25/04/2013 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Worcester Cathedral, and welcome to Question

Time. Good evening to you at home. Good evening to the audience and

the panel, economic Secretary to the Treasury, Sajid Javid, Labour's

shadow climate change minister, Luciana Berger, from the Liberal

Democrats, Simon Hughes, their deputy leader, and two leaders,

Natalie Bennett of the Green Party, The first question tonight comes

from Thomas Doyle. Is George Osborne's economic plan finally

working? We have heard today that the Chancellor has tried to spin

the growth figures as a victory. If the Chancellor was to come out into

the country and to speak to people up and down the country, he would

know that people are facing a really, really tough time. There is

a cost-of-living crisis in this country. People are really

struggling to get by. We heard only this week that 350,000 people in

our country had to go to a food bank because they could not afford

to feed themselves and their families. I want to see people in

work. There are over 2.5 million people in the country who do not

have a job, including over 1 million young people. I want to see

the Government come forward with a proper plan for jobs and growth.

How many more people will it take for the Chancellor to listen and

get on with it and get a proper plan for jobs and growth? There are

many things he could do and I would like to see him do immediately to

get people into work. Firstly, I would like him to repeat the

banker's bonus tax so we can get young people into work and build

homes that this country if desperately needs. He could reduce

VAT temporarily to stimulate demand. He could reduce VAT in the

construction sector. He could do all manner of things, and he does

not have a plan. It is people up and down the country that are

suffering as a result of it. Sajid Javid, there is quite a long

list there. I think today's news was welcomed. The Zero debris

basenji ADP figures? Yes, it shows the economy is healing but it

equally shows there is a long way to go, the road will be bumpy but

we are on the right track. Before I came into politics three years ago

I used to do a tremendous amount of business in emerging markets in the

fastest-growing countries, Brazil, China, India, countries of that

type. I saw for myself how fast those countries are growing and

expanding. As a result, these countries today are eating our

breakfast, having our lunch. If we do not change our ways, they are

also going to be having our supper. That is the simple truth of it.

When the Prime Minister talks about us being in a global race, that is

what he means. The world does not owe us a living and we have to

fight hard in this global space to succeed. The Government's job is to

make sure we equip British citizens to succeed in the global race. What

have we done about it? It meant, when we came to office, that we had

to deal with the largest deficit of any of the large 20 leading nations.

We have cut that by a third. That has brought economic credibility,

lowered interest rates and brought Investment. You mention the jobs,

and you are right to talk about jobs. 1.2 5 million new private

sector jobs have been created in the last three years. There are

more people think -- employed in the private sector than at any time

in history. We created jobs last year faster than any other G7

nation. That is something we should be proud of. I will not pretend for

a second that we do not have serious economic challenges, but

once they were grown at home and ones that come from abroad, but

this Government is walking up to those challenges, confronting them

and dealing with them, rather than sticking its head in the sand and

pretending the problem can just go away. Thank you very much for that.

Why is it that the IMF does not seem that keen on what you're doing,

if you think it is so right? And why do the credit rating agencies

not seem to entirely approve of what you're doing? First, the IMF

will be coming to the UK very soon. It goes to all the leading

economies every year and does a proper assessment. It will be

interesting to see what they say in the light of today's news. I would

rather wait to see. I am pleased you mentioned the rating agencies.

The two rating agencies that have downgraded our credit rating, they

have both said the same thing, which is that if Britain deviates

from its deficit reduction plan, its plan to make sure that our

country once again start living within its means, they would

downgrade us again. If we look at the two countries that have not

been downgraded, AAA across the board from all of the rating

agencies, Germany and Canada, if you look at both those countries,

they fixed the roof when the sun was shining. The previous

Government ran a deficit from 2001, long before the international

crisis, and we are having to pay the price to Dave. George Osborne

said it was essential that Britain was not downgraded, but they you go.

Is the strategy working, no. This strategy was put together to get

rid of the annual deficit. The plan was that over five years the death

as it would disappear. The deficit is still running at �130 billion

per year. If we go on like this, by the end of this Parliament our

national debt will have increased by 40% in the lifetime of this

Parliament. So it is not working. Sajid talks about living within our

means. We have barely dented the deficit over the course of these

last two and a half years. It is not working. Growth is anaemic. The

international community looks at the UK, not just because of the

downgrades, but they are pretty pessimistic and bearish about the

outlook. I think what George Osborne is going to need to do is

to be much more radical. We are going to have to have some real

cuts in government spending, particularly if one looks at the

�60 billion per year that we are spending on quangos. Again, the

Tory party talked about a bonfire of the quangos. We need to see it.

We also have to reduce taxation for the low-paid. If you get them out

of the tax system, no tax on minimum wage, that money will go

into people's pockets and get spent in the High Street. Something

radical needs to happen. Everybody in the audience is

experiencing what is going on here, so I am sure there are many

different views that I would like to hear. The woman in the third row.

The Government says the state of the economy is improving but isn't

the 0.3% meaning that it is within the definition of not being a

triple-dip recession, because we are still in the same position we

were in five years ago? Simon Hughes, as a supporter of the

coalition. I would link that question to the initial question,

is it finally working. It is not finally working because it was

never going to be a quick fix. Nigel is right in one respect,

although he went on to say something inconsistent with

something else he believes. This is very complicated, isn't it! When we

joined the coalition we did so because we believed we needed a

stronger economy, to rescue Britain from paying �120 million each day

in interest on our debts. Not sustainable. Personal debt at its

highest level ever, and an inability to understand that you

have to make the books balance. We went into a coalition in the

national interest to do that. But we were clear we needed a fairer

society, because Labour and the Tories have left the gap between

rich and poor wider than it had ever been, with a ridiculous

bonuses while other people struggled at the bottom side. We

have done the steps that shut -- Sajid has talked about, and many

things have succeeded. Interest rates are low, inflation is low,

the deficit has been reduced by one-third, we have created over 1

million new jobs. Are you are attracted by what Luciana Berger

has been saying about the other things that could stimulate the

economy? There is not a difference of view in politics that we want

unemployment to be as low as possible, as many people in work as

possible, but we have to do it in a way that is sustainable. We have

done that. There are more people in work. When I came into Parliament

and Mrs Thatcher was the Prime Minister we had 18% unemployment.

Unemployment in this constituency is something between 4% and 5%.

Youth unemployment is lower than when you left office, and that had

started when you were still in power. You were not in Parliament

then, but I am not taking lectures from colleagues in the Labour Party

who did not deal with this issue. But we need to do other things. We

need to go on slowly and steadily making sure we get growth,

manufacturing investment, money for small businesses to grow. I am

committed to making sure the people at the bottom end do not pay the

price and the people at the top pay more. We have been taking the low-

paid out of tax. The start that the tax threshold of �6,440, it is now

�9,400 and next year it will be �10,400. We are trying to make sure

people on high incomes pay more, and for me that is the right way to

go in difficult circumstances. Behind the question was presumably,

is there a glimmer of light? The person second row from the back.

Going back to the point about the outlook for the UK economy being

pessimistic. Surely it would be even more pessimistic if we left

the European Union of which, even by your figures, 40% of our exports

go to, which is too large to brush aside and say it is not important?

If you look at the cost... There is the top-line figure of the

�50 million each day as a membership fee, but there are some

interesting academic reports saying that the cost of unnecessary

regulation being put on British industry is perhaps costing up to

5% of our annual GDP. I will promise you one thing, Britain not

being a member of the European Union does not mean that Mercedes

will not want to sell cars in this country. We will go on doing

business with Europe. We would be free to open trade deals with the

rest of the world which we are currently forbidden from doing.

do it anyway. We are forbidden from making a trade deal with any other

country in the world. The European Union can make our trade policy, we

cannot. The sooner we get rid of the lunacy of climate change policy

we have signed up to in Brussels and excessive employment regulation,

we will be a wealthier countries. am going to largely ignore Nigel

Farage's magic recipe. He is going to do one thing, leave the European

Union, and that will solve all have our problems. I think simple

recipes like that are not the way forward. We need to look at our own

economy. Mystic Hughes says he is worried about the poor and

disadvantaged, so he is part of a Government that has to seen in the

last year the wealth of the wealthiest 10% go up by 11%. The

Sunday Times Rich List, there are 11 new billionaires in Britain.

Isn't that wonderful? I don't think it is. Luciana Berger referred to

the unemployed, but it is not just the unemployed. 2.6 7 million young

people. It is also the one in 10 people who are working fewer hours

than they would like to be working, who are struggling to get by with

less than full-time hours, and the one-in-five people who are on less

than a living wage, after 13 years of a Labour government. We have a

minimum wage that is significantly below the living wage, and that

simply is not good enough. We need to rebuild our economy with jobs

you can build a life on, bring manufacturing and food production

back to Britain and rebuild our local economies around small

business. Would you increase borrowing? The whole Government

position, as has been explained, is about getting borrowing down. Would

you increase borrowing? What matters is what you do with the

borrowing. Would you increase it? We are borrowing for things like

Trident, to cut the corporate tax rate. Would you increase borrowing

in principle? Yes, because we believe austerity is the wrong

direction. The IMF says we are playing with fire. This Government

is borrowing �245 billion more than it said it would. Would you reduce

borrowing? In terms of the next general election, with a set out

our plans. Are you going to increase borrowing, saying to the

voters, we are going to increase borrowing, or stick with the Tory

plans? We do not know what the economy will be light in two-and-a-

half years. We have a responsibility not to make promises

wasn't the case. Clearly, you must want borrowing to go up. You can't

do it any other way. The independent IFS says if Labour

carried out its policy, borrowing would be higher by at least another

�200 billion. It was excessive borrowing that got us into this

problem in the first place, so how on earth can more borrowing get us

out of it? That's what's happening. You, Sir, yes? We have acknowledged

over the last few years that we were naive to believe there was an

end to boom-and-bust, to not notice that we were carrying on spending

when we had not enough resources to support it. Are we now being naive

in thinking it will be sorted out in a short time without any pain?

It's going to take years, we should realise that and accept it. It's

bad news and we need to take care of the people mostly affected by it,

but we are naive to think we'll have green shoots now or next year

- it's going to take a long time. Do you agree with that? Absolutely

right. APPLAUSE

If ever there was a time for a British Chancellor of the Exchequer

to go on TV and have a fireside chat with the British nation, it's

now. We keep hearing about cuts and living within our means. The

reality is that this annual deficit is still hopelessly and totally out

of control and it needs somebody in the British Government to honestly

tell the British people the mess we are in and to explain that things

will be tough for a few years. We are not having that conversation.

We are having a false debate about cuts. We are not cutting, we are

borrowing �130 billion a year more every single year. Why can't you do

what he wants to have done? I've looked at UKIP's policies. Many

people can say that, but I have. UKIP's policies would lead to more

borrowing as well. If you look at their central point, they want

unfunded tax cuts, which will lead to more borrowing and at the same

time they want to protect spending on the NHS, they want to protect

spending on education and on this and that, so there are three people

on this table. In the '80s, the Conservative Party used to believe

if you cut taxes, it led to economic growth because people

spent the money. If you cut people's taxes at the bottom end,

and I agree there's been progress, there needs to be more. If there's

no tax on the minimum wage, that would lead to people having more

money in this country. That would be a flat party policy. UKIP's tax

policy, 31% tax means the rich would pay far less tax. You are

nervous about UKIP, the way you are talking? We have the most

complicated tax system. The tax code was 5,000 pages long, it's now

13,000 pages long. There is a simple argument for our tax system.

Top rate taxpayers should have... In the policy. You haven't even got

a policy. What is your tax policy? APPLAUSE

Very simply, what is your tax policy? No tax on the minimum wage

and a mass simplification of the tax policy. With a lower rate.

We'll abolish national insurance, roll it into tax because all it is

is tax anyway. What rate would these people pay? 25-30%, I suspect

no national insurance. So you would change your policy from the flat

rate? Every party changes their policies close to the general

elections, that's right. So we shouldn't believe a word you say?!

APPLAUSE Hang on. We stood under a different

leader in a different general election with a policy of 31%,

doesn't mean that will be our policy next time around.

You, Sir? The legacy left by the Labour Government surely means no

party can afford to make cuts? There's still too much to pay back

to move forward, so everyone's going to have to borrow anyway.

you think there can be no cuts in order to try and reduce borrowing?

I can see no reason how you can cut if you have got to save money.

think what the gentleman's getting at is the fact that this enormous

debt the country's built up, at some point the debt needs to go

down which means payback, so it's not just an economic problem, but

it's a moral problem. I also believe this generation that

wracked up the debts has no right to pass on that bill to the next

generation, to our grandchildren and children. We have got to think

about that as well. That makes it all the more important, we have got

to start the economy now. We need to get back to where the legacy

came from. It was not as a result of Government spending, it was as a

result of the banks very nearly crashing and going down and us

having to rescue the banks. That is why we have to look at dealing with

the banks. That is one of the issues. The lady at the front said

we hadn't moved on in the past three or four years. That's true.

We haven't reformed our banks. If you want to join in this debate

on the economy or anything else, you can always do it by text or

Let us go on to a question from Amanda Galvin, please?

Do the panel think it's justified for the UK to suspend human rights

values in order to pursue the deportation of one individual?

Abu Qatada, of course. Nigel Farage? Well, it isn't going to

happen. You know, this is classic, classic of this Tory party and

Theresa May and they keep talking tough about human rights because

they know the vast majority of the British public are enraged that we

are not allowed to get rid of people like account Abu Qatada. So

they keep promising that they'll do such things. In this case, they are

thinking about temporarily suspending our membership of the

European Convention on Human Rights. They won't do that, they don't

intend to do that, they are just hoping that by saying something,

they'll kick the issue into the long grass. The real reason is this

; that we cannot be members of the European Union unless we are full

signatories to the European court in Strasbourg. They've become one

and the same thing. As we know from David Cameron, he's a great lover

of our membership of the European Union, as indeed are the Liberal

Democrats and the Labour Party. This is short-term politicing by

Theresa May. They are terrified about what will happen to their

vote next Thursday in the shire counties and they are sounding

tough but they don't mean a word of APPLAUSE

Simon Hughes? The answer to the question is, it would be ludicrous

to withdraw from the European convention to deal with one case.

We were the principal authors of the European Convention on Human

Rights. It was the post-war initiative of Churchill and his

allies to try to make sure Europe had a civilised set of values and

we sent British lawyers to draft it and we have been signatories

throughout. The European convention does things like defend your right

to freedom of expression and your right to protest if you are a

member of a Trade Union and your right to education and family life.

I assume everyone here would regard that as very important.

Occasionally, occasionally, the European court finds against this

country. If we were to pull put of the European convention, what

message would that send to Russia, Belarus and other countries like

the Ukraine where people are on trial wondering about their human

rights? How do we say to the States that we want decent treatment for

people they want to extradite and we don't want them on death row?

Where would we stand? The answer is absolutely not, we need to hold the

convention and the Liberal Democrats were very clear when we

entered into the coalition that for this Parliament we would keep

everything that's a convention right and potentially build on it

but not reduce it. Do you think there is any chance that...

said, do you think there's any chance that the Conservative Party,

the coalition, might allow itself with Labour and find a way of

getting Qatada out, ignoring the convention, or indeed temporarily

withdrawing from the convention, leaving you high and dry? No, I

absolutely don't think so. Why not? Firstly, because the coalition

agreement is clear that the two parties agreed we'd build on the

convention and not change it. That was a deal done for five years and

it holds. Secondly, Theresa May said very clearly in the House of

Commons this week, I asked her myself, that she thought it would

set a very bad example to break the law of the country and she didn't

intend to do it. Thirdly, the Labour Party have signed up to the

European convention and have never suggested that they think it should

be broken. Imagine the Home Secretary or the Government saying,

we think we can break the law now and put this man, however odious he

is, back on the plane to Jordan. He was convicted in Jordan of offences,

he should go back, the European court says it's perfectly possible

that he could go back and I hope now that the deal's been done with

Jordan that she'll be ratified in about three months and he'll be

able to go back and I wonder why he hasn't been prosecuted in this

country for some of the odious things he said here. That should

have happened. I agree with Simon. I very much ask him that question -

he's a vile individual, Abu Qatada, some things he said are dreadful

and they would clearly be incitement to murder, so why has he

not been put on trial in this country? That's what we should be

doing, where we can guarantee a fair trial, we can have much

respect for the jury system, 12 members of the public can decide

his fate. Why do you think it hasn't been? Because the evidence

isn't there? There's a lot of things the Security Services don't

want out. A lot of issues about extraordinary rendition and issues

about why he was allowed into this country in the first place. He was

seen as the philosophical basis of the Mujahideen. This goes back to

long-term policy in Afghanistan which has come back to haunt us.

There's a lot of potential embarrassment. So there's a

conspiracy not to prosecute him? lot of people in the Security

Services don't want to do it. the Police Service's decision, no-

one else's. You were not lent on? No, listen, the reality is if they

were, that would be extremely serious. There's no question

they've been lent on. Why do you think he's not been prosecuted? You

said there's evidence to prosecute him, why hasn't he not been

prosecuted? I believe there's enough evidence and if I was the

CPS person, I would prosecute but I hope he can be sent home before the

trial begins. The woman at the back? Simon Hughes

says it's one person, I pick up a newspaper every day and read about

foreign criminals who haven't been able to be deported, rapists

murderers et cetera and I wonder what the judiciary is up to. They

are certainly not supporting law- abiding society, British society?

Sajid Javid? Not supporting the society? I have a lot of sympathy

with the lady. Abu Qatada has no respect for our way of life and he

should be on a plane to Jordan right now. We should get him out of

the UK as quickly as we can. One thing we also know about him is

that because he doesn't respect our country, he also doesn't respect

the way we, as a country, observe the rule of law and that is

something, the rule of law we can not give up, it's vitally important

no Government ignores the rule of law. If the courts are proufr

frustrated in the process, we have to respect that -- however. That is

not the same as saying politicians can't change the law. If ultimately

we need to change the law to get Abu Qatada on a plane and out of

the country, that's what we need to do. If that means that we need to

look at suspending our membership of the ECHR, that's what we need to

look at as well. It isn't going to happen, is it? You are committed to

membership of the EU which means we have to remain signatories, simple

as that. The lady said she thought the judicial system was working

against the interests of law- abiding people in this country and

you said you agreed with that snfrpblgt with aspects of that. As

the Conservative Party, it was our intention to replace the Human

Rights Act put in place by the previous Government and replace it

with a British bill of rites which protects your rights and recognises

that with rights comes responsibilities, the two things go

together. We haven't been able to do that. It's not a consensus among

the coalition. You heard from Simon, there's a different set of views

from the Liberal Democrats. We have put those views aside. But that is

still our intention. I want to replace the Human Rights Act with a

British Bill of Rights. Strasbourg court is the highest

court in the land, that doesn't make any difference and that's the

lady's question. We have surrendered the ability to make the

decision in our own country. If we pulled out of the Convention,

would we have to leave the European Union? It is an option we have to

look at more carefully. I am not a lawyer and it is terribly

complicated because you need legal advice across-the-board for this,

but it should remain on the table as an option. Shouldn't human-

rights applied to everyone, You do not think Abu Qatada is

being properly treated by the courts? I think this argument about

opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights is

arbitrary, because the whole idea of human rights should be equal to

everyone. As I can see from the response in the audience, I want to

see Abu Qatada on a plane. We were told last year by the Home

Secretary that he would be sent back to Jordan and it is my

disappointing that he has not been. Ken Clarke said yesterday that even

if we were to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights,

British law would also not send him back to Jordan, because we do not

have the assurances we need that he will not be subject to torture.

This man is despicable. This is a man that both the Home Secretary

and the courts have said is very dangerous. He has advocated attacks

against Jewish people. He has praised attacks against American

people. He is Europe's right hand man, as has been told, for Al-Qaeda.

And this man should not be allowed to be in the UK. But we need

serious action from the Government, not promises that they are not

going to keep. Using the European Convention on Human Rights is

essentially a smokescreen for what the action is that they will take.

The deal with Jordan has been done and it is ratified in the next few

weeks. That should permit that he can go to Jordan. We will see what

happens. Linda Almond, please. the panel think we should be able

to stem the flow of Romanians and Bulgarians expected to arrive in

January 2014? We had a number of questions on this issue. Does the

panel think we should be able to stem the flow of Romanians and

Bulgarians expected to arrive in January 2014? We should be able to

make it less attractive for them wanting to come here. That is an

exercise that Government is engaged in now, across the board, every

department of Government, looking at what are the attractions for

immigrants, particularly from these two countries, to come to Britain,

whether it is welfare, jobs and so forth. But the honest truth is that

in terms of taking bigger action, in terms of controlling our borders,

we cannot do that unless we renegotiate the relationship we

have with the European Union, because those rights were given up

by the previous Government. This Government has inherited that

situation and we have to respect the agreements that are in place.

Until that changes, there is preyed little we can do about it. Are you

nervous about it? It is politically sensitive and nobody's in stab a

clue how many people might come. -- nobody seems to have a clue. When

other eastern European countries join, especially Poland, the

previous Government made a prediction it would be 80,000 and

it turned out to be 800,000 from that part of the world. In this

case, the number of countries that can accept people from Bulgaria and

Romania from January next year is a lot larger, so it is not just

Britain, which will have an impact in terms of the Barbarians and

remain is that want to leave, spreading it out, but we cannot

rely on that. -- Bulgarians and Romanians. We are looking at how we

can have a better relationship with the European Union. How do you make

it unattractive for people to come to Britain? For example, we have to

make sure that the right to benefits, whether they are out-of-

work benefits, housing benefits and others, do not taking unless you

have met certain conditions, unless you have got my job. There are

other issues. There are a lot of rules any wave. Before this takes

place in January next year, there will be initiatives announced that

will make a difference to this. If we want to control our borders we

have to renegotiate with the European Union. This is what the

Prime Minister set out when he said we need a new relationship with the

European Union, which is why he has promised that there will be a

referendum on Europe so that we can have the leverage to have this kind

of change. You are going further than next January when this is

meant to be happening. You talk about taking these measures, and

you are going to pinpoint Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants and say,

you are not going to be entitled to this. Is that what you mean? How

are you going to select? measures would apply to anyone from

the European Union that wants to settle in Britain. We have been a

soft touch for people wanting to come to Britain, whether they are

immigrants from the European Union or from outside. The measures will

apply across the board. We should have tightened this up in the time

of the previous Government, and now this Government is getting on with

the job. The rhetoric around this, the rhetoric we have just heard is

really disturbing. We depend, the NHS for health workers, bus drivers,

our teachers, we depend on huge numbers of migrants who come to

Britain and give much more than we give back to them. And what we have

seen, sadly, is that the three largest parties have played into

the utterly pernicious rhetoric of Nigel Farage, the anti-immigration

rhetoric. We need to accept the facts about immigration, which is

that we have the free movement of people across the European Union.

That is free movement for us to go where we like, and free movement of

peoples come here and contribute. They cannot just come here and

collect benefits. There are all sorts of rules already, and we

simply need to say that migration is a good thing for Britain.

Migrants are contributing. I know many people feel concerned

about migration. I talk to people on the doorstep. But about 60% of

people say they are concerned about migration. When you ask them about

their neighbourhood, only 20% say it is a problem in their

neighbourhood. We have a right-wing media, four parties that are

running a consistent anti- immigration, very nasty rhetoric

that simply has to stop. We need to speak up for migrants. Nigel Farage.

Yes, we should stem the flow, no question about it. I have just come

back from Bulgaria and have been to Romania in the past. You have to

see the poverty in these places to believe it, people doing jobs that

cannot afford to keep their houses, struggling to put bread on the

table. Like Britain, for example. It really is not funny. What is

happening to those people, you have millions of people living in misery.

They are being given the opportunity next year to come to a

country that will welcome them, allow them to work and access the

benefits system. And you cannot blame people from Bulgaria and

Romania for wanting to do it. But there is a problem. We have 1

million youngsters unemployed in this country at the moment. We do

not need an open door to masses of unskilled labour at a time when our

youngsters cannot get work. Secondly, what has happened since

2004 is that we have driven down wages, not just for the unskilled.

Talk to skilled people in the construction industry, working in

the IT game, or elsewhere. We have driven wages across the country

down. And the third reason why we really need to say no to an open

door to Bulgaria and Romania is that we are currently in London in

the middle of a Romanian crime epidemic. The figures are truly

astonishing. For only 80,000 Romanians living in Britain at the

moment, in the Metropolitan Police area alone there have been nearly

30,000 Romanian arrests in the last five years. That is without the

rest of the country. The one thing I picked up from Bulgaria last week,

speaking to a well-known national figure, he said the problem is that

what you will get in the first wave next year are a lot of criminals

who will come to Britain. Isn't it about time we said we are not

prejudiced against anybody but it is about time we put the interests

of our own people and our own community first?

We have a proud heritage of immigration in this country, but it

is not wrong to address people's very serious concerns about

immigration. I hear it all the time. We need to look at the facts and

the challenge is that we do not have the facts from his Government.

We do not know how many people might come because we do not have

figures from Government. That makes this conversation incredibly

challenging. We need to look at how many people might come here. I saw

the film of Nigel going to Bulgaria and it was interesting to hear from

university students in Bulgaria who said they did not want to come here

because they did not like our culture. We heard very deprived

people saying they did not want to come because they did not like the

weather. And it is colder there than it is here! May come from very

strong family units. They said, I do not want to leave my family

behind. But this is an abstract conversation because we do not know

the figures. What about his point about criminal elements in

Romanians who are here? Do you agree with that? I have not seen

those figures. Simon Hughes, have you seen the figures? I am aware

there have been some numbers of Romanians and others who live in

London... Oh, come on!I am dealing with the question. I am aware of

the crime figures in London. Crime figures have come down hugely in

recent years, but there are some people from Eastern Europe who do

commit crimes. I think we have to try to cool down the debate,

otherwise we end up in a very unhelpful position and I resent

Natalie suggesting that I have joined some Nigel Farage conspiracy

against immigration. As a Liberal all my life I have argued the

opposite case. Can I try very quiet be contesting a couple of things?

One, look around his audience, even in Worcester, this is a very mixed

community. Britain is a very diverse place. We benefit from

immigration which has come from the fact that we went round the world

and conquered it, and then we asked people to come here and help. We

are the Great Britain that we are because of our mixed community.

Secondly, the reason this is a topical issue is because when the

eight countries, of which Poland was the largest, joined the

European Union, the Labour government took a decision not to

phase in the seven-year opportunity for them to come, but to allow

everybody to come immediately. Sajid is quite right, they were

working on the prediction of 80,000. I thought that was highly unlikely.

I asked to slow the process but David Blunkett said it would be

fine and we would allow them to come immediately. And a lot of

people came, 800,000 people came. That, understandably, caused

disruption to employment and other things and has made people nervous.

Can we get to the point? Bulgaria and Romania, their ambassadors

predicted this week there might be a total of 25,000 people coming. We

cannot stop that now, but what we can do is to keep our own border

controls, have much more effective control... Know we cannot, we are

members of the European Union and anybody can come. You know

perfectly well that we have our own border controls which we should not

give up. The people running the Border Agency have done a poor job.

We have not kicked out illegal -- illegal immigrants effectively. We

need to do that. But then we need to make sure we understand that the

way in which we deal with the issue that the lady raises is to make

sure we have an economy that is successful, but that we have a

change in the immigration rules that does not allow people who have

just arrived to get the full range of benefits and the NHS that people

have had who have lived here all their lives. The man in spectacles.

The woman, I am sorry. We need to understand how could

multiculturalism is for our society. Without international students,

university campuses would be really dull.

Nigel, you said you saw so much poverty in Romania and Bulgaria. Do

you not think those people should have an opportunity to come

somewhere like here and better their lives and lives for their

families? If we had poverty here, we do not encourage us to go to

other places where we could make our lives better? -- would you not?

Simon Hughes, the immigrants you were talking about earlier were

controlled. That is what we need now, control of people who come to

this country, not an open door. do not have an open door. This is

why there are so many illegal ones in here. We had a very ineffective

Border Agency. It is ineffective because the illegals are in here.

The Border Agency has done a bad job but we do not have an open-door

policy. All three of the people who asked questions, I would like to

respond all at once with the same answer. All three of you are right.

My parents were immigrants. My father came to this country,

started work as a bus driver, contributed to this country, as did

my mother, and a respected this country, wanted to better their

lives, and that is what brought them here. But the gentleman there

is absolutely right about the issue is about control. That is what has

gone wrong's. In the last 13 years with Labour there were 3.2 million

new immigrants to the country, one of our highest rates, the highest

rate the country has ever seen. Our borders were not controlled. It

puts pressure on public services and infrastructure. We want to make

sure people who come to that -- our country respect our way of life and

the way we do things. Respect multiculturalism but also respect

our way of life, try to learn the language and do more to integrate

with the rest of the communities. That is what we want. Just two days

ago it was St George's Day. Saint George was an immigrant from

charge that Labour got it seriously wrong? There were things that we

got wrong and we put our hands up to say we should have dealt with

transitional controls appropriately. We introduced a points system but

we should have done it earlier. The Government should be doing other

things to address immigration. I want them to ensure that people who

don't pay the national minimum wage to people outside this country are

appropriately fined because at the moment that's not the case. I want

a Border Agency that has appropriate resources, it's been

cut by 10,000 so they can't do the job they are supposed to do. We

have seen an increase in people absconding and the Border Agency

can't do their job properly. The name has changed, I understand,

this week. I want the Government to address the fact that there are

some certain sectors like the construction sector, the care

sector, the hospitality sector, where we see lots of migrants come

into the UK to fill jobs in those areas. We should provide young

people in this country with the skill and training to be able to do

those jobs. A couple more points from the

audience. The woman up there? talked about making Britain a less

attractive place. How about we keep it a more attractive place but use

our position as a member of the EU to raise the lower poverty in these

nations, to keep those an attractive place? The person there

on the left with the spectacles? The Romanian crime figures were

mentioned. Surely these are as a result of making the country less

attractive. If these immigrants have come from hostile situations

as Nigel said, of sheer poverty, of course they are going to be unhappy

and if they arrive here and we make an even worse place for them, I'm

not surprised the crime figures are so high. I'm not saying it needs to

be easy for them to settle here. However, I don't think we can use

the crime rates as a fact of judgment for that. A brief answer,

Nigel Farage? In these countries, there is a large minority who're

completely ostracised from their own societies. Now, I do feel sorry

for those people but we need to look after our own people and our

own country first and this rubbish you are hearing from everybody else,

the fact is if it's an Eastern European country, there are no

limits to the number of people that can come, we have no control over

numbers of people coming here from Romania and Bulgaria next year and

that's absolute madness. It can't be changed by 2014, can it?

could be. Have a referendum! I want to pick up two points. I

agree with Mr Javid that's -- that there's too much pressure on

housing and the problem is, we failed to invest in housing and the

Public Services and the transport and that's where the problem lies.

Nothing to do with that. I agree with you Mr Farage. Under the

Labour Government, wages were driven down. That was a huge

problem. There was a report in the Independent last week about how

many people are not being paid the minimum wage but less. They are not

paid for travelling time spent travelling between clients, for

example. To have a living, minimum wage, enforce it properly and lift

the standards for everybody. That's what we need to do.

APPLAUSE A question from Kate Parkhouse,

please? Will longer school days and shorter

holidays really improve standards of education, or will children just

be exhausted? The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, suggested

pupils should spend more hours at school and have shorter holidays.

He said this just last week. Simon Hughes, do you agree with him?

schools do have longer hours already. I am the chair of

Governors at a primary school, we have a breakfast club, children

come in at eight, they have an after-school club... Longer than

who? Longer than the conventional 9-3 day, many children are in

school, primary and secondary, from 8 in the morning to 6 in the

evening. So you think it's a good idea? Schools often close their

days at 3 o'clock and are empty for the weekend and evening. They are a

community resource, people benefit from being there and youngsters

should have the opportunity to be there for longer hours, giving them

a chance to do lots of other things they wouldn't otherwise do. Do you

support what Michael Gove is doing? There is a ding I think theion make

between after school activities and education systems. I want an

education system based on evidence. A teacher at the weekend said, has

Mr Gove been to a school, because of all the different proposals they

are putting forward, they can't believe he's informed. We hear time

and time again that Mr Gove's policys are pie-in-the-sky, coming

from a Government that doesn't consult with teachers who're

professionals who know what they are doing. I don't know if the

evidence is there, I know they are currently doing a study and that Mr

Gove's come up with his proposal having looked at the east. Is that

appropriate for the UK? I don't know. There are studies that show

that later starts are a good idea for teenagers. That is a good idea

and some schools are introducing it. I don't want something Michael Gove

picks out of the sky because he thinks it's a good idea.

You, there? You have just said what I was going

to say in fact, that the UCL in London, the academy, have

introduced start times of 10 o'clock and have found a much

better attendance and concentration rate amongst teenagers.

What do the parents do? They can't go to work until 10. Can you leave

teenagers happily on their own? don't know, I wouldn't condone that,

but I would have thought if you were going to change the time, it

would be difficult to change it for primaries and young children can't

cope with a longer day, they don't need a day that long. Older

children, maybe it's a good way of introducing them to hours for

working than are longer than 9-3. You could say to the tairge, do you

prom toys get out of bed for 10 o'clock. -- teenager. What do you

make of the idea that Michael Gove just has these ideas that are not

worked through? I don't think that's true at all. He's

transforming education. It was failing rapidly under Labour. We

were falling on the league tables. On this particular issue,

independent schools, if you look at a lot of independent schools, a lot

of them have longer hours, some even have school days on a Saturday

or half a day on a Saturday. I think I'm right in saying that I'm

the only one sitting at this table that went to a state school like

90% of the population and state schools haven't benefitted from

things like that until Michael Gove's come forward. I would like

to see people in state schools try to see if they can benefit from

these changes as well. More hours and shorter holidays? I'm very open

to the idea, I think it's very sensible. The man at the back on

the gangway? It seems like Mr Gove and the Government's plan is for

everyone to work longer, have longer days, less Bank Holidays and

longer school days. Frankly, that's not what we need. We need better

quality, it's not working longer. It's exactly the same with

basically we need to also atress the work life balance as well. You

need to enjoy yourself as a child, you don't want to be at school all

day, along with the workers, you don't want to be at work all day.

You have got to enjoy life at the same time. There should be just as

much focus on that, as well as getting people in school. You would

cut the working day, would you? Well, I wouldn't mind the working

day cut. The lady here, who is a teacher?

currently work an outstanding academy in Worcester. To make

school hours longer when we are talking about family, where is the

family time? Where is the quality time with our family for our

children? I have a 13-year-old daugter who came home from school

the other day xaisted -- exhausted, came in had milk, toast, fell

asleep. 13. -- daughter. She's working so hard when she's at

school. You think she's not the exception to the rule? I know she's

not. Tough mum driving her hard?No, I'm not, I'm the opposite. I love

the fact she has the summer holidays to get that rounded

education that we all need. Holidays are just as much of an

education as being in school. We have forgotten the fact that the

family picnic is free, apart from the food that you take, the nature

walk you go on with them, the beach that you can stroll along. We have

forgotten that. That's education too. We are so concerned about

putting our children in a classroom from 8-6! I think Mr Gove needs to

come into our schools and have a look at what the children would be

doing between 8-6 when it wouldn't be with their families.

Nigel Farage? I think Michael Gove is trying to

make things better but I think he's a meany to try to stop the summer

holidays and I agree because it's a chance for people to excel at sport

and do different things, try the work place on a short-term basis.

It's not the amount of time we spend at school. Like everything in

your life, it's what we do during that time that really matters. The

big problem we have with British education is that the gap now, and

Sajid touched on this, the gap between the 7% that go to the

private schools in Britain and the 93% that don't is wider than it's

been for 100 years. Are you for abolishing private schools? No, I'm

for re-introducing the one thing that gave bright children from poor

backgrounds the chance to excel in politics, media, the arts and the

world of sport, and that was the grammar school system which we

should never have vandalised out of here.

APPLAUSE I very much agree with the audience

member who said we have to let children have a childhood. I also

agree with Miss Berger about needing to look at the evidence. We

have three days more days in the school year than the OECD average.

We need to look at the evidence of what works. Mr Gove is presiding

over a great increase in class sizes, particularly for the young

children. He's introducing performance related pay, even

though the OECD evidence is that that doesn't raise the performance

of the school. Mr Gove doesn't dream up a bright idea and write it

on the back of the envelope. What you said reminds me of an old

Etonian saying he was educated during the holidays at Eton? Well,

I learnt a lot, you know, the School of Life, and actually, we

all went and there's probably not one of us here during their six

weeks summer holidays has gone "Mum I'm bored, mum I want to do

something, what can I do? "Wtion well what happened to us having

boredom and learning to deal with that boredom? We don't. We have to

get our kids doing something all the time and actually, they've lost

their imagination because of that. We have to stop. Our hour is up.

Sorry, I would have liked to have come to you. Next week, we are

going to be in Dartford in Kent. The panel will have on it Shirley

Williams, Victoria Coren and David Starkey, among others, and the week

after that, we are in Coventry when we'll have David Davis and Germaine

Greer on the panel. If you want to Greer on the panel. If you want to

come to Dartford or Coventry, the address is on the screen. Ck apply

that way or you can call us -- you can apply that way or you can call

us. Thanks to the panel and thank you to you for being a wonderful