24/05/2012 Question Time

We have swapped the coal exchange in Cardiff for the corn exchange in

King's Lynn. Welcome to Question In our panel this week, the former

Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, the Universities Minister,

David Willetts, the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, the

Sunday Times columnist, Minette Marrin, and the comedian and

broadcaster, Griff Rhys Jones. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. I would like to take our first question from

Peter Lankfer. Whose bonkers, Vince Cable or the 76% of The Institute

of Directors who saud they would take on more workers if stringent

labour laws were eased? John Prescott, who is right, Vince Cable

or 76% of The Institute of Directors? Certainly Vince Cable!

LAUGHTER I don't agree with a great deal of The Institute of Directors.

This is about an individual who has no rights and gets dismissed. Is it

Mr Beecroft that is recommending it? Vince is undoubtedly right. It

is about being fair and justice. If you take those two choices, it is

Vince. APPLAUSE Of course, David Willetts, Vince Cable is your boss?

Yes. He said this was bonkers. Is he right? What we all did... Simple

answer, "yes" or "no"? We want to get the British economy creating as

many jobs as possible. There are things which gum up the works and

make it hard for employers to take on people and where Vince and I

agree is a lot of the stuff in the report does make sense and we are

getting on with it. We should have a longer time when you are a

probationary employee before you build-up those rights. There are

lots of people for whom employment tribunals have been abused and it

deters employers from taking on people. This specific proposal is

one where we need more evidence. The best thing is not Vince's

personal view, let's see the evidence as to whether really an

unqualified right to remove people would have an impact on employment

or not. That is what the Government is agreed across the coalition is

the way forward. What kind of evidence would you need to decide

whether it is a good idea to sack people with redundancy rather than

sack them with the right to unfair dismissal? The crucial evidence is

to get a sense of the economic impact. The crucial evidence is

will this mean that lots of extra people do get jobs? Or does it mean

that you wouldn't have an employment benefit but you would

spread greater insecurity? Wouldn't you have to do it to find out?

Economists can assess large amounts of evidence. We have asked

employers, individuals affected, people who care about this, to

submit their views. They have until 6th June. There is time for people

to tell us what they think. The Government will wait and consider

in the light of that. Before we leave that, isn't Vince Cable then

jumping the gun, if he says it's bonkers? You are in his Ministry

and you say, "We are going to ask people like everybody here" and

Vince Cable says, "It's bonkers". We are committed to seeing this

evidence. There is evidence. Everyone keeps on about the lack of

evidence to get themselves out of an awkward spot. Actually, the IMF

this year did a study precisely of this based on 97 different

countries relating particularly to flexibility of employment with

better employment chances. It's actually very positive. This has

been quoted in some of the debates about this. People prefer to hide

behind this search for evidence. do believe in more flexible rules.

That is what we are doing. There has to be a limit. You can't say

there are no rights. We are not going back to Dickensian England.

We do need to be more flexible. It is one of the reasons why private

employment is going up. The man there? I'm a manufacturer. I have a

factory in King's Lynn. I employ 16 people. I resent the fact I would

sack my people lightly. What I would like to know is I can run my

business with a degree of flexibility which allows us to go

through these uncertain times. you in favour of what's being

suggested? I am flabbergasted what Vince Cable says sometimes. We must

be allowed to run our businesses and, sadly, sometimes, it means

hiring or letting go staff. Not saying it must be easy, but the way

the system is set against us, it is very unfair. All right. APPLAUSE

Griff Rhys Jones? I think we've got ourselves in a bit of a mess over

this report. I think what Vince Cable was doing was drawing

attention to the fact that the report is not well done. It is not

well couched. It is an aggressive report. It starts by being - it

starts by taking bosses against workers, by implying there is a

fight going on, that the only way that this country is ever going to

be saved is somehow getting on the side of employers and against the

workers. That seems completely wrong in the atmosphere. APPLAUSE

So - on the other hand, I couldn't say I agreed with Vince Cable's

idea that we are all frightened by this. I don't think we are - we are

grown-up enough not to be in a state - the British worker is like

a paternal is tick dad saying, "Please don't frighten the workers

by saying we are going to..." There is a sense that we have problems

especially at the - in the employment market which go like

this. These regulations at the moment make it sometimes difficult

actually to employ people. We know that people are employed for 11

months and then sacked. They are sacked at the 11-month moment

because people don't want to go on employing them because the

regulations might make it much more difficult. APPLAUSE That is going

up to two years now? Yes. The point of the rest of the report - the

report itself doesn't give enough examples or evidence to back up its

strong and brutish assertions - but there is a need at all stages to

look at legislation and question whether it is helping the

efficiency of the employment market and employers. APPLAUSE All right.

The Beecroft Report does not think by sacking people easily it will

improve employment. It plans to replace one worker with another. It

also says it is sad but it might happen that a worker is sacked

because their boss doesn't like them. How is that going to improve

the economy? Caroline Lucas? agree with that. Of course,

Beecroft says it is a sad fact but it is a price worth paying. Which

was removed by the Government before the document was published?

Very wisely so. I think what is important is when we are talking

about evidence, let's look at the fact that, yes, a huge number of

small businesses are struggling. 7% of them are saying it has anything

to do with employment regulation. They are struggling because they

need the banks to lend to them. APPLAUSE You know, I think this is

a really Draconian move. I am glad that David says, "We are not going

back to Dickensian times." When you consider the man behind this has an

interest in Wonga, you wonder whether we might be going back to

Dickensian times. What this will do is it will be deeply counter-

productive. Workers who don't know whether their job is safe, won't be

going to the cinemas, the restaurants and therefore you are

likely to make the economic situation worse. You are also

likely to make the working conditions a lot worse. They might

not be frightened, but according to MIND, we have ever-increasing

numbers of workers off work because of stress, so we don't have a happy

workforce, we have austerity Britain and we have a report that

will make it worse. APPLAUSE will recall, we have had debates

about these arguments before. It was called the minimum wage. When

we have brought in the minimum wage, they said it would cost CBI, they

said the directors, it would cost two million jobs. It is about

fairness and justice and we can't just accept the argument the

cheaper it is, the less flexibility and that makes more growth. It

doesn't. It makes more damn misery! APPLAUSE The man at the back there?

Surely within a society justice and fairness is about the greater good

of the greater number? So is this not possibly a sign that it is a

price worth paying, that it is better for the whole company at the

expense of some unfairness for some people? The woman there in blue?

You were saying about consulting businesses. I'm part of a small

business here in King's Lynn. Are you going to consult us? We don't

have a lot of big industry around here. Are you going to come and

talk to us, the people employed between five and 15 people? Do you

want to know our views? Absolutely we do. One of the other big

questions is the extent to which we can exempt companies with fewer

than ten employees from a lot of regulations that you can handle if

you are big and you have a personnel department and you can't

handle if you are starting up. Something else we are trying to do

is all the health and safety regulations were applied to self-

employed people working on their own at home. That is ludicrous. So

there are things we need to do. I have to say in terms of

manufacturing, Vince has worked very hard to get big automotive

investments like General Motors into Britain. The news we had the

other day they will be investing more in Ellesmere Port, he was

personally involved in that. Of course, part of the offer which the

employees agreed with was more flexible terms of employment. We

outcompeted the Germans. That is how we can... Adrian Beecroft says

he is a Socialist. Is he right? a Liberal Democrat. I think he is a

rather flinty Gladstonian. On this point about the coalition, Beecroft

is quite irritated by what was said by Vince Cable. He said the

Conservatives are hugely held back by the Liberal Democrats on these

things. "I'm struck at how unrobust the Prime Minister and the

Chancellor are when it comes to pushing back. Why can't the

Government be more robust?" We are a coalition of two different

political parties coming with different political philosophies,

but working together because the nation faced a massive crisis two

years ago. There was no single majority Government. We had a

massive problem with the budget deficit. We had a loss of

confidence in politics. I think two different political parties and I

don't agree eye-to-eye on every issue with Vince or with the

Liberal Democrats. I don't agree on every issue with some colleagues

from my own party! We work together. We sort it out. There are two

different parties working there. We have a coalition agreement. I think

in the circumstances that this nation faced two years ago that was

a responsible thing to do and I salute the Lib Dems for working

with us. I think that is what the country needs. Any alternative

would have been far worse. He says you can see them off? It is not how

either party in a coalition approaches it. We have to work

together. We have to agree and two different political parties

reaching agreement can sometimes be a slow and messy process, but it's

also grown up and it is what the electorate expect of us. Minette

Marrin? We are in a terribly difficult economic situation. There

are a million young people without jobs and training. There are people

who are in work who have a degree of protection at the moment. It

sounds unfair that that protection should be kept for them which makes

it so unfair on employers and people who don't sack good workers

and want to take on young people, it is very unfair on those who have

not got jobs that the protection for people who have got jobs should

be kept in place. It sounds like, What I think is a pity is we

started to discuss it now on party lines and we seeing this as an

argument about individuals, whether Vince Cable is bonkers or whether

Beecroft is a nuisance. I think probably both are true. What is

absolutely essential is to listen to a certain extent to employers

and some problems they have, because although we do have, as

Caroline have, sympathy with employees, we do also have to have

sympathy with the idea that if somebody in your company really

cannot do the job or is being obstructive to doing the job, then

a small company can genuinely find itself in real difficulty trying to

move on from that person. APPLAUSE We must move on to another question.

If you are tweeting along or A point just now was picked up in

the next next question by a way. When David Cameron called Ed Balls

a muttering idiot was this improper language or is statement of the

blindingly obvious? LAUGHTER. John Prescott. I think it's obvious

where you are coming from. I mean, I don't think that kind of language

helps from which ever quarter it comes. What is involved was Cameron

was losing his rag about the economy. He has every reason to

lose his rag about the economy. Ed has been nearer to the truth on

that than the Tories have. They're coming around to growth in the

economy and jobs which we have been saying for a couple of years. We

are paying the prize now for higher unemployment, no growth. If you

call a man an idiot for bringing out the truth which is being

confirmed by the IMF and everyone else that's abusive and the Speaker

choose to say that wasn't a word he wanted. APPLAUSE. The man there.

What is Labour's policy to overcome the problems for the economy?

there's - well, first of all,... You could go on a bit on this one.

We pointed out some of the things tough do. One the the infra-

structure investment, we had to have cuts in the deficit knocks

doubts about that. We made it clear, not as much as the Tories - we

think what they've done they're going to inheub it growth. Their

effects on the economy have been such that we are now into a

recession. We warned about that two years ago. We said, do the infra-

structure, actually cut the tax as we have done on the VAT and

national insurance that we talked about, and make those contributions

and put youngsters back to work. They scrapped the youth programme

of keeping them in jobs. Now we have a record tphplt of -- amount

of unemployed and particularly the youngsters. They're the priorities

and you need growth for that. I am glad to say the rest of the world's

now saying it should be growth, even in Europe. APPLAUSE.

Griff Rhys Jones, what do you make of a muttering idiot? I am going to

go back to the first question and reverse out of my last position f I

may. First of all, I listened to this and thought here we are

listening to particlement and hering two people name calling, we

have found ourselves in particlement and across the air

waves over the last month or so with some people shouting austerity,

and other people shouting growth and neither ideas seem toing backed

by any central form of argument or even understanding, as far as I can

tell. Hardly surprising, it's an immensely complicated subject. What

I do like to see in particlement is people having a go at each other

and shouting and arguing and discussing it in public, because my

fear is that the real problem that we face in Europe is not being so

done. We have no parliament of Europe, which is broadcast every

night, where the real decisions about the euro and the economy and

the world economy are being made at the moment. Wouldn't it be more

useful to us if we did have a loud, annoying and slightly sort of busy

parliament decided things in Europe, instead of it's all - even when

these meetings happen, after dinner. After dinner we will discuss the

euro. We won't be there to see it discussed, either. I think that

what this shows, in a funny sort of way, is the value of the

parliamentary system and we could do with a bit more of it across

Europe. APPLAUSE. Caroline Lucas. A statement of the

obvious or improper? Well f the debate had been genuinely at that

point about growth versus austerity I would agree with you. But it

wasn't. It was Ed Balls winding up David Cameron by making gestures

and running commentary when someone else is trying to speak. Muttering

like an idiot? I wasn't close enough to know what he was saying.

This is what puts people off politics. It wasn't a real debate.

The news headline was about an insult, not about what we are going

to do to get ourselves out of the mess we are in. APPLAUSE. I think

that's really, really sad. You know, we have got so many key issues,

whether it's the Greek implosion or double dip recession and this is

the thing that gets picked out. It does put a huge huge number of

people off politics. We should be having the debate about what kind

of economic policy we need. I wish that Ed Balls would be more

ambitious, rather than saying we will have cuts but maybe less fast

and less far. I think the whole austerity programme is completely

the wrong direction. It doesn't work when governments stop

investing. We need is investment for jobs because that's the way you

get taxes going back to revenue. You keep people in work, they pay

taxes, that money goes back and how you stablise economies. If you say

where are you going to get money from, well, the Bank of England has

in the last couple of years put in �325 billion of quantitative easing,

in other words, credit creation, the private banks have hung on to

it. We need that money into the economy, creating jobs and both of

them are a plague on both their houses. You, Sir.

I believe Lord Lamont said Mr Cameron's volatility made him

engaging. Do we think that's true or is he a posh bully boy? David

will will -- Willets, is he engaging when he insults the other

side like this or a posh bully boy? I agree - I thought he was being

human. The point is that you can go around - you can go to some of

these Assemblies around the world and people sit in a neat semicircle

with an allocated desk and paper in front of them and button to push

for voting. I recommend it, it's better than this. Everybody says

that's the rarbgsal way. I tell you the only thing is the genuine anger

and the genuine emotion and passion which is part of politics gets

completely drained out of the system. I think you need - part of

the drama of the the -- House of Commons, of those exchanges ensures

that instead of people having to go out on the streets, they know their

frustration and anger will be expressed within the chamber. We

should remember that the House of Commons is allowed to express some

of that. The issue, which was what most of the questions was about,

was about the economy. On the economy, we are absolutely doing

everything to get the economy and it's not simply a matter of getting

a grip on the public finances, that's certainly necessary, it's

holding down interest rates, it's investing in infra-structure, it's

doubling the number of apprenticeships, easing burdens on

employers taking on people. We have to do all that and more and we are

committed to doing it. What about what the IMF said this week, which

appeared almost to be a recommendation for a plan B, that

the Chancellor should have and some changes cutting VAT, credit easing,

cutting interest rates, all that stuff came as a surprise to you?

this is a debate that's been going on. Wait a minute. The IMF up until

now has always backed in every detail what you have been doing.

The IMF said they wanted to see now, was that they were pressing for

continuing what they call I think Monday tarry -- Monday tarry

activism which is important, it's for the Bank of England to decide,

but the other hafl of what we are doing is well as getting a grip on

the public finances is ensuring we have low interest rates. When the

coalition came to office interest rates in Spain and in Britain were

the same. They didn't get a grip on things in Spain, they're now 6%

interest rates in Spain and they're in crisis. In Britain, they're

under 2% and people respect the fact that we have a grip on the

public finances. Getting that right is very important. She recommends

you cut VAT, cut national insurance if you can't get the economy moving.

Do you agree with her and is that what you will do? She did not call

on that to be done in today's circumstances. Not today, but is it

something in your back pocket? important we stoeubg the plan we

have. If, for example, unemployment is high and actually unemployment

is falling, but if it's high for whatever reason, the government

finances are just automatic, we allow for that, the system halls

the flex -- has the flexibility, then we accept that. So that we are

we are flexible. The man on the right. Every Labour government

that's ever been has always bankrupt the country and left the

country in a terrible disgrace. Ed Balls has a nerve to mutter away

and try and an tag nice David Cameron. Why did we overwhelmingly

win in 1997 if it wasn't for the collapse of the economy? Come on,

face up to the facts. Now you left us with a biggest deficit ever.

Last time three million unemployed. Now they're in again, three million

unemployed. Clearing up your mess, your mess. Well, I agree entirely

with the person here who says, the word Cameron should have used if

it's parilamentary language is shameless, he with tkpworpb

presided over an accumulation of debt and how he can turn to

government that's trying to pay back some of that debt and actually

lecture them on something that he is shameless in doing, he knows

that growth, he is a clever, sophisticated economist, he knows

growth cannot just be delivered in a short number of months. These are

incredibly complex subjects. The best minds have disagreed about it.

It isn't easy to say which is the best way of getting this country

out of a hole and it's shameless for a sophisticated person like him

to pretend that there is an easy solution and the government hasn't

got it right and they have. APPLAUSE. We find ourselves

exceptionally indebted... It's shameless this narrative that

somehow it was the Labour government that amassed this debt

and that's somehow got us into this problem and all the other countries

that are in the problem. The point was it was a tragedy and crisis of

the banking system, not of the government. You, Sir in the second

row. I tried to watch prime Minister's

questions every Wednesday when I can. They seem to be on holiday

more than the kids. David Cameron seems to be getting mover angry

every week. He should be actually go to anger management classes.

Sir, in the second row. As a small business owner, it's useful to

listen to the rhetoric about low interest rates producing growth but

I can't find a bank that wants to lend money at any interest rate to

a small growing business started in the middle of this recession. We

are growing at 40% over the last two years. Every bank is the same.

The only difference with banks is different coloured cheque book.

They're all the same when it comes to business. Where have you been

getting your money from? Ourselves. Private money. Why are they doing

that? Why are they in this situation? Why did they

overstretch? Because we live in an an economic world founded on froth.

For the last 15, 20 years these banks don't have that money. They

have your money. They have very small capital reserve. For the last

20 years they have leveraged up those reserves and lent far more

money than they actually have. Lehman Brothers in the middle of

the crisis were transferring money to London where they had one set of

rules, to leverage it up by 50% and then transferring it back to New

York where they have another set of rules and leveraging up again. They

will effectively make out of a very small amount of money a huge amount

of froth which they then gambled with. That gambling has funded

Europe. It's no good saying it was just as it were the banks didn't it

with no reference to anybody else and now we are paying the price.

When Christine Lagarde stands there in the middle and says yes, you

have brought your deficit down, it makes me shiver because David

hasn't said that yet, it makes she shiver if your deficit concluded at

11%, but by the way you are going to have to print more money and

actually do something about growth. Oh, bye! I am going back to work on

my tan. The answer is it - we are hearing a lot of easy solutions

from all sides of the political world. I don't want to be Mr Doom-

sayer, there may not be an easy solution. We may be following 25

years of boom by 20 years of bust. We need to be careful of people

standing there with quick-fix solutions to this, whether it's the

IMF or whether it's the coalition or it's the Labour Party. We need

to look at the long run now. We better move on. It is not the

case. Our fate is in our hands. We can sort these things out. A lot of

the things, they are not inconsistent. We can get the money

flowing to small businesses and invest in infrastructure.

aren't you? We are doing all those things. You are not. We are all in

this together! LAUGHTER We are. are all in this together and we

should move on. I have a question from Paula Grief. Is it right that

Olympic Torchbearers are offering their torches for sale on internet

auction sites? These Tor shs are being sold on E -- torches are

being sold on eBay? I don't see anything wrong with selling them if

it is for charity. Otherwise, those things, like medals, are given as a

special badge of honour. Just to turn that into cash without some

very pressing reason seems to me to be an insult to the honour that

one's been given. You have to buy it if you want to keep it? You have

to pay �199. I take the point. This is not something to take lightly.

The first person who did it, a young woman who gave it to charity,

I admired her very much. Caroline Lucas? I agree if the money is

going to charity, that is fine and good. It must be a sign of

desperation if people do it. I would assert that it probably is a

sign of desperation. There was one gentleman who said he didn't want

to doit but he could get -- do it, but he could get quite a bit of

money through doing this. It is a pity. It is something that one

would like to keep in the family. I think once people are in difficult

positions and they have paid for it, we can't be surprised if it ends up

on eBay. The woman at the back? carrying on Olympic Torch shortly.

Are you? APPLAUSE Here in King's Lynn? The day I got offered it was

the opportunity to buy it at �199. I snatched that opportunity within

seconds because it's a piece of history, it is a piece to pass to

my children and go back in the community for what I was nominated

for, to go back into the schools, let the children hold it, let them

carry it. The interesting point I'm going to make is when the directive

came out about being able to buy your torch, you would be not

allowed to sell them. All of a sudden because this influx has come

- �153,000 one was sold for this week! I don't know if they have had

the cheque yet! Why now, why now are the Olympic Committee saying,

"Do what you like with them." That has to be managed. But on the other

hand, �153,000, it is a new house! David Willetts? A free market in

Olympic Torchs. This is getting more complicated. We can obviously

disapprove of this. The question is whether we are kind of pass a law.

It is ultimately a personal responsibility. I hope people won't.

If you ask me if we could live in a country where we ban it? No. You

have to trust individuals. You, there? I just have an issue of the

way you used the word "morality". If you have not got a choice, your

house is going to be repossessed, how can you wager that against

morality? APPLAUSE If she were able to raise �153,000 with the Torch,

you would be in favour of that? I've got a silly amount of student

debt to pay back, so I would probably sell mine to be honest!

You should have applied. John Prescott? What I was surprised

about is the Olympic body was selling them. There's very strict

rules that it belongs to the Olympics, it belongs to them. By

selling it to someone, you raise the question then how they use it.

I couldn't condemn somebody, I hope they wouldn't, and I don't know how

prevalent it is. It might be just one or two people who have got a

lot of publicity about it. In the main, I hope they don't do it. It

is important to the individual, to the community as well. I think once

they have sold it, you are in a situation where you can't condemn

them if they are going to sell it on. That's what's happened.

woman here? I wonder why these people applied to do the Torch

because it is an honour. Then they, when they get the Torch, they sell

it. I don't understand why they would want to do that. If they

wanted to be part of the Olympics and the celebration, then why would

they want to sell it? You in the yellow? Absolutely agree with

Caroline on the news today, a pawn broker was saying he's had lowits

of people bring in family heirlooms because they need the money and if

you have bought the torch you should be free to do what you like

with it. The woman up there? This lady says that LOCOG have changed

their minds about first you were told you couldn't sell them, now

they have been told they can do what they like with them. Is this a

sign of the disorganisation to come when the Olympics are here? Griff

Rhys Jones? I also have to say that I think it is a bit rich blaming

individuals and just to reassure you, they are only making five

grand on eBay today, not 150 grand, that was a one-off. I would keep it

for your grandchildren, they can take it to Antiques Roadshow. But

the main point is this: It's pretty rich coming from the Olympics which

is sponsored by two of the most inappropriate firms that one could

possibly imagine. APPLAUSE I'm not going to say exactly who they are

because they don't need any more publicity. One of them produces

sugary drinks, the other super- sizes people and they both

contribute to obesity in such high levels across the world that it

seems an extraordinary choice of sponsor for a sporting occasion. So

the Olympic Committee are mired in the business of making money and

they are not fit to lecture other people about how they should make a

bit of money out of them. APPLAUSE I think we should move on. We were

curious about what happened to the torches when Torchbearers didn't

pay the �199 for the torch and they were therefore given back to LOCOG,

the London Organising Committee. They told us that they had to try

and recoup the cost of the torches which aren't purchased by the

bearers, so they will sell some of them. LAUGHTER Question from George

Eve? Wind power is perceived to have failed our energy needs. Will

more nuclear power stations provide a better solution? Wind power or

nuclear power stations? David Willetts? I think we probably need

both. One thing we can't have is all our eggs in one basket. We have

certainly have had a very significant investment in wind

power. What we are now looking to do is to ensure that we also have

the nuclear power available as well. Of course it shouldn't be

subsidised by the Exchequer, but there is such a challenge on energy

supplies coming that I think Britain should have a range of

energy sources and wind and nuclear should be part of them. It is being

subsidised. That is what the Energy Bill is going to do, it puts in a

carbon floor price which will give huge subsidies to nuclear. That is

against what the coalition agreement said it was going to do.

Nuclear is massively uneconomic. Everybody says it is simply not

going to happen without these huge subsidies? I don't accept that

nuclear is automatically uneconomic. Why has it got subsidy then? What

we are trying to do, which goes back to the debate we were having

earlier about infrastructure and investment. In order to get energy

investment to happen, people have to have some sense of what the

price they are going to be likely to get for the energy they generate.

Now, if - that is not necessarily the market price these individuals

pay because we can make adjustments, but that sense there is a basic

price which is going to guarantee them some kind of return on their

investment is an important way of getting energy investment going in

this country. It is a massive subsidy. What is the scale of the

subsidy? Then I will come to you, John Prescott. What is your view

about the scale of the subsidy? There are different figures. The

thing about the Energy Bill, it is hard to work out what the subsidy

will be. We will be looking at least �353 a year to prop up

nuclear. You said it is very complicated. You have worked it

out? I said about! Some figures are �200. Those are not figures we

recognise. What do you mean? They are wrong? Well, let us be clear.

We do indeed have to spend some money to which we will pay through

our energy bills to ensure we have energy supplies in the future. That

is correct. The estimates we made is it could be, we could be talking

about �70. Some of the costs of energy investment, including carbon

capture and storage, we are paying out of other budgets. There is a

cost. I don't think it will be �350. If the energy price gets way above

the basic floor price, we can collect some of that extra money

off the energy companies. I want to go back to George Eve's question.

Wind power is perceived to have failed our needs. Will more nuclear

power stations provide a better solution? I don't think it has

proved to have failed. You have to have a balanced energy policy. That

will be nuclear, wind, wave and I would consider coal because we are

required to reduce the carbon level, that is our international agreement.

We did very well under the Government to get more than the

Kyoto target. At the end of the day, there will be subsidies of one form

or another. It is only in this country we get into this argument

or you put it on high price levels. Which way do you want it? We don't

need nuclear. That is the point. It sounds reasonable to say let's have

a whole array of different energy sources. When there is a finite

amount of money, if you want renewables, you have to give...

know there is a gap! There is a gap. How would you fill it then? I will

tell you. Good. I can direct you to the Department of Energy And

Climate Change website. They have a set of models there.

You could do a massive amount with coal, with renewables, you would

have a small amount of gas... the closure of nuclear? It is there.

No. The man up there? The legacy we are leaving our future, the future

generations of power stations, the answer is in a quarter of the

electricity for the UK could be produced by tidal barrier across

the Severn. Why is that not - two governments have discounted that

option. Why isn't it seriously discussed? Even your approach to it

hasn't mentioned tidal power. Rhys Jones? Can I say, first of all,

that I am not a climate sceptic, but I am a solution sceptic. I

think we do face a problem with trying to reduce carbon emissions,

but if we keep to Kyoto, it is reckoned it will reduce carbon

emissions by 0.2% of the world. We are acting as a form of diplomacy

here and we are hoping that we will take a moral lead and the rest of

the world will follow. There is no way that renewables can completely,

that we can take all power from renewable energy. It's almost a

physical impossibility. You are quite right about the tide. We have

engaged in wind power in a form of token im, in a form of billboard,

where for the Government it is the easiest way to show they are doing

something is to erect the wind things. In truth, you would need

for one, for the size of one nuclear power station, you need 300

square miles of wind turbines standing shoulder-to-shoulder. It's

an impossibility. So my logic, as somebody who wants to see carbon

emissions brought down is why have we done this? Why have we

subsidised this with �100 million to make this happen? It's been done

with huge subsidies and is four times as expensive as the fuel that

is produced. This is wind power? Yes. Nuclear is very expensive. But

what we are also talking about is nearly 20 years of dither. Now you

attack them when they make a decision! You can't have it both

ways. The decision is to extend the life of our nuclear power stations

recently, our old nuclear power stations so we don't need these

wind farms. I don't understand the argument that says, "We don't want

to put all our eggs in one basket." If these nuclear power stations go

down, at least we have the wind farms! All right. Do we wear a

bell?! Either we have a solution or Minette Marrin. You have outlined

beautifully what a scam the none send has been. One last kick -

these huge subsidises will in the vast majority of cases be paid to

extremely rich landowners and not to mention ruining the countryside

which people value so much. Clearly, nuclear is a very good option and

we are all naturally frightened about nuclear because of disasters

in the past. We ought to have more faith in technology and

inventiveness and science in the future and it will be much easier

to dispose of nuclear waste safely in the future. Says who, according

to whom? This has happened in every kind... You have no solution for

dealing with nuclear waste. We still have no solution. If you are

in a hole, stop digging. APPLAUSE. It's totally unscientific attitude,

people are working night and day day... Let's wait until we have the

solution. Great improvements in nuclear energy, it's absolutely

totally... Skwreps say -- John Prescott says you have a recipe for

doing nothing. John was complaining a moment ago I wanted to do a range

of things. You said they were a range, not me. Whether it's solar,

tidal, marine. There is a whole suite of it. The idea is that - we

should not be debating is it wind or nuclear, it's about whether or

not it's a whole range of different renewables which in other countries

exactly are - creating thousands of jobs. Would you exclude nuclear?

You don't need it. We have had passion from Caroline against

nuclear, Griff against wind, in order to plan responsibly for the

future we have to back every safe technology going,... We have a

coalition going here. The next coalition! It's the

responsibilities of government. It's easy to be passionate against

something. To plan properly so the lights don't go out in the future.

If I might say, it implies that those of us in favour of something

that isn't nuclear is somehow fluffy and so forth. If you look at

Germany, Denmark, they are at the forefront of exports and jobs. It's

a serious economic... Denmark is full of wind. Denmark is full of

wind - people have community... They were the first. One at a time.

They have stopped wind, they haven't. I want to go to the

audience for a moment. The man there.

If wind and nuclear was as viable as we are being told, then surely

we as taxpayers and bill payers would not have to be subsidising it.

Surely individual companies and entrepreneurs would be doing it.

The big problem is the amount of subsidies, there's no doubt it's

been overgenerous for whatever reason and a lot more money has

gone into financing wind than it was necessary. Now, put that down

to a mistake. But you have to have wind and when you talk to me,

that's one of the things we have in this country for God's sake, the

industrialisation was built on coal. Now we have plenty of wind. There's

no wind blowing outside here tonight. It's not blowing in Hull,

either. It's not blowing in Scotland. The whole system has shut

down. APPLAUSE. What would you do? What I would do is invest now

before... In what? Nuclear power and go to say we have to have a

carbon-free solution and that's our solution. The other thing we need

to invest in is gas and gas of all the options. Sizewell has been off

grid for six months. It's been off grid for six months. Caroline. I

want to go to the man there. Years ago Tony Blair was told he

should start building nuclear power stations. The Labour Party's always

considered the word nuclear to be a dirty word and that's why they

never started building nuclear power stations. We are going to pay

for not starting some 12 years ago. You are obviously in favour.

There's a lot to be said for that. The big war that went on in the

Labour Party was between the coal unions and nuclear. Again it put

off the decisions. We didn't get enough political courage to make

the decision. Why? Because we get the passion like this all the time

and they put off the decisions. Politicians have to face up to the

reality. It will be a balance and tough make a decision otherwise we

won't have the energy in a few years' time to meet our standard.

This lady here. Wind, wave, coal, nuclear. We don't care. What we

don't want is an energy from waste known as an incinerator.

APPLAUSE. . You are telling me! All right,

all right. APPLAUSE For those people who don't know the

position in north Norfolk, I should explain there is a proes for an

incinerator here. What? And nuclear. Didn't hear a word of that! I

wonder how much energy could be created from this studio. How many

houses could we heat and light? A couple of points. Then we must go

on. You, Sir. Perhaps before being so enthusiastic about nuclear we

should ask the people of Japan what they think about nuclear energy and

the damage it's done. You in the fourth row.

I was going to say if you are talking about planning for the

future, then why invest in wind which isn't blowing all the time,

when there's tidal which is going to be there as long as there's a

moon and a sun? Also, about the Japan situation, I can't imagine us

having an earthquake and saoupl of that scale -- tsuaimi on that scale.

The woman up there. What about bringing back the coal miners? The

rest of the world is pewing out carbon. Why don't we let them go

down the pits again and forget nuclear. You cannot change the laws

of physics. Nuclear decay, thousands of years. We are putting

money into carbon capture storage and also backing and researching

into offshore renewables and going to build up. What about coal?

shall get the carbon out of the atmosphere we are doing the work on

carbon capture. This is the right thing to do. Coal is still an

important part of our energy. Don't look the other way. We might not

take it out of our mines. We import it. It's a balance. It's the whole

lot. When you are investing in these technologies, this is exactly,

including the offshore technology. Before we leave this, do you think

more coal mines should be opened up in Britain? I think there is an

argument for that but tough get the problem of the - we have the pipes

from bringing in gas in from the nor sea, we could -- north sea. We

could take the carbon and put it in the empty holes. Bring technology

together. Coal still has a part to play. I will remind you of this

when you talk about danger, a lot of miners died getting our coal out.

Didn't see anybody complaining about that. Thousands of miners die

every year across the world. Six people died because of the - died

who worked at the plant. The world health organisation have looked

into those deaths and discovered they didn't die of radation

sickness and in fact, the world health organisation has pointed out

that the plant in Japan has recently been cleared of having

minimal raidation across Japan. In fact, there is no evidence that

they can find. It's something like 2mili... Whatever it is. I don't

like figures! It's so minimal they can't even work out whether it's

coming - it's come from the react are to or not. I think we are

paratphoeud. Four minutes left only. I want Amanda Arterton's question.

Should David Cameron defy the European Court of Human Rights and

not allow prisoners to vote. Tuesday the court made a ruling

that said that the government has to remove its toelt ban on prisoner

voting. Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to maintain a

total ban on preuers -- prisoners getting the vote? My sympathies are

with like who would like to ignore the court but as I understand it,

although the court is separate from the EU, you cannot resile from the

court and still - it's a condition of membership of the European Union

that you are in tune with the court. Is that not right, you must know?

What is your view that the government should do? If the

government wants to stay in the EU it should put up with this

incredibly infuriating ruling or else ignore it and see if they kick

up. You were one of the MPs who voted in favour of of of getting

the vote? They should do do what the court is suggesting because I

think when prisoners are put in prison what they are losing is

their liberty, not their identity. I think if we are trying to

rehabilitate prisoners I think we should consider which prisoners we

would want to offer the to vote but that should be part of the process.

I also think it will be part of ensuring that maybe some of the

conditions in our prisons are improved because if MPs have to

canvas the votes of prisoners they might get inside the prisons and

might actually learn a thing or two. Overall, it's a very good thing.

The. The point is it's a condition of membership that you should be

under the edicts of that court. judgment this week had a little bit

more room for optimism because I don't think we should give

prisoners this right. At all? and we can carry on fighting it.

Ultimately there are treaty obligations but the road and battle

is not exhausted yet. We can keep at it. We should not give up. This

is not hopeless. Griff Rhys Jones? I wonder why politicians are so

worried about this? Is it because we have one of the highest prison

populations - we have a very high prison population in this country.

Is it because they fear that they might all get together and vote for

one MP? They have a prisoners' representative in parliament. I am

not sure that I understand the fear of allowing prisoners to vote. I

think in a way I agree with Caroline on this point. People are

allowed - not every prisoner is somebody who is in jail because

they're effectively a human being beyond redemption. They're in jail

because they made mistakes or they were involved in criminal activity

and as such we would hope they would be looking to become members

of the civic community when they leave. John Prescott. Look, this

issue isn't just about prisoners and they're not queuing or striking

to get the right to vote. It's about the Court of Human Rights. We

have agreed as a country to recognise that human rights in the

council of Europe, in the 47 nations will apply here. It's a

human rights issue. What the court is saying, there should be

agreement for prisoners to have the vote. Not everybody, they've

different rules in every country. It's not the same. We can adjust

and change. This issue is becoming a load of Tories who want to get

out of the European Union as they see it, and make it an issue of

Europe. It's an issue of human rights that affect you, me, and the

prisoner. You, Sir. How can we claim to have

a free and fair democracy unless we let everyone within society be able

to vote? All right. You, here on the left.

Why is it the British always have to do whao we are told and the rest

of Europe doesn't? We signed up for it. You voted for

One more point. Whilst this is a controversial... I voted to come

out of the common market the first referendum. The people didn't vote

for it. They wanted to stay in. the way, do you want to see Labour

have a referendum on the common market again as part of their

manifesto? No, but I am not in that position. Why not? Look, I tell

whau, don't assume that the people voted to come out of the common

market, they will fear about jobs, about the future. Exactly what I

thought when we voted the referendum last time they'd come

out, so don't assume it will lead to what you want out of Europe. The

consequences are considerable. I am very critical of Europe but I don't

think the people would vote to come out. You don't think they should

have the right to vote? We have had referendums on Welsh and Scotland.

I am not against referendums as such, I even lost it in the north

east. I am not against it, I am I am suspicion of people looking for

an easy option. You have general elections. Vote for them. We must

stop there. Thank you all very much indeed. Our hour is well and truly

up. We are in Rugby next week. The week after in Inverness. If you

want to come and quiz one of our Question Time panels, visit our