:00:13. > :00:19.Tonight, we're in lieu on the. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:19. > :00:23.-- we're in Luton. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:23. > :00:27.And on our panel here, the Transport Secretary, Justine
:00:27. > :00:30.Greening, the shadow Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell, who was
:00:30. > :00:34.Culture Secretary when London won the Olympic Games. The former
:00:34. > :00:40.leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown. The chief executive
:00:40. > :00:50.of the leading City of lon brokerage firm, Terry Smith and the
:00:50. > :00:58.
:00:58. > :01:03.-- Tony Robinson. Good. It is very, very hot in here,
:01:03. > :01:11.so forgive us if we all pour sweat through the programme! Let's have
:01:11. > :01:18.the first question, which will bring sweat to any brow. From
:01:18. > :01:23.Andrew Collon. Is there any integrity left in British banking?
:01:23. > :01:28.It is almost like they are not human, isn't it? You look at them
:01:28. > :01:31.and think, these people do not live in the same world as us! Before the
:01:31. > :01:35.crisis happened they were decimating the high street banks,
:01:36. > :01:39.laying off all their staff, putting us all on computers when they
:01:39. > :01:44.clearly had not developed the technology. They told us they were
:01:44. > :01:49.doing that to make things better for us. They didn't. They made
:01:49. > :01:53.things worse for us. It was simply in order to collect up an enormous
:01:53. > :02:03.amount of money that they could invest in the casino of
:02:03. > :02:08.international banking and they blew it buzz they did not understand it.
:02:08. > :02:10.We -- because they did not understand it. They do not end us
:02:10. > :02:18.money, even though they have promised to do so.
:02:18. > :02:22.APPLAUSE And they then have the gall to
:02:22. > :02:27.increase their wages by 12%, to give themselves bonuses and say,
:02:27. > :02:31.we've got to do this, because if we don't, we'll leave the country. All
:02:31. > :02:34.the time, actually, in the background, they are committing
:02:34. > :02:43.acts, which in any other business I think would be seen as criminal.
:02:43. > :02:48.APPLAUSE I remember a time when the bank
:02:48. > :02:53.manager, along with the doctor and the magistrate was the person who
:02:53. > :02:58.signed your passport - the person for whom society had an enormous
:02:58. > :03:02.amount of respect. I don't know about you, I have no respect for
:03:02. > :03:06.British bankers and the British banking system at all. They've
:03:06. > :03:16.dragged us into that situation. It about about time they started
:03:16. > :03:17.
:03:17. > :03:23.getting us out of it. APPLAUSE
:03:23. > :03:28.Terry Smith? Yes, it is very difficult. I suppose I've got to
:03:28. > :03:31.agree with Tony Robinson on one point - which is the criminality
:03:32. > :03:37.point. Seeing what happens with this scandal which broke today, it
:03:37. > :03:40.must be very difficult for ordinary people looking at that. If you
:03:40. > :03:44.defrauded somebody on your mortgage application you would probably go
:03:44. > :03:48.to jail. This is an action which has been taken which certainly
:03:48. > :03:52.affected the price you pay for your mortgage. Why isn't anyone going to
:03:52. > :03:56.go to jail? I have to say, I think there is a case to answer there. As
:03:56. > :04:01.for the point about bankers leaving the country, I too have heard that
:04:01. > :04:06.raised many times by them. In relation to the way people have
:04:06. > :04:12.behaved in recent years - if they do, good. Do you think there should
:04:12. > :04:17.be criminal prosecutions? Or is it impossible to prosecute people for
:04:17. > :04:27.lying about interest rates? It is possible. There is the Theft Act,
:04:27. > :04:29.
:04:29. > :04:35.1968, which was updated in 1986, as the fraud act. It is a good piece
:04:35. > :04:40.of law that people can employ for that. Going back to the point of
:04:40. > :04:46.any integrity - I think there are two types of banking I would
:04:46. > :04:50.distinguish between. One is the trading bit, with the big bonuses
:04:50. > :04:55.and massive losses. Buried within those banks are some decent people
:04:55. > :05:03.who operate in the retail branches, who have struggled, even though
:05:03. > :05:07.they have not been given the tools. APPLAUSE
:05:07. > :05:11.Justine Greening? I think it does seem hard to find a lot of
:05:11. > :05:19.integrity left in the banking system at times. What has broken
:05:19. > :05:23.today, the FSA's investigation and the Barclays is unacceptable. It
:05:23. > :05:27.shows a culture of greed which had sprung up in the banking industry.
:05:27. > :05:30.We will look at how we can introduce criminal sanctions to
:05:30. > :05:34.take action on this sort of behaviour. They are not there at
:05:34. > :05:39.the moment. We have to look to the last Government as to why they were
:05:39. > :05:42.so lax on putting any of this infrastructure in place. If these
:05:42. > :05:48.criminal sanctions had been there before people might have looked
:05:48. > :05:53.more carefully about their behaviour. We will look at that. In
:05:53. > :05:56.terms of what happens with these particular individuals, the FSA is
:05:56. > :06:01.talking to the Serious Fraud Office already about whether we can look
:06:01. > :06:06.at sanctions that are in place now to tackle what has happened. Going
:06:06. > :06:10.forward we do need some criminal sanctions. I think that is long
:06:10. > :06:14.overdue. What is the charge you made against the previous
:06:14. > :06:18.Government? There was a code of conduct about how they worked in
:06:18. > :06:22.the labour market. Instead of putting it on the statute books,
:06:22. > :06:26.which they did and putting teeth on it and saying, if you don't follow
:06:26. > :06:29.this there will be criminal sanctions against you. They just
:06:29. > :06:34.did that. It was a light touch. There was no teeth to it. That is
:06:34. > :06:38.one of the reasons why we've ended up with the culture which has led
:06:38. > :06:43.to today's investigation. Obviously we have to wait and see about the
:06:43. > :06:46.20 other institutions which are being looked into. It could be a
:06:46. > :06:50.wide-ranging investigation. It is utterly shocking to see what has
:06:50. > :06:54.happened. I agree with Terry - this has affected all of our mortgages
:06:54. > :06:58.possibly. I am shocked by what has gone on. I hope we can take some
:06:58. > :07:03.serious action about it. Certainly, in Parliament, this Government will
:07:03. > :07:07.look at what we can do for criminal sanctions as well. The man in red
:07:07. > :07:12.there, in the third row from the back.
:07:12. > :07:16.I think I agree with Tony. It is a very easy excuse for the
:07:16. > :07:21.Conservative Party to blame the last Labour Government for
:07:21. > :07:24.absolutely everything. Fraud is fraud. If people are frauding the
:07:24. > :07:29.British banking system, they should be investigated. They should be
:07:29. > :07:34.locked up. APPLAUSE
:07:34. > :07:37.The person in the second row from the back.
:07:37. > :07:42.Yes. How long does the coalition Government intend on blaming the
:07:42. > :07:45.last Government for mistakes that have been made and they've done
:07:45. > :07:51.nothing to rectify? Now you are saying, I think it is a good idea
:07:51. > :07:54.if we maybe look at this. We are bringing forward regulation of the
:07:54. > :07:59.banking industry right now. That is why we can take some action on this.
:07:59. > :08:03.This fraud case which was uncovered and the fine which came out today
:08:03. > :08:06.related to a fraud which took place during the last Government. Even
:08:06. > :08:09.Labour in the House of Lords has admitted they sould have had a
:08:09. > :08:12.criminal offence in place -- should have had a criminal offence in
:08:12. > :08:17.place already. We can make sure we take action now. This report is now
:08:17. > :08:22.out. We know there is probably more investigation to happen. That's why
:08:22. > :08:26.we are determined to take some action. Tessa Jowell? Of course the
:08:26. > :08:31.point is that when we were the last Government, it was the
:08:31. > :08:35.Conservatives that were criticising us for being over regulatorry with
:08:35. > :08:41.the banks and what hindsight has shown is we did not do enough. In
:08:41. > :08:48.March, when it was Labour who proposed putting the rate that is
:08:48. > :08:51.now at the centre of the controversy today on the statutory
:08:51. > :08:58.footing, it was simply brushed aside by the Treasury Minister. The
:08:58. > :09:04.fact is, this is an appalling situation. What we have to
:09:04. > :09:09.establish is who knew what? How high up Barclays this went? Over
:09:09. > :09:17.the next period of few days and weeks, we'll find out whether this
:09:17. > :09:23.practise was actually operating in other banks as well. It is
:09:23. > :09:27.absolutely appalling. Do you get the feeling that the bankers run
:09:27. > :09:32.rings around the politicians? APPLAUSE There is a very important
:09:32. > :09:37.point here and I think the gentleman already made this point,
:09:37. > :09:43.you know, you can have all the regulation in the world, but if
:09:43. > :09:47.people are not acting honestly, with integrity and decency,
:09:47. > :09:51.respecting and understanding the importance of the money they are
:09:51. > :09:56.handling on behalf of clients, then most people, if they are set on
:09:56. > :10:03.that, will beat the system. It was day day day who talked about the
:10:03. > :10:07.cull -- it was Bob Diamond who talked about the culture of what
:10:07. > :10:11.happens when no-one is watching. What this revealed is just how
:10:11. > :10:18.rotten that culture is. There are lots of people are hands up. Paddy
:10:18. > :10:22.Ashdown you have not spoken. You have hit the nail on the head,
:10:22. > :10:28.David, that the British public thinks that the bankers and the
:10:28. > :10:33.rich run rings around politicians. I have to say, it's all too true
:10:33. > :10:37.and Tessa agreed with that by saying they did too much. One
:10:38. > :10:40.reason is because of the rich and politics and of the funding of
:10:40. > :10:43.political parties and their ability... By the way you have seen
:10:43. > :10:49.it in the press as well. The question is not, how did we get
:10:49. > :10:55.here? The question is, what do we do next? Andrew said, have we got
:10:55. > :11:03.any moral trust in the morality of bankers? Listening to the news I
:11:03. > :11:06.was reminded of a poem by Phillip Larkin. He said "England a cast of
:11:07. > :11:11.crooks and tarts." In this sense, all those who are the most powerful,
:11:11. > :11:15.all that we trusted, the establishments of the establishment
:11:15. > :11:21.seem to fall below the standard of public service. There is something
:11:21. > :11:29.big here we need to tackle T first question is, how do we tackle this
:11:29. > :11:36.issue we heard about today? The British public, one of our national
:11:36. > :11:39.pastimes is moral outrage. We love to do it. On this occasion it is
:11:39. > :11:43.entirely justified. Here is some things we need to do. I am
:11:43. > :11:46.delighted the coalition is strengthening regulations. I hope
:11:46. > :11:51.the Labour Party will, I hope it gets through fast. If there is a
:11:51. > :11:55.case, and my learned friends tell me they think it is tricky to bring
:11:55. > :11:59.criminal actions against these people at the moment - but if we
:11:59. > :12:03.can, we should. Watch out bankers, there are civil cases coming your
:12:03. > :12:08.way, not least from the United States. Secondly, we should be
:12:08. > :12:11.limiting. There are more to come out, then their operations in the
:12:11. > :12:17.speculative marketplace should be limited. I see no reason why that
:12:17. > :12:20.should not be a sanction taken against banks, who behaved in an
:12:20. > :12:26.outrageous fashion. The last point is this, and it refers to the
:12:26. > :12:30.personality of Bob Diamond, there has been a clear, systemic failure
:12:30. > :12:34.in Barclays and more important than that there has been a complete
:12:34. > :12:39.breakdown of the moral culture of a bank that allows its supporters to
:12:40. > :12:45.do that. I am afraid Mr Diamond is in a fool or nave situation. If he
:12:45. > :12:49.did know, he was a nave and if he didn't, he was a fool. Frankly I
:12:49. > :12:53.think his position is untenable, unless new facts come to light and
:12:54. > :13:03.I doubt they will. I hope he'll take the appropriate action.
:13:04. > :13:06.
:13:06. > :13:10.APPLAUSE The do you agree? I agree. He
:13:10. > :13:14.touched upon something... I know I am here to answer questions, but I
:13:14. > :13:19.wanted to ask one. If the Government is serious about dealing
:13:19. > :13:23.with this, why won't it split these banks between casino and retail
:13:23. > :13:28.operations? The case would be unanswerable. I agree.
:13:28. > :13:33.Justine Greening? I am sure we will look carefully at what this shows
:13:33. > :13:37.for regulation on banking. We are taking a bill through Parliament
:13:37. > :13:46.right now which tackles a lot of these regulatory problems we
:13:46. > :13:51.inherited. We had a big inquiry. We are taking on bored those
:13:51. > :13:54.recommendations. We are clear we need -- on board those
:13:54. > :14:00.recommendations. We are clear we need to regulate that. The woman in
:14:00. > :14:07.green at the very back there? got a comment for Justine Greening.
:14:07. > :14:10.I'm actually fed up of hearing from the Conservative Party, oh we've
:14:10. > :14:16.inherited this from the previous Government. Can I just ask, why on
:14:16. > :14:22.earth did you bother to seek power if you could not undo or improve on
:14:22. > :14:27.what the previous Government did? We are. We are and there are lots
:14:27. > :14:30.of different things we as a Government need to work on. Sorting
:14:31. > :14:38.out this regulatory system which failed, which is part of the reason
:14:38. > :14:43.people get bored of, because they have heard it for two years.
:14:44. > :14:47.The man there in the blue shirt. Is it not true that as a result of
:14:47. > :14:54.all this, that the greater the good of the nation have been -- the
:14:54. > :14:57.great and the good of the nation have been found in not just banks,
:14:57. > :15:02.for "cash for questions", in mobile phone hacking, the whole, everybody,
:15:02. > :15:12.all of them seem to be let down the general public over and over again?
:15:12. > :15:12.
:15:12. > :15:18.Anyone in the audience from the finance or business industry?
:15:18. > :15:22.brave person ?! You in the spectacles? It's very simple to say
:15:22. > :15:28.more regulation is needed but more regulation without effective
:15:28. > :15:34.supervision takes you nowhere. you, Sir? Are you also a banker?
:15:34. > :15:39.work in accounts but somebody touched on it earlier - Tony said
:15:39. > :15:45.that they threaten to leave if we dare say anything to them, why
:15:45. > :15:51.don't we just let them leave? I want to go back to you, Sir. You
:15:51. > :15:53.said it's all very well to make the changes in regulation, but can't do
:15:53. > :15:57.anything without it being properly policed. Do you think it's
:15:57. > :16:00.impossible to be policed? No. a complex thing about understating
:16:00. > :16:03.the interest rate that you are getting on your money and that sort
:16:03. > :16:06.of thing and people clearly chatting behind-the-scenes and
:16:06. > :16:10.bleaking open the champagne and thank you for this and thank you
:16:10. > :16:14.for that, you don't see that, do you, that's the trouble, it's not
:16:14. > :16:17.there on the surface? I don't think it's impossible to have effective
:16:17. > :16:22.supervision, but rather like the poacher being the most effective
:16:22. > :16:26.gamekeeper, giving control back to the Bank of England so people who
:16:26. > :16:31.understand the system and know what tricks are being played, they are
:16:31. > :16:34.in a better position to control the investment part of banking. Do you
:16:34. > :16:37.think the Bank of England could control things? I think it can
:16:37. > :16:42.control things better than the authorities. It would be hard to be
:16:42. > :16:48.worse, wouldn't it? APPLAUSE
:16:48. > :16:51.There's one other remedy which nobody's mentioned yet, which is
:16:51. > :16:55.absolute financial transparency. The reason that the libel rate was
:16:55. > :17:01.fiddled was mainly I think because Barclays wanted to obscure what
:17:01. > :17:05.kind of cash that it had at that time. In fact, the reason why so
:17:05. > :17:10.many European countries are doing so badly is because nobody really
:17:10. > :17:16.knows how much the banks are worth so it becomes, as I said, a casino
:17:16. > :17:19.with people gambling on who's got how much. The one thing above
:17:19. > :17:24.everything else I think which would really help us get to grips with
:17:24. > :17:27.the financial crisis and get the bankers in tow would be financial
:17:27. > :17:31.transparency, if we knew how much the banks were worth and also if we
:17:31. > :17:33.split the banks in two between the high street sector and the
:17:33. > :17:38.commercial sector. APPLAUSE
:17:38. > :17:42.Let's just remember one thing. I'm a Liberal and used to not being in
:17:42. > :17:46.the majority, if you wouldn't be a Liberal:
:17:46. > :17:50.I hesitate to come out and defend the bankers, but let's just
:17:50. > :17:54.remember one thing. This is one of our nation's great industries.
:17:54. > :17:58.Before we send them all down the plug hole, we ought to consider how
:17:58. > :18:02.to make it better. The gentleman's point over here about oversight
:18:02. > :18:05.reinforces the point made by Terry, the right point by the way. If you
:18:05. > :18:08.split the speculative from the domestic banks, you have a much
:18:08. > :18:14.tighter system, it's easier to provide the oversight for it. So
:18:14. > :18:18.that is one of the key reforms that we have to institute. We'll bring
:18:18. > :18:24.in a financial conduct authority that will have more teeth and work
:18:24. > :18:30.effective, more effectively than the FSA. That's been one of the
:18:30. > :18:35.challenges. You will regulate this issue of Liboy? Eye yes. When?
:18:36. > :18:40.We'll look at whether we can bring that or other legislation forward -
:18:40. > :18:44.- Libor. We have a lot to get through.
:18:44. > :18:54.We always welcome your comments on the programme if you are watching
:18:54. > :19:01.
:19:01. > :19:06.at home. There was an outcry about me saying texting was under threat,
:19:06. > :19:11.we are now trying to find ways of keeping it going, so keep talking
:19:11. > :19:16.about it stopping, because it won't because you did complain. That's
:19:16. > :19:19.people power for you. We need some of that in the banks. People like
:19:19. > :19:25.watching this programme with comments underneath. We are trying
:19:25. > :19:29.to think of a way of putting Twitter on the vein as well but
:19:29. > :19:39.it's very technical and very important. Keep at it, if you would.
:19:39. > :19:42.April Saunders, please? scrapping the petrol duty rise a
:19:42. > :19:46.sensible thing given how much the Government is in debt? Tessa
:19:46. > :19:52.Jowell? We are glad the Government's decided to defer the
:19:52. > :19:56.petrol duty until January because it will bring a little bit of
:19:56. > :20:02.relief to families who're under enormous pressure. We also, Labour,
:20:02. > :20:06.put forward a proposal as to where the money should come from and we
:20:06. > :20:11.haven't yet heard that from the Government and this appears to have
:20:11. > :20:16.been a rather extraordinarily stitched up decision over a couple
:20:16. > :20:19.of hours. It would be very good to know when Justine was told about it
:20:19. > :20:24.- was she told about it before George Osborne announced it? But
:20:24. > :20:29.the fact is that families are facing a terrible squeeze and
:20:29. > :20:34.deferring yet a further increase on petrol will help. But of course,
:20:34. > :20:38.whey did they ever get into this position in the first place because
:20:38. > :20:44.her here is yet another U-turn and we've heard a lot about the
:20:44. > :20:47.omnishambles of the Budget. Here's another bit, but a bit from which a
:20:47. > :20:52.specific proposal from which families will benefit. That's a
:20:52. > :21:02.good thing. Plauz mauz
:21:02. > :21:09.
:21:09. > :21:12.APPLAUSE Greening,, Justine Greening, you
:21:12. > :21:17.said this week that you were not going to lobby the Treasury to
:21:17. > :21:21.delay or abandon the 3p rise, did it come as a surprise to you when
:21:21. > :21:26.the Chancellor suddenly announced it? No. I was informed before he
:21:26. > :21:29.made the announcement. I think having spent my time in Treasury
:21:30. > :21:34.before I went into the Department for Transport, there are several
:21:34. > :21:39.tax rises that had been pre-laned into the public finances so I spent
:21:39. > :21:42.a lot of time in Treasury looking at how you can avoid them. -- pre-
:21:43. > :21:47.planned. We have cut fuel duty so far in one case and worked hard to
:21:47. > :21:50.delay the other planned increases that were already set in stone.
:21:50. > :21:54.So I think we have done the right thing and actually... When you say
:21:54. > :21:58.it wasn't a surprise, on Tuesday you were saying one thing, then the
:21:58. > :22:01.Chancellor was saying another thing? Well, it's never been my
:22:01. > :22:04.sense that giving a running commentary on what Government's
:22:04. > :22:08.thinking of doing maybe is a good idea. I don't think there's any
:22:08. > :22:11.point in raising expectations if you then don't know that you can
:22:11. > :22:15.necessarily meet them and I think George Osborne was pretty pragmatic
:22:15. > :22:18.in saying we'd got a bit of flexibility opening up in this
:22:18. > :22:23.year's finances so I'm delighted that the first thing he chose to
:22:23. > :22:26.look at what he could do to help out on was to push back that fuel
:22:26. > :22:32.duty rise. I think that's absolutely the right thing.
:22:32. > :22:37.wouldn't want to obsess about when and why and how you knew, but...
:22:37. > :22:40.Yes you would! You would love to. wouldn't because the process is one
:22:40. > :22:46.thing but it's the decision that interests me. Paddy Ashdown, what
:22:46. > :22:49.do you make of the decision and the way it was taken? I'm not sure my
:22:49. > :22:54.party was terrifically happy because we have to sustain the
:22:54. > :22:57.attack on the deficit. We also think that there's a real case here
:22:57. > :23:01.for creating a more fuel efficient society. But on the other hand, let
:23:01. > :23:05.me put this point to you. If the deficit is the major thing we have
:23:05. > :23:08.to do, and it is, nevertheless we are largely I think because of
:23:08. > :23:11.external factors like for instance the euro crisis and the huge rise
:23:12. > :23:17.in oil prices and commodity prices earlier in the year, the economy's
:23:17. > :23:25.now in a difficult state. So we've got to get people with more money
:23:25. > :23:28.in their pockets and able to spend. Talking about attacking the deficit
:23:28. > :23:31.but also you have to get the economy moving. When you balance
:23:31. > :23:34.these things out, that was the right thing to do for now in the
:23:34. > :23:37.present economic situation. The fact that it wasn't a few months
:23:37. > :23:40.ago was because we were in a dufrpbt situation. At the present
:23:40. > :23:45.moment, while continuing to attack the deficit, it would have been
:23:45. > :23:48.wrong to have used the extra money that would have been generated here
:23:48. > :23:53.to put into deficit Dutting and better to put it into people's
:23:53. > :23:56.pockets to get the economy moving again. My judgment on balance, the
:23:56. > :24:00.right decision. There was no knead for any of this. This is what I
:24:00. > :24:04.find galing. Oil in the oil fields has gone down something like 30% in
:24:04. > :24:08.the last few months as the economies of the world have got
:24:08. > :24:15.poorer. And yet, petrol at the pumps has gone down, not by 30%,
:24:15. > :24:18.but by 6%. If it was the other way around, if the price of oil had
:24:18. > :24:23.gone back, you could imagine the increase would be in the pumps the
:24:23. > :24:29.next day. We have seen another example of powerful big business
:24:29. > :24:34.actually taking advantage of us while the recession is on. We
:24:34. > :24:37.shouldn't have to have this argument because petrol ought to be
:24:37. > :24:43.significantly cheaper. You are absolutely right.
:24:43. > :24:47.APPLAUSE And that was one of the points I
:24:47. > :24:53.was making earlier on this week, it's why I challenged the petrol
:24:53. > :24:56.retailers to start passing on the reductions and wholesale prices to
:24:56. > :24:59.consumers. We have laid down the gauntlet and said it's time for
:24:59. > :25:03.them to be more transparent about what they are doing. I've already
:25:03. > :25:08.had a good response for one of the retailers, ASDA. I think we can do
:25:08. > :25:15.a huge amount more to make sure they play their role alongside what
:25:15. > :25:21.we are trying to do as a government. Why wouldn't you lobby the Treasury
:25:21. > :25:24.then to abandon the 3p rise? first port of call is to get the
:25:24. > :25:28.petrol retailer to play their role, rather than taking money out of
:25:28. > :25:34.public finances. But I think given that clearly there was some room
:25:34. > :25:38.opened up in this year's finances, it was absolutely right... Hang on,
:25:38. > :25:40.you could have taken it off the autumn Budget couldn't you. You are
:25:40. > :25:44.Secretary of State for Transport, you are involved in everybody's
:25:44. > :25:47.business on the roads, the cars, the petrol prices and all that.
:25:47. > :25:51.That's right. At the beginning of the week you said you were not
:25:51. > :25:56.going to reduce the 3p, it has to stick and suddenly the rug's pulled
:25:56. > :26:03.out from under you. Because it was going to cost �1.5 billion and now
:26:03. > :26:07.it costs about �500 million so the figures have shifted. That's
:26:07. > :26:10.because if you... How do I know? I'm no longer a minister.
:26:10. > :26:17.reason why is that if you did a long-term cut in fuel duty, it
:26:17. > :26:21.costs you every year. We've just delayed the rise. Get it again in
:26:21. > :26:26.January? Less. That's all we can afford to do. It will come in
:26:26. > :26:29.January? Correct. And you won't be lobbying for the Treasury?
:26:29. > :26:32.constantly trying to make sure we do our level best to make sure
:26:32. > :26:36.motoring is affordable. We have challenged the retailers, I'm
:26:36. > :26:41.working with the Ministry of Justice to tackle whiplash and try
:26:41. > :26:45.and make sure insurance stays lower. I'm working with the garage
:26:45. > :26:50.industry to make sure we can keep services your Carloer. I'm sure you
:26:50. > :26:54.are doing all that. Let's stick with the petrol duty rise. The
:26:54. > :26:58.woman there? I'm a student and I'm about to sit my driving test in two
:26:58. > :27:03.weeks' time. What will the cost of fuel be like in 50 years' time when
:27:03. > :27:07.I've still got a car and need to get about - why are people focusing
:27:07. > :27:12.on what's happening now instead of what's going to happen in 20 or 30
:27:13. > :27:16.years' time. How would you want them to do that? Just by saying,
:27:16. > :27:19.about what they're going to do and what they want to highlight.
:27:19. > :27:25.Everybody's focusing on what's happening now. You want a strategy
:27:25. > :27:28.for the use of fuel? For the long- term future. You, Sir?
:27:29. > :27:33.I personally support the Government. I don't think it's a U-turn, I
:27:33. > :27:41.think it's the right turn for the Government at the moment for our
:27:41. > :27:44.suffering and I give them that. Terry Smith? You have got to
:27:44. > :27:47.distinguish the wood from the trees and Paddy Ashdown said the deficit
:27:47. > :27:52.is the single biggest problem we face. In the light of that, in
:27:52. > :27:56.round number terms, as we know, 0s mean nothing so we can take them
:27:56. > :28:01.off the end, the Government has a basic income of �6 and is spending
:28:01. > :28:05.�7. In the face of that, do anything that takes the �6 down
:28:06. > :28:08.strikes me as the wrong decision. So you would have kept that or
:28:08. > :28:12.increased it? I don't think increasing it is necessarily the
:28:13. > :28:17.way to go. Why do you think it's been reduced? I don't know.
:28:17. > :28:20.economy's doing very badly. We are in double-dip recession. Maybe he's
:28:20. > :28:23.trying to stimulate the economy? I'm not sure we are in a double-dip
:28:23. > :28:26.recession, I don't think we ever got out of one. If you think the
:28:26. > :28:32.very modest improvement we had in any kind of economics in the last
:28:32. > :28:35.year or so were after �500 billion of deficit, �3 25 billion of
:28:36. > :28:40.quantitive easing and interest rates at their lowest level for 300
:28:40. > :28:44.years. The economy was only just about alive at that point. Does
:28:44. > :28:47.this do anything to help the economy? Not really. The order of
:28:47. > :28:52.magnitude is not capable of touching it. We've got an annual
:28:52. > :28:57.deficit of �25 billion. surprise me a little. You are a
:28:57. > :29:01.highly successful businessman. that what surprises you? No, I'm
:29:01. > :29:07.utterly delighted. The more the better, especially if they'll...
:29:08. > :29:12.Never mind! Look, you don't run your business on one policy, you
:29:12. > :29:15.run it on a combination. There is a priority but you run it on a
:29:16. > :29:19.combination. The Chancellor has to do the right thing. He has to
:29:19. > :29:23.address the management of the economy, the priority is to bring
:29:23. > :29:27.down the deficit but also to make sure we get businesses and economic
:29:27. > :29:31.growth generated again and therefore at this point when we are
:29:31. > :29:34.tackling the deficit effectively, to do something even quite small,
:29:34. > :29:44.to get the growth going, to get money in people's pockets, to get
:29:44. > :29:45.
:29:45. > :29:50.them spending, surely is the right You go into a service station, they
:29:50. > :29:57.might have adverts saying cheaper petrol, but you go inside they
:29:57. > :30:03.charge you �8 for a bag of maltesers. You can't win. We can't
:30:03. > :30:08.advertise! I am staggered by the naivety that
:30:08. > :30:12.Tony Robinson gave out earlier on. If we reduce the price of petrol,
:30:12. > :30:17.we reduce the tax take. What services would he like the
:30:17. > :30:21.Government to cut to make up for the cut taxes? I don't think
:30:21. > :30:26.reducing the price of petrol is the big issue that people say. I do
:30:26. > :30:31.agree with you, that the problem with reducing it is that you end up
:30:31. > :30:35.with half a billion or whatever the money is, which we've got to find
:30:35. > :30:40.from somewhere else. What I'm saying to you is actually it is the
:30:40. > :30:47.oil companies which have taken that money out of the economy. We could
:30:47. > :30:53.have inveed that into boost for -- invested that into boost the growth.
:30:53. > :30:57.I don't think that is naive, I think it is a justified. On the far
:30:57. > :31:01.right there? I like to build on someone else's point about the
:31:01. > :31:05.short-term nature of this. It seems the Government is short-term. This
:31:06. > :31:09.is a 3p tax they could have cut earlier. Everything is too short-
:31:09. > :31:12.term, we are not thinking about the long-term. If you realised this was
:31:12. > :31:17.going to come about then we could have done something about it
:31:17. > :31:21.earlier. It is similar with the banking thing, you've had two years
:31:21. > :31:26.in power, you never put the legislation in place. Now the
:31:26. > :31:30.problem has occurred you are saying that you blame Labour. We need to
:31:30. > :31:34.get rid of this short-term and look at the long-term. The debt is meant
:31:34. > :31:38.to rise in 20 years' time because of the pension crisis. We need to
:31:38. > :31:43.look more at the long-term rather than looking at the short-term.
:31:44. > :31:50.APPLAUSE Thank you. If you would answer the
:31:50. > :31:56.question point on the short-term, U-turns and this fuel duty. We need
:31:56. > :31:59.to stop making... In the terms of short-term, it took two years to go
:31:59. > :32:04.through the bill on the financial regulation. To the lady's point at
:32:04. > :32:08.the front, you are right, the best way we can help motorists is to get
:32:08. > :32:13.them off the petrol hook in the first place... You are not
:32:13. > :32:18.answering his point. He said you've had U-turns on the Budget, now you
:32:18. > :32:23.have an announcement on tax. He said you are acting in a short-term
:32:23. > :32:27.way. Why should this be later? You have done other measures quickly,
:32:27. > :32:32.like the rise in VAT was done quickly. Why is this taking so much
:32:32. > :32:42.longer if it is just as important? Especially with the U-turns they
:32:42. > :32:42.
:32:43. > :32:46.are quite sherp. At the time of -- Therm. At the time of the Budget,
:32:47. > :32:50.now into this financial year there is head-room opening up. The
:32:50. > :33:00.Chancellor was able to say, it looks like we might have some money
:33:00. > :33:01.
:33:01. > :33:06.to spend here,ly use it to try and delay this petrol rise. We can
:33:06. > :33:10.start to allow people into hybrid and electric cars. That feels like
:33:10. > :33:15.it is some time off now. I am looking at what we can do to speed
:33:15. > :33:19.up that process, so people have the choice the next time they buy a car.
:33:19. > :33:25.One of the big problems is affordability. We have grants
:33:25. > :33:30.available to help people buy hybrid and electric cars.
:33:30. > :33:35.Thank you very much. We will move on to a question from Julie Searle.
:33:35. > :33:41.Why should me and my partner continue working, paying taxes,
:33:41. > :33:48.struggling on a tight budget when those on benefits do nothing and
:33:48. > :33:53.get paid a lot more? APPLAUSE
:33:53. > :33:59.I am not sure you should. I suspect from, the way you asked that
:33:59. > :34:04.question you are the sort of person who will. You raise an important
:34:04. > :34:07.point - benefit reform was in the news this week. I think one of the
:34:07. > :34:11.things that I would hope people would admire and we will see in a
:34:11. > :34:15.moment is people telling the truth about the situation we're in.
:34:15. > :34:21.There's been a marked absence of truth and straightforwardness about
:34:21. > :34:25.the situation of our country in the last couple of years. Given we are
:34:25. > :34:30.spending �7 for every �6, there'll have to be big cuts. Benefits will
:34:30. > :34:37.have to be one of them. In terms of anybody who is on the
:34:37. > :34:45.receiving end of the cuts, one thing I might sympathise is being
:34:45. > :34:53.told your benefits are going to be cut, by an old Etonian might ring a
:34:53. > :34:57.little hollow. Do you agree - those on benefits do nothing.... No. No.
:34:57. > :35:03.You don't agree? You are miss representing what she said. If I
:35:03. > :35:09.understood you right, Julia, what you were saying was, you work hard,
:35:09. > :35:15.you look after your family, and why should you bring home less than
:35:15. > :35:22.people who are on benefits and choose not to go out to work. Of
:35:22. > :35:27.course we should have a welfare state for people who are unable for
:35:27. > :35:32.periods of time or in the long-term, unable to provide for themselves.
:35:32. > :35:38.We shouldn't have a welfare system where it's more financially
:35:38. > :35:43.beneficial to be out of work and at home, rather than in work. Now,
:35:43. > :35:49.that is a very easy ambition to state. In order to get to that
:35:49. > :35:54.point, you have to have very clear commitment over a long period of
:35:54. > :36:02.time to making sure that young people leave school with the skills,
:36:02. > :36:07.that there are jobs in a growing economy, that particularly
:36:07. > :36:13.expensive times of family's lives with childcare and so forth, help
:36:13. > :36:16.is provided in order to make precisely that degree of self-
:36:16. > :36:22.sufficientsy and independence that most families want for themselves.
:36:22. > :36:26.I am absolutely with you. I think the problem with the Prime
:36:26. > :36:34.Minister's speech this week is that it's like a sort of Christmas tree
:36:34. > :36:38.of new initiatives and criticisms. Unsubstantiated. Some of these
:36:38. > :36:43.instances of young people under 25 are very difficult. A lot are kids
:36:43. > :36:48.who have left care. They are kids who may be orphans, may not have
:36:48. > :36:52.parents to look after them. So, the hard cases can sometimes defeat the
:36:52. > :36:57.best argument. That's why you've got to think this through carefully.
:36:57. > :37:06.Once you embark on it, you've got to be prepared to see it through.
:37:06. > :37:10.And what we have at the moment is, as the Government - the coalition
:37:10. > :37:17.Government - promised a radical programme of welfare reform. The
:37:17. > :37:22.implementation of those changes in two very important respects are
:37:22. > :37:28.already behind time and over budget. What you are saying to her is that
:37:28. > :37:32.there's nothing that can be done because you have to wait until....
:37:32. > :37:36.No, I am not. The people on benefit their lives need to be improved.
:37:36. > :37:42.She cannot look for any change in the short-term. For instance David
:37:43. > :37:48.Cameron says you should scrap Housing Benefits for under 25s.
:37:48. > :37:53.We're struggling. We earn �6 too much to get any more help, so... I
:37:53. > :38:01.would get �200 a month better off if I was on benefits.
:38:02. > :38:07.I will come back to you in a moment... Maybe. We all want a fair
:38:07. > :38:12.benefit system. It must be more than frustrating. It depends what
:38:12. > :38:18.fair means? It does, absolutely. It depends on how well organised and
:38:18. > :38:21.policed our benefits are. I think one of the reasons why people get
:38:21. > :38:26.so angry and frustrated so because so many people appear to receive
:38:26. > :38:30.benefits that they are not really entitled to. That is again because
:38:30. > :38:35.of these mad cuts at the Department of Work and Pensions. It's a
:38:35. > :38:40.nightmare trying to get the benefit that you genuinely ought to receive.
:38:40. > :38:45.I would remind people that actually we all pay in and most of us have
:38:45. > :38:48.paid in for the best part of 50 years, not to something called
:38:48. > :38:52.national handout or national welfare, we pay into national
:38:52. > :38:58.insurance. That is for when times get hard.
:38:58. > :39:03.The one thing out of this debate I would hate to see is to feel that
:39:03. > :39:07.people who do draw benefits and draw them legitimately feel in some
:39:07. > :39:10.way guilty, feel in some way they shouldn't do it, when that is
:39:10. > :39:19.something they is worked their lives to guarantee they would get
:39:19. > :39:25.at the end of it. APPLAUSE
:39:25. > :39:29.It seems to me we're at risk of getting this interpretation of
:39:29. > :39:35.poverty, where we say these people deserve benefits and these don't.
:39:35. > :39:40.We should have a benefit system or none at all. I've gree it should be
:39:40. > :39:44.national insurance. -- I agree it should be national insurance. Tessa
:39:44. > :39:48.Jowell said that orphans, for instance, like my father was
:39:48. > :39:52.orphaned at 12 and worked every day of his life. One cannot say these
:39:52. > :39:58.people deserve and these don't, and therefore we should scrap it.
:39:58. > :40:02.OK, the woman up there. I work in a university. A considerable amount
:40:02. > :40:07.of my salary goes on tax and national insurance. I would like to
:40:07. > :40:16.see the legal loophole closed that allows people to pay but 1% income
:40:16. > :40:20.tax. APPLAUSE
:40:20. > :40:25.I think we should see it as a safety net rather than as a
:40:25. > :40:29.lifestyle. I think some people see it as a lifestyle rather than a
:40:29. > :40:33.safety net. There are people older than me who live near me that have
:40:33. > :40:38.not worked a day in their life. I think that is disgraceful. We need
:40:38. > :40:42.to change people's attitudes. I feel sorry for the lady who is
:40:42. > :40:48.worse off than on benefits. At leeths I would say at least it is
:40:49. > :40:51.more -- at least I would say to her, at least it is self-respecting and
:40:51. > :40:57.pride. You earn your own money. The man up
:40:57. > :41:03.there in the short-sleeveed shirt. Don't we think it is almost crazy
:41:03. > :41:08.that someone wants to work 37.5 hours a week but is better off 30
:41:08. > :41:12.hours a week. They are better sitting on 30 hours and want to
:41:12. > :41:16.work more when work is available, but they thid it is not beneficial
:41:16. > :41:22.- there's no incentive to do that. Paddy Ashdown?
:41:22. > :41:28.The - let's see if I may have some historical background to this. The
:41:28. > :41:38.welfare system was set up in 1945/46. It is something that I
:41:38. > :41:43.think was a most magnificent and wonderful achievement. It gave
:41:43. > :41:50.people a chance. That system, by the way built on the principal,
:41:50. > :42:00.which is giving people a hand up rather than a handout has
:42:00. > :42:01.
:42:01. > :42:05.degenerated. It is tangled and out of sink.
:42:05. > :42:09.It is shared by all political parties.
:42:09. > :42:14.Government after Government, since I have been in politics, 20 years
:42:14. > :42:22.and more, nearly 30 now, have said, we'll reform the system, we'll live
:42:22. > :42:26.up to the principals of Beveridge, and do it in a new way all have
:42:26. > :42:32.ducked the challenge. They have fiddled at the edges. You don't
:42:32. > :42:36.think what Cameron is suggesting... Hang on. I don't want you to talk
:42:36. > :42:41.forever. I don't think I will talk forever. If you didn't interpret
:42:41. > :42:45.perhaps I would not have to talk so long. That is a very rude thing to
:42:45. > :42:51.say. Let's not go on with this argie-bargie. Here is what I have
:42:51. > :42:57.to say - I am proud that this Government has begun to try and
:42:57. > :43:00.tackle that. Some ideas from Iain Duncan Smith and Steve Webb, I
:43:00. > :43:04.think Universal Credit are an attempt to move us back to this.
:43:04. > :43:07.One of the reasons it has been slowed up is it has been
:43:07. > :43:13.persistently opposed by Labour in the House of Commons. There is a
:43:13. > :43:16.change coming. When you change there are some uncomfortable
:43:16. > :43:20.moments. Individuals will get caught out. I am clear the
:43:20. > :43:24.proposition is put forward now where they will fundamentally
:43:24. > :43:28.change this system that you want and everybody else here has sought
:43:28. > :43:33.as well. I think the idea of a benefit system is valid and no-one
:43:33. > :43:39.would argue with that. I think the idea about poverty and the
:43:39. > :43:43.principals of poverty has been skewed. If people can afford to go
:43:43. > :43:47.out drinking and buy cigarettes and have Sky Television, the idea of
:43:47. > :43:50.poverty has changed in our country. APPLAUSE
:43:50. > :43:58.Do you agree with that Justine Greening?
:43:58. > :44:04.I think, in many respects, I think what you say is correct.
:44:04. > :44:08.Actually we have introduced the Universal Credit. That is coming in,
:44:08. > :44:13.precisely to address the point the man made at the back - work has to
:44:13. > :44:18.pay. At the moment we have a welfare system where it does not
:44:18. > :44:23.too often. Also, in my experience as an constituency MP, it is about
:44:23. > :44:29.complexity. It got so complicated that many of my constituents had no
:44:29. > :44:32.idea what they were and were not entitled to. So, they had no
:44:32. > :44:36.understanding of how to navigate their way through the benefit
:44:36. > :44:42.system either. It got out of whack. So the first thing to do is bring
:44:42. > :44:50.in a welfare cap, so that we actually put an upper limit on how
:44:50. > :44:53.much people can get in welfare, which is fair. Make sure we make
:44:53. > :44:58.sure that work does always pay and there is a transition which will go
:44:58. > :45:02.through. Let's put some money into that transition process, so for the
:45:02. > :45:06.people who will see a change of benefit, there is some support
:45:06. > :45:10.there as we go through the process. It is a big change. It massively
:45:10. > :45:14.matters because the final point is we have to have a welfare system
:45:14. > :45:24.that people buy into. At some point we lost that and we have to get it
:45:24. > :45:24.
:45:24. > :45:29.Tony mentioned about national insurance. The figure of over a
:45:29. > :45:33.million people in this country having not worked for ten years or
:45:33. > :45:36.more, that's staggering. At the same time we have had immigration
:45:36. > :45:42.going up exso there have been jobs but obviously some people do not
:45:42. > :45:44.want to take up the jobs. APPLAUSE
:45:44. > :45:48.There's another point about the national insurance system. It's
:45:48. > :45:50.been mentioned several times sofar which is that people who've been
:45:50. > :45:53.paying into the national insurance contributions for many years are
:45:53. > :45:56.rightly very upset that they are now being told that whatever it is
:45:56. > :45:59.they knead in terms of benefits or pensions might not be available
:45:59. > :46:02.because frankly there is no money any more. That's because the
:46:02. > :46:05.Government's spent that money at the time. They didn't establish a
:46:05. > :46:09.fund with investments in it. I think something that would be good
:46:10. > :46:15.for us all is if Governments in relation to certain things like
:46:15. > :46:18.pensions had to put investments in to a fund and so that this couldn't
:46:18. > :46:23.happen in future. It would also hopefully, apart from making sure
:46:23. > :46:26.you had contributed your pension would be there when you needed it,
:46:26. > :46:31.would stop people promising things that wouldn't come up in their
:46:31. > :46:36.lifetime. Tessa Jowell? I'm really worried that we have now a million
:46:36. > :46:40.young people in our country who're out of work and we all know that if
:46:40. > :46:44.young people don't get the habit of working, it becomes progressively
:46:44. > :46:47.more difficult to get them into work and there's a sense of
:46:47. > :46:56.hopelessness about that. One of the proposals that we've put forward is
:46:56. > :47:01.a tax on bankers' bonuses to raise �2 billion in order to get more
:47:01. > :47:05.than 120,000 young people every year into work. That's a very
:47:05. > :47:08.constructive, positive and specific proposal that will go a long way to
:47:08. > :47:13.building a long-term solution in response to what I was saying
:47:13. > :47:18.earlier to you, Julie. OK. Another question, from Tom
:47:18. > :47:22.Danaher, please? Is the sudden urgency about House
:47:22. > :47:31.of Lords reform a way of keeping the Liberal Democrats quiet in the
:47:31. > :47:36.coalition? The sudden urgency about the House of Lords reform?!
:47:36. > :47:40.APPLAUSE Paddy Ashdown? Well, if you call
:47:40. > :47:45.asking for House of Lords reform for 100 years urgency, sudden
:47:46. > :47:50.urgency, then I suppose it is, Tom. Look, let's see if we can make one
:47:50. > :47:55.or two points quickly - better make them quickly - the first is, is
:47:55. > :47:58.this a priority. It is a prayerty. You think you have an economic
:47:58. > :48:02.crisis in the western democracy, there is a desperate crisis growing
:48:02. > :48:05.up separating Government from Government. You have a second
:48:05. > :48:08.chamber in this country in which in order to get into the House of
:48:08. > :48:12.Lords you have got to be a friend of the Prime Minister or your great,
:48:12. > :48:16.great grandmother had to slaep with the King. Now, in a modern
:48:16. > :48:19.democracy, sorry, call me old- fashioned but I actually believe
:48:19. > :48:23.that the principle of democracy is those who make the people's laws
:48:23. > :48:26.are the people's representatives. I don't think it's acceptable in the
:48:27. > :48:30.modern democracy like ours to have membership of the House of Lords
:48:30. > :48:35.based on the fact that you have the Prime Minister's approval or you
:48:35. > :48:39.are the long-term descendant of an aristocratic lady of uncertain
:48:39. > :48:44.virtue in the past. We have to try and make our democracy now a
:48:44. > :48:47.genuine democracy. Young men go out to fight, young British soldiers
:48:47. > :48:51.for democracy to die and to kill others and yet we don't have a
:48:51. > :48:55.proper democracy in this country. Now, those who say it's not a
:48:55. > :48:58.priority, I think that's the most ridiculous excuse there is. Even
:48:58. > :49:04.leaving aside the democratic crisis for the moment. Take a look back,
:49:04. > :49:06.when this country was struggling for its very survival, when person
:49:06. > :49:11.putting troops across the Normandy beaches, the House of Commons was
:49:11. > :49:15.still able to discuss the better education Act. We should do it! If
:49:15. > :49:19.we allow a system to continue of pat Ronage in the second chamber
:49:20. > :49:22.where the second chamber does not do its job? Holding the government
:49:22. > :49:25.to account, when we have far too weak a House of Commons, the only
:49:25. > :49:28.thing that will be damaged is our democracy and the only thing that
:49:28. > :49:31.will continue to grow is the gap which is already dangerous between
:49:31. > :49:37.Government and Government in this country. This needs to be done and
:49:37. > :49:40.needs to be done now. APPLAUSE
:49:40. > :49:43.Tessa Jowell, the accusation against Labour is you were all for
:49:43. > :49:47.it at the election but now you are not doing the right thing to get it
:49:47. > :49:51.through, you are not insisting on a timetable for it so that it will
:49:51. > :49:58.actually happen, you are making mischief with this to disturb the
:49:58. > :50:00.coalition? No, I mean that's not true. Let me just begin by saying...
:50:00. > :50:04.In what sense is it not true because you are not doing it, are
:50:04. > :50:08.you? Nobody's raised House of Lords reform with me on the doorstep but
:50:08. > :50:15.we need a better Parliament than we have. And so yes we should reform
:50:15. > :50:19.the House of Lords, we should have an elected House of Lords and we
:50:19. > :50:23.should have the legislation properly scrutinised. There are
:50:23. > :50:28.about 1,000 questions that have not been answered by the proposals that
:50:28. > :50:33.have been published, so we'll support the Bill when it's
:50:33. > :50:36.introduced... 1,000 questions? least. We'll support the Bill.
:50:37. > :50:39.There are 845 members of the House of Lords so they've all got at
:50:39. > :50:49.least a question each. We'll support the Bill when it comes
:50:49. > :50:53.before Parliament at the beginning of July but we will also to make
:50:53. > :50:57.sure - make sure that major constitutional change has the
:50:57. > :51:00.opportunity of being properly scrutinised. We'll also put down
:51:00. > :51:04.amendments calling for a referendum because we, you know, it's a
:51:04. > :51:08.convention in this country that we have referenda where there's a
:51:08. > :51:11.major constitutional change to our country and I think, as my party
:51:11. > :51:16.thinks, that people should be asked their view on that.
:51:16. > :51:22.You, Sir? I would like to point out the fact that within the House of
:51:22. > :51:27.Lords, the positions have also been given to experts, the best in their
:51:27. > :51:34.field. Mr Ashdown's comment implies that what little progress had been
:51:34. > :51:38.made is completely pointless, but progress, however little, has been
:51:38. > :51:41.made. There does need to be reform but it needs to be far more radical.
:51:41. > :51:46.The current House is a way for people to extend their career and
:51:46. > :51:50.get a nice cup of tea. It needs to be replaced by a House for the
:51:50. > :51:55.people. If there can be a jury of 12 ordinary people choose on
:51:55. > :51:59.someone's life, I think there should be a House for general
:51:59. > :52:06.people to sit and oversee and bring politicians to account when they
:52:06. > :52:10.don't doe what they've been voted to do.
:52:10. > :52:14.Terry Smith? I would tend towards that gentleman's comment which is
:52:14. > :52:17.to say that I would suggest a much simpler reform of the House of
:52:17. > :52:22.Lords which is if there is a referendum, I hope this question is
:52:22. > :52:29.included which is that it's an an act row ni-sm, why not abolish it.
:52:29. > :52:32.Just have one House? Yes. I think you need a second chamber to lack
:52:32. > :52:36.at the Bills that the House of Commons is bringing forward, but I
:52:36. > :52:40.agree, I think it's time to get on with this. I think if you had a
:52:40. > :52:45.blank piece of paper and proposed what we'd got now, people would say
:52:45. > :52:49.that's totally unacceptable, it's based on who you know, your birth
:52:49. > :52:54.and the gentleman's right, there is a role in the House of Lords going
:52:54. > :52:57.forward for experts and that's why we are proposing 80% should be
:52:57. > :53:01.elected but 20% should still be apointed and I hope we can really
:53:01. > :53:05.keep all those people that bring some real expertise. It's time to
:53:05. > :53:09.get on with this. We've talked about it for a very long time. I
:53:10. > :53:18.think we've ended up almost in the worst of all worlds where at least
:53:18. > :53:22.there was some randomness almost with hereditary peers, there's none
:53:22. > :53:28.know -- none now. It's who you know and to some extent how much money
:53:28. > :53:31.you have got. It's unacceptable. My ask from Tessa would be don't vote
:53:31. > :53:33.against this programme motion which will mean we could end up clogging
:53:33. > :53:38.up the House of Commons, people have other priorities they want us
:53:38. > :53:42.to work on too. Let's get on with this... The programme motion is the
:53:42. > :53:45.timetable? How much time we spend and we have pencilled in a lot, so
:53:45. > :53:48.let's get on with this and get it through and let's come back to
:53:48. > :53:53.everything else that people need sorting out in this country. What
:53:53. > :53:57.about the 100 or so Conservatives who don't want it? Well, I respect
:53:57. > :54:01.their... Will you win them round? respect their Points of View, I
:54:01. > :54:05.think we'll win many round, I just disagree with them and I think many
:54:05. > :54:09.of them who were there in 2005 in the last Parliament like me voted
:54:09. > :54:13.for an 80% elected chamber so. Now is the time to crack on, make this
:54:13. > :54:16.change and then we'll have a much stronger second chamber and I think
:54:17. > :54:23.it will do what that gentleman wants which is it will be for
:54:23. > :54:28.people again which it should be. OK. The woman in green, then you,
:54:28. > :54:34.Sir. If you have two Houses which have been elected, what happens
:54:34. > :54:37.within they don't agree? Quite right, a good point. Fundamental
:54:37. > :54:40.question. A key question. That's why in this Bill we are bringing
:54:40. > :54:44.forward it's clear that ultimately the House of Commons has the final
:54:44. > :54:48.say. We've got the Parliament Act at the moment which is, if you like,
:54:48. > :54:53.how we regulate it right now under the current system, but we'll make
:54:53. > :55:00.sure we keep that in place so we make sure that isn't the gridlock.
:55:00. > :55:06.That was a major complaint about the gridlock legislation. The House
:55:06. > :55:11.of Commons has the final say. heard from the last question that
:55:11. > :55:15.the country's in deep economic mire, so what practical benefit will the
:55:15. > :55:22.man in the street deprive from a reform? Do you think there's any
:55:22. > :55:26.point in it? Absolutely not. Tony Robinson? I beg your pardon, sorry,
:55:26. > :55:32.David. If you would have had an eelected second chamber, you would
:55:32. > :55:35.not have had an Iraq war or the poll tax. Tony Robinson? There is a
:55:35. > :55:40.terribly important principal at stake here which is that those who
:55:40. > :55:46.write the law ought to be elected by people who live under the law.
:55:46. > :55:50.It's feeling to me like a principal that goes back to Magna Carta and
:55:51. > :55:54.the fact that we haven't addressed that seems daft. We have all three
:55:54. > :56:00.leaders agreeing that we should do some reform. OK, I agree with you,
:56:00. > :56:03.it's not going to be the perfect reform, it never is going to be the
:56:03. > :56:11.refect reform, but we've got all three leaders agreeing with it, so
:56:11. > :56:17.let's go ahead and bite the bullet. Some people say it's the wrong time.
:56:17. > :56:22.That's the argument that's always levelled. For 100 years people have
:56:23. > :56:27.been saying it's a good idea but it's not the right time. People say
:56:27. > :56:32.it's expensive, but if we cut down from 90 representatives to 300 and
:56:32. > :56:37.they won't get as much money as they get, that would be a non-
:56:37. > :56:44.starter. I have a caveat. I don't want to see us move from unelected
:56:44. > :56:48.peers to political cronies. We've got to make really sure that the
:56:48. > :56:51.system that's put in place doesn't guarantee that the leader of the
:56:51. > :56:55.party in Government and the Leader of the Opposition can deluf that.
:56:56. > :57:00.But please -- deliver that. But please, I ask the representatives
:57:00. > :57:02.of all three political parties, go with this, don't scupper it for
:57:02. > :57:04.short-term political advantage, please.
:57:04. > :57:09.Before we finish this, Paddy Ashdown made an interesting point
:57:09. > :57:12.that I would like to put to the politicians of the other two
:57:12. > :57:15.parties. He says there would have been no Iraq war if there had been
:57:15. > :57:20.an elected chamber and he says there would have been no poll tax.
:57:20. > :57:25.Do you agree? No, I don't agree with either of those assertions.
:57:25. > :57:30.Why has he got it wrong? Well, I mean I think that's... I don't know
:57:30. > :57:35.what the evidence is for that quite honestly. Paddy was against the
:57:35. > :57:38.Iraq war. OK. Be brief? I'll be as brief as I can. The House of
:57:38. > :57:42.Commons is the executive's poodle and allows the executive to get
:57:42. > :57:46.away with doing stupid things. If you had a second chamber acting as
:57:46. > :57:49.a check and balance, those two issues would have been debated
:57:49. > :57:53.fully and, in my view, none would have got through. You said the
:57:53. > :57:59.House of Commons has ultimate praim si? But if the House of Lords force
:57:59. > :58:06.add debate and expressed a democratic view, my view is there
:58:06. > :58:10.is a... I can't prove it to you but there's a high probability that's
:58:10. > :58:16.the case. The Tories might have been grateful if there was no poll
:58:16. > :58:20.tax? Who knows. They rebelled a lot when the Thatcher Government was in
:58:20. > :58:23.power. It's time to get on with this. The final point I make is
:58:23. > :58:27.that it's quite South East centric at the moment, the House of Lords,
:58:27. > :58:29.because of the whole network, if you like, that helps create it. I
:58:29. > :58:34.think it's time to have it generally more representative of
:58:34. > :58:40.our country as a whole. Get away from Putney. Our hour is up now, we
:58:40. > :58:44.have to stop. We'll be in Derby next week, we are not South East
:58:44. > :58:47.centric by any means. Only panel we'll have Labour's former Home
:58:47. > :58:50.Secretary, Alan Johnston, so if you would like to come to the last
:58:50. > :58:57.Question Time of this run and put questions to our panel, you can do
:58:57. > :59:01.so by applying on the website. You can also call us. Thank you all