27/09/2012 Question Time

Good evening. Question Time is back, and not a moment too soon. As the

new song goes, we are sorry, so sorry we have been away.

To business. On our panel, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

Danny Alexander, Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman,

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, television presenter Kirsty Alsop

Thank you very much. The first question of this new series comes

from Rob Fletcher. Will we see the same level of anger as in Athens

and Madrid once the full impact of the UK Government's austerity

measures are felled? Danny Alexander. There is a very big

difference between those countries and our country. In those countries,

they are having to go further, make more dramatic cuts to keep pace

with the demands of the markets, because their governments did not

start out with a strong plan to deal with the problems they face.

They are having to go further because their interest rates have

been pushed higher because the markets are demanding even further

austerity measures. In this country, because when we came in as a

coalition in 2010 we said from the start that this was a major problem

that had to be sorted out, we have been able to set out spending

reductions and tax rises that are phased in over the four Year period.

Of course, there are some very difficult things there, but I do

not think we will see the same response because we have been able

to keep control for ourselves as a country. Do you agree with your

leader who said, our influence in the world, our standard of living,

public services and culture of tolerance and openness are in the

balance? I do agree with that. His point was that in difficult

economic times, unless you are able to keep control, to make decisions

for yourselves as a democracy, rather than being forced to do it

by the markets, those things become serious issues. At a time when not

only are we in Europe and other parts of the developed world seeing

economic problems, but where other parts of the world, emerging

markets, are growing rapidly, we have to be careful to take the

right decisions to get our economies going again, to ensure

that our way of doing things continues to be the right way.

Harriet Harman, we saw riots over the poll tax. Do you think this

economic policy could lead to what we are seeing in Madrid and Athens?

I hope that before we get near that stage the Government will recognise

that their plan is not working and will change course. They promised

that they would get economic growth, and instead the country is in

recession. They promised they would get the deficit down, and borrowing

has gone up. They promised we would be in it together and they had done

a tax cut for millionaires. So people feel that it is not working.

APPLAUSE So what would you do? Well,

obviously you need to get the deficit down but not in such a way

that it stifles the economy. It is very telling that of all of the G20

countries, all of which were hit by the global financial crisis, this

country alone, as well as Italy, is one of only two in recession. So I

think the evidence is there. They have tried their austerity plan for

two years. For heaven's sake, sometimes it is right to just admit

that it is not working, you have got it wrong, before there is more

pain, suffering and damage done. Jacob Rees-Mogg. There is an

absolutely key difference between us and member states of the

eurozone, which is we have control over our own money. We have our own

monetary policy. You can cut spending if you can have

quantitative easing and low interest rates. That means the

economy has access to cash, which in Europe they do not. Their

interest rates have been rising whilst hours have been falling. You

cannot borrow any money in Spain. It might be difficult here but it

is harder in Spain. We also have a competitive currency. Since 2008 it

has fallen down to about one pound 60p to the dollar. That has been

helpful for exports. If you are in Spain, Greece or Portugal, your

economic policies are imposed on you now by the European Union. In

Greece and Italy, you have had your Prime Minister changed by Ward of

the European Commission. I do not know whether you like David Cameron,

but at least he will be replaced by you and not by European bureaucrats.

I think that gives us confidence in the policies the Government is

taking. We can follow them, accept them, argue about them, but we will

decide them in the end. There were riots over the poll tax in a

democracy with Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister. Why should the same

thing not happen if people are suffering hardship? Because the

ability to use monetary policy, quantitative easing and schemes to

lend the banks are crucially important. We keep mentioning the

poll tax and those riots. I think about a year-and-a-half ago in

Tottenham, when similar things happened. Actually, the reason is

that people do not have a lot of money at the moment and people are

struggling for jobs. Yes, there were issues with youth, but I fail

to see how blame it on Margaret Thatcher's poll tax... I think it

is exactly the same. And you. was allegedly supposed to help the

economy gain momentum and we were supposed to be given this

quantitative easing, �375 billion of cash given to the banks which

are already owned partly by taxpayers, to help small and

medium-sized businesses. We are now taking another �1 billion of

taxpayers' cash and putting it into a special bank that is supposed to

be doing exactly the same job that quantitative easing, which Jacob

Rees-Mogg is extolling the virtues of. Make the quantitative easing

work and it might stimulate the economy to provide the jobs and the

economy that is needed and people would not even consider going on

the streets to riot. Steve Coogan. I think the point made by this

gentleman is right. I think the riots were, to some extent, a

result of poverty and of the fact that we are still in recession, and

these measures are not working. For all the quantitative easing that

took place, people are still finding it almost impossible to get

loans from the banks. It is not working. What I think should have

happened straight away is that there should have been, when they

came into office, the Liberal Party should have pushed for a tax rise.

If anything, I think had they not been there, though, the tax cut

would have been even greater. So their presence has mitigated the

worst excesses of the Tory government. But it is time to

change course. These measures have not worked. We can see that. People

are feeling it. And I think the complacency that it will not happen

here, I think we are in a very dangerous situation. We need to act

now and not wait until something awful happens. What would your

change be? I think certainly the mansion tax, although it will not

make a great difference to the economy, is the right signal. That

kind of thing placates people who are angry, which is important, even

though the economic effects will be minimal. That kind of thing is

politically important. It shows that we are literally all in it

together. Are you going to get your mention tax? We have argued for in

the election, in our manifesto, and subsequently, and we will keep

arguing for it. A path that does not mean you're going to get it!

have increased taxes substantially on wealthy people. Under Labour you

had the scandalous situation where someone who ran a private equity

company could pay less tax on their capital gains than their cleaner

paid on their income. We ended that. We increased capital gains tax

substantially and reduce the amount of tax relief will the people can

get on their contributions. We have ended the loopholes were you could

hide your big property in a foreign offshore companies. So we are

raising much more from the wealthy already. And we are using that

money to ensure we can reduce the burden of taxation, the income tax

rates, or working people of this country, by ensuring that the tax-

free amount on the income that people earn goes up. What Steve

Coogan was saying that a mansion tax, even though it might not raise

money, would assuage people's anger. Which is insulting. Is it going to

happen? We are arguing for it. have said that, but is it going to

happen? The thing that we have said, and Nick Clegg stressed, and I did

at our conference, is that we have to make more painful decisions in

terms of spending reductions, to ensure that our economy gets out of

the mess that the Labour Party left it in, and part of that has to be

extra taxes on the wealthy. So why have you add a tax cut for each

millionaire of �40,000 every year? That is all but cut in the top rate

of tax has given you. Yona because the tax system that you left us was

scandalous. We have replaced that tax with new taxes on the

wealthiest to ensure they can pay money into the system to ensure

that deficit reduction burden is fairly shared. That will cost �3

billion. You will not get the mansion tax through, because people

in mansions vote Conservative, so I don't think it is going to happen.

Kirsty. I am the exception that proves the rule. I would be happy

to pay it. I think what Steve Coogan said his patronising. What

he was saying is that the masses need this tax rise in order to be

convinced of something. Although we know it will not raise money, it

will stop people rioting in the streets. Unless we can have

intelligent political debate, with everybody understanding that we

want to achieve one thing, to raise the maximum amount possible for

those who are less well-off. That is the point. Everybody around this

table knows that high taxes don't do that. And they are not

politically brave enough to say, we have people who are less off and

people who are more well-off. How do we get the most amount of money

from the people who are more well- off to the people who are less

well-off? That is not necessarily high taxes. But we tax income to

highly and unearned wealth too lightly. That is the shift we need

to make. Unfortunately, I do not think that is the reason for the

cuts. We are not trying to give it to the less well-off. We are trying

to do something with debt. Sadly, I do not think they are intelligent.

The cuts are not intelligent. We might be able to change our

government, and we might have that choice, but the damage is already

going to be done because the cuts are not intelligent. They are very

short term. If you look at the cuts in further education, I teach

English to Speakers of Other Languages, and their cuts mean that

students are not going to learn English as they should be, so in

the long-term those people will not be getting jobs. So the cuts are

not intelligent and we definitely do need to change direction but it

will be too late by the next government, unfortunately. The man

It is obvious that the cuts are not intelligent and we are not in it

together. It is the working-class, poor people, who are being squeezed

the most and suffering record youth unemployment, cuts in benefits,

real cuts in wages, and we are all paying the price for bankers'

mismanagement, not for what working-class poor people have gone.

-- what they have done. That Mrs out that we were spending far too

much money that we did not have. If you go back to the 1970s, tax has

almost never raised more than 38% of gross national product. Our

spending, if it is above that, leads to a deficit. However you

readjust the tax system, with attacks at 98%, or 40%, it has

raised 38% of GDP in a good year. If you start spending up to 50%,

you are in trouble, and that is where we were. There have to be

cuts. It has to be brought back and that is painful than it takes place.

In terms of the rich not paying their fair share, the top 1% of

taxpayers pays �39 billion in tax. They pay 26.5% of the income tax

raised, and they earn 13% of the earnings, so they are paying their

fair share. And if you take too much, you will find they will not

work so hard and they will leave the country. So if you want money,

you need to have an intelligent tax system. It is strange that the

Government's policy seems to be that if you are incredibly rich you

need a tax cut to make you work harder, but if you are poor, you

need to appear tax credit cut to make you work harder! -- you need

to have your tax credit cut. course, the Gentleman is right,

none of us want to have to make reductions in public spending, to

deal with the problems we face. But your Government promised people you

could end boom-and-bust, and that was not true. You left a terrible

mess in our economy, under regulated the bangs, let them run

riot, you lost the election and we have to clear up the mess that you

left. -- you under regulated the banks. The Tories used to say a

minimum wage would make the economy fall apart. They always say they

are going to leave the country and go elsewhere, and they will take

away their ball. It did not happen when we introduced a minimum wage.

They seem to be fine. I think the We must go on. We have lots of

questions here. To take part in the debate at home, push the Red Button.

debate at home, push the Red Button. You can see what others are saying.

Join in by texting: Matthew Potter? Would we be better

off with more plebes and fewer public school boys, patrolling the

public school boys, patrolling the corridors of power? APPLAUSE.

That word plebes? James? I thought that question may be directed at

me! It could be something to do with my voice. I think we need the

right people for the job. We have to ensure that we have an education

system that provides a good system in the state as has got from

private schools. I was at Eton with fantastic teachers and facilities.

I don't think that people should be excluded from public service. That

would abmistake, but I think you do want a state-funded education

system. I think that Michael Gove is doing this. That will ensure

that the highest quality education is given to everybody in the

country, not just those who go to the public schools.

Do you ever call anyone a plebe? course I don't! I think people in

public life ought to show good manners to the electorate who put

them there and the police are part of that electorate. I am not in

favour of people being impolite to people who are serving them and

their country. I think that is a mistake. It is very good news that

Andrew Mitchell apologised for it, which he was right to do.

Steve Coogan? I think we would be better served with more state-

educated people in politics. My education was free. It did not do

me any harm. Did it do you any good? Well, I'm

here! I also think that the whole plebe issue is, I thought was

really, we should congratulate the Chief Whip for honestly and

eloquently expressing what has always been Tory Party policy,

which is pea plebe management. Contain the plebes, keep the plebes

at bay, pat them on the head when we they need to be. Put them out in

the back garden. I don't think this is true. There is bread and circus,

probably Labour's approach, bribing people with their own money.

think modern Conservatives have learned to modify and edit their

thoughts. I think most Conservatives probably think the

word plebe, but don't say it out loud.

He said he wanted to make it clear he did not use the words attributed

to... He is clear about what he didn't say, but vague about what he

did say. APPLAUSE

Kirstie Allsopp? I think we could continue talking about the Andrew

Mitchell issue all night. But David would shoot us. There are all sorts

of issue, the first one is failed apologies. He did not say sorry,

not properly. He should have stood up and said what he did was totally

and utterly wrong. That the police officer and his wife are coming to

have dinner with him in Parliament next week. That he is doing 50

hours of community service working with young people with rage issues

and that he is ult Earl ashamed of himself.

-- utterly ashamed of himself. There has been stuff in the press

about John Terry. It comes back to the same issue, you can't speak to

people like that, if you do you have to learn to say sorry. The

fashion for qualified apologies. Some people have it it in their

heads if you say sorry you will be sued, but you have to learn to say

sorry and to be a grown-up. The second thing about the question is

that 7% of people in this country are privately educated. My children

are privately educated. That means there is a �6,000 per annum not

spent on my child, but spent on another child. If everyone who is

privately educated turned up at their local state school, the

education school -- system would be in even more dire trouble. We

cannot afford for everyone at public school to anybody the state

system and will not be able to for a long time in the current climate.

What do you make of the apologies? The Nick Clegg apology? It is

another one. When he made that pledge he would never be the Prime

Minister. I can say to the children, if you are to become a maths genius,

you can eat jelly babies for the rest of your life, but I know I

will never have to come up with the jelly babies. It is the same with

Nick Clegg. You can make all sorts of pledges if you will never have

to carry them out. APPLAUSE.

I would like to ask if your decision to put your children in

private school is purely through altruism? No. The problem is,

because people that feel that they do have to privately educate their

children, that they are raised in such a way that they end up

becoming Tories who then call people... No! No! Who then call

people... That is not true. No, I am sorry.

Who then regard people as plebes. Absolutely not. I will not have you

sit there and tell me that I am not capable of bringing up my children

to respect everybody. I grew up in state -- I went to a

state school... So did I. I would not regard anyone as a

plebe. The one thing I will say that Andrew Mitchell said it was

utterly honest. Harriet Harman were you privately

educated? I was. You see it is not a Conservative

thing. Some people are, some people are not. They can go in different

directions. It has strayed into Andrew Mitchell

territory. You may or may not want to do it, but the question is, we

would be better off with more plebes than fewer public school

boys. Well, I think that everybody feels

really uncomfortable about what happened. Everybody knows that if

the police officer had said to the Cabinet Minister the words that

actually Andrew Mitchell has admitted to saying, he would not be

in his job job in Downing Street anymore. There is unfairness there.

He would have been out. Secondly, why is it, without even bothering

to look at the evidence, that David Cameron believed the word of the

Cabinet Minister and not the word of the police officer? There is a

great worry about that. Also, he has not apologised. I think that

the truth of it is, that the police in Downing Street, you know, Danny

knows this very well. The police in Downing Street are doing their job,

trying to keep Downing Street safe against a background of terrorism

threat. They are there just to do their job. For the idea that Andrew

Mitchell could speak to somebody like that and then refuse to admit

it or deny it, I think it reflects badly on David Cameron that he's

been prepared to sweep it all under the carpet.

APPLAUSE You say if a policeman had spoken like that he would have been

sacked, do you think that Andrew Mitchell should have been sacked?

am hesitant to call for Cabinet ministers to be sacked, the last

one I called for to be sacked was promoted. That is Jeremy Hunt, but

I agree with kirs I r Kirsty in a way, if he really apologised. He

had really owned up, but he is argue against what the police

officer said. I think that leave as very uncomfortable... I think David

Cameron missed a huge PR opportunity it say that his party

is not about that, that they don't speak to people like that, but in

his actions in backing him up, we all know where the Tory Party's

loyalties lie. I would ask the audience if any of you have lost

your temper and been embarrassed about it after. He has apologised.

I think it is part of human nature. It does.happen, it is embarrassing

he should not have done it, but everybody loses their temper at

some point in their lives. I was wondering if a person who

called somebody a bigot should be asked to resign? Danny Alexander?

The answer is yes. It not just the corridors of power, but the legal

profession, the law courts, a whole range of professions which are

still far too dominated by people from a particular social background.

What we should be doing is ensuring that everyone from whatever

background have the bust possible chances in life. We cannot succeed

as a society with the lack of social mobility that we have in

this country. There is a situation where not everyone has the same

life chances. I believe we are trying to change that as a

Government, for investing more money into the schools most to the

disadvantaged children. More to nursery education, to disadvantaged

two-year-olds, you see the gaps emerging from the people from

disadvantaged backgrounds at a young stage. They get wider and

wider. By the time that people reach that stage in life, you get

to the situation where in all of these top professions it is heavily

weighted to people from public backgrounds.

To succeed as a society every single person needs to have the

chance to get to the top. APPLAUSE

Do you think what Andrew Mitchell said betrays an attitude which has

damaged the Tories, therefore damaging the coalition? I don't

know about that. I think it was certainly the wrong thing to say it

was incredibly stupid for him to insult a policeman or a police

woman in the way he is reported to have done. He has apologised to it.

Not just generally, but directly to the individual.

Let me finish. He apologised directly to the individual. That

individual has accepted the apology. The Metropolitan Police

Commissioner does not want to see a further investigation. The two

individuals concerned have dealt with the situation, the rest of us

should do so too. By the way, on the panel, Harriet and I have

personal experience of apologising. Harriet has made comments about my

hair colour, she phoned me to apologise for it. I accepted it,

that is that. Can you remind us of the offending

words? She referred to me as a ginger rodent! APPLAUSE

I laughed about it, but many others with red hair did not. She as

gracious enough to phone to apologise, I accepted it again

straight away, I am glad to have a chance to do so again on air.

Danny Alexander, do you think that raising tuition fees to an

extortion faith amount enables people to have a good education,

the same as privately educated people? I think that the new system

in place is in some respects better for people from disadvantaged

backgrounds. More money is spent on fee waivers so people don't have to

pay money or any fees. Nothing upfront when you go to university.

You only pay it back when you are in a good job earning more than

�21,000. That is higher than under the previous system. So if you are

earning �25,000, you will pay back �30. That is something which is a

fair contribution for the advantages that you get for a

universities education. I don't know how Danny can talk

about his desire for everyone to have equal chances when they are

cutting Sure Start. Thecational maintenance allowances, you say

that they have trebled tuition fees. He just, all of the things that

they say, the pupil premium that has come in, but the biggest cuts

in schools that there have been for decades. Although his hair colour

is lovely, the policies are rubbish! APPLAUSE

We have to go on. From Richard Cook? Joirbgs what does the panel

believe motivated the decision -- what does the panel believe

motivated the system of Rochdale services to ignore the grooming of

under-age females? This is the report that came out in Rochdale

about the way that the Social Services and the police behaved

towards young girls who made complaints. What motivates the

question, do you think? This is yet another telling example of why it

is important that if children complain, that they have been

sexually abused, that you must start off by believing them and not

disbelieving them. Because if you don't actually listen to them and

take seriously their complaints and investigate them, then that is what

the abusers rely on to go on. Whether or not it is the Catholic

Church that had the problem of children complaining but not

listened to over the years or whether what happened in Rochdale.

So I think that the lesson that we have got to learn from this is not

to write-off the complaints. Don't blame the victim. Don't assume

there are some sorts of girls that would do that. Listen to them to

protect them. The other thing that is disturbing about this is the

idea that somehow it could be said that it is OK because these girls

were prostitutes. I mean, when are we going to take a view in this

society that it is not OK for men to be paying for sex and that those

women or girls who get into that situation, that is not a free

choice, that is exploitation. So I think we have to wake up and have

some attitude-changing. The question was what do you think

motivated the decision to act as they did? I think it was the

tendency not to start from the starting point of believing the

girls and taking seriously what they said. Possibly the police

thought, this is not going to go anywhere. Possibly the CPS might

have thought, juries will not believe these girls if we took it

to court. Everybody, whether it is social workers, police, the Crown

Prosecution Service and all of us in the public, have to start from

the starting point of listening to children and not somehow assuming

that people are making it up, because that is how abuse remains

hidden for years. Girls mature faster than boys. So people have

foolishly, idiotically, made the mistake of thinking that these

children were women. They were not women. Just because they have boobs

and wear make-up, it does not make them women. They are children. And

the people involved in this case looked at them and thought these

were bad young women. My stepson is 13 years old and he is a child. And

he may be having all sorts of adult experiences and spending time away

from home and all sorts of things but he remains a child. And in the

law you're a child until you are 16 and cannot vote until you are 18.

The biggest mistake that was made is that people were judging these

girls. They were judging them, thinking they were not from the

right background, or came from families social services knew of,

and that they were wrong ones. That is the assumption they were making.

Actually, this entire thing makes me want to weep. I remember reading

about it in the Times last year and just thinking, this is just

appalling, because these are children, and they have been let go

by the state. I think it is an issue of resources. With all of the

cuts being made on the public sector, a with the social work, the

police, probation, prism, the NHS, the people working in these fields

do not have the resources on the time to investigate claims that are

not clear cut. And I think that with the cuts being made we are

going to see more and more cases where social workers do not have

the resources to check up on issues like these. Was that the issue,

Steve Coogan? We do not know the full facts, so we do not know. I

think there is the inference that is being made in some quarters that

it might have been about the religious dimension to this, of the

accused involved. And whether, because of religious sensitivities,

there may have been recalcitrance on the part of the police. That is

always a political hot potato. The one thing that nobody wants to talk

about is the perception of misogyny in certain religions. I would say

that is true of certain aspects, certain people within Catholicism,

and also other religions. I do not think any religion has a monopoly

on this. I think part of the problem is being able to have a

mature discussion about what we think our shortcomings in our own

and other people's religions without it turning into a racist

football. I am choosing my words very carefully, because it is a

hair-trigger for things. But that has been mooted. Are you saying the

police and social services held back because they felt embarrassed

by the possibility they were going to be accused of racism? I have

read that somewhere. I want to be very careful because this is daily

Mail territory, they love that kind of thing. But I think part of what

happened there is that there is a dimension that was not addressed by

people. People were scared of addressing it for fear of people

jumping down their throat. And also the right for fear in some cases of

igniting racial tension. -- right I think there has been effectively

criminal negligence by the police. There can be no way of excusing

girls of 10 and 11, of saying they were willing. There is no way of

saying that was a right action and the police have to follow that up.

If they did not, you must wonder what was their ulterior motive. To

say they may have been embarrassed by some racial dimension is a

dereliction of duty, and they should be culpable and they should

be blamed. May be the best way of dealing with

this is actually making the prison sentences life, not four years.

Make it strong, rather than what they are doing at the moment.

this is a truly appalling set of circumstances and I do not know was

-- what was in these people's minds when they were hearing these

complaints and ignoring them but I hope the Serious Case Review, which

will go into the details of the people working on it and what

motivated them, will get to the bottom of that. Do you think it

will get to the bottom of the race and religious issues Steve Coogan

mentioned? Is that part of the inquiry? I do not know if those

were the issues at stake. I cannot speculate on the motives because it

seems to me to be such an appalling omission. As has been said, they

were young girls, not women. They were under the age of consent. You

would have thought that when they came to complain, the officials

would have said, something against the law is going on here,

forgetting all the other issues the panel have rightly raised. I am a

father of two daughters and I think it is truly appalling that young

women can go and complain to the authorities and be ignored like

that and have their lives ruined. It is disgraceful. The woman in the

4th row. The points raised by the brave young people that contributed

to this report were that they were not listened to. There had been

countless reports going back many years, Serious Case Reviews, etc,

talking about young people not being listened to. It is not

expensive to listen to young people. Why have we not learn from earlier

reports? I am just adding to what people

have been saying, and there is an issue in Eastbourne, where a young

girl, a friend of hers mentioned to the teachers that she had been

having an affair with a teacher she has run away with, but she was not

listened to. How long does it take for somebody to take action?

I agree with the gentleman in the second row who put it correctly. It

is outrageous that girls at this young age did not have their

complaints taken seriously. To go back to the very beginning, the

question, what was the motives of the people who ignored it? I do not

care what their motives were. I do not want this covered up by saying,

they were nervous about political correctness. That is the wrong way

to go because it gives them an excuse and it says, it might have

been all right to cover it up. And it was not. It was wrong. Their

excuse and motive does not matter. These were children and they were

abused, and it is terrifying that when they went to the people who

they thought would protect them, they were left just as vulnerable

as before they arrived. And we need to ensure that the authorities do

their job, and when they do not, that they are punished with its --

for it. I am not sure that I agree you should send people responsible

to prison for life, but you should find criminal charges for people

who have failed in this way. At the back. Given the length of time that

this case has been happening and the appalling number of referrals

made over that time, apparently 84 from one team and 44 from another,

and over such a long period of time, is there is indicative of practice

all over the country? You think it is widespread. Harriet Harman.

I hope it is not an obviously the Inspectorate of social services

needs to make sure that all social services departments live up to the

standards of the best. But from time to time there is a false

accusation, like a young girl will make an accusation that a school

teacher has molested them. And if that accusation turns out to be

false, everybody gets really hysterical about that and says, his

career has been ruined. And then everybody retrench us. Actually,

what we have to recognise is that, although wrongful allegations and

the investigation of wrongful allegations can be very serious

against the person that allegation is made against, you have got to

have the starting point of starting to believe the child, no matter

what their background, no matter what their circumstances are. They

are the vulnerable ones. Any adult, no matter how important his

professional standing, whether in education, the church, or in his

community, it is better for him to take that risk than to have the

risk on the child. So next time you see hysteria in the papers about a

wrong for allegation about a teacher and everybody is saying

there should be more restrictions against investigations, just

remember the case of these girls in Rochdale.

A question from Andrew Priestley. Can the next generation a four-day

home without hope from the Bank of Mum and Dad? -- can they afford a

home without help from the Bank of Mum and Dad? I think it depends

where you live in the country. I do not think they can in Brighton,

that is for sure. If they are fortunate enough to have a bank of

mum and dad, which the vast majority do not, they will have to

go to them, because the banks are not lending. We saw some

irresponsible lending. I remember saying, we will not have any 100%

mortgages on my programme because I do not believe in them and I do not

want to look for houses for people who have them. But those days are

over. The banks, God willing, have learned their lesson, as have we

all, because we all played a part in this. And they have got to get

their act India and lend. Every day a friend, former colleague, someone

I was involved in, rings me and asks why it is taking so long for

their mortgage to go through. The banks are simply not lending to

people. They say that they are and all of the anecdotal evidence I am

seeing says they are not. So, yes, I think the Bank of Mum and Dad

should be better used, and I think that if people want to give their

children money to buy a property, they should be allowed to do so and

should not be taxed. But I also think that someone has to kick the

banks, and kick them hard. Danny Alexander. Kirsty is right to say

that in a lot of parts of the country, housing is simply too

expensive for first-time buyers to afford. Therefore, as well as

allowing the Bank of Mum and Dad to help, and we had an idea that, as a

Government, we are developing and announced at our conference about

allowing those mums and dads who do not have vast amounts of free cash

to give their children but do have a pension fund that they have built

up, where maybe they could release a lump sum early, use it to

guarantee a deposit, that is another way that parents could be

freed up to help kids buy a house. But we also need to build more

affordable housing in this country. Recently, we announced a new policy

of providing Government guarantees to housing associations to help

them build more affordable homes more cheaply. That is something

which is important here, too. There is more that we can do, but Kirsty

is right about the banks, too. We have been kicking the banks, and we

will continue to do so. Most recently the funding for lending

scheme the Bank of England announced with the Treasury is a

real push to the banks to lend more money to small businesses, which

was mentioned earlier, and to people who need to buy houses, too.

How are you kicking them? You have not been very effective. On

Question Time over the last two years we have had endless people

complaining about borrowing money and the person in your chair always

so as they are putting pressure on the banks, and the person sitting

there says, well, it does not make any difference.

APPLAUSE the problems in the banking system

are very deep-rooted and serious. It is taking a long time to change

the culture of regulation, which we have changed, the structure of

banks, which allowed them to have them lending to you and me and to

small businesses, and have that polluted by international casino

banking. Those are things we are changing. We have had several

schemes to get them lending more, and the latest is by far the

biggest, with the potential to increase bank lending by �80

billion. The early signs are positive in terms of the amount of

lending and the price of lending to people. We have put more money into

a scheme which hopes to fund deposits through shared equity

schemes for first-time buyers. We are putting Government money in to

help first-time buyers get on the property ladder. But these are

deep-rooted problems which take a Let's hear reaction? Why are the

banks not lend, then? There are a number of reasons why the banks are

not lending, but mainly due to the fact that they made such hugely

irresponsible decisions that they have to deal with that. They are

overindebted. So, why kick them? You have to get

them to help? The function that banks should be performing in an

economy working well is lending responsible to individuals that

want to buy homes and small businesses that need money to grow

and we have to get the banks to move forward. Encouraging them to

responsible activities. If people are to release their lump

sum pensions to fund their children buying a property, then what are

those parents going to live on when they are pensioners? It will not be

state pension? Harriet Harman? Do you like the idea of the use of the

pension to buy a house for your children? I think it is an

absolutely balmy idea! For a start, only a very small percentage of

people have pension pots which are big enough, so they, you would be

only helping a small number of people, but the idea that people

should gamble pension pots on the property market is absolutely

beyond bonkers. I do think that actually, even the Bank of Mum and

Dad is not working now as the Bank of Mum and Dad was a way of helping

a young person get a mortgage and even that is not working. That's

why we suggested one way forward would be to have a tax on the pool

of bonuses that banks pay to their top executives and use that money

for helping construction of building more homes which would

provide jobs as well as providing more homes. I do think it is wrong

that the Government are watering down the planning laws which said

that councils could say that as a condition of property developer

being able to develop a property that they would have to build some

affordable homes at the same time. I think it is disappointing that

they are not doing that. I feel passionately about more,

better quality low-cost homes, but the prok lem -- problem about the

planning regulation, it stopped people building. They sat on the

pools of land. The big companies, the big ing if firms have huge

parcels of land. They are waiting for what they see is the right

climate to build. It is incredibly important when anybody builds

anything that there should abproportion of low-cost homes, but

in some areas of London where it was 50%, they did not build. So you

find the point at which they will start building and there is enough

low-cost homes to build. I think that there has been a

generational shift in that people in their early 20s aspired to their

own home, most of us accept it may happen in our 30s, in the meantime

they are renting, but it would be a help if there is control in the

rents, especially in the south-east. APPLAUSE.

I think that suggestion is far more helpful than tax relief on the Bank

of Mum and Dad that will help only a section of privileged middle-

class people to the people at the bottom of the property ladder, it

does not make a difference. They have not any money, their parents

do I have money... So controlled rents? I think anything that helps

people at the bottom. That is where the money should go. In helping

those at the bottom of the ladder. There is tax relief on parents

lending money is something that is meaningless to the vast majority of

people. It helps a small section of society, again, people who are more

likely to vote Conservative. It does not help the vast majority of

people. Why is the Government so powerless

to control the banks? You run the country? Why can't you just say to

them a proportion of this money we have given you, �375 billion in

quantitative easing, which went into the banking system and

disappeared, why not say that a certain percent of that must be

lent to people to buy houses? �375 million went to debt. Not all

to the banks, but the gentleman in front is right. We hate the banks

but we kick them and it is making it harder for them to lend if you

put a tax on a billion pounds. It stops them lending �1 billion. We

put up capita ratios it reduces the amount of money that they can lend.

So there was a loan with the boom, but we put them up when there is a

bust. This is the wrong way round. Put them up to choke off a boom in

lending when it is getting out of hand. When there is a dirth of

money, reduce the capital ratios so that the banks have money to lend.

So it is better that banks do the business of banking rather than

governments, the history of governments running things is not a

very satisfactory one. I think we have time for one more

question it goes to the heart of what has been going on in Brighton.

Rebeba Adams has the question. After two years in clielgs

collision Government is anyone listening to Nick Clegg? Is anyone?

Apart from when he is singing on YouTube. Steve Coogan? He listen.ed

to me. I went to see him. He ensured me that he would ensure

that the fans of the Leveson report would be implemented. So, I was

pleased with him. Whether he can get that past David Cameron, I am

not so sure. The question is whether you were

listening to him, not whether he was listening to you? I was

listening to him as he was telling me what I wanted to hear. Whether

he can follow through it with it, I don't know. I am pleased that the

liberals are part of the coalition. They put the brakes on the Tories.

Maybe not as much as we would like, but had they not been there, they

were the fly in the Tory ointment, the more flies in Tory ointment,

the better, as far as I am concerned, but whether people will

listen to him, I don't know. I think that David Cameron has to

listen to him to some extent. As I don't think that the Tories will

get an overall majority at the in connection election.

Harriet Harman? I think if people are listening to Nick Clegg

theyline wondering what he said before the last election. If you

say you are going to increase the number of police officers by 3,000,

then vote to cut the number of police officers by 15,000, you know

if you say you are not going to put up VAT and straight away do that, I

think that people lose faith, but I also think, this is where I am not

sure that I agree with Steve on this, I think what has happened is

that you know if the Lib Dems fight for the pupil premium, then the

Tories let them have it, but they take away twice as much with the

other hand with the education spending and Sure Start if you

think of what the Lib Dems fought for in the manifesto of increasing

the threshold before paying tax and they won that, but then ended up

voting to cut tax credits and putting up VAT. So what you have

had is the Lib Dems trying to give with one hand and the Government

taking away twice as much with the other. I think that Nick Clegg at

his krches, they answered the question, -- at his conference

answered the question, which is what are Lib Dems for? It seems to

me that the answer to that question is that they are there to prop up

the Tories. Many people think at the next

election that maybe they'll be propping up Labour? We are fighting

for an overall majority. You know people have just one vote. We are

seeing that precious vote you give, we are asking you to give that the

Labour Party. The idea that people do deals behind closed doors...

Harriet! Come on! I'm sorry, Kirsty, we are not doing deals behind

closed doors. Alistair, Peter, Gordon, were not trying to do deals

behind closed door? -- doors? are not... In the situation where

we are now the -- before a general election, we are being straight

with people. We want an overall majority. We are not doing deals.

The only Lib Dem telephone number that I have got in my phone

contacts is actually Danny. That's right.

Well, there you go... Maybe we will have a chat... Maybe a chat on the

train home later. So, you don't obviously rule out a

coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the next election

if the figures worked out for you to have one? I am not a political

commentator. I am arguing and putting forward what our position

is and asking people to vote for that. You can't, we have a first-

past-the-post system. People have one vote. You cannot vote for a

coalition. You can either vote for the Government, which is the Lib

Dem and the Tories or vote for the alternative. Which is Labour.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, what do you think, are people listening to Nick Clegg

after two years? I don't like coalitions. I wish that the

Conservatives had won an overall majority. I don't like coalitions,

I think it allows the politicians to abandon policies. That is a bad

thing. We should be elected on a clear manifesto and deliver on it

or not, not to say we are in a clielgs, we cannot do it. Having

said that, the politicians have to deal with what we are given. We

were given a coalition. You could have been given a minority

government? People have. Then you have another election? They have

not. Harold Wilson had a Liberal /Labour pact.

In 70, he had a minority government... No he did not, he had

it in' 74. All I am saying is that you don't

have to gov entrepreneur as a majority government? We rarely have

minority governments. There was a period in the '70s and the '60s,

where Wilson had a small majority. In the '70s he went into a Lib/Lab

pact, but the parties have to deal with what the electorate delivers.

Actually, I think that Nick Clegg, I can hardly bring myself to say

this... Try! Try! He was rather noble two years ago in going into

coalition to the great disadvantage to his party because we were facing

a huge financial crisis. Remember the weekend after the election was

the point at which Greece was asking for its first bail out. At

that point the interest rate on UK guilts was the same as on Spanish

debt. Now we are at a fraction of Spanish debt. We had to do with

that financial crisis. We needed a clear Government. We could not have

a minority government that could be chucked out in a few weeks and

another election and a period of uncertainty. So much as it pains me

to say it, much though I don't like coalitions, I think that Nick Clegg

did a noble thing then and deserves to be listened to up to the next

election and then I hope you will listen exclusively to David Cameron

and not to anybody else. We have crossed our 60 minutes,

Danny. If you could be brief, I would be grateful?

The first thing to say is that single pearl governments have

broken a lot of promises. Reb the Labour policy of ethical foreign

policy. Remember the war in Iraq? Boom and bust? The mess that they

made of our economy? I think that people are listening to Nick Clegg

and to the Liberal Democrats as we made the right decision for the

country to go into coalition and we are delivering many of the things

that we care about. We are delivering income tax cuts for 24

million working people in this country. We are delivering extra

investment in schools and nursery education for the most

disadvantaged children. Delivering support for the green agenda in

this country. The Liberal Democrats are making a real difference to

this country ags part of a strong stable country to sort out the

country's economic problems and I am very proud that we are part of

this Government. Kirstie Allsopp, a lasting quick

word? Is anybody really listening? Not to you! It is interesting you

mention the war in Iraq. If Nick Clegg told me we would pull out of

Afghanistan early, I would listen to him. My mother-in-law told my

other half that more servicemen committed suicide in Afghanistan

than have died in combat. If this is true it is the most

heartbreaking thing I have heard. Every time with a Question Time,

when this war we are still engaged in does not come up, I think what

on earth is going on? APPLAUSE Well, I'm sorry it didn't come up

this week, but our time is up. We are in mar next week. We have Ken

Clarke and the boss of British Airways, Willie Walsh and after

that in Birmingham. So if you would like to come to Manchester or