:00:12. > :00:16.Tonight, Question Time comes from St Paul's Cathedral in London. We
:00:16. > :00:20.are directly under the great dome designed by Sir Christopher wren
:00:20. > :00:24.and this is of course primarily a place of worship but it's also used
:00:24. > :00:28.as a place to debate the great issues of the day often actually
:00:29. > :00:38.right here under the dome, or in centuries past, outside in the
:00:39. > :00:42.
:00:42. > :00:46.cathedral precinct by St Paul's Good evening to you at home and to
:00:47. > :00:52.our add Jens here at St Paul's and to our panel, the Business
:00:52. > :00:56.Secretary, Vince Cable, the Shadow Health Minister, Diane Abbott, the
:00:56. > :01:00.former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, Mail on Sunday
:01:00. > :01:04.columnist, Peter Hitchens and the Reverend Giles Fraser back in St
:01:04. > :01:10.Paul's for the first time since he resigned his post here over the
:01:10. > :01:20.handling of the protesters in last year's Occupy camp.
:01:20. > :01:27.
:01:27. > :01:32.Thanks very much and Matt Babington has our first question? In light of
:01:32. > :01:35.the recent high profile case, is it time for fundamental overhauls in
:01:36. > :01:40.the way people are selected for jury service?
:01:40. > :01:44.The Vicky Pryce case of course was led to the jury being dismissed. Is
:01:44. > :01:50.it time for a fundamental overhaul of the way people are selected?
:01:50. > :01:54.Diane Abbott? No. I think the principle that you are judged by a
:01:54. > :01:59.jury of your peers is very important. One thing we have to
:01:59. > :02:04.remember about the case in question was that the point at issue was
:02:04. > :02:08.this notion of marital coercion and I'd not heard of it as a legal
:02:08. > :02:15.concept before now. I'm not surprised, in a way that, the jury
:02:15. > :02:21.got a bit muddled. This clearly wasn't perhaps the best jury one
:02:22. > :02:26.has ever heard of, but if you speak to lawyers and judges and people in
:02:26. > :02:31.the legal profession, the principle of trial by jury is very important
:02:31. > :02:34.and it helps to give the legal system some legitimacy because
:02:34. > :02:40.jurors by and large are the only part of the criminal justice system
:02:40. > :02:46.which is actually a cross section of the wider society.
:02:46. > :02:50.Peter Hitchens? Yes, it does need an overhaul. It's partly because it
:02:50. > :02:52.was overhauled and people do know it and some don't, the old property
:02:52. > :02:57.qualification was dropped and people say that was unjust. There
:02:57. > :03:00.was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether we should then have
:03:00. > :03:04.some kind of educational qualification, but they couldn't
:03:04. > :03:08.agree, so they said everybody on the electoral role should be on the
:03:08. > :03:12.jury. At that time, the minimum age for voting was 21, it's now dropped
:03:12. > :03:16.to 18. I think that, although many juries, and I think many people may
:03:16. > :03:20.have served on them, are extremely serious and do their job very well,
:03:20. > :03:25.there is a number of juriesry falls below the proper standard which
:03:25. > :03:29.contain people who simply can't capable of judging the facts before
:03:29. > :03:34.them properly. I think it's time we had some sort of educational
:03:34. > :03:39.qualification and also some sort of minimum age. I think 18 is too
:03:39. > :03:43.young to decide the fate of another human being.
:03:43. > :03:47.What was the property qualification and why do you think that was
:03:47. > :03:52.better? I don't think it was better, it needed to be reformed. In those
:03:53. > :03:57.days, it ruled out in England women almost entirely. In Scotland, they
:03:57. > :04:04.adjusted it so it allowed women in, but it meant you had to be middle
:04:04. > :04:07.class to be on a jury and they decided this had to go. In their
:04:07. > :04:10.thrust, they could not think of any educational or any other
:04:11. > :04:16.qualification to set in its place so everybody gets on. It's clear
:04:16. > :04:20.that not everybody, and if you were facing trial and your entire future
:04:20. > :04:24.and liberty and reputation depended on 12 people, you would be worried
:04:24. > :04:29.by some of the juries which people have to face. There's another thing
:04:29. > :04:34.about this which we again forget, back in the 60s, Roy Jenkins got
:04:34. > :04:40.rid of unanimous juries and many will have seen the film 12 Angry
:04:40. > :04:44.Men. The whole principle was that it had to be unanimous where if
:04:44. > :04:48.someone was convinced about someone's guilt, they could hold
:04:48. > :04:53.out until the end until everyone agreed with them. Now it's gone and
:04:53. > :04:56.it's a matter of time passing and the judge can say, go away and get
:04:57. > :05:00.a majority. These protections are very important for a free society,
:05:00. > :05:03.otherwise a trial is nothing but the state ganging up on you.
:05:03. > :05:07.woman in the middle? I'm a serving police officer. I've seen a number
:05:07. > :05:10.of juries and a number of different almost types of jurys in different
:05:10. > :05:15.courts and it's quite apparent that there are some major failings in
:05:15. > :05:19.the system. I've seen jurors falling asloop and yet they are not
:05:19. > :05:23.challenged in the court -- asleep. There are real concerns around
:05:23. > :05:28.things like that. It's difficult to suggest an educational standard as
:05:28. > :05:31.a minimum but I suggest if failing on the part -- a failing on the
:05:31. > :05:39.part of the prosecution or defence not to ensure that you are working
:05:39. > :05:42.to the lowest common denominator, whether they have a HPD or whether
:05:42. > :05:48.they completed school should make no difference, it should be give
:05:48. > :05:53.tonne them in the words that they can comprehend what's happening --
:05:54. > :05:58.PhD. But what if you have a jury... It's weird for a juror to say come
:05:58. > :06:01.to a verdict base on the a reason that wasn't presented in court and
:06:01. > :06:07.has no facts to support it either from the prosecution or defence.
:06:07. > :06:10.What was that all about? Giles Fraser? I couldn't disagree more
:06:10. > :06:14.with you, Peter, about that business about having to be
:06:14. > :06:19.intelligent to be on a jury. We have a common law, it's law that's
:06:19. > :06:23.judged by the common people, we all judge each other, that's using
:06:23. > :06:28.common-sense. The idea that intelligence is some way of
:06:29. > :06:33.protecting us against some sort of irrationality in making these
:06:33. > :06:37.decisions is not fair. David was right when he said reason is a
:06:37. > :06:41.slave to the passions and reason isn't always what you want. You
:06:41. > :06:45.want people, us ordinary people, judging each other, that's a basic
:06:45. > :06:50.principle and if you have to be clever or posh or have a house, I
:06:50. > :06:56.think that fundamentally undermines a basic principle of justice. We,
:06:56. > :07:00.as the people of this country, judge each other in court. Can I
:07:00. > :07:06.just say, it's not intelligence. This is very important this, it's
:07:06. > :07:12.not some kind of IQ rating that I'm suggesting, it's experience and
:07:12. > :07:20.wisdom. You are deciding the fate of a fellow human. It's not
:07:20. > :07:23.intelligence. I understand that. The man in the front? This is one
:07:23. > :07:27.high profile case. Had it not been in the newspapers and the media, we
:07:27. > :07:30.wouldn't know about it. This is just another knee-jerk reaction
:07:30. > :07:35.brought about by people like yourself, Peter, who'll do it
:07:35. > :07:37.because it's something to shout about.
:07:37. > :07:42.Michael Heseltine? It's very important really. The point about
:07:43. > :07:46.the exception case is important and I strongly would argue for the
:07:46. > :07:51.status quo. Peter helped me by giving examples of the sort of
:07:51. > :07:55.changes that he had in mind. He mentioned age. Well, we are
:07:55. > :07:59.perfectly prepared to send people out at the age of 18 to kill people
:07:59. > :08:02.in Britain's name all over the world where it's appropriate and
:08:02. > :08:07.are you seriously telling me they are too young to make a judgment
:08:07. > :08:14.about what is right or wrong? I don't believe that.
:08:14. > :08:19.APPLAUSE And Peter's other point was, they
:08:19. > :08:22.need to be educated. Who is going to decide who is and who is not
:08:22. > :08:26.educated or what being educated amounts to? The moment you start
:08:26. > :08:29.asking these questions, you have to have someone to make the decision.
:08:29. > :08:33.Who makes the decision? People appointed by the party politicians?
:08:33. > :08:38.Some independent group of worthys who've got an intellectual approach
:08:38. > :08:45.to life? You tell me of someone that you would accept as a
:08:45. > :08:49.reasonable alternative for one ludicrous decision by a jury to ask
:08:49. > :08:54.the question David asked drk can we take into account evidence for
:08:54. > :08:58.which there is no fact, nothing to base it on and was never raised in
:08:58. > :09:03.this court? How can you begin to ask a question like that if you are
:09:03. > :09:06.sitting on a jury? The man on the gangway? I think as
:09:06. > :09:10.soon as you start making it about someone's educational level or
:09:10. > :09:15.their age, you make it a preserve of a certain strata of society
:09:15. > :09:19.which I thought was counterproductive to what the whole
:09:19. > :09:23.point was. I suppose the assumption isn't that all 12 jurors wanted to
:09:23. > :09:27.ask this question but maybe one or two did, isn't it? And then the
:09:27. > :09:32.rest of the jury said, we can't explain it to you, we'd better get
:09:32. > :09:36.the judge to explain it to you. Is that your reading of it? Yes, the
:09:36. > :09:43.point's been made that this was a very odd case and unusual trial.
:09:43. > :09:46.The point is, you are going to get people on juries that are not very
:09:46. > :09:51.bright and jurors that are incompetent, but you will get
:09:51. > :09:54.judges and prosecutors who are incompetent. Giles is right, it's
:09:55. > :09:59.one of the basic principles of criminal justice in the UK that you
:09:59. > :10:04.have a right to be tried by your peers through a jury. We tamper
:10:04. > :10:07.with it at our peril. At the past, politicians have tried to remove
:10:07. > :10:11.jury trials, it was suggested that the ordinary members of public are
:10:11. > :10:15.not bright enough to deal with fraud trials. That was a backward
:10:15. > :10:19.move. I think the jury system is obviously going to have bad cases
:10:19. > :10:23.but we should preserve the principles, it's a right one and we
:10:23. > :10:27.should treasure it. One more point and we'll move on. The lady there?
:10:27. > :10:33.Should we ensure that all jurors can speak English and understand
:10:33. > :10:39.English? I don't think that was the issue... That's not the question.
:10:39. > :10:43.This was an exceptional jury and you shouldn't make extrapolations
:10:43. > :10:46.about juries, you know, a lady there said she'd seen jurors
:10:46. > :10:50.falling asleep, I've heard of judges falling asleep and
:10:50. > :10:53.barristers that could send you to sleep.
:10:53. > :10:58.LAUGHTER I believe that the right to a jury trial by people that look
:10:58. > :11:01.like a cross section of the wider community is absolutely crucial for
:11:01. > :11:06.people like my constituents continuing to have confidence in
:11:06. > :11:10.the criminal justice system. must be right that... But you do
:11:10. > :11:16.have to speak English? It must be right that you have to speak
:11:16. > :11:20.English or you can't begin to understand the trial. That's not an
:11:20. > :11:24.issue. It wasn't named as an issue in this particular case, but there
:11:24. > :11:27.will be cases, and there are cases, where some jurors don't have
:11:27. > :11:32.English as their first language and may speak it but may not fully
:11:32. > :11:36.understand the nuances of some of the stuff that is discussed and
:11:36. > :11:41.someone in court might have an interpreter, but the jury members
:11:41. > :11:43.donts. -- don't. donts. -- don't.
:11:43. > :11:47.APPLAUSE This is not just an individual case.
:11:47. > :11:49.If you are conscious of what is going on in the courts and pay
:11:49. > :11:55.attention and report on them, you will see there is a problem with
:11:55. > :11:59.juries which goes wider than this case. One thing I might say to
:11:59. > :12:02.Michael Heseltine, the very run why we send young men out as soldiers
:12:02. > :12:09.often wrongly is because they are young, unwise and prepared to kill
:12:09. > :12:15.and risk terrible danger in a way that wise people wouldn't and...
:12:15. > :12:20.That is true... The truth is not popular but it's the case. Why do
:12:20. > :12:25.we send young men out to kill? Xaept because of that and secondly,
:12:25. > :12:30.you might be aware of the fact that there are strong moves to lower the
:12:30. > :12:34.voting age to 16. How many of you want your futures decided by 16-
:12:34. > :12:37.year-olds? APPLAUSE As a former Secretary of
:12:37. > :12:44.State for Defence to describe the British armed forces in the wrai
:12:44. > :12:48.you did is disgraceful -- way you did is disgraceful.
:12:48. > :12:54.APPLAUSE. I haven't described the British armed forces in any sense
:12:54. > :12:58.at all, I've... You described the soldiers in language which was
:12:58. > :13:04.viciously unfair to them. Young men are unwise, you were unwise when
:13:04. > :13:09.you were young and so was I and don't try to deny it or silence me
:13:09. > :13:12.with silly rhetoric. It's ridiculous. I've said nothing
:13:12. > :13:16.uncomplimentary about the Armed Forces and you know it perfectly
:13:16. > :13:20.well. You wait until you see the transcript.
:13:20. > :13:26.Just to clarify, perhaps you would say what you said about 18-year-
:13:26. > :13:31.olds once more? We cynical politicians send young men out to
:13:31. > :13:35.kill and be killed. That's what I said. No, it's not what you said.
:13:35. > :13:41.It is. You said they were stupid. said no such thing. Check the
:13:41. > :13:47.recording. We'll see the record. You, Sir? I'm 18, joining the Armed
:13:47. > :13:50.Forces next year, I think I can make an educated decision much more
:13:50. > :14:00.than older people. I'm mature enough to decide on what I want to
:14:00. > :14:19.
:14:19. > :14:24.do and also to be on a jury if I The next question is from Tom Crill.
:14:24. > :14:28.Heather Frost, an unemployed mother of 11, is being a six-bedroom eco-
:14:28. > :14:33.mansion by her local council. Is this an example of society looking
:14:33. > :14:37.after those in need? Or is it a waste of taxpayers' money? Vince
:14:37. > :14:41.Cable? We don't know a great deal about this family other than what
:14:41. > :14:47.her neighbours didn't approve of her told one of the popular
:14:47. > :14:56.newspapers. This was, as I understand it, was not a mansion.
:14:56. > :15:00.It was being occupied at two-and-a- half people a room. She was accused
:15:00. > :15:05.of having a horse. She had quite a large family and, as I understand
:15:05. > :15:09.it, the older children were working and earning and paid for it. The
:15:09. > :15:14.really serious issue was that the popular press went for this lady
:15:14. > :15:20.because she had a large number of children, she had 11 children. The
:15:20. > :15:28.argument was isn't this woman feckless? Well, it turned out when
:15:28. > :15:32.people investigated that she was sterile. She has had cervical
:15:32. > :15:36.cancer and nobody had the sensitivity to realise that was her
:15:36. > :15:41.problem. They jumped on this bandwagon, a woman with a horse, a
:15:41. > :15:48.big house, let's trash her, it is a good way of attacking the benefits
:15:48. > :15:52.system. It was outrageous the way it was dealt with. OK. Iain Duncan
:15:52. > :15:57.Smith in your Government has floated the idea of capping child
:15:58. > :16:07.benefits to two children, hasn't he? After two children, it is up to
:16:07. > :16:12.you? That is a foolish suggestion. I have said so many times.
:16:12. > :16:17.think it won't happen? Of course it won't happen. What they do under
:16:17. > :16:22.the Conservative Government is up to them. This is not coalition
:16:22. > :16:27.policy. Michael Heseltine? It is not the component policy of the
:16:27. > :16:30.Conservative Party. So why should I try to defend what is not in
:16:30. > :16:35.existence? Iain Duncan Smith floating a few thoughts? I don't
:16:36. > :16:41.know what that amounts to. Does it mean that someone said he had said
:16:41. > :16:47.it? Did some adviser say, "We are going to ask him to do it."?
:16:47. > :16:55.said it to the Today programme, which is The Bible of modern
:16:55. > :17:01.politics(!) He suggested a cap on child-related benefits for two
:17:01. > :17:05.children. The fact is that he has been a pioneer in looking at the
:17:05. > :17:13.whole back to work agenda and he's floating an idea which is his.
:17:13. > :17:18.Let's get back to Heather Frost. And the 11 children and the eco-
:17:18. > :17:23.mansion that is being built. What is your view of that? I think I
:17:23. > :17:27.start off where virtually everybody would start off and say why are we
:17:27. > :17:33.providing facilities of this sort for somebody who has got 11
:17:33. > :17:37.children? That is way out of what normal expectation is. That is one
:17:37. > :17:40.in the gut starts. Now you put yourself in the position of the
:17:40. > :17:45.local authority. The fact is what are they going to do? Will they put
:17:45. > :17:49.her on the street? They have to have a solution. If there were 11
:17:49. > :17:52.children, it takes a lot of accommodation. If I was in the
:17:52. > :17:56.local authority, I would never put her on the street. You then have a
:17:56. > :18:00.problem. Fortunately, it is so much of an exceptional problem that I
:18:00. > :18:04.don't think we ought to turn it into public policy. The man up
:18:04. > :18:10.there on the right? The simple reason why we are providing this
:18:10. > :18:18.house is the Conservative- originated policy of selling all
:18:18. > :18:21.the council houses. Peter Hitchens? That point is absolutely right. The
:18:21. > :18:25.much-lauded policy of selling council houses has been a
:18:25. > :18:30.catastrophe for this country. It has deprived us of a very important
:18:30. > :18:38.resource for a cheap electoral gain. The way in which this decision is
:18:38. > :18:41.now universally praised always puzzles me. I think now that
:18:41. > :18:46.housing benefit - it costs more than the Royal Air Force and it is
:18:46. > :18:50.a much more inefficient, unfair and wasteful way of housing people than
:18:50. > :18:55.the council houses used to be. The issue about the lady herself - I'm
:18:55. > :18:59.all in favour of big families. They should be founded upon marriage and
:18:59. > :19:05.they should be founded upon people supporting themselves if at all
:19:05. > :19:09.possible. If you set up a system where welfare payments are paid and
:19:09. > :19:13.houses given to people who are not in that circumstance, you can't be
:19:13. > :19:18.surprised when they take advantage of that system. I don't blame this
:19:18. > :19:21.lady for what she has done at all. I blame the politicians who, for 50
:19:21. > :19:25.years, have encouraged this kind of behaviour. You can't say it is the
:19:25. > :19:29.responsibility of people who look at the system and take advantage of
:19:29. > :19:33.it. That is absurd. If we want it to stop, we need to say, "Reform
:19:33. > :19:38.the welfare system which you have made absurdly overgenerous and do
:19:38. > :19:44.something about restoring the institution of marriage which you
:19:44. > :19:49.have destroyed." APPLAUSE Giles Fraser? I think it is scandalous
:19:49. > :19:54.that we are using the example of this woman as propaganda for
:19:54. > :19:59.benefit cuts. We are being softened up by examples like this that there
:19:59. > :20:03.is some distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. It
:20:03. > :20:08.is a cover for a much greater scandal which is the scandal in our
:20:08. > :20:14.housing market, the scandal of what's happening to poor people,
:20:14. > :20:18.particularly in London where house prices are so out of control and
:20:18. > :20:22.ordinary people can't live here and what's happening at the moment in
:20:22. > :20:25.London is that ordinary people are being priced out of the centre of
:20:25. > :20:28.town and we will end up being like Paris in this country where all of
:20:28. > :20:33.the poor people live on the outside and the wealthy live on the middle.
:20:33. > :20:42.These are the real scandals. You find one small example of a woman
:20:42. > :20:49.like this which tugs at this seems unfair. It is propaganda for a
:20:49. > :20:54.nastier form of cuts. That is the real scandal here. You, Sir? Well,
:20:54. > :20:57.after doing just a little bit of research, I found out a bit more.
:20:57. > :21:01.It wasn't a local authority that built the house for her. The local
:21:01. > :21:06.authority sold the land to a housing association, the housing
:21:06. > :21:11.association then built the house. She doesn't own the house. She is
:21:11. > :21:16.paying rent on it. Being a caseworker, I know that once she
:21:16. > :21:21.leaves, she does leave that house, another large family will pay rent
:21:21. > :21:25.to the housing association. Isn't this another example of stories
:21:25. > :21:33.that demonise people on benefit because it's now become public
:21:33. > :21:41.enanynumber one? As a caseworker, I used -- public enemy number one? As
:21:41. > :21:47.a caseworker, I have worked hard all my life. This is making people
:21:47. > :21:54.feel ashamed of the money they have taken. We know the economy is bad.
:21:54. > :22:00.There are more people on benefits. We should be helping these people,
:22:00. > :22:06.not hindering them. OK. The man on the back row? The reason the UK has
:22:06. > :22:11.such large volumes of debt is because of these high welfare
:22:11. > :22:15.payouts. We can't afford to build people houses. What do you think of
:22:15. > :22:20.this case? It is an example of how generous these welfare benefits are
:22:20. > :22:26.that we can't afford. The man over there on the left? I take issue
:22:26. > :22:29.with the Canon. Anybody has an entitlement to live in Central
:22:30. > :22:35.London. I live in Hertfordshire. I can't afford to live in Central
:22:35. > :22:40.London. Why should people have it as an entitlement? APPLAUSE You
:22:40. > :22:48.want to answer that? The question is what sort of city do we want? Do
:22:49. > :22:52.we want a city full of very, very expensive houses owned by Russian
:22:52. > :22:57.oligarchs where no-one lives, it becomes a ghost town and all the
:22:57. > :23:01.poorer people live on the outside? We want a London that is a mix of
:23:01. > :23:05.people. I understand, I couldn't afford to live in London in a
:23:05. > :23:10.million years. I understand that. The idea that ordinary people can't
:23:10. > :23:16.afford to live in London I think is a scandal. We will come to a
:23:16. > :23:23.question that is pertinent to that in a moment. Diane Abbott? Anybody
:23:23. > :23:28.who thinks that overall the welfare system is absurdly overgenerous
:23:28. > :23:35.doesn't know many people trying to live on welfare benefit. Not a week
:23:35. > :23:40.goes by without one of these scare stories, picking out someone who
:23:40. > :23:49.doesn't seem like a member of the deserving poor, they are splashed
:23:49. > :23:53.in our tabloid papers and it is to soften us up for benefit cuts. And
:23:53. > :23:57.when you drill down with these stories, it is never what it seems.
:23:57. > :24:02.She's not been given a house, as the gentleman pointed out. The
:24:02. > :24:07.council sold a piece of land for �220,000 to a housing association
:24:07. > :24:12.who have built a six-bedroom unit on it which she's going to be
:24:12. > :24:18.allocated. When her children leave home, she will have to move out.
:24:18. > :24:25.The point is this: It has been a principle of British welfare
:24:25. > :24:29.legislation since the 1945 National Assistance Act that we don't put
:24:29. > :24:32.children on the street. The gentleman that said it is a waste
:24:32. > :24:38.of public money. What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting the
:24:38. > :24:44.children would go into care? You cannot take these bad, difficult
:24:44. > :24:47.cases and use them to undermine our system of welfare. There is an
:24:47. > :24:51.underlying narrative, oh London, Hackney, the East End is full of
:24:51. > :24:58.people on benefits who don't want to work. I see more people on
:24:58. > :25:04.benefits every week. I don't see people who don't want to work. I
:25:04. > :25:09.see people that want to work. Kids that have left university, people
:25:09. > :25:14.that have been made redundant who want to work and cannot get jobs.
:25:14. > :25:19.I'm glad unemployment is coming down. The issue is not this one
:25:19. > :25:23.woman with her Baroque case. The issue is how we are softened up for
:25:23. > :25:33.increasing benefit cuts whereby the poor pay for financial prices which
:25:33. > :25:35.
:25:35. > :25:40.bankers made. APPLAUSE You, Sir? The fact that every penny collected
:25:40. > :25:44.in income tax goes on welfare, that is a sign that the welfare is too
:25:44. > :25:51.big? Half of that money goes to pensioners? Are you suggesting we
:25:51. > :25:57.should stop paying old able pensions? Not at all. The amount of
:25:57. > :26:03.income tax doesn't cover the Navy, the Army. Most money that is
:26:03. > :26:08.collected goes on welfare and pensions. It's a huge amount.
:26:08. > :26:14.you suggesting that we should spend more on helicopter gunships and
:26:14. > :26:17.less on the most vulnerable in our society? Not at all. You are
:26:17. > :26:21.suggesting the proportion of money spent on welfare is greater than it
:26:21. > :26:25.should be from the tax take, is that your point? If every penny
:26:25. > :26:31.collected goes on welfare, all the other things that have to be paid
:26:31. > :26:35.for... Vince Cable, the man in the know on this? Let's start from the
:26:35. > :26:39.same point. This was a banking- induced crisis. We are paying the
:26:39. > :26:43.price for it. The economy is smaller and we are poorer. There is
:26:43. > :26:48.a genuine problem about the welfare budget. That doesn't mean to say
:26:48. > :26:52.you should demonise the people who are beneficiaries of it. The budget
:26:52. > :26:58.is rising rapidly and we have to deal with it. There is a problem
:26:58. > :27:01.around housing benefit. Giles explained the reason that in London
:27:01. > :27:05.85,000 council houses have been lost, they were sold. There are
:27:05. > :27:09.more people needing them so they are pushed into the private sector,
:27:09. > :27:12.rents go through the roof, you, the taxpayer, has to subsidise the
:27:12. > :27:17.landlords to keep those people in place and the budget gets out of
:27:17. > :27:21.control. That is why we have introduced some painful and
:27:21. > :27:24.difficult measures. It is possible - it is right - to be compassionate
:27:24. > :27:28.to people who are genuinely poor and need help while recognising
:27:28. > :27:35.that there is a real problem with the welfare budget. We have to deal
:27:35. > :27:45.with it. It is very interesting - the whole financial explosion began
:27:45. > :27:48.
:27:48. > :27:53.in America when President Clinton encouraged them to be more generous.
:27:53. > :27:59.It then became a phenomenon across the Western world. You can single
:27:59. > :28:06.out the bankers. Nobody is likely to defend them. We are in the City
:28:06. > :28:11.of London. Governments spent more money than their economies could
:28:11. > :28:15.afford. Individuals borrowed on their credit cards, on mortgages,
:28:15. > :28:21.they are all hocked up to the eyeballs and the bankers are in the
:28:21. > :28:25.middle. We were all in the same game, politically, economically,
:28:25. > :28:31.banking companies, the whole lot. The bubble burst. When it burst,
:28:31. > :28:34.everybody drew in their horns. It is so easy to find someone to blame.
:28:34. > :28:44.We were all involved in this, particularly the last Labour
:28:44. > :28:51.
:28:51. > :28:55.Government. No. Let's move on. It is from Kate Horton. The latest
:28:55. > :29:00.census suggests that white Brits are in a minority in London
:29:00. > :29:04.accounting for 45% of residents. Is this a good or a bad long-term
:29:04. > :29:08.trend? The latest census suggests white British-born are in a
:29:08. > :29:18.minority in London, 45% of residents. Is it good, or a bad
:29:18. > :29:24.
:29:24. > :29:29.$:/STARTFEED. Michael Heseltine? there's one speech I made of which
:29:29. > :29:32.I was proud, it was in 1981, which included the words "They are black,
:29:32. > :29:42.they are British, they were born here, they vote here." that is a
:29:42. > :29:48.fact. So there's nothing you can do to turn back history. I defied my
:29:48. > :29:52.party in the late 60s over the race relations Bill when I believed that
:29:52. > :29:59.anyone who's lived in this country was entitled to live here within
:29:59. > :30:03.the law without prejudice and with equal opportunity. That now is the
:30:03. > :30:07.position so is it strong, is it weak, is it right, is it wrong? It
:30:07. > :30:11.is a fact, and we should live with it and we should build on it and we
:30:11. > :30:15.should see the incredible talent that there is in the immigrant
:30:15. > :30:20.community and always has been, whether they were Jews or Catholics,
:30:20. > :30:23.whatever, that's a different issue, but still, it's the same issue that
:30:23. > :30:27.we have had many diverse groups of people and the only way we will all
:30:27. > :30:32.prosper is to treat them well, live with them and give them the
:30:32. > :30:35.opportunity to contribute to the wider benefit of society which they
:30:35. > :30:39.want to do because actually they have exact think same instincts
:30:39. > :30:44.that we do. They want to be happy, they want to love their children,
:30:44. > :30:51.live in peace, live in the law and the vast majority of them want to
:30:51. > :30:54.work hard. APPLAUSE
:30:54. > :30:59.Kate buzz that answer your question?
:30:59. > :31:04.Yes, I think so. I wanted to know everyone's views on that. All right.
:31:04. > :31:11.What do you think, Peter Hitchens, about the balance that she's
:31:11. > :31:16.described? Well, my gauge rises at the use of the word "White". The
:31:16. > :31:19.issue should never be and really should never be the colour of
:31:19. > :31:22.somebody's skin. I thought we all very long ago accepted that what
:31:22. > :31:26.mattered about somebody was not the colour of his skin but the content
:31:26. > :31:33.of his character. I'm not interested in what colour they are.
:31:33. > :31:38.Why does the census... I don't know. Should the census... Many... The
:31:38. > :31:42.real question is, does a country which has a very large amount of
:31:42. > :31:48.immigration adapt to the immigrants or do the immigrants who arrive in
:31:48. > :31:52.that country adapt to that country? And it's my very strong view that
:31:52. > :31:56.the only hope of a tranquil and peaceful and productive and
:31:56. > :32:00.successful society is that the migrants adapt to the place to
:32:00. > :32:04.which they come. For very many years, we have not been encouraging
:32:04. > :32:07.or indeed helping them to do that. We have been encouraging through a
:32:07. > :32:10.policy of official state multiculturalism that people should
:32:10. > :32:13.stay separate and remain within their migrant communities. We have
:32:13. > :32:17.not created a single British nationality. There are various
:32:17. > :32:22.feeble efforts to make them take exams in how to claim social
:32:22. > :32:26.security benefits or who was Winston Churchill - that's not the
:32:27. > :32:31.same. We have ceased to be proud of our own country culture, history,
:32:31. > :32:36.religion, language and we haven't asked our new citizens to be proud
:32:36. > :32:38.of them either. I see the result of that. It's not a question of
:32:38. > :32:41.whether they are white, it's a question of whether they are
:32:41. > :32:46.British. Britain is ceasing to become Britain, that is my view and
:32:46. > :32:51.that's a great shame for us who're here and for those who've come.
:32:51. > :32:56.APPLAUSE You, Sir? I had the privilege to be
:32:56. > :33:01.a games maker during the Paralympic Games last year, London 2012. We'd
:33:01. > :33:08.not have got those Games had we not been a diverse and international
:33:08. > :33:12.City. I had the privilege of meeting citizens of 20, 30, 40
:33:12. > :33:16.different countries during my time as a Games maker and I said to them
:33:16. > :33:19."What do you think of the Paralympics, what do you think of
:33:19. > :33:25.London?" and the common response that I got wherever in the world
:33:25. > :33:30.they come from is "London is my second favourite City". London is
:33:30. > :33:33.their favourite second city because of its diversity, because of its
:33:33. > :33:39.international perspective, because of its history.
:33:39. > :33:42.The person up there? APPLAUSE I was just following on
:33:42. > :33:45.from that gentleman's point that I don't think that immigrants come
:33:45. > :33:48.here to become British, they come here because it's the closest they
:33:48. > :33:51.can find to a democracy where they can live the lives that they want
:33:51. > :33:55.to live to follow the face that they want to follow -- faith that
:33:55. > :34:01.they want to follow, and that should be celebrated and that's
:34:01. > :34:05.what makes Britain British. Giles Fraser, can I just repeat the
:34:05. > :34:10.question. The latest census says white British are now in a minority
:34:10. > :34:14.in London, 45% of residents. Is that good or bad as a trend?
:34:14. > :34:18.indifferent to it. I think it makes no difference, white, black,
:34:18. > :34:22.whatever. I'm not interested and I don't think that the census ought
:34:22. > :34:27.to collect that information at all. I mean, the point, the underlying
:34:27. > :34:31.point is that I think London is the most wonderfully diverse place in
:34:31. > :34:35.the world, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else precisely because of
:34:35. > :34:41.that. It's always had a history of welcoming people from all around
:34:41. > :34:46.the world. My surname was originally Freederberg, not Fraser,
:34:46. > :34:50.because a lots of my family came over here as Jews and contributed
:34:50. > :34:54.greatly to the society as waves of people from all around the world
:34:54. > :35:00.have done so. It enriches our culture and the idea that it's a
:35:00. > :35:04.problem that multiculturalism is a problem. I'm an unashamed
:35:04. > :35:08.multiculturalist, it adds hugely to what is so rich and exciting about
:35:08. > :35:12.place like this. You disagree with Peter? Completely.
:35:13. > :35:17.The woman up there in the back row? My grandparents came to this
:35:17. > :35:22.country in the early 20th century as immigrants from Eastern Europe
:35:22. > :35:30.and brought up my parent who is in turn brought up me to respect
:35:30. > :35:35.everything British. This country fed us, clothed us, educated us. I
:35:35. > :35:42.don't think it's a problem with colour, I think any problem that we
:35:42. > :35:47.have is in my grandparents house, English was spoken, everybody was
:35:47. > :35:50.expected to learn our host language, to learn our host manners, to
:35:50. > :35:54.respect the law, et cetera, and everything that goes with it. So
:35:54. > :35:57.when people are talking about colour, I don't actually think they
:35:57. > :36:02.are meaning colour, I think they are meaning culture and that's
:36:02. > :36:06.where I think that we have to integrate to get a fully integrated
:36:06. > :36:11.community. Diane Abbott?
:36:12. > :36:17.APPLAUSE Well, I'm one of those 55% non-
:36:17. > :36:21.white people living in London. Let me say this; London is the City
:36:21. > :36:27.that immigration made. It's not a question of London tolerating
:36:27. > :36:30.immigrants, immigrants made London, whether it was Irish in the 19th
:36:30. > :36:36.century, whether it was Asian shopkeepers, whether it's French
:36:36. > :36:42.and American bankers in the City of London, all the great world Cities,
:36:42. > :36:46.London and New York and Paris, they are built by immigrants from people
:36:46. > :36:52.that attract all over the world. As for the talk of how we non-white
:36:52. > :36:58.Britons have to adapt to British culture, there is no group of
:36:58. > :37:04.people more passionately pro- British, more passionately pro-
:37:04. > :37:08.Royalty actually than amongst the west Indians with whom I grew up.
:37:08. > :37:11.It's crude to assume that because you were born overseas you don't
:37:11. > :37:15.love this country and the Royal Family. There is talk about fewer
:37:15. > :37:20.white people and they are moving out. The demographic patterns in
:37:20. > :37:24.London are to do with class, not colour. My parents came to this
:37:24. > :37:29.country, lived in Paddington. They moved out to Harrow, then to
:37:29. > :37:33.Edgware. Now, my brother lives in Buckinghamshire. That's not white
:37:33. > :37:38.flight, that is people gradually moving up the social ladder. Class
:37:38. > :37:42.is the issue, not race. I'm proud to be a Londoner, I'm proud London
:37:42. > :37:48.is one of the most diverse cities on the planet and that is what
:37:48. > :37:50.makes it a great city, its diversity.
:37:50. > :37:56.APPLAUSE I agree with everything Diane's
:37:56. > :37:59.just said. As it happens, I have a racially mixed family of my own. I
:37:59. > :38:04.don't know whether my three children and grandchildren are
:38:04. > :38:09.regarded as white or non-white on your definition, I mean I think
:38:09. > :38:14.the... The census? Well it's offence toif try to draw
:38:14. > :38:18.conclusions based on it and it takes us back to the kind of South
:38:19. > :38:22.African apartheid. Do you think the census should abandon this? I think
:38:22. > :38:26.it should. It creates unnecessary gition. Going back to the original
:38:26. > :38:30.question, is this good or bad - what is bad is if you get
:38:30. > :38:36.segregation and ghettos. Some American cities have that. I don't
:38:36. > :38:40.think it's happening in London, I think London is a much more mobile,
:38:40. > :38:44.vibrant city and our ethnic minorities spread out. I represent
:38:44. > :38:50.a constituency in South West London, Twickenham, when I first went to
:38:50. > :38:56.live there it was almost exclusively white. Now it has an
:38:56. > :39:00.ethnic minority population of 10- 12%, it's ethnically mixed, and
:39:01. > :39:04.that's desirable and white. Where the public debate is, it shouldn't
:39:04. > :39:08.be about race. If there is an argument about migration and much
:39:08. > :39:12.of it in London has been from eastern yap, it's from Poland,
:39:12. > :39:17.Lithuania and they of course make a positive contribution to the
:39:17. > :39:27.economy. But the migration issue is separate from the white non-white
:39:27. > :39:27.
:39:27. > :39:32.thing which I think we should bury. You, Sir? There is an article on
:39:32. > :39:37.the BBC News web page highlighting a white population the size of
:39:37. > :39:41.Glasgow's left London, so it is white flight which kind of
:39:41. > :39:46.highlights that this integration isn't happening. It's a class issue.
:39:46. > :39:50.It is not the case that white Londoners look at an area and think,
:39:50. > :39:55.there's lots of people, I'm not moving there. Middle class people
:39:55. > :39:59.are moving into Hackney, Brixton, even moving into Brent which was
:39:59. > :40:04.very western when I was a child. There is an issue about class. The
:40:04. > :40:08.issue about colour is I think a misnomer.
:40:08. > :40:12.Michael Heseltine? I think the fascinating thing to me is that
:40:12. > :40:17.London is, as we all know, enormously diverse today and Boris
:40:17. > :40:25.Johnson's just become an elected mayor and that says something about
:40:25. > :40:28.the spread of interests that exist. I don't follow that one. It is,
:40:28. > :40:33.because if it was a class phenomenon and the poor and all
:40:33. > :40:38.that and the blacks... They wouldn't have voted for Boris?
:40:39. > :40:42.That's right. The point I want to make is about the census. It so
:40:42. > :40:50.happens that in a job I'm doing for the Government at the moment, we
:40:50. > :40:56.are looking at the ethnic mix of Birmingham. You can get statistics
:40:56. > :41:01.which show that the unemployment levels in Birmingham are bad
:41:01. > :41:07.compared with other parts of the country. But if you then look at
:41:07. > :41:12.the ethnic mix of certain communities, you find that they are
:41:12. > :41:16.very significantly Pakistani or Bangladeshi. The women in those
:41:16. > :41:21.communities, for cultural reasons, don't want to work on the same
:41:22. > :41:26.proportionate levels as other groups of people. So by knowing the
:41:26. > :41:30.racial mix, you realise that it's not that the economy isn't working
:41:30. > :41:35.in those areas, it's simply that the culture within those families
:41:35. > :41:40.persuades the women not to try and work. So it can be helpful in
:41:40. > :41:44.knowing what the problems are. OK. Do you agree with that? You,
:41:44. > :41:50.Sir? Well, before everyone jumps on the bandwagon that Britain is
:41:50. > :41:55.losing its Britishness, I would like to ask people like Peter
:41:55. > :41:58.Hitchens define being British? Sorry, what is the question? Define
:41:58. > :42:03.being British. He wants you to define being British before you
:42:03. > :42:07.assert that Britain is losing its Britishness. I don't think David
:42:07. > :42:17.wouldn't allow me to go on long enough. David wouldn't allow you to
:42:17. > :42:21.go on very long, no. I've write an good book about this. We won't
:42:21. > :42:25.allow you to promote your book. Which I would invite you the read.
:42:25. > :42:30.We'll move on. We have had a certain amount of time on that and
:42:30. > :42:33.I want a question from Peter Beaumont, please? Are the numbers
:42:33. > :42:38.in George Osborne's economic strategy as wildly optimistic as
:42:38. > :42:46.his forecast for the 4G auction? Remembering that they were hoping
:42:46. > :42:51.to raise �3.5 billion and only got �2 and a bit from the announcement
:42:51. > :42:55.today and it was a key component of the Osborne economic strategy in
:42:55. > :43:01.the Autumn Statement that this money would come through so they
:43:01. > :43:07.seem to have a large hole there. Giles Fraser, do you think that the
:43:07. > :43:14.optimism that George Osborne shows is as exemplified by the 4G
:43:14. > :43:19.auction? Well, it's clear that the numbers don't add up and that...
:43:19. > :43:23.Stkpwhrs which numbers? They don't add up in the last budget which was
:43:23. > :43:28.premised on the fact that there was going to be more money coming in
:43:28. > :43:34.from the sale of 4G. But actually, it's a wider problem, the problem
:43:34. > :43:38.about the way in which that budget really doesn't work because it's
:43:38. > :43:43.premised on the idea that austerity is the only way forward. I think
:43:43. > :43:46.it's just another example of how the numbers don't work out for the
:43:46. > :43:50.current Government and what we really need to do is invest money
:43:50. > :43:54.in our infrastructure, particularly in our housing, to stimulate the
:43:54. > :43:58.economy, to create more growth and so that actually we can find a way
:43:58. > :44:03.of getting this economy kick started again. But at the moment,
:44:03. > :44:13.if all we are doing is garrotting our economy with austerity, we are
:44:13. > :44:17.
:44:17. > :44:23.never going to find a way forward. It looks like it will balloon under
:44:23. > :44:28.the coalition to something like �600 billion more in the
:44:28. > :44:34.coalition's time in office? Isn't that sensible? What we are trying
:44:34. > :44:38.to do is to reduce - sorry to use economic jargon - the structural
:44:38. > :44:42.deficit. It is the amount of revenue we used to get from the
:44:42. > :44:47.banking system that disappeared. The Government has to deal with
:44:47. > :44:52.that over time. We started hoping to do this over four years. We are
:44:52. > :44:57.now planning to do it over seven, which is the time period the last
:44:57. > :45:07.Labour Government set. I mean, when the economy slows down, the
:45:07. > :45:07.
:45:07. > :45:13.sensible thing to do, it's the let the deficit widen temporarily -
:45:13. > :45:20.that's what's happened. Similarly, the Government has to borrow to do
:45:20. > :45:25.the kind of things Giles is talking about. That was deliberately
:45:25. > :45:30.allowing the debt to grow? What the Government is trying to do is two
:45:30. > :45:36.things. This is why the austerity versus growth argument is so
:45:37. > :45:42.foolish. The first is to try to get the public finances in order - we
:45:42. > :45:47.are doing that. You have to try and stimulate growth. That does involve
:45:47. > :45:57.doing some of the things Giles has described - and that's absolutely
:45:57. > :45:59.
:45:59. > :46:03.right. So we have to have attempts to get growth alongside dealing
:46:03. > :46:07.with the deficit. The reason why this is so difficult is because we
:46:07. > :46:12.are dealing with a crisis the likes of which we have not had before. I
:46:12. > :46:15.have often said this is the economic equivalent of a heart
:46:15. > :46:18.attack. Economies don't just bounce back. We are dealing with a banking
:46:18. > :46:22.system that has been badly damaged. We are dealing with Government
:46:22. > :46:28.finances that have been hit in an extraordinary way. We are dealing
:46:28. > :46:33.with a pile-up of personal debt which Michael Heseltine described.
:46:33. > :46:37.Getting out of this crisis will be very difficult. It's got to be done
:46:37. > :46:42.by this combination of discipline with the public finances and trying
:46:42. > :46:46.to support and stimulate economic growth. You are saying that for the
:46:46. > :46:52.moment, Osborne's policy, the coalition policy, is deliberately
:46:52. > :46:57.to allow debt to increase because that will expand the economy?
:46:57. > :47:02.I have never heard it described like that. We are flexible and we
:47:02. > :47:08.have to be flexible. You, Sir? one thing they are not doing, there
:47:08. > :47:15.is a good idea to improve the rail service, not build HS2, but what
:47:15. > :47:18.they are not doing is cutting the enormous salaries of town hall
:47:18. > :47:23.workers, civil servants and their enormous pensions. That is the one
:47:23. > :47:28.thing they are not doing. They are cutting the wrong things and not
:47:28. > :47:35.expanding the right things. Building aircraft carriers with no
:47:35. > :47:40.aircraft - it is outrageous. APPLAUSE Michael Heseltine? Well,
:47:40. > :47:47.the reason why the deficit is continuing is because the
:47:47. > :47:51.Government has decided that it will not cut the Health Service. It will
:47:51. > :47:56.not emasculate - you may think - you want to cut the Health Service,
:47:56. > :48:04.you get elected on that platform. This coalition is not going to do
:48:04. > :48:10.it. The welfare system is being preserved largely in tact. So
:48:11. > :48:15.Vince's point is the right one... TELEPHONE RINGS There is a
:48:15. > :48:25.telephone going. Is that your wife?! LAUGHTER It is the
:48:25. > :48:26.
:48:26. > :48:33.Chancellor! You have gone off message! No. My wife is supporting
:48:33. > :48:39.what I have been saying! She rang me to let me know! I'm not going to
:48:39. > :48:43.be stopped. The fact of the matter is, the reason why the economy and
:48:43. > :48:48.George Osborne's budget is taking longer to sort is because we are in
:48:48. > :48:52.the middle of a world recession that none of us have seen before.
:48:52. > :48:56.It's taking longer to sort out. There is no domestic policy that is
:48:56. > :49:01.going to make a serious difference to the world situation in which we
:49:01. > :49:07.trade. If we can't see recovery in Europe, if China is still slowing,
:49:07. > :49:12.if India is slowing, if America's got a cliff-edge situation, that
:49:12. > :49:17.limits our discretion and it is simply dishonest for any party to
:49:17. > :49:22.come and pretend there is a serious option. We have to sweat it out.
:49:22. > :49:26.The fact is the extraordinary thing to me in this relatively stagnant
:49:26. > :49:30.situation is we have got more people at work in this country
:49:30. > :49:36.today than we have ever had. We have more women at work. We have
:49:36. > :49:41.more young people at work. So, despite the appalling economic
:49:41. > :49:48.world circumstances, this coalition has managed to preserve employment
:49:48. > :49:53.at record levels. That is extraordinarily impressive. Diane
:49:53. > :49:56.Abbott? Sweat it out, the only thing to do? The problem is it is
:49:56. > :50:02.the poorest and middle-income people that are suffering because
:50:02. > :50:07.of this Government's economic policies. Dr Cable is a reasonable
:50:07. > :50:12.man, propping up an unreasonable Tory-led Government. Of course,
:50:12. > :50:17.George Osborne's figures are dodgy. You might argue a lot about George
:50:17. > :50:21.Osborne is dodgy! To be perfectly serious, they came in, this
:50:21. > :50:29.coalition, promising to cut the deficit in four years. To clear up
:50:29. > :50:37.your mess! No, you seem to have forgotten... APPLAUSE You seem to
:50:37. > :50:43.be overlooking... We can't overlook your mess! The collapse of Lehman's,
:50:43. > :50:47.but my point is this. The reason George Osborne's figures are dodgy
:50:47. > :50:52.is because he's completely predictable. You do not achieve
:50:52. > :50:57.growth by making the cuts in public expenditure that this Government
:50:57. > :51:03.has done. For Lord Heseltine to say, "The reason we can't clear up the
:51:03. > :51:11.deficit is because we didn't cut the NHS." Tell that to the people
:51:11. > :51:14.in Lewisham who are seeing their hospital close. APPLAUSE To clarify,
:51:14. > :51:19.are you saying therefore that the debt should be allowed to rise even
:51:19. > :51:23.further than it is rising at the moment? No. Oh yes you are. We have
:51:23. > :51:29.always said there had to be cuts. Cuts of this scale - the problem is,
:51:29. > :51:33.as you probably know, that when you cut in the public sector, it has a
:51:33. > :51:38.multiplier effect in the private sector. There are tradesmen,
:51:38. > :51:42.builders, service workers all across London who can't make money
:51:42. > :51:47.because of the cuts in public sector spending. The cuts the
:51:47. > :51:53.Tories have made have plunged us into a double-dip recession and if
:51:53. > :51:56.we are not very fortunate, it will be a triple-dip recession.
:51:56. > :52:05.Osborne's figures are off. The rest of us are paying the price.
:52:05. > :52:10.right. Yes, you, Sir? The problem doesn't matter if the deficit is
:52:10. > :52:13.growing at the moment. The problem is is the Bank of England's
:52:14. > :52:17.credibility about to be tested? We have rising rates and we have a
:52:17. > :52:23.falling currency. That is is a real problem. Can we manage our debt?
:52:23. > :52:27.You think the size of the deficit... It doesn't matter. Everybody has a
:52:27. > :52:31.large deficit. Can we manage it? Will it become a problem for the
:52:31. > :52:37.Bank of England? The woman behind you? I was going to say there are
:52:37. > :52:42.some areas of our economy that are still growing, like the creative
:52:42. > :52:46.and cultural industries which are 7% of our GDP. What can we do to
:52:46. > :52:53.help those industries? We will come to that point. The woman on the
:52:53. > :53:01.second row, third row from the back? I think corporate tax from
:53:01. > :53:06.private companies seem to be a driving force in raising a tax
:53:06. > :53:12.revenue and to help pay the country's deficit, what is the
:53:12. > :53:18.Government doing helping businesses and promoting growth? I'm not clear
:53:18. > :53:27.what you are saying. You should or shouldn't be relying on corporate
:53:27. > :53:31.tax? Corporate tax is helping raise tax revenue. The Government seems
:53:32. > :53:39.to be helping - the Government doesn't seem to be helping private
:53:39. > :53:46.businesses to promote growth. The man up there? I find it rather
:53:46. > :53:51.rich to hear Diane Abbott say that the public sector, there's cuts
:53:51. > :53:57.from Government expenditure. The Government is not really cutting
:53:57. > :54:02.public sector expenditure. It's still increasing in real terms. And
:54:02. > :54:12.what Labour left as an inheritance was so bad that the country is now
:54:12. > :54:18.having to pay the price for that. You, Sir? It is doing it in my
:54:18. > :54:22.hospital in Lewisham and it is doing it because neighbouring
:54:22. > :54:26.hospitals have such poor PFIs negotiated by the Government. They
:54:26. > :54:33.are closing a functioning hospital. They are making cuts where they can.
:54:33. > :54:37.Vince Cable, on the point of public sector cuts. Is he right or he
:54:37. > :54:42.right? There are certainly parts of Government where we have had to
:54:43. > :54:50.take painful measures and real cuts have had to be made. The NHS budget
:54:50. > :54:53.is protected. There are pressures on the NHS. I remember fighting
:54:53. > :54:56.hospital closures when Diane's party were this power. The NHS
:54:56. > :55:03.budget has been ringfenced and protected. The rest of Government
:55:03. > :55:11.is having to take some very serious cuts. You are looking pained?
:55:11. > :55:16.is a moral issue here. Seeing as we are sitting in the City of London
:55:17. > :55:22.and the city was part responsible for the financial mess. The banks,
:55:22. > :55:25.yes. If it is the case that it's people in this square mile that
:55:25. > :55:29.were largely responsible and yet the people who will pay the price
:55:29. > :55:39.for that are the poor and vulnerable on benefits and who need
:55:39. > :55:44.our hospitals and so forth, there is a moral problem with that
:55:44. > :55:53.equation. Peter Hitchens? Well, it is interesting to listen to the
:55:53. > :55:57.Conservative and Labour Party, which aren't that different.
:55:57. > :56:02.will be better? This isn't a crisis. This is national decline. We have
:56:02. > :56:08.been living for many, many years far beyond our means as a country
:56:08. > :56:12.and as people. And now the debts are being paid. They will be paid -
:56:12. > :56:16.this is already happening with the currency - it will happen more when
:56:16. > :56:22.we lose our AAA rating - through a decline in the value of the pound
:56:22. > :56:22.and the consequent inflation. It's happening already through state-
:56:22. > :56:28.sponsored inflation through quantitative easing. What will
:56:28. > :56:32.happen in the end is that we will cease to be able to pay because of
:56:32. > :56:37.this inflation and because of this decline for the things which we
:56:37. > :56:41.have refused to reform. As a country, we will not look in the
:56:41. > :56:47.face, no political party - Michael Heseltine is quite right - no
:56:47. > :56:51.political party will stand and say, "We will cut the National Health
:56:51. > :56:54.Service." They would lose the election. All right, don't let the
:56:54. > :56:58.Government do it. Let it happen through inflation and national
:56:58. > :57:03.decline. That is what you are seeing. This crisis will not end.
:57:03. > :57:10.It will go on and on as we sink to a lower level in the world. Do you
:57:10. > :57:14.agree with that? There is something in it. I have always been in favour
:57:14. > :57:24.of reducing public consumption. This morality issue is the one that
:57:24. > :57:29.
:57:29. > :57:35.Just take this issue of welfare reform. Now, what this Government
:57:35. > :57:41.is doing in order to contain the welfare budget is saying that there
:57:41. > :57:47.can't be more for a family on welfare than the average earnings
:57:47. > :57:51.of those in work. In other words, the people paying the taxes in work
:57:51. > :57:55.shouldn't expect to sustain living standards for people on the welfare
:57:56. > :58:03.benefit. I can tell you that that will lead to people saying, "Oh,
:58:03. > :58:08.what about poor Willie "and it is a hard-luck story. That is is a moral
:58:08. > :58:13.issue. Why should the vast majority of people at work pay to sustain
:58:13. > :58:20.families who are out of work at higher living standards? That is a
:58:20. > :58:28.moral issue. APPLAUSE Vince Cable, briefly. We have to stop, actually.
:58:28. > :58:31.Our hour is up. We are going to be in Eastleigh next Thursday. We will
:58:31. > :58:34.go out live after the voting is over. We will be able to talk about
:58:34. > :58:39.over. We will be able to talk about why people voted the way they did.
:58:39. > :58:45.I don't know who is going to be on the penl yet, except for the film-
:58:45. > :58:52.maker -- the panel yet, except for the film-maker Ken Loach. We will
:58:52. > :58:56.be in Dover the week after. You can apply via