:00:11. > :00:21.Tonight, we are in Sale in Greater Manchester and welcome to Question
:00:21. > :00:23.
:00:23. > :00:28.And here with me on our panel, the Cabinet Minister, Kenneth Clarke,
:00:28. > :00:31.the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, the Liberal
:00:31. > :00:35.Democrat peer, Baroness Kramer, the broadcaster and columnist, Janet
:00:35. > :00:40.Street-Porter and the Chief Executive of the parent company
:00:40. > :00:50.British Airways and Iberia, Willie Walsh.
:00:50. > :00:53.
:00:53. > :00:56.Thank you very much, and our first question tonight from Jacqueline
:00:56. > :01:01.Hill, please? Is the Government right to
:01:01. > :01:07.scapegoat civil servants for the West Coast rail fiasco? Is the
:01:07. > :01:10.Government right to scapegoat the civil ser vans for the fiasco of
:01:10. > :01:13.the West Coast rail. Willie Walsh, you must have had dealings with
:01:13. > :01:16.civil servants over things like this. Do you think they are right,
:01:16. > :01:19.the Government? No, I think it's the responsibility of the ministers
:01:19. > :01:23.the civil servants, I don't think you can say it's one or the other,
:01:23. > :01:28.I think it's both. It's fortunate for the Conservative Party that the
:01:28. > :01:35.Prime Minister has moved both the Transport Ministers, Justine
:01:35. > :01:38.Greening and Theresa Villiers out o transport because I don't think
:01:38. > :01:43.their positions would be tenable if they were still in transport today.
:01:44. > :01:47.I think this is a mess of monumental scales and people have
:01:47. > :01:51.got to be held to account. I think that's both the politicians who're
:01:51. > :01:55.involved and the civil servants. Given the process was complex, how
:01:55. > :01:59.do you blame the ministers? wasn't that complex. The ministers
:01:59. > :02:02.take responsibility. The ministers will go on and take the praise when
:02:02. > :02:08.something good happens and will try and shift the blame to somebody
:02:08. > :02:10.else when something bad happens so I don't think they can say they
:02:11. > :02:14.weren't involved. They were the people who went on TV to announce
:02:14. > :02:18.it. Theresa Villiers was on TV making a big deal out of it saying
:02:18. > :02:21.how confident she was that it was done properly. I think Justine
:02:21. > :02:25.Greening did the same thing. I didn't see any civil servants on TV
:02:25. > :02:28.making the announcement. I think in a case like that, the questions
:02:28. > :02:32.should have been asked properly, the answers should have been
:02:32. > :02:38.challenged and we should not have found ourselfs in the mess that we
:02:38. > :02:44.find ourselves today. APPLAUSE
:02:44. > :02:47.Kenneth Clarke? We need to know a lot more about it. There will be an
:02:47. > :02:52.inquiry before we can say what went wrong. The explanations about the
:02:52. > :02:56.errors being made in the math, if anybody understands them b will --
:02:56. > :03:03.them, will they speak to me afterwards. Why have three civil
:03:03. > :03:08.servants been suspended? We don't know what's gone wrong? Whoever's
:03:08. > :03:13.suspended them thinks there's something about what they've done
:03:13. > :03:16.wrong. We'll see whether they were scapegoated. The person who
:03:16. > :03:21.suspended them, obviously thinks they should be suspended whilst the
:03:21. > :03:24.investigated. Just one caution on Willie's idea that in a tendering
:03:24. > :03:27.possess the whole thing should go to the minister. I've done
:03:27. > :03:30.tendering processes and have had procurement people in the
:03:30. > :03:35.Department of Justice, I did a tendering process for prison
:03:35. > :03:39.management, a very good process, you get prisons that cost less and
:03:39. > :03:44.get better regimes by having better competition. I didn't start taking
:03:44. > :03:48.over personally the decision over who won the tender, I think my
:03:48. > :03:51.lawyers would have told me to be very, very careful if these
:03:51. > :03:55.Transport Ministers would have said, in choosing who's won, we are not
:03:55. > :03:59.going to leave to it the officials or the procurement experts, I'm
:03:59. > :04:02.going to sit down and go through the figures and work out who's won,
:04:02. > :04:07.I would have cautioned either of the good laydis very strongly
:04:07. > :04:12.against doing that. Now, of course, you have to be vigilant to make
:04:12. > :04:18.sure the process is what you want it to be. Quiz them when they come
:04:18. > :04:23.in with the result. I have never gone in to the background judgments
:04:23. > :04:25.of who's delivered the best value for money. What's the point of the
:04:25. > :04:29.minister then? APPLAUSE
:04:29. > :04:33.The point of the minister... The point of the minister is to decide
:04:34. > :04:38.on the very controversial policy of going out to tender and inviting
:04:38. > :04:45.private sector competitors in to compete with the public sector and
:04:45. > :04:47.explaining why you do it. Political interference... That's not the
:04:47. > :04:51.political interference. It wouldn't necessarily be, but it would be
:04:52. > :04:55.easily interpreted and I think the legal advice would be, for heavens'
:04:55. > :05:01.sakes, the minister should not personally start saying, has this
:05:01. > :05:06.been won by the Prison Service or by Circo or G4S or whoever, you
:05:06. > :05:12.rely on and make sure you've got good professional procurement
:05:12. > :05:18.officials and you actually get them to do it. You haven't been a
:05:18. > :05:25.Transport Minister. I have. A long time ago. When it was nationalised,
:05:25. > :05:30.it was totally incompetent and we had a fiasco every week. The
:05:30. > :05:37.opening up to transport, the privatising of transport to a
:05:37. > :05:38.competitive situation led to sub Stan rblg improvement.
:05:39. > :05:42.substantial improvement. Douglas Alexander, you were at transport
:05:42. > :05:47.for a year, and you had the process going on while you were there.
:05:47. > :05:51.What's your take on it? My take is first of all that... Was the
:05:51. > :05:55.process good or right? Firstly, this is a frustrating fiasco for
:05:55. > :05:58.the whole of the public. In tefrpls of is it the same process, no, the
:05:58. > :06:03.Conservatives came to power promising to fundamentally redesign
:06:03. > :06:10.the Fran hiez system for the railways and that's what they've
:06:10. > :06:13.done. -- franchise. The fact is, this is what Theresa Villiers the
:06:13. > :06:17.signed in opposition, Philip Hammond, now implemented in
:06:17. > :06:20.Government, and then Justine Greening decided in Government. So
:06:20. > :06:25.it's not just wrong for the public that �40 million has been wasted,
:06:25. > :06:30.it will be a lot more than that. What I think is implausible and
:06:30. > :06:34.morally repugnant is the idea that you set up an inquiry that's
:06:34. > :06:37.chaired by a member of the board of the Department for Transport and
:06:38. > :06:40.then you start with the assumption that it's therefore not going to
:06:40. > :06:45.look at the leadership of the department and principally the
:06:45. > :06:49.ministers. The only rule in this Government seems to be A, B, C,
:06:49. > :06:55.anyone but Cameron, it's just not good enough.
:06:55. > :06:58.APPLAUSE These errors that were referred to
:06:59. > :07:03.in which inflation and passenger numbers were not taken into account
:07:03. > :07:08.properly, are you saying that was as a result of Government ministers
:07:08. > :07:12.framing a policy that didn't take account of inflation? Or a
:07:12. > :07:15.technical error that's been portrayed during the process?
:07:15. > :07:19.need to find out what officials were doing and ministers. Ken says
:07:19. > :07:23.it's very complex. The reason it's complex is that the Conservatives
:07:24. > :07:29.redesigned a franchise system which had a very long contract in terms
:07:29. > :07:33.of upwards of more than a decade, almost 0 years. Were you happy with
:07:33. > :07:37.it when you were there? No, the average was around seven years.
:07:37. > :07:42.Were you happy with it? You said it was good for people to go bust
:07:42. > :07:50.occasionally because it proved the process was working? Did you say
:07:50. > :07:54.that? The parent company Dreadful contract for the East Coast Main
:07:54. > :07:59.Line... It got into financial difficulties. That's difpt to a
:07:59. > :08:03.situation where a minister doesn't meet their obligation. -- that's
:08:03. > :08:07.different. You said the system of Fran cheese shows a system is
:08:07. > :08:12.working? The keys were handed back, compensation was paid and the
:08:13. > :08:19.railway kept running. So capital direct would have gone bust. You,
:08:19. > :08:23.Sir? There's been a lot of talk of brain drain in the Civil Service
:08:23. > :08:26.today, saying they messed it up. If it was clear that they didn't have
:08:26. > :08:29.the skills to be able to run the process, why was thant outsourced
:08:29. > :08:35.to someone more appropriate, then we would have saved a lot more
:08:35. > :08:39.money than the �40 million now having to be spent? Why did they
:08:39. > :08:42.get rid of the Director General in Rio for transport when they knew
:08:42. > :08:46.they were coming up to 20 franchises in the coming year.
:08:46. > :08:51.woman there? This is the latest attempt for the Government to blame
:08:51. > :08:53.the servants. Exactly. I also think it's astonishing because both
:08:53. > :09:00.Justine Greening and trez za Villiers have been promoted the
:09:00. > :09:04.spite the fact that they are woman -- Theresaville euros. They've been
:09:04. > :09:09.promoted despite the fact that they are women? Yes. Baroness Kramer?
:09:09. > :09:14.The whole thing was a balls up and shambles and we have to say that
:09:14. > :09:19.about it. But let me tell you, it's not the first one. I remember the
:09:19. > :09:25.public private partnership for the Tube under Labour, a complete and
:09:25. > :09:31.utter shambles. It's fallen apart now. That's lost billions to the
:09:31. > :09:34.taxpayer and caused Londoners to suffer a Tube system that could
:09:34. > :09:40.have been improved far faster. As far as I know, the civil servants
:09:40. > :09:44.and adviser involved with that all either got promotions or gongs. And
:09:44. > :09:48.we have to actually tackle incompetence. Now, how you can go
:09:48. > :09:53.and do an investigation if you don't suspend the people you think
:09:53. > :09:56.that have been mismanaging the numbers, I don't know. If ministers
:09:57. > :10:00.have been involved and are at fault, then they have to pay the price,
:10:00. > :10:04.but I also think the notion that we totally protect the Civil Service
:10:04. > :10:08.can't be one that continues. I don't mean to scapegoat people, but
:10:08. > :10:12.you can't have people doing jobs they are not competent to do.
:10:12. > :10:19.why suspend the civil servants and not the ministers, why do the
:10:19. > :10:24.ministers get promotes? This is a nonsense, Douglas. Do you agree?
:10:24. > :10:27.The ministers decided they would go for longer franchises so you get
:10:27. > :10:31.people who're successful to commit more investment. That's the
:10:31. > :10:34.ministerial decision. You go out to the competition. If the minister
:10:34. > :10:38.had gained advice from the civil servants that first whatever they
:10:38. > :10:42.are called had beat Virgin and the minister said no, I've checked the
:10:43. > :10:47.figures and I think Virgin... What's what you said to Parliament,
:10:47. > :10:52.why did they two to the Select Committee on transport and say it
:10:52. > :10:55.was a robust and competent process? They were confident in the process.
:10:55. > :10:59.All this argue about process of procedures shows you what's wrong
:10:59. > :11:05.with politics. The bottom line is that transport, like the National
:11:05. > :11:09.Health Service, is one of those things in this country that
:11:09. > :11:13.everybody uses. It should be a consensus issue. How the railways
:11:13. > :11:17.are run shouldn't be down which party is in power, it should be
:11:18. > :11:21.beyond that. I think it's wrong to scapegoat the civil servants, but I
:11:21. > :11:25.also think it's wrong that ministers, Transport Ministers are
:11:25. > :11:29.amateurs, they are not experts. It's an important part of
:11:29. > :11:35.everybody's life and this debacle is going to cost I think everybody
:11:35. > :11:38.who uses the rail a minimum of a �10 per year per passenger and �40
:11:38. > :11:41.million is the least and �100 million has been quoted in a lot of
:11:41. > :11:46.the papers today. Would you prefer a nationalised railway? I use them
:11:46. > :11:50.a lot and I know a lot about the East Coast line and about what
:11:50. > :11:55.happened with GNER and the awarding of that franchise and when it had
:11:55. > :12:03.to be handed back. After GNER, another company came in and they
:12:03. > :12:07.too the - they too stopped. I've been using the railway for years
:12:07. > :12:10.and by different companies and the fares have escalated because your
:12:10. > :12:13.Government and Ken's Government have just demanded more and more
:12:13. > :12:23.money from the franchise holders and the people who pay are the
:12:23. > :12:27.
:12:27. > :12:30.people in this room, the customers. APPLAUSE There was a time not so
:12:30. > :12:35.very long ago when ministerial responsibility was a matter of
:12:35. > :12:40.honour almost and it seems over the recent deck aitdz even that's been
:12:40. > :12:43.pushed to one side -- decades. In business and in Government,
:12:43. > :12:48.ministers literally will not leave, they will not fall on their sword,
:12:48. > :12:51.it's always the responsibility of their deputies when the G4S thing
:12:51. > :12:55.was another incidence where deputies got the push and the guy
:12:55. > :12:58.at the top stayed. That sense of honour that really I was the guy at
:12:58. > :13:04.the top, it was my responsibility and really I should go on this, we
:13:04. > :13:10.should see more of it because increasingly we see less and less.
:13:10. > :13:15.Do you agree with that? I think it's important that... I don't
:13:15. > :13:18.think Justine Greening is an amateur. What I remember her
:13:18. > :13:22.background is that it's economics. If somebody with that background
:13:22. > :13:28.can't understand inflation, you think we are in big trouble. Hang
:13:28. > :13:32.on, you know the point. It points to a problem in that in eight years
:13:32. > :13:37.we have had eight different Transport Ministers. That's what
:13:37. > :13:41.I'm arguing, transport's too important to have all this rapid
:13:41. > :13:44.turnover and people running it. man in the pink shirt We have heard
:13:44. > :13:47.some very strong language here tonight from one of the
:13:47. > :13:53.Conservative Party's flagship privatisation. We have heard from
:13:53. > :13:58.Mr Walsh who's Head of The BAE privatisation, he called it a
:13:58. > :14:04.fiasco, we've heard it's in a mess, we have heard it's balls or
:14:04. > :14:10.something from Miss Kramer. I don't think she said that! She did.
:14:10. > :14:14.said it was a balls up. Now, for this time of the night, that's very
:14:14. > :14:17.strong language, so obviously it's in a mess and I believe this is a
:14:17. > :14:23.golden opportunity now to take it back and I agree, prices are going
:14:23. > :14:31.up, they are going up again, let's get it back in the public sector.
:14:31. > :14:36.Let's be nationalised. The man up there? The idea of the golden age,
:14:36. > :14:39.the idea is absurd and nobody was held accountable for the shambolic
:14:39. > :14:43.way in which we ran an old- fashioned company. Willie, you are
:14:43. > :14:46.in a big company, you are the holding company of huge companies,
:14:46. > :14:50.vast amounts of procurement, you are always going out to tender, you
:14:50. > :14:55.have procurement experts. If you are telling me that every time a
:14:55. > :14:59.major contract is placed by BA, you personally take it over, you check
:14:59. > :15:04.all the arithmetic of all the people who work in the company and
:15:04. > :15:12.you personally decide who's won the court for widgets, I'm absolutely
:15:12. > :15:22.amazed and I would say that's not... Major contracts, yes, I do. Major
:15:22. > :15:44.
:15:44. > :15:48.I do not remember you resigning. think we must move on. I wonder
:15:49. > :15:54.whether this is symptomatic of a deeper malaise within government.
:15:54. > :16:00.I'm thinking of trying to get decisions out of government after
:16:00. > :16:07.government. I'm thinking of H S 2. If we cannot make a decision, what
:16:07. > :16:14.logo to put on a train, how will we make more important decisions?
:16:14. > :16:19.think we had better move on. Thank you for that. If you want to join
:16:19. > :16:29.this debate tonight or any other points raised guide to press the
:16:29. > :16:36.red button. You can text bass. You can follow BBC Question Time. A
:16:36. > :16:41.question now from Cecelia Walker. In the light of the recent death of
:16:41. > :16:46.two Greater Manchester Police officers, should British police be
:16:46. > :16:51.armed like their American counterparts? The funeral of Nicola
:16:51. > :16:57.Hughes and Fiona Bone yesterday in Manchester. I lived in the States
:16:57. > :17:01.for nearly 20 years. One of the things I just remember it so
:17:01. > :17:08.utterly clearly, I was in a car with my daughter. She was learning
:17:08. > :17:15.to drive. We were approaching some traffic lights that were read. I
:17:15. > :17:21.sought out of my right hand window that's there was a police officer
:17:21. > :17:27.with his gun drawn. -- that there was. I have lived in a society
:17:27. > :17:33.where there were armed police. The notion that makes people safe is
:17:33. > :17:39.just disproved by the realities and violence that people lived with. I
:17:39. > :17:44.far prefer, and feel far safer, in a community where the police have
:17:44. > :17:48.the confidence and strategies to police without arming themselves.
:17:48. > :17:53.Can I pay tribute to those incredibly brave members of the
:17:53. > :17:58.police and the families of those who died? They do put themselves on
:17:58. > :18:04.the line. The police themselves say the answer is not to arm themselves.
:18:04. > :18:14.I believe in this, the police are absolutely right.
:18:14. > :18:16.
:18:16. > :18:20.I have been a police officer for over a quarter of a century. I do
:18:20. > :18:25.not believe that British police should be armed. I want the public
:18:25. > :18:30.to respect the fact they are turning in day-in and day-out,
:18:30. > :18:35.totally unsure of what they will face. When things go wrong, tried
:18:35. > :18:41.to give us more support. As soon as something goes a tiny bit wrong,
:18:41. > :18:45.the whole nation turns on police officers. I am in charge of a team
:18:45. > :18:55.of police officers. A bit more support way you can, please.
:18:55. > :18:56.
:18:56. > :19:00.Do you think death like this are the price you paid for not having
:19:00. > :19:04.an armed police - for having a different relationship between the
:19:04. > :19:10.police and public? I do not think whether or not they were armed
:19:10. > :19:18.would have made any difference because of the nature of the attack.
:19:18. > :19:24.I am a serving police officer as well. I agree with that gentleman.
:19:24. > :19:31.If we were walking around with guns, it would take away the element of
:19:31. > :19:36.policing by consent for a lot of people. Do you agree with that?
:19:36. > :19:43.Completely. In any confrontation, dialogue must be the starting point
:19:43. > :19:50.and not force. If you can store up to - as a bid talk to people and
:19:50. > :19:57.start from -- if you can talk to people and start with negotiation,
:19:57. > :20:03.that is the best idea. Look what has happened in America! Arming
:20:03. > :20:12.police has not stopped serial killers. It has not stopped the
:20:12. > :20:19.dread for mass murders. They are to do with the gun laws. -- the
:20:19. > :20:24.dreadful mass murders. The same thing would happen here. What
:20:24. > :20:29.happened in Manchester two weeks ago was tragic. Putting firearms in
:20:29. > :20:33.the pockets of police officers will not change that. It is not a one-
:20:33. > :20:40.way street. Ian Tomlinson have the right to walk the streets in London.
:20:40. > :20:44.He should never have been a police officer. It is not a one-way street.
:20:44. > :20:51.We have to support the police absolutely but sometimes they get
:20:52. > :20:56.it wrong. You, in the blue shirt. The police are here to serve our
:20:56. > :21:02.communities. We have so many deprived inner-city areas where it
:21:02. > :21:06.is a status symbol to have weapons, including guns. Why should we
:21:06. > :21:12.expect police officers to going to win Bradman's side that cannot
:21:12. > :21:17.protect themselves? Deep in the penalty for murdering a police
:21:17. > :21:22.officer would be different? Not a death penalty but I think police
:21:22. > :21:27.should have the option of being able to protect themselves. I agree
:21:27. > :21:33.with the majority view. We have community policing in this country.
:21:34. > :21:38.We keep reinventing it. It goes back to Robert Peel. The approach
:21:38. > :21:47.we have of policing by consent as to the sense of respect of
:21:47. > :21:53.gratitude we have for the police. It does introduce a slight casual
:21:53. > :21:58.nature. We do try to exercise care and control, very rigorously
:21:58. > :22:02.actually. Mistakes are sometimes made by the police. It is a danger
:22:02. > :22:10.situation when you do not know how dangerous someone is that you are
:22:10. > :22:15.approaching. Our approach avoids the casualness about carrying guns
:22:15. > :22:20.that you see in some parts of the States. These two women could not
:22:20. > :22:26.have saved themselves by firing first and beating them to the draw.
:22:27. > :22:36.It was not like that. The sense of tragedy is redoubled by the fact
:22:37. > :22:38.
:22:38. > :22:41.our policemen and women police in the way they do. I would just like
:22:42. > :22:47.to associate myself with this general disagreement about arming
:22:47. > :22:52.the police. That is the right thing to do. Arming them would be a
:22:52. > :22:56.disaster. It would change whole public attitudes towards the police.
:22:56. > :23:01.We would see a huge exodus of police officers from the force.
:23:01. > :23:07.Just replied that to the gentleman over there, yes, there are inner-
:23:07. > :23:10.city areas with lots of problems. There are specialist firearms units
:23:10. > :23:14.and specialist police officers to deal with those particular problems.
:23:15. > :23:23.I do not think arming the whole police force is the right thing to
:23:23. > :23:28.do battle. Lord Tebbit said, I think it is time we thought again
:23:28. > :23:38.about the deterrent effect of the shadow of the gallows. Does anyone
:23:38. > :23:44.here believe that? They should bring back hanging for killing a
:23:44. > :23:50.police officer. Does anyone else agree with that? Anyone else want
:23:50. > :23:56.to agree with that? Not at all. want to see how much support there
:23:56. > :24:01.is for the idea. I think that hanging should come back. It is
:24:01. > :24:07.more of a deterrent. They go to prison, serve half a sentence and
:24:07. > :24:13.then come out. I do not agree with hanging. I do not agree with arming
:24:13. > :24:17.police. If they were armed, the first people who should be asked
:24:17. > :24:22.are the police themselves. We should not determine whether they
:24:22. > :24:27.are armed. I do not agree with hanging. What happens when you make
:24:27. > :24:31.a mistake? You cannot argue that mistakes have never been made. If
:24:31. > :24:36.you look at the case of the Birmingham Six, they were tried and
:24:36. > :24:41.found guilty. Lord Denning said, we should not have all of this
:24:41. > :24:46.campaigning about the Birmingham Six. If they had been hanged, bid
:24:46. > :24:50.would have been forgotten about and the community would have been
:24:50. > :24:55.satisfied. How can you correct a wrong like that? The risks of
:24:55. > :25:03.getting things wrong are far too great. I would not agree with
:25:03. > :25:08.reintroducing hanging. I am in agreement with that. I do not
:25:08. > :25:13.support the reintroduction of hanging. There has been the second
:25:13. > :25:16.funeral today of the officers who were slain. Our hearts go out to
:25:16. > :25:22.them. I cannot agree that the argument that says we should arm
:25:22. > :25:27.the police. The circumstances of a tragedy are bad circumstances in
:25:27. > :25:32.which to make immediate policy changes. Many of us feel a genuine
:25:32. > :25:37.pride we have a police force that overwhelmingly is not armed. It is
:25:37. > :25:41.sensible to have armed response units if they are required. I have
:25:41. > :25:45.seen no evidence from the United States or elsewhere that having
:25:46. > :25:49.armed officers actually makes the population safer. If there are
:25:49. > :25:54.issues in terms of gun crime and gang culture, the way to tackle
:25:54. > :25:57.that is not by arming the police but making sure there is effective
:25:57. > :26:01.enforcement of laws against criminals and making sure that
:26:01. > :26:11.young people define themselves by what they can contribute to society
:26:11. > :26:11.
:26:11. > :26:21.rather than seeking status through carrying a gun. Spencer Akio Dom
:26:21. > :26:26.
:26:26. > :26:33.has Ed Miliband ever found his boys -- found his voice? I have been
:26:33. > :26:40.described as a one-nation Conservative for 40 years. Of
:26:40. > :26:46.course it is jargon. It is a phrase we have used for a long time. Most
:26:46. > :26:51.of the time that time commit you knew what kind of conservative that
:26:51. > :26:57.was. The Labour Party keeps pinching slogans. We have had New
:26:57. > :27:03.Labour and now it is one nation Labour. I thought the content was a
:27:03. > :27:10.brilliant speech. To do that without notes and the rest of it,
:27:10. > :27:16.it was very good. I thought the content was vacuous. 46 repetitions
:27:16. > :27:20.of One nation does not make a new political philosophy. That is
:27:20. > :27:27.really a rather shameless attempt to steal what is becoming a
:27:27. > :27:35.slightly old-fashioned slogan. The equivalent in modern Conservatism,
:27:35. > :27:45.call themselves modernisers. Disraeli invented One nation
:27:45. > :27:52.Conservatism. Ed Miliband, you are not a One nation politician. They
:27:52. > :27:57.are people like Macmillan and Butler. We actually did introduce
:27:57. > :28:04.free-market economics into this country. We did. We tried to
:28:04. > :28:08.modernise the welfare state and reform public services. A concern
:28:08. > :28:14.for opportunity and aspiration. Those things held us together. I'm
:28:14. > :28:20.trying to give the general philosophy that has grilled the
:28:20. > :28:30.Conservative Party from most of the time I have been inept. He gave no
:28:30. > :28:36.
:28:36. > :28:41.Margaret Thatcher had a One nation government. She had a one-woman
:28:41. > :28:49.government. By the time she lost office, the Cabinet had the same
:28:49. > :28:55.number of wets outnumbering tries and One nation Conservatives in it
:28:55. > :29:05.as it had when she started. Until he has a policy, particularly on
:29:05. > :29:15.
:29:15. > :29:20.the economy, he is not going to I think his point about the NHS was
:29:20. > :29:26.a good point. The only thing that surprises me
:29:26. > :29:29.and I've no political afilliation and I've been critical of
:29:29. > :29:32.politicians left, right and centre. He's take an long time to do it but
:29:32. > :29:36.it was a good performance. His standing has to improve as a result
:29:36. > :29:43.of that. I hope he follows it up because we need some strong
:29:43. > :29:46.politicians today to hold the Government to account.
:29:46. > :29:54.Douglas Alexander, he said an interesting thing in this speech
:29:54. > :29:57.which is he said, I want to talk to those who voted for David Cameron
:29:57. > :30:02.directly. Do you understand why? have been in power for 13 years,
:30:02. > :30:06.there was a growing appetite in the country for change after the worst
:30:06. > :30:09.economic crisis in 60 years. We didn't regulate the banking system
:30:09. > :30:12.strongly enough. The main criticism at the time of the Conservative
:30:12. > :30:14.opposition is that we were regulating the banks too much
:30:15. > :30:18.incidentally. On the other hand, we are not denying the fact that the
:30:18. > :30:23.British people made their choice and denieded to throw us out in
:30:23. > :30:26.2010, but to answer the audience's question, yes, he did find his
:30:26. > :30:30.voice this week. I think it was both a very personal speech, he
:30:30. > :30:37.wanted to offer what's quite an unfashionable view that actually he
:30:37. > :30:40.thinks politics does matter and can make a difference and he chose
:30:40. > :30:43.politics as his life's work. He talked about the country he wants
:30:43. > :30:46.to live in. Ken comes from a tradition of One nation
:30:46. > :30:51.conservatism, but the problem is, Ken is pretty much the lone
:30:51. > :30:54.survivor of that tradition in the Conservative Party. I think the
:30:54. > :30:57.authentic face of the Conservative Party today is Andrew Mitchell,
:30:57. > :31:00.it's not Ken Clarke incidentally. If he talks about Butler and
:31:00. > :31:03.Macmillan, they didn't say that competition was at tt heart of the
:31:03. > :31:07.National Health Service, even they accepted it was cooperation that
:31:07. > :31:10.was the basis of the National Health Service. I can understand
:31:10. > :31:15.the sound and fury and the worry that Ed Miliband has very clearly
:31:15. > :31:18.said he wants to speak for the whole country, he wants to see a
:31:18. > :31:22.National Health Service base on the cooperation, rather than
:31:22. > :31:25.competition. He wants to make sure we have a genuine future for the
:31:25. > :31:29.more than one million young people out of work and he wants banks that
:31:29. > :31:31.don't just work for themselves but banks that work for the whole to
:31:31. > :31:35.have economy. There was real substance in this speech. My sense
:31:35. > :31:37.is it was a speech not only that he wanted to make but that the country
:31:37. > :31:42.wanted to hear. APPLAUSE
:31:42. > :31:46.You, Sir, second row from the back? Ken, when you say, you know, Ed's
:31:46. > :31:51.speech was vacuous, that's laughable, when you hear David
:31:51. > :31:57.Cameron talk about we are all in it together, the bankers are not in it
:31:57. > :32:04.with working there has people -- working class people. What I would
:32:04. > :32:07.say to Danny... Douglas. Sorry, Douglas. Danny was here last week.
:32:07. > :32:11.The working class people are really suffering under this coalition, he
:32:11. > :32:15.did appeal to some of them and what he said was, if the banks don't
:32:15. > :32:18.sort themselves out, we'll sort them out. I want the Labour
:32:18. > :32:23.Government to do that. If it said it's going to sort the banks out,
:32:23. > :32:26.it needs to sort them out. Did you feel he found his voice? I thought
:32:26. > :32:29.he was beginning to sound and beginning to appeal too the
:32:29. > :32:33.millions of working class people who didn't vote last time which
:32:33. > :32:38.allowed this coalition to get in. If he speaks increasingly like that
:32:38. > :32:43.and says what we need in the public sector and hospitals is to bring
:32:43. > :32:45.things back from like FPI companies under the public umbrella, that's
:32:46. > :32:49.when people will vote for him. That's what will get a Labour
:32:49. > :32:52.Government in. The man with the purple T-shirt?
:32:52. > :32:57.Miliband may have found his voice, but with the next election probably
:32:57. > :33:04.going to be over the economy, how can Labour be credible when we have
:33:04. > :33:08.Ed Balls who's going to be Chancellor?
:33:08. > :33:14.APPLAUSE Ed Miliband might have found his voice but who is he
:33:14. > :33:18.talking to?! Because that speech took place in a conference to the
:33:18. > :33:23.faithful, to the adoring. OK, it was transmitted on television, but
:33:23. > :33:27.most of the people in this country don't connect with the Labour Party
:33:27. > :33:33.or any of the main political parties because the standing of
:33:33. > :33:37.politicians, how the politic regard them, is at the lowest point ever.
:33:37. > :33:40.APPLAUSE So who is he talking to? When he says he wants cooperation
:33:40. > :33:43.rather than competition, I just laugh because the whole point of a
:33:43. > :33:49.political party is that you don't agree with the other two, but what
:33:49. > :33:53.the public seem to want is more consensus politics. Yes, the public
:33:53. > :33:59.have the appetite for cooperation because we've realised competition
:33:59. > :34:02.costs us a packet and it doesn't necessarily get results. I find Ed
:34:03. > :34:07.Miliband a curious character because he talks about One nation
:34:07. > :34:11.but he's never done anything except politics, so what's he done? Has he
:34:11. > :34:15.worked in a factory or shop? I've probably done more manual labour
:34:15. > :34:19.myself than Ed Miliband. I probably travel on more public transport, do
:34:19. > :34:24.more normal things and I'm a journalist and television presenter.
:34:24. > :34:28.I just don't think he connects with ordinary people. I'm sorry, I just
:34:28. > :34:31.don't think he does. The other thing I would say about all the
:34:31. > :34:39.party political conferences, they are still going through the motions
:34:39. > :34:45.getting the wives up to kiss them at the end of it.
:34:45. > :34:50.APPLAUSE Baroness Kramer? You have to give
:34:50. > :34:53.him credit for a really good speech and it's put a string in his step.
:34:53. > :34:56.I'll tell you what I think was clever about that speech is that
:34:56. > :35:00.people are writing on to it what they want to hear because I've
:35:00. > :35:04.heard people in this audience sort of say, and he said this about the
:35:04. > :35:06.banks, so he's going to fix the banks. Even he knows that the
:35:06. > :35:12.legislation to change the structure of the banks is due to come to
:35:12. > :35:15.Parliament in the next three weeks. Now, that's what he talked about.
:35:15. > :35:21.He talked about the NHS, I remember competition many the NHS under
:35:21. > :35:25.Labour. My God, that was price competition and it was fierce. Now
:35:25. > :35:29.he's facing a situation - and Labour didn't achieve this within
:35:29. > :35:32.the Bill. The Liberal Democrats did. Competition is on the basis of
:35:32. > :35:38.quality and I'll bet you there's nobody in this room who, if they
:35:38. > :35:42.were ill, would like to be in a situation where they were told, you
:35:42. > :35:48.can't go to that guy who's going to do the treatment better because
:35:48. > :35:53.he's a private or he's a charity. You have to go to the NHS entity
:35:53. > :35:57.which we have, you know, looked at and does this worse. People deserve
:35:57. > :36:02.and need to get the best treatment and getting competition on the
:36:02. > :36:06.basis of quality, no price competition at all, just on quality
:36:06. > :36:09.changes the lives of those of us when we get ill. So there is a lot
:36:09. > :36:15.he didn't say and people are now writing tonnes of stuff on to it.
:36:15. > :36:20.That is a very clever speech. briefly; would you answer the man's
:36:20. > :36:26.point, what about Ed Balls, all very well having Ed Miliband?
:36:26. > :36:30.Balls made a speech also in the week which actually was quite
:36:30. > :36:36.interesting. It actually was Janet talked about consent sis, he came
:36:36. > :36:40.up with a banking policy that basically is the Vickers report
:36:40. > :36:44.that is in the middle of being implementing, he talked about
:36:44. > :36:48.apprenticeships never being worked towards, but now a huge programme
:36:48. > :36:53.like that being trifen forward by Vince Cable, 450,000 apprentices
:36:53. > :36:57.last year, more this year -- being driven. So he's adopted your
:36:57. > :37:00.policy? Ed Balls is starting to follow it on, we might have
:37:00. > :37:06.consensus politics, it would be rather good. The man on the gangway.
:37:06. > :37:09.I want to know what voice he's found. Is it his Adrian Mole
:37:09. > :37:18.comprehensive voice, Oxbridge voice, American Harvard voice or his
:37:18. > :37:21.millionaire voice?! Because he is a millionaire. What did you detect?
:37:21. > :37:28.could hear him because he just spouted rubbish for an hour. Who
:37:28. > :37:32.stands up there for an hour and ten minutes and says nothing?! Hear,
:37:32. > :37:35.hear... Listen, people will make their own
:37:35. > :37:41.judgment on the speech. Let me answer Susan and then the je map.
:37:41. > :37:44.You say that you are introducing the Vickers recommendations, -- and
:37:44. > :37:49.then the gentleman. Look at what Vickers himself is saying in terms
:37:49. > :37:54.of this report. You talk about apprentices but the majority of
:37:54. > :38:01.them being offered by this Government are not available or are
:38:01. > :38:05.taken up by those less than the age of 25. Why does your own department
:38:05. > :38:07.offer one apprenticeship? How can we say to business, we want you to
:38:07. > :38:10.offer apprenticeships when the business department itself is
:38:11. > :38:13.offering but one apprenticeship? The truth is, we do need a new
:38:13. > :38:17.approach to vocational training, that's what Ed talked about, how do
:38:17. > :38:20.we make sure not just those kids who go to university but those who
:38:20. > :38:24.aren't academic want to learn a skill and get an apprenticeship
:38:24. > :38:29.have a reasonable chance, not just of a job but in a career in a
:38:29. > :38:33.changing economy. So you are going to cancel the apprenticeships.
:38:33. > :38:39.have massive numbers of real apprenticeships actually. How many
:38:39. > :38:48.in the business department? One. odd... I want to leave the stats
:38:48. > :38:55.and come back to Ed Miliband. The man in the yellow jacket, then you?
:38:56. > :39:03.Is he not just keeping the seat warm for the return of his brother
:39:03. > :39:09.David. That's a real conspiracy? Ed is keeping the seat warm? The one
:39:09. > :39:16.party with any certainty who can say who will lead us into the next
:39:16. > :39:21.election, it might be vins, it might be Boris -- be Vince, it
:39:21. > :39:28.might be Ed. The Conservative Party are really worried about having
:39:28. > :39:33.Boris Johnson as the next leader. Do you think Boris would do better?
:39:33. > :39:40.Yes. Not you! If Boris Johnson come as a Conservative Party leader, I
:39:40. > :39:45.think Labour has a letter chance of winning. Another quick question,
:39:45. > :39:48.you talk about apprenticeships and how many apprenticeships that are
:39:48. > :39:56.available. That's a fantastic news story, but if you are doing so well,
:39:56. > :39:59.why are so many young people unemployed? I've worked with young
:40:00. > :40:06.people as a personal adviser and the policy that you have in place,
:40:06. > :40:11.it's not working. Please, after that, someone talk to people on the
:40:11. > :40:14.ground and see how we can have a policy in place so we can help and
:40:14. > :40:17.support our young people to get into education, employment and
:40:17. > :40:20.training and those are the people who'll help and support us to get
:40:20. > :40:23.out of this recession. Thank you very much.
:40:23. > :40:27.We go on because we have more questions to get through. Thank you
:40:27. > :40:33.very much for that. Sheldon Cassidy, please?
:40:33. > :40:37.Is it rights to investigate Jimmy Savile's past now he's dead? Is it
:40:37. > :40:43.right to investigate Jimmy Savile's past now he's dead? Janet Street-
:40:43. > :40:46.Porter? Well, I started in television in 1975 and I worked
:40:46. > :40:50.first of all in commercial television as a presenter. There
:40:50. > :40:59.was definitely a culture where there was inappropriate sexual
:40:59. > :41:04.behaviour, not necessarily with under age boys and girls but there
:41:04. > :41:07.was a culture that made me feel uncomfortable. I was in my late 20s
:41:07. > :41:12.and there was nothing I could say or do about it but I was aware of
:41:12. > :41:15.things going on in dressing rooms. It's not just a BBC thing. I think
:41:15. > :41:20.you will find it's across commercial television as well.
:41:20. > :41:23.under age girls? No, I'm not saying with under age girls, but I'm
:41:23. > :41:29.saying inappropriate sexual behaviour with quite young people.
:41:29. > :41:36.They might not have been under age. When I went to the BBC as an
:41:36. > :41:39.executive in the late '80s, 1987, I was aware of the rumours about
:41:39. > :41:46.Jimmy Savile and rumours about other people too. There was a
:41:46. > :41:50.culture and it was a generational thing, in areas of luegt
:41:50. > :41:53.entertainment, behaviour was tolerated -- light entertainment,
:41:53. > :41:57.behaviour was tolerated. I feel the women never came forward before
:41:57. > :42:00.because nobody would have believed them because Jimmy Savile raised so
:42:00. > :42:06.much money for charity and he used the money that he raised for
:42:06. > :42:09.charity as a bargaining power to buy silence from national
:42:09. > :42:15.newspapers and if ever there was a time when someone might have blown
:42:15. > :42:22.the whistle on him, he would threaten those newspapers and those
:42:22. > :42:28.reporters that that charity money would not go to those hospitals. I
:42:28. > :42:35.know a female journalist that went to interview him that said
:42:35. > :42:40.straightaway, "I was really uncomfortable, his behaviour was
:42:40. > :42:46.totally inappropriate", but we are going back, you know, to the late
:42:46. > :42:52.'80s, even then, entertainment on television is a very male-dominated
:42:52. > :42:58.area. You just wouldn't have had a voice. I feel the women have come
:42:58. > :43:01.forward now because he's dead, and it's just shocking, but there's no
:43:01. > :43:05.doubt in my mind that it happened, no doubt at all. Is it right that
:43:05. > :43:08.it should be investigated now? Absolutely. The question is because
:43:08. > :43:13.he's dead, now that he's dead? don't want to talk about people
:43:13. > :43:17.who're around now, but we want to send out a really clear message
:43:17. > :43:23.that if you're under age and if someone's in a position of power
:43:23. > :43:27.because they're a well-known TV presenter or producer or director
:43:27. > :43:30.who can hand out fame to a young person, you must not abuse your
:43:30. > :43:33.position. Man up there on the right, you,
:43:33. > :43:37.Sir? We have to have an investigation so that if that
:43:37. > :43:40.happens in the future, more momentum will be gained by those
:43:40. > :43:45.who find themselvess in difficulty and in trouble, needing to come
:43:45. > :43:50.forward to explain to people and be taken seriously. Sexual crimes in
:43:50. > :43:56.this country, as is true across the whole world, are very rarely taken
:43:56. > :44:01.seriously by authorities. We have seen this in the Rochdale incidents
:44:01. > :44:08.where the authorities didn't take the girls seriously. The culture
:44:08. > :44:14.needs to come in where we have people given an opportunity to come
:44:14. > :44:19.forward secretly, quietly, gently at first so that the evidence can
:44:19. > :44:22.be amassed on a gentle basis, treated with respect, dignity and
:44:22. > :44:26.trust so that if there is something there to investigate further, it
:44:26. > :44:30.can then be brought out. This must be investigated thoroughly and if
:44:30. > :44:34.there are any other people who've been complicit in this, as is
:44:34. > :44:39.seeming more and more to be the case, then they need to be brought
:44:39. > :44:42.to account as well. Rest assured, a lot of people knew about it at
:44:42. > :44:46.Television Centre, a lot of people at the BBC knew what was going on.?
:44:46. > :44:51.When you say knew, because a lot of people talk about I'd heard rumours
:44:51. > :44:57.that, and this and that... It was certainly more than rumours because
:44:57. > :45:04.it was something that went on on a regular basis. But, you know, women,
:45:04. > :45:08.the women involved were just girls and some of these girls were in
:45:08. > :45:10.very vulnerable situations, coming from special schools and the places
:45:10. > :45:15.that Jimmy was supposed to be helping. Who would have believed
:45:15. > :45:25.them? Some of the women have said that when they did say something,
:45:25. > :45:36.
:45:36. > :45:42.I think people have a problem with those who knew something about it
:45:43. > :45:47.and did nothing about it. It is very sad. Everyone feels a sense of
:45:47. > :45:52.sadness and disillusion. It needs to be investigated so we can firmly
:45:52. > :45:58.get rid of the culture which Janet has very graphically described,
:45:58. > :46:04.which has got to be got rid of. I think Rochdale is even more serious.
:46:04. > :46:09.What is going wrong with the culture? These things need to be
:46:09. > :46:15.investigated. I hope it will not be looking for scapegoats and people
:46:15. > :46:19.to blame, trying to identify people unless they have seriously behaved
:46:19. > :46:25.wrongly. I think investigation about this will help to ensure that
:46:25. > :46:28.no one will tolerate this kind of behaviour again. Janet has very
:46:28. > :46:34.pointedly reinforce the fact we need to insure the sort of thing
:46:34. > :46:39.does not come back. The man in the pink jacket. My wife was abused
:46:39. > :46:44.when she was a young girl. I'm now -- I know how appalling and
:46:44. > :46:48.difficult it is for these women to talk about it. First of all, I
:46:48. > :46:55.would like to pay tribute to those women for having the bravery to
:46:55. > :47:01.come forward now and save it -- say it. What we must do is listen to
:47:01. > :47:06.the children. Also, what has clearly gone on here is, loads of
:47:06. > :47:11.people have had suspicions and they have said nothing. Something should
:47:11. > :47:16.have been done and this man should have been stopped. I do not care
:47:16. > :47:26.how much he made for charities. The papers were wrong. If someone is
:47:26. > :47:29.
:47:30. > :47:35.abusing a child... One child, that man should be stopped and put away.
:47:35. > :47:38.We have had a discussion about accountability. I think it is quite
:47:38. > :47:43.interesting as a powerful female figure in the media, if you were
:47:43. > :47:50.aware of those rumours, what prevented you from blowing the
:47:51. > :47:55.whistle? I heard the rumours. I was working in an environment that was
:47:55. > :48:00.totally male. When I was 10 years old, a mother took me to a
:48:00. > :48:06.hairdresser, she left me there, he molested me, I went home and told
:48:06. > :48:12.my mother and she hit me. You're talking about how women react in
:48:12. > :48:17.situations like that. To really think if I had said something to
:48:17. > :48:25.someone in the BBC higher up, at no one would have taken any notice -
:48:25. > :48:30.none whatsoever. Do you know what at the dismays me? I am more
:48:30. > :48:36.horrified that Janice has added to the picture. As an establishment,
:48:36. > :48:43.we say to people, when there has been a terrible crime, please, it
:48:43. > :48:46.is your duty to come forward. When the establishment has something
:48:46. > :48:51.happening within the Establishment, people lack the courage they spend
:48:51. > :48:57.all this time calling on other people to have. It really disturbs
:48:57. > :49:02.me. I do think, within every institution, the BBC must go back
:49:02. > :49:08.and work out what its child- protection policies were. The media
:49:08. > :49:12.frequently run these stories, criticising the CBR checks and what
:49:12. > :49:18.is this modern mollycoddling? We have this lovely author who goes
:49:18. > :49:24.into a school. Why should they have to be CBR checked? Why should and
:49:24. > :49:29.your neighbour be able to pick up a child from school? Why do they need
:49:29. > :49:33.to be verified? This really underscores the fact we cannot make
:49:33. > :49:43.our children 100% safe but we owe it to them to do virtually
:49:43. > :49:45.
:49:45. > :49:49.everything we can to make them safe. Douglas Alexander... These issues
:49:49. > :49:53.do need to be investigated. All of us should resist the argument that
:49:53. > :49:59.somehow there was a different culture, it was a long time ago.
:49:59. > :50:03.Therefore it does not matter. Jimmy Saville is now dead. There were not
:50:03. > :50:08.be a criminal trial. These women have had the courage to come
:50:08. > :50:14.forward. It is not just about the suffering they have endured. They
:50:14. > :50:18.deserve some kind of closure, if it can be achieved. There are people
:50:18. > :50:22.watching this programme who have suffered abuse who have not come
:50:22. > :50:27.forward. What message would it say to those people of these
:50:27. > :50:34.allegations were swept under the carpet? We have to create a culture
:50:34. > :50:37.in this country where, pull girls, boys, women and men, it is
:50:38. > :50:44.appropriate and safe to accept the fact and for everyone to understand
:50:44. > :50:49.that it is your body and nobody has a right to abuse it. That relies on,
:50:49. > :50:53.when someone has the courage to come forward, we need to listen and
:50:53. > :50:59.takes seriously the allegations. We need to make sure the person making
:50:59. > :51:03.the allegation is not judged. That is one thing we have got wrong as a
:51:03. > :51:09.society before. When someone has come forward, all too often the
:51:09. > :51:14.victim has been blamed. The BBC must accept its responsibility. A
:51:14. > :51:19.welcome the fact the Metropolitan Police will look at these matters.
:51:19. > :51:23.Look at Rochdale. Look at the experience of the Catholic Church
:51:23. > :51:27.in terms of child abuse. We need to make sure that everyone suffering
:51:27. > :51:37.this kind of abuse is confident they will be taken seriously,
:51:37. > :51:41.listened to it and helped. I think it is absolutely right this is
:51:41. > :51:46.investigated. It would be a scandal if it was not investigated. As we
:51:46. > :51:52.have heard from the gentleman at the back, the recent events in much
:51:52. > :51:58.doubt tell us it is not something that went down years and years ago.
:51:58. > :52:02.-- in Rochdale. The fact that women have come forward gives us an
:52:02. > :52:07.opportunity to address this. The BBC clearly, based on the
:52:07. > :52:12.allegations that have been made, have serious questions to answer.
:52:12. > :52:17.If those questions are not asked and answered, the credibility of
:52:17. > :52:22.the BBC will be seriously undermined as a result. This has to
:52:22. > :52:30.be investigated. It goes way beyond the actions of one individual man.
:52:30. > :52:37.It has to be looked at. Thank you very much. We have five minutes
:52:37. > :52:44.left. I must take this question. Of Army risking economic catastrophe
:52:44. > :52:54.by delaying airport expansion in the east of England? -- are we
:52:54. > :52:56.
:52:56. > :53:01.risking? Douglas Alexander Dom I will come to you in a while. We
:53:01. > :53:05.only have five minutes. On this issue, there has been a great deal
:53:05. > :53:12.of dithering. The Labour Party called for an independent
:53:12. > :53:17.commission to look at this issue more than a year ago. That has been
:53:17. > :53:23.established. One other point made by Boris Johnson today was the
:53:23. > :53:28.timetable. It will take up to three years - after the next general
:53:28. > :53:33.election. I do not understand why, given the issues are well
:53:33. > :53:37.understood, we should have this inquiry - and this Commission - but
:53:37. > :53:43.it should bring forward its recommendations before the election
:53:43. > :53:47.so everyone knows where the party stands. I suspect he will be able
:53:48. > :53:54.to confirm that at Heathrow we have the capacity for an extra 20
:53:54. > :54:02.million passengers a year. It is designed for 90 million. It Tony
:54:02. > :54:08.has 70 million. -- it only has. Many of the flights are competing
:54:08. > :54:17.with Manchester Airport. That could have real flight across the globe
:54:18. > :54:22.to build up economy in the area. At Heathrow, I am happy there is a
:54:22. > :54:27.group to look at the capacity issues but we need to look at the
:54:27. > :54:34.whole thing. The airline industry has told us that Terminal Four was
:54:34. > :54:44.going to be the last. We never need a third runway. Are you in favour
:54:44. > :54:44.
:54:44. > :54:49.of Boris Johnson's proposal for a third runway and an estuary
:54:49. > :54:55.airport? I cannot see where you would put an estuary airport
:54:55. > :55:01.without disaster. Also that bird's flight into engines. I have a post
:55:01. > :55:06.the third runway. It is the noise and the environment. -- I have a
:55:06. > :55:11.post. We need to look at the whole motion that virtually every flight
:55:11. > :55:17.needs to run through Heathrow. Other parts of the country need the
:55:17. > :55:21.opportunity to have a good airport. There are 150 million passengers
:55:21. > :55:27.that to not go through Heathrow in this country for some it is not all
:55:27. > :55:30.about Heathrow. I do not think we are risking economic catastrophe.
:55:30. > :55:37.The future of the economy of the UK is being damaged as a result of the
:55:37. > :55:42.lack of hub capacity at Heathrow. It is not a capacity -- a
:55:42. > :55:48.catastrophe. In 20 years' time, we will suffer as a result of it.
:55:48. > :55:53.want the third runway? I do not. I argued for a third runway and it
:55:53. > :55:59.was approved by the Labour government in 2009. The opportunity
:55:59. > :56:04.to build it existed at that stage. We were never see a third runway at
:56:04. > :56:09.Heathrow. We will not see Boris Ireland. In 30 years' time, people
:56:09. > :56:15.will talk about Commission that took three years. That is similar
:56:15. > :56:19.to commission that took place between 1968 and 1971 which said we
:56:19. > :56:22.should do something about it. Nothing will happen because there
:56:22. > :56:28.is no cross-party consensus to do with the issue and no political
:56:29. > :56:34.will to tackle difficult issues. I run my business out of Heathrow. I
:56:34. > :56:40.run it as best I can. I will be very happy. We were tried to do
:56:40. > :56:45.what we can to maximise the benefits that they exist at
:56:45. > :56:50.Heathrow. Janet Street-Porter can you do 30 seconds? I do not want a
:56:50. > :56:56.third runway. I do not want an estuary airport. In 50 years' time,
:56:56. > :57:01.we are not all be travelling around by plane. The idea of jet travel
:57:01. > :57:05.was seem arcane and redundant. Were we have something like video
:57:05. > :57:15.conferencing and whatever. We will not go through the horror of
:57:15. > :57:16.
:57:16. > :57:20.getting on a plane. The joy of getting on a plane! We need more
:57:20. > :57:26.capacity in the south-east. We needed to be a modern economy. We
:57:26. > :57:30.have to avoid fears this will go on for ever. Every way you propose is
:57:30. > :57:35.ferociously opposed by the locals are less to put it in the middle of
:57:35. > :57:42.the North Sea, where it is useless. The idea of having a commission
:57:42. > :57:46.that reports, if only they would agree to sign up to the conclusions
:57:46. > :57:52.of the Commission and said it would accept the outcome if it properly
:57:52. > :57:56.examined the evidence. Before the election, the coalition should
:57:56. > :58:00.declare where wants to put airport capacity. The Labour Party will go
:58:00. > :58:06.to the locality and fight it and oppose it and when will a seats in
:58:06. > :58:09.the area. We have to get around that problem. We have to respect
:58:09. > :58:15.the commission which needs to study it objectively and come up with a
:58:16. > :58:21.commanding conclusion. We should all signed up in advance to take it.
:58:21. > :58:31.That will be in your new job in Cabinet. That can be a special
:58:31. > :58:32.
:58:32. > :58:40.project. I am not responsible directly for either Airways - as a
:58:40. > :58:45.Airlines or railways. -- Airlines or railways. We will be in Glasgow
:58:45. > :58:50.and Birmingham for the next two weeks. If you want to come to those
:58:50. > :58:56.programmes to engage with the panel, coat the website to apply.