

plan for cuts. What is worse, they're not pursuing this cuts

agenda as they say because they have to, to a a great extent

they're pursuing this agenda because they want to. If they were

really interested in saving money they wouldn't have rammed through

those NHS reforms which will cost �3 billion and counting. They have

a mission to cut the public sector in principle and it's ordinary

people. There are people in this audience who will not have jobs in

12 months because of economic policies. There are young people

leaving school and uni this year who will not get jobs and maybe

never have a proper job and it's ordinary people paying the price of

the Tories' economic incompetence. APPLAUSE.

Chris Grayling. You wouldn't be surprised that I completely

disagree with Diane. This week's figures, the return to recession

was immensely disappointing and I am the person who does the

interviews each month about unemployment. I am responsible for

unemployment and helping people back to work. This matters

enormously. This is not something we want to happen. We didn't come

to office wanting to cut things back. Two years ago the Government

was borrowing �1 in every �4 it spent. You know that from your

personal finances, if you do that you quickly run into serious

problems. We see some of those problems in other European

countries. The only reason we are plot -- not in the same position

many European countriess are in is because we set about trying to

stablise our finances. If we don't do that we will have businesses

that won't want to invest in the UK, people moving away to take jobs

elsewhere. The only way we are going to build growth and success

for this country in the future is if we have a stable environment for

business. Why are we doing so much worse than almost everybody in the

G7 apart from Italy I think at the moment and the question was how can

we have confidence in the policy. You can have confidence in the

policy because every major international observer, the IMF,

OECD, all the bodies that study what Government is doing

economically say our strategy is the right one and the reality is

that we are still able to go to the financial markets, borrow money to

fill a deficit that's still too large. But we would not be able to

do that if they did not believe we were moving in the right direction.

The reason other European countries are having the problems they are is

people won't lend to them any more. We are stablising the economy in

this country. We have to do that and I am absolutely of the view

that if we don't do what we are doing, then actually we will end up

with higher unemployment, not lower. Polly Toynbee? We are not

stablising the economy, not at all. We have just gone into double-dip

recession. I don't know what you are talking about. This is bungling

incompetence on a staggering scale. APPLAUSE. Not just here, but all

around Europe, extreme austerity is being shown not to work. It's a

disaster. You get into a death spiral. It's like ebola economics,

more people lose their jobs and less money comes into the Treasury

and you have to cut even more. What's really truly terrifying is

the institute for fiscal studies says there is still 88% of the

planned cuts still to come. We have hardly begun on this process and

yet we have gone into double dip recession. I am terrified about

what's to come. Unless the Government can produce a plan B for

jobs, for growth, for investment, can give that confidence to the

private sector to invest because businesses have a lot of money

they're sitting on, they dare not invest partly because they hear

people like Chris Grayling saying we are nearly like Greece and it's

terrifying. The The deficit this year as a proportion of national

income is virtually the same as Greece's. That's a completely non-

fact and figure. Our economy is nothing like Greece's, never was.

And by saying so... We didn't join the euro. I want to hear from Simon

Hughes, from the other side of the Government and has confidence in

the policy? The answer is I do, but it's of course struggling. Let's

own up that we didn't want to be where we are now. If you remember

two years ago when the Government was formed Labour had lost the

election, partly because of people's lack of confidence in its

economic handling, I am not saying it was all Labour's fault. It was

the bankers and the Labour Government. Debt was massive. The

deficit was massive. We couldn't not deal with it. As the coalition

was formed television pictures were full of the crisis on the mainland

of Europe so Government took tough measures. But things like the

Budget actually which had some good things in it were about putting

money back into the hands of ordinary people so you can spend it.

It was about giving pensioners more money to spend. It was about making

sure that more money was out and available. The encouraging news,

David, and it's difficult and Chris is right, nobody wants to be here,

but the quietly encouraging news is that the IMF predicts by the end of

the year we will be back in growth. Growth bigger than Germany, bigger

than France, bigger than the eurozone. We are all struggling,

but a five-year plan to get out of the mess we did in the national

interest is better than something that just goes on spending money as

if there was no tomorrow. Simon, you really think that George

Osborne knows what he is doing? LAUGHTER. You really think that?

There were clearly mistakes in the Budget, both the presentation and

of context. But you and I have been in parliament a long time, we have

seen Chancellors of both Tory governments and Labour governments,

we both agree privately certainly that's what we both said to each

other, there have been lots of poor decisions made by the Treasury.

It's not a science, it's an art. You do what you can. You try and

get it right. All I know is that this has to be a plan for five

years and at the end of it we want more employment, less unemployment

and growth and that's what the Government is... Let's hear from

the audience. I think Bill Clinton once said it's the economy, stupid.

Would it really make any difference who was in Government and shouldn't

really the British public accept the fact that times are tough,

they're going to get harder, cuts need to be made, we need to balance

the books? You can all blame each other for as long as you want but

this country and Europe and the world is in trouble and we just

need to accept that. Nigel Farage, do you agree? I do, actually. The

biggest myth in British politics and this debate at the moment is

even the use of the word cuts. Let's be clear what is actually

happening with our public finances. One fair comment I will make to

George Osborne, he did inherit a dreadful economic situation from

Labour. Last year the British Government borrowed �126 billion

more than it earned. If we go on at that rate our national debt will

increase by a further 30% over the course of the next four years,

leaving an absolutely massive, horrendous debt to pay back. Let's

be clear, there are no cuts, we are borrowing massively. Last month we

borrowed nearly another �20 billion. So, we are in a mess. We are in a

mess and it's not easy to deal with it, because if you cut too quickly

it does stifle demand and I understand that. But I don't think

we are doing enough. Cutting back the public sector is a difficult

thing to do, even Thatcher failed to do it. But what Thatcher did do

was produce growth and why I have no confidence in this Government is

that they have no strategy for growth and I don't see when

Miliband gets up at PMQs that he has one either. It's partly because

we haven't anybody on those front benches with anybody experience of

real life, none of them have have run businesses, we are being run by

a bunch of college kids who are hopelessly out of touch. APPLAUSE.

The one thing I think we are missing is this: There are 4.2

million small businesses and traders in this country, they are

the heroes of the nation, they put their necks on the line and if you

want to promote growth you have to remove the massive regulatory

burden from their backs and get them out employing.

APPLAUSE. The woman in the second row. I have

every confidence in the Government because George Osborne feels we are

doing so well he is sending �10 billion to the IMF. Chris Grayling,

why are we sending �10 billion? don't don't send �10 billion, this

is not money that could be spent on schools and hospitals and we are

lending it to the most secure institution in the world. We are

being members for 75 years of an international club that's rescued

nations in trouble, including ourselves 40 years ago. Every

country that's ever lent money to the IMF gets it back with interest.

How much interest? I don't know the rates. The euro is going bust,

Chris. We get interest on the money we lend? Yes. Why don't we lend

more? LAUGHTER. I think what we are doing is fine.

Do you know what the interest rate is? Not off the top of my head.

don't get anything in England, half a percent or something. Serious

point. I don't know the answer. A question... I want to bring in the

lady up there, wait a second. can the general public ever have

confidence in two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of a

pint of milk? APPLAUSE. That's roughly the

accusation Nigel Farage is making. You answer that, because... People

are born in different circumstances and brought up in different ways,

they can't be blamed for that, you can't, I can't. Our parents

determined our upbringing. You then find yourself elected. The

decisions in the end have to be judged on their merits. One of the

poshest people to run this country is Macmillan, he is regarded as

having done a fantastic job after the war, buildings houses. He came

from... He had worked in business. He hadn't left university and

become a researcher, had he? You said wherever you come from you get

elected. The point is they leave university, they go into research

offices and become members of parliament, that'sed problem. --

that's the problem. Vince Cable had a very successful career in Shell,

worked abroad, worked at home in the developing world. He is the

Business Secretary. He is the other person who drives the economy.

Vince is very clear and he has been clear... Vince is very clear...

Vince said the Government hadn't got vision? Wasn't it Vince who

wrote to the Prime Minister and said the Government lacked vision.

Yes and he is clear we need to do more in investing in the regions,

more investing in manufacturing, more in investing in

apprenticeships to make sure we get out of the economic... The man up

there at the back in the middle. think it's a travesty when the

Labour Party claims to represent the working class people, because

generally working people who are paying for the mess you got us into

and, you know, we are the ones suffering. Polly Toynbee, do you

want to answer that? What I think about politicians and whether or

not they're posh boys at the top of the Tory Party is it's not where

you have come from, it's who you stand for that really matters. When

George Osborne gets up and says we are all in this together, and then

cuts top tax for multimillionaires and then takes money from other

people, who he is for is for the City and for the top few percent.

That's what really matters in politics. That's not the point he

was making. We want tax to belower for the poorer. Look at the Tory

manifesto, there was nothing about cutting tax for people on ordinary

incomes. We had it on the front page of ours. We delivered it in

the coalition and it's helping you and everybody else. It's important

to take on this point about it being for the rich. I want to see

in this country is more jobs. If we are going to attract people from

around the world, executives taking a decision about where they're

going to build a new factory, which country, it's a decision about

workforce and about investment. It's also sometimes a decision

about themselves. If they're going to pay 15% more tax in Britain than

another country in Europe, they'll take their factory and jobss to

another country in Europe. That's why I think it's right to cut the

top rate of tax. We are cutting the loopholes for wealthy people who

are using tax dodges to buy houses on the cheap. I want to attract

successful business people from around the world to invest in the

That's a complete fallacy. They're not investing now. Big business is

sight on �700 50 billion under the mattress that they are refusing to

invest -- �750 billion. And there is unpaid tax, mostly by

corporations and big business. There is enough money to invest in

jobs and services. And your Government, of the rich, for the

rich, is that the Labour Party, all you can say is too much too fast.

That Ed Miliband and Ed Balls refuse to say that they'll reverse

the cuts if they take power. So we face years of austerity. And that's

why Labour can't take their votes for granted any more. That's why

this these locations there's trade unionists, there's campaigners

standing their own candidates, the RMT, the Fire Brigades Union, Bob

Crowe, to stand against cuts and privatisation, because the Labour

Party has given up fighting for the working classes.

The question is how we have confidence in the Government, with

this dip in growth. The fact remains from 1997 to today there's

been an average 100,000 manufacturing industry jobs have

been lost every year. And as was said by one of the packagists

neither party has had a strategy to deal with this. Jobs have gone to

the Far East and Eastern Europe. Unless we hear plans to reignite

British industry and manufacturing jobs, I think growth will be slow

in coming. We could stop CO2 emission targets which are driving

manufacturing business out of Britain and straight across to the

Far East. It is absolute madness. You talk about confidence in

Government, but you made it more difficult for philanthropists who

give to charity, calling it tax avoidance, but what have you done

about the likes of Lord Ashcroft, who avoided paying �1850 million in

tax by living in the Caribbean? Lord Ashcroft has moved his affairs

to the UK. That's a well-versed story, it is somewhat old. What

matters in my mind is getting people to come to written to create

jobs. We had a -- come to Britain to create jobs. In Redcar in the

North East, a blast furnace which was mothballed has been re-opened

by an international investor coming to the UK to play a real role where

unemployment is too high. I will take one point from the woman in

red and then we must go on. Since we've now entered the double dip

recession, that's going to stop people coming here to invest.

People are going to look ought now and compare us to Europe and go

that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, they are going to look at

us and we've gone into a double dip and are we going to go the same way

as them? We've got to do better than them. Do you think we are

going into a slump? The danger is that if countries across Europe

pursue George Osborne economics and just cut, we've seen a 25% drop in

investment in housing. A 25% drop of investment in construction. If

everybody does that, the economys of Europe will go into a death

spiral. The Tories have a strategy for cuts. They do not have a

strategy for growth, except for... We must move on. I want to come to

Nigel Farage. Nigel, your point, you keep saying the Government is

borrowing and borrowing, where is this money being spent? Massive

increased social security bills, foreign aid budgets, EU

contributions, pensions. Of course, people are living longer. That's

exactly what happens. It's the price of failure. Nigel, would you

cut all of these things? You are suggesting, as I understand it,

that increase in borrowing is proof that actually money is being spent

on the economy. Twice in this debate Diane has said the

Government is cutting and compared it to Europe. In Europe under

austerity there are massive cutbacks in Government spending.

Let's great it right. Frontline services in this country are being

cut. Bureaucracy isn't. But as a country we are borrowing vast sums

every year. You've made your point and we must go on. One second.

not just one second. We may come to housing later. APPLAUSE If you

wanted to contribute to the debate, wanted to contribute to the debate,

if you are tweeting tonight you I want a question from Oliver Tong.

In the light of recent evidence heard at the Leveson Inquiry should

Jeremy Hunt resign as Culture Secretary? The Leveson Inquiry

suggested to some people that Jeremy Hunt was deeply involved in

trying to ensure that Rupert Murdoch got BSkyB. Polly Toynbee,

do you think Hunt should go? Absolutely. There was no doubt

about it. He was about to hand the whole of Sky over the Rupert

Murdoch. Ofcom advised him that he should give it to the Competition

Commission. The reason he didn't give it to the Competition

Commission was plainly because le had decided he wanted to make sure

he favoured Rupert Murdoch and gave him what would have gifted him a

monumental monopoly of British media. I don't think anybody quite

understands what he would have done. He would have bundled together all

of his newspapers, the online, the sports and movie rights, into a

package that would have been irresistible, at a low price, as he

would have done it as a loss-leader. He would have driven out of

business all of the other news providers, every single one of them.

We have been the single monopoly voice. The second thing he was

going to do was to press to change the impartiality laws that keep our

broadcasting decent and safe. And make sure that there is balance, in

programmes like this. And he would have then turned his newsroom

operation into a Fox News operation. We've seen what that has done to

American politics. We've seen how appalling American political

discussion has become. We were within days of doing that. If Nick

Davies of the Guardian hasn't just unearthed and exposed at that point

the brutality of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, within days

the game would have been up, Murdoch would have had the whole

thing and that would have been the end of the story. APPLAUSE The

evidence that was heard... Did you not accept what Jeremy Hunt

said, that it was his adviser, his special adviser, Adam Smith, who

had gone beyond his remit? Spiesers live cheek by jowl with their

Ministers. These people arrived with them, shoe have seen them --

special advisers. A special friend? They spend more time with them on

the whole than with your husband and children. Special advisers know

everything you eat and breathe and drink. The idea he was far down a

corridor, nobody had a clue what he was up to, you only have to read

those e-mail to see he was conveying Jeremy Hunt's thoughts.

What's more Jeremy Hunt was plainly conveying Number Ten's thoughts.

The trail is all there. APPLAUSE Simon Hughes. Jeremy Hunt wanted

Murdoch to succeed and did everything to feed him information

and should resign, do you agree? don't think he should resign now,

but die think there are severe questions which he yet answered. I

was in the House of Commons yesterday. He has a good track

record, he is well regarded. He wants to give evidence to Leveson.

That's good. The Leveson Inquiry is something we pushed for and he will

have to give evidence under oath. It's a very good thing, at last,

we've got a public inquiry into the scandal around the closeness of the

media and politicians. Murdoch said he never asked a politician for

anything. The blunt truth was he didn't have to, as politicians were

so busy chasing himself, he didn't have to. I don't have a special

adviser. But they are pretty close to their Ministers. What I cannot

understand is why the matter of the Ministerial Code of conduct, which

is to do with did you take responsibility for your special

adviser is not something the Prime Minister immediately should refer

to the person who has been given the job to do. Sir Alex Alan. Only

the Prime Minister can do that. He has so far resisted doing it. I

don't think it gets in the way of the Leveson Inquiry and the

evidence. It's a separate matter. It is about the responsibility

between a Minister and his special adviser. How fascinating. Why do

you think he's refused to do the obvious and proper thing to do?

far he hasn't used that new system that's been recently set up.

There's a code of conduct, it is a short document, 25 pages. It is not

a book the length of the Bible you have to read and master. I would

have thought to give confidence in the system, just as Leveson is an

independent inquiry into the relations between the media, the

politicians and the police, the individual who has been appointed,

Alex Alan, to police the ministerial conduct, independent of

Government, is the right person to look at it. I hope the Prime

Minister reconsiders his view. That must be in Jeremy's interest. If

Jeremy is correct in what he said, he will be vindicated, if not he

will have to take the consequences. Did you agree with what he said and

call on the Prime Minister to do that? No, I think what we have got

now is a judge-led inquiry. The last time I was on this programme I

sat on a panel demanding a judge- led inquiry. That's what we've got.

We have to let it take its course. What about the mechanism that the

Prime Minister could use to examine this? We've got one of the most

senior judges to look at this. will take forever won't it? We've

set up a process. I'm sure I'm not alone in having read reports of a

court case and you read the reports for the prosecution and you think,

"Blimey, this guy is guilty as hell" and then when you read the

defence you think otherwise. that what you are saying, that this

guy a guilty as hell? LAUGHTER We've got a collection of e-mails

released by a PR man to his bosses, which we know contains plenty of

spin, because they suggest he had meetings with Jeremy Hunt which he

said he hasn't had. We've got a judge-led inquiry. Jeremy Hunt will

give evidence to that inquiry. Most importantly Lord Leveson himself

said yesterday he wants to allow his inquiry to take its course.

He's asked us for that to to happen and we should let that happen.

what Polly Toynbee suggested is the truth, would that be a very grave

offence and would Hunt have to go? Look, I'm not going to speculate,

you are not going to draw me on hypotheticals. Let's see what Lord

Leveson said when he's interviewed Jeremy Hunt. One of the main

questions we should be asking is how many more fall guys or

scapegoats has the Government got lined up to take the rap for

theirle from Ministers? Nigel Farage do, you agree with that?

rather do. With his month, I mean. Let me come to it. I think the

answer is yes. Polly made the point, I often agree with Polly about

these things. SPADs are in the pocket of their Ministers. They

work together, almost live together. It is that close a relationship.

Clearly this special adviser was sending e-mails to the Murdoch

group before the announcements were made to the House of Commons.

Entirely inappropriate, quite wrong. That's why he's had to resign. If

Jeremy Hunt, who is in charge of that department and directly

employed that person, did not know what that person is doing, he

should resign on the grounds of sheer incompetence, and if he did

know, he should resign on the grounds of complicity. The answer

is he won't resign yet. Certainly not before the elections take place

next Thursday. I think Jeremy Hunt is the human shield for the Prime

Minister. Because the big question here is, just how close was the

Prime Minister's relationship to editors of those newspapers and to

the Murdoch family? I suspect there's a lot more to come out

during the Leveson Inquiry. And I think Cameron himself, we've got

Andy Coulson, we've got Rebekah Brooks, we've got the horse

LAUGHTER All of this. I suspect Hunt will hang on until at least

next Thursday, but I agree that there's a lot more to come here.

Is there not a risk the work of the Leveson inquiry will be devalued or

undermined because this is a major instance of them finding wrongdoing

in a Ministerial department, perhaps we will find out if it's

the Minister himself, but as far as I can see if it's this easy to

Circumvent the wrongdoing they have found how does that bode for future

findings of the inquiry? Diane Abbott? I think Jeremy Hunt should

resign. Jeremy Hunt thinks he should resign. I was in the House

of Commons for his statement, if you didn't see it, he was pale, he

was squirming. He knows his career is hanging by a thread. You said he

thinks he should resign? I think he knows he's been caught bang to

rights. When the Tories say let the Leveson inquiry take its course,

the Leveson inquiry has criteria, it's not meant to decide on whether

Ministers are in breach of the Ministerial Code of conduct and the

Government could clear this up tomorrow. We, the Labour Party's

calling for Jeremy Hunt to release all of the e-mails, all of the

texts, all of the communications between himself and his special

advisor and we would know straightaway whether the special

advisor was acting as a lone ranger or whether he was acting as Jeremy

Hunt's surrogate. The truth is one of the things the Leveson inquiry

is exposing is the nature of leaks, whether it's top policemen, top

politicians, whether it's billionaire press magnets like

Murdoch and it's not an edifying sight and it's also true that too

many Prime Ministers were at the beck and call of Murdoch, including

Tony Blair, but the good thing I would say about Ed Miliband, he has

turned the page on that. He was the first to condemn Murdoch. The first

to call for rebeak ka Wade to stand down. Vince Cable was the first to

pull the plug. If you read two days ago what's come up at the inquiry

is that the Murdoches targeted Vince Cable and he did not fall for

it. He refused to meet them. He has been vindicated. Let's give a cheer

for good old Vince Cable! APPLAUSE. The woman over there.

Thank you, Sir. You don't need a Mike rephone -- microphone! Isn't

the concept of Ministerial responsibility that a Minister

should no matter if they know what's happening in the department

take the flack. We have seen that in governments before and

constantly in this Government we have people like Theresa May who

keep making mistakes but seem to still on while civil servants go.

One more comment on this before we move on from you Chris Grayling.

Article 33 of the Ministerial Code says: Individual Ministers will be

accountable to the Prime Minister, parliament and the public, that's

us, for their actions and decisions in respect of their special

advisors. Doesn't that mean that if your special advisor screws up you

have to go as well? Yesterday morning Lord Leveson specifically

said to the Government... I am asking you, not Lord Leveson. You

are not Lord href he is son -- Leveson. He asked us to leave this

matter in the hands of his inquiry and we have decided we should do

that. I am not sure he did. He did not say that. We must move on.

We take now a question on a matter very important, particularly in

this part of London, I should guess, from Eleanor Bowtell. Do you feel

moving low income families from Newham to stock on Trent is a --

stock on Trent is a -- Stoke-on- Trent is a form of social cleansing.

Newham has written to Stoke-on- Trent, one of only 1,000 housing

associations and organisation it is appears to have written, to trying

to get them to take up to 500 families on their waiting list. All

right, Simon Hughes, not too long but what's your answer? The answer

is that I think the Labour mayor of Newham acted wrongly in doing that.

It wasn't necessary. It was alarmist. It was premature. There

wasn't any need to think that there will be need to send people around

the country. It's wrong in principle anyway. The principle

should be even if people have to move to somewhere that is cheaper

because of the restrictions on benefits, it should be within the

community you come from. I checked before I came out today, Newham had

523,000 given last year as part of the discretionary fund, Havering

164,000, my borough 331. Extra money has been given to try to meet

the shortfall between the money that is available automatically and

the rents - there is a big issue, we are not going to solve it until

we have much more housing built. That is why in the mayoral election

we have said if you use the public land in London you could build new

homes. Hang on a second. I will come to you. When Labour were in

power council house building effectively stopped. Affordable

housing stopped off hugely. We need a massive house-building programme

in London, that's the medium and long-term policy. Unless we do that

people in this borough and my borough... What are you saying the

motive of the housing supply and projects manager in Newham was?

With the onset of the Olympics, gap between local housing allowance and

market rents is beginning to widen and could you take on up to 500

families waiting in the private rented sector? What is the motive?

I get it was to anticipate what he anticipated might be a problem down

the track. But the encouraging news recently because of benefits

changes is that rents are going down a bit in London, they're huge,

they're massive, but they're going down a bit in some parts of London.

What we have - no, it's not wrong. It rose in London last year. They

started recently, the figures are there. What we have got to do,

however, is make sure we don't alarm people, and each borough

should be looking if people have to move for accommodation, near to

where they're currently live and there is still some accommodation

available. You, Sir. I am a housing worker with a local authority and

the cold hard reality is many private landlords will not let

their properties to people on housing benefit and the reality is

we are going to see more and more people compulsory moved out of

London and it's a worrying development and although I won't be

voting for Ken first choice, second choice I will be, because he is

raising some issues around housing. Capping of rents, looking at

creating situations where landlords, certainly in Newham, for example,

the mayor of Newham has made a bold decision in my view to try and -

has made a declaration and is consulting with the community and

landlords in their borough to license all land landlords. If you

let out a property you have to be licensed. That's something we

should think about. Compulsorily moved out of London. Will that

happen? It doesn't need to happen. Let's explain... Sorry, it doesn't

need to happen. It won't happen or might? The example of Waltham

Forest, there are around 1,000 properties currently available for

rent which fit within the thresholds we have set. The reality

is there is a good reason why we are doing this. We as taxpayers

have been paying very substantial amounts of money to support people

living in parts of the town, parts of the city, they would not be able

to afford to live in if they were in work. Those in work have to

adapt circumstances, live in areas they can afford to live in. If we

pay for people who are not in work to live in areas they can't afford

to live in if they get a job they'll never get a job, they'll

never be able to afford to move off benefits. That's why this system.

Most housing benefit is paid to work who work -- paid to people who

work. Polly Toynbee. I think Chris Grayling has just said what's true,

they think that people who are poor should move out of London. And move

out of all affluent areas. At least he is being honest about that. A

lot of these people are, as you were saying, are actually in work.

It's not true that everybody on housing benefit is out of work. But

they're all going to be moved to areas like Stoke, where there's

very little work. 70 people chasing every job in Stoke. We are going to

move very large numbers of people out of places where there's more

work, to places where there is none for them, for their children,

forever. The truth about housing is that about - between 30-40% of the

population have never, ever and probably never will until we have a

more equal society, be able to afford housing without help. So,

either you build social housing with affordable rents, or you

subsidise them in private rents or you put them out on the street.

They've decided a third issue. That's simply untrue. I don't think

this is the policy of social cleansing, I think it's a reality

of a borough facing up to a problem and saying rents are a dam sight

cheaper. That's what they're doing. We have to ask ourselves why is

this happening. One reason, of course is that real estate in

London is rising, it rose 7.3% last year. There's lots of foreign money

buying property, quite a lot of Greek money incidentally fleeing

the eurozone. But we have a shortage. Yes, there are X number

of empty properties but we have a shortage of social housing. But the

real story here and the one that nobody on this panel I am sure

would want to discuss, or talk about, is the extent to which over

the last few years because of an open door immigration policy so

much of our - well, just listen. You can jump to your prejudices,

but think about this. In the borough - if you want to listen.

Question Time is about debate. In Haringey and Ealing over 50% of

social housing is now gone to people who don't even have British

passports, they're foreign migrants. All you have to do now is if you

come from Eastern Europe, all you have to do is get a national

insurance number which you can get easily within a fortnight and then

you qualify automatically for social housing. That's not true,

Nigel. I talked tonight to a major landlord in central London and he

said probably between 50-70% of all new social housing requests are

going to foreign-born migrants and we need to ask ourselves a question.

What is the social security system for? Is it for families that for

generations have paid money into the system or is it here for the

whole of Eastern Europe? That's a big debate we need to have.

must not misrepresent the position. Nigel is completely wrong to say

somebody can come here and within two weeks can be accepted by a

local authority in London, that's never happened to my knowledge.

rules changed last year. If you intend to settle here, you qualify.

We do huge amounts of housing case work and I know how difficult it is

to get people, particularly single people and couples into any local

authority housing. They do not get there automatically. Just stop a

moment. You, Sir. What you have said is completely untrue. The

immigration rules are not as clear- cut as you have tried to explain

them. They're in no way can someone come here from any country and

within the first two weeks without being a contributing member of the

United Kingdom get any housing. There is... I am sorry... I work

for local housing, in the London borough with the lowest black and

minority ethnic population of any of the London boroughs. And we are

aware of the fact there is migration coming from central

London of black and minority ethnic groups. We are also aware of the

rules around immigration. The rules around immigration are much more

complex than you are trying to portray them. A person cannot come

here from any country and within two weeks, without having got

themselves either a job or proven they are fleeing something that

they absolutely must get away from, get any form of housing. What you

are saying is wrong. APPLAUSE. People want to come here to

contribute to our society and get on with their lives. You have made

the point. You can answer. There is a difference between the rest of

the world and the European Union. We now treat people who come from

Eastern Europe as part of the same country as us and if you come on

day one and say you want to settle in Britain you can claim

jobseeker's allowance... Even a French person who comes here on day

one... You have to show... Hold on, hold on. You have two people

contradicting what you are saying. He He he works in the business, he

says fpls you are saying he has it wrong? I spoke today to several

people who work in this industry and if you come to Britain and say

on day one I intend to threl in this country. -- settle in this

country. I need a national insurance number, you qualify for

social housing. Diane Abbott? We have a difference of opinion. Is it

social cleansing that's happening with this move, if it happens from

Newham to Stoke-on-Trent Stoke on? First of all, it's not just the

Labour borough of Newham, Westminster is doing the same and I

think we are going to see more boroughs doing this and although we

have heard from the Tories and the Lib Dems as all this housing

available in these boroughs, most of these lands Lords will not take

people on housing benefits and to repeat, most people on housing

benefit are no scrounger, they're actually in work. What we are

seeing, the sort of pressures that are forcing boroughs like Newham

and Westminster to look at decanting the poorest people out of

London, hundreds of miles away, will be pressures that come to bear

on the working poor and middle income people in time. The Tories

want a London which is fit for bankers. That's completely untrue.

That's where policy is going. Correct me if I am wrong, but you

as Labour support a cap on welfare What we support... LAUGHTER

support a reform of housing benefits. Quite right. A cap in

other words? We support a cap but we don't support the sort of cap

that the Tories are introducing. Not least because it doesn't take

account of the hugely inflated housing costs in London. Housing

costs in London are way out of line for anywhere in the country. There

is all sorts of pressures on London. My view, and all of our policies in

the Labour Party are up for review, and my view is of course we

shouldn't be spending billions on housing benefit. But where that

money going? It is going into the pockets of greedly landlords. My

personal view is that it is time we looked at rent controls. New York

has rent controls. We could look at that. Why should the taxpayer spend

billions to subsidise landlords? would like to ask Polly and Diane

about this whole idea of moving poor people out of London and this

sense that to move outside of Zone 1 is a fate worse than death? How

do you think those of us in Zone 6 cope? I can't afford to live in

Notting Hill. We are talking about moving from London to Stoke, from

somewhere where you might get a job to being moved 130 miles away where

you won't get a job. It was one of many schemes being looked at. My

issue and the references to Kosovo- style cleansing, almost comparisons

to the Holocaust. It was you who said the final solution. I realise

Polly, with respect to you, it must be horrendous to consider moving

outside of this Londoncentric area thaw come from. If you live in a

place, wherever, and you are then sent hundreds of miles away to a

place where there are no jobs, where you are going to live on

benefits, where you won't be able to afford to visit your family and

friends, you are going to take your kids out of school to move them to

this other place. But how does everybody nels the country, the 95%

of the British population which doesn't live in central London

cope? How do they cope? APPLAUSE haven't explained ourselves

properly. I would love to live in central London but I can't afford

it. We are not talking about people being moved around the M25 but

hundreds of miles away. That's a very different thing. And the

Government clearly said, Iain Duncan Smith, I put it to him, was

I have concerns that people in my borough of Southwark might be

required to move to places where they don't have community links, I

am concerned they shouldn't be moved out of the borough that's

their home, and Iain Duncan Smith was clear that people shouldn't

have to move across London or across England to other parts.

only works if you have a cap. By definition people will be losing

the houses they are no. -- they are in. We've argue afford special cap

for London, as London has special housing costs. We've argued that

there should be a licensing system for those who rent private

accommodation to make sure it is of decent quality and they turn away

people on benefits. Even moving people who live in this coveting

house spoog a further-out zone might not sound like the end of the

world for some people, but a lot of people are in basic paid jobs and

they turn the wheels of London. Even moving them slightly further

out will help put them in a poverty cycle. APPLAUSE

Thank you. It is one thing to say that this problem's going to come

to middle earners, it is there now. Middle earners were can't afford

rent or get mortgages and are stuck in a rut. I want to live in

Kensington and Chelsea. I doerpbgts because I can't afford it. Are -- I

don't, because I can't afford it. Are you saying I have to pay my

taxs so that other people can? My family didn't live in Kensington

and Chelsea. Is that what you are saying? I live in a different

borough because I can't afford to live in Kensington and cheap. I

wasn't grown up there. I live where I can afford. Is that too much to

afford? Is it right for me to subsidise, I pay my taxes, I'm subs

dising someone to live somewhere just because that's where they grew

up? APPLAUSE I want to take a last question from Philomena Degnan,

please. Should the contraceptive pill be available to girls as young

as 13 without prescription, as suggested by an NHS report? This is

the NHS South East London, following the example of what's

been happening in the Isle of Wight and Manchester, saying the

contraceptive pill without a GP prescription should be given to

girls as young as 13. Is this a good idea, a sensible idea, is it

right? The age of consent is 16 in this country. I feel if we just

give out contraceptives to girls as young as 13 without informing their

GP, but perhaps more importantly without informing their parents, we

are actually encouraging the break of the law. The other choice is we

bring the age of consent down to 13. I don't think many of us would

think that's a very good idea. Look, I know social habits change, but

the idea that somebody as young and in many cases mentally fragile as

13 should be able to go and get contraception without any reference

too her parents or a local GP, that's a very bad idea indeed.

APPLAUSE Chris Grayling? Has the NHS got this wrong? Well, first of

all we checked that the NHS is not doing this. I completely agree with

Nigel, it would be wrong to do it. How did you mean it is not

happening? It's been in the papers. There was a trial, I don't know

whether Simon can endorse this, five pharmacists in Southwark, and

in Lambeth, and it has been happening in Manchester and the

Isle of Wight and the NHS is recommending it should be rolled

out. I spoke to my depletion the health area that said it wasn't

happening. Simon might know better. In Southwark and Lambeth we have

the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the UK. The answer is that it is

a recommendation based on asking people and checking in a few sample

places in Southwark and Lambeth. It clearly isn't agreed by the NHS,

Chris is right. It would have to be put on the agenda. It is not

something for the NHS to decide without public assent and

parliamentary approval. Is it true or false? It is currently true.

They could decide to do it. Chris Grayling is wrong to say it

hasn't been try? It hasn't been tried except in individual

surgeries as a test project, understand the Isle of Wight and

Manchester. I just wanted you to clar fight. We should assume that

�al assent is required. In some cases children's parents are not

competent to give that responsibility, so it is a proper

issue for us to debate if we are to bring teenage pregnancy rates down.

Do you think it should happen? Nigel, you say that contraceptive

pills should not be available through pharmacies to 13-year-old

girls who may be, you say, incompetent but you may be allowing

a 13-year-old girl to have a child. If they are not capable of getting

contraception, they are not capable of raising a child. Sure getting

contraception is preferable to that? Polly Toynbee. I doubt

anybody thinks girls having sex 1593 is a good idea. It is almost

always under duress, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A lot of

them will not have functioning families. There won't be very many

of them. I bet not many of them were 13 years old. Of course you

should make it available to them. At least they are going to be

competent enough to think of contraception, which is the first

stage. You hope the conversation with the pharmacy and the

counselling, and the pharmacist might persuade them to speak to

their GPs, gou have no contraception and get pregnant, the

very people who moralise about not having contraception or sex

education for young people are often the same people who make the

most noise about teen pregnancies. You are putting words into my mouth.

There's a key difference between saying we should give unconditional

access to 13-year-old girls to contraSeptemberive pills and there

shouldn't be sex education. If they are ever issued to people under 16

it should be with a degree of guidance, counselling and support.

It shouldn't happen in an unconditional way. Should parents

be told, of a 13-year-old, and should doctors be told? In normal

cases parents should be aware. There are exceptional cases where a

doctor can take a professional judgment that it is not right, but

in most cases they should be aware. When a girl aged 14 has sex, she

has (Inaudible) why should the NHS? Look, we have a law in this country

which says the age of consent is 16. My concern is that if we go down

this route of Dirk out free contraception, no questions asked,

no parental information, perhaps no proper guidance or debate, what we

do is send a message that the effective age of consent isn't 16

but 13. And that may result in more teenage pregnancies, not less.

going to stop you there. I have to bring Diane in. A lot of hysteria

about this. If I had a 13-year-old girl and I thought she was going to

a chemist to get the pill without talking to me, I would be horrified.

But the truth is there are communities in our city where

underage young people are having sex. Not allowing them to have

contraception will not stop them having sex. I believe they should

talk to their parents. Failing that they should go to a GP. But

there'll be a small number of people whose parents either don't

know or don't care, who can't get an appointment at their GP. Has

anybody tried getting an appointment with their GP in least

London recently? Their familiar si is there 9-5, five days a week. I

would rather girls were able to get contraception rather than have an

underage pregnancy, in that small number of cases it is the sad

outcome but it is a preferable outcome. APPLAUSE. I'm sorry, I

would like to bring you in, but as Russell Brand said to a special

committee this week, time is infinite but an hour of Question

Time isn't. Ours has come to an end. Time isn't. Ours has come to an end.

Next week we are going to be in central London on election night.

We'll have Iain Duncan Smith for the Tories, Harriet Harman for

Labour, Ming Campbell for the Liberal Democrats, and Theo

Paphitis of Dragons' Den on the panel. The week that have we'll be

in Oldham. If you want to join the outsidience to take part and

question our panel, either of those programmes, one in central London