:00:10. > :00:20.We have swapped the coal exchange in Cardiff for the corn exchange in
:00:20. > :00:20.
:00:20. > :00:24.King's Lynn. Welcome to Question In our panel this week, the former
:00:24. > :00:29.Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, the Universities Minister,
:00:30. > :00:35.David Willetts, the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, the
:00:35. > :00:45.Sunday Times columnist, Minette Marrin, and the comedian and
:00:45. > :00:50.
:00:50. > :00:56.broadcaster, Griff Rhys Jones. APPLAUSE
:00:56. > :01:00.Thank you very much. I would like to take our first question from
:01:00. > :01:05.Peter Lankfer. Whose bonkers, Vince Cable or the 76% of The Institute
:01:06. > :01:15.of Directors who saud they would take on more workers if stringent
:01:16. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:25.labour laws were eased? John Prescott, who is right, Vince Cable
:01:25. > :01:30.or 76% of The Institute of Directors? Certainly Vince Cable!
:01:30. > :01:40.LAUGHTER I don't agree with a great deal of The Institute of Directors.
:01:40. > :01:40.
:01:40. > :01:45.This is about an individual who has no rights and gets dismissed. Is it
:01:45. > :01:51.Mr Beecroft that is recommending it? Vince is undoubtedly right. It
:01:51. > :02:00.is about being fair and justice. If you take those two choices, it is
:02:00. > :02:08.Vince. APPLAUSE Of course, David Willetts, Vince Cable is your boss?
:02:08. > :02:14.Yes. He said this was bonkers. Is he right? What we all did... Simple
:02:14. > :02:18.answer, "yes" or "no"? We want to get the British economy creating as
:02:18. > :02:21.many jobs as possible. There are things which gum up the works and
:02:21. > :02:26.make it hard for employers to take on people and where Vince and I
:02:26. > :02:31.agree is a lot of the stuff in the report does make sense and we are
:02:31. > :02:35.getting on with it. We should have a longer time when you are a
:02:35. > :02:38.probationary employee before you build-up those rights. There are
:02:39. > :02:42.lots of people for whom employment tribunals have been abused and it
:02:42. > :02:46.deters employers from taking on people. This specific proposal is
:02:46. > :02:49.one where we need more evidence. The best thing is not Vince's
:02:49. > :02:52.personal view, let's see the evidence as to whether really an
:02:52. > :02:57.unqualified right to remove people would have an impact on employment
:02:57. > :03:01.or not. That is what the Government is agreed across the coalition is
:03:01. > :03:05.the way forward. What kind of evidence would you need to decide
:03:05. > :03:09.whether it is a good idea to sack people with redundancy rather than
:03:09. > :03:12.sack them with the right to unfair dismissal? The crucial evidence is
:03:12. > :03:17.to get a sense of the economic impact. The crucial evidence is
:03:17. > :03:22.will this mean that lots of extra people do get jobs? Or does it mean
:03:22. > :03:27.that you wouldn't have an employment benefit but you would
:03:27. > :03:33.spread greater insecurity? Wouldn't you have to do it to find out?
:03:33. > :03:36.Economists can assess large amounts of evidence. We have asked
:03:36. > :03:39.employers, individuals affected, people who care about this, to
:03:39. > :03:43.submit their views. They have until 6th June. There is time for people
:03:43. > :03:48.to tell us what they think. The Government will wait and consider
:03:48. > :03:52.in the light of that. Before we leave that, isn't Vince Cable then
:03:52. > :03:58.jumping the gun, if he says it's bonkers? You are in his Ministry
:03:58. > :04:05.and you say, "We are going to ask people like everybody here" and
:04:05. > :04:10.Vince Cable says, "It's bonkers". We are committed to seeing this
:04:10. > :04:15.evidence. There is evidence. Everyone keeps on about the lack of
:04:15. > :04:20.evidence to get themselves out of an awkward spot. Actually, the IMF
:04:20. > :04:26.this year did a study precisely of this based on 97 different
:04:26. > :04:30.countries relating particularly to flexibility of employment with
:04:30. > :04:35.better employment chances. It's actually very positive. This has
:04:35. > :04:39.been quoted in some of the debates about this. People prefer to hide
:04:39. > :04:42.behind this search for evidence. do believe in more flexible rules.
:04:42. > :04:47.That is what we are doing. There has to be a limit. You can't say
:04:47. > :04:51.there are no rights. We are not going back to Dickensian England.
:04:52. > :04:57.We do need to be more flexible. It is one of the reasons why private
:04:57. > :05:02.employment is going up. The man there? I'm a manufacturer. I have a
:05:02. > :05:06.factory in King's Lynn. I employ 16 people. I resent the fact I would
:05:06. > :05:10.sack my people lightly. What I would like to know is I can run my
:05:10. > :05:16.business with a degree of flexibility which allows us to go
:05:16. > :05:25.through these uncertain times. you in favour of what's being
:05:25. > :05:29.suggested? I am flabbergasted what Vince Cable says sometimes. We must
:05:29. > :05:35.be allowed to run our businesses and, sadly, sometimes, it means
:05:35. > :05:40.hiring or letting go staff. Not saying it must be easy, but the way
:05:40. > :05:46.the system is set against us, it is very unfair. All right. APPLAUSE
:05:46. > :05:50.Griff Rhys Jones? I think we've got ourselves in a bit of a mess over
:05:50. > :05:56.this report. I think what Vince Cable was doing was drawing
:05:56. > :06:02.attention to the fact that the report is not well done. It is not
:06:02. > :06:06.well couched. It is an aggressive report. It starts by being - it
:06:06. > :06:10.starts by taking bosses against workers, by implying there is a
:06:10. > :06:14.fight going on, that the only way that this country is ever going to
:06:14. > :06:21.be saved is somehow getting on the side of employers and against the
:06:21. > :06:25.workers. That seems completely wrong in the atmosphere. APPLAUSE
:06:25. > :06:29.So - on the other hand, I couldn't say I agreed with Vince Cable's
:06:29. > :06:35.idea that we are all frightened by this. I don't think we are - we are
:06:35. > :06:38.grown-up enough not to be in a state - the British worker is like
:06:38. > :06:44.a paternal is tick dad saying, "Please don't frighten the workers
:06:44. > :06:48.by saying we are going to..." There is a sense that we have problems
:06:48. > :06:52.especially at the - in the employment market which go like
:06:52. > :06:56.this. These regulations at the moment make it sometimes difficult
:06:56. > :07:00.actually to employ people. We know that people are employed for 11
:07:00. > :07:04.months and then sacked. They are sacked at the 11-month moment
:07:04. > :07:09.because people don't want to go on employing them because the
:07:09. > :07:16.regulations might make it much more difficult. APPLAUSE That is going
:07:16. > :07:20.up to two years now? Yes. The point of the rest of the report - the
:07:20. > :07:25.report itself doesn't give enough examples or evidence to back up its
:07:25. > :07:29.strong and brutish assertions - but there is a need at all stages to
:07:29. > :07:36.look at legislation and question whether it is helping the
:07:37. > :07:43.efficiency of the employment market and employers. APPLAUSE All right.
:07:43. > :07:47.The Beecroft Report does not think by sacking people easily it will
:07:47. > :07:50.improve employment. It plans to replace one worker with another. It
:07:50. > :07:54.also says it is sad but it might happen that a worker is sacked
:07:54. > :08:01.because their boss doesn't like them. How is that going to improve
:08:01. > :08:05.the economy? Caroline Lucas? agree with that. Of course,
:08:05. > :08:09.Beecroft says it is a sad fact but it is a price worth paying. Which
:08:09. > :08:12.was removed by the Government before the document was published?
:08:12. > :08:16.Very wisely so. I think what is important is when we are talking
:08:16. > :08:20.about evidence, let's look at the fact that, yes, a huge number of
:08:20. > :08:24.small businesses are struggling. 7% of them are saying it has anything
:08:24. > :08:31.to do with employment regulation. They are struggling because they
:08:31. > :08:37.need the banks to lend to them. APPLAUSE You know, I think this is
:08:37. > :08:42.a really Draconian move. I am glad that David says, "We are not going
:08:42. > :08:49.back to Dickensian times." When you consider the man behind this has an
:08:49. > :08:55.interest in Wonga, you wonder whether we might be going back to
:08:55. > :08:58.Dickensian times. What this will do is it will be deeply counter-
:08:58. > :09:02.productive. Workers who don't know whether their job is safe, won't be
:09:02. > :09:05.going to the cinemas, the restaurants and therefore you are
:09:05. > :09:08.likely to make the economic situation worse. You are also
:09:08. > :09:14.likely to make the working conditions a lot worse. They might
:09:14. > :09:18.not be frightened, but according to MIND, we have ever-increasing
:09:18. > :09:21.numbers of workers off work because of stress, so we don't have a happy
:09:21. > :09:27.workforce, we have austerity Britain and we have a report that
:09:27. > :09:30.will make it worse. APPLAUSE will recall, we have had debates
:09:30. > :09:36.about these arguments before. It was called the minimum wage. When
:09:36. > :09:42.we have brought in the minimum wage, they said it would cost CBI, they
:09:42. > :09:47.said the directors, it would cost two million jobs. It is about
:09:47. > :09:51.fairness and justice and we can't just accept the argument the
:09:51. > :10:01.cheaper it is, the less flexibility and that makes more growth. It
:10:01. > :10:02.
:10:02. > :10:06.doesn't. It makes more damn misery! APPLAUSE The man at the back there?
:10:06. > :10:11.Surely within a society justice and fairness is about the greater good
:10:11. > :10:15.of the greater number? So is this not possibly a sign that it is a
:10:15. > :10:22.price worth paying, that it is better for the whole company at the
:10:22. > :10:26.expense of some unfairness for some people? The woman there in blue?
:10:26. > :10:31.You were saying about consulting businesses. I'm part of a small
:10:31. > :10:35.business here in King's Lynn. Are you going to consult us? We don't
:10:35. > :10:39.have a lot of big industry around here. Are you going to come and
:10:39. > :10:46.talk to us, the people employed between five and 15 people? Do you
:10:47. > :10:50.want to know our views? Absolutely we do. One of the other big
:10:51. > :10:54.questions is the extent to which we can exempt companies with fewer
:10:54. > :10:56.than ten employees from a lot of regulations that you can handle if
:10:57. > :11:00.you are big and you have a personnel department and you can't
:11:00. > :11:05.handle if you are starting up. Something else we are trying to do
:11:05. > :11:11.is all the health and safety regulations were applied to self-
:11:11. > :11:14.employed people working on their own at home. That is ludicrous. So
:11:14. > :11:21.there are things we need to do. I have to say in terms of
:11:21. > :11:24.manufacturing, Vince has worked very hard to get big automotive
:11:24. > :11:28.investments like General Motors into Britain. The news we had the
:11:28. > :11:32.other day they will be investing more in Ellesmere Port, he was
:11:32. > :11:36.personally involved in that. Of course, part of the offer which the
:11:36. > :11:44.employees agreed with was more flexible terms of employment. We
:11:44. > :11:50.outcompeted the Germans. That is how we can... Adrian Beecroft says
:11:50. > :11:56.he is a Socialist. Is he right? a Liberal Democrat. I think he is a
:11:56. > :11:59.rather flinty Gladstonian. On this point about the coalition, Beecroft
:12:00. > :12:03.is quite irritated by what was said by Vince Cable. He said the
:12:03. > :12:07.Conservatives are hugely held back by the Liberal Democrats on these
:12:07. > :12:12.things. "I'm struck at how unrobust the Prime Minister and the
:12:12. > :12:18.Chancellor are when it comes to pushing back. Why can't the
:12:18. > :12:21.Government be more robust?" We are a coalition of two different
:12:21. > :12:25.political parties coming with different political philosophies,
:12:25. > :12:28.but working together because the nation faced a massive crisis two
:12:28. > :12:32.years ago. There was no single majority Government. We had a
:12:32. > :12:38.massive problem with the budget deficit. We had a loss of
:12:38. > :12:41.confidence in politics. I think two different political parties and I
:12:41. > :12:44.don't agree eye-to-eye on every issue with Vince or with the
:12:44. > :12:49.Liberal Democrats. I don't agree on every issue with some colleagues
:12:49. > :12:52.from my own party! We work together. We sort it out. There are two
:12:52. > :12:56.different parties working there. We have a coalition agreement. I think
:12:56. > :12:59.in the circumstances that this nation faced two years ago that was
:12:59. > :13:02.a responsible thing to do and I salute the Lib Dems for working
:13:02. > :13:09.with us. I think that is what the country needs. Any alternative
:13:09. > :13:13.would have been far worse. He says you can see them off? It is not how
:13:13. > :13:17.either party in a coalition approaches it. We have to work
:13:17. > :13:20.together. We have to agree and two different political parties
:13:20. > :13:26.reaching agreement can sometimes be a slow and messy process, but it's
:13:26. > :13:30.also grown up and it is what the electorate expect of us. Minette
:13:30. > :13:37.Marrin? We are in a terribly difficult economic situation. There
:13:37. > :13:42.are a million young people without jobs and training. There are people
:13:42. > :13:44.who are in work who have a degree of protection at the moment. It
:13:44. > :13:48.sounds unfair that that protection should be kept for them which makes
:13:48. > :13:53.it so unfair on employers and people who don't sack good workers
:13:53. > :13:56.and want to take on young people, it is very unfair on those who have
:13:56. > :14:06.not got jobs that the protection for people who have got jobs should
:14:06. > :14:10.be kept in place. It sounds like, What I think is a pity is we
:14:10. > :14:20.started to discuss it now on party lines and we seeing this as an
:14:20. > :14:24.argument about individuals, whether Vince Cable is bonkers or whether
:14:24. > :14:27.Beecroft is a nuisance. I think probably both are true. What is
:14:27. > :14:31.absolutely essential is to listen to a certain extent to employers
:14:31. > :14:35.and some problems they have, because although we do have, as
:14:35. > :14:40.Caroline have, sympathy with employees, we do also have to have
:14:40. > :14:45.sympathy with the idea that if somebody in your company really
:14:45. > :14:49.cannot do the job or is being obstructive to doing the job, then
:14:49. > :14:59.a small company can genuinely find itself in real difficulty trying to
:14:59. > :14:59.
:14:59. > :15:09.move on from that person. APPLAUSE We must move on to another question.
:15:09. > :15:14.
:15:14. > :15:18.If you are tweeting along or A point just now was picked up in
:15:18. > :15:22.the next next question by a way. When David Cameron called Ed Balls
:15:22. > :15:32.a muttering idiot was this improper language or is statement of the
:15:32. > :15:33.
:15:33. > :15:38.blindingly obvious? LAUGHTER. John Prescott. I think it's obvious
:15:38. > :15:44.where you are coming from. I mean, I don't think that kind of language
:15:44. > :15:47.helps from which ever quarter it comes. What is involved was Cameron
:15:47. > :15:50.was losing his rag about the economy. He has every reason to
:15:50. > :15:53.lose his rag about the economy. Ed has been nearer to the truth on
:15:53. > :15:57.that than the Tories have. They're coming around to growth in the
:15:57. > :16:02.economy and jobs which we have been saying for a couple of years. We
:16:02. > :16:06.are paying the prize now for higher unemployment, no growth. If you
:16:06. > :16:09.call a man an idiot for bringing out the truth which is being
:16:09. > :16:16.confirmed by the IMF and everyone else that's abusive and the Speaker
:16:16. > :16:24.choose to say that wasn't a word he wanted. APPLAUSE. The man there.
:16:24. > :16:29.What is Labour's policy to overcome the problems for the economy?
:16:29. > :16:35.there's - well, first of all,... You could go on a bit on this one.
:16:35. > :16:38.We pointed out some of the things tough do. One the the infra-
:16:38. > :16:42.structure investment, we had to have cuts in the deficit knocks
:16:42. > :16:46.doubts about that. We made it clear, not as much as the Tories - we
:16:46. > :16:49.think what they've done they're going to inheub it growth. Their
:16:49. > :16:53.effects on the economy have been such that we are now into a
:16:53. > :16:56.recession. We warned about that two years ago. We said, do the infra-
:16:56. > :16:59.structure, actually cut the tax as we have done on the VAT and
:16:59. > :17:03.national insurance that we talked about, and make those contributions
:17:03. > :17:07.and put youngsters back to work. They scrapped the youth programme
:17:07. > :17:10.of keeping them in jobs. Now we have a record tphplt of -- amount
:17:10. > :17:13.of unemployed and particularly the youngsters. They're the priorities
:17:13. > :17:23.and you need growth for that. I am glad to say the rest of the world's
:17:23. > :17:27.now saying it should be growth, even in Europe. APPLAUSE.
:17:27. > :17:30.Griff Rhys Jones, what do you make of a muttering idiot? I am going to
:17:30. > :17:35.go back to the first question and reverse out of my last position f I
:17:35. > :17:40.may. First of all, I listened to this and thought here we are
:17:40. > :17:42.listening to particlement and hering two people name calling, we
:17:42. > :17:46.have found ourselves in particlement and across the air
:17:46. > :17:52.waves over the last month or so with some people shouting austerity,
:17:52. > :17:56.and other people shouting growth and neither ideas seem toing backed
:17:56. > :18:02.by any central form of argument or even understanding, as far as I can
:18:02. > :18:06.tell. Hardly surprising, it's an immensely complicated subject. What
:18:06. > :18:10.I do like to see in particlement is people having a go at each other
:18:10. > :18:16.and shouting and arguing and discussing it in public, because my
:18:16. > :18:24.fear is that the real problem that we face in Europe is not being so
:18:24. > :18:27.done. We have no parliament of Europe, which is broadcast every
:18:27. > :18:30.night, where the real decisions about the euro and the economy and
:18:30. > :18:39.the world economy are being made at the moment. Wouldn't it be more
:18:39. > :18:45.useful to us if we did have a loud, annoying and slightly sort of busy
:18:45. > :18:48.parliament decided things in Europe, instead of it's all - even when
:18:48. > :18:52.these meetings happen, after dinner. After dinner we will discuss the
:18:52. > :18:58.euro. We won't be there to see it discussed, either. I think that
:18:58. > :19:01.what this shows, in a funny sort of way, is the value of the
:19:01. > :19:06.parliamentary system and we could do with a bit more of it across
:19:06. > :19:11.Europe. APPLAUSE. Caroline Lucas. A statement of the
:19:11. > :19:15.obvious or improper? Well f the debate had been genuinely at that
:19:15. > :19:19.point about growth versus austerity I would agree with you. But it
:19:19. > :19:23.wasn't. It was Ed Balls winding up David Cameron by making gestures
:19:23. > :19:27.and running commentary when someone else is trying to speak. Muttering
:19:27. > :19:31.like an idiot? I wasn't close enough to know what he was saying.
:19:31. > :19:34.This is what puts people off politics. It wasn't a real debate.
:19:34. > :19:38.The news headline was about an insult, not about what we are going
:19:38. > :19:43.to do to get ourselves out of the mess we are in. APPLAUSE. I think
:19:43. > :19:47.that's really, really sad. You know, we have got so many key issues,
:19:47. > :19:50.whether it's the Greek implosion or double dip recession and this is
:19:50. > :19:53.the thing that gets picked out. It does put a huge huge number of
:19:53. > :19:57.people off politics. We should be having the debate about what kind
:19:57. > :20:00.of economic policy we need. I wish that Ed Balls would be more
:20:00. > :20:05.ambitious, rather than saying we will have cuts but maybe less fast
:20:05. > :20:08.and less far. I think the whole austerity programme is completely
:20:08. > :20:11.the wrong direction. It doesn't work when governments stop
:20:11. > :20:15.investing. We need is investment for jobs because that's the way you
:20:15. > :20:20.get taxes going back to revenue. You keep people in work, they pay
:20:20. > :20:23.taxes, that money goes back and how you stablise economies. If you say
:20:23. > :20:30.where are you going to get money from, well, the Bank of England has
:20:30. > :20:34.in the last couple of years put in �325 billion of quantitative easing,
:20:34. > :20:39.in other words, credit creation, the private banks have hung on to
:20:39. > :20:47.it. We need that money into the economy, creating jobs and both of
:20:47. > :20:51.them are a plague on both their houses. You, Sir.
:20:51. > :20:58.I believe Lord Lamont said Mr Cameron's volatility made him
:20:59. > :21:03.engaging. Do we think that's true or is he a posh bully boy? David
:21:03. > :21:08.will will -- Willets, is he engaging when he insults the other
:21:08. > :21:13.side like this or a posh bully boy? I agree - I thought he was being
:21:13. > :21:18.human. The point is that you can go around - you can go to some of
:21:18. > :21:23.these Assemblies around the world and people sit in a neat semicircle
:21:23. > :21:27.with an allocated desk and paper in front of them and button to push
:21:27. > :21:31.for voting. I recommend it, it's better than this. Everybody says
:21:31. > :21:36.that's the rarbgsal way. I tell you the only thing is the genuine anger
:21:36. > :21:41.and the genuine emotion and passion which is part of politics gets
:21:41. > :21:46.completely drained out of the system. I think you need - part of
:21:46. > :21:50.the drama of the the -- House of Commons, of those exchanges ensures
:21:50. > :21:53.that instead of people having to go out on the streets, they know their
:21:53. > :21:57.frustration and anger will be expressed within the chamber. We
:21:57. > :22:01.should remember that the House of Commons is allowed to express some
:22:01. > :22:04.of that. The issue, which was what most of the questions was about,
:22:04. > :22:08.was about the economy. On the economy, we are absolutely doing
:22:08. > :22:11.everything to get the economy and it's not simply a matter of getting
:22:11. > :22:15.a grip on the public finances, that's certainly necessary, it's
:22:15. > :22:18.holding down interest rates, it's investing in infra-structure, it's
:22:18. > :22:21.doubling the number of apprenticeships, easing burdens on
:22:21. > :22:26.employers taking on people. We have to do all that and more and we are
:22:26. > :22:29.committed to doing it. What about what the IMF said this week, which
:22:29. > :22:34.appeared almost to be a recommendation for a plan B, that
:22:34. > :22:38.the Chancellor should have and some changes cutting VAT, credit easing,
:22:38. > :22:44.cutting interest rates, all that stuff came as a surprise to you?
:22:44. > :22:48.this is a debate that's been going on. Wait a minute. The IMF up until
:22:48. > :22:52.now has always backed in every detail what you have been doing.
:22:52. > :22:58.The IMF said they wanted to see now, was that they were pressing for
:22:58. > :23:01.continuing what they call I think Monday tarry -- Monday tarry
:23:01. > :23:04.activism which is important, it's for the Bank of England to decide,
:23:04. > :23:07.but the other hafl of what we are doing is well as getting a grip on
:23:07. > :23:12.the public finances is ensuring we have low interest rates. When the
:23:12. > :23:15.coalition came to office interest rates in Spain and in Britain were
:23:15. > :23:19.the same. They didn't get a grip on things in Spain, they're now 6%
:23:19. > :23:22.interest rates in Spain and they're in crisis. In Britain, they're
:23:23. > :23:27.under 2% and people respect the fact that we have a grip on the
:23:27. > :23:31.public finances. Getting that right is very important. She recommends
:23:31. > :23:35.you cut VAT, cut national insurance if you can't get the economy moving.
:23:35. > :23:38.Do you agree with her and is that what you will do? She did not call
:23:39. > :23:45.on that to be done in today's circumstances. Not today, but is it
:23:45. > :23:49.something in your back pocket? important we stoeubg the plan we
:23:49. > :23:54.have. If, for example, unemployment is high and actually unemployment
:23:54. > :23:58.is falling, but if it's high for whatever reason, the government
:23:58. > :24:03.finances are just automatic, we allow for that, the system halls
:24:03. > :24:08.the flex -- has the flexibility, then we accept that. So that we are
:24:08. > :24:11.we are flexible. The man on the right. Every Labour government
:24:11. > :24:20.that's ever been has always bankrupt the country and left the
:24:20. > :24:27.country in a terrible disgrace. Ed Balls has a nerve to mutter away
:24:27. > :24:31.and try and an tag nice David Cameron. Why did we overwhelmingly
:24:31. > :24:39.win in 1997 if it wasn't for the collapse of the economy? Come on,
:24:39. > :24:43.face up to the facts. Now you left us with a biggest deficit ever.
:24:43. > :24:52.Last time three million unemployed. Now they're in again, three million
:24:52. > :25:00.unemployed. Clearing up your mess, your mess. Well, I agree entirely
:25:00. > :25:04.with the person here who says, the word Cameron should have used if
:25:04. > :25:08.it's parilamentary language is shameless, he with tkpworpb
:25:08. > :25:11.presided over an accumulation of debt and how he can turn to
:25:11. > :25:17.government that's trying to pay back some of that debt and actually
:25:17. > :25:21.lecture them on something that he is shameless in doing, he knows
:25:21. > :25:25.that growth, he is a clever, sophisticated economist, he knows
:25:25. > :25:28.growth cannot just be delivered in a short number of months. These are
:25:28. > :25:31.incredibly complex subjects. The best minds have disagreed about it.
:25:31. > :25:34.It isn't easy to say which is the best way of getting this country
:25:35. > :25:37.out of a hole and it's shameless for a sophisticated person like him
:25:37. > :25:47.to pretend that there is an easy solution and the government hasn't
:25:47. > :25:49.
:25:49. > :25:52.got it right and they have. APPLAUSE. We find ourselves
:25:52. > :25:54.exceptionally indebted... It's shameless this narrative that
:25:54. > :25:57.somehow it was the Labour government that amassed this debt
:25:57. > :26:04.and that's somehow got us into this problem and all the other countries
:26:04. > :26:08.that are in the problem. The point was it was a tragedy and crisis of
:26:08. > :26:16.the banking system, not of the government. You, Sir in the second
:26:16. > :26:19.row. I tried to watch prime Minister's
:26:19. > :26:24.questions every Wednesday when I can. They seem to be on holiday
:26:24. > :26:30.more than the kids. David Cameron seems to be getting mover angry
:26:30. > :26:35.every week. He should be actually go to anger management classes.
:26:35. > :26:38.Sir, in the second row. As a small business owner, it's useful to
:26:38. > :26:42.listen to the rhetoric about low interest rates producing growth but
:26:42. > :26:46.I can't find a bank that wants to lend money at any interest rate to
:26:46. > :26:50.a small growing business started in the middle of this recession. We
:26:50. > :26:53.are growing at 40% over the last two years. Every bank is the same.
:26:53. > :26:56.The only difference with banks is different coloured cheque book.
:26:56. > :27:01.They're all the same when it comes to business. Where have you been
:27:01. > :27:06.getting your money from? Ourselves. Private money. Why are they doing
:27:06. > :27:11.that? Why are they in this situation? Why did they
:27:11. > :27:16.overstretch? Because we live in an an economic world founded on froth.
:27:16. > :27:21.For the last 15, 20 years these banks don't have that money. They
:27:21. > :27:26.have your money. They have very small capital reserve. For the last
:27:26. > :27:30.20 years they have leveraged up those reserves and lent far more
:27:30. > :27:34.money than they actually have. Lehman Brothers in the middle of
:27:34. > :27:38.the crisis were transferring money to London where they had one set of
:27:39. > :27:43.rules, to leverage it up by 50% and then transferring it back to New
:27:43. > :27:46.York where they have another set of rules and leveraging up again. They
:27:46. > :27:52.will effectively make out of a very small amount of money a huge amount
:27:52. > :27:57.of froth which they then gambled with. That gambling has funded
:27:57. > :28:02.Europe. It's no good saying it was just as it were the banks didn't it
:28:02. > :28:05.with no reference to anybody else and now we are paying the price.
:28:05. > :28:10.When Christine Lagarde stands there in the middle and says yes, you
:28:10. > :28:16.have brought your deficit down, it makes me shiver because David
:28:16. > :28:21.hasn't said that yet, it makes she shiver if your deficit concluded at
:28:21. > :28:27.11%, but by the way you are going to have to print more money and
:28:27. > :28:33.actually do something about growth. Oh, bye! I am going back to work on
:28:33. > :28:41.my tan. The answer is it - we are hearing a lot of easy solutions
:28:41. > :28:46.from all sides of the political world. I don't want to be Mr Doom-
:28:46. > :28:52.sayer, there may not be an easy solution. We may be following 25
:28:52. > :28:55.years of boom by 20 years of bust. We need to be careful of people
:28:55. > :28:59.standing there with quick-fix solutions to this, whether it's the
:28:59. > :29:08.IMF or whether it's the coalition or it's the Labour Party. We need
:29:08. > :29:15.to look at the long run now. We better move on. It is not the
:29:15. > :29:19.case. Our fate is in our hands. We can sort these things out. A lot of
:29:19. > :29:21.the things, they are not inconsistent. We can get the money
:29:21. > :29:28.flowing to small businesses and invest in infrastructure.
:29:28. > :29:33.aren't you? We are doing all those things. You are not. We are all in
:29:33. > :29:43.this together! LAUGHTER We are. are all in this together and we
:29:43. > :29:50.should move on. I have a question from Paula Grief. Is it right that
:29:50. > :29:58.Olympic Torchbearers are offering their torches for sale on internet
:29:58. > :30:02.auction sites? These Tor shs are being sold on E -- torches are
:30:02. > :30:09.being sold on eBay? I don't see anything wrong with selling them if
:30:09. > :30:15.it is for charity. Otherwise, those things, like medals, are given as a
:30:15. > :30:19.special badge of honour. Just to turn that into cash without some
:30:19. > :30:24.very pressing reason seems to me to be an insult to the honour that
:30:24. > :30:28.one's been given. You have to buy it if you want to keep it? You have
:30:28. > :30:31.to pay �199. I take the point. This is not something to take lightly.
:30:32. > :30:36.The first person who did it, a young woman who gave it to charity,
:30:36. > :30:39.I admired her very much. Caroline Lucas? I agree if the money is
:30:39. > :30:43.going to charity, that is fine and good. It must be a sign of
:30:43. > :30:47.desperation if people do it. I would assert that it probably is a
:30:47. > :30:54.sign of desperation. There was one gentleman who said he didn't want
:30:54. > :30:58.to doit but he could get -- do it, but he could get quite a bit of
:30:58. > :31:02.money through doing this. It is a pity. It is something that one
:31:02. > :31:08.would like to keep in the family. I think once people are in difficult
:31:08. > :31:14.positions and they have paid for it, we can't be surprised if it ends up
:31:14. > :31:22.on eBay. The woman at the back? carrying on Olympic Torch shortly.
:31:22. > :31:27.Are you? APPLAUSE Here in King's Lynn? The day I got offered it was
:31:27. > :31:30.the opportunity to buy it at �199. I snatched that opportunity within
:31:30. > :31:34.seconds because it's a piece of history, it is a piece to pass to
:31:34. > :31:38.my children and go back in the community for what I was nominated
:31:38. > :31:42.for, to go back into the schools, let the children hold it, let them
:31:42. > :31:48.carry it. The interesting point I'm going to make is when the directive
:31:48. > :31:56.came out about being able to buy your torch, you would be not
:31:56. > :32:00.allowed to sell them. All of a sudden because this influx has come
:32:00. > :32:08.- �153,000 one was sold for this week! I don't know if they have had
:32:08. > :32:14.the cheque yet! Why now, why now are the Olympic Committee saying,
:32:14. > :32:24."Do what you like with them." That has to be managed. But on the other
:32:24. > :32:28.
:32:28. > :32:32.hand, �153,000, it is a new house! David Willetts? A free market in
:32:32. > :32:42.Olympic Torchs. This is getting more complicated. We can obviously
:32:42. > :32:47.disapprove of this. The question is whether we are kind of pass a law.
:32:47. > :32:54.It is ultimately a personal responsibility. I hope people won't.
:32:54. > :33:01.If you ask me if we could live in a country where we ban it? No. You
:33:01. > :33:05.have to trust individuals. You, there? I just have an issue of the
:33:05. > :33:11.way you used the word "morality". If you have not got a choice, your
:33:11. > :33:16.house is going to be repossessed, how can you wager that against
:33:17. > :33:21.morality? APPLAUSE If she were able to raise �153,000 with the Torch,
:33:21. > :33:25.you would be in favour of that? I've got a silly amount of student
:33:25. > :33:30.debt to pay back, so I would probably sell mine to be honest!
:33:30. > :33:36.You should have applied. John Prescott? What I was surprised
:33:36. > :33:41.about is the Olympic body was selling them. There's very strict
:33:41. > :33:46.rules that it belongs to the Olympics, it belongs to them. By
:33:46. > :33:50.selling it to someone, you raise the question then how they use it.
:33:50. > :33:54.I couldn't condemn somebody, I hope they wouldn't, and I don't know how
:33:54. > :33:58.prevalent it is. It might be just one or two people who have got a
:33:58. > :34:01.lot of publicity about it. In the main, I hope they don't do it. It
:34:01. > :34:06.is important to the individual, to the community as well. I think once
:34:06. > :34:10.they have sold it, you are in a situation where you can't condemn
:34:10. > :34:15.them if they are going to sell it on. That's what's happened.
:34:15. > :34:19.woman here? I wonder why these people applied to do the Torch
:34:19. > :34:22.because it is an honour. Then they, when they get the Torch, they sell
:34:22. > :34:26.it. I don't understand why they would want to do that. If they
:34:26. > :34:31.wanted to be part of the Olympics and the celebration, then why would
:34:31. > :34:35.they want to sell it? You in the yellow? Absolutely agree with
:34:35. > :34:39.Caroline on the news today, a pawn broker was saying he's had lowits
:34:39. > :34:42.of people bring in family heirlooms because they need the money and if
:34:42. > :34:49.you have bought the torch you should be free to do what you like
:34:49. > :34:52.with it. The woman up there? This lady says that LOCOG have changed
:34:52. > :34:55.their minds about first you were told you couldn't sell them, now
:34:55. > :35:00.they have been told they can do what they like with them. Is this a
:35:00. > :35:04.sign of the disorganisation to come when the Olympics are here? Griff
:35:04. > :35:08.Rhys Jones? I also have to say that I think it is a bit rich blaming
:35:08. > :35:13.individuals and just to reassure you, they are only making five
:35:13. > :35:17.grand on eBay today, not 150 grand, that was a one-off. I would keep it
:35:18. > :35:22.for your grandchildren, they can take it to Antiques Roadshow. But
:35:22. > :35:30.the main point is this: It's pretty rich coming from the Olympics which
:35:30. > :35:39.is sponsored by two of the most inappropriate firms that one could
:35:39. > :35:44.possibly imagine. APPLAUSE I'm not going to say exactly who they are
:35:44. > :35:49.because they don't need any more publicity. One of them produces
:35:49. > :35:54.sugary drinks, the other super- sizes people and they both
:35:54. > :35:59.contribute to obesity in such high levels across the world that it
:35:59. > :36:02.seems an extraordinary choice of sponsor for a sporting occasion. So
:36:02. > :36:05.the Olympic Committee are mired in the business of making money and
:36:05. > :36:15.they are not fit to lecture other people about how they should make a
:36:15. > :36:20.bit of money out of them. APPLAUSE I think we should move on. We were
:36:20. > :36:27.curious about what happened to the torches when Torchbearers didn't
:36:27. > :36:30.pay the �199 for the torch and they were therefore given back to LOCOG,
:36:30. > :36:34.the London Organising Committee. They told us that they had to try
:36:34. > :36:42.and recoup the cost of the torches which aren't purchased by the
:36:42. > :36:47.bearers, so they will sell some of them. LAUGHTER Question from George
:36:47. > :36:52.Eve? Wind power is perceived to have failed our energy needs. Will
:36:52. > :36:56.more nuclear power stations provide a better solution? Wind power or
:36:56. > :37:02.nuclear power stations? David Willetts? I think we probably need
:37:02. > :37:05.both. One thing we can't have is all our eggs in one basket. We have
:37:05. > :37:12.certainly have had a very significant investment in wind
:37:12. > :37:15.power. What we are now looking to do is to ensure that we also have
:37:15. > :37:20.the nuclear power available as well. Of course it shouldn't be
:37:20. > :37:24.subsidised by the Exchequer, but there is such a challenge on energy
:37:24. > :37:29.supplies coming that I think Britain should have a range of
:37:29. > :37:34.energy sources and wind and nuclear should be part of them. It is being
:37:34. > :37:38.subsidised. That is what the Energy Bill is going to do, it puts in a
:37:38. > :37:41.carbon floor price which will give huge subsidies to nuclear. That is
:37:41. > :37:44.against what the coalition agreement said it was going to do.
:37:44. > :37:49.Nuclear is massively uneconomic. Everybody says it is simply not
:37:49. > :37:54.going to happen without these huge subsidies? I don't accept that
:37:54. > :37:58.nuclear is automatically uneconomic. Why has it got subsidy then? What
:37:58. > :38:03.we are trying to do, which goes back to the debate we were having
:38:03. > :38:06.earlier about infrastructure and investment. In order to get energy
:38:06. > :38:10.investment to happen, people have to have some sense of what the
:38:10. > :38:14.price they are going to be likely to get for the energy they generate.
:38:14. > :38:18.Now, if - that is not necessarily the market price these individuals
:38:18. > :38:23.pay because we can make adjustments, but that sense there is a basic
:38:23. > :38:27.price which is going to guarantee them some kind of return on their
:38:27. > :38:32.investment is an important way of getting energy investment going in
:38:32. > :38:38.this country. It is a massive subsidy. What is the scale of the
:38:38. > :38:42.subsidy? Then I will come to you, John Prescott. What is your view
:38:42. > :38:48.about the scale of the subsidy? There are different figures. The
:38:48. > :38:55.thing about the Energy Bill, it is hard to work out what the subsidy
:38:55. > :38:59.will be. We will be looking at least �353 a year to prop up
:38:59. > :39:05.nuclear. You said it is very complicated. You have worked it
:39:05. > :39:11.out? I said about! Some figures are �200. Those are not figures we
:39:11. > :39:18.recognise. What do you mean? They are wrong? Well, let us be clear.
:39:18. > :39:21.We do indeed have to spend some money to which we will pay through
:39:21. > :39:25.our energy bills to ensure we have energy supplies in the future. That
:39:26. > :39:32.is correct. The estimates we made is it could be, we could be talking
:39:32. > :39:37.about �70. Some of the costs of energy investment, including carbon
:39:37. > :39:42.capture and storage, we are paying out of other budgets. There is a
:39:42. > :39:46.cost. I don't think it will be �350. If the energy price gets way above
:39:46. > :39:49.the basic floor price, we can collect some of that extra money
:39:50. > :39:53.off the energy companies. I want to go back to George Eve's question.
:39:53. > :39:56.Wind power is perceived to have failed our needs. Will more nuclear
:39:56. > :40:02.power stations provide a better solution? I don't think it has
:40:02. > :40:09.proved to have failed. You have to have a balanced energy policy. That
:40:09. > :40:12.will be nuclear, wind, wave and I would consider coal because we are
:40:12. > :40:15.required to reduce the carbon level, that is our international agreement.
:40:15. > :40:19.We did very well under the Government to get more than the
:40:19. > :40:22.Kyoto target. At the end of the day, there will be subsidies of one form
:40:22. > :40:27.or another. It is only in this country we get into this argument
:40:27. > :40:31.or you put it on high price levels. Which way do you want it? We don't
:40:31. > :40:35.need nuclear. That is the point. It sounds reasonable to say let's have
:40:35. > :40:38.a whole array of different energy sources. When there is a finite
:40:38. > :40:44.amount of money, if you want renewables, you have to give...
:40:44. > :40:50.know there is a gap! There is a gap. How would you fill it then? I will
:40:50. > :41:00.tell you. Good. I can direct you to the Department of Energy And
:41:00. > :41:01.
:41:01. > :41:05.Climate Change website. They have a set of models there.
:41:05. > :41:12.You could do a massive amount with coal, with renewables, you would
:41:12. > :41:22.have a small amount of gas... the closure of nuclear? It is there.
:41:22. > :41:23.
:41:23. > :41:30.No. The man up there? The legacy we are leaving our future, the future
:41:30. > :41:37.generations of power stations, the answer is in a quarter of the
:41:37. > :41:41.electricity for the UK could be produced by tidal barrier across
:41:41. > :41:46.the Severn. Why is that not - two governments have discounted that
:41:46. > :41:51.option. Why isn't it seriously discussed? Even your approach to it
:41:52. > :41:58.hasn't mentioned tidal power. Rhys Jones? Can I say, first of all,
:41:58. > :42:03.that I am not a climate sceptic, but I am a solution sceptic. I
:42:03. > :42:12.think we do face a problem with trying to reduce carbon emissions,
:42:12. > :42:17.but if we keep to Kyoto, it is reckoned it will reduce carbon
:42:17. > :42:21.emissions by 0.2% of the world. We are acting as a form of diplomacy
:42:21. > :42:28.here and we are hoping that we will take a moral lead and the rest of
:42:28. > :42:33.the world will follow. There is no way that renewables can completely,
:42:33. > :42:38.that we can take all power from renewable energy. It's almost a
:42:38. > :42:44.physical impossibility. You are quite right about the tide. We have
:42:44. > :42:49.engaged in wind power in a form of token im, in a form of billboard,
:42:49. > :42:55.where for the Government it is the easiest way to show they are doing
:42:55. > :43:02.something is to erect the wind things. In truth, you would need
:43:02. > :43:07.for one, for the size of one nuclear power station, you need 300
:43:07. > :43:11.square miles of wind turbines standing shoulder-to-shoulder. It's
:43:11. > :43:17.an impossibility. So my logic, as somebody who wants to see carbon
:43:17. > :43:21.emissions brought down is why have we done this? Why have we
:43:21. > :43:25.subsidised this with �100 million to make this happen? It's been done
:43:25. > :43:30.with huge subsidies and is four times as expensive as the fuel that
:43:30. > :43:40.is produced. This is wind power? Yes. Nuclear is very expensive. But
:43:40. > :43:41.
:43:41. > :43:46.what we are also talking about is nearly 20 years of dither. Now you
:43:46. > :43:52.attack them when they make a decision! You can't have it both
:43:52. > :43:56.ways. The decision is to extend the life of our nuclear power stations
:43:56. > :44:00.recently, our old nuclear power stations so we don't need these
:44:00. > :44:04.wind farms. I don't understand the argument that says, "We don't want
:44:04. > :44:12.to put all our eggs in one basket." If these nuclear power stations go
:44:12. > :44:22.down, at least we have the wind farms! All right. Do we wear a
:44:22. > :44:31.
:44:31. > :44:38.bell?! Either we have a solution or Minette Marrin. You have outlined
:44:38. > :44:43.beautifully what a scam the none send has been. One last kick -
:44:44. > :44:46.these huge subsidises will in the vast majority of cases be paid to
:44:46. > :44:50.extremely rich landowners and not to mention ruining the countryside
:44:50. > :44:53.which people value so much. Clearly, nuclear is a very good option and
:44:53. > :44:59.we are all naturally frightened about nuclear because of disasters
:44:59. > :45:02.in the past. We ought to have more faith in technology and
:45:02. > :45:07.inventiveness and science in the future and it will be much easier
:45:07. > :45:12.to dispose of nuclear waste safely in the future. Says who, according
:45:12. > :45:15.to whom? This has happened in every kind... You have no solution for
:45:15. > :45:22.dealing with nuclear waste. We still have no solution. If you are
:45:22. > :45:28.in a hole, stop digging. APPLAUSE. It's totally unscientific attitude,
:45:28. > :45:34.people are working night and day day... Let's wait until we have the
:45:34. > :45:39.solution. Great improvements in nuclear energy, it's absolutely
:45:39. > :45:44.totally... Skwreps say -- John Prescott says you have a recipe for
:45:44. > :45:48.doing nothing. John was complaining a moment ago I wanted to do a range
:45:48. > :45:54.of things. You said they were a range, not me. Whether it's solar,
:45:54. > :45:57.tidal, marine. There is a whole suite of it. The idea is that - we
:45:57. > :46:02.should not be debating is it wind or nuclear, it's about whether or
:46:02. > :46:10.not it's a whole range of different renewables which in other countries
:46:10. > :46:15.exactly are - creating thousands of jobs. Would you exclude nuclear?
:46:15. > :46:21.You don't need it. We have had passion from Caroline against
:46:21. > :46:26.nuclear, Griff against wind, in order to plan responsibly for the
:46:26. > :46:30.future we have to back every safe technology going,... We have a
:46:30. > :46:33.coalition going here. The next coalition! It's the
:46:33. > :46:39.responsibilities of government. It's easy to be passionate against
:46:39. > :46:43.something. To plan properly so the lights don't go out in the future.
:46:43. > :46:49.If I might say, it implies that those of us in favour of something
:46:49. > :46:54.that isn't nuclear is somehow fluffy and so forth. If you look at
:46:54. > :47:01.Germany, Denmark, they are at the forefront of exports and jobs. It's
:47:01. > :47:11.a serious economic... Denmark is full of wind. Denmark is full of
:47:11. > :47:15.wind - people have community... They were the first. One at a time.
:47:15. > :47:19.They have stopped wind, they haven't. I want to go to the
:47:19. > :47:24.audience for a moment. The man there.
:47:24. > :47:30.If wind and nuclear was as viable as we are being told, then surely
:47:30. > :47:33.we as taxpayers and bill payers would not have to be subsidising it.
:47:33. > :47:37.Surely individual companies and entrepreneurs would be doing it.
:47:37. > :47:40.The big problem is the amount of subsidies, there's no doubt it's
:47:40. > :47:43.been overgenerous for whatever reason and a lot more money has
:47:43. > :47:47.gone into financing wind than it was necessary. Now, put that down
:47:47. > :47:51.to a mistake. But you have to have wind and when you talk to me,
:47:51. > :47:58.that's one of the things we have in this country for God's sake, the
:47:58. > :48:02.industrialisation was built on coal. Now we have plenty of wind. There's
:48:03. > :48:07.no wind blowing outside here tonight. It's not blowing in Hull,
:48:07. > :48:17.either. It's not blowing in Scotland. The whole system has shut
:48:17. > :48:18.
:48:18. > :48:24.down. APPLAUSE. What would you do? What I would do is invest now
:48:24. > :48:27.before... In what? Nuclear power and go to say we have to have a
:48:27. > :48:32.carbon-free solution and that's our solution. The other thing we need
:48:32. > :48:41.to invest in is gas and gas of all the options. Sizewell has been off
:48:41. > :48:47.grid for six months. It's been off grid for six months. Caroline. I
:48:47. > :48:52.want to go to the man there. Years ago Tony Blair was told he
:48:52. > :48:55.should start building nuclear power stations. The Labour Party's always
:48:55. > :48:58.considered the word nuclear to be a dirty word and that's why they
:48:58. > :49:03.never started building nuclear power stations. We are going to pay
:49:03. > :49:06.for not starting some 12 years ago. You are obviously in favour.
:49:06. > :49:10.There's a lot to be said for that. The big war that went on in the
:49:10. > :49:13.Labour Party was between the coal unions and nuclear. Again it put
:49:13. > :49:17.off the decisions. We didn't get enough political courage to make
:49:17. > :49:20.the decision. Why? Because we get the passion like this all the time
:49:20. > :49:24.and they put off the decisions. Politicians have to face up to the
:49:24. > :49:34.reality. It will be a balance and tough make a decision otherwise we
:49:34. > :49:35.
:49:35. > :49:41.won't have the energy in a few years' time to meet our standard.
:49:41. > :49:48.This lady here. Wind, wave, coal, nuclear. We don't care. What we
:49:48. > :49:58.don't want is an energy from waste known as an incinerator.
:49:58. > :50:04.
:50:04. > :50:10.APPLAUSE. . You are telling me! All right,
:50:10. > :50:15.all right. APPLAUSE For those people who don't know the
:50:16. > :50:22.position in north Norfolk, I should explain there is a proes for an
:50:22. > :50:27.incinerator here. What? And nuclear. Didn't hear a word of that! I
:50:27. > :50:34.wonder how much energy could be created from this studio. How many
:50:34. > :50:40.houses could we heat and light? A couple of points. Then we must go
:50:40. > :50:44.on. You, Sir. Perhaps before being so enthusiastic about nuclear we
:50:44. > :50:50.should ask the people of Japan what they think about nuclear energy and
:50:50. > :50:53.the damage it's done. You in the fourth row.
:50:53. > :50:56.I was going to say if you are talking about planning for the
:50:56. > :50:59.future, then why invest in wind which isn't blowing all the time,
:51:00. > :51:05.when there's tidal which is going to be there as long as there's a
:51:05. > :51:12.moon and a sun? Also, about the Japan situation, I can't imagine us
:51:12. > :51:16.having an earthquake and saoupl of that scale -- tsuaimi on that scale.
:51:16. > :51:21.The woman up there. What about bringing back the coal miners? The
:51:21. > :51:25.rest of the world is pewing out carbon. Why don't we let them go
:51:25. > :51:29.down the pits again and forget nuclear. You cannot change the laws
:51:29. > :51:33.of physics. Nuclear decay, thousands of years. We are putting
:51:33. > :51:38.money into carbon capture storage and also backing and researching
:51:38. > :51:42.into offshore renewables and going to build up. What about coal?
:51:42. > :51:46.shall get the carbon out of the atmosphere we are doing the work on
:51:46. > :51:50.carbon capture. This is the right thing to do. Coal is still an
:51:50. > :51:55.important part of our energy. Don't look the other way. We might not
:51:55. > :51:58.take it out of our mines. We import it. It's a balance. It's the whole
:51:58. > :52:03.lot. When you are investing in these technologies, this is exactly,
:52:03. > :52:07.including the offshore technology. Before we leave this, do you think
:52:07. > :52:11.more coal mines should be opened up in Britain? I think there is an
:52:11. > :52:15.argument for that but tough get the problem of the - we have the pipes
:52:15. > :52:20.from bringing in gas in from the nor sea, we could -- north sea. We
:52:20. > :52:23.could take the carbon and put it in the empty holes. Bring technology
:52:23. > :52:28.together. Coal still has a part to play. I will remind you of this
:52:28. > :52:34.when you talk about danger, a lot of miners died getting our coal out.
:52:34. > :52:40.Didn't see anybody complaining about that. Thousands of miners die
:52:40. > :52:44.every year across the world. Six people died because of the - died
:52:44. > :52:47.who worked at the plant. The world health organisation have looked
:52:47. > :52:51.into those deaths and discovered they didn't die of radation
:52:51. > :52:58.sickness and in fact, the world health organisation has pointed out
:52:58. > :53:01.that the plant in Japan has recently been cleared of having
:53:01. > :53:08.minimal raidation across Japan. In fact, there is no evidence that
:53:08. > :53:13.they can find. It's something like 2mili... Whatever it is. I don't
:53:13. > :53:17.like figures! It's so minimal they can't even work out whether it's
:53:17. > :53:27.coming - it's come from the react are to or not. I think we are
:53:27. > :53:28.
:53:28. > :53:31.paratphoeud. Four minutes left only. I want Amanda Arterton's question.
:53:31. > :53:35.Should David Cameron defy the European Court of Human Rights and
:53:35. > :53:39.not allow prisoners to vote. Tuesday the court made a ruling
:53:39. > :53:43.that said that the government has to remove its toelt ban on prisoner
:53:43. > :53:49.voting. Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to maintain a
:53:49. > :53:52.total ban on preuers -- prisoners getting the vote? My sympathies are
:53:52. > :53:58.with like who would like to ignore the court but as I understand it,
:53:58. > :54:02.although the court is separate from the EU, you cannot resile from the
:54:02. > :54:07.court and still - it's a condition of membership of the European Union
:54:07. > :54:10.that you are in tune with the court. Is that not right, you must know?
:54:10. > :54:17.What is your view that the government should do? If the
:54:17. > :54:22.government wants to stay in the EU it should put up with this
:54:22. > :54:29.incredibly infuriating ruling or else ignore it and see if they kick
:54:29. > :54:32.up. You were one of the MPs who voted in favour of of of getting
:54:32. > :54:35.the vote? They should do do what the court is suggesting because I
:54:35. > :54:40.think when prisoners are put in prison what they are losing is
:54:40. > :54:43.their liberty, not their identity. I think if we are trying to
:54:43. > :54:47.rehabilitate prisoners I think we should consider which prisoners we
:54:47. > :54:50.would want to offer the to vote but that should be part of the process.
:54:50. > :54:54.I also think it will be part of ensuring that maybe some of the
:54:54. > :54:58.conditions in our prisons are improved because if MPs have to
:54:58. > :55:03.canvas the votes of prisoners they might get inside the prisons and
:55:03. > :55:09.might actually learn a thing or two. Overall, it's a very good thing.
:55:09. > :55:12.The. The point is it's a condition of membership that you should be
:55:12. > :55:16.under the edicts of that court. judgment this week had a little bit
:55:16. > :55:21.more room for optimism because I don't think we should give
:55:21. > :55:24.prisoners this right. At all? and we can carry on fighting it.
:55:24. > :55:28.Ultimately there are treaty obligations but the road and battle
:55:28. > :55:35.is not exhausted yet. We can keep at it. We should not give up. This
:55:35. > :55:40.is not hopeless. Griff Rhys Jones? I wonder why politicians are so
:55:40. > :55:43.worried about this? Is it because we have one of the highest prison
:55:43. > :55:46.populations - we have a very high prison population in this country.
:55:46. > :55:52.Is it because they fear that they might all get together and vote for
:55:52. > :55:56.one MP? They have a prisoners' representative in parliament. I am
:55:56. > :56:02.not sure that I understand the fear of allowing prisoners to vote. I
:56:02. > :56:08.think in a way I agree with Caroline on this point. People are
:56:08. > :56:12.allowed - not every prisoner is somebody who is in jail because
:56:12. > :56:16.they're effectively a human being beyond redemption. They're in jail
:56:16. > :56:20.because they made mistakes or they were involved in criminal activity
:56:20. > :56:26.and as such we would hope they would be looking to become members
:56:26. > :56:30.of the civic community when they leave. John Prescott. Look, this
:56:30. > :56:34.issue isn't just about prisoners and they're not queuing or striking
:56:34. > :56:37.to get the right to vote. It's about the Court of Human Rights. We
:56:37. > :56:43.have agreed as a country to recognise that human rights in the
:56:43. > :56:46.council of Europe, in the 47 nations will apply here. It's a
:56:46. > :56:50.human rights issue. What the court is saying, there should be
:56:50. > :56:53.agreement for prisoners to have the vote. Not everybody, they've
:56:53. > :56:57.different rules in every country. It's not the same. We can adjust
:56:57. > :57:00.and change. This issue is becoming a load of Tories who want to get
:57:00. > :57:04.out of the European Union as they see it, and make it an issue of
:57:04. > :57:11.Europe. It's an issue of human rights that affect you, me, and the
:57:11. > :57:15.prisoner. You, Sir. How can we claim to have
:57:15. > :57:20.a free and fair democracy unless we let everyone within society be able
:57:20. > :57:24.to vote? All right. You, here on the left.
:57:24. > :57:32.Why is it the British always have to do whao we are told and the rest
:57:32. > :57:40.of Europe doesn't? We signed up for it. You voted for
:57:40. > :57:44.One more point. Whilst this is a controversial... I voted to come
:57:44. > :57:48.out of the common market the first referendum. The people didn't vote
:57:48. > :57:50.for it. They wanted to stay in. the way, do you want to see Labour
:57:50. > :57:54.have a referendum on the common market again as part of their
:57:55. > :57:59.manifesto? No, but I am not in that position. Why not? Look, I tell
:57:59. > :58:02.whau, don't assume that the people voted to come out of the common
:58:02. > :58:05.market, they will fear about jobs, about the future. Exactly what I
:58:05. > :58:10.thought when we voted the referendum last time they'd come
:58:10. > :58:13.out, so don't assume it will lead to what you want out of Europe. The
:58:13. > :58:17.consequences are considerable. I am very critical of Europe but I don't
:58:17. > :58:20.think the people would vote to come out. You don't think they should
:58:20. > :58:27.have the right to vote? We have had referendums on Welsh and Scotland.
:58:27. > :58:31.I am not against referendums as such, I even lost it in the north
:58:31. > :58:35.east. I am not against it, I am I am suspicion of people looking for
:58:35. > :58:39.an easy option. You have general elections. Vote for them. We must
:58:39. > :58:45.stop there. Thank you all very much indeed. Our hour is well and truly
:58:45. > :58:48.up. We are in Rugby next week. The week after in Inverness. If you
:58:48. > :58:58.want to come and quiz one of our Question Time panels, visit our