14/06/2012

Download Subtitles

Transcript

:00:17. > :00:22.Tonight, we are in Stockton-on-Tees and welcome to Question Time.

:00:23. > :00:26.On our panel here, the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, the Shadow

:00:26. > :00:29.Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, the President of the Liberal

:00:29. > :00:32.Democrats, Tim Farron, the mail obvious Sunday columnist, Peter

:00:32. > :00:42.Hitchens and the former Director General of the BBC who the Prime

:00:42. > :00:48.

:00:49. > :00:52.Minister today said was no APPLAUSE

:00:52. > :00:56.Thank you very much. Our first question comes from Eleanor Walker,

:00:56. > :01:00.please? Is it appropriate for Rebekah

:01:00. > :01:04.Brooks and David Cameron to be professionally definitely in this

:01:04. > :01:08.together? This is of course the Tweet that came from Rebekah Brooks

:01:09. > :01:12.to David Cameron when he was about to make his big speech. A text

:01:12. > :01:21.message saying, we are definitely in this together, speech of your

:01:21. > :01:25.life, yes he cam. We'll go to our non-shrinking violet? I find it

:01:25. > :01:31.quite difficult that because clearly politicians over many years

:01:31. > :01:35.have had relationships with newspaper executives and I've no

:01:36. > :01:39.idea in which context that was said but it seems to me it was sent at a

:01:39. > :01:45.time when the Sun came out and said we are going to support the

:01:45. > :01:50.Conservatives. What I think is much more important than what is in odd

:01:50. > :01:54.e-mails and things is actually what we have seen from the whole inquiry

:01:54. > :01:59.and what we have known for many years, which is that the

:01:59. > :02:05.relationship between the political classes and particularly between

:02:05. > :02:11.Government and News International has undermined our democracy over

:02:11. > :02:14.20, 30 years. APPLAUSE

:02:14. > :02:24.And that's surely what Eleanor Walker means? That's part of it.

:02:24. > :02:25.

:02:25. > :02:29.But in the end, we know that it became that it was mattering too

:02:29. > :02:34.much to them, they believed that they had to get the Sun and News

:02:34. > :02:38.International on side and that is very damaging for our society. Now,

:02:38. > :02:45.actually, I think it's gone. I think it's actually gone. We are

:02:45. > :02:47.sitting in a very interesting moment where I'm not sure that we

:02:47. > :02:53.replicate this again. That's why what I think is happening at the

:02:53. > :02:56.moment is important, that something that's grown up almost from the

:02:56. > :02:59.Thatcher period, with the honourable exception probably of

:02:59. > :03:01.John Major where every Leader of the Opposition tried to get a

:03:01. > :03:04.relationship with News International. I think that has

:03:04. > :03:08.gone and I think the day that David Cameron stood up in the House of

:03:08. > :03:13.Commons and said, we've all been too close and it's got to end was a

:03:13. > :03:16.very important moment. Woman second row from the back?

:03:16. > :03:20.Surely the people in politics shouldn't be thinking about getting

:03:20. > :03:24.the newspapers on side as much as they should be thinking about doing

:03:24. > :03:29.the jobs that they're supposed to be doing regardless of what the

:03:29. > :03:34.newspapers think of them? Farron? Yes, I think the reality is

:03:34. > :03:38.that we have been told that the Leveson Inquiry shouldn't end up in

:03:38. > :03:43.any restrictions on the independence of the media. But how

:03:43. > :03:46.independent is the media when you've got Chief Executives and

:03:46. > :03:50.owners of huge media organisation who is have politicians in their

:03:50. > :03:53.pockets? If I'm honest with you... Is that what you are saying Rebekah

:03:53. > :03:57.Brooks had in the case of David Cameron? Absolutely and over the

:03:57. > :04:02.last two years, the other two parties have taken it in turns to

:04:02. > :04:05.be in Murdoch's top pocket and that's an absolute outrage. I'm not

:04:05. > :04:08.all that fussed about politicians and journalists being chummy. I

:04:08. > :04:13.don't want the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry to be a protocol

:04:13. > :04:16.about how often you can have a point with a journalist. The

:04:16. > :04:20.reality is, this is about the concentration and abuse of

:04:20. > :04:23.unelected power. We have a monply, manipulation of unelected power,

:04:23. > :04:27.it's about Murdoch and all those three must be tackled. This is the

:04:27. > :04:32.one opportunity we are going to get in generations to tackle the power

:04:32. > :04:38.of Murdoch and that unelected power and we must not miss it.

:04:38. > :04:42.APPLAUSE I think I quote him correctly,

:04:42. > :04:46.Grant Shapps, what Tim just said, that Cameron was in brook brook'

:04:46. > :04:51.top pocket? Look, if it were, it was only about a day old at the

:04:51. > :04:53.time of that text. The history was that the Sun newspaper in

:04:53. > :04:58.particular he had been supporting Labour, famously supported Tony

:04:58. > :05:02.Blair who flew half way around the world to court Murdoch. This was

:05:02. > :05:06.the moment at which the Sun decided to stop supporting Labour and a day

:05:06. > :05:10.or two late tore declare around that time for the Conservatives.

:05:10. > :05:14.Look, to answer the lady's point before about the newspapers and

:05:14. > :05:17.what politicians should spend their time doing, I absolutely agree and

:05:17. > :05:21.particularly ministers like me, we should spend our time trying to

:05:21. > :05:24.make things better, run the country doing our jobs. You have to explain

:05:24. > :05:28.to people why you are taking a particular course of action, what

:05:28. > :05:31.the reason for that approach is and that, I'm afraid, involves modern

:05:32. > :05:35.communication, one of which is, you need the let people know. One very

:05:35. > :05:40.good way to do that is through the newspapers. It's not my favourite

:05:40. > :05:44.way of doing that, I much prefer to Tweet, but if you are not following

:05:44. > :05:48.me on Twitter, you won't know about it, so in the end, you have to have

:05:48. > :05:53.those conversations with the media. Let's just go to the question,

:05:53. > :05:56.Grant. Is it appropriate for Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron to

:05:56. > :05:59.be "professionally and definitely in this together"? What do they

:05:59. > :06:02.mean by that? The newspaper decided they were going to switch their

:06:02. > :06:06.backing from Labour to the Conservatives, that they're in it

:06:06. > :06:10.together wanting the same outcome which is to be able to put the

:06:10. > :06:12.Conservative manifesto... Was it appropriate and is it embarrassing

:06:12. > :06:15.now? Were you embarrassed hearing the Prime Minister on the stand

:06:15. > :06:21.today? I think that everybody agrees that politicians were too

:06:21. > :06:24.close over a long period of time and that Greg Dyke is absolutely

:06:24. > :06:27.right that the moment David Cameron, this Prime Minister who by the way

:06:28. > :06:31.when he stood up and said this must have known that all of this is very

:06:32. > :06:37.likely to come out, as he suspected it would do, that actually it's

:06:37. > :06:40.time to put an end to this. The relaceship has been too close.

:06:40. > :06:44.he announced the Leveson Inquiry? Yes. Bear this in mind for a molt,

:06:44. > :06:48.he could have set up a review that said the determines of this review

:06:48. > :06:52.are only to look at the media and remember this all started over

:06:52. > :06:56.people's revolt and disgust over some of the excesses of the media

:06:56. > :07:00.that led to a dead girl's voice mail being listened into. Now,

:07:00. > :07:04.everyone agreed the media went too far and you could define the terms

:07:04. > :07:08.of Leveson only to investigate the media, but he did not deliberately

:07:08. > :07:12.because the relationship between politicians and the media over

:07:12. > :07:16.generations has been too tight, too close and this is just an example

:07:16. > :07:22.of that and it's good that he announced the inquiry and it's

:07:22. > :07:27.doing its job. Isn't this whole Leveson Inquiry a case of the

:07:27. > :07:31.chattering classes scrutinising its own naval? The ordinary man, I

:07:31. > :07:37.would say on Teesside and in Stockton-on-Tees, isn't going to

:07:37. > :07:42.bed every night and losing sleep over this matter and yet it

:07:42. > :07:47.dominates our television screens hour after hour after hour. There

:07:47. > :07:53.are far more important questions which ordinary men and women in our

:07:53. > :07:58.society have to worry about and yet yourselves, top politicians and

:07:58. > :08:03.people involved in the media seem to be totally absorbed with this

:08:03. > :08:09.particular item. I think it's time you thought about things like

:08:09. > :08:15.unemployment, the eurozone, housing and many other things which really

:08:15. > :08:19.affect ordinary people. APPLAUSE

:08:20. > :08:22.Absolutely... I absolve Question Time of this

:08:22. > :08:28.crime because we had a lot of questions about it tonight from our

:08:28. > :08:32.audience here which is why we are disdiscussing it. Emily Thornberry?

:08:32. > :08:35.I think actually some of what you say is absolutely true. I think

:08:36. > :08:41.though that if you ask the public, they think well politicians and the

:08:41. > :08:47.press have been too close for too long, that's a given. But I think

:08:47. > :08:50.if we look into how this - what this is about now as opposed to

:08:50. > :08:54.history, but what is Leveson about now and in terms of the future,

:08:54. > :08:57.there are some very important things to look at. We are basically

:08:57. > :09:03.the most important thing about Leveson is that it shows us what

:09:03. > :09:07.the Prime Minister's real judgment is. He employed Coulson at a time

:09:07. > :09:12.when there was increasing scandal about hacking and hacking had taken

:09:12. > :09:15.place under Coulson. He continued to employ Coulson after all the

:09:15. > :09:18.stuff in the New York Times and continued for more than a year to

:09:18. > :09:21.employ him when there were accusations flying around. He

:09:21. > :09:24.continued to be very close friends with Rebekah Brooks during the

:09:24. > :09:27.whole hacking scandal. There is that part, you know, the judgment

:09:27. > :09:32.of someone keeping so close to journalists involved in that sort

:09:32. > :09:37.of thing. Essentially, taking Coulson into Number Ten and

:09:37. > :09:42.therefore taking... I mean let's not beat around the bush, you know,

:09:42. > :09:45.taking the Murdochs into Number Ten into the heart of Government.

:09:45. > :09:48.APPLAUSE Why do the Murdochs want to come into the heart of

:09:48. > :09:53.Government - clearly they're very interested but the major reason for

:09:53. > :09:58.them in terms of business is this Government has to decide about an

:09:58. > :10:02.�8 billion deal and to have your friends so close and so close on

:10:02. > :10:07.this deal and then to employ Hunt and to give Hunt the job of making

:10:07. > :10:11.the decision about this �8 billion... They didn't, they

:10:11. > :10:15.employed Vince Cable. And then, when you have a decision to make,

:10:15. > :10:19.you decide to have Hunt, even though Hunt is... Why did they give

:10:19. > :10:28.it to Vince Cable if they wanted it to go through? I haven't suggested

:10:28. > :10:32.that. You said they employed Hunt? They chose Vince Cable first and he

:10:33. > :10:37.didn't get the gig. When he employed Vince Cable, Hunt had

:10:37. > :10:41.written to the Prime Minister saying, in words, I'm very worried

:10:41. > :10:44.about this, can we have a meeting, the Prime Minister, Vince Cable and

:10:45. > :10:48.the Deputy Prime Minister and Hunt. Even though he's trying to

:10:48. > :10:51.intervene, later on when Vince Cable has to go, who gets the job,

:10:52. > :10:56.Jeremy Hunt. All right.

:10:56. > :11:00.Peter Hitchens? The we get rid of this horrible exprotion

:11:00. > :11:06."appropriate" or "inappropriate" and return to the simple words

:11:06. > :11:09.right or wrong, was it right or was it wrong?

:11:09. > :11:14.APPLAUSE. Secondly, it seems obvious that the proper

:11:14. > :11:20.relationship between the press and politicians is that between a dog

:11:20. > :11:24.and a lamppost, always, should be, most of the time, has been. And I

:11:24. > :11:29.do feel that it was extraordinarily unwise in getting so close to

:11:29. > :11:32.somebody for a senior newspaper executive to get so close to the

:11:32. > :11:36.executive to get so close to the Government. To actually put

:11:36. > :11:40.themselves so very much in the Government's pocket that they

:11:40. > :11:45.became effectively a part of Government. I remember the day that

:11:45. > :11:50.the Sun came out with its ridiculous trumpeting of praise for

:11:50. > :11:54.David Cameron and the absurd semi literate article in which he penned

:11:54. > :11:59.which was the main burden of it was that he was suddenly converted to

:11:59. > :12:02.the ludicrous cause to the war in Afghanistan for which people are

:12:02. > :12:06.still dying today when he can't explain when asked why British

:12:06. > :12:08.troops are still there. There's something unhealthy about

:12:08. > :12:12.journalists actually becoming servants of Government. I think

:12:12. > :12:17.that's one of the worst things about this. But there is another

:12:17. > :12:20.point. The gentleman at the top of the hall said that we should be

:12:20. > :12:24.discussing more important things. I don't disagree that there are more

:12:24. > :12:29.important subjects than a lot of what's come up at the Leveson

:12:29. > :12:35.Inquiry, but it seems to me that freedom of the press is a very

:12:35. > :12:42.important part. It's construct ago coffin for freedom of the press in

:12:42. > :12:45.this country. It's amazing to watch politicians who're proposing to

:12:45. > :12:50.institute surveillance on everybody's phone calls, e-mails

:12:50. > :12:53.and computer activity, launching an inquiry into the press because of

:12:53. > :12:57.phone hacking. The thing about phone hacking is it's absolutely

:12:57. > :13:00.disgraceful and wrong but it's against the law and if you have

:13:00. > :13:05.been caught doing it and prosecuted for it and convicted for it, you

:13:05. > :13:09.will go to prison. There is no politicians' complaints commission,

:13:09. > :13:14.there isn't anything you can do about the politicians who fail you.

:13:14. > :13:19.There isn't any thing that you can do about judges that fail you. And

:13:19. > :13:21.we have lawyers and judges happily smiling together as they prepare

:13:21. > :13:26.regular laces which will make a free press in this country

:13:26. > :13:36.impossible. That is important. You should bear it very strongly in

:13:36. > :13:37.

:13:37. > :13:42.With these long drawn-out public inquiries such as huton and Leveson

:13:42. > :13:46.the politicians never seem to get any blame. With Hutton it was

:13:46. > :13:50.widely regarded as a whitewash. What's going to happen with

:13:50. > :13:55.Leveson? The politicians aren't going to get any blame r, they?

:13:55. > :14:01.Greg Dyke? As the person who did get the blame! I think what matters

:14:01. > :14:06.in all this is what comes out of it. I think the popular press in this

:14:06. > :14:10.country has been out of control for 20 years. Not all the time, but a

:14:10. > :14:12.lot of the time. What has to come out of this is a proper system

:14:12. > :14:16.whereby an individual can complain, that complaint is properly

:14:16. > :14:20.investigated. If it's investigated and found wrong has been done,

:14:20. > :14:23.there is some sort of compensation. That seems to me, that's all you

:14:23. > :14:27.need to get out of this. It's nothing about censorship, nothing

:14:27. > :14:31.about stopping you writing what you want to write. It's about saying is

:14:31. > :14:35.what you've done fair, right, proper? And if it's not, have you

:14:35. > :14:39.got to compensate someone. I think it's amazing to hear that coming

:14:39. > :14:42.from a former Director-General of the BBC, an organisation in which

:14:42. > :14:48.it's almost impossible to complain about anything. You can't even get

:14:48. > :14:52.through to it most of the time, which is itself enormously powerful

:14:52. > :14:57.and insensitive to public opinion. In the BBC there is a complete

:14:57. > :15:01.complaint process and there say right of appeal to Ofcom if you're

:15:01. > :15:04.not happy. You've obviously never used it. If you had you'd know how

:15:05. > :15:08.much use that was. I'm amazed about the fuss about the Murdoch empire

:15:08. > :15:13.being very close to Prime Ministers. Before the last election, David

:15:13. > :15:16.Cameron had a meeting with the present Director-General of the BBC

:15:16. > :15:19.in his offices in the Palace of Westminster. I tried and a

:15:19. > :15:22.colleague of mine tried through Freedom of Information to find out

:15:22. > :15:26.what had taken place at that meeting. They wouldn't tell us

:15:26. > :15:32.because the BBC is exempt from Freedom of Information in such

:15:32. > :15:35.queries and wouldn't and wasn't in any way obliged to tell us. Yet the

:15:35. > :15:39.BBC is paid for by everybody through a poll tax. That's much

:15:39. > :15:43.more important than a lot of what we're discussing. Serge in the time

:15:43. > :15:46.I was there, I didn't think I had one meeting with the Prime Minister.

:15:46. > :15:51.He wanted to have a meeting with me after I left. I chose not to have

:15:51. > :15:57.it. When did you have a meeting with him and what was it about, can

:15:57. > :16:00.you remember the date and who was there? I took a decision...

:16:00. > :16:03.doesn't recollect that. Took a decision when I was Director-

:16:03. > :16:08.General that I would stay as far away from politicians in Government

:16:09. > :16:14.as I could. That's the decision I took because I think there is a

:16:14. > :16:19.danger of being compromised. Mustn't go on forever, a quick one

:16:19. > :16:24.from you. The real danger to answer the point made earlier on, which is

:16:24. > :16:29.a good one about this, is that the Leveson Inquiry does become

:16:29. > :16:33.something which political obsessives spend all their time

:16:33. > :16:37.concentrating on. What happens is we get outrage fatigue, we get

:16:37. > :16:42.bored by the whole thing. This might be a thing for chattering

:16:42. > :16:47.classes. Who owns our media matters. Rupert Murdoch has been dictating

:16:47. > :16:52.the terms of debate for 30 years. Talking about unemployment, the

:16:52. > :16:59.Health Service and economy, what Government does is dictated by what

:16:59. > :17:04.this man does. So should the ownership be between 20% and 30%.

:17:04. > :17:10.We've been calling for this for 30 years. I wonder if Ed Miliband said

:17:10. > :17:15.this when he was schmoozing with Rupert Murdoch at the garden party.

:17:15. > :17:18.Come on, you're just jealous! APPLAUSE

:17:18. > :17:22.Grant Shapps, you heard what he said that Government policies on

:17:23. > :17:27.these issues are dictated by the press. If they were, then we'd be

:17:27. > :17:31.doing probably a lot better in the polls. I don't think that's the

:17:31. > :17:34.case. Why would you be doing better? If they were dictated by

:17:34. > :17:38.the press, presumably you would do all the things they wanted you to

:17:38. > :17:43.do all the time. The Government is long-term... I'm not with you. If

:17:43. > :17:47.you did what the Daily Mail or the Guardian said... I don't follow you.

:17:47. > :17:50.If you did exactly what every campaign wanted in the papers,

:17:50. > :17:53.actually presumably you might be doing better in the short-term.

:17:53. > :17:57.Being in Government is about the long-term stuff like fixing the

:17:57. > :18:00.massive deficit and all the things we may get on to talking about. I

:18:00. > :18:09.want to pick up one quick point. Peter, I think you're wrong about

:18:09. > :18:12.the way this is likely tond up in terms of press censorship. I see no

:18:12. > :18:16.chance, including the Prime Minister today, have made the point

:18:16. > :18:20.that we thrive from having a vibrant press. That's not the same

:18:20. > :18:25.as tapping into people's voice mails. There's a clear distinction

:18:25. > :18:28.between the two. This process has meant every contact I have with a

:18:28. > :18:32.senior journalist or editor and same with everybody else who helps

:18:32. > :18:35.run this country is now routinely released. That's a thoroughly good

:18:35. > :18:39.outcome so far from Leveson. promised you...

:18:39. > :18:43.APPLAUSE I I promised you a quick line.

:18:43. > :18:46.There's nothing corrupt like absolute power. I believe here that

:18:46. > :18:51.this Government has been tainted by the man who had the power in the

:18:51. > :18:57.media. OK. At that point we'll leave

:18:57. > :18:59.Murdoch and the rest. If you're tweeting, remember our hash tag is

:18:59. > :19:03.tweeting, remember our hash tag is BBC QT. Or text us with your

:19:03. > :19:09.opinions and press the red button to see what others are saying. Now

:19:09. > :19:13.a question from Nigel Jessop please. Do you agree with community

:19:13. > :19:17.secretary Eric Pickles that problem families have had it easy for too

:19:17. > :19:24.long? Problem families have had it easy for too long. Eric Pickles has

:19:24. > :19:29.said that it was costing �billion a year, 120,000 troubled families

:19:29. > :19:32.were costing the state �9 billion a year, �75,000 a family. He's about

:19:33. > :19:36.to spend half a million with local to spend half a million with local

:19:36. > :19:41.councils on trying to resolve the problem. Tim Farron, are you with

:19:41. > :19:45.him on this? The reality is there are plenty of people who have

:19:45. > :19:51.enormous difficulties when it comes to poverty, housing, educational

:19:51. > :19:53.need. It's not good to stigmatise them though. As somebody who was

:19:53. > :19:58.brought up... Neighbours from hell David Cameron referred to them,

:19:58. > :20:02.would you go with that? Does that stigmatise them? It does sometimes.

:20:02. > :20:07.Somebody brought up in the north of England, under Thatcher's Britain

:20:07. > :20:11.if you like, my mum spent some time out of work. I recognise the

:20:11. > :20:15.pressures that lots of families who are not so well off face. It's

:20:15. > :20:18.wrong to stigmatise them. It's right to help them. If this means

:20:18. > :20:22.money will be directed to help those families and help those

:20:22. > :20:27.struggling, that is a good thing. But you don't make things better by

:20:27. > :20:30.demonising people. APPLAUSE

:20:30. > :20:34.So, we're talking about the Government which your party

:20:34. > :20:38.supports. Was Eric Pickles right to say the programme will be more

:20:38. > :20:42.forceful in language, a little less understanding? We need to be very

:20:42. > :20:47.understanding. A little less understanding? How do you gauge how

:20:47. > :20:53.understanding you are. We want to be effective. Whilst the programme

:20:53. > :20:58.is right, the rhetoric sometimes is not right. Peter Hitchens? I don't

:20:58. > :21:03.think it's anything, we're entitled to sit here any of us and start

:21:03. > :21:06.saying anybody is having it easy in the poorer parts of our country.

:21:06. > :21:11.That's not the point. The point is whether they are being given the

:21:11. > :21:16.sort of help they really need. I don't think that compassion should

:21:16. > :21:19.necessarily be expressed by throwing money at these people. I

:21:20. > :21:22.think that Eric Pickles probably feels the same way, because this

:21:22. > :21:27.Government is in effect a fraud, which makes Conservative statements

:21:27. > :21:31.and does no Conservative things, nothing will come of this. But I

:21:31. > :21:35.think that his general idea that what we need to do is to look at

:21:36. > :21:42.the reasons why we have so many problem families, which are

:21:42. > :21:46.fundamentally the destruction of the married family by the

:21:46. > :21:49.deliberate subsidising of fatherless families and an enormous

:21:49. > :21:53.welfare dependent class, we might do some good. It doesn't do any

:21:53. > :21:56.good being rude to people, except to politicians, would deserve it.

:21:56. > :22:01.It doesn't do any good being rude to people at the bottom end of

:22:01. > :22:04.society. Many of them are acting perfectly rationally. If you create

:22:04. > :22:09.an enormous Welfare State, people will obviously go and collect the

:22:09. > :22:12.welfare offered to them and they will behave in the way which the

:22:12. > :22:16.Welfare State persuades them to. That's why we're in such a mess.

:22:16. > :22:22.Until we get serious reform, aimed at bringing back the solid family

:22:22. > :22:26.life, which people used tone joy in this country, which used to be

:22:26. > :22:29.particularly good for the upbringing of children. Eric

:22:29. > :22:31.Pickles is pretending to be a Conservative without actually being

:22:31. > :22:40.one and offending people without doing any good.

:22:41. > :22:44.You Sir? I find it quite amazing that we're focusing on welfare when

:22:44. > :22:48.chief executives in FTSE 100 companies have increased salaries

:22:48. > :22:52.by 12%. If that money was redistributed there would be less

:22:52. > :22:58.people on welfare and more people being able to get jobs an be -- and

:22:58. > :23:03.be able to cope. If the money were redistributed there would be more

:23:03. > :23:09.people on welfare because there would be more there to spend.

:23:09. > :23:13.Before I came along today, I was advised to do yoga, deep breathing

:23:13. > :23:16.and make sure I didn't get wound up by Peter Hitchens. I have already

:23:16. > :23:20.and we're only on the second question. Given that my family that

:23:20. > :23:25.I was brought up in was fatherless and I suppose the fact that my

:23:25. > :23:29.mother was on benefits and we lived in a council estate means we were

:23:29. > :23:34.one of the problem families that you talk about, Peter. We had a

:23:34. > :23:40.solid family life. We did well. Me and my brothers did well and my mum

:23:40. > :23:44.struggled. And how dare you say that women, single parents on

:23:44. > :23:50.Council estates living on benefits are therefore problem families. How

:23:50. > :23:55.dare you. How dare you. APPLAUSE

:23:55. > :24:02.Have I said any such thing, your phony outrage would be justified.

:24:02. > :24:05.As I didn't, it isn't. You need to do better. You talked about problem

:24:05. > :24:10.families being fatherless and being on benefit. That describes me as a

:24:10. > :24:15.child. We were not a problem family. It's the subject under discussion.

:24:15. > :24:18.I didn't say anything about your family. You're engaging in phony

:24:18. > :24:26.outrage for political propaganda purposes which is what your party

:24:26. > :24:32.does. Pathetic rubbish. I'm a HR professional made redundant three

:24:32. > :24:36.years ago. I've been in and out of interim work while doing my masters.

:24:36. > :24:41.I'm a single parent. My ex-husband is travelling round the world

:24:41. > :24:45.earning lots of money tax free. I have to go to the Jobcentre and beg

:24:45. > :24:49.for a very little bit of money on the Welfare State. I have to go

:24:49. > :24:53.through such bureaucracy, it's unbelievable. Third time unemployed

:24:53. > :24:56.in three years. Young people are being interrogated and treated like

:24:56. > :25:00.something that would be on the bottom of your shoe. It's

:25:00. > :25:04.disgusting. The people in there aren't capable of giving advice on

:25:04. > :25:07.recruitment, employment, finding work. There is work out there,

:25:07. > :25:11.they're not giving the right guidance. It's terrible what you're

:25:11. > :25:16.saying. APPLAUSE

:25:16. > :25:20.Grant Shapps? You're in this Government, do you want to answer

:25:20. > :25:23.her point? The definition of this, I absolutely agree with you Emily.

:25:23. > :25:28.This is nothing to do with people with one or two parents, who are

:25:28. > :25:32.rich or poor or anything else. What we're talking about the 120,000

:25:32. > :25:38.families who are identifiable as being in deep difficulty, deep

:25:38. > :25:42.trouble and creating problems that if you happen to live in that

:25:42. > :25:45.community are responsible for 0 -- 80% of the problems around you. I

:25:45. > :25:50.don't think there's any reason why people in this country should have

:25:50. > :25:54.to put up with living next door, in the same street as people who are

:25:54. > :25:57.causing so much disruption to ordinary people's lives. We have a

:25:57. > :26:02.duty and responsibility to do something about that. You mention

:26:02. > :26:06.correctly, David, that this costs �9 billion a year in terms of the

:26:06. > :26:12.costs of clearing up this mess. didn't mention it correctly. I

:26:12. > :26:21.quoted what you said. Yeah, �9 billion. You incorrectly mentioned

:26:22. > :26:25.we're spending half a million. It's half a billion on this. Your

:26:25. > :26:30.statistics are dodgy. I don't really understand where it comes

:26:30. > :26:32.from. The Government has been asked... Let me tell you. I want to

:26:33. > :26:37.go back to the young woman sit thring and what she said which was

:26:37. > :26:41.powerful a moment ago and you heard. What's your answer? Can I just

:26:41. > :26:44.finish the first point. The first point is the money is being spent

:26:44. > :26:48.through local councils. Every Council, including all of yours

:26:48. > :26:52.have signed up to deliver this and if they get the result, in other

:26:52. > :26:55.words, get people out of crime, get the kids back to school, then

:26:55. > :26:59.there's a payment by result. It means the money goes to the Council

:26:59. > :27:02.having solved the problem. Far better than spending �9 billion a

:27:02. > :27:06.year on a merry-go-round through the courts, the police and the rest

:27:06. > :27:10.of it as the disruption goes on. With reference to your point. It's

:27:10. > :27:15.very sad to hear when you go for help and you're trying to dot right

:27:15. > :27:19.thing yourself and you go there, if you're not getting the level of

:27:19. > :27:24.professionalism you should be through Jobcentre plus. I know

:27:24. > :27:29.there are, it varies, there are brilliant professionals in some of

:27:29. > :27:34.the centres. I've worked in over 500 retail shops. It covered

:27:34. > :27:38.Lincoln to Aberdeen, across to Manchester. It's the same. I think

:27:38. > :27:42.people deserve the best possible advice. It's tough times out there.

:27:42. > :27:46.There are something like 450,000 vacancies in the Jobcentre plus

:27:46. > :27:49.system right now. There have been a couple better months of job figures

:27:49. > :27:54.with unemployment falling for a couple of months. We need great

:27:54. > :28:00.services to make sure that people are connected and it saddens me

:28:00. > :28:04.when it l -- I hear it's not the case. This Government took 10,000

:28:04. > :28:09.jobs out of the service, now 4,000 jobs are going back in. I don't

:28:09. > :28:14.think they're looking at the real type of work. We can trade figures

:28:14. > :28:18.all day long. No matter what anyone else you say, the country was going

:28:18. > :28:27.to the wall. If we didn't take action we'd be like Greece or Spain

:28:27. > :28:33.today or Italy today and the list goes on and on. We were never going

:28:33. > :28:37.to be that. Yes we were. Our deficit was just as big. There

:28:37. > :28:45.should be a self-denying audience on the panel saying "the fact of

:28:45. > :28:49.the matter is ." I'm a children's Councillor, I used to use a library

:28:49. > :28:52.for my work. David Cameron spends a lot of time talking about the Big

:28:52. > :28:58.Society. Grant you said about we need the services, the library that

:28:58. > :29:01.I used to work in was a Big Society all of its own. The elderly round

:29:01. > :29:05.the corner read the papers. Children used it. Others used the

:29:05. > :29:11.computers. It had a yoga group, book club and embroidery group and

:29:11. > :29:15.it was closed down because of the cuts. I find that incredibly short-

:29:15. > :29:19.termism. Everybody wants, what we need in society, to contribute.

:29:19. > :29:21.want to bring you back to the question, which was where the

:29:21. > :29:26.discussion started about so-called problem families and what's being

:29:26. > :29:30.done there. It feels like these services are being taken away from

:29:30. > :29:35.the families you're talking about. I've been in the town centre today

:29:35. > :29:40.and the library has opened up new facilities. Libraries are important.

:29:40. > :29:50.They're one part of the patch work. Whatever Emily tries to tell you

:29:50. > :29:54.

:29:54. > :29:57.this country could not carry on Greg Dyke? It saddens me it ends up

:29:57. > :30:01.in this political debate because there is an issue of an underclass

:30:01. > :30:05.who got left behind in this country. I don't think we have ever worked

:30:05. > :30:08.out or know what to do about it. I think the Labour Government threw a

:30:08. > :30:11.lot of money at it and I don't think that solved the problem. What

:30:11. > :30:15.I would like to see is it taken out of the political debate, accept

:30:15. > :30:20.there is a problem, have a proper study and work out what to do about

:30:20. > :30:26.it. I think truthfully, I don't think Pickles' line helps at all. I

:30:26. > :30:32.think you've got to try and say, what do you do about 150,000,

:30:32. > :30:37.200,000 families who are not part of our society, they're separated

:30:37. > :30:43.from it? People know it's there and you've just got to try to work out

:30:43. > :30:49.what, what can we do about it, without having the political banter

:30:49. > :30:54.we are having here. The problem with that is if you try and suggest

:30:54. > :31:00.what should be done about it you get buckets of slime chucked at you

:31:00. > :31:07.by the politicians. There is a problem. All serious work on the

:31:07. > :31:12.problems of problem families, a phrase not introduced to this

:31:12. > :31:14.discussion by me, in any major advanced country will tell you that

:31:14. > :31:18.these problems are concentrated where there are no fathers. If you

:31:18. > :31:22.won't do anything about that, then indeed if you continue to pursue

:31:22. > :31:27.policies which create more and more fatherless families, you will get

:31:27. > :31:31.more of it. I'll carry on saying it however many times people chuck

:31:31. > :31:36.buckets of slime over me because it's important and needs to be

:31:36. > :31:41.addressed. That's a classic example of the media having too much power

:31:41. > :31:50.there actually what you've just said there. I wish I did have power.

:31:50. > :31:54.Going back to the reforms, the problems about -- the issues about

:31:54. > :31:58.problem families, we should make long-term decisions. Base the

:31:58. > :32:03.decisions on welfare reforms on what works and what is effective.

:32:03. > :32:08.That's not down to political whim but it should be evidence-based.

:32:08. > :32:12.The woman in the centre there? Going on what the gentleman at the

:32:12. > :32:20.end said about the fatherless families making up a lot of the

:32:20. > :32:23.problem families in the region. Me and my mum who is here too, we run

:32:23. > :32:28.a charity, a contact centre in order to bring children and their

:32:28. > :32:32.fathers or mothers, whoever they are estranged from together. In

:32:32. > :32:36.January this year, we closed because we had no money. As to what

:32:36. > :32:39.this gentleman here said, where is, you are saying it's cost �500

:32:39. > :32:44.million to sort out these problem families but where is it going? We

:32:44. > :32:51.have no money, we were trying to help in the society but we have no

:32:51. > :32:53.money, we have closed so where is all this money going? Ask Mr Farron

:32:53. > :32:59.and Mr Shapps because they are borrowing more money than the

:32:59. > :33:02.previous Government was. They pretend to be cutting on spending

:33:02. > :33:09.but they're rolling in it. The man there? It's not about whether you

:33:09. > :33:14.are a single parent or rich or poor. I've been involved in regeneration

:33:14. > :33:19.of a poor council estate which I grew up on. The council estate went

:33:19. > :33:22.down the pan and it went down the pan largely because of the social

:33:22. > :33:27.problems on the estate. It had nothing to do with what money you

:33:27. > :33:32.had or anything like that, it was down to a handful of families that

:33:32. > :33:38.dragged the estate down to its knees. We used to go around

:33:38. > :33:47.knocking on people's doors. They were undoing five or six bolts off

:33:47. > :33:51.the door to do it. There was drugs, decent people living in the

:33:51. > :33:56.properties had a living nightmare. If you turn your back on this and

:33:56. > :34:01.say this doesn't exist, it does. I'm no lover of Pickles, far from

:34:01. > :34:05.it, but there are people out there hell bent on destroying decent

:34:06. > :34:10.people's lives. APPLAUSE

:34:10. > :34:15.Let's go on to another question. This from Phil Benaiges, please?

:34:15. > :34:25.Can the panel please recite a poem that they learned at school and

:34:25. > :34:26.explain how this has been useful if their subsequent careers?

:34:26. > :34:31.APPLAUSE This of course is because Michael

:34:31. > :34:35.Gove is suggesting a new National Curriculum which includes plans for

:34:35. > :34:39.children at five to learn and recite poetry and other things to

:34:39. > :34:43.spell words that I can't quite spell and learn a foreign language

:34:43. > :34:47.and all sorts of other things. Which poor sap is going to have to

:34:47. > :34:54.start on this one. Grant Shapps, can you recite a poem and tell us

:34:54. > :34:58.how useful it was... Twin it will twinkle little star... I can't

:34:58. > :35:03.actually and this's probably been my undoing. A feeble effort! Sorry!

:35:03. > :35:08.We are going to test you next. What Michael Gove wants to do is get

:35:08. > :35:13.school children learning the basics so you come out with the ability to

:35:13. > :35:18.add up, to be able to read and write, at a sort of proficient

:35:18. > :35:22.level. I started a printing company 20 something years ago and I

:35:22. > :35:25.remember the frustration of going to that Jobcentre Plus that we were

:35:25. > :35:29.talking about in the previous question and trying to find people

:35:29. > :35:32.with the basic skills. I wasn't looking for the people who had the

:35:32. > :35:37.advanced skills for the printing equipment but people to simply

:35:37. > :35:41.perform the tasks. There is a lot to be said for getting back to a

:35:41. > :35:46.curriculum which does that so people come out with basic

:35:46. > :35:50.disciplines. Poetry is an exercise in remembering things, being able

:35:50. > :35:56.to commit things to memory and use that information later on. It's not

:35:56. > :36:02.about that itself, it's about the skill while you are learning it

:36:02. > :36:06.that you pick up. I've bored people to death with poetry for years to

:36:06. > :36:15.the extent that my children won't sit in the same room when I start

:36:15. > :36:23.on again about being besy Big Head. -- Bessy Big Head. I'm not sure we

:36:23. > :36:30.should elect politicians to decide the curriculums in school.

:36:30. > :36:33.APPLAUSE The Chancellor in the university at

:36:33. > :36:39.York we have an Institute for An effective education which basically

:36:39. > :36:43.says what works and it seems to me we are all hide bound by the

:36:43. > :36:48.education we had, where we came from, what we believe in, our

:36:48. > :36:55.politics, and I would much rather we looked and said OK, what

:36:55. > :37:00.actually is effective in teaching kids mathematics, in teaching kids

:37:00. > :37:04.to read and write at an early age. Let's look at what is effective and

:37:04. > :37:07.put it into place. But if we are going to change this every five

:37:07. > :37:14.years as another Government comes in, it's pretty depressing. From

:37:14. > :37:22.your point of view, does Gove have a strategy, or is he just meddling?

:37:23. > :37:26.Oh, I think he probably has a strategy but it is meddling.

:37:26. > :37:30.Tim Farron? I can remember the words to just about every song off

:37:30. > :37:33.every album the Clash ever made and why, because I found it rewarding

:37:33. > :37:36.and interesting and it got me excited and all the rest of it and

:37:36. > :37:41.the way to get kids to remember anything is to make it rewarding

:37:41. > :37:47.and interesting and exciting for them at whatever age. I think for

:37:47. > :37:51.my kids, I trust the teachers at our school in Cumbria and their

:37:51. > :37:54.head teacher to decide the priorities for what my kids should

:37:55. > :38:00.learn, rather than some boffin in Whitehall and I'm not having a go

:38:00. > :38:03.at Gove. You aren't having a go at Gove? I wasn't calling him the

:38:03. > :38:06.boffin in Whitehall. What about the Secretary of State in Whitehall?

:38:06. > :38:11.It's fine to fly kites... This isn't a kite. He says this is going

:38:11. > :38:14.to be introduced in September 2014? What we've done in the coalition

:38:14. > :38:18.Government is reduce the size of the National Curriculum to give

:38:18. > :38:23.more choice to teachers. I would just question Michael Gove's

:38:23. > :38:27.consistency in that case given that we are trying to reduce the burdens

:38:27. > :38:32.on teachers, allow them to teach, concentrate on what they are good

:38:32. > :38:36.at. Politicians should set good terms of debate and we shouldn't

:38:36. > :38:43.meddle in the classroom. The woman in the third row.

:38:43. > :38:47.wonder why Michael Gove is wasting money on a new curriculum when the

:38:47. > :38:53.country's schools will become academies and won't have to follow

:38:54. > :38:57.it anyway? Emily Thornberry? James James

:38:57. > :39:02.Morrison Morrison took good care of his mother...

:39:02. > :39:06.Thank you very much! The best effort so far. A lot of the

:39:06. > :39:11.contributions that have been made so far are right. It's not the job

:39:11. > :39:14.of politicians to meddle in the minutiae of the curriculum. It's

:39:15. > :39:18.important that the league tables are there, it's important for

:39:18. > :39:22.parents to today be reassured that children spend a certain amount of

:39:22. > :39:26.time on the basics. Otherwise, politicians should listen to the

:39:26. > :39:31.experts who are teachers and we have excellent teachers out there

:39:31. > :39:37.and we should trust them. APPLAUSE

:39:37. > :39:44.You see behind what Gove is on about, the way of teaching, is it

:39:44. > :39:47.trying to provoke a debate? I think Gove in the '60s or '70s had a

:39:47. > :39:51.childhood that he clearly enjoyed and he clearly enjoyed being at

:39:51. > :39:56.school. But I think that he looks at our modern schools and wants to

:39:56. > :39:59.kind of somehow or other import in education that frankly is largely

:39:59. > :40:02.out-of-date. I don't think that learning the names of the Kings and

:40:02. > :40:05.Queens of England is the most important thing to learn in history.

:40:05. > :40:08.I think you need to have an understanding of why we are where

:40:08. > :40:13.we are. If you don't understand your history, you are doomed to

:40:13. > :40:16.continue to make the same mistakes. I think we've got a lot to learn

:40:16. > :40:19.from history, not just learning the names of the Kings and Queens. If

:40:19. > :40:23.you listen to Gove, that's the kind of thing he wants because that

:40:23. > :40:29.would have been done in the 50s and 60s, we have moved on since then.

:40:29. > :40:33.The woman in the front row is? teach five-year-olds, we have been

:40:33. > :40:37.doing poetry, they love exploring, reading it. Making them sit down

:40:37. > :40:41.and recite poems would just be a waste of my time and a waste of

:40:41. > :40:47.their time and I would love Michael Gove to come into school and try

:40:47. > :40:50.and teach five-year-olds poetry and see what he thinks of it.

:40:50. > :40:55.APPLAUSE One of the first things that David

:40:55. > :41:00.Cameron did when he came to power was commission Frank Field to do a

:41:01. > :41:08.report on early years provision which has been widely ignored. Sure

:41:09. > :41:12.Start has been cut and now Mr Gove is suggesting that children are

:41:12. > :41:17.taught French or Spanish because that's where they go on holiday.

:41:17. > :41:24.The children that I see and advise on don't get holidays, they don't

:41:24. > :41:30.go to France and Spain, they need good education from the age of

:41:30. > :41:37.three and not to have things like Sure Start cut.

:41:37. > :41:43.OK. The man there in the third row? I think the problem with what

:41:43. > :41:46.Michael Gove said is that we are teaching kids just to learn facts

:41:46. > :41:52.and we are placing too much stress on teachers and children to pass

:41:52. > :41:58.exams. Rather than teaching them to actually be good, upstanding

:41:58. > :42:08.members of society. Are you in favour of the proposals that

:42:08. > :42:14.

:42:14. > :42:24.Michael Gove puts forward? Pass the test... OK, spell accommodate?

:42:24. > :42:33.

:42:33. > :42:35.ACCOMMODA... I'll do a poem too.) Recites poem) I'm very pleased...

:42:35. > :42:40.APPLAUSE I'm very pleased that my head is

:42:40. > :42:43.full of things like that and also lots of hymns which I remember and

:42:43. > :42:47.I feel very sorry for anybody who hasn't had the chance to learn them

:42:47. > :42:52.and I think it's a great condemnation of our school system

:42:52. > :42:55.that so few people and particularly only those whose parents are rich

:42:55. > :42:59.can actually afford to have their children taught things like that

:42:59. > :43:04.and have their minds furnished with beauty for the remainder of their

:43:05. > :43:08.lives. To pour scorn on it and to say that it's unimportant is to

:43:08. > :43:12.declare yourself a spiritual desert. Of course people need these things

:43:12. > :43:16.and what's more, they are a profound part of being British. If

:43:16. > :43:21.you don't know the literature and poetry and the music of your own

:43:21. > :43:24.country, you aren't really fully conversant with its history or

:43:24. > :43:27.character, you've lost touch with what your ancestors knew and you

:43:27. > :43:31.won't be able to pass it on to your own children or grandchildren. Of

:43:31. > :43:34.course these things should be taught. I wish Michael Gove had the

:43:34. > :43:39.power and policies to make it happen. I really do think it would

:43:39. > :43:44.be a good thing. I also think that people should not, particularly

:43:44. > :43:51.teachers, should not say these things don't matter. They matter

:43:51. > :43:56.immensely. At primary school they were asked

:43:56. > :44:00.to bring in a short story to read to me. The level of tall ept they

:44:00. > :44:03.showed at under 11 years old in their writing and reading was

:44:03. > :44:08.fantastic. It's clearly the system that we've got in place is working

:44:08. > :44:13.y. Are we trying to change it? don't think these are improvements

:44:13. > :44:18.these proposals? Not necessarily. The children that I was with on

:44:18. > :44:21.that day were, they could all read very well. They could all write

:44:21. > :44:26.fantastically. So what they're learning in school is clearly

:44:26. > :44:29.helping them. They still have good imagination. They're able to read

:44:29. > :44:34.and write. They can create things. They're learning the things that

:44:34. > :44:40.they're going to need later in life. I think we'll move on. We have a

:44:41. > :44:46.question from Sue Jeffrey. Is it right that only rich foreigners

:44:46. > :44:51.will have the right to live with their partners in this countries.

:44:51. > :44:55.These proposals announced by Theresa May that you have to earn �

:44:56. > :45:01.18 ,600 a year before you can bring a partner into a country or a

:45:01. > :45:05.family into the country. Is that right? Tim Farron? I mean strikes

:45:05. > :45:10.me that it's important that you've got rules and regulations to deal

:45:10. > :45:14.with the immigration. But it's also right that it's compassionate. I

:45:14. > :45:18.represent a part of the world which is not hugely diverse, but the

:45:18. > :45:22.majority of immigration work I deal with are not people trying it on

:45:22. > :45:27.with the system, not people trying to get round our borders. They're

:45:27. > :45:31.couples that want to be together for pity sake. If you want to

:45:31. > :45:34.regulate, there are issues that need to be dealt with, but this

:45:34. > :45:37.seems a very wrong way of going about. It we should look at whether

:45:37. > :45:41.or not people have a future together, whether they love one

:45:42. > :45:46.another. We should not be separating families. We should be

:45:46. > :45:51.supporting them. Your priz -- you're President of the Liberal

:45:51. > :45:55.Democrats, seems to me you couldn't be invited to join the coalition

:45:55. > :46:00.Government because you disagree with almost everything. I reserve

:46:00. > :46:04.my right to express my opinion. haven't heard you support one

:46:04. > :46:11.policy this evening. I regularly do. People tend to listen when I

:46:11. > :46:18.disagree. Oh, I see. That's the motive. Yes, I mean, I suppose I

:46:18. > :46:23.speak as a constituency MP in an area in inner London where we have

:46:23. > :46:29.a great mixture of people. Islington has people from all over

:46:29. > :46:35.the world. Some of the most mem -- memorable cases, I'm just thinking,

:46:35. > :46:38.I have in the forefront of my mind, three Somali women, three separate

:46:38. > :46:42.women, who've come as refugees and who are tying to get their children

:46:42. > :46:46.over to this country. Their children, they may have brought a

:46:46. > :46:50.couple of children with them but a couple more are under a tree in

:46:50. > :46:54.Somalia without anything. I have to advise all of them that they must

:46:54. > :46:57.get a job. They have to be able to support the children. Many of these

:46:57. > :47:02.women are not used to working, but two of them I can tell you have got

:47:02. > :47:06.a job. One of them has two jobs. She is able to show she can support

:47:06. > :47:10.the children and is in the process of trying to get them over here. I

:47:10. > :47:15.am concerned that the ambitions of these women will be completely

:47:15. > :47:20.quashed if we keep raising the bars for them. We need to get the

:47:20. > :47:24.families together and it is for all of us. I think it's a question of

:47:24. > :47:28.degree. The other side of the coin, obviously, I understand this too is

:47:28. > :47:32.we don't want to have people saying well, I need all my family coming

:47:32. > :47:36.over and then for them to depend on all of us and to depend on the

:47:36. > :47:40.state. They need to be able to stand on their feet. There needs to

:47:40. > :47:43.be more compassion in many of these individual cases. My experience as

:47:43. > :47:46.an MP getting in touch with the Home Office is that they don't use

:47:46. > :47:50.their discretion enough. They don't give sufficient regard to these

:47:50. > :47:55.brave women doing their best. you in favour or against the

:47:55. > :47:59.proposals? I think that it is, as I say, it is something which is... It

:47:59. > :48:04.is a question of degree and at the moment, there is an internal debate

:48:04. > :48:06.in the Labour Party as to where that should be. Speaking as a

:48:06. > :48:10.frontbencher I can't tell you what the Labour Party policy is in terms

:48:10. > :48:13.of degree yet. I can tell you that the experience I feed into that

:48:13. > :48:16.debate which is the experience of my constituents. The party hasn't

:48:16. > :48:20.made up its mind? APPLAUSE

:48:20. > :48:24.The proposals came out about three days ago. Give us a chance. We want

:48:24. > :48:28.to make sure that we get this absolutely right. We are, we're not

:48:28. > :48:33.playing games. We're talking about people's lives.

:48:33. > :48:37.I work in immigration sector myself. The ladies that you talk about, if

:48:37. > :48:40.they're getting their children from abroad any way and they've been

:48:40. > :48:47.granted refugee status, they don't have to meet the maintenance

:48:47. > :48:50.requirement at all. It's more due to the families who, working class

:48:50. > :48:55.families would don't earn enough money to meet that bar and the fact

:48:55. > :49:01.that they have a husband abroad, they have two children in the UK,

:49:01. > :49:04.it rises from �18,600 to a lot more. I'm sorry, that's my sloppy

:49:04. > :49:08.language. As far as I'm concerned they came as refugees. But they

:49:08. > :49:12.were not recognised as refugees, then they had to get exceptional

:49:12. > :49:16.leave to remain. Now they've got indefinite leave to remain. Now

:49:16. > :49:19.they have British citizenship. Now they have to get jobs and then they

:49:19. > :49:24.can get their things over. These are the things they've had to jump.

:49:24. > :49:28.What do you think of the proposal? It's ludicrous that they're having

:49:28. > :49:33.to, especially in low skilled jobs. Not everyone has a degree and can

:49:34. > :49:38.get lots of high paid jobs. �18,600 for just a spouse to get here and

:49:38. > :49:47.then obviously the children, it can be up to �27,500 for a family of

:49:47. > :49:50.four. First of all, this isn't about the asylum system in this

:49:50. > :49:54.country. What we are talking about is the fact under the system that

:49:54. > :50:00.exists at the moment, if you want to bring another member of the

:50:00. > :50:03.family in, you only have to be in receipt of � 5,600 a year, for

:50:03. > :50:06.which you can bring anybody else into the country. Once you've done

:50:06. > :50:11.that, they'll have to be provided with services, the same as anyone

:50:11. > :50:15.else who lives here. Somewhere along the line, the rest of the

:50:15. > :50:20.population needs to pay for this. I think a very reasonable proposal,

:50:20. > :50:24.which I hope that your party will support is to have a level of

:50:24. > :50:28.�18,600, the level that we've introduced to say that actually,

:50:28. > :50:32.you need to be going out, earning money yourself so that when you

:50:32. > :50:36.bring somebody into the country, that person isn't then relying off

:50:36. > :50:39.everybody else to provide the services to that individual. Now I

:50:39. > :50:43.think there's a very strong argument for that. It's part of a

:50:43. > :50:46.series of different things we're doing in order to make sure that

:50:46. > :50:55.actually, access to this country comes with provisions, including

:50:55. > :50:58.for example, learning English. APPLAUSE

:50:58. > :51:01.I would be interested in hearing Peter's opinion on this,

:51:01. > :51:07.considering his previously expressed views about fatherless

:51:07. > :51:12.families. I don't actually see what the two

:51:12. > :51:17.have to do with each other, but... Hang on, explain what the two have

:51:17. > :51:21.to do with each other. Just when he was previous live saying that

:51:21. > :51:27.fatherless families were a large part of the described problem

:51:27. > :51:31.families and how he would couple that view with the need for the

:51:31. > :51:34.rich spouse, you know spouses... People should be able to bring

:51:34. > :51:38.their... So it has nothing to do with it but I'll answer the

:51:38. > :51:44.question. The point here is a deeper one. Emily Thornberry's

:51:44. > :51:48.party, as we know because of the astonishing revelations of Andrew

:51:48. > :51:50.Nether, a former New Labour worker, deliberately hoped to transform

:51:50. > :51:55.this country through mass immigration during its time in

:51:55. > :52:00.office. And has very largely succeeded in doing so, as people in

:52:00. > :52:03.many parts of this country know very well, the extent of the

:52:04. > :52:07.transformation by mass immigration is unprecedented in our national

:52:07. > :52:11.history. The Conservative Party pretends to be against this, but

:52:11. > :52:15.also knows deep down that unless particularly we leave the European

:52:15. > :52:20.Union, it has no power to act on this matter. Every so ofpbt word

:52:20. > :52:24.goes out from our Prime Minister, Mr Slippery, to his ministers to

:52:24. > :52:28.say, will you come up with something which sounds Conservative,

:52:28. > :52:32.because we're losing too many votes to UKIP. Out comes Eric Pickles

:52:32. > :52:35.with his stuff about problem families. Out comes Theresa May

:52:35. > :52:39.with her guidelines about immigration. I promise you, none of

:52:39. > :52:42.these things will happen. There will be no difference. The mass

:52:42. > :52:48.immigration will continue at unprecedented levels. If you're in

:52:48. > :52:51.favour of that, that's fine. What my problem is nobody was ever asked

:52:51. > :52:55.about whether we wanted this. By the time we discover that it

:52:55. > :52:59.happened, it was too late to do anything about it. I really think

:52:59. > :53:08.people should be a bit more discontented about that than they

:53:08. > :53:11.are. I just wanted to pick up the point

:53:11. > :53:14.Emily made about what the Labour Party position is. I'm a member of

:53:14. > :53:17.the party. I would hope the position is going to be one of

:53:17. > :53:21.compassion on this, the point that you made yourself. I would hope

:53:21. > :53:25.that we wouldn't be prevaricating about it too long. Does that mean

:53:25. > :53:30.opposition to it? Absolutely. And we will come out clearly saying

:53:30. > :53:33.that without having to go through a policy review and getting conva

:53:33. > :53:39.luted about what is a simple thing. We shouldn't support this

:53:39. > :53:42.initiative. I mean, you speak on behalf of a

:53:42. > :53:45.large number of people in the Labour Party. I think there are

:53:45. > :53:49.people who have the opposite view. It's something we need to resolve

:53:49. > :53:53.as a party. Got thing is we are a party which has quite a lot of

:53:53. > :53:57.debate. We tend to have it behind- the-scenes. I hope to speak to you

:53:57. > :54:00.after about it. It's something we have to resolve as a party. We've

:54:01. > :54:06.only just heard it and we need tone sure we get our response exactly

:54:06. > :54:11.right. You have your debates behind-the-scenes? Yeah, we do.

:54:11. > :54:16.amazed. We have a policy form this weekend behind-the-scenes. Have you

:54:16. > :54:24.got an opinion? Yes, I think you can probably tell what my opinion

:54:24. > :54:28.is. I'm here as a constituency MP and frontbench MP as well. 18,650

:54:28. > :54:34.seems quite a lot of money to me. It's not a lot of money in some

:54:34. > :54:39.parts of the country, an awful lot in others. If we're saying we're

:54:39. > :54:45.going to keep husband and wives, genuine married couples apart until

:54:45. > :54:50.they can earn that sort of money, then I find it offensive. The point

:54:50. > :54:55.about it is it's the point at which you can stop claiming benefit

:54:55. > :55:01.automatically. If you get that, you won't get benefit, that's the point.

:55:01. > :55:04.I'm amazed by that. Almost amazed as any debate. Surely if somebody

:55:04. > :55:09.is going to come into the country, it's right that the person bringing

:55:09. > :55:17.them in pays for them so that everybody else doesn't have to,

:55:17. > :55:24.similar pum as that. -- -- Simple as that. Can UK plc

:55:25. > :55:30.afford to be compassionate? What's your view? I think that if we're

:55:30. > :55:33.having so much trouble with problem families and we want to put money

:55:33. > :55:37.into everything; we can't take on the problems of the world. We're

:55:38. > :55:43.not as rich as powerful as we think we are. I want to bring up this

:55:44. > :55:48.question, which we touched on earlier on from Azhar Allahdad.

:55:48. > :55:52.it right that all our e-mails and Facebook messages can be viewed by

:55:52. > :55:57.the police and Security Services in the new communication data bill

:55:58. > :56:03.announced earlier this morning. new announcements that e-mail and

:56:03. > :56:06.Facebook messages can be viewed by the police. No, it's absolutely

:56:06. > :56:10.wrong. It's terribly dangerous. Governments should never have this

:56:10. > :56:15.much power over us. The more we fail to control crime and disorder

:56:15. > :56:20.in this country, the more powers the Government accrues to itself to

:56:20. > :56:23.survey and interfere in the lives of the innocent. I think that it is

:56:23. > :56:29.a very serious threat to liberty. It should be resisted by everybody

:56:29. > :56:33.with spirit. I agree with Peter entirely. I think it's very

:56:33. > :56:40.dangerous for governments to constantly give additional powers

:56:40. > :56:44.to the police, which often are used in a far widing way than is the

:56:44. > :56:51.intention when they're put into place. I agree with Peter.

:56:51. > :56:55.Individual liberty says that I should be entitled to privacy.

:56:55. > :56:58.never support the proposal as it sounded in the question that e-

:56:58. > :57:02.mails and content of Facebook would be available. That's not actually

:57:02. > :57:07.in the draft bill today. What it says is that the fact that a

:57:07. > :57:10.communication has taken place, not what is in that communication, and

:57:10. > :57:14.only under exceptional circumstances and entirely

:57:14. > :57:18.retrospectively should be available to the police to investigate crimes

:57:18. > :57:24.of very serious nature, for example, like the paedophile ring that was

:57:24. > :57:28.broken last week in Rochdale or rather the men went to prison, or

:57:28. > :57:34.cases of terrorism. These are exactly the same things which are

:57:34. > :57:38.available for mobile phone records and for any other telephone.

:57:38. > :57:41.Nowadays the internet is where that traffic takes place, they need

:57:41. > :57:45.connection to it. You're the Shadow Attorney-General and just half a

:57:45. > :57:49.minute left. The proposal to increase access to data has to be

:57:49. > :57:53.based on evidence. We need to see that evidence as to why it is

:57:54. > :58:00.necessary. I think we need enhanced safe guards. If we don't have that,

:58:00. > :58:05.the proposal shouldn't go forward. You want me to be supportive of the

:58:05. > :58:10.coalition, I supported getting rid of ID cards, getting rid of 28 days

:58:10. > :58:15.without trial and cob troll orders, I do not support universal internet

:58:15. > :58:18.snooping. snooping.

:58:18. > :58:23.APPLAUSE My heart aches and the drouzy

:58:23. > :58:30.numbness pains my sense. Time is up. Next week in West Bromich. Ken

:58:30. > :58:34.Clarke, Andy Burnham from Labour, Len McCluskey on the panel. The

:58:34. > :58:42.week after that we're in Luton. You want to come and take part in the