24/01/2013 Question Time

$:/STARTFEED. We are in Weymouth tonight and welcome to Question

Time. Good evening. A big we can to our

audience here, of course, and to our panel, the Conservative Health

Minister, Anna Soubry, Labour's former Culture Secretary, Ben

Bradshaw, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ming Campbell,

journalist, Angela Epstein and the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop.

Thank you very much indeed. Our first question comes from James

Foster please? OK, is the referendum on the EU in the

national interest or in the interests of the Conservative

Party? National interest or the

Conservative Party's interest? Ben Bradshaw? The Conservative Party's

interests who're spooked by UKIP is the simple answer to that. It

cannot possibly be in the national interest to promise a referendum at

an unknown time in five or seven years' time based on an uncertain

renegotiation with an unknown end. The uncertainty that that is going

to create to companies that are looking to invest in the UK because

we are a gateway to the single market is enormous. I think it's a

mistake and I think it's perfectly clear that David Cameron's only

done it because he's scared of his own backbenchers and scared of UKIP.

APPLAUSE Lots of hands up already. The woman

there, what do you think? I think at least David Cameron's promised a

referendum, unlike the Labour Party. APPLAUSE

The Labour Party is never going to have a referendum? That's not true.

We have never ruled anything out. They had 13 years to do something.

Sometimes in politics, as in life, keeping your powder dry is the best

policy and I think that is the best policy. Anna Soubry? The leader of

the party yesterday said in Prime Minister's Questions that he'd not

support a referendum. He said "You know how it works". Anna Soubry?

The reality is that I believe the majority of people in this country

have become cynical, disillusioned with the European Union. It costs

an awful lot of money, it's not democratic, gets involved in the

sort of stuff that it shouldn't be involved in. I'm a believer in the

European Union and come a referendum, I look forward to us

having renegotiated the settlement and I can assure you, I'll be

voting for us to stay within the European Union. Whatever happens?

However the renegotiations go? You will vote in favour? I've always

been a firm believer in the European Union. I don't want a

federal Europe. Let's make that absolutely clear. But I think

things are changing. Just as we have had in this country, we have

had a look again at the European Union and some cynicism. I think

across Europe there's a move to think again, to make sure that we

restore it to what it was originally which was a trading

arrangement, a free trading arrangement between nations. It's

the referendum we are interested in though, James Foster wants to ask

about that. Why was the leader against one a year ago? Because the

time wasn't right. Sorry, that was about having a referendum during

the duration of this Parliament. We are talking about having the time

to go and renegotiate. If you look at the welcome that we've had,

Angela Merkel's already welcomed... ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

LAUGHTER You guys don't like to hear the truth on this. Angela

Merkel said she's willing to have a conversation. She said you couldn't

allow everyone to go their own way, as it were, if there was to be a

settlement. It had to be universally acceptable. To the

French and Germans? Exactly and since then the French have made it

clear they don't like the idea of a pick 'n' mix European Union. Ben

Bradshaw is absolutely right. We are about to embark upon an

unprecedented period of constitutional and economic

uncertainty. As if we didn't have enough economic uncertainty at the

moment. Under the coalition? Your leader says they are going to

damage Britain, standing there allowing Britain to be damaged by a

decision made by the man in power? The coalition provides that in any

occasion when additional powers were to be transferred from

Westminster to Brussels, there should be a referendum. That's what

we signed up to and that's what we are going to see through.

Hang on, just a second. Your leader says this decision is not in the

national interest because it hits growth and jobs. How can you stay

in a coalition swi pursuing a policy that's not in the national

interest in Clegg's view, your leader's view and affects jobs and

the economy? Just imagine what the effect would be if we broke the

coalition at this particular point. It's no secret, I was not a great

enthusiast for the coalition, although I quite like Have I Got

News For You and my attitude was, and remains, this was a coalition

of necessity, we have to restore stability in the economy. Can you

imagine the instability which would be caused if we broke the coalition.

So the answer to the question is, of course it's in the interests of

the Conservative Party but not the interests of the nation. It's not

so much about UK, it's more about UKIP.

The man here? You have not had a vote on this in your lifetime, have

you? No, I haven't. Looking forward to it? Yes, I am. There is a great

need for a referendum on the European Union and I think the

Labour Party do seem to be against a referendum on the European Union

simply because of what Ed Miliband said in Prime Minister's Questions

yesterday. We need to renegotiate with Europe. We do need to

renegotiate with Europe because of the mess that Labour signed up to

with all these treaties that give all these powers away, the Lisbon

Treaty being one of them where Gordon Brown walked along and

decided to just sign it because he was just frightened. So you are in

favour. What about you, Sir, in the white shirt in the middle? I think

basically that what this referendum is is an attempt by the

Conservative Party to hoodwink the electorate into voting for them in

the next general election and I also think the referendum itself is

too complicated for a simple yes-no answer and I believe the general

public need to be educated on the European Union to exactly know what

they are voting for. APPLAUSE

Anna Soubry? In answer to the gentleman's question, it had

absolutely everything -- Angela Epstein. It had poetry and it was

Shakespearian. Where was the poetry? About draining the channel.

Missed that one. It also strayed into X Factor territory when he

said "I promise with my heart and soul" sounding like one of the

people pleading to stay in the competition on a Saturday night.

This is the first clang of the bell that says the election campaign

starts now. From here on in, everything will be seen through the

prism of this perspective referendum. In answer to your

question, however, he could change political interest and emotional

political blackmail into national interest if he holds this

referendum in the life cycle of this Parliament. It's a topic

that's here and now, we are all sick and tired of hearing why and

where and what's happening. Half the country don't really know what

it's about. He needs to spell out clearly what his repatriation plans

are, he needs to cut through all the red tape in Brussels, he needs

to go there and say this is what the UK want, UKIP have lost their

USP, so forget them. He needs to spell out what the UK want and then

come back and if they say no, I'm sorry, we can't give you a

renegotiated treaty, then bye-bye Europe and if they can, bring it to

the people. Before the election? it now before the election.

APPLAUSE The woman at the front? What sort

of information would be the public be given when it comes possibly to

a referendum? Ian Hislop will know that.

There are two "Ifs" he has to win the next election, David Cameron,

in order to have this referendum. You may not get a vote of all

because the likelihood of that happening at the moment isn't

hugely high. I would like to answer the gentleman's original question -

is this in the national interest? I think a renegotiation with Europe

is in the national interest. You said it was a reaction to UKIP. I

think it's a reaction to public mood. There are a lot of people who

aren't happy with Europe and would like certain bits of it changed.

APPLAUSE Terrible as this may sound, this is what politicians are meant

to react to, what the population is actually make a good well-informed

decision on a complex issue when there are so many complex strategic

issues. Why shouldn't the public have a view? This is the problem

with Europe is that democracy is a worry for people and it's full of

regimes appointed by technocrats. Have the public saying what they

think. Is there a danger that knee- jerk decisions based on the a

popular idea or patriotism which may well be not in the general

public's interest? I'm old enough to remember the run-up to the

original referendum on whether we should join the EU in the first

place. There are many people who do feel that they want a say, that

they have never had a say in the EU. That's another very good reason, in

my view, why we should have this referendum. I can assure you, there

will be a full and frank and extensive debate and the various

groups will gather and those who're for and against will make their

arguments extremely well and very loudly. People will be able to make

their decision based on good sound information.

The man in the centre there? If I could make an observation on this

and it's to do with an associated news story. What I found

particularly disturbing personally is that the day before, bearing in

mind this is happening in 2017, the day before there was a large number

of redundancies announced in the military. The next day, the FM

announced this and there wasn't a trace of the military redundancys

in the news, the cynical amongst us might think there was a timing

issue here. APPLAUSE He had several goes at

making the speech. He was meant to make it last week but couldn't

because of the situation in Algeria. Ben Bradshaw, you have heard the

arguments. The difficulty with Ian's suggestion of a renegotiation

on competencys, and the Prime Minister hasn't spelt out what

competencys he wants to renegotiate back and he hasn't identify add

single other European Union country that would support Britain

unilaterally getting the competencys back. That's the

problem. I support European reform and us working with the

Scandinavian countries and Germany and the Netherlands who want Europe

to be more competitive to compete in the world. The idea that Ming

said you can have a pick and mix and enjoy the advantages of the

single market is pure fantasy. about Ian's point? You can have a

referendum though, you can ask people what they want? Everyone

comes up with these eating metaphors, pick 'n' mix, ala carte,

buffet, no it isn't, we are not a member of the euro so everything is

going to change anyway, they are going to go towards a greater

fiscal union because they have to. We don't have to. Everything's

going to change anyway, use this as a chance to renegotiate the

opposition. It's bizarre. That's not what David Cameron's proposing.

What would you put down as being the alternative to being out? You

don't know that until the very process you've described has taken

place and been completed. Once it's been completed, then you can go to

the public and say, all right, are you content for the bringing to an

end of the European arrest warrant, are you content... There will be

problems with that being issued. Are you content with bringing an

end to the working time directive. You can put all the details to

people once you have got an agenda, a manifesto. The referendum?

$:/STARTFEED. I'm old enough to have taken part in the 1975

referendum campaign. We began that campaign with the opinion polls

solidly against us. By the time we had the argument, we won the

argument very convincingly. I'm confident we would do that again.

The problem is, if nobody will talk to the Prime Minister... If nobody

will talk to the Prime Minister? nobody will talk to him in Europe

and he is going to say we should go for the no vote, then we are out

basically. Nobody's actually talked about it. He's recommending that

the vote comes out. You think if he doesn't get anything from Europe he

will have to say no? That's what he is saying. Is that what he is

saying? He can't be saying vote yes whatever happens. There is no doubt

the conversation has already begun. You have seen the Swedish Prime

Minister, the Dutch, all welcome the lead that David Cameron's

taking. I do believe there's a mood amongst many in the European Union

that they accept and understand that it must reform That's

different. We are all in favour of reform. But there is the problem.

Nobody's seized the nettle and tried to go and make that

difference, and bring it back to the British people and finally give

the British people a say on their future in the European Union, in or

out. What do you think is more likely to succeed - going in and

saying things are changing, we like to help, that as the eurozone's

viability is important to our prosperity as well, and by the way

there are other things I would like to put on the agenda, or saying,

these are the things we want and if we don't get them, we'll walk out?

We've got to move on. It seems to me that all five of you agree with

the principle of a referendum. You just have different... You're not

against? I'm not against the principle. I think Cameron's

worried about being eaten for breakfast by the electorate. Eaten

for breakfast would mean losing the election or getting a no vote in a

referendum? I think he wants to stay where he is. There was a

Finnish man saying it was like a currant bun, you can take out the

Let's take another question, from Jamie Wilson, please. Do schools

close when it snows for the safety of pupils and staff, or because

everybody is afraid of being sued or fined by a health and safety

"officer"? This snow which led to one in six

schools being closed. Sit because they are worried about safety or

because they are afraid of being done by health and safety officers.

Angela Epstein? I think it was absolutely ludicrous the read that

5,000 schools closed when it was going to snow. It is not as if the

weather didn't dominate the news for a week-and-a-half before. It

was like one of those disaster movies, "It's coming, batten down

the hatches." The policy saying there's snow, one teacher I heard

say she agonised all night over whether to close the school. If

teachers can get in, they will get in. If pupils can get in, they will

get in. Schools are not a baby- sight service. They are there to

education and it's a dereliction of duty to close because of snow. If

they are going to fall over on snow, they will play over -- fall over

playing rounders or playing who stole my iPad or whatever it is

they play today. Goodness me! Only very affluent areas do they worry

about the stolen iPad! Ian Hislop? I think there were obviously

schools that had snow drifts and schools in Wales that had to close.

But you keep reading about schools next to each other where one was

open and the other wasn't, it seems to me you can make a school day,

you can have a snowball fight for half of it, which is what half my

education was - you can probably tell. It seems that you can

function as a school on a skeleton staff and if you can do so, you

should. So why are we so wimpish about it? I heard one headmistress

saying if one child fell over on the ice and a car slid... I thought

well, this is quite unlikely so far, and surely risk should be built

into education. It is a broader thing. Children should be allowed

to walk along a snowy path without people thinking, "Oh, my God, they

are all going to die!" Anna Soubry? It is a nonsense. If you can keep

your school open, you should. was the Government's line on it?

is the decision for head teachers, to decide whether to open or close

their doors. I don't know what's happened to us. This is a

Nottingham word but we've all become a bit "nesh." I remember as

a child going to school in the most appalling freezing weather.

barefoot? No! LAUGHTER You wrap up warm and you went to school. The

best thing certainly when I was at school in Worksop was having a

snowball fight. Schools are there to educate. It is a very important

point that Angela makes, a lot of people are extremely fed up that

their schools are closed and they are going to work, or they want, to

but the problem is they have to stay at home and look after the

children. If they can get to work, the staff and pupils should.

you close your school? We closed the college for one day. Why? It is

on the flat. I think really it was probably to do with health and

safety reasons. What health and safety reasons? The fact that if,

like someone just said, if one of our students were to fall over

within the college and injury themselves, then... Then what?

you have a committee and decide this? What it your decision?

certainly wasn't my decision what happened is A-level exams were

on that day and we made sure the students got in to take their exams.

How did you make sure without them falling over? Phone calls. You come

in and if you fall over it is at your own risk? That's an important

point. You were able to get your A- level students in but they had the

same risks as the other children. What about the concept of clearing

the playground and gritting, and mucking in? I remember 1963. For

those seeing the news recently, it was three months of snow and abject

problems. We still went to school. I psyche told school. I ripped my

trousers. It was great fun. Education didn't stop. And you on

the left? I don't believe any of this health and safety for one

minute. From a personal experience I had to travel across the country

to my 40-mile commute into the office, in heavy snow. It took me

most of the day to get there. The office applauded when I arrived.

However, outrageously, people that live one mile up the road didn't

get into the office because of the snow. More outrageously there was

nothing done about it. And there was nothing this was this one?

that was last time. But you didn't get much work done. But the

important point is I arrived. Bradshaw? I remember the great fun

we had sliding in the playground on slides and playing snowballs. I

think good head teachers do try their best to keep their schools

open. They feel a great sense of responsibility to their pupils. One

of the issues that's a problem these days is the distances that

quite a lot of staff live from the school. When I was brought up, most

of the staff lived within quite a small radius of the school, so it

was easy for them to get in. Maybe that's caused extra problems in the

way we lead our modern lives. originally from Shropshire, where

the snow used to be absolutely awful. Your contingency plan would

be wellington boots and out you went to school, you had to walk to

school. I live in Weymouth now. Do you know how much snow there was in

Weymouth? I mean, please! How much? In inches or centimetres?

Millimetres. I will say actually that the only school that stayed

open was my grandchildren's school and I thought was absolutely

tremendous. Ming Campbell? I tend to the rather general view that

schools should stay open if at all possible. It does appear that there

were a number of occasions when they could have stayed open but

didn't. I want to put this point to you. A head teacher, damned if they

do and damned if they don't. For some head teachers it must have

been a pretty marginal decision. Behind this is the fact that in

spite of 1963 and other things, we are still not ready for even the

moderate snowfall. My own personal experience is ten hours from the

centre of Edinburgh to the centre of London on Sunday because of

cancelled flights, reanged flights, late flights and the rest of it --

rearranged flights. That's why I think we really do have to ask

ourselves, particularly if we think we are in an era of climate change,

are we properly prepared for the extremes of the climate? As the

events of the last week or fortnight suggest, we most

certainly are not and we will have to provide the material and the

equipment in order to make us suitably prepared. APPLAUSE

Hislop? I just wanted to blame the media for a moment. You are the

media! It is self flagellation. There's a modern thing you are told

to stay in your house unless your journey is really necessary, and if

you stay in your house the only source of information is the radio

or BBC website which says, don't go outside. It kept happening. You go

outside, you see out there it is not half as bad as you said.

There's a real tendency to panic in advance and then it becomes self

fulfilling. OK. Let's go on to a quite different topic. Jonathan

Jones please. Is George Osborne's programme of spending cuts

credible? This is quoting Osborne himself,

who was saying that we have a credible and flexibility debt

reduction plan, credibility hard- won and easily lost. We do have to

carry on with the cuts. Under attack on the other hand from the

IMF, saying they've got to ease up. And under attack from Clegg, it

seems his partner, saying that we got it wrong at the beginning by

not spending money on capital projects. Anna Soubry, what do you

make of the Clegg attack? We got this wrong, I'm going to be self

critical he said today. I haven't heard it. It was in a thing called

the House, a parliamentary magazine. I'm going to be sort of self

critical. There was this reduction in capital spending when we came

into the coalition Government. I think we've all realised to foster

a recovery you've got to mobilise public and private capital. A big

admission from the man... He is talking about capital spending.

and the IMF are saying we should ease up anyway. I think the IMF has

come out now in poor of what we are doing. I think you will find that

there is merit in the beginning, very early on in the coalition, big

capital expenditure. If you look at what's been rolled out, I see the

investment in the railway system and the tram system and the

roadworks, certainly in my area. There's been a phenomenal

investment in infrastructure and rightly so. Are we doing the right

thing? It is tough and it is difficult but it's the right thing.

I don't believe there is, to use that expression, any alternative.

The only alternative is to do what Labour did which got introduce the

mess in the first place, to borrow on a level and scale we've never

seen before in this country. It was investment. It was not investment.

What it was, as I say, was the expenditure on a scale that we've

never seen, but it was based on debt. As you know, anybody knows,

if you have a credit card and you have reached your limit, there is

nowhere else for you to go. What you have to do is pay off your

debts and you have to live within your means. And that means, It is

more complex than that in a national economy. It is not as spim

approximately as having a Visa card. The principles are the same. Living

within your means and making sure you did not live and exist on

borrowing. It was because we've borrowed at a rate that we've never

seen before that we ended up in the economic mess we saw in 2010.

That's why the two parties came together, with all our differences,

we came together on one issue - to sort out the economic mess. And

we've made some tough decisions. And we've had to impose tough cuts.

But it will... Debt is still rising. But what's the alternative?

Labour's alternative is to borrow yet more money, and that is no

solution to our problems. It is tough but it will be worth it in

$:/STARTFEED. We think fiscal consolidation may be the thing in

this market. It means they've been cutting too far, too fast, it's

killed growth, it's putting borrowing up, the deficit up, not

down, and fult an alternative model, look at what Barack Obama's done in

the United States, he's kept his economy growing, unemployment's

going down. America has a huge deficit but it's been kept at a

certain level. You don't repay the deficit, Anna, by killing growth.

You've had no growth since you came into Government. �120 million a day

on debt alone being spent and it's astonishing. You are a member of

the Government that's brought this country economically almost to its

knees. It's like saying do more of the same that brought us into this

situation, but you should be saying sorry. Before I go to Ming, why did

the Prime Minister say last night "We are paying down Britain's debt"

when it's rising? Because the way we are tackling the deficit, that

will be the ultimate goal. They are both rising, both the debt and...

No, they're not. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE References to credit cards have

more than a hint of the Thatcherite approach.

APPLAUSE If you are a house wife, you can't balance the budget, if

you do that in the national interest things go very badly.

Margaret Thatcher must have been good because none of you at any

time can keep her out of any conversation so she must have done

something right, eh? She was a very prominent influence. We have

reduced the deficit by a quarter, kept interest rates knower than

they've ever been in our history, we have managed, vut of that, to

keep mortgage rates now -- result of that. The stock market is stable

at around 6,000, the bond market where we have to borrow is stable.

Now, should we have growth? Of course we should, but you won't get

growth that's credible until you have achieved economic stability.

Look very carefully at the words "May be appropriate" which is

pretty general. When an economist says it. Something specific to

point to. Michael Heseltine produced a report which set out

clearly the path that can be taken for growth consistent with the

stabilising of the economy of which we've made our central

responsibility. On that basis, I think there is now an opportunity

for some relaxation. I think there is an opportunity to to more than

the �5 billion that was released as a result of the Autumn Statement by

George Osborne for infrastructure, investment and things of that kind.

I think we are now in a position to do that. If we hadn't taken these

difficult, harsh and unpleasant decisions, we wouldn't be in that

position. I'll leave you with one piece of information... But mink...

I'll come back to you. Welfare costs more than health, education

and defence put together. Is that sustainable? You are actually

writing the Chancellor's budget for him in a way that, I mean is this

the Liberal Democrat position, that he should ease up? I'm writing the

budget with the freedom of a backbencher and I... So we can take

no notice? No, no. I wouldn't be on this programme if you didn't think

I had some influence now would I? Nick Clegg's changed his mind about

something else now, it's about austerity. That shouldn't be a

surprise. Everybody's changed their mind. The idea the IMF has been

constantly saying you must go for growth, spending is it, it's simply

not true. The IMF was very keen on austerity. It and the EU are keen

on austerity, particularly for other European countries, so the

idea that suddenly we have a consistent position from the IMF

that we must take seriously, they've changed their mind because

there's no growth, Nick Clegg has and I have no idea whether growth

is possible but I don't think you lot do either.

APPLAUSE. The Government is saying it wants to keep reducing the

borrowing. After you decimated the British forces by at least 30,000

very soon, private sector and public sector losing thousands of

jobs, these are all taxpayers, bear in mind, opening the doors to

European countries to come into our country very shortly - where is the

money going to come from? Can I just say, I think we may well be

having a question on defence, I'm second-guessing, I accept. Have you

been reading my questions? No, I haven't, but actually, our rate of

employment are going up. We have the highest employment rates we

have had. We have created a million new jobs. Not full tax-payers' jobs.

They are not all part-time jobs. Youth unemployment figures are

again falling. You are not listening to the British public.

The woman over here on the left. We'll try and get you. Anna can't

take six questions at once. So to you? I agree that the interest

rates are at their lowest they've ever been, but the cost of

borrowing and the cost-of-living now, the fear is that the moment

the Government increases the interest rates, we are all pretty

doomed actually because we are up to our limit just trying to survive.

APPLAUSE You are talking about relaxing austerity measures and

investing in infrastructure. What is the point in investing in

infrastructure when people can't afford to put food on the table?

You are capping benefit rises when they are already not enough for

people to live on, you know. Sorry, we are capping benefit at �26,000 a

year. Benefit rises. There is a 1% rise. Yes. That's ridiculous.

That's not enough. I want to go to Angela Epstein, back to the

original question on whether the Government's programme of spending

cuts is still credible? I'll be honest, I find a lot of this

baffling. When politicians speak, I don't know if you will agree with

me, they tend to hide behind big words like "Fiscal" and I say this

as the wife of a chartered accountant as well, but the fact is

that out here in the real world, people want to know the reality of

how they are going to cope in a time of real recession and people

want to focus on growth and more jobs, whether they can put food on

the table, whether their local hospital will close, whether the

military will be capable of defending itself. It matters very

little when the rhetoric, hot air as it is going backwards and

forwards, is it growth or austerity? People need to know what

the Government will do and what the proposals will be. So will it mean

that by the end of the week they'll have less money in their pocket

than they had the week before? To talk in broad terms about whether

austerity matters or not, why don't they ask civil servants to take a

10% cut in their salaries, for example? Not a freeze, but a pay

cut. They are sacking 25,000 civil servants. The public sector's

paying a price as well. Yes, it is. The woman in the second row from

the back, then we'll move on? wondering how the Government can

possibly retain any credibility when the cuts in services are

hitting the people who're worst off the hardest. For those that work in

public health and social care services, we are already seeing a

rise in people with mental health breakdowns, a rise in addictions

with drug and alcohol and also a rise in homelessness. This creates

a situation where we need greater investment in public sector

services, the ones that we are subject and -- that were subject

and victim to the cuts in the first instance.

APPLAUSE Can you just answer that specific

point, then we must move on, Anna? It's not what I recognise at all, I

must say. HECKLING

Not at all. There have been cuts in public expenditure, but if you look

at many councils across this country, even in very difficult

time, -- times, they've managed to maintain an excellent level of

service which we should be proud of even in difficult times tofpt paint

a picture as bleak as that I don't believe is a true refluxion. Which

is based on the goodwill of the workers so work so many extra hours

a week to keep the services going. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Hear, hear. There's no investment. We'll move on. Mark Tappin, please?

Do you agree with cuts to the military as the terrorism threat

grows in north Africa? Do you agree with cuts to the military? We have

been talking about reductions in the Armed Forces and I think the

exact number, 5,000 job losses in the Army roughly, numbers being

brought down from 100,000 to 80,000 by 2017. Ben Bradshaw? Do you

support the cuts? Not entirely, no. The timing of the announcement was

dreadful coming the day after David Cameron said we have a massive

fight against north Africa for the next three decades. Is it right or

wrong to make the cuts? The timing is cosmetic? My worry is that it

was a Treasury-based review aimed to get cuts, not a proper strategic

look at what Britain's needs are and what our financial abilities

are looking at our strategic needs long-term. My worry is that the

salami slicing of the military - you know, north Africa, Algeria,

Libya - didn't even feature in the review. That's where we are looking

at deploying forces now on the ground. I don't think the

Government is joined up on this. There will be difficult spending

decisions for whoever is in power but I thought the Government missed

an opportunity to step back. What is Britain's long-term strategic

defence interest? What can we afford. Then they should decide

what to spend the money on, not just cutting the money in the way

it has. Ben Bradshaw might have referred to the fact that when

Labour came into office in 1997, they had a proper defence review,

it took 15 months, they consulted widely and produced the document

set out from policy objectives and how they were to be achieved which

was entirely credible and indeed lasted until 2010. Like him, I was

critical of the fact that the Government said to the Ministry of

Defence, here is the money, go away and make a defence policy, when in

fact what you should be doing is saying, here is the policy, let's

have the money so we can fulfil it. The other point Ben made was this,

in defence and in Foreign Affairs, you must always expect the

unexpected. The Arab Spring, for example. In the first Gulf War, no-

one expected that Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait. Yes he did.

These things happen. Therefore, you have to have what they call - sorry

it's a slight buzz word - but resilience. It's the ability to

sustain yourself and any military effort that you want to make-over a

substantial period. No point turning up to a fortnight and going

away again. We come back to the position in north Africa. The Prime

Minister said, perhaps correctly, this was an issue that was going to

dog us for decades. That may well be so, but the fact of the matter

is that if we are going to be engaged in the way he suggests,

that we cannot do it on the resources which are available at

the moment. The Army's going from 98,000 down to 80,000. That's a

very, very substantial cut. The Royal Navy and Air Force have

suffered similarly. The first obligation of any Government is to

protect and defend its citizens. It's a substantial question. Where

do you find the money from? have to go into other departments

and say, the first obligation is the defence of our citizens and, at

the moment, it's difficult to see that that is being properly

fulfilled. It's not just me as a member of the Liberal Democrats

who's saying this, plr plenty of people on the backbenches of the

Conservative Party who say exactly the same -- there are plenty of

people. Both Ben and mink have made very

good points about the cuts in the Army and the loss of the troops --

Ming. Why are we contemplating buying a multibillion pound missile

nuclear deterrent that we'll never use? Why don't we use that money to

For many of us in Government this has been one of the most difficult

parts of the decision we had to make. It is worth reminding

everybody that after the election when we looked at the books there

was what we call a black hole in the Ministry of Defence books of

some �33 billion. And that was something that had to be sorted out

as a matter of urgency. As a result of that... How did you find a black

hole? It is when you have a gap between the amount of money you

need to spend and when you haven't got the money to do it, it means

you've got this shortfall. Over how long a period? It was accumulated

over years. But by a series of absolutely catastrophic procurement

decisions by the previous Government. They wasted billions

and billions and billions. APPLAUSE And so therefore something had to

be done about it. And no-one's been punished, or prosecuted or even

investigated, for losing more money, �37 billion I think it is, than

Trident in the first place. Aircraft carriers you can't land on,

jets that don't work, huge collusion between them and the

Government. This is the most unbelievable example of

incompetence and waste that I think this Government should have acted

on that. Government is responsible for but you lot cannot complain

getting rid of 5,000 troops even in the same brackets that sort of

waste. APPLAUSE But as a result of that, we have had the full review

of our defence systems. We've looked at the way forward. It has

been very tough and it does mean we've had to make soldiers

redundant. Nobody likes to do that. But we will still have the fourth

largest spend on our armed forces of any country in the world. So I

think... You parents not the Army is it? It is worth remembering that.

These are, as I say, difficult decisions in the wake of what we

inherited and what had been done before It is not just what you

spend but what you foresee as our obligations. You have to take these

interest account in determining what you were spending. You were

talking about difficult decisions in the health service you don't

just say to them, "How much do you want?" Will the defence cuts change

the pull-out date from Afghanistan? You say you are a civilian worker

in Afghanistan? I am. It don't have an effect no,. If the United States

goes more quickly, I think Britain might go more quickly. I think one

of the biggest concerns is Homeland Security. When you're cutting the

armed services at the same time that you are cutting the Police

Service, and all the other public services, it is what's going to

happen. I firmly believe the Government are abdibcated their

responsibility to Homeland Security. And you Sir on the back? Yes, as he

was saying, it is not the squaddy on the ground who is losing his

socks and boots and wanting money to pay for it. It's the people who

made the decisions to make boats that the planes can't land on. Or

planes, the whole skin has come through and they've thrown it out

the window! The same people are going to be in the same squads when

the squaddy is signing on somewhere. So regardless of which Government

is in office? I don't consider Labour to be a Government. Whoever

is in. LAUGHTER Angela Epstein? It's a shame that we think so

little of our national security that we've reduced it to a level of

bean counting. As Ming said, the first priority of a Government is

to protect its people. This Government has dedicated itself to

chasing round the world fighting far-flung campaigns. Ten years in

Afghanistan proves it doesn't work. Al-Qaeda is a nebulous force. It is

like fixing holes in a leaking roof, as soon as you fix one hole,

another opens. The human issue of all these people losing their jobs

who've committed themselves nobodyly to serving their country.

I wonder if Prince Harry is to be one of those made redundant by the

way. Will this lead to a more mechanised form of welfare. We have

to protect this island realm. Wars aren't predictable. You don't get a

memo on 17th September we might have a nice little skirmish

somewhere. We have to marshall our defences to protect this people and

if we can't do it with people, we have to do it mechanicly. It's a

different ball game it is dangerous. It is not strategic. It leads to an

immense loss of civilian life. We have to think of our Army and what

be left behind. And it is much more expensive. You say you didn't see

the Arab Spring or the problems that are happening in Mali. Is

anybody watching what's going on in the Falklands at the moment or have

we done a deal in France in return for assistance in Mali, that they

don't get involved in Argentina? Ian Hislop, you can do that one.

That's right up your street. Absolutely. No, I'm sure there is

no deal done with the French. What's happening in the Falkland is

a veryen popular politician in Argentina is attempting to buy some

credibility by sabre-rattling. Partly due to the very poor

treatment of the Argentinian veterans, who end up protesting

against their treatment. These are the conscripts. No, it is a great

deal of sound and fury. The trouble is if you don't take it seriously,

it turns into something worse, which is what happened last name in

the Falklands. As far as I know there's a ship down there and it is

being taken seriously. If we cut the Army down to 80,000, the

Algerian Army is about 100,000. Are they going to borrow our troops? We

should be borrowing theirs! It is very, very small. And it means

there's very little you can do. can't really call it an Army any

more. We've got a UK Defence Force really. APPLAUSE We've got under

ten minutes left. One more question. This is from Matthew Lambley please.

Are poor people fat? Are poor people fat? I ought to give you the

context. LAUGHTER It is something that the Minister for health sits

on my right here said in, or is reported to have said. I didn't say

that. When I go to my constituency, in fact when I walk around, you can

almost now tell somebody's background by their weight.

Obviously not everybody who is overweight comes from deprived

backgrounds but that's where the propresencity lies. She was making

a serious point, as Minister of health, trying to gate people eat

properly and the rest of it. So the question is, are poor people fat? I

won't start with you Anna. Ben Bradshaw? Look, if you look at the

figures that the Department of Health has issued, the thinnest

people are poor men and wealthy women. When it comes to children,

the difference in the levels of obesity between children from the

least and the best well off families is tiny. It is 1.5% for

girls and 0.7% for boys. So don't let's pretend that obesity or

people being overweight is just something that poor people suffer.

From it's a problem throughout society. To be perfectly honest I

find it deeply offensive for well- off Ministers to hector poor people,

many of whom struggle to make the healthy choices that people here on

this panel find perfectly easy thank you very much when they are

cutting healthy school meals, cutting school sport, cutting

breakfast clubs. You need a joined- up policy across Government to

tackle obesity. Not Ministers who frankly if they were submitted to a

body mass index test most of whom would fail, lecturing the poor.

APPLAUSE Anna Soubry, you are accused of

hectoring people. The quote was ackstphrat It was accurate but was

taken -- the quote was accurate? It was accurate but taken out of

context. Ben Bradshaw, I don't know where you got your statistics. From

I can assure you that first of all, one third of all children now

leaving primary school are either overweight or obese. When you look

at obesity levels amongst those who come from the most deprived of

backgrounds, 23% of children from the most deprived backgrounds are

recorded now as being obese. Those were the figures published in

December. Obese. Sorry, there is a difference between being obese. I

know. I'm a (Inaudible) as well. With respect, you don't sound like

it. When you demair figure with those children from the more

affluent backgrounds, that figure is 13%. These are not made up

statistics. What was the point you are trying to make by drawing

attention to this? I was at a conference with the Food and Drink

Federation. The point I was trying to make is we as individuals must

take responsibility for what we eat and drink. As parents we should be

responsible for what our children eat and drink. I was at this

conference. You are saying these people are not taking

responsibility? No, I'm saying we should all take responsibility for

what we eat and drink and the way that we feed our children. But I

was at a conference to talk to the people that make mainly fast food,

but also the catering industry. I was saying to them that they, too,

have a responsibility. They have a responsibility for the financial

cost to our nation. It is estimated that �5 billion of our more than in

the NHS is spent as a result of us being overweight or obese. Why were

you not just saying there are too many? Because it is part of a

speech and it has been taken out of the speech. What I was saying to

the manufacturers of fast food and to caterers is they've not only got

a financial responsibility but they have a moral responsibility to make

sure that they reduce the amount of fat, sugar and salt in their meals

that they sell on to us. Angela Epstein? It is very easy and low to

stigmatise the law. I didn't stigmatise the poor. If I may, we

have heard what you said Anna. graent length! Because if you are

from a certain background you don't know the difference between fat and

salt. I know people who don't have time when dashing around the

supermarket to study the labelling. MPs with a very wide girth sitting

in the Palace of Westminster. There are people with a chaotic family

life. People are time poor, work poor. They don't sit around the

dinner table any more. I also talked about that. It is possibly

because they are working hard to put the food on the table. It is so

easy to say that because you're overweight you are eating all the

wrong foods. Women comfort eat. Speak to anybody who has had a

heartbreak and they nose dive into a box of chocolates. The question,

is are poor people fat? Of course they are not.

I read this speech. Not all of it, my dear. Only what was reported.

You did have a go at the food industry, which I thought was

terrific. The headline was the bit where you made the link. But it is

not just mad right-wingers, the Child Poverty Action Group today

supported her saying there was a link between childhood obesity and

eating the wrong thing. I'm not a mad right-winger by the way.

I'm just positing those types. LAUGHTER I'm trying to say you made

a perfectly good point. My party says I'm a pinko. The truth is you

should be laying into the industry and the industry will not be

regulated. Ben's lot said we'll have a voluntary agreement with the

food and drink industry about food and drink and they will regulate

themselves. They didn't do it. Obesity continues and there is

still a problem with it. I think this lot you've finally got to get

them. Exact them. Ming. You can almost now tell someone's

background by their weight, is what Anna said. True or false? I don't

believe that's universally the case. Can we accept we've got a problem

about obesity however it arises? Can we accept that we should make

sure that education in schools helps young people to understand

what healthy eating is? APPLAUSE have to insist we agree on silence

now from our panel, because sadly our time's up. In fact we are over

it. We are going to be next week in it. We are going to be next week in

Lancaster. The week after that we'll be? Stirling.

If you want to come to the programme: