03/05/2012 Question Time

We're in London and welcome to Question Time.

On our panel tonight, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan

Smith, Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, the former leader

of the Liberal Democrats, Ming Campbell, the General Secretary of

the civil servant's union the PCS, Mark Serwotka and the businessman

and star of dragon's -- Dragon's Den, Theo Paphitis.

Excellent - forgive me for getting it mildly wrong. Our first question

comes from Matthew Amos, please. With the Olympics only three months

away, are the recent severe delays at Heathrow proof that our

transport system cannot cope? delays that on Monday were three

hours for people who were not coming in from Europe. This is one

of my pet hates. Last Easter, I Tweeted a picture at Heathrow

Airport, Gatwick it was, when I arrived from Spain after a family

holiday. It took two and a quarter hours on the flight. It took three

hours to go through border control. It is ridiculous. It's not the

hardest thing in the world. You know how many passengers are coming

into the man, so if you cannot man your borders, it is ridiculous. As

a shopkeeper, I don't know how many people will come into my shop. I

have flexiworking. I judge. We have experience. We make sure we serve

people. If you the not serve them in a timely manner, they go

elsewhere. How could we not know how many people were coming through

and how many people we need to have at the border control?

APPLAUSE OK, Iain Duncan Smith, you are our

Government man tonight. How could we not know?

It is not my responsibility. Check the pay rates before he employed

them. No problems. Look, there is no excuse for queues, in some cases,

up to two-and-a-half hours. Although I do understand these were

the result as, of ever, aircraft running at the same time.... How do

you mean aircraft arriving at the same time for different reasons?

Because of the weather conditions or whatever. Some come in at times

they were not expected to come in. You still have notice. Hang on, I

want to come to this. When that happens we need, what Theo says is

the flexibility. The Government has said within the border agency they

will have a pool of 80 people, ready to move in immediately if

that process happens. So there now in train a process which says that

will change. 95% of all those going through Heathrow have gone through

in under 25 minutes in the last three months. There are key moments

which are unacceptable. The Government accepts that. They are

trying to resolve that and make it right now. When it comes to the

Olympics and the question on the Olympics is important. The

Government is going to put another 400-500 people made available to

make sure these delays don't happen, particularly during the Olympics. I

accept it is not acceptable, but having said that, it is not only in

the UK. It does happen elsewhere. Many times I have been to

Washington, where you stand for two or three hours waiting to go

through as well. The reality is it is not acceptable to have waits

that long. We are doing our level best to make sure it will change.

The majority going through Heathrow - I know the coverage does not want

to lend itself to that - will go through in under 25 minutes. Maybe

it is the fact that you have cut the staff? This has been going on

for years, by the way. It is not just happening this summer. It is

happening for years. The woman in the third row from the back?

I was going to make the same point - haven't staff on border control

been cut by 10% recently, so the staff that are drafted in for the

Olympics are they just going to be employing the people whose jobs

have been cut? Duncan Smith myth can appreciate this - I understand

why we are cutting back and have to find savings, but this is a simple,

core, public facility. It is all going wrong. This is indicative of

what is happening here. It will happen across the borders. Can I

answer that? Very briefly. It is due to reductions in staff. There

are staff there to do it. The problem is not getting them to the

desks in time. The border agency has to get the staff to the desks

when they are needed. This does not go on all day. This is at a peek

moment when you need to get your staff to the desks. If that had

been in the sector they would say do it. My union represents the

hard-working men and women at Heathrow and throughout the borders.

I tell you what, this is a story for us all to understand. It is

proof that politicians have told us, particularly this Government; you

can cut jobs in the public sector because they are inefficient and

nobody will notice. What this tells us is a 22% cut in staff in the

border agency, 100 from Heathrow in the last year and when it all goes

wrong they suddenly seem surprised. They are not just surprised they

actually deny reality when Damian Green tells Parliament the queues

are one-and-a-half hours, when we have seen statistics saying many

queued for over three hours. The airports are now nationally exposed.

Everyone knows they have cut too far. Britain looks embarrassed when

people are queuing. Frankly the Olympics is a disaster waiting to

happen. What people have not been told about is they are cutting jobs

in Job Centres when unemployment is rising. They are cutting jobs in

tax offices when there is much tax avoided. They are cutting jobs in

local services, in the NHS in education. I hope that people

finally wake up to these scenes... You have not mentioned the fact

that your members in the Immigration Service are going on

strike on Thursday - is that right? I am absolutely delighted to say

500,000 next week, including all our members... They are striking

because the Government is robbing them of their pensions.

APPLAUSE Work more and get less. 20% of your

total membership voted for the strike and you are going on strike.

Two million people were on strike in November in this country. Your

Government... Can you answer the point he raised? I am more than

happy. 32% he said voted. They don't want to go on strike. Many

work in the Job Centres don't want to. You are bullying them to go on

strike. Maybe you should answer letters to your cleaners... They

want to do their job. They are being pushed out because of you.

Let me get a word in. I worked in the office for 21 years. I have

seen what your Government is doing in ruining one of our public

services. You give tax cuts to the rich. They are forced to work

longer and get less. It is a disgrace. APPLAUSE A woman at the

very back there, in the black and white dress. Is the UK Border

Agency adhering to international obligations to accept vulnerable

asylum seekers and individuals? There is a whole policy issue in

relation to asylum seeking. The issue of how you get through

Heathrow is much more clearly in people's minds at the moment. It is

quite right to be concerned about the Olympics, I have an interest in

this because I am a member of the Olympic Board. There is no doubt

that during this period this will be a showcase for Great Britain. If

you are a showcase then you have to have something to put in the window.

If getting into the country proves as difficult as it has in recent

times, then that will be damaging to our reputation. No point in

denying that. The other point though is why is this taking place?

It is taking place because we have to ensure, because of the enhanced

opportunities for terrorism, which the Olympics and other things give,

that we have the most secure arrangements that we can and that

we check people and we don't simply wave people through. If we were

doing that by way of a policy it would not take a particularly

intelligent terrorist to work out that would be a way to get into the

country. Can we or not cope? We can. We must learn the lessons of what

has happened in the last week. Flexibility, as Iain Duncan Smith

said. Having hit squads which will turn up when things are difficulty.

Just remember this, quite true, how many of you have been on an

airliner which came in two hours later than it was supposed to

because it was delayed in Benidorm or whatever. Of course they have

their schedules. They cannot always keep to their schedules F you have

three or four Boeing 747s with 240 people all arriving at the same

time, you cannot guarantee.... are in the air for hours on end

they don't they just turn up and say, I have turned up with 400

passengers, can you take me in guv? They fly around waiting to come in.

The man in the third row there. is quite hypercritical of the

unions to blame the Government for disrupting front-line services and

go on strike which will disrupt services even more. It is very easy

for the Government to talk about more flexibility, but it is very

difficult to have more flexibility when you are cutting staff and when

they have got more to do. You cut staff before the last election in

the.... Can you let me answer the question? They are doing tighter

security checks. Well, fair enough. More people are coming here. We

want people to come to do business here. We want people to come as

tourists here. We don't want to make families, coming back from

holidays, stand exhausted in a queue. If we want there to be tight

checks and a good service at our airport, how can we do that when

more people are coming when there are fewer staff? They have cut

already 1500 from the UK Borders Agency. They have cut the UK -

sorry they have cut hundreds and they are increasing that up to 1500.

You know, you simply cannot ask them to do more with fewer staff

and expect it to go all right. I do say to Iain Duncan Smith, you can

carry on talking about flexibility all you like, but everybody

recognises if you have fewer staff and have more people coming here,

then you will have a disastrous shambles and that is a disgrace.

APPLAUSE Hang on a second. Do you support

Mark Serwotka's union on going on strike? Are you in favour? I hope

there will not be a strike. I do not agree with what the Government

tried to do on Civil Service pensions. It was not unsustainable.

It is because they wanted to raid it to do a too far, too fast paying

down of the deficit. Other unions with other departments have managed

to settle. I hope that the Home Office, if they can get out from

all the shambles they are under, can negotiate a settlement before

next Thursday. Before the last election, your Home Office planned

to reduce the border agency and staff. It was not as though he was

talking about reduction and cuts, you overspend and we have a deficit.

We have to get greater efficiency out of what we have got. It is one

thing for Mark Serwotka who wants us to spend more. You cannot

pretend that had you been in Government now you would not have

tried to make greater efficiencys, and to pretend to the public is

anything else is nonsense, it isant amount as to trying to pull the

wool over their eyes. The woman there... APPLAUSE

The person in the white shirt there. The man there. As Iain Duncan Smith

said about the continuing problem with the queues and it wasn't this

Government's fault that it has been going on for years, surely the

union should take some blame, not just in this Transport Secretaryor,

but you see strikes all the time, at least once every other reason.

Surely the unions should stop these actions and work together working

with the Government instead of constant strikes? Briefly answer

Nobody loses pay without good reason. People's pensions have been

robbed. 700,000 stand to lose their jobs, communities are facing

massive assaults on their services while they see the richest people

getting cuts in tax and see tax breaks for those at the top. Now, I

think the strike we will see next week is going to be fantastically

popular and I'll tell you why I think it. It will be fantastically

popular because most people are glad that finally someone's

standing up to this bullying Government and most people

understand 24 hours of disruption is a small price to pay to save our

services for generations to come. The person on the right on the

gangway? What I would like to say is that I'm totally in agreement

with what Mr Iain Duncan Smith has said because when the Conservative

Government took over, they had no cookies in the cookie jar and they

would have to be slashing here and there and they can't have false

promises. They didn't give false promises. We look at Europe, entire

Europe. You can see many, many countries are near to the brink of

bankruptcy. Look at Greece, look at Italy and I can't remember the

third one. But we are not in that level of deterioration. We have to

do it. I think it's because of the security risks. We have to make

that extra thorough check of each passenger because of the shoe

bomber. It could be in the shoe, the person could have a bomb in the

shoe. We need to check out which airline the delays are on, whether

it's British Airways which has a lot of long hauls. Thank you very

much. The woman in the fourth row? B Mark Serwotka's point, perhaps

the delays while they're completely unacceptable, they're almost the

nicer face of the cuts in the sense that we have got an Olympic-focused

media and middle class people with a loud voice being able to talk

about this frustration, whereas actually a lot of the people that

are affected by the cuts are vulnerable people who aren't given

the same opportunity and that space in the media. Very briefly?

Alistair Darling had a programme of cuts, Labour has said in principle

there should be cuts, but every time a cut is proposed in the House

of Commons, Labour votes against it. So much so that Mark Serwotka

described the Labour Leader in somewhat less than complimentary

terms. Can I just answer that? must move on. Very briefly then. I

know what your answer will be. After our response to the global

crisis and incidentally it wasn't the Labour Government or

insufficient regulation in this country which caused Lehman

Brothers in America to collapse. may come to this so don't do too

much all right. All right. If you want to join in tonight's debate: A

question now from Jack McKell began, please? Is Rupert Murdoch fit to

run News Corp? The majority decision made by the people

investigating this. Harriet Harman? Actually, Ofcom which deals with

broadcasting licences in this country is currently looking at the

question of whether or not Rupert Murdoch is a fit and proper person

to hold a broadcasting licence. That wasn't the question? I know, I

have to say if I was making that judgment I would say he was not a

fit and proper person and I back what the Select Committee has said.

How can you have a situation where it's been agreed by everybody that

the top legal executive, Rupert Murdoch's right hand man, the

editor of the News of the World, everybody on that committee agreed

that they had instinctively covered up instead of investigating, that

they said there was only one rogue reporter when hacking was

widespread and they misled the Select Committee. The question is,

if that wrongdoing was at that high level in the company, how can you

absolve the two people at the top? I think they bear responsibility,

they are not fit and proper to run that company. Why do you think...

APPLAUSE If the case if your view is so obvious, why do you think the

four Conservatives on the committee refused to sign that off and said

that they could have had unanimity but by putting this lauz in they

failed to get it -- clause? There was unanimous agreement on the

point about the top three executives but they didn't take the

next step of agreing that those at the very top should be held to

account. Why not? You will have to ask Iain Duncan Smith about that,

but I think it's disappointing because I don't think you can say

that the people at the senior levels were involved in great

wrongdoing and the people at the top are somehow still all right to

run the company. Let me give you an example. We have to allow everybody

a chance to get in. Sorry. Ming Campbell, your Liberal Democrat

voted to say he was not fit and it was the four Conservatives who said

that was improper, shouldn't have been in there. What is your view?

Mr Sanders is a man of considerable independence of mind and he clearly

took the view that what was contained within the report was

what was necessary to affect the nature of the evidence. Remember,

not just the wordz of the evidence but the appearance of the people

giving that evidence. It seems to me that if you were starting from

scratch, if News International did not have any interest in a

television company, but you knew everything you have known about and

as a result of this report and they came in and made a fresh

application, would you say they were fit and proper to be give an

new licence? It was not fit and proper to exercise stewardship of a

major international company, that's a different thing, it's not just

about BSkyB? I accept that, but the focus in this country as to whether

that international company should be entitled to continue to hold

nearly 40% of the shares of BSkyB. I looked today on the Ofcom website

and discovered that they've met four times since September, and the

reason they've done it is because they have a continuing

responsibility to check as to whether or not those who hold

licences are fit and proper to hold them. It's a matter for Ofcom. I

see absolutely no reason why a committee of members of the House

of Commons with specific responsibilities for these matters

should not have reached the decision they did.

OK. The man in the checked jacket? What I want to say is, when we were

little kids, our mum and dad used to say to us, don't tell lies,

don't steal. That was something that we had to follow. But it seems

that once you get into Parliament, that goes out the window, do you

know what I mean?! Seriously. I look at people talking sometimes

and I know that they're lying, all right. You can see that they're

lying and talk about pull the wool over your eyes, they try to do it.

I'm glad I came here today to say that because when I watch it on

telly, it's like a film, do you know what I mean, it's not real but

I'm just saying, people want to be more truthful, if not bring out lie

detectors, do you know what I mean. All right

APPLAUSE Iain Duncan Smith? The lie detector

is switched on. OK, I'll sit back. A growth industry. Two things, the

committee has its own rights to decide to say what it wants to say,

it's not for anybody else to say they shouldn't. The key issues are

first of all I think that the committee was looking more at the

phone hacking scandal. That was what it was delving into, trying to

figure out whether executives at BSkyB and within Murdoch's empire

generally were telling the truth or lying when they were trying to

protect themselves over the phone hacking scandal. That was the key

area they were looking at. The concern is that they didn't

actually discuss the whole idea about whether Murdoch was a fit and

proper person to run a company. didn't they? There are other

considerations. We know now that the idea that that should be

included was down before Easter and they never debated it? That's for

the chairman to decide. That's a choir chairman, Whittingdale.

he goes along with the consensus in the committee. He's allowed the

committee to reach a majority verdict. All I know is that they

divided because, the Conservatives there felt they never discussed

this issue at any stage, therefore they could not reach a conclusion

on any other facts, there was no other evidence brought to them and

they never asked that question of anybody. Do you think he's fit to

run the international corporation? This report has come up with very

serious problems and issues surrounding him and all we've heard

from the Leveson Inquiry so far shows that we should all have major

misgivings about the way the companies were run. My only krpbl

about this is, Ofcom's job is to reach a conclusion about this --

concern. They will be the ones that ultimately decide. The only thing I

say about politicians is, it's very easy for us to get up and make

allegations about people protected by Parliament. We need to be very

careful about that. That's why we set up independent bodys soOfcom

and other companies can decide. woman in the second row from the

back? I run my own company and as far as I know, if there's something

that goes on in my company that is not right, I have to take

responsibility for it. It should be the same. Theo Paphitis, do you...

APPLAUSE Do you agree with that and do you

think as a result of this, Murdoch is fit to run a big business?

I'm afraid as that old saying with great power comes great

responsibility and the Murdoch empire has had incredible power in

the United Kingdom for many years. It has to exorcise responsibility

with that power. The things that we are now discovering have gone on

wouldn't be acceptable anywhere so there has to be the correct

authorities within the land that will take that decision. Whether

that committee was the right committee to take the decision...

It wasn't taking a decision, it was expressing an opinion. When

Parliament does more than an opinion. You can't take that

lightly. It was an incredible statement to make. It might be

correct but did they look at all the evidence properly and come to

the right decision? If they were set up to take that particular

decision that the Murdochs weren't fit to run a company, not just a

media company, any company, that's a different thing all together.

There's no question in my mind what went on could not possibly be

acceptable in any company and the lady over there is absolutely right.

APPLAUSE The woman in pink in the front?

Surely the point is that the Murdoch empire has this power

because the political leader gave us that power. Isn't the real point

that the people like Jeremy Hunt, Tony Blair and David Cameron are

not fit and proper people to run a country?

APPLAUSE Mark Serwotka, that'll probably be

music to your ears? I have to say, when I heard the verdict of the

Select Committee, I cheered. My reaction was, at last we've got

some brave people prepared to say what many of us have thought for

years and I want to pay tribute tonight to Tom Watson and the work

he's done over the years to expose this, the Labour MP. When you look

at the things Rupert Murdoch has done in this country, it's

extraordinary. Since 1988, we know declared he's had 75 meetings with

the British Prime Minister, 31 with Tony Blair, David Cameron's on nine

and rising, I don't know if that includes all the ones through the

back door, but he's had real influence over our politics. In

fact, Tony Blair flew 25 hours around to Australia to get his

backing. He's a person who has refused to allow free and

independent Trade Unions to operate in his company, he's a person who

in his newspapers give us the disgraceful headline 30 years ago

Gotcha glorying in the death in the people on the other side of the

world, who call people defending the mining communities like the

ones that I care for... I don't want to stop you in the middle of

your well-prepared list. But do you or do you not feel he's fit to run

a company? He's absolutely not fit. Not just because of his political

record because anyone who presides on law-breaking an industrial scale

deserves everything they get and I saw all power to the Select

Committee for exposing him. couple more points. The person in

the striped pullover, then I'll come to you, yes? The point I would

like to make is that I think the answer to the question why do the

Conservatives on that committee not adhere to this unfit is because

they are shame facedly unable to actually say anything against the

rich and powerful. You know, they're just always tram thing the

-- tram pling the rich. I'm a guardian reader and a lawyer and

when I looked at this report, there was no evidence whatsoever taken on

the issue of whether Rupert Murdoch was fit to run an international

company. To me, the inclusion of this clause was simply for Tom

Watson's personal vanity and has destroyed what would have been a

credible report with cross party support and is an absolute disgrace.

APPLAUSE. On that note, thank you, we'll go

on to another question. This one from Amandine Breton.

impact will a socialist victory in the French presidential election

have on France. And as you can hear, I'm French. Did you vote? Yes.

impact will a socialist victory in France have on the euro crisis?

This is big potatoes. Mark Serwotka? This is another thing

I've been getting excited about. And Cardiff City play in the play-

offs tonight, I hope they beat West Ham. The reason I've been excited

is this - what a breath of fresh air it is that a socialist leader

in an election has made central to his election campaign that it's

time we took on the markets, it's time we stopped allowing markets

and financiers to determine social policy, give us Prime Ministers in

countries without elections and it's time we said people should run

countries and make decisions, not bankers and those who have no

interest in the society that we have.

What impact will a victory have on the euro crisis? A victory for

Holland will give people hope and inspiration for people across the

continent in Greece, Spain, Portugal and I hop here, to say

austerity isn't working, we need investment and growth, not cuts,

unemployment and misery. I hope he wins and I hope it electric triifys

politics across Europe which will be one of the best things to happen

Well, it will be interesting. If he starts putting taxes up in France,

maybe the rich French will come over here and pay UK tax. The

reality is we're a free market society. The fact that that market

has been, let's say abused in the past decade or so, with the help of

various Governments on the way. You cannot just look at it and say,

it's a free market, it's the bankers. It's the Governments that

borrowed all the money. They regulated the banks. If the FSA did

the work they should have done, people would still be in jobs. My

worry is that no-one has actually accepted responsibility for what

happened. Even now politicians - I look at you guys - it's always

"It's him, it's her." Will someone accept responsibility and do what

is right for the country rather than Party Politics? In the context

of the crisis we're in and the Government policies that are being

pursued what is the right thing for the country? We have to worry about

jobs. Jobs are key. They give confidence to people to lead their

lives normally, spend money. We're a consumer society. We need that

confidence. That's got to be the first thing we should think of.

Secondly, access to finance. I am fed up of hearing from banks, "oh,

we definitely bapbt to end." -- want to lend." On the other side

the FSA are saying, after the Government are telling them to lend,

"You need to increase your capital ratios." That means you cannot lend

ratios." That means you cannot lend as much. It is ridiculous. It is a

basic common sense economy. That is what we need.

APPLAUSE Iain Duncan Smith, as the Cabinet

minister here, what is going on in Cabinet? Do you think it will

change policy in France? Will it change the relationship between

France and Germany? Will it be an easing up of the restrictions being

imposed? It is difficult to predict what he'll actually do. Of course

in every election, often some politicians make plans and say they

will do all these things. They say they will come out and raise tax.

He says anything... It is playing into the hands of the man of the

checked suit, who said all politicians lie. If he does any of

that it will have a shock wave effect in Europe. It will cause,

could cause major ruptions with Germany right now. The European

Central Bank will find itself in difficulty. The reality is that we

are in this crisis - that is to say most of the economies in Europe are

either in recession or close to recession, because they owe too

much money. They cannot raise the money enough in taxation and by and

large, most of the economies are not productive enough and not

competing well enough with other nations around the world. If the

idea of Holland is he comes in now with a set of deficits, to spend

huge amounts of money, raising it from taxpayers, he will put a

further burden on the taxpayers of France. London is one of the

largest French cities in Europe. A lot of French people will want to

come to London. Maybe he's right in that respect. The problem will be

that the European economies will be saddled with more debt w a greater

level of deficit. They will not emerge from this recession. We rely

as much on Europe to trade. We will be very badly affected if this goes

badly wrong. Austerity is necessary because we have to try and get the

debts down. If we get them down, then Governments can be in a

position to help ease that and spend more. Right now Holland is

fighting the wrong battle, frankly. I think it would be a good thing if

he's elected. What it will put is at the heart of Europe a voice for

the argument for jobs and for economic growth. We need to pay the

deficit down, but the way to pay the deficit down is not by having

your economy stagnate. The way to pay the deficit down is not to have

more people unemployed, claiming unemployment benefit, as well as

the tragedy of young people feeling they have been thrown on the scrap

heap before they have begun. If he speaks up alongside the Prime

Minister of Denmark, to say jobs must be the number one priority,

jobs and economic growth and the austerity is self-defeating because

it is city felling the economy. It will be a thoroughly good thing, so

I hope that is what happens. I am all for jobs. I have said this to

Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor. Jobs are key. They have to be key.

We have to have efficiencies alongside jobs. You cannot just say,

jobs at all costs. We have to accept there have to be

efficiencies within the public sector, otherwise we cannot afford

to pay for them. There is only so much money.

Ming Campbell would you welcome a socialist victory in France,

perhaps because it would modify what the coalition is doing? No, I

would not welcome a socialist victory, because I think the

agreement struck in Brussels would then have virtually no chance of

being implemented. There is doubt about that agreement because it is

possible that in Ireland the Government will not get the

majority for the referendum. If that collapses then as Iain Duncan

Smith has pointed out, his direct impact upon us, the majority of our

trade is with the eurozone. If it is not buying, then who will we

sell to? It is important to us, as for example the United States

economy. That began to show some signs of life, but has fallen back

again in the last couple of months. We are in a very, very fragile

condition. Where I agree with Theo is on this question of jobs and of

banks. Like every other constituency MP, I have had people,

good people in my surgeries saying, look we have a perfectly good

business, but the bank is holding us to ran some. We ought to direct

more from the centre the policies of those banks, of which we owe,

what? 80%? To ensure what they are doing is consistent, what they have

done now is consistent with austerity. Now we must persuade

them that austerity and growth can march together and if they don't we

will not get the rebalancing of our economy.

APPLAUSE Relevant to this, we had a speech by the Governor of the Bank

of England last night. We have a question on that, which ties into

everything we are talking about. Alex Rubin has the question. Meryvn

King blamed a failure of imagination to understand that the

economic bubble would burst. Is he right that no-one is to blame?

He said that no-one is to blame - Iain Duncan Smith? The banks - is

he right to say no-one was to blame. As the gentleman there said

politicians spend their time saying it was Labour's fault, the Tories

fault - whatever. Meryvn King said, "We all got it wrong." We were

spending too much and we were too far in debt and also in personal

death. We should have shouted it from the rooftops? He went on to

say that they had taken the responsibility for looking after

the banks away from him into another organisation, the FSA. The

FSA completely failed to do anything about the way that the

banks were capitalised or the fact that they were actually borrowing

money at the rate they were. The point he was making is, yes there

was a failure of those in charge. There was a failure of the way the

regulation was set, which led to chaos between different bodies. We

have put this back with the bank and say, you are responsible, not

another body, they cannot blame you, you cannot blame them, you will

take responsibility for how the banks are run. It is true what he

said, that as a result of all of that, in having two bodies

regulating this, the problem then arose that neither took full

responsibility and the chaos that ensued. Here I want to make this

point, I find it strange that Harriet Harman talks about spending

with regards to France, but her own plan in Government is a deficit-

control and a reduction of the deficit, not what France is doing

and it was as a result of the failure of the last Government to

get the regulation right, that hugely no-one took responsibility

for monitoring the banks. He is right about that. I want to come

back to the point about France because he will be a breath of

fresh air across Europe. He's arguing that if you want to solve

the economicry sis then you have to tax the rich. -- economic crisis,

then row have to start to tax the rich. If the Labour Party in this

country started to use these arguments they would be popular and

not in the mess they are in at the moment, allowing the Tories getting

away with what they are doing. When Theo talks about the rich coming

into Britain, we have the rich in Britain. We have many. Is this

country getting richer? No. It is not. The rich 5% are taking the

wealth out of this country and hiding it in tax havens. That is

why we are taking strike action next week because we want to defend

our jobs, defend the public services.

APPLAUSE The man, four along from you, there. Yes?

You, Sir. I kind of disagree with that point there because if you

just taxed the rich you takeaway the incentive of young people like

myself who wish to further myself in this country and become a

successful entrepreneur of tomorrow. Instead I will take myself to

another country, with the freedom in the EU, even if I need to study

another language in order to make the best for myself and my family.

I don't think just increasing the taxes on rich. It's like saying,

we're going to tax success. APPLAUSE And you, Sir. What that

gentleman has just said I could not disagree more with.

APPLAUSE The idea that he has ideas of

entrepreneurship, but is not willing to pursue them in Britain

because he'll get taxed too highly and therefore he'll go elsewhere,

it says more about him than it does about the tax system.

APPLAUSE The man up there. I would like to say on the point of

the previous Government and the Bank of England not doing enough,

was it not a case of happy ignorance from the Labour Party for

a long period of time that they were happy to ride the wave of

bankers getting us a lot of money in the short-term, not saving

enough for the times when there could have been a crunch and when

it came, there was no plan. Fixing the -- not fixing the sun when the

-- not fixing the roof when the sun shown argument. You yourself

support deficit controls in this country? It is true to say neither

the Bank of England or the Financial Services Authority, nor

the Treasury foresaw that the banks didn't know what they were doing

with their credit default swaps, sub-prime and actually there was a

lack of transparency and lack of understanding that the banks were

heading towards the edge of a cliff and they had to be saved from

falling off it before they took the economy with it. As for Iain Duncan

Smith going on about there wasn't enough regulation, when he was

leader of the Conservative Party they were calling for more

regulation and actually he's now complaining and saying we were

spending too much. He didn't complain about the investment in

our hospitals and in our schools and in our public transport and

also before the financial crisis hit, the Tories were saying, we are

spending, our spending was about right and quite tough. When it came

to the financial global crisis, if we had stood back and not rescued

banks and not invested in the economy through capital spending in

public works, then unemployment would have been much higher and

businesses would have been shrinking ever more. That is now

what is beginning to happen with this Government. Well, the banks

had to be rescued. If they had not then the economy would be in free-

fall. That is why I am very supportive of the proposals from

the commission about dividing what you and I might describe as

domestic banking from investment banking, but there was someone

shout from the rooftops, his name was Dr Vince Cable. The boom was an

unsustainable property boom. What do we know? They always adjust. It

was based on a ridiculous level of personal debt. �1.5 trillion at one

stage. When you had mortgage companies offering not 100%

mortgages, but 110% and plus of course the derivatives to which

Harriet Harman has referred. These were based on selling people in the

United States houses or mortgages which they could never afford to

pay. So the notion that no-one is to blame will not stand up. Perhaps

it is easy to say, it's not so much no-one is to blame, but everyone is

to blame, but with the soul Mark Serwotka? Wshed remember who

is suffering. The people who're suffering with the ones that

definitely did not create this crisis. We should remember. Isn't

it a strange old world where the people who've done well, have

always made loads of money, privatised their profits, then as

soon as they get in a mess, we bail them out. Then we are expected to

pay for it with our jobs, communities and services whilst

rich people still do quite nicely. What I would stay is this, nobody

in Britain is talking about taxing the rich at 70, 80, 90%, we start

with the richest people in Britain avoiding paying �120 billion worth

of tax, that is actually due. They get away with blue murder. Anyone

in the audience can't avoid paying tax because you get pay as you earn,

but when you get rich, you laugh your way to the bank and we have to

pick up the pieces. What I would say to Iain and pick up on Theo's

point is this, austerity clearly is not working because what we get

with that is rising unemployment, more misery, the economy is

contracting and I think it's not rocket science to thauns the best

way to get out of this mess is not set ourselves a ridiculous deadline

of clearing the debt in three years, it's to take a longer term view and

to say when 4.8 million people need a council house, when people are

desperate to have investment in schools, whn communities see people

out of work chaiming welfare when they should be in work, paying tax

and improving our society, we should take a longer term view,

based on the what's good for all of us, the 99%, not the richest 1% at

the top. You there, Sir? I believe there are

two points here that haven't been mentioned yet. Number one is greed

and number two is stupidity. Greed because there isn't fr a need to

have hundreds of millions of pounds or a billion pounds or whatever.

That's what's driving people like the gentleman there to pay as

little tax as possible so they can get as much as possible, which is

not needed. Second is stupidity, it's stupid to get yourself into

debt like people on low wages do. They get a mortgage they can't

afford. This thing wouldn't have happened. If the people in America

didn't get the mortgages and go subprime, but the advertisers were

saying, get this mortgage now, people should have thought, can I

afford this and if they couldn't, they shouldn't have got nit the

first place, they shouldn't be freedy and they should think first

and we'd be better off for that. The woman in the front. It's not

just people on low wages who took out the mortgages and there were

some relatively wealthy middle class people who also suffered both

in terms of perhaps being a bit stupid taking out large mortgages

who've lost their mortgages and jobs as well, it's not just low

paid people who've lost their jobs, there are a lot of people living

nice lives whose lives have been turned up side down by losing their

jobs as well. Theo Paphitis? I've heard some things and some people

don't live in the real world. When I lived in a tenement block, my mum

had to decide whether we could have electricity or food, she was a

single parent. Electricity had to go so we could afford food. Those

were the things that were driving me to become a success. I've got to

tell you, a long, long time ago, I could stop work, I didn't need any

more money, you are absolutely right. I don't get out of bed in

the morning because I'm going to make money, I get out of bed in the

morning because I have got a social responsibility, I love what I'm

doing, I love working with people and I want to make a success of

myself, my family and everybody that is around me that I work with.

That's what drives me. It's not about making billions and trillions

of pounds and I've got to tell you, this ridiculous notion that the

reduction of 5p in income tax makes any difference to anybody paying

50% is nonsense. I don't know why you guys did it because it's given

so much ammunition to people who just don't understand. Listen,

people who are successful and have a social conscience give a huge

amount of money away way above what they are going to save by the 5p

tax rate and you know what, they are likely to give it away because

it's spent more wisely than giving it away to the Exchequer.

APPLAUSE Not wanting to let you just briefly

off the question that was put, who do you blame? Do you think Mervyn

King is right to say no-one was to blame, it was a failure of

imagination, or do you have people and organisations that you hold

responsible for the crash? Last time I heard a statement like

Mervyn King's was a certain football club chairman that says he

was living the dream. That seems to me exactly what was going on. The

reality was the Emperor had no clothes on. In 2006, it was

blatantly clear then that with the personal debt we had, with the

country's debt, the pension deficits that existed, it couldn't

go on. And, you know, it could be foreseen. Quite a few of us foresaw

it and quite a few of us... just Vince Cable? No, quite a few

of us cashed out in 2006 and decided that this could not go on,

it was obvious, it was Government. Someone mentioned greed and

stupidity over there and I certainly agree with that as well.

The man in the third row? I think it's important to remember that

when we attack the banks and bank, as a whole, there are thousands of

hard working people in our financial sector who aren't always

paid great wages and we forget that if there are a few bankers at the

top, it's not really the ones who work very long hours and work very

hard and have helped our country and our economy get stronger in the

recent years. My father grew up in poverty, he was adopted and he's

paid his taxes all his life and now as a result I've had a great life

thanks to him and it's people like that and people who have worked in

the financial sector very long hours who're being attacked by all

sections of the press and political parties just because a few at the

top give their profession a bad name.

APPLAUSE We've

We've got

We've got time

We've got time for

We've got time for one more question from Louise Ingham, please.

Has the London Mayoral election campaign become an embarrassing

mud-slinging affair which has lost sight of the real things affecting

London. The mud-slinging of course being between Boris and Ken?

Harriet Harman? I think there is a pity there hasn't been focus on the

important things that the Mayor does that will affect people in

London. Can you name add candidate for that? The question is whether

the actual conduct of the campaign has been embarrassing? That's what

I'm trying to answer, what that is this campaign been about - it

should have been about the promise that Ken Livingstone had to cut

fares, about the protection of police numbers, about recreating

the Educational Maintenance Allowance, making sure that energy

prices were lower anden suring there was better childcare. Instead,

there's been massive personal onslaughts and I hope Londoners

will have seen through that and vote ford policies that will

improve their lives and not been destructive by the mud-slinging we

have seen from Boris Johnson and his team. Do you think Ken

Livingstone was the right choice? The polls have not closed yet.

polls have closed when this programme goes out. No, I'm sorry,

I absolutely am not going to second guess the result when the polls

actually haven't closed. If I ask you in an hour's time, you will

give a different answer? We'll know the actual answer, I hope people

are voting for Ken Livingstone and Labour and the GLA as well. Was Tom

Watson right to say hold your nose and vote Livingstone? No, and

actually I didn't hear him say that, but if he did, it was wrong. I

think that Ken's had great policies for London and I think that he's

just not - just what London needs for the next Mayor. Iain Duncan

Smith? I think it's a great mistake by Labour to pick Ken Livingstone

because he's been a disaster for London and he would have been and

I'm pretty certain that he doesn't get back in and I hope he doesn't.

Boris has been good and gives a real sense that London can do

better. He represents the real aspiration of lots of Londoners.

They often like him because, just like the gentleman says over there,

he says what he thinks. That's aggravating to me, but he does.

He's a breath of fresh air and you are going to get more sense out of

him than anything else. When did he last aggravate you? He's always

coming in to aggravate me, I like him very much, we are good friends

but we don't always agree. If you give Boris Johnson the facts,

challenge him on something, he'll make his policies fit the facts, in

the the other way around. It got into a slanging match because Ken

Livingstone was under pressure over his own tax ludicrous position, we

find he didn't pay his tax as well. Under that pressure, he decides to

lay an allegation at Boris Johnson's door saying he didn't pay

his tax. That's why it descended into a slanging match. Boris

Johnson was clean about his taxes and published his own tax position

and that's right. So disaster for Labour to have Ken I hope and it

would have been a diss a tr for London so let's hope Boris Johnson

gets elected. -- disaster. Mark Serwotka, what do you think?

whole concept of having mayoral elections can descend into

personality problems and don't focus on the realish yous. When we

looked at the issues, I have no doubt that what Ken Livingstone

argued to cut fares, that we need more affordable houses and people

keeping our communities safe, that people in London were worried about

education for their kids and they were in despair, I think he was

absolutely right. I think as the Labour candidate, and I'm not a

member of the Labour Party, I think the good thing about Ken

Livingstone is he says things that are not always popular, even with

his own leaders, he says them because he means it. I think it

would be a tragedy if when London has the chance to go to the polls

given everything that's going on, if it re-elects, a Mayor who's very

rich who's built 86 affordable houses in his entire term as London

Mayor, who is a good laugh and can entertain people, but actually will

give the wrong signals to people in despair, I hope Boris Johnson has

been voted out, I hope Kenwynes but I want to see the politics in

London and nationwide transformed to our issues are centre stage, not

the circus we often see from the made ya.

Theo Paphitis? I don't live in London so I don't get the

opportunity to vote for Boris or Ken but I did think it was slightly

embarrassing watching both of them, instead of dealing with the major

issues that a great City like London's got having a go at each

other in a lift like that. Who won anyway? We won't know until...

meant the punch up... Sir Menzies Campbell? It wasn't a

good advertisement, as Mark said. That's not to argue that having

Mayors in large cities is not necessarily a bad thing. But I

think this particular contest has damaged that whole concept. There

was one person though who was talking about all the things which

Harriet and Mark described as being and he was talking, for example,

about crime... That's the Liberal Democrat candidate we should

explain? Everyone knows who he is. Just helping you. Very kind of you!

Perhaps you had to do a little homework yourself. Brian Paddick

knows about crime because for 30 years he was a policeman, started

off as a bobby and finished off as an Assistant Deputy Chief Constable.

He knows about these issues and if we hadn't had this personality

clash, some of this rather extraordinary language that's now

apparently acceptable in political terms too, then perhaps the

arguments that Brian Paddick's been putting and the arguments that the

independent candidate has been putting would have had a better

chance of being heard. Too late for the pitch I'm afraid since this

programme will be broadcast after the polls have closed Harriet just

in case you thought you might be able to influence things at the

last moment. I'm afraid our time is up, our hour is over. It goes fast.

Sorry to those who had your hands up. We are in Oldham next week, we

have Caroline Spelman, Chris Bryant, Mary Beard, Professor of Classics

and television presenter on the panel and the week after that, we

are in Cardiff. So if you want to come, either to Oldham or Cardiff,

you can join the panel, no, quiz the padge and join the audience,

you can call us -- panel. My thanks to this panel and to all of you who

came here to take part in this. Next on BBC One, the election