31/05/2012 Question Time

Tonight, we near the Temple Speech Room at Rugby School, in Rugby.

Welcome to Question Time. On our panel here, the

international development minister, Alan Duncan.

The shadow Home Office minister, Stella Creasy. The former Liberal

Democrats home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, who has written a book

about how coalitions don't work. The editor of the Spectator and

columnist for the Daily Telegraph, Fraser Nelson and the broadcaster

Victoria Coren. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. Michael Thomas has a question. After pasty,

caravan and charity tax U-turns, is the Chancellor competent?

Fraser Nelson? I think there is certainly a pattern emerging. We're

on U-turn number 35, by my counts. The pattern seems to be, act first,

think later, reverse it if it is a problem. It is a bit worrying. It's

a problem for the Conservatives. People can forgive the Tories for

being heartless. You bring a Tory Government in to make cuts. To be

heartless and hopeless is a fatal combination. I mean, individually

these things are not a problem - the caravan tax, pasty tax - but

they have a cumulative effect which make you worry if the Government

knows what is going on. I think the problem also is that if you get a

reputation for U-turning, then it invites confrontation. Sooner or

later, there'll be probably a confrontation with the trade unions

in a way there has not been so far. The unions will look at this

Government and will think, if he can't stand up to Greg the Baker,

how will he stand up to the -- Len McClusky. Everybody pushes them, a

Baker or a celebrity and the Government folds. So it looks weak,

incompetent and not a good look at -- all.

APPLAUSE The question was specifically about

George Osborne rather than the Government - is he competent?

would like to think so. I am not writing off George Osborne yet.

He's had a catastrophic Budget. Maybe he should not have taken that

week holiday to see Barack Obama the week before the Budget. This

one is still exploding even now. It does make you wonder how much

effort is put into the growth strategy if you see how little he

has thought about smaller things. Looking at the results, we are not

seeing much economic recovery now. I am worrying if we'll get a

recovery by the next election. That is what I will judge George Osborne

on, not the caravan, not the pasties but whether we get some

growth. Journalism is about sensation and good, strong views.

Whenever a politician changes his mind, it's not oh, good he has

changed his mind because he has listen to what he's said, it is

massive U-turn, Government in chaos. That is the business you're in.

We're in the business, the democracy business of saying, this

is what we'll do. When you put things out to

consultation it is for that purpose and why is it therefore that when

we respond, having listened to the arguments and change our mind, you

say what you have just said. I think George Osborne is

competent.Ly tell you why: We are face -- I will tell you high: We

are facing some of the biggest economic changes in my lifetime. We

are looking around the world at countries which falling to bits,

facing civil strife in the streets. We are not in that position because

this coalition Government has got to grips with some of the biggest

economic challenges we'll ever see in our lifetime. By staying out of

the single currency 20 years ago, fortunately we are able to

respond.... You cannot give George Osborne the credit for that. He was

not even out of school. He was, actually. On the point raised, are

you suggesting all budget measures are out for consultation - it is an

idea and then we sit around and say, we like this bit, we don't like

that bit? Of course not. Some things are

decided on the day. That is why at the end of the Budget speech

Parliament agrees to change certain tax levels and things like that.

The key thing - and you cannot accuse us of an U-turn on this - is

getting finances back in order is back on course. That is why we've

got... ALL SPEAK AT ONCE We have such low interest rates. If we were

to do what Ed Balls was saying, to pay off a mortgage with a mortgage,

we would have higher interest rates. Everyone in this room, unless they

had large cash savings would be suffering. I will tell you high

this matters. If I were the Chancellor, the thing that would

exercise me the most is that businesses and companies in this

country are sitting on �750 billion worth of cash and deposits. They

are sitting on it as rainy Damonny, because they have no confidence at

-- rainy Damonny, because they have no confidence at all. They are not

making investments. That is the general point. What about the U-

turns announced? When you look at a Chancellor who cannot decide

whether he likes pasties, hot, cold or gently warmed, you can

understand why they are not confident about our Government and

the choices they are making. What I see in the 35, and possibly rising

U-turns, is somebody incoherent about caravans and pasties, is

wrong about where our economy is going and the kind of things we

need to do to generate jobs in this country, so we are not spending

less on welfare, but getting taxes back on because people are in work.

That is why people are so worried and frightened about what he's

doing. APPLAUSE

Years ago, even the slightest Budget leak was a major resignation

issue. Now the whole thing is trailed in public weeks before.

This is a good thing or a bad thing?

I think it has been a good result for the pasty tax. If it was not

devised we would not have the joy of seeing the Labour high command

being in Gregs pretending they had not been in one before. It is

astonishing footage. You said we should respect the fact he changed

his mind. We have to factor in he thought of it in the first place.

This is a Government of people. Here is this Tory high command,

generally the key figures of massive personal wealth.

Embarrassing pictures of them floating around in black tie.

Winston Churchill was posh. They know that is the problem they have.

And then they have this idea, they are going to tax pasties and

caravans. They are going to identify things that the absolutely

poorest people in the country enjoy and hammer them. Now, that was not

a very clever idea in the first place. The fact he thinks better of

it - OK, well, but he should not have thought of it to begin with. I

will not say that George Osborne is incompetent - that would be

disrespectful. He is the Chancellor. I would say, if I was going on

holiday and needed someone to look after my flat and feed the cat, I

would not ask George Osborne. Mark Oaten?

To answer the question directly, no, I don't think he is incompetent. To

some extent, looking back on politics over the past 20 years we

go through a cycle of a politician says something, there's a big fuss,

they should change it and then they do change it and then there is a

big fuss because it is a U-turn. We've all done it. The danger is

when a politician really should change something, because it is

wrong, they don't, because they are skoir scared about the big fuss

there'll be over a U-turn. However, the question has to be asked, was,

what I would call a common sense factor put into these measures? Was

somebody lying in bed in the morning and thinking? If they

thought, can you really introduce a tax on whether it is hot, cold,

semi hot or cold, can you start to take on the charitable sector in

this country? If somebody laid in the bed longer in the morning and

put the common sense factor into this then they would not have

introduce these measures. Have a lie-in and put the common sense in,

in the future. APPLAUSE I think the way it is

going, George Osborne will get the sack. I would like to see if he

could do a U-turn on student loans before he loses his job! You think

Osborne is going? I think the minister will go. We have to be a

U-turn on student fees as soon as Politics is basically a PR exercise,

rather than people going fundamentally with what they

believe and seeking to leave, as opposed to manage opinion: You mean

they are not getting on with the job?

It is managing and therefore when there is a kickback, if you believe

that, let's stick with it. If you think it will be good for the

country, stick with it. There have been measures in the past which

have been unpopular, but time has turned out it has been the right

thing to do. So stick with that. you want to join the Twitter

debate: If you want to join in the debate

yourself physically, we'll be in Inverness next week. Details of how

to join that programme are on the screen.

A question now from Lias Eaton. is right for doctors to strike over

a pension that most of us can only I feel very torn by this issue. I

have already had a number of people in my constituency come to me and

say they are worried about what will happen on the date that the

doctors have said they want to go on strike. I have talked to doctors

and nurses who feel pushed to the limit by what this Government has

done to the NHS. In answer to your question, no, if I am honest, I

don't think it is the right thing to do at this point in time. All of

us need to put pressure on the Government to take their

responsibility. The doctors are saying, we want to negotiate and we

cannot even get the Secretary of State around the table. We have

seen other secretaries of state being willing to get around the

table and talk to unions about difficult changes, which everybody

recognises will need to happen. Why Mr Lansley thinks it is beneath him

to talk to doctors, so avoid these situations in the first place, is

beneath me? -- is beyond me. It is a pension

most can only dream of? It is something which will have to change.

We know there are difficult choices. One thing is the Hutton Report. We

started the Hutton Report. Jon Hutton is saying the Government is

going about this the wrong way. The difficult changes we made in

Government we did in partnership with the unions. We got there and

we made difficult changes. This Government is going for

confrontation first and conversation later. You say it is a

pension most people can only dream of - I understand what you are

saying - but these doctors are not just lucked into this pension.

Doctors train for seven years. They start their working lives later

than any professional. They have to work 40 years and they spend that

time, most of them, covered in blood, seeing terrible things,

watching people die. It is a tough life that demands massive

concentration, long, long hours, very hard work. They have not just

been found in the street and handed this pension. Also, a doctor's

salary is very sharp and steep. They start very low, so being told

that instead of getting their final salary they will get an average,

that will hurt them a lot more than I would comparable professionals

because of how jaged it is. They will have a sympathy problem. I

don't think as people say - I think most people will be disappointed

with their GP, they feel short changed. I will not be tricked into

that argument, all these doctors, they are all riched, what are they

complaining about? It is dangerous to start this idea of any public

sector workers being greedy and demanding. I don't think people are

as stupid as we are being led to think. I don't think people are

cruel. I think the fact lots of us are struggling doesn't mean we'll

not feeling sorry for someone having their pension cut. It is not

the doctors' fault there is a financial crisis. It is not their

fault that all Governments of recent years failed to address the

demographic problem, there would be a problem with pensions for

everyone. We should not be misled into thinking there is no money for

these public sector workers when there was money to be pumped into

the banks and paid to people as Surely this argument is saying that

the money that is going to their pensions being taken out of other

services elsewhere, surely we could free up this money by getting rid

of the red tape and managers in the NHS and rewarding doctors for

something they do really well and making it easier for them to do it

byry moving the bureaucracy around their day-to-day lives. Do you

think the strike is right? that's what's needed to improve the

service then for a short time yes. The woman behind you? I don't agree

with Victoria. Anyone entering the profession of doctor, their first

objective should be altruism and the second is care. They are being

paid a lot more than the average nurses or whoever they are. They've

been asked... They've trained seven years to get this job. It is not

about how much they are paid but how much money there is. The

problem about missing money is people who are not doctors, and

don't let anyone trick you into being angry with doctors because

the country can't afford to pay them. But this is against the

Hippocratic oath. Non-emergency services only. It doesn't matter to

the general public to. The general public it instils fear to. The

elderly it instils fear. I think it is sacrificing the Hippocratic oath

to the altar of greed. I'm sorry, I do not agree with the strike.

APPLAUSE The woman on that side. There are two points I want to make.

Firstly, there is no harming the Hippocratic oath. They are going to

treat emergencies. If someone turns up at the doctor's dying, they are

going to get treated. And secondly, with student fees going up, if you

are at uni five years paying 9 grand a year, that's 40 grand on

tuition, not including just living, including the uniform you have to

pay for yourself, doctors have to buy their own scrubs and books.

Doctors are putting a lot of their own money into going into that

profession in the first place and they should have a decent amount of

financial reward and be able to live comfortably when they reach

old age. APPLAUSE Mark Oaten? question was clear: should they

strike? The answer is no, I don't think they should strike. I would

have some sympathy with the medical profession if it was striking over

a measure where they felt that the measure was going to harm patient

care. Then I would have some sympathy, but this is purely about

self interest and their pension, and that is why I don't think it is

acceptable. Will it put a lot of patients, whether they are

emergency or not, give them misery, they turn up for the operation and

it is cancelled or delayed. I'm slightly queuesed that only half of

the doctors voted on this issue in the ballot. So if people really

cared that strongly about it, why did only half vote? The big issue

is there's a pensions time bomb taking place. We are all having to

take touch choices on this and the doctors should be part of that.

APPLAUSE If what this Government does means that the entirety of the

public pension pot changes because of the changes they make, we will

all be worse off. I don't think the GPs are going to pull out. As far

as the doctors breaking the Hippocratic oath, what other choice

do they have? This Government has shown that any negotiations they

have with unions they end up with threats to strike. The PR machine

of the Conservative Government needs a revamp. Alan Duncan, do you

want to answer that? First of all, this is not about the reform of the

health service, but pension. Mark is right, we have a public sector

pensions time bomb. What this issue is about is trying to get a fair

deal for doctors m of whom are earning over �100,000 and under

their current contributions can get pension after they've retired in

excess of �55,000 or �60,000. Some of them will get a pension that the

level for perhaps 25 years. At the moment they are paying a

contribution which in no way reflects the cost of that pension.

If they were in the private sector they would have had to save �1

million or more to finance that pension. What we are asking the

doctors to do, which is no more than we are asking people in the

country to do, and if you are in the private sector you might not

have a pension, is to increase their contribution. We are asking

the doctors, because they are living longer and they have what at

the moment is a very well-resourced pension package to contribute more

towards the cost of that package. How can you have allowed it end

up... APPLAUSE How can you have allowed it to end up in a position

where the doctors take in huge advertisements in the paper saying

they've been forced to take industrial action because you are

not listening to them? I don't accept that argument. Andrew

Lansley, his job in opposition and now in Government for seven years,

sits down regularly with them. And elsewhere in the public sector

today we have reached agreement about what will be life-time

measured benefits for pensions. This is not. This is a final salary

pension with contribution. So asking the doctors to contribute a

higher percentage of their monthly salary to help contribute and pay

for that pension is, in my view, perfectly fair. I think they are

wrong to go on strike. I think they've been whipped up a bit by

some people in the profession. It is unfair and unreasonable for them

to do what they are doing. I think that some of the comments we've

heard here more accurately understand what's going on. The nan

the checked shirt. Tinge rhetoric of the Government is all wrong. It

seems to be creating this divide between the public sector and

private sector. That's making goegs difficult. I think to your point as

-- that's making negotiation difficult. It does not make any

sense to any of us who are desperately worried about patient

care, and the doctors are worried about patient care, that Government

will not get round the table and negotiate with then. Why not say

you will negotiate with doctors to avert this strike? It is about

their pension, not patient care. The reason we are in this

difficulty is that Governments are prone to promise what they can't

deliver in order to buy votes, and in the end someone has to say I'm

sorry, we can't honour that, you will have to pay more, and tour

blame. Fraser Nelson? Over the last 15 years we've seen the elimination

of private sector pensions. Hardly anyone at work can look forward to

the kind of pension they could woo have got 20 years. There's a lot of

pain being suffered, 1 million jobs in the private sector. In the

public sector manages of workers are getting a pay freeze. They are

not going on strike. It seems odd that doctors who are getting six-

figure salaries, and the last Labour Government negotiated their

contract, they did well out of that. My heart doesn't bleed for them. I

think they are way down the public sympathy list. Millions of public

sector workers are suffering just as bad. Doctors the work hard, but

so do nurses. They are up to their arms in... APPLAUSE We don't see

nurses going on strike. I think people with greater cause to go on

strike but they aren't. I to take one or two points from the audience.

Madam in the front row. I think the doctors at the moment,

in their, they are intelligent people, they haven't been on strike

for 40 years, so you have to bear that in mind that they've thought

about this. To pick on the doctors, you've got teachers coming up soon

and they are maybe going on strike action. Again, intelligent people.

They want to do the best for their students. They've thought about

this and maybe they've reached their limit. And you Sir? I think

this pensions issue is the tip of an enormous iceberg and this is

just the start. I'm more concerned about what signalled, what signal

this sends from doctors to all the sectors of the public sector unions,

nurses and everyone who has to face this problem over the coming years.

OK. A last point, you Sir. We've been talking about doctors and

someone mentioned teachers. If I were to pay in for 40 years an 8%

contribution I would have funded three years of my salary. If people

are going to retire and draw a pension for 20 years it doesn't

take a genius to work out that it is unaffordable. APPLAUSE

We'll go on. Simon McAusland please. Would the UK be justified in

banning Syrian delegation members with connections to the Bashar al-

Assad regime from the London 2012 Olympics? I suppose General Juma,

the President of the Olympic committee. Mark Oaten, what do you

think? To be honest that's a pretty small gesture to make, given what's

taking place. If that is the only response we can have to the events

in Syria, that's a pretty poor show. The reality is that the solution to

Syria is not going to be about taking those kinds of gestures. It

has to be about trying to get backbone into the United Nations

and the measures being put through there. When I look at what's

happening in Syria, two things trouble me. The first is that the

UN is powerless. Kofi Annan is trying to get this measure in place.

It is being ignored that. Said a lot about the power of the United

Nations. The second issue is just how influential the Russians are in

this and the destiny of Syria is dependent on Russia. That's why it

was right that William Hague did all he could to try to tackle the

issue with the Russianings recently. It is going be that -- with the

Russians when when he met them recently. Whether there is the

stomach for military intervention is questionable. While what we see

is horrendous I'm not sure the British public would necessarily

support military intervention. The solution will have to be much

bigger than banning officials from turning up at the Olympics.

APPLAUSE I agree with your point that you

have to ban, you can't just ban officials, but does it apply to

other countries who've abused human rights? Does it only apply to Syria

or will you have to impose it on other countries as well?

coalition Government have said they will have a power, if you like, to

refuse visas for individuals connected with human rights abuses.

That is a good thing and it sends the right message, but it is a

small gesture to be making. Tinge Olympic committee have shown how

little they care about human rights abuses. Look at Saudi Arabia. This

week they are not sending a single woman to the Olympics. The Olympic

committee have done absolutely nothing. Fraser Nelson?

I think the banning of the del gay, I'm not sure we have the powers to

do that -- the bang of the del gay, I'm not sure we have the powers to

do that. Fit was within our power it's the least we can do. The

terrifying thing is we can see this blood-bath which is ongoing. In the

last year 7,000 people have been killed by the Bashar al-Assad

regime and we are talking about whether to ban people coming to

watch sports. It does seem incredibly frustrating but I can't

see what more we can do. There are calls in America right now for

military action to say we should go in there as we did in other

countries and impose a no-fly zone or arm the rebels. I can't see why

we believe the rebels would be that much better than the Bashar al-

Assad regime. It is complicated and we should resist the thought to

think that it would make things better. Kite lead to greater

carnage and chaos. I really don't see this many more options thon the

Olympics to us. What about sanctions? Sure. There are so many

things we could do diplomatically but I'm not convinced we should

succumb to this reaction Britain we tend to shape the world rather than

be shaped be it. We are the country who helps people being oppressed.

But this is a tinder-box of a nation which I think could be made

Can you clarify the point - can the Home Secretary ban anybody she

chooses, regardless of whether they are taking part in the Olympic

Games? I am not sure what the legal position would be, compared to the

agreement you have to sign when you host the Olympics. I don't want to

myself lead you on this. -- miss lead you on this.

The Prime Minister has not signed the agreement. I am not sure. The

key point is the Syrian point. I agree with Mark and Fraser. We are

looking at the most disgusting situation in Syria. We are

frustrated at the sense of powerlessness to deal with it. We

can only do what is legal and that means UN Resolutions. William Hague

and the Prime Minister have been driving that agenda in the UN as

hard as they can. There are obstacles, in this case Russia, on

which Hillary Clinton has today said something. The number of

people dead in Syria is estimated between 10,000-15,000. You are

looking at the most complicated, intertwined sectarian conflict in

the country. The UN is key. At the moment, in the department in which

I am a minister, the department is key to the humanitarian attempts,

which we are contributing to. Even they are very difficult to put into

practise. How would things differ the Russians came on side and in

agreement with the rest of the UN? You are still not talking about

arming the rebels or providing safe areas, or no-fly zones? What is it

the Russians would bring that they are not at the moment? It is so

complicated that military action could cause more of a trouble than

it addresses. What Russian support could do is put effective pressure

on the regime in a way that the UN, without Russia, cannot. Pressure on

Assad and his cronies could make a massive difference from only the

Russians would come on board. UN are key to solving the Syrian

crisis, but they are toothless tigers. Everybody ignores what they

say. They have meetings, they come up with strongly-worded

declarations and everybody ignores them. This conflict could escalate.

If you have Qatar and Saudi Arabia, allegedly supplying arms to the

opposition. You have Iran allegedly supplying arms to the regime. If we

get involved in military action that region will explode. What

would you like to see happen? think we have to strengthen the UN.

Russia has got to come on board with them and then the peace

process has to be started, and Kofi Annan's policies have got to be

adhered to. The UN can only be as strong as it is allowed and

authorised to be by member-states. You have to look at the member-

states. If we had more monitors, it may be a step in reducing the

atrocities. There is a limit to what they can do.

My question is for Mr Duncan - what sanctions is the Government

imposing on countries such as Syria with human rights abuses, with the

forthcoming arm treaty, such as international development aid?

don't have a development programme in Syria, and in due course, come

July in the negotiations, we hope there'll be an international arms

trade treaty. At the moment you could look at financial sanctions,

targeted at individuals and we have to look at the International

Criminal Court. We have to make them fearful of the future and make

them now they cannot get away with what they are doing. I represent an

area in north-east London. The idea that anybody was involved in what

we saw in Houla - a genocide. We saw women and children tortured in

their homes, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. I hope the British

delegation is part of the, the Olympic committee is making strong

reputations on it. I believe military intervention is probably

not ideal, not least because there is not support in the comounty of

Syria itself. The Syrian -- community of Syria itself. The

Syrian partners are divided on this point. Just because we cannot do

that does not mean we cannot do something about the situation in

Syria. Where I take exception is we can be more creative. The gentleman

talked about sanctions, there is already an oil embargo with Syria

at the moment. It covers the European nations. How much stronger

would it be if it covered other countries importing oil to Syria.

There are things we can do to cut off the Assad regime. We have to

see naming of the people involved in this bloodbath that is taking

place in Syria, not just at the top, but the generals on the ground,

people ordering the massacres we are seeing, so they know they will

face the full floor of the International Criminal Courts. We

must not forget the humanitarian issues. There are difficult

conversations to be had with their neighbours. We can be part of the

conversations. Fraser is right, we cannot solve any of these issues on

our own, but we can be part of a community working together to

address those issues. APPLAUSE Victoria Coren? All this talk of

generally what should be done about Syria, everybody said sitcomly

kaited. I hate it. -- -- say it is complicated. I hate it. The

question about the Olympic is not complicated. Should they come here?

No, they are disgusting. You say you are worried if you cannot ban

them. I'll do it. Give me a water cannon, I'll go to the airport!

A question from Jennifer Smith. the continual revelations from the

Leveson Inquiry put into doubt the personal judgment of David Cameron?

Presumably in Jeremy Hunt handling the affair with BSkyB and Murdoch,

yes? The Leveson Inquiry. Why do you say that - soap opera. I missed

two episodes, now I have no idea what is going on. It is like a

full-time job. Every day. They are on Twitter, this one has gone, this

one has gone. I've lost the plot. Tell me if I am wrong. I understand

what came out today is Jeremy Hunt, before it was announced, well

stopped before then, but before there was an outside for the bid

for BSkyB, it turned out he sent a text to James Murdoch saying,

"We've done it. I love you. Are we going to mum or dad's for Christmas

this year?" David Cameron said, it is fine. It has my full support, no

problem with him staying in the job. Is that what was said today?

will do. Yes, well I think that is hilarious.

What I find.... Said great and congrat on -- congrats on Brussels.

That is what we want between the press baron and the Government. It

proves why that relationship is too close. I was talking to someone

about it on the train, is should he be fired? I said, yes, of course he

should, this is ridiculous. This closeness is too corrupt. Of course

he should be fired. Had I ever met Jeremy Hunt, no doubt I would say,

oh, he seems like a nice chap, he's a nice guy, seems well, he should

not be fired. That is why journalists and politicians should

not mix that closely. Each needs to keep a cold, clear eye on the other.

It is not happening and there is something very wrong.

APPLAUSE Stella Creasy? I think the

questioner is right to say, what does this tell us about the

minister? What we have seen, it was not just that he was sending a

number of text messages, it is that Jeremy Hunt came to Parliament and

told us none of this was happening. It is clear from the evidence we

have seen at the Leveson Inquiry that he misled Parliament. He told

us he had no contact with this gentleman. Now we have seen text

messages about mama and papa. It is like the Renault Clio adverts.

did they go? I cannot believe I am saying this on TV, but "Papa?"

But, my point is there was clearly a cosy relationship. We were sure

Jeremy Hunt was making a decision without reference to the influence

of News International. Crucially David Cameron said to us, well, if

it comes out in the course of the Leveson Inquiry that he has misled

Parliament or there is information he has broken the Ministerial

Code,ly refer it. That came out today. David Cameron said, I will

not refer it, nothing to see here. There has been a transgression in

the Ministerial Code. It is very worrying and concerning that a

Prime Minister seems so blas say about it. Nicol - thank you!

I don't think it reflects badly on David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt. Let

me tell you something - judges have opinions. When they are sitting in

court they will probably know the barristers in front of them, might

be members of the same club. What matters is how does the judge

behave when sitting in his judicial capacity? Properly and according to

the law? Let me finish... Why was Vince

Cable sacked for having the same... APPLAUSE

Because, he had been taped saying that he was declaring war. So he

was tape and the other was text. There's no difference. There is a

massive difference. He said he had declared war on the Murdoch empire

and, basically wanted to do down them at all costs. Jeremy Hunt

never said that. He was made in charge of... He was put in charge

of the bid. As soon as he was put in charge of the bid, following

legal advice and from his officials and referring to Ofcom, doing

things which were not the things that the Murdoch empire would have

liked, behaved meticulously. That is what was clear from the witness

before the Leveson Inquiry today. All this talk about texts, they all

happened before. In the same way as judges set aside their personal

opinions and look at the facts, that is exactly what Jeremy Hunt

did once he was entrusted with ministerial responsibility. He said

to Cameron in a memo - I think it would be totally wrong to cave into

the anti- coalition case. He was in favour of the bid.

He's not a lawyer, he a politician, I is a -- which is a false analogy.

It is not being a judge. That is what sectors of state have to do on

a number of issues. The question is whether the judgment was right.

judge is not passing judgment on the barrister. What if the judge

was out with a man accused of theft - would that be OK? He consulted

them. Even when I am making small decisions as a minister we act on

advice. We don't just sit there and say, I am a politician, I believe

that, do that. We look at options presented to us by civil servants

it is meticulously so in this bid. Why didn't Jeremy Hunt tell

Parliament about it? He told Parliament none of this had

happened. What we are seeing is it did.

He said no contact between him and Fred Michel. Ministers should not

misled Parliament - yes or no? He did not miss lead Parliament.

Misleading Parliament is a very serious offence. I have are reread

Jeremy Hunt's answers. He said he had zero contact with Fred Michel.

I thought the Prime Minister would make good on his word. He said if

new evidence arose he would refer it to the independent commissioner.

He said today that he is not going to do that.

Mark Oaten? I am a core participant in Leveson. I have been following

it with interest. Here is the thing I don't get, it answers the point

about the judgment, given the vacancy occurred because the Prime

Minister had to take a view that Vince Cable was not cable of doing

this, you -- capable of doing this. You would have thought the first

question the Prime Minister would ask, having got rid of somebody

whose judgment was clouded, would check the next person who did it

would not make similar statements. In the full knowledge of the

statements that had been made. point is that the sensible thing to

have done, at the point when Vince Cable made the comments, is for the

Prime Minister to turn around and say, I don't think any politician

is capable of taking this decision, because they will all have strong

views on the media and Murdoch and maybe we need to take these kind of

decisions away from politicians and give them to people who genuinely

are independent, without any bag age. All politicians come with

baggage, particularly when contexted to newspapers. I can tell

you that from experience. Regarding how close they are to the

media, don't you have sympathy with politicians, because they are under

so much influence. News Corp, (Inaudible) they barely have a

choice to support BSkyB or not. When I was a politician you are

constantly involved with journalists. They invite you to

lunch, you have drinks, and you hope you get better coverage. It

gets very cosy and what we've seen from Leveson is just how cosy it

was getting. I love that we get a free press in this country even if

sometimes you get uncomfortable reports from it. Fraser Nelson?

does look odd that David Cameron says Vince Cable, you look biased

and therefore we take it away from you and I wonder if there is anyone

in the Commons genuinely neutral on Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson Inquiry

has ended up as a battle between the two least popular people in

society, journalist it is and politicians, and people are

wondering that it is a shame that both can't lose. It is not edifying

for anybody. It is like a Victorian freak show. It is really depressing

to watch, so it's embarrassing, yes. I haven't seen anything done that

would cause people to lose their jobs. I don't sigh why a special

adviser gets the sack and the Minister stays. Jeremy Hunt said he

thought hard whether to resign and then decided he shouldn't. Special

advisers play an important role. You can't say right, this man is

texting Murdoch and his friends, I'm shocked, I will have to sack

you. If a special adviser had to go, I would say so too should the

Minister. One more point. question was about Cameron's

judgment. Isn't this the second incident in 48 hours where he's

shown his judgment is a little bit dubious following on from a charge

of perjury in another instance? you take any of us and analyse our

judgments throughout the day, we are going to make some wrong ones.

Do you think Prime Minister is get it it right broadly or do you not?

Everyone has his own yardstick. For me it is whether the economy

recovers or not. I'm going to put them up, the good days and the bad

days ining a gate. The funny thing is in this new era where they can

see your text messages and other embarrassing thing you send out,

not everyone could stand up to that level of scrutiny and not look a

fool. Our economy should be top priority but on something like this

where politicians are expected to act in a quasi-judicial manner,

there are rules and guidelines as to how you should behave. You do

not put somebody who had listen lobbying into a position where you

said somebody else couldn't make. It is worrying. Would you take

these decisions away from politicians in the future? We have

to look again at quasi-judicial issues. It happens at a local and

national level. There are concerns about the decisions that have been

made. It is why we have an independent commission tore look

into it, so we haven't got politicians judging politicians.

That's why it is mind-blowing that the politician doesn't think it's a

problem. A question from Graham Prebble please.

Are we about to be invaded by hordes of homeless, hungry Greeks?

Where would we put them, and what would they do? Alan Duncan? No, I

don't think we are. The best thing is to try and sort out the economy.

The best way to do that is for the euro pact, which has been agreed,

to work, and for discipline, financial discipline to be restored

within the eurozone. I think that Greeks will be happyer in their own

country once their economy has turned round. That's what I would

like to see. I have to quote to you what the Home Secretary said. Work

is ongoing at the Home Office to restrict European Union immigration

in the event of a financial collapse. So even if you don't

expect it, Theresa May clearly does expect hordes of homeless and

hungry Greeks. I'm reliably informed they did not actually say.

Oh, really? There has been an admission that the Home Office,

particularly with the Olympics coming, they have many contingency

plans. They run scenarios for all sorts of problems, that's what

Governments do. But to say that is going to happen, it isn't going to

happen. This is in the Daily Telegraph, so it must be true.

Fraser, you work for them. European immigration wasn't restricted when

Poland and other countries came into the EU. We were told it

couldn't be. On a permanent basis you can't do it but you can suspend

it for a temporary period. The French did it during the Libyan war.

For as long as we are in the European Union we can't stop

anybody from Greece or the member states from coming here. Anybody

with any money in Greece is getting it out of there as fast as they can

before it is transferred into the drachma and worth almost nothing.

Why is it a problem to have it here and not there right now? If you are

in the market for a property in the South East now, the prices are

summering away from you. The third biggest buyers in London last year

were Greeks. Nopts greatest problem in the world, but -- not the

greatest problem in the world. The odds are if greex come here the

odds are they would set up a business and do well. There are

worse things that could happen than go-getting Greeks coming here

because our economy is better than theirs. You missed the point as to

why people would want to come here. OK, it's a great country but it is

partly down to our benefits system being very open and welcoming. I

think perhaps some stronger barriers there would deter the

people that don't want to be entrepreneurial. This is a major

problem, because the EU is threatening to force us to give

full benefits to everybody who comes up here. Tell them to go to

hell. Iain Duncan Smith is fight that. The Government will probably

win. If we were to offer complete benefits to anybody who turns up,

because they are some of the most generous in Europe, it would be a

major problem. Mark Oaten? I would be really disappointed if one of

the consequences that we are having in Europe and with the euro meant

we started to get jingoistic and started to put the barriers up.

First it is the Greeks we don't want, then the Spanish and then the

Italians. What's good in Europe is we have this free movement of goods

and people. I would hope that if there was an opportunity for

individuals to be able to make use of, that we wouldn't put the

barriers in place. We would want to have no restrictions in place, in

my judgment. I think the comments that Alan made are right. The real

solution to this is tackling the euro crisis not picking on the

Greeks, not starting to make negative comments towards them but

doing all that we can to support them. I work a lot in Brussels. I

was in Brussels this morning with meetings. Everybody is concerned

about the euro, particularly what's going to happen to the Greeks next.

It is time to get behind and try to support them. When I heard about

these measures the Home Secretary is putting in player, I assumed she

was talking about the passport queues at Heathrow Airport, which

frankly would restrict anybody from coming into this country anyway!

APPLAUSE I think we've got a real problem that the chickens are

coming home to roost. Our historically euro scepticism means

that the euro and the architecture around it were being designed we

are not in the design office. It is disconcerting to a lot of us that

yet again we are telling continue. Nens how to sort out their problems.

Not good now I suppose saying well perhaps 30, 40, 50 years ago when

we should have been signing the treaties of Rome to in a sense here

still continue to expound what are quite aggressive and quite sad

sentiments. That is the most illogical argument I've heard in a

long, long time. One of the reasons we are in a better position than we

otherwise would be, because we were part of that argument and we put

the argument strongly that we did not want to be part of the euro.

When everyone was talking about the convergence criteria, William Hague

and John Major were lampooned. What about the divergence cry tear

yafrplt we were right and we won that argument and thank goodness we

are not part of the euro. APPLAUSE You say you don't mind a few

entrepreneurial Greeks coming here, but what if they are followed by

the Spanish, the Italian, the Portuguese, the Irish? Don't you

think our little island might end up sinking? Victoria Coren?

Greeks wouldn't make any difference to me, because I spend much of my

time in a casino and they are all Greek anyway. I mentioned that I

come from a family of European migrants and Britain gave them

shelter when they needed it and I'm certainly not going to say that now

I'm British myself I would want to refuse that shelter to anyone else.

I got a letter a week letter from someone, a five-page frothing rant

saying I fought in the war, people like you, foreigners, spongers, I

thought right, I'm not going bin it. Obviously a terrible nutter, I'm

not going to get angry but I'm going to write a long and careful

letter to this person, and treat him with respect. I wrote this

letter explaining that my family who came here put nothing from this

country and they put a lot in. They were builders and doctors, boosted

the nation and never took any benefit. I said it was wonderful he

fought in the war. I got a letter back from him, I'm so sorry, I'm 93

and I have no idea what I wrote to you about. APPLAUSE Hello to that

chap if he is watching now. He probably doesn't remember, but my

position hasn't changed. I'm an optimist about people that come.

We'll make room and make space just like if an extra person turns up to

a party. You just stick more sausages the barbecue. Stella

Creasy? It does feel like we are looking down the wrong end of the

telescope. Your question is about the growing crisis on our doorstep

with the eurozone. If large quantities of people from Spain,

Italy and Greece are thinking about coming here it is because the

eurozone is in crisis. One of the things around the visas for the

Greek community is they are looking for failure. We are not going to

get yoth in this country if the eurozone falls apart. We need to

get our own economy back on its feet. There is no bad outcome for

the eurozone that isn't a bad outcome for Britain. The people

coming here would be the lice of the issues we have to deal with the

this collapse happens. I hear that kind of briefing and I see the

Prime Minister looking at Europe and shrugging and some people being

smug about the problems of the eurozone. They don't understand how

this cries lis affect us and people in my community searching for a

problem. We need to be talking about what we can do to get the

credit back into our economy and get businesses moving again.

They're offen trading with Europe. 50% of our trade is with Europe.

They need us to be serious partners to get this right, not to be on the

edges planning for failure as this Government is. We have to stop,

because our time is up. because our time is up.

Next week we'll be in Inverness. On our panel Charles Kennedy and the

actor Alan Coming and others. The following week we'll be in

Stockton-on-Tees. If you want to come to either, talk

to our panel and argue with them, visit our website.

I thank our panel for coming in, Nicole included. I got it in the