21/06/2012 Question Time

We are in West Bromwich tonight, and welcome to Question Time. On

the panel, the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, the Shadow Health

Secretary, Andy Burnham, the general secretary of Britain's

biggest trade union, then McCluskey, the economist Ruth Lea, and the

Midlands businesswoman of the year, who runs a company that uses

diamond drills to break-up concrete, You can use your diamond drills on

the members of the panel! Let's have our first question.

celebrities who avoid paying tax the moral equivalent of benefit

cheats? That is a quote from Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats

today about Jimmy Carr and his tax affairs. Ken Clarke, are they the

moral equivalent of benefit cheats? Well, there is a difference between

people who cheat legally and people who cheat illegally. Presumably if

somebody has not broken the law, they are not guilty of any criminal

offence. But I think the public probably disapprove of wealthy

people who find ingenious ways with the help of brilliant accountants

of really avoiding paying any tax, with the same sort of disapproval

that they disapprove of people who fiddle their benefits. The question

is, whether it is a fedora crime. I think at the present time, it is

not surprising that people get angry when they discover somebody

who earns a very large amount of money can get away with paying

hardly any tax. Was it right of the Prime Minister to single out Jimmy

Carr and to say that his behaviour was quite frankly morally wrong? Is

it the business of the Prime Minister to give views about

individual citizens? Adair a very large number of people agreed with

the Prime Minister. -- I'd bet at large number of people. But was he

right? He was singled out by the press. If the Prime Minister had

named some well-known person out of the blue and gone into his tax

affairs, no Prime Minister would do that, but it was suddenly all over

the press. There was no denying that he had paid next to no

taxation on a large income, so I think the Prime Minister's reaction

was probably shared by a very large majority of the British public.

When Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs were up for discussion in 3rd

December years ago, David Cameron said, I am not possible for

responsible for everybody's tax payments. It is a matter between

them and the Revenue. I do not think he was saying he was

responsible. He is the Prime Minister of a Government that has

put a great deal of effort into tackling Tax abuse, which has gone

on for years. We have brilliant accountants who try to keep one

foot ahead of the Treasury. The Revenue's spend their entire time

trying to block loopholes. George has finally managed to get, in the

Finance Bill, which he has announced and we will do it, a

general anti- abuse provision, which we have never been able to

persuade Parliament to contemplate before. It will be easier to react

when tax things are designed plainly for the purpose of getting

away from the intention, the spirit of the bill, the bill passed by

Parliament and put into the law. Obviously we must be more effective

in dealing with tax abuse. We are putting in more effort than people

have put into it for many years. Andy Burnham. Schemes like this are

unacceptable and I am glad Jimmy Carr has recognised his mistake.

But I think politicians need to tread carefully before commenting

on individual's tax affairs. After all, it is our primary

responsibility to ensure there are fair rules in place and loopholes

are closed down. Probably all politicians should look at this and

say, we should have done more. Before we rush after individuals we

should get the tax rules in order. There are two things I would say

about Mr Cameron. He has opened a can of worms for himself. The

question I would ask, what is the difference between Jimmy Carr and

Lord Ashcroft, other than that one is a major Tory donor who

bankrolled the last Tory party election campaign? The second thing

I would say is that he is in absolutely no position to dish out

lessons on tax morality when he had a Budget just a few months ago that

handed out �14,000 tax breaks to millionairess, at the same time as

taking working tax credit of And taking benefits of disabled

people. Where is the morality in that? The man in the back row.

think time would be better spent on the abuses of large corporations

and the amounts of money, the vast amounts of money they get away

without paying, rather than individuals, which is insignificant

in comparison. Ruth Lea. Going back to Jimmy Carr, I think he was so

picked out because he was mocking a Barclay's Bank scheme for a 1% tax

scam, and lo and behold, he was doing exactly the same thing. So I

think there is a smell of hypocrisy round here as far as he is

concerned. He has lost an awful lot of street cred, I would have

thought, with his audience, and no wonder he has backtracked quickly.

But I would certainly say there is still obviously quite a lot of tax

avoidance. There is no question about this. Ken Clarke has

mentioned the anti-avoidance rule that George Osborne introduced in

the Budget and I say, good luck to the Revenue to try and track this

stuff down him, because the Revenue must be losing up to �5 billion

each year, and that is your money and my money. I am sure that under

those circumstances we wish the Revenue all the best in tracking

these people down. But is it morally wrong to use a tax

avoidance scheme that is legal because the Treasury has not got

around to banning it? It is difficult because part of me says,

yes, it is morally wrong. I pay more than my share of taxes and

ironically the people who pay 50% of tax, they pay a lot of tax as

well. How do you pay more than your share? You are very sharp tonight,

David! I just think it was the turn of phrase. I was feeling slightly

sorry for myself. Put it this way, I pay my share of tax. I do think

Jimmy Carr and everybody else who is avoiding tax through some clever

scheme because of their accountants, I think they should be paying their

tax as well. The man in the third row. Up in areas of deprivation,

like here in Sandwell, and other parts, it is galling that people

like Jimmy Carr, and people there who do not pay their taxes, we have

to hear stories of people spending time and effort avoiding paying

taxes. It is calling. -- it is a galling thing. I think it is

morally reprehensible and the Prime Minister and the Government were

right to expose and respond to the Times newspaper's article. But

unfortunately there is a big whiff of hypocrisy. Our colleague at the

back made the point about corporate tax avoidance. We have been saying

for years that tax avoidance is a serious problem. Independent fiscal

bodies tell us that the Treasury loses up to �40 billion a year

through tax avoidance. �40 billion. That is absolutely staggering. The

Government, although they are making these noises in response to

the type of investigative journalism that we have seen in the

Times, they are absolute -- actually being hypocritical. Ken

Clarke says that more effort is being put into closing these

loopholes and collecting tax. That is absolute nonsense. Her Majesty's

Revenue and Customs are currently about to lose a third -- a further

10,000 jobs, the very people who we are looking to to collect the tax.

Tax compliance officers actually collect �630,000 a year on average.

And his Government is about to make them redundant. So it is hypocrisy

for the Government to say one thing, pass things through Parliament, but

with no effort whatsoever to tackle what is an absolute disgrace, and

that is the super rich and the corporate giants who do not pay tax.

We have got chief executive officers of major companies who pay

less tax than the cleaners who actually clean their buildings.

It's a disgrace! But if what these people are doing

is illegal, it does not matter how many tax inspectors you have. They

will say, it was legal. It is the law that needs changing. Yes,

absolutely. Tax avoidance is legal. Not tax evasion. Heaven knows how

much we lose their. Tax avoidance is a serious problem and we need a

Government that has the courage to close the loopholes. And we need

staff to collect it and not be made redundant. That is why members will

be on strike on Monday, 50,000 of them, to defend their jobs and

bring to the public's attention that we are being ripped off on

this tax avoidance. Julie White. Back to Jimmy Carr. As you said,

was it legal? Yes, he was following every rule in the book. Is it moral,

No, it was not. He has withdrawn it, hasn't he. As you said, I think

David Cameron has opened up a huge can of worms. Because K2 is not the

only scheme out there. And also, with Jimmy Carr, there are another

1000 people in there. How many Tory backbenchers, how many people that

support David Cameron will come out of the woodwork? I do not think we

have heard the last of this, I can tell you that. The other thing is,

as you said, Jimmy Carr has withdrawn and said he will be a

good boy from now on. Was that because David Cameron said so, or

was it Twitter? There's a question to ask their. You are a business

woman. Don't you do your best to keep to the lowest level of tax

that your business pays? Do you not take advice from accountants?

take advice. It would be great if we could get 1%, but we do not. We

take advice. We try to take tax breaks if we can, but not down to

as low as 1%. That is like nothing. The man in the front. The only

reason Jimmy Carr is upset is because he has been found out.

why was he pointed out first? I know that it was leaked. I would

hate to have anything leaked about myself. Why was he pointed out?

man in the second row from the back. Pre-Jimmy Carr has apologised. Is

If he had not been exposed, perhaps he would still be doing what he is

doing. You have to hope it is genuine and he is reflecting on

some of the reaction. I want to come back to the point that the

gentleman made. It seems there is an elite that are living by

different rules to the rest of us. They have not been watching what is

going on in the last couple of years. They are paying accountants

to take them out of tax. We read that top pay rose by 12% last year.

My constituents would find that absolutely unacceptable. Why are

they still able to pay themselves well above the odds, well above

what everybody else is getting? The statement that we are all in it

together rings more and more hollow every day that goes by. The

Government came forward with top pay proposals this week. Watered

down, completely ineffectual and nothing like what Vince Cable

originally promised. This discussion has taken a peculiar

turn. Nobody has said that something should not be done about

tax abuse. Everybody has been saying that for as long as I can

remember. The idea that recruiting a few 1000 tax inspectors will

solve it is simplistic. The idea that some party political point,

when we succeeded a government that did not trouble the super rich for

the slightest in the 13 years it was in power, is faintly ridiculous.

It is, I'm afraid, question of lawyers, of tax law. It is in the

Budget. Before there was any fuss or any Raul, there has been a

significant step, a genic -- a general anti- abuse provision. It

means that the law does not have to in detail. If you contradict what

Parliament intended, the Revenue will get the money. We have to pass

it, and I am sure the Labour Party will not a pose. And we have to

then enforce it. It is tricky. They are clever, these accountants. But

we are putting effort into it. But these are knockabout. So we are

making. What is the difference between Jimmy Carr and Sir Philip

Green? Philip Green who owns Top Shop should have paid �285 million

worth of tax last year to the Treasury to look after our schools

and our roads. How much did they pay? Nothing. Why? Because his wife

owns the company, who happens to be domiciled in Monaco. No tax. What

did the Prime Minister do? Did he castigates Philip Green? No, he

invited him in to advise the Government. There is a whiff of

hypocrisy. Action speaks louder This idea of which individuals we

like and which we don't is populist nonsense. What's morally wrong,

even when it's legal, is a really aggresive tax scheme which is

plainly using something for tax- evasion purposes for which it

wasn't dined. These fiddles around Gordon Brown's film grants when the

people putting their money into it couldn't care less about films or

where they are made are the ones that will get strict tures. This

will probably turn out to be what this comedian's contributions went

into. If you put a money into a charitable trust and put it into

Romania you save an awful lot of tax. Don't encourage people. You're

costing the Treasury billions. he say Romania? The woman in the

third row in. I agree with Ken, we should stop focusing on individuals

and all the opportunities they have to illegally avoid tax, not if it

was Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, not the people but the opportunities

that exist for them to do what they do. OK. The woman in the fourth row

in the back. I think what's morally wrong is that the people who are

the lowest paid in this country are paying the highest proportion of

tax and are not able to find ways of employing people to fiddle their

tax. OK. I will take one more point. The man in orange. If MPs are the

most notorious public figures for tax evasion how is the public

supposed to trust them to sort this out? Why do you think they are?

They are always in the news for tax evasion aren't they? They are not

setting a great example are they? APPLAUSE We had better move on, we

have a lot of questions tonight. If have a lot of questions tonight. If

you are tweeting tonight and it is clearly more powerful tonight than

the television or anything else. We welcome tweets. If you prefer,

you can still text us 83981 but that apparently is dying a death

quite soon. Our next question is quite soon. Our next question is

from Craig hill please. Should the UK scrap GCSEs and return to O-

level-style exams? This would be England wouldn't it, because

Scotland and Wales are different. Michael Gove announced this

apparently today, somewhat to the surprise we are told of people in

Cabinet who didn't know it was coming up. Andy Burnham? When I was

Shadow Education Secretary I remember saying that coalition

education policy reminded me of a film Back To The Future that.

Starred a man called Michael who was trapped in the 1950s that.

Begins to provide a good summary of this current Secretary of State.

Firstly his policies are backward- looking. He brought forward an

English baulk lariat a year or so ago which found -- baccalaureate a

year or so ago which found room for Hebrew but not England ICT. The

second thing... Don't read your notes. He focuses on Oxbridge and

the top 30% to the detriment of the 70%. APPLAUSE I think this policy

would cement that. It would be divisive, it would create winners

and losers at a young age and make some kids second class citizens. I

cannot accept that some kids are second class citizens at 13 or 14.

It speaks volumes that this was leaked on a day when people were

taking their GCSEs. APPLAUSE I you just would say this to broaden it a

bit. And I speak about my own party too here. I think politicians of

all sides haven't focused anything like enough on the 50 or more per

cent of young people not planning to go to university. That must be

corrected. We must do more to raise the aspirations of those kids. I'm

not against GCSE reform. I'm not against making it more rigorous. I

think one exam board is good, but it makes me laugh that competition

amongst exam boards is a bad thing but amongst schools is a good thing

that. Seems to be a contradiction with Mr Gove. A unified

qualification is the right thing. This latest proposal - I will

finish on this - is more evidence of a man with a plan for some

schools and some children, not all schools and all children. He gets

feted by the right-wing press as the great reformer, but what I see

when I look at him is an old- fashioned elitist. APPLAUSE

Julie White? Well, I just see it so complicated, it must be so

frustrating for students, parents and teachers. I can only talk on

the business side of it. As a business person employing, I want

to know when someone arrives in front of me and they've got a grade

B and it is not an A in another exam board or a C in another exam

board. It is frustrating. I think we should make a decision, stick

with it, simplify it have one example board and really stick with

it. Do you trust, one of the complaints is they say businesses

can't trust the GCSE results that come through? One of Gove's idea is

that the O-level is a more rigorous academic test. It would give me a

better clue. An A would be an A, a B and so on. I feel they are

messing around with children's education and that's what will be

taking this country on. We are just meting around with their education.

You sir on the gangway. It is the latest bad idea from Mr Gove which

started with the withdrawal of millions of pounds of money from

Sandwell for investment in its schools. APPLAUSE The man in the

front row. I would like to ask you, Andy Burnham, what you and your

colleagues would do different. You've opposed every single Tory

measure so far in this Parliament and to be a credible opposition you

need credible policies. You haven't got it and it is not good enough.

That's a fair challenge. We are rebuilding an opposition. It

wouldn't be right for us to come out straight and see here are our

policies when we are only a year or two out of Government. When I was

shadow secretary I proposed a UCAS- style system for apprenticeships. I

wanted kids to be able to apply for apprenticeships in the same way

that kids on the academic route can apply for university. I want them

to have the same sense of ambition when they are in year eight or year

nine at school. That's what I was talking about when I said focus on

the 50%. Can you advise the rest of your colleagues from prancing

around the BBC studios and saying you have to wait for our manifesto.

Angela Eagle said yesterday you have to wait until 2015. It is not

good enough. The man in the check shirt. An issue I would like to

highlight here, the only reason I can see that we are reverting back

to the O-level system is that GCSEs are easy. I worked damned hard for

my GCSEs... APPLAUSE And for someone to tell me they are easy is

ridiculous. And he wants to reform A-levels and make them harder? If

he wants to sit them for me... APPLAUSE I'm going to try and

defend Michael Gove. I'm not sure I will be the most popular person in

the building. What he is generally trying to do is raise educational

standards across the board. Less reliance on modules and the 16-

year-old examination as well. To have a harder - I take your point

that the GCSEs is not a give away - but have harder exams at 16 so that

people would be better equipped to go on to A-levels. There are a lot

of criticisms in schools that the GCSE doesn't always equip the

pupils well fluff to go on to A- levels. There's a big gap of

ability and standards between the GCSEs and the A-levels. I think he

is trying to push up the O-levels to get near tore the A-levels.

about these steered away from O- levels? I heard Ken baker this

morning. He is keen on technical academies. It picks up on what Andy

Burnham said about the apprenticeship scheme. You have to

think carefully about the people who aren't going to go down this

new route. Look at Germany, Switzerland and Austria. These

countries explicitly stream people very carefully but they are very

carefully worked out sul buses for sifrt people's apt tueds --

syllabuss for different people's apt tueds. They regard technical

ability and craft skills almost as well as academic skills.

reality is that what he has done strikes me as nothing short of

arrogance. The image of this Government being out of touch is

once again demonstrated. Like the young gentleman there, I've got a

15-year-old daughter. To suggest that GCSEs are easy, and that young

students today don't work hard is an absolute disgrace. What's being

done here is unbelievable. Not even his Cabinet colleagues know about

it. We've got the Liberal Democrats, part of the coalition, who are

saying, Nick Clegg is indicating he is going to block it. The arrogance

of Michael Gove knows no boundaries. It is a second class ti tore second

class citizens and it is a disgrace. If there is going to be

improvements in our educational standards they should be properly -

ed with the professions and with all parties. Hundreds of thousands

of young people like my daughter are now going to be demotivated as

they go in to take GCSEs that they are already getting told are going

to be told are second class qualifications. How does that help?

APPLAUSE Alright. Ken Clarke, just to pick up on what Mr Clusclus said.

Did you know -- on what Mr Len McCluskey said, did you know about

this? It's a good old-fashioned leak. I don't think anybody outside

the Department for Education knew much about it. Was that the first

time you saw it? Mr Gove is the best leaker in Whitehall. How do

you feel about the Secretary of State for Education leaking to the

Daily Mail and not telling you? the Secretary of State for

Education leaked it I would feel strongly, but I don't think he did.

It is not the first leak we've had in British Government. This has

been worked out in the Department for Education. When it is finished

it will then go to a Cabinet Committee, the chairman is Nick

Clegg and the deputy chairman is me. Will it be considered collectively.

What I like about the noises about it, because the leaker knows what

he or she is talking about when they talked to the Daily Mail, I

think most people have agreed that the ideas of the exam boards

competing in the way they do has to be stopped, because it is annoying

for people who worked for a good GCSE find you could get a good

result if the teachers hold a conference and know what the

answers should be. Are you defending your GCSEs? I think the

issue with exam boards is a farce. How can one grade be different to

another? An A is an A. The idea of actually apresentistships for

example, of course we are increasing, boosting the number of

apprenticeships, paying more money towards them, even in these

difficult times, and real apprenticeships, offered by

employers, not calling it an apprenticeship if you go to a

further education college on a course. A lot of things need to be

done and we need to give the best ones proper status. A Rolls-Royce

apprenticeship is as good as a degree. We need more of these.

you will remember, it was Margaret Thatcher's Government that

introduced GCSEs. And it was Keith Joseph as Secretary of State. He

said it will do more than O-levels to stretch the Abe lest pupils, it

will grade candidates better than now and be clear tore candidates,

their parents and employers than the current system, and it will be

more cost effective. Why are you going backwards? Because a quarter

of a century later, many Secretaries of State, a lot of time

has passed, it hasn't been developed in that way, it is not

providing that. The key thing with this is we are in a terrible

economic crisis, the worst sufferers are the young. The people

who are really getting the rough end of there recession are people

about to leave school or university. One of the things we have to face

up to is our education standards are no longer world class. We are

not fitting enough of these people for a modern height high-tech

economy. To hear, when we talk about restoring academic standards

in academic subjects, to hear people saying it is elitist is 1960.

I remember students coming out with that type of thing years and years

ago. You need qualifications, vocational and academic, genuinely

match up to what our competitors in Asia and Singapore are going to

provide. Is it not going to happen? Nick Clegg found us a leak...

said it is not going to happen, that he is against it. It will come

to a committee which he chairs. It is true usually when you get a leak

of something you don't want to leak it comes from somebody inside your

department who doesn't like what you are doing. If Nick is alarmed

by what he has seen in the Daily Mail, he will be chairing the

committee. I will be there and we'll talk about raising academic

standards in this country and The woman in pink, and then the

woman below. Reverting to the old- style O levels and emphasising on

how difficult they are will put off youngsters carrying on with

education. So what is the point in that? And you? From my experience,

I did not learn to write until I was 16. What worries me about the

proposals is that you can think it is elitist but at 14 you are making

a judgement about someone. People develop at different levels. I was

very lucky in 1969 and I went to a good further education college in

London, and I spent five years there. I did O-levels, GCSEs, A-

levels, I went to South Bank Polytechnic. I am the first in my

family to get a degree. I could have been written off, like a lot

of young people. What worries me with the education system today, if

you are selecting a 14 and saying, somebody has more hands-on

experience, someone is more academic, you are not actually

giving the opportunity to people to develop. You need a system which is

flexible enough that will develop people, and as people get older

they develop in different ways. And you can combine academic and

practicality. In fact, you need to do both.

I would like to make two points. The first is about schools picking

easy GCSEs to teach. There is a lot of pressure on schools to do well

in league tape -- league tables. The teaching of students to pass

exams. If they do not do that, they will not do well in the league

tables. The second point is that the Government approach on reform,

I agree that changes need to be made but it is more of a top-down

approach. We are looking at reforming A-levels and GCSEs but

you should focus on early-years and making sure primary school kids

leave with reading and writing skills to do well in later life.

The man in the white shirt. There is a bigger issue than that. We

have to stop these kids, in future years, taking any sort of belief in

their GCSEs they are going to be taking. The year 9 pupils now will

be in total flux come 2014. They will not know what they are doing.

The present pupils will not value their GCSEs. The transition from O-

levels to GCSEs did not have that effect. That is an argument for

never changing anything. The point was very good about primary and

early-years. We have seen the biggest rise in class sizes over-

thirties in primary schools because there is a shortage of primary

places all over the country, but Mr Gove is throwing all of the Monir

free schools, not putting the money where it is needed. Disgracefully,

the money was taken off Sandwell earlier in his Government. I have

been to some of those schools and they are struggling. That money

should have gone are here. I think the lady put it perfectly. It is

nudges and winks back to grammar schools. As somebody who came

through the comprehensive system and went to Cambridge, I believe

passionately in the comprehensive principle. Yes, it can be improved

and we need more aspiration, but let's not have been whittled away

by these reforms From Mr Gove. -- let us not have it whittled away.

It must be frustrating for teachers and children. We learnt the basic

things in life, reading, writing and adding up. Starting from there

we have seen, in the Black Country, you had all of the pupils'

developing, educated from that to become millionaires. Surely you

start from the beginning, reading, writing and adding up. So you are

with Michael Gove? Start at the beginning, with the basic skills.

Reading, writing, adding up. Start from there and then progress. The

it must be so frustrating now. Each Government has different ideas, and

where are the kids today? I agree with the lady at the back. We do

not put enough emphasis on vocational qualifications and the

fact that somebody who may not be brilliant, literally, at literacy,

but who is remarkable with their hands, we have not enough people in

the construction industry. We are trying to develop skills and

apprenticeships and give people a chance in construction. It was not

consider glamorous but it is an essential part of the economy going

forward. If we do not start to invest in what we need in future we

will find ourselves back to the labour shortages that we had 20

years ago. Nodding in agreement. Yes, I am in construction. We were

talking earlier and we were saying that people are coming into

apprenticeships because they think it is a second class thing. But it

is not. It is amazing. If you get into a company like mine, a true,

old fashioned apprentice. You come, you learn the trade, mentored by an

older Diamond driller. You can get a bonus, the same as the older

workers. And you are guaranteed a job, because I have invested in you,

you know the process from start to finish, and I am doing the

apprenticeship course. I got one Shia see in religious education and

I am running a multi-million-pound company. -- a GCSE. I am taking the

course because I want to see what my men are doing, I need to see it.

Why can we not follow Germany or Switzerland? An apprenticeship is a

fantastic thing. There should be more people doing it. There are

lots of kids getting on the bandwagon of apprentices and they

are falling off. There are so many hands up. I take issue with Andy

Burnham who was sitting there nodding to one of those comments.

The problem with apprenticeships was that the last Labour Government

pushed and pushed my generation that you had to go to university,

get as many people to university as possible. What was wrong with only

the best people going to good universities and taking the country

forwards, rather than people going to do hairdressing at university,

which they could have done at college or at school? They get lots

of debt for nothing. I have a vested interest, not only

because I have two grandson's in state education, but I am also

chair of governors at this college. I know that every child is

different and we get lost in this argument about whether it is

vocational, or whether it is academic. This college, among many

others, does both sides of things. Whether you want to be a motor

vehicle engineer, a dental nurse, or whether you want to follow the

path into academia, that is fine. You can cater for everybody, but it

is wrong to say that everybody should be treated the same because

we are not the same. Our children are not the same. Let's make sure

we give them a breadth of opportunity. Next time you want a

plumber, it is no good looking to somebody who is great at cracking

codes. We have to get the balance in society right. If we celebrate

those differences, we will have a more rounded society and will not

have a lot of the problems we currently have.

And are you in support of Michael Gove and the proposals for

reintroducing O-levels? What we had seen so far is the headline. As Ken

Clarke said, this has some distance to travel. GCSEs have been in place

for 30 years. Any system needs to be looked at again, possibly

revised. If we need to move with the times and compete with the rest

of the world, we have to take the right sort of actions. I cannot

tell me whether I am in favour until I see the whole argument set

out. -- I cannot tell you. Let's move on because we have other

questions. We have a question from Kanti Patel. Do I have more chance

of attending a state banquet than of seeing banks increasing lending

to small businesses? You are thinking of the Mansion House

banquet. Julie White. Are you critical of the banks? Are they

lending money that you need? They are not lending money, let me tell

you. I have a company that is growing, 20% a year on year, but

they are not lending. They are looking in the past, on the balance

sheet. We know what we have been through. 2008-2010 was horrendous

for the construction industry. They are always looking backwards. They

want to look forward now. We are all looking positive. It was great

that the Government was boosting 145 billion into the economy for

the banks to lend, but why are they not watching what is coming out the

other end? They are not watching what the banks are sending out to

small businesses. Half the time, they give you products that you do

not want and there is no way you can actually take them. So we need

them to start lending to us companies to grow, to employ, to

bring on apprentices and get the economy going.

You were Chancellor of the Exchequer once. You cannot order

the banks to lend to businesses, can you? What do you do? No, you

cannot. We might get on to the macro-economic questions later. If

you come to this country and you ask, what is the biggest single

problem facing us trying to get our economy to recover, it is that the

banks are not providing credit to small businesses. Every small

business will tell you it is very difficult to get working capital,

New Investment for start-ups, very difficult. Why are they scared of

doing it? They are sorting out their balance sheets, easier ways

of making bigger margins. You give them low-cost loans and they

actually have to rebuild their own balance sheets. So you cannot make

it happen? We have an agreement and a kind of hip the figures. We just

announced, at the Mansion House, actually, Georgia announced his

latest idea. We have tried credit easing and it has had some effect.

-- George announced his latest idea. Now, the Bank of England will make

available money with conditions attached that they would get it if

it is used for lending to small business. You still need the bank

to decide whether the small business is viable. It is no good

losing money on over-optimistic schemes. This is a monster scheme.

I have put in for that and they have come back and so that I am too

good. Is that the credit guarantee scheme? Yes. They have said you are

too big for it. The new one is still being designed. It was

announced 10 days ago. It is a colossal sum of money. But will you

get there? You say it is better, but... It will not get there. Let's

consider having our own British Investment Bank. We have poured

hundreds of billions of pounds into the banks. We owe no RBS and Lloyds,

so let's turn it into a British Julie has had to move to a Swedish

bank in order to help her develop. There are thousands of great

entrepreneurs like her who want to stimulate the economy. The

announcement at Mansion House by the Governor of the Bank of England

that there is �100 billion that they are going to make available

was an admission that the Government's strategy is failing.

There is no growth in our economy. If the banks will not lend, we need

to take control of the banks because we own them. We have put

hundreds of billions of pounds, and we should be investing in companies

like Julie's and many, many others, to invest in British communities,

British jobs, British manufacturing. That is the way to get us kick-

started on growth. In the white shirt. Up I would not want the

Government to look after any more money. I certainly would not want

anything to do with the Government with money. I have seen the

catastrophe over the road with the building called the Public. This

building was made by private money, made on time, on budget, and look

at it, perfect, no problem. All that we want is a situation that

works. Let's just get business to run things, not politicians.

what do you do, going back to the question, if the banks will not

lend the money to people like Julie all the businesses who are talking

about? They have got to lend them the money. Something has got to

change because we cannot keep talking about what the answer is

but then not giving them money to I think you are right not to want

the Government to do too many things directly. We all agree that

small businesses do struggle to get loans from the banks, especially at

an interest rate that they can afford. There are regulations on

the banks, becoming tighter and tighter. They have to hold more and

more capital, they have to shrink their balance sheets because of the

Troubles over the financial crisis of 2008 and that makes it harder

for banks to lend. They haven't shortened their bonus My turn. The

Government obviously recognises this and so does Sir Mervyn King.

Ken Clarke mentioned the loan guarantee scheme, it is early days.

What about the �100 billion announced at the Mansion House.

is called Funding for Lending. This is what you are referring to, Ken.

The idea that the Bank of England will lend cheap money to the

commercial banks. It could be 3-4% lower than otherwise would be the

case, which would be a terrific fillip for small businesses. And

the commercial banks on commercial criteria will lend to small

businesses. Is it going to work? haven't got the details yet but it

is as good as it gets, because it is the Bank of England behind it.

And it is a sizeable amount of money. An extraordinary amount of

money. An extraordinary amount you say. Yes. We are missing the point

in that I think the reasons why banks won't do it are twofold. One,

they would be held accountable for some of the disastrous things they

do and it might eat into their bonuses, and we couldn't have that,

could we! I'm a social entrepreneur and work

with Mo other social entrepreneurs who find it difficult to find

capital, because the banks don't understand what the social economy

is around and about. Sorry, for the sake of clarity, what kind? We are

businesses that put into the economy but we make sure the

outcomes of our work has a social good to it. What's your business?

work with young people, the intermediate labour markets, retail,

ground maintenance and catering, a number of things in the Black

Country. I've approached our social enterprise partnership and they've

agreed to take a risk to create social enterprise zones across the

Black Country area. Part of that model is we release capital, get

businesses working with each other. Public sector, private sector and

civil society working together to make sure that business is good.

Are you short of cash? Are you offering? We are always short of

cash, because the banks, I have a good relationship with them, but

trying to get them to understand what the social economy is about is

a difficult model for them. So you have to try to get money from

elsewhere and it is more expensive than a high street bank. OK. Andy

Burnham? I hope somebody in the Treasury is sitting listening to

Julie tonight, as maybe it will shake them out of their complacency.

What she says really has to be heard. I will be at the Lee

Business Forum tomorrow morning and there'll be the same complaints

again. They will all be saying, we can't get any support from the

banks. These companies have been here a long time. They've got a

solid track record. The banks know who they are. They understand their

business, so why are they still not lending to them? Small businesses

must feel so frustrated. It must look like the voice of big business

is heard in Government but never the small business. Len McCluskey's

business about the banks, the country sorted them out a few years

ago. They said we understand the effect on the economy if they don't,

lit drag them down But they are suiting themselves and it is not

acceptable. We say how can the banks do it? We own a large chunk

of the banks, we have the Merlin agreement, and we were promised the

money would come through but it never has. The one thing I would

say, you mentioned what's going on with the LEP. I thought this

Government was cavalier in wiping away good things that were working.

Advantage West Midlands, the RDA, was a good thing, to bring

investment in. Why just wipe it away. Splim it down a bit, refocus

it a bit, but taking it away has set all of the regions back. They

said because Labour did it we are just going to get rid of it.

APPLAUSE We only have under ten minutes left. I want to take this

one from Harry Roberts please. doctors right to strike, or should

Yes they were. The doctorings are the lathe es in a number of public

sector workers who veryjected the Government's attempt to steal money

out of the pension funds. The Government's plans are to make

public sector workers pay more, get less and work longer. There is no

legitimacy for it, because the pension funds that are there to

govern what public sector workers get are sustainable. That argument

that the Government put forward at the beginning of this campaign,

that it wasn't affordable, because blown out of the water. I have no

doubt that there'll be people on this panel who will want to attack

doctors and public sector workers. We shouldn't demonise public sector

workers. They are the people who teach our kids, heal our sick, care

for our elderly and vulnerable, encourage our youth, clean our

streets, collect our refuse, the very people who create the

civilised fabric of the communities in which we live. They didn't cause

this crisis. Private sector workers and ordinary people didn't cause

this crisis. It was the spivs and the speculators. APPLAUSE It was

the spivs and the speculators, the greedy fat cat bankers and CEOs in

boardrooms who caused the crisis. The Government should be attacking

them, not decent men and women. APPLAUSE Are you saying that there

is no financial problem at all with public sector pensions? There is no

financial problem whatsoever. The deal cut in 2008 with the then

Labour Government, pensions is highly economy kaicted. Actuaries

go into -- highly complicated. Actuaries go into depth and all the

schemes that cover public sector workers are in surplus. All the

Government are doing is they are simply stealing out of workers'

back pockets. Why? We heard all this stuff about gold plated

pensions. In the NHS the average pension is �4,000. The same in

local government. Doctors work eight years to get, do any of us

trust our doctors here? I suspect we all do. They work hard. They get

a decent pay. They put into a pension scheme so they can have

dignity in requirement. They didn't cause it. Len McCluskey, thank you.

I want to ask Ken Clarke to comment on this. On the question, we'll

find out tomorrow about 9 out of 10 doctors will have decided that this

was one of the more silly things the BMA decided to do for a very

long time. We do all respect our doctors. I strongly suspect the

vast majority of doctors did not take action, which can only have an

adverse effect on patients. They turn up to get paid and they don't

treat the pensioners and they expect tow sympathise with their

claims on their pensions? Why did they vote for it if you say

(Inaudible) Because like the last Government they thought it would

back down when threatened by doctors, which is when they got

their colossal pay and pensions settlement through. It hasn't

worked. Len McCluskey says there is no problem. I'm afraid I was trying

to keep a straight face during that. If we don't, we should have tackled

public sector pensions a long time ago. If we don't tackle it and make

it fair now, all we are doing is piling up a bigger problem. It is

no good looking at today's payout, it is going up astronomically. On

funding obligations, Get your facts straight. As part of the GDP, which

is what the pension schemes are based on, and the actuaries and

experts in pension, not only is it affordable, but it is coming down.

We have a fundamental disagreement on that. Lut me bring Andy Burnham

in. If you were a self employed person and you bought the pension

it could cost you �1.5 million to �2 million per person to get that

pension commitment for their retirement when it comes. They've

all been having to cut back. They will still be more attractive than

private sector pensions by far. We are getting back to sanity, common

sense and it has to affect doctorers just as much as it has to

affect nurses, teachers and everybody in the public sector.

Andy Burnham? I don't think the strike was justified. I said so

clearly, because in the case of doctors, obviously there's a direct

impact on vulnerable people and on patients. It always would have to

be an absolute last resort, extreme measures. I don't think those

criteria were met. Having said that, I'm not here to have a go at

doctors. I completely understand how they feel and how angry they

feel. When they came into Government this was a Government

that was going to listen to doctors. Doctors were going to be at the

centre of things. They've sought confrontation with their pension

and more than that... Do you think there's a problem? We did make

changes in 2008. Of course, as the population ages we need to look to

the long term to make it sustainable. The point where you

cut me off, the point I was going to make, the doctors have warned

David Cameron about the dangers of NHS reorganisation. What are we

seeing now? Crude, random rationing across the NHS. There was a report

that operations are being... Hang on, we only have a couple of

minutes. They said they would listen to doctors and they didn't.

Are you on their side? The NHS, the they said the NHS is like a

supertanker heading for an iceberg. Parents unforgivable what David

Cameron has done to the NHS. If we had listened to doctors we wouldn't

have the NHS in a very dangerous situation as we have right now.

sorry to rush you but we are coming to tend. Doctors have to realise

which child they love, the pension or the patient? I can't believe

we've got to this situation. Yes we are all working hard erpblgts,

working longer for less -- working harder, working longer for less

money. I'm sorry, it is hard out there. They are a pillar of the

community. I think that we should reward them well, but come on, this

is the real world. Ruth Lea? Picking up on what Julie has been

saying, the doctors, and I am a great respecter of doctors, the

doctors are well paid, especially after the 2004 settlement, and they

are extremely well pensioned. If you retire at 60 on a �120 a year

salary, you have a pension of �48,000 a year. Who else has that

in this room? A tax-free lump sum of �140. When you talk about paying

in, the point is that these pensions are 80% of their pensions

are paid for by the taxpayer.. 80%. We know what the public finances

look like. Those are the facts Len. Bless them. Although I love the

doctors well, they are well positioned. Even after these

changes the Government's proposed they will be extremely well

pensioned in comparison with people in the private sector. I'm sorry, I

have to stop. We are only allowed one hour by BBC One and our hour is

one hour by BBC One and our hour is up. So apologies. We are going to

be in Luton next week. We'll have the actor and comedian Tony

Robinson on the panel, Justin Greening for the Conservatives,

Tessa Jowell for Labour. The week after that we'll be in Derby.

Dame Tessa Jowell I must say. never use titles on Question Time.