:00:10. > :00:20.$:/STARTFEED. Tonight, we are in the splendid Town Hall of Lancaster,
:00:20. > :00:24.
:00:24. > :00:28.Good evening and welcome to our audience here in Lancaster and to
:00:28. > :00:32.our panel, the Foreign Office minister, Sayeeda Warsi, Labour's
:00:32. > :00:37.former Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, the Guardian columnist, Zoe
:00:37. > :00:47.Williams, the novelist and writer for the Spectator, James Delingpole,
:00:47. > :00:55.
:00:55. > :00:58.and the comedian, Dom Joly. Good. Let's get cracking. The
:00:58. > :01:03.questions provided by our audience are not known to our panellists
:01:03. > :01:07.until they hear them read out. The first one from Ahsanul Haq, please?
:01:07. > :01:09.Is reducing the travelling time from Manchester to London worth �30
:01:09. > :01:14.billion? The expenditure on the new rail
:01:14. > :01:18.system of �30 billion. Is it worth it just to reduce the travelling
:01:18. > :01:21.time to Manchester from London, Alan Johnson? If it was just that,
:01:21. > :01:25.maybe not, but it's about much more than that. Listen, there hasn't
:01:25. > :01:31.been a new railway built towards the north of England for well over
:01:31. > :01:36.100 years. In fact, the only new rail line anywhere in the last 150
:01:36. > :01:41.years was high speed one which is now very successful incidentally.
:01:41. > :01:47.This is about capacity. Yes, it increases the speed at which you
:01:47. > :01:51.can travel North and that's very important, but our creeking railway
:01:51. > :01:55.system, that infrastructure was put in, the foresight was there to do
:01:55. > :01:59.it 200 years ago, we need to have the foresight to recognise that we
:01:59. > :02:04.have a 19th century rail system in a 21st century economy. At the time
:02:04. > :02:08.of Dr Beeching, those of you old enough might remember, in the early
:02:08. > :02:11.60, it was felt that we had to manage decline on the railways.
:02:11. > :02:16.They boomed and will boom even more if we can ensure we have the
:02:16. > :02:21.correct capacity. Travelling time is the thing? Travelling time, yes.
:02:21. > :02:24.Does it matter if you get there that much faster? It's going to be
:02:24. > :02:28.another hour and eight minutes to get to Manchester. It will decrease
:02:28. > :02:32.the time it takes to get to Leeds. This is important stuff and from
:02:32. > :02:38.then on further north. But the main issue is about capacity. We don't
:02:38. > :02:41.get capacity in, we'll spend that much money repairing an an te
:02:41. > :02:45.Kuwaited Victorian system when other countries are well ahead in
:02:45. > :02:50.bringing their rail services up-to- date.
:02:50. > :02:53.-- ant Kuwaited. Rather than spending bills on a new railway
:02:53. > :02:57.infrastructure, surely it's better to spend the money sorting out the
:02:57. > :03:00.current rolling stock and focusing on the fact that there are people
:03:00. > :03:04.in this country commuting to work spending thousands of pounds on
:03:04. > :03:12.train fares to stand all the way there and all the way back.
:03:12. > :03:16.Joly, do you agree with that? APPLAUSE
:03:16. > :03:20.Absolutely. I'm slightly worried because James Delingpole is
:03:20. > :03:23.agreeing with me. I live in the Cotswolds and go from Kemble to
:03:23. > :03:26.London. As far as I can work out, I'm the sort of person that turns
:03:26. > :03:32.up on the day, I don't get a season ticket because I don't work
:03:32. > :03:37.regularly and when I turn up, I think it's the most expensive
:03:37. > :03:41.railway journey in the world. I love the fact we'll get a fast
:03:41. > :03:45.railway. I've been to Japan and France but it's all over really,
:03:45. > :03:51.it's kind of like we are investing in the Walkman when the iPod's
:03:51. > :03:54.already going. In a big country, over 400 miles say, something like
:03:54. > :03:59.the high speed trains are important. But in England I don't think we
:03:59. > :04:02.need them. Invest in the railway stock we've already got and get it
:04:02. > :04:08.back with a company that holds the whole thing together and make it
:04:08. > :04:12.work properly. It's crazy. APPLAUSE
:04:12. > :04:16.It also strikes me that it's 20 years too late because
:04:16. > :04:22.telecommunications have moved on so fast that most people can now do
:04:22. > :04:26.things by their computers. They don't need to catch a train.
:04:26. > :04:31.Sayeeda Warsi, it doesn't seem that popular with this household, �1,000
:04:31. > :04:35.a household spent on this? It's not just the journey time between
:04:35. > :04:39.London and the north, it's the journey time between the northern
:04:39. > :04:42.cities. Leeds to Birmingham, that journey time will be halved. If you
:04:42. > :04:44.take the times from Leeds to Manchester, Birmingham to
:04:44. > :04:49.Manchester, it will be the interconnectivity and it can't be
:04:49. > :04:54.right that it's been over 100 years since there's been any major rail
:04:54. > :04:57.infrastructure in the north of England. This will have huge
:04:57. > :05:01.benefits for connectivity and the economy. We are in the north here
:05:01. > :05:08.in Lancaster and you saw universal applause for the point Dom Joly
:05:08. > :05:13.made that you can do better things with the money? Dom made important
:05:14. > :05:17.points about pricing and rolling stock and the quality and lots of
:05:17. > :05:21.important points. I also think there's never been a major
:05:21. > :05:25.infrastructure project, estren when the Victorians were building
:05:25. > :05:30.railways, in fact a doctor at the time said we must haven't fast
:05:30. > :05:40.trains because it would stop people from breathing within the trains --
:05:40. > :05:44.even when the Victorians were building railways. On Great First
:05:44. > :05:47.Western, they're so full, some timeious can't breathe. There are
:05:47. > :05:52.questions about the environment and whether it's good value for money.
:05:52. > :05:56.If we are concerned when ten or 20 years behind Japan, we can't sit
:05:56. > :06:02.here in ten years' time saying we didn't do anything. We are 40 years
:06:02. > :06:07.behind, aren't we? The north will see the benefits. I'm hugely for it.
:06:07. > :06:12.It will be 20 years from now before it's online so it's 40 years behind.
:06:12. > :06:22.James Delingpole? We've got the political class represented by Alan
:06:22. > :06:24.
:06:24. > :06:28.and Sayeeda. It's going to cost us �billion. I'm sure that's an
:06:28. > :06:34.underestimate -- �30 billion. I was on the train on the way here. There
:06:34. > :06:41.was an annoying person sitting opposite me on his mobile... It
:06:41. > :06:44.wasn't you! He was running his office on his mobile, doing
:06:44. > :06:48.executive boast speak sounding like David Brent briefing his staff,
:06:48. > :06:51.buoying up his sales team. It was very annoying but this is how
:06:51. > :06:59.people operate these days, using the train for the Internet and
:06:59. > :07:03.stuff. They use the train as their office? Yes, it doesn't matter if
:07:03. > :07:09.they can get from Manchester to London in ten seconds. Why do you
:07:09. > :07:14.say political class want this and others don't, as you put it? We are
:07:14. > :07:22.stuck with the failing economy and they think that you have these big
:07:22. > :07:28.projects which are going to improve the economy magically. Do you awe
:07:28. > :07:32.gree? I agree with Dom -- agree. We should upgrade the rolling stock. I
:07:32. > :07:37.believe it's what the people want. APPLAUSE Perhaps before we start
:07:37. > :07:41.spending such a vast amount of money on reducing travelling times
:07:41. > :07:44.between Manchester and London, we should spend some money on creating
:07:44. > :07:50.some business in the north of England to get this part of the
:07:50. > :07:57.country back to work. APPLAUSE
:07:57. > :08:00.The woman in yellow? This is just going to make matters
:08:00. > :08:04.worse. It could drain away jobs from the north because it would
:08:04. > :08:09.make it faster for people to get from the north-west down to London.
:08:09. > :08:12.What we need is investment in this region. At the moment, it takes you
:08:12. > :08:17.nearly as long to get from Lancaster to Liverpool as it does
:08:17. > :08:22.to get from Lancaster to London. And what about, you know, the north
:08:22. > :08:30.doesn't finish at Manchester. It actually barely starts.
:08:30. > :08:37.APPLAUSE Zoe Williams? I was always in
:08:37. > :08:41.favour of HS2 instinctively because Lord Astor said it was a horrible
:08:41. > :08:45.idea devised by northern MPs because they were jealous of the
:08:45. > :08:49.Chilterns. They took that to heart and said we'll have it in the north
:08:49. > :08:54.and everyone can have their landscape spoilt. That's gone on to
:08:54. > :08:57.get cross party support for it. The fact is, nobody ever likes new
:08:57. > :09:00.infrastructure, but nobody ever, with the exception of the
:09:00. > :09:03.Millennium Dome complains about it Millennium Dome complains about it
:09:03. > :09:07.once it's been built. You have got to, on some level, think about the
:09:07. > :09:10.up sides, you know. It's always very easy to see the downsides of
:09:10. > :09:15.everything, but actually, 100,000 jobs wouldn't go amiss and that
:09:15. > :09:19.would be like investing in the north. You reckon it would be
:09:19. > :09:22.100,000 jobs? That's the estimate. What do you think? I think if we
:09:22. > :09:25.don't invest in the infrastructure now, we'll have to invest in it at
:09:25. > :09:29.some point in the future. If the Government doesn't invest, a
:09:29. > :09:33.Government in the future is going to have to and sooner or later the
:09:33. > :09:36.Victorian railways will break down, they won't work and there'll be a
:09:36. > :09:40.point where you can't fix them any more. But this project only deals
:09:40. > :09:44.with the certain places it's going to because it's so high speed, it
:09:44. > :09:49.only stops about four places in the country. What about everyone else
:09:49. > :09:53.who can't get on those trains? APPLAUSE
:09:53. > :09:57.The whole point of this is, you can repair the current infrastructure
:09:57. > :10:00.but it doesn't give you the additional capacity. The whole
:10:00. > :10:04.point of this is you move people around more quickly around cities
:10:04. > :10:09.and stop them taking short haul flights to Manchester and Leeds et
:10:09. > :10:12.cetera incidentally. At the same time, you can then improve the
:10:12. > :10:16.current infrastructure. Your problem that you said Dom and the
:10:16. > :10:19.lady there was absolutely right. This is not, we do the High Speed
:10:19. > :10:25.Two and don't do anything about rolling stock, we do the high speed
:10:25. > :10:29.do, we don't do anything about businesss in the north and most
:10:29. > :10:32.people who're in business tell me a crucial aspect of business is
:10:33. > :10:35.relocating in the north is the travel distances. Of course, the
:10:35. > :10:39.north is much further than Manchester, but once you get the
:10:39. > :10:45.connection to Manchester and Leeds, you get the connections further to
:10:45. > :10:50.the rest of the country much more quickly too. Can I ask you what I
:10:50. > :10:54.said Sayeeda. Are you surprised there's almost universal hostility
:10:54. > :10:58.here? Yes because I've always respected the intelligence and
:10:58. > :11:01.goodwill of the people. LAUGHTER
:11:01. > :11:07.One last point from the woman there?
:11:07. > :11:14.I want to agree with Alan Johnson because I'm from Hull as well.
:11:14. > :11:18.you come over from there tonight? Houpbgs did it take you?! It takes
:11:18. > :11:22.four hours to get home from Lancaster. With the fast
:11:22. > :11:31.connections, it allows continual improvements. There's not going to
:11:31. > :11:37.be a fast line between Lancaster and Hull? Oh, there will be. You
:11:37. > :11:47.come to Question Time and get your way with the man in charge. The man
:11:47. > :11:48.
:11:48. > :11:55.who wants to be back in charge. Grey beard wants you back in the
:11:55. > :11:59.Shadow Cabinet. I didn't read that. What is your answer? It's in
:11:59. > :12:03.tomorrow's paper. I'll talk to Mr Dimbleby about it! Just before the
:12:03. > :12:09.next question, I ought to have said this, you are all here to talk
:12:09. > :12:19.about it, but if you want to join the debate at home, you can join us,
:12:19. > :12:20.
:12:20. > :12:28.We have our guest panellist and tonight it's Jonathan Isaby of the
:12:28. > :12:30.Taxpayers' Alliance and you can access what he says at the extra
:12:30. > :12:36.guest. You can also text your own comments.
:12:36. > :12:41.Sorry, Roger, let's have your question, Roger Preston? Are we
:12:41. > :12:44.wise to become involved in another Islamist struggle in Mali?
:12:44. > :12:48.Sayeeda Warsi? Yes. I think this week there's been a number of
:12:48. > :12:53.questions raised about what it is that we are doing in Mali, how that
:12:53. > :12:56.fits into the wider Sahel region, will it be another Afghanistan?
:12:56. > :13:01.These are valid questions, but these are questions which we ask
:13:01. > :13:06.when we sit around the national security council table or the
:13:06. > :13:11.Cabinet table. Can I try and put into context what is happening in
:13:11. > :13:14.Mali first. The extremist terrorists who, for the last 12
:13:14. > :13:17.months, have been moving forward towards the capital, have been
:13:17. > :13:22.taking over populated areas, have concerned the international
:13:22. > :13:28.community. Last year, the United Nations passed a resolution in
:13:28. > :13:32.which it said an international force or an African force supported
:13:32. > :13:35.by the international community would go in to give support to the
:13:35. > :13:38.Malian forces. Unfortunately, things changed quickly on the
:13:38. > :13:40.ground and the extremists moved quickly towards the capital. At
:13:40. > :13:43.that point, the Malian government asked the French and of course
:13:43. > :13:46.there's a big connection with the French because of the clonian
:13:46. > :13:51.history, they came in, and for the last week they have had real
:13:51. > :13:55.success in pushing the terrorists back out. That's the back story,
:13:55. > :13:59.but are we wise to become involved is the question? The way in which
:13:59. > :14:03.we have become involve sod far is by first of all providing
:14:03. > :14:06.logistical support in the form of two aircrafts which were ferrying
:14:06. > :14:12.items from France to Mali, but also from other African countries to
:14:12. > :14:17.Mali as well. Now 300 troops training people? The troops that
:14:17. > :14:20.have been spoken about are two separate ones, part of a European
:14:20. > :14:24.Union training mission and secondly a set of troops as part of trainers
:14:24. > :14:28.for the African Union forces who'll provide the security. I think the
:14:28. > :14:33.only way I can describe this is, this is like Somalia, not
:14:33. > :14:36.Afghanistan. Let me explain what I mean by that. In smarlkpwhra, it
:14:36. > :14:41.was felt that the international community should bring to the table
:14:41. > :14:44.what they were good at -- Somalia. We had a conference last year,
:14:44. > :14:49.helped with the political reconciliation. We have a
:14:49. > :14:55.Government in Somalia which has legitimacy across large parts of
:14:55. > :14:59.Somalia after decades of famine and effectively after being a failed
:14:59. > :15:03.state. The African Union forces supported by the UN provided the
:15:03. > :15:06.international community which has come in with a developmental aid.
:15:06. > :15:09.The issue of extremist terrorism is an issue for the whole
:15:09. > :15:13.international community. We therefore have to deal with it as
:15:13. > :15:18.an international community. Not as the western forces against Islam or
:15:18. > :15:22.the western forces against the east, this has got to be about all of us
:15:22. > :15:26.acknowledging that we cannot allow ungoverned spaces to exist around
:15:26. > :15:31.the world where these extremists can get together and then start to
:15:31. > :15:41.be threats to their own populations but to us as well and our interests
:15:41. > :15:43.
:15:43. > :15:53.James Delingpole? David Cameron saw what Blair did in Sierra Leone and
:15:53. > :15:53.
:15:54. > :15:58.thought, "I'll have a bit of that." He's just been in Libya, hasn't he,
:15:58. > :16:05.getting a bit of adulation from the Libyan leadership. I'm not sure
:16:05. > :16:12.that we should be getting involved in these quicksand wars. They start
:16:12. > :16:16.off, you send in a few advisers. These things tend to escalate. Fine,
:16:16. > :16:21.if that is what you want to do, have a plan. But don't do it at a
:16:21. > :16:25.time when you are reducing your Armed Forces. I think the Armed
:16:25. > :16:32.Forces' budget has been cut by 8% since the coalition took power. If
:16:32. > :16:36.you really want to go and play this game of fighting many wars all over
:16:36. > :16:40.the world - Afghanistan is not a good example - you have to have a
:16:40. > :16:47.military budget to do it. Do you think it is inevitable that things
:16:47. > :16:57.grow? Or could it be - I don't know what 330 training soldiers do. Are
:16:57. > :16:59.
:16:59. > :17:04.they SAS people saying, "Go round this side and attack those people"?
:17:04. > :17:10.Look at what happened in Vietnam. The military advisers went in. Then
:17:10. > :17:17.you have force protection. Then you get attacks on the personnel which
:17:17. > :17:23.escalates it further. The woman up there? Given the point that's just
:17:23. > :17:29.been made, and the point that was made by Sayeeda Warsi about the
:17:29. > :17:36.unruly areas and the terrorism threats, is it wise to be cutting
:17:36. > :17:44.5,000 troops? Would we have enough armed support to protect the United
:17:44. > :17:49.Kingdom? Alan Johnson? Well, in terms of the original question...
:17:49. > :17:52.And... The Prime Minister is wise to go to North Africa with the Head
:17:52. > :17:57.of MI6 and talk about working together, sharing intelligence,
:17:57. > :18:00.that is a very wise thing to do. He was unwise to say the other week in
:18:00. > :18:05.Parliament that there will be only, the number of troops involved would
:18:05. > :18:11.only be tens and the following week put it into hundreds. He was unwise
:18:11. > :18:16.to use the kind of hyperbole about this being a war on terror, he
:18:16. > :18:20.almost used those terms, just as Obama is saying this is the end of
:18:20. > :18:24.the ten-year period. This is not what the world was like ten or 15
:18:24. > :18:29.years ago. Things have changed. We need to change the political
:18:29. > :18:34.situation in Mali. It is a military dictatorship. His words were, "This
:18:34. > :18:42.will require a response that is about years, even decades." You
:18:42. > :18:47.think that is hyperbole? I think it is. Can I say one thing? The thing
:18:47. > :18:53.about Mali, it is a very poor country. America subsidises its
:18:53. > :18:59.cotton farmers to the tune of $5 billion a year. In America, they
:18:59. > :19:03.have 25,000 cotton farmers. That subsidy depresss the price of
:19:03. > :19:06.cotton and ten million West African cotton workers who produce good
:19:06. > :19:10.quality cotton, cannot sell it on the open market and they cannot
:19:10. > :19:14.trade their way out of poverty. There is another dimension to this
:19:14. > :19:22.as well as the security dimension. OK. You, Sir? Yes, I think this is
:19:22. > :19:30.a much bigger issue than just Algeria or Mali. I'm moving to
:19:30. > :19:34.Nigeria in two weeks to start work there. Western Sahara is ungoverned.
:19:34. > :19:39.What you need is for the Arab Spring to push through throughout
:19:39. > :19:44.the Continent and have good governance throughout Africa. You
:19:44. > :19:48.have states that have been in power for 20 or 30 years. You can't have
:19:48. > :19:54.people impoverished as they are which leads to rebellion and
:19:54. > :20:01.terrorism. What do you think of the Government's response? It is a tity
:20:01. > :20:05.part of the solution. The person -- It is a tiny part of the solution.
:20:05. > :20:15.The person in the second row? Islamist jihadist terrorist in
:20:15. > :20:21.Syria we were told to support them and their freedom fighters. It is
:20:21. > :20:28.hypocrisy. Zoe Williams? Look, the French have gone in. They are
:20:28. > :20:38.fighting an enemy which they say is Islamic fundamentalism. But it is a
:20:38. > :20:40.
:20:40. > :20:45.parasitic element leeching off the the other. The danger for the
:20:45. > :20:48.French is, they can think they have taken a city, the rebels look like
:20:48. > :20:52.they have disappeared and they are back the next week. People have
:20:52. > :20:56.already been shot by forces which the French thought they had
:20:56. > :21:01.defeated. What should have been done? This is it. They can't stay
:21:01. > :21:06.there forever. Should they have gone at all? They couldn't say no.
:21:06. > :21:14.It is their Falklands. Should we be there? In terms of us being there,
:21:14. > :21:18.we have to have a military alliance with the French. We are the only
:21:18. > :21:24.two nuclear powers in Europe. We have to either support one another
:21:24. > :21:30.or not bother having a military. Dom Joly? I'm astonished that the
:21:30. > :21:34.French are in military action, finally! LAUGHTER
:21:34. > :21:39.It's been such a long time. I'm tempted to say Waterloo was the
:21:39. > :21:44.last time! The last time was probably when they went into
:21:44. > :21:49.Algeria. Sir Peter Tapsell said it in Prime Minister's Question Time
:21:49. > :21:52.yesterday. It was the last time the French were in any serious action.
:21:52. > :21:59.They brought about the end of the Republic and they had to withdraw.
:21:59. > :22:04.That is what is going to happen in all these places. What was the big
:22:05. > :22:09.headline - Timbuktu taken without a shot!? The size of that place is
:22:09. > :22:19.insane. You have Niger, Chad, it is unwinnable. I don't know what we
:22:19. > :22:23.are doing there. APPLAUSE I think for people like me, Nick Clegg,
:22:24. > :22:27.Andrew Lansley, many of us who sit around - Ken Clark - who sit around
:22:27. > :22:30.that Cabinet table. We were anti- war. I took to the streets over the
:22:30. > :22:34.war in Iraq. I had huge reservations about what we were
:22:34. > :22:38.about to do in Afghanistan. We have an international responsibility.
:22:38. > :22:43.The answer to every dispute is not Western troops on the ground. It is
:22:43. > :22:45.not about Western combat troops. It is about as an international
:22:46. > :22:51.community working through and working out what we can bring to
:22:51. > :22:56.the table and how we can help these countries, which are ungoverned
:22:56. > :23:00.spaces, where there are deep-rooted issues around poverty, territory,
:23:00. > :23:04.about disputes around land. It is important that we work as an
:23:04. > :23:08.international community, but with regional support. Where governments
:23:08. > :23:13.and Alan would probably accept this - where mistakes were made in the
:23:13. > :23:17.past was that this was seen as a Western war against terror, Western
:23:17. > :23:20.interventionism. This is not like that this is about saying to the
:23:20. > :23:23.local African Union, we will support you as an international
:23:23. > :23:26.community, we will help you with training, we will help you with
:23:26. > :23:30.resourcing. You have to manage the security. What we are good at,
:23:30. > :23:32.whether that is intelligence- gathering, development work, work
:23:32. > :23:36.in relation to political reconciliation, we need to be at
:23:36. > :23:45.the table. This is all our problem and we need to resolve it together.
:23:45. > :23:51.Dom Joly, does that change your view? No. Briefly? Can I suggest
:23:51. > :23:55.instead of wasting 0.7% of our GDP on pointless aid ventures and
:23:55. > :24:01.instead of wasting the lives of our service personnel, it would be much
:24:01. > :24:06.better to engage in trade with Africa. I think part of the problem
:24:06. > :24:10.is that it is not just caused by Islamism. It is caused by poverty.
:24:10. > :24:14.People need a better standard of living. It is frustration that
:24:14. > :24:20.makes them, you know, take the money to fight for various causes.
:24:20. > :24:25.We should be engaging in trade. APPLAUSE One more point. The man in
:24:25. > :24:28.the first row? I think there's definitely a need to instil some
:24:28. > :24:34.political stability in Mali, however I think we are going about
:24:34. > :24:39.it the wrong way. I mean, as far as I know, the UK has set no exit date
:24:39. > :24:45.for taking its troops out of the area and the style with which the
:24:45. > :24:50.Islamists fight almost guerrilla like, they won't stay in large open
:24:50. > :24:54.spaces like Timbuktu. It will be a continual drain on the UK's
:24:54. > :25:03.resources until we can no longer support it. Thank you very much.
:25:03. > :25:09.APPLAUSE We must move on to something nearer home. Helen
:25:09. > :25:13.Rimmer? With the Cumbria vote against the nuclear waste dump, is
:25:13. > :25:17.it time the Government backed renewables instead? Cumbria had
:25:17. > :25:21.been the last place in Britain that was considering having nuclear
:25:21. > :25:25.waste, decided this week it wouldn't go any further and wasn't
:25:25. > :25:32.going to have nuclear waste. Cumbria is due north of where we
:25:32. > :25:36.are here. Is that the end of nuclear? Should they go back to
:25:36. > :25:41.renewables? Zoe Williams? Well, I think there was always going to be
:25:41. > :25:44.a problem with the nuclear storage in Cumbria. If the money and the
:25:44. > :25:50.promises weren't enough, the Cumbrians would say, "Why would we
:25:50. > :25:55.take this blot on the landscape?" If the money and the promises got
:25:55. > :25:58.too much, you would say, "What is the catch?" I would think -
:25:58. > :26:02.obviously, I'm in favour of renewables. We have got three
:26:02. > :26:05.problems. Are you in favour of nuclear? I'm not as much in favour
:26:05. > :26:09.of nuclear. I'm not anti-nuclear. You can't tell people to have
:26:10. > :26:13.nuclear waste. What do you do with the nuclear waste? Exactly. You
:26:13. > :26:19.keep the industries that people are going to accept. I don't think it
:26:19. > :26:22.will be nuclear. You can abandon nuclear? You can abandon it or wait
:26:22. > :26:26.until you have a better storage system. That was the ironic thing -
:26:26. > :26:30.they were making a million year promise for how long it was going
:26:30. > :26:34.to take. It will look different in 20 years to how it does now. How do
:26:34. > :26:39.you make a problem for a million years? Where do you store it?
:26:39. > :26:42.do you store it while you are waiting for your million-year
:26:42. > :26:48.lease? I can't believe anyone turned this down(!) If someone says,
:26:48. > :26:52."We have a whole lot of nuclear waste, any chance we could bury it
:26:52. > :26:56.under you?" Why would you say no? The Lake District has missed out.
:26:56. > :27:01.If it leaked, you would have a fantastic new tourist attraction
:27:01. > :27:10.which would be the glowing lakes of the district! LAUGHTER My option is
:27:10. > :27:17.- I'm already in so much trouble in Weston-super-Mare - they have a
:27:17. > :27:24.huge beach! The person up there? Perhaps they can combine the two
:27:24. > :27:27.and bury underneath the new H2 road link? This is a serious issue.
:27:27. > :27:33.Sayeeda Warsi, what is the Government going to do about it?
:27:33. > :27:36.You have nowhere for your nuclear waste and you are committed to
:27:36. > :27:43.nuclear? You can't bury nuclear waste in a community if that
:27:43. > :27:50.community doesn't want it there. We have to be prepared to accept that.
:27:50. > :27:56.I'm not an ideologue in relation to how we get our energy. Either we
:27:56. > :27:59.use less and none of us are prepared to do that. And the North
:27:59. > :28:04.Sea oil is going down. If you look at the tragedy that's happened in
:28:04. > :28:09.Algeria a couple of weeks ago, we can't rely upon overseas sources
:28:09. > :28:13.for energy which are stable all the time.? We have to have a whole
:28:13. > :28:16.diverse range of energy. What do you do about nuclear? Some of that
:28:16. > :28:20.is nuclear. What do you do about nuclear if you can't dump the
:28:20. > :28:24.waste? This is a business decision. People who get involved in nuclear
:28:24. > :28:27.power have to work with communities to make sure that they can find a
:28:27. > :28:31.solution to these issues. There's many challenges with wind farms,
:28:31. > :28:35.there are many challenges with offshore and onshore wind farms. We
:28:35. > :28:38.know the challenges that happen when people try and put them up.
:28:38. > :28:44.Are you saying the challenge is dangerous? There's divided opinions
:28:44. > :28:48.about wind farms. You are not saying it is as dangerous except
:28:48. > :28:52.for the one that had collapsed this week? You are not saying nuclear
:28:53. > :28:56.waste is on a par with wind farms? Of course, I'm not. What do you do
:28:56. > :28:59.about nuclear? What I am saying is as far as local communities are
:28:59. > :29:02.concerned, whether that is a wind farm, or whether that is nuclear,
:29:02. > :29:05.or whether that is any other form of energy that's been built in
:29:05. > :29:09.their backyard, they have a right to say whether or not they want it
:29:09. > :29:12.there. Therefore, we have to be prepared to say that when
:29:12. > :29:16.communities come back - this was the initial consultation phase -
:29:16. > :29:20.when the communities come back and say it is not going to work for us,
:29:20. > :29:23.this is not what we would like... Helen's question was whether the
:29:23. > :29:33.Government should turn its back on nuclear. It shouldn't. The man in
:29:33. > :29:37.
:29:37. > :29:42.$:/STARTFEED. I'm interested in where Baroness Warsi thinks she'll
:29:42. > :29:45.find a community that does want nuclear?
:29:45. > :29:50.APPLAUSE Germany has its own nuclear waste in a great pile of
:29:50. > :29:58.salt. They keep their own but do they want ours? If we paid them.
:29:58. > :30:02.Maybe. James Delingpole? I think it's odd we are having this
:30:02. > :30:08.conversation about renewables in Lancashire where we are sitting on
:30:08. > :30:15.top of some of the world's biggest shale gas reserves. This is going
:30:15. > :30:18.to transform Britain's energy economy with energy that is
:30:18. > :30:24.actually abundant relatively cheap and does not destroy the landscape
:30:24. > :30:34.like these ghastly windfarms do. you are in favour of Fast Tracking?
:30:34. > :30:38.
:30:38. > :30:42.Fast Tracking, yes. -- fracking? We have a coalition with the Liberal
:30:43. > :30:46.Democrats who're green ideologicals, committed to more expensive energy
:30:46. > :30:50.and committed to renewables like perhaps the lady up there.
:30:50. > :30:52.Renewables have several problems. One of which is that they are
:30:52. > :30:55.exceptionally expensive, another of which, in the case of wind, which
:30:55. > :31:00.is that they only work about a third of the time when the wind
:31:00. > :31:08.chooses to blow at the right level. Otherwise they are a monstrosity,
:31:08. > :31:12.they destroy the landscape, they kill birds and bats. They ruin
:31:12. > :31:17.Donald Trump's golf courses. They kill property values. Should
:31:17. > :31:22.Britain turn its back on nuclear or not? No, absolutely not. The French
:31:22. > :31:26.have shown successfully that you can make nuclear power work. The
:31:26. > :31:32.people who were trying to sell this nuclear waste did a very, very poor
:31:32. > :31:36.job of it. I'm sure they could have made a much better case. You, Sir
:31:36. > :31:40.If the problem is finding a community that we need to allow us
:31:40. > :31:43.to dump the waste into, find somewhere where there isn't a
:31:43. > :31:49.community. You have massive deserts where nobody lives and no animal
:31:49. > :31:54.life. So put it there. The man behind you? I agree with what James
:31:54. > :31:57.was saying. We are exploring the shale gas under the Fylde Coast.
:31:57. > :32:02.There are risks associated with that which we are accepting. I
:32:02. > :32:07.think we do need a grown-up debate about where we are going to get our
:32:07. > :32:11.energy from in the future. There is no doubt that fossil fuels won't
:32:11. > :32:18.last forever. We need to combine sustainable together with nuclear.
:32:18. > :32:21.We can't afford to turn our back on nuclear energy. Ewen with -- even
:32:21. > :32:25.with shale gas, what's important is that the communities will benefit
:32:25. > :32:29.from that and should benefit from that. From me, the issue is whether
:32:29. > :32:34.it's nuclear and where the waste is put, whether it's energy in
:32:34. > :32:37.relation to green energy or Fast Tracking, it's vital that the
:32:37. > :32:45.communities are compensated and the communities where it's found get
:32:45. > :32:50.the benefits from it -- Fast Tracking. There is a community --
:32:50. > :32:55.fracking. The question that Helen asked was... Why can't Cumbria have
:32:56. > :33:00.it? They have Sellafield. question was, should the Government
:33:00. > :33:06.abandon nuclear and concentrate on renewables? We need to do both.
:33:06. > :33:11.There is an important contract announced today with Danish oil and
:33:11. > :33:14.natural gas company will spend �1 billion developing what's called
:33:14. > :33:21.western-most rough field off the coast of East Yorkshire and there
:33:21. > :33:24.are millions of jobs being created in manufacturing wind turbines on
:33:24. > :33:27.and offshore. I don't think anyone who's looked at this sensibly,
:33:27. > :33:30.including the Lib Dems who're against nuclear energy and were
:33:30. > :33:35.before they came into Government, then a Lib Dem minister, Chris
:33:35. > :33:38.Huhne and Ed Davey have both said that it's crucial that we have an
:33:38. > :33:46.element of our electricity generated through nuclear. I think
:33:46. > :33:51.that's right. We want to keep the lights on. If we want to get CO2
:33:51. > :33:58.emissions down. Nuclear enemy, I mean nuclear energy has to be part
:33:58. > :34:01.of the solution to that. I want to pick up on something that
:34:01. > :34:04.James mentioned about wind power being ghastly and the sight of it.
:34:04. > :34:09.I think the fact that a windfarm when it's decommissioned will take
:34:09. > :34:13.only a matter of weeks to take down is far more favourable than the
:34:13. > :34:16.fact that we are still decommissioning Calder Hall at
:34:16. > :34:19.Sellafield right now. That was decommissioned years ago.
:34:19. > :34:24.APPLAUSE The woman in the third row from the
:34:24. > :34:29.back? You, yes? To get back to the question of Cumbria refusing this
:34:29. > :34:35.offer, what are the Government going to do now? Are they going to
:34:35. > :34:40.renegotiate and spend more money to tempt some area to take this?
:34:40. > :34:43.are the Government going to do, Sayeeda Warsi? That has been a
:34:43. > :34:47.local negotiation and hasn't even got to the stage of planning, it's
:34:47. > :34:50.been a consultation. Now they'll have to move on to see where else
:34:50. > :34:57.they can consult to the long-term planning. That was the last place
:34:57. > :35:06.left wasn't it? I'm not sure it was. It was. How big an area do they
:35:06. > :35:12.need? In your garden? Three Square Miles minimum. Very impressive!
:35:12. > :35:15.much for that? You, Sir? Could we possibly not export it to Scotland
:35:15. > :35:25.and then give them their independence?!
:35:25. > :35:27.
:35:27. > :35:32.APPLAUSE Let's go on to another question
:35:32. > :35:40.from Columbus Scallan, please? Should Prince Charles ask the Queen
:35:40. > :35:47.to go Dutch? Dom Joly? This of course is the
:35:47. > :35:55.Queen of the Netherlands who's retiring, as did her predecessors
:35:55. > :36:00.and her predecessor's predecessor. I have no knowledge of the Royal
:36:00. > :36:02.Family in Holland. I think it's neat she did it on her 75th
:36:02. > :36:06.birthday. You look at Prince Charles and how reformed he is.
:36:06. > :36:14.It's been going on for so long, it feels like Gordon Brown really that
:36:14. > :36:16.in the end if he got there, it would be a terrible
:36:16. > :36:20.disappointment... APPLAUSE
:36:20. > :36:23.I think we should have just been kinder really and somehow
:36:23. > :36:27.circumvented the whole thing and told him a couple of years ago that
:36:27. > :36:31.it's not going to happen, shuffle off, do some gardening and we are
:36:31. > :36:37.going to go straight to William and I think everybody would be happier.
:36:37. > :36:41.I don't know. The Queen does a great job, I have to say. It's a
:36:41. > :36:51.great question, one I didn't expect. But thinking about it... Do you
:36:51. > :36:51.
:36:51. > :36:55.work out everything in advance? try to work out what's coming.
:36:55. > :36:59.Columbus who asked the question, it's a matter for Her Majesty, it's
:36:59. > :37:05.not inconceivable that with the amount of time she's dedicated to
:37:05. > :37:08.this role over so many years that she feels she would like to, much
:37:08. > :37:12.like Queen Beatrice did, have a rest. That's entirely a matter for
:37:12. > :37:17.her. I'm a big fan of Prince Charles, I've got nothing against
:37:17. > :37:20.him at all. Me neither. I'm very pleased that in Parliament we are
:37:20. > :37:24.going through the process of ensuring that it does not
:37:25. > :37:29.automatically pass to the male line and that we bring that particular
:37:29. > :37:35.piece of our constitution into the 21st century, but if Her Majesty
:37:35. > :37:45.wishes to go Dutch, I'm with her. Anybody in the audience have any
:37:45. > :37:45.
:37:45. > :37:48.views? You, Sir, with the spectacles? Lady. Surely our time
:37:48. > :37:52.would be spent better than talking about this tonight. We could think
:37:53. > :37:55.of much better things to talk about. Yes but you shouldn't have put your
:37:55. > :38:00.hand up. APPLAUSE
:38:00. > :38:05.James Delingpole? I know this may well cost me my Knighthood, but I'm
:38:05. > :38:08.not a big fan of Prince Charles. I think the Queen is totally
:38:08. > :38:13.fantastic. She totally understands what it is to be a constitutional
:38:13. > :38:16.Monarch and it's not to make provocative outspoken remarks. We
:38:16. > :38:20.never really know what she thinks, she's just the Queen, she's there
:38:20. > :38:24.for us, she's there for all of us. I worry that Prince Charles takes
:38:24. > :38:28.far too many explicitly political positions, particularly on issues
:38:28. > :38:35.like climate change, which he knows nothing about, he just gets the
:38:35. > :38:42.rubbish fed to him by Al Gore and goes around in his biofuel powered
:38:42. > :38:46.Aston Martin lecturing us. I'm not a fan of Prince Charles and I hope
:38:46. > :38:50.the Queen can carry on for ever or at least until rules take over.
:38:50. > :38:53.Prince Charles is a deeply thoughtful, intelligent man and we
:38:53. > :38:56.should be incredibly proud of the work that she's done on so many
:38:56. > :39:00.fronts. I know him from the work he's done in relation to community
:39:00. > :39:03.cohesion and the amount of work he's done in bringing different
:39:03. > :39:07.faith communities together is really commendable and we should be
:39:07. > :39:11.incredibly proud of the work he does. I don't think - the Queen's
:39:11. > :39:16.just had a tremendous year - we have just celebrated the Jubilee.
:39:16. > :39:20.She's going strong, she's a massive iconic figure for us and a great
:39:20. > :39:23.advert for us around the world and I think I can't see her stepping
:39:23. > :39:31.down and I wouldn't like her to step down.
:39:31. > :39:36.APPLAUSE You, Sir? I think the Queen is a
:39:36. > :39:39.great ambassador for this country, as was displayed last year at the
:39:39. > :39:44.Jubilee celebrations. But Prince Charles is actually a great
:39:44. > :39:47.supporter of Lancashire, especially East Lancashire, and he's been up
:39:47. > :39:52.here on numerous occasions supporting local projects over
:39:52. > :39:56.towards Burnley. Like you say, if she want Toscary on, let her carry
:39:56. > :40:01.on. She's a great ambassador for this country and we should be happy
:40:01. > :40:04.to support her -- if she wants to carry on.
:40:04. > :40:09.I fully accept the Queen is very hard-working, but what I would like
:40:09. > :40:12.to ask is, when will we, the British people, be ever given a
:40:12. > :40:19.choice as to whether we want monarchy?
:40:19. > :40:23.APPLAUSE 2019. Would you like to it be tied
:40:23. > :40:30.in with the referendum or something? Why not, in 2017, we
:40:30. > :40:34.could have a long debate about it. Zoe? I'm afraid I agree with the
:40:34. > :40:36.lady, I don't care who's the Monarch. It could be any one of
:40:36. > :40:39.them. Thank you very much. We can move
:40:39. > :40:44.swiftly on then and you will be pleased that we are leaving the
:40:44. > :40:47.topic and go on to something different. Question from Chris
:40:47. > :40:51.Stoves, please? Should Nick Clegg send his children
:40:51. > :40:54.to private schools? Obviously a question about the
:40:54. > :40:58.wholeish you of private schools which have been coming under attack
:40:58. > :41:02.or at least been trying to defend themselves this week with
:41:02. > :41:05.headmasters saying people who go to private schools are unfairly
:41:05. > :41:10.treated, head mistresses or head teachers going to Switzerland
:41:10. > :41:17.because they say it's too painful to be defending yourself all the
:41:17. > :41:20.time and Nick Clegg saying he'd maeck a choice -- make a choice.
:41:20. > :41:26.It's not about private or public, but it's about what's best for your
:41:26. > :41:29.child, he said. James Delingpole? Why did you pick on me, I wonder?!
:41:29. > :41:34.No idea. You haven't started one before. Is there a reason why I
:41:34. > :41:38.should? A wrote a piece in the paper the other day about boarding
:41:38. > :41:42.school and why it's a jolly good thing. Sorry, I don't read
:41:42. > :41:47.everything you write! You said you were going to be nice to me as a
:41:47. > :41:53.fellow Christchurch man and now you are knifing me!
:41:53. > :42:03.I have no problem whatsoever with MPs sending their children to the
:42:03. > :42:03.
:42:03. > :42:09.best education in the world, provided that they do not endorse...
:42:09. > :42:13.Well I can't stand hypocrisy, particularly among Labour MPs, I'm
:42:13. > :42:18.sure Alan Johnson isn't one of of them, where they sneer at the
:42:18. > :42:22.private system up until the point where I comes to darling Little
:42:22. > :42:27.Johny and suddenly their change their tune and send them off to
:42:27. > :42:31.private school. There's nothing wrong with private schools. It
:42:31. > :42:35.seems they are constantly discriminated against by university
:42:35. > :42:41.admissions, tutors and so on because of this fairness policy we
:42:41. > :42:45.get imposed on us by the coalition unfortunately. But no, I'm not sure
:42:46. > :42:50.what Nick Clegg's position is on private schools, but he's perfectly
:42:50. > :42:55.entitled to choose education. terms of Nick Clegg's role, you
:42:55. > :42:59.know, he will say he believes in the comprehensive system, he will
:42:59. > :43:03.try and influence legislation regarding it, then for him to not
:43:03. > :43:06.send his kids to a comprehensive school, it seems like he doesn't
:43:06. > :43:14.have any faith in it. That sort of seems poor.
:43:14. > :43:17.Like using the NHS and not using private?
:43:17. > :43:21.APPLAUSE Well, I think lots of people
:43:21. > :43:25.perhaps like David Cameron, they use the NHS, they send their kids
:43:25. > :43:28.to comprehensive schools, at least it shows that they believe in the
:43:29. > :43:34.system and that they have a stake in the system.
:43:34. > :43:40.OK. Alan Johnson? It's up to Nick Clegg where he sends his children.
:43:40. > :43:43.Is there an issue about private schools? I think there is. In
:43:43. > :43:47.politics, you deal with what's possible, the art of the possible.
:43:47. > :43:51.There was a time, during the Second World War, where there was a
:43:51. > :43:58.feeling in this country when we should get rid of this system where
:43:58. > :44:02.one group of people are educated in a completely different system. It
:44:02. > :44:05.doesn't happen in many other countries and I think the gap
:44:05. > :44:11.between state education and private education is one of the most
:44:11. > :44:17.pernicious dividing issues in our country. If you look at the
:44:17. > :44:20.judiciary, if you look at the senior Echelons of the Armed Forces
:44:20. > :44:23.and the current Cabinet, you will find that it's that small per
:44:23. > :44:27.scentage of children that went to private schools. I'm not blaming
:44:27. > :44:33.their parents, I'm not blaming them, they have no choice about what
:44:33. > :44:38.school they go to, I think me and Sayeeda are the only state educated
:44:38. > :44:42.panellists here, but if you listen to those who dedicate their time to
:44:42. > :44:46.giving time to disadvantaged kids, they'll tell you that this issue is
:44:46. > :44:50.a big problem in this country, probably one too big for
:44:50. > :44:54.politicians to tackle because of the dealings with the art of the
:44:54. > :44:59.possible. The gentleman there's got a point - how can you talk about
:44:59. > :45:09.state education when you never sent your kids anywhere near it.
:45:09. > :45:10.
:45:10. > :45:13.You, yes? Parents will always want to send their children to the best
:45:13. > :45:19.school they can. If they think paying for it is the way they are
:45:19. > :45:22.going to get it, I see no problem with that. I went to a
:45:22. > :45:26.comprehensive school. I went to an amazing university. If parents can
:45:26. > :45:30.send them to a private school, and can, I don't think there should be
:45:30. > :45:34.an issue. The man in the second row? I would imagine Nick Clegg
:45:34. > :45:38.doesn't have any confidence in the state system because we current I
:45:38. > :45:45.will have an Education Secretary that doesn't have a clue what he is
:45:45. > :45:49.talking about! LAUGHTER Dom Joly? hate this question so much! Why?
:45:49. > :45:54.Well, for loads of reasons. I do feel badly for any politician that
:45:54. > :45:59.has this because I do believe that in some ways, your family life
:45:59. > :46:02.should be separate from whatever... But if you are promoting a certain
:46:02. > :46:06.policy it seems hypocritical if you don't send your kids to that system
:46:06. > :46:10.that you are advocating. I went to a private school. It was a place
:46:10. > :46:13.where it was set up to train people to run India. When India became
:46:13. > :46:18.independent there must have been a meeting at some stage where they
:46:18. > :46:25.said, "What now?" They thought, "Let's carry on." I'm fully trained
:46:25. > :46:31.to run India should it come! LAUGHTER I now live - my kids could
:46:31. > :46:38.go to a good comprehensive and a public school. Everything in me and
:46:38. > :46:44.my wife is going, "Why would we pay money to send our kids there when
:46:44. > :46:47.they can go to a perfectly good comprehensive?" I wish we did
:46:47. > :46:51.abolish public schools, personally. You, Sir? The Labour Party would
:46:51. > :46:55.have gone further than private schools and closed grammar schools
:46:55. > :47:00.as well. Lancaster has a boys and girls grammar school and we have
:47:00. > :47:04.had fantastic... State-funded? State-funded. They were on the list
:47:04. > :47:08.for abolition and they have given fantastic education to this town
:47:08. > :47:12.for hundreds of years. They are still state-funded? Yes. You?
:47:12. > :47:16.went to a private school. My mum made a great amount of sacrifices
:47:17. > :47:21.to send me to it. Why should we penalise that? We should be proud
:47:21. > :47:27.of the fact that people made great sacrifices. We should be proud of
:47:27. > :47:34.the fact that we have some of the best schools in the country. Do you
:47:34. > :47:38.feel like this headmaster - he said private schools, the hatred of
:47:38. > :47:42.private schools is a hatred that dare not speak its name? Do you
:47:42. > :47:47.find a prejudice against you? think there is. There was in the
:47:47. > :47:51.Olympics as well. There was all this penalisation of too many
:47:51. > :47:54.athletes from private schools. Should it matter? It should be
:47:54. > :47:57.about ability and not your background. People who come from
:47:57. > :48:01.privileged backgrounds do tend to be penalised on the grounds they
:48:01. > :48:07.are from those backgrounds. Williams? I don't know where to
:48:07. > :48:11.start. I will stick with Nick Clegg. The thing is he said the private
:48:11. > :48:15.schools system was toxic and divisive. He said that. The
:48:15. > :48:19.question of whether or not he is a hypocrite is ridiculous. Of course
:48:19. > :48:21.he is. There is no such thing as a political belief that doesn't
:48:22. > :48:24.affect your personal decision. There is no such thing as politics
:48:24. > :48:32.for other people's children. You can't make laws so that other
:48:32. > :48:38.people hold them. It is ridiculous. APPLAUSE I've got that off my
:48:38. > :48:46.chest! What I found more problematic about the way
:48:46. > :48:51.politicians do this is that it kind of catastrophises the state system.
:48:51. > :48:54.The state system is so bad we have to betray our principles. It is a
:48:54. > :49:00.shame. The state system is so terrible that we can't be expected
:49:00. > :49:06.as parents to do anything else. The result of that over time has been
:49:06. > :49:11.for a perfectly good state secondary school to be painted as
:49:11. > :49:19.complete sinks because of people like Nick Clegg. It is disgusting.
:49:19. > :49:23.APPLAUSE The Tories said it would be impossible to abolish because it
:49:23. > :49:26.is against the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Do you believe that?
:49:26. > :49:29.The people who call for it to be abolished are the people who are
:49:29. > :49:36.conflicted because they want to send their kids there but they know
:49:36. > :49:43.it is wrong. I don't care whether they are abolished or not. OK. You,
:49:43. > :49:48.Sir? How many MPs would choose to send their children to private
:49:48. > :49:55.school? It's what stops them is the fear of the political flak as so
:49:55. > :49:59.fantastically shown by Malcolm Tucker in The Thick Of It. Let me
:49:59. > :50:03.start with Nick Clegg. One of the things that he has done is he has
:50:03. > :50:07.kept his family out of politics. His wife stays out of politics. His
:50:07. > :50:11.children stay out of politics. We have to be incredibly careful that
:50:11. > :50:15.we start encroaching on people's personal lives unless they start
:50:15. > :50:19.putting their personal lives into the public domain. It has to be a
:50:19. > :50:22.private decision for him and his wife. I think what people like to
:50:22. > :50:25.see in politics is just genuine authenticity, being straight about
:50:25. > :50:30.what you are going to do. If you are going to send them to private
:50:30. > :50:33.school, be straight about it. We have five kids. I have five
:50:33. > :50:39.wonderful kids. Three of them went to state school. Two of them went
:50:39. > :50:45.to independent schools. One of them went to a faith Muslim independent
:50:45. > :50:50.school... That makes six - seven! Of the five, one of them went to a
:50:50. > :50:54.faith Muslim independent school, one went to an Anglican convent
:50:54. > :50:58.school. As long as you are prepared to say this is the way it is, we
:50:58. > :51:01.made choices for our different children and it works for different
:51:01. > :51:04.children. Where the public get annoyed is if you try and be
:51:04. > :51:08.something that you are not and that is why it is good to be straight. I
:51:08. > :51:11.also think if we decide, like I have decided to keep my family out
:51:11. > :51:18.of politics, I think people should stay out of our family lives.
:51:19. > :51:22.The person over there on the right? I would just like to say that the
:51:22. > :51:24.discrimination I suspect people who have gone to private school feel is
:51:24. > :51:28.nothing compared to the discrimination you feel if you
:51:28. > :51:35.haven't had a good enough education and you can't read and write and
:51:35. > :51:45.you have to be humiliated in the sure it is a real discrimination,
:51:45. > :51:48.
:51:48. > :51:52.but I just don't think it is comparable. APPLAUSE We've got five
:51:52. > :51:57.minutes left. A last question from Simon Noble? Polish is now the
:51:57. > :52:03.second language in the UK. Will we need to revise this to Bulgarian or
:52:03. > :52:07.Romanian next year? Yes, this figure came out that nearly 500,000
:52:07. > :52:10.people in England, in Britain I should say, now speak Polish. The
:52:10. > :52:14.number of people learning French and German is falling. The number
:52:14. > :52:20.of people learning Polish is going up. Alan Johnson, how do you
:52:20. > :52:25.interpret this and the questions about Bulgarian and Romanian
:52:25. > :52:30.immigration next year? I have lots of Polish friends. There has to be
:52:30. > :52:35.a second language. Welsh is - if we take England and Wales and Poland
:52:35. > :52:39.comes third. Anyone who can speak Polish deserves my full admiration.
:52:39. > :52:45.It is a very difficult language to speak. Will this happen with
:52:45. > :52:51.Romania and Bulgaria? This is the issue about January 2014. If I was
:52:51. > :52:56.the EU Commission, I would seek to find a way to put that decision
:52:57. > :53:03.back by four or five years. It is not about an issue of being anti-
:53:03. > :53:08.immigrant. My concern is that if they lift that restriction, then
:53:08. > :53:12.Romania will lose a lot of - and Bulgaria - will lose a lot of their
:53:12. > :53:17.finest talent. I would like to see some kind of GDP measure that says
:53:18. > :53:21.once you have reached that GDP measure, once your country is at a
:53:21. > :53:26.certain level of prosperity, that is when free movement kicks in. If
:53:26. > :53:31.you do that, you can ensure that countries coming in to the EU, who
:53:31. > :53:35.by definition are much poorer and take time, that is why there is
:53:35. > :53:40.seven years, there is a chance to extend that for the sake of that
:53:40. > :53:44.country as well. I think in terms of what happened with the Polish
:53:44. > :53:52.population coming here, history is being rewritten. In 2004/5 I was a
:53:52. > :53:57.Minister at the time. We had a the highest rate of unemployment ever.
:53:57. > :54:02.The reason why us, Sweden and Ireland lifted that restriction
:54:02. > :54:07.early is because our economy - and our employers told us it was
:54:07. > :54:14.necessary to do that. More people came than was expected. You don't
:54:14. > :54:18.think it was a mistake? I disagree with Ed in terms of - in hindsight,
:54:18. > :54:23.you would have a better grasp of the numbers. If you knew that many
:54:23. > :54:28.were coming, you would look at it again. All right. Dom Joly? We have
:54:28. > :54:32.to be swift here. I get what this question is basically about. Are we
:54:32. > :54:39.going to allow people to come into this country? There seems to be -
:54:39. > :54:43.there was something pernicious about saying Polish is our second
:54:43. > :54:47.biggest language. I have a problem if people come in and don't learn
:54:47. > :54:52.English. To me, Polish is (a) the most complicated language in the
:54:52. > :54:57.world. Most Poles speak English anyway. I don't see it as a problem.
:54:57. > :55:02.I hope there will be possibly more control on Romanian and Bulgarians
:55:02. > :55:06.coming in. I have no problem people coming in if they are going to work.
:55:06. > :55:10.If people are coming in to sponge off us, maybe there should be more
:55:10. > :55:13.controls. Do you think it would be possible Sayeeda Warsi to have
:55:13. > :55:16.controls of the kind Alan Johnson has just suggested that the EU
:55:16. > :55:21.might temper the pace of immigration? Is that on the cards?
:55:21. > :55:27.It is the thing we are looking at. At the moment, we can have
:55:27. > :55:31.transition provisions for seven years which means you can delay a
:55:31. > :55:35.country's citizens coming in and exercising their right to free
:55:35. > :55:39.movement for a period of seven years. We need to look at how these
:55:39. > :55:43.countries can be at a certain level before their citizens start moving
:55:43. > :55:47.around. This will be very different to the Polish situation. We did
:55:47. > :55:51.apply these transition provisions for seven years as did lots of
:55:51. > :55:55.other EU countries. They are all going to come off at the same time.
:55:55. > :56:00.If people do want to travel, they will have the option to travel.
:56:00. > :56:04.Traditionally, the Bulgarians and the Romanians have travelled to
:56:04. > :56:09.warmer climates - they prefer Spain over the United Kingdom. I think in
:56:09. > :56:16.terms of the language question that was asked - Polish is the second,
:56:16. > :56:19.Punjabi is the third and Urdu is the fourth. We have a diverse set
:56:19. > :56:24.of languages. I think the dialogue we have about immigration is flawed,
:56:24. > :56:28.like all of the newspapers say they come here and scrounge off our
:56:28. > :56:33.country. Immigrants bring into our economy �1.2 billion more than they
:56:33. > :56:40.take out in benefits. When will the papers start printing a fact like
:56:40. > :56:43.that? APPLAUSE Zoe Williams? I want to ask a question. Is there any
:56:43. > :56:48.truth in the rumour that the Government is putting together
:56:48. > :56:53.posters to stop Bulgarians coming to the UK? There is no truth in
:56:53. > :56:57.that rumour. Can you say it again? There is no truth in the rumour
:56:57. > :57:01.that we are about to put some posters out in Bulgaria and
:57:01. > :57:08.Romania... Because it is not true, or you are not doing it? If you
:57:08. > :57:18.were, what would they be?! Piers Morgan lives here! It hasn't been
:57:18. > :57:20.
:57:20. > :57:24.discussed in Cabinet. If they are doing it, I don't know about it.
:57:24. > :57:29.James Delingpole? Migrationwatch reckons from January 2014, we are
:57:29. > :57:33.going to get 50,000 Bulgarians and Romanians coming in for the next
:57:33. > :57:39.five years. That is the population of Lancaster coming in every year.
:57:39. > :57:44.I think we need to go further than this non-existent movie that you
:57:44. > :57:50.are making! We need to stage an anti-Olympics to put people off
:57:50. > :57:55.coming to Britain. We could have Dom Joly doing the diving. We could
:57:55. > :58:00.serve horse meat burgers... Or you tweeting! Then I fear it would not
:58:00. > :58:04.work. When you have people on the fifth of the average wage, this is
:58:04. > :58:08.a very attractive country. I don't - I think until we get out of the
:58:08. > :58:13.EU, there is nothing we can do about it. OK. We have to stop.
:58:13. > :58:17.Thank you very much. Sorry for those of you who had your hands up
:58:17. > :58:20.still! You should come to Stirling where we will be next week and have
:58:20. > :58:28.another go! The week after that, we will be in Leicester. If you would
:58:28. > :58:32.like to come and join the audience, you can apply at
:58:32. > :58:37.www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. Or call My thanks to our panellists here
:58:37. > :58:42.and to all of you who came here to Lancaster, to this wonderful
:58:42. > :58:46.building. It's full of lovely marble and great panelled oak and