:00:06. > :00:20.tonight, we are in Rochdale, and welcome to Question Time.
:00:20. > :00:23.We are in the magnificent setting of the Victorian town hall of
:00:23. > :00:29.Rochdale. A special welcome to our audience. They have come to question
:00:29. > :00:33.and debate with our panel who are not told the questions in advance.
:00:33. > :00:36.Tonight, they are the Conservative Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke a
:00:36. > :00:41.Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, Liberal Democrat peer,
:00:41. > :00:45.Shirley Williams, New Statesman columnist, Lori -- Laurie Penny, and
:00:45. > :01:06.the chef Antony Worrall Thompson. Deon Webber has the first question.
:01:06. > :01:15.Would you be happy to be treated in hospital by someone wearing a full
:01:15. > :01:20.face veil? A controversial debate going on about the NHS this very
:01:20. > :01:25.day. I think I would want to see the faces of the people that were
:01:25. > :01:29.nursing me, treating me. Of course, when you are in the operating
:01:29. > :01:33.theatre, you don't want to see anything and they are wearing a
:01:33. > :01:36.mask. But I think the whole debate about the veil, whether it is about
:01:36. > :01:39.whether or not people should be allowed to cover their face in
:01:40. > :01:41.court, or whether they should be able to cover their face when
:01:41. > :01:47.court, or whether they should be teaching in school, I was brought up
:01:47. > :01:51.at a time when we used to hear about the struggles of women in Turkey, or
:01:51. > :01:57.at a time when we used to hear about in Egypt, or Algeria to not have
:01:57. > :02:03.too, or in Afghanistan, to not have to cover their face, to be able to
:02:03. > :02:06.choose not to. So I have always been in solidarity with those women in
:02:06. > :02:14.the Arab world who have wanted the choice not to wear the veil. Now, we
:02:14. > :02:18.have got women asserting the right and wanting to choose to wear the
:02:18. > :02:25.veil. I remember coming back on a plane from Qatar, and there was a
:02:25. > :02:29.load of women going on the plane wearing the veil, and one by one
:02:29. > :02:35.they went to the toilet on the plane and came out in miniskirts. In one
:02:35. > :02:39.context, they were wearing the veil. In another context, they were
:02:39. > :02:48.making a different choice. I am not comfortable with the veil. I do not
:02:48. > :02:50.see why women have to cover their face outside the home. However, I
:02:50. > :02:53.would not be for banning it in public laces. There are a lot of
:02:53. > :02:58.things I disapprove of in relation to women which I do not think should
:02:58. > :03:02.be subject to a band, like Page three of the Sun, for example, but I
:03:02. > :03:05.do not think it should be banned. But I think we have to be careful
:03:05. > :03:09.with this discussion because for me it is about women's rights and
:03:10. > :03:12.autonomy, but a lot of people join this debate out of Islamophobia
:03:12. > :03:16.autonomy, but a lot of people join I find that ugly and poisonous, and
:03:16. > :03:28.I hope that is not the tenor of this debate at all. Antony Worrall
:03:28. > :03:32.Thompson. No, I would not like someone wearing a veil treating me
:03:32. > :03:37.in hospital. I think it is one of those places, like going through
:03:37. > :03:42.security at airports, being a schoolteacher, being a police
:03:42. > :03:46.officer. There are areas where the veil should not be allowed, and I
:03:46. > :03:52.think we need clear outlines, guidelines for these areas from
:03:52. > :03:56.government. I mean, we get confused between cultural and religious. The
:03:56. > :04:00.thing about wearing the niqab is that it is not religious. It is a
:04:00. > :04:06.cultural thing, which originated in Persia and was picked up by the
:04:06. > :04:10.Muslims. And it does not have to be worn. As far as I am aware, when you
:04:10. > :04:14.do your pilgrimage to Mecca you are not allowed to wear covering on the
:04:14. > :04:18.face. For daily prayers, you are not allowed to have a covering on the
:04:18. > :04:24.face. For me, there are areas, as in the court the other day, where the
:04:24. > :04:27.niqab should be removed. I do believe facial expression is a very
:04:27. > :04:33.important part of all sorts of life, and I just in, especially in
:04:33. > :04:36.schools, children can feel alienated from the other parts of the school
:04:36. > :04:40.if they have to wear these things. If they are taken off and allowed to
:04:40. > :04:45.be the same as other children, they are far more likely to integrate.
:04:45. > :04:49.For me, any woman should be allowed to wear what she wants at the right
:04:50. > :04:53.time. We cannot dictate to male or female what you should wear in your
:04:53. > :05:01.own private life and going out to the shops and things like that.
:05:01. > :05:08.Laurie Penny. Well, the fundamental issue here is one of gender and one
:05:08. > :05:10.of race and religious discrimination. The bottom line has
:05:10. > :05:14.of race and religious to be that it is sexist for any man
:05:14. > :05:19.to tell any woman what she may or may not wear, whether it be a burka
:05:19. > :05:25.or a bikini. And it is racist for any white person to tell any Muslim
:05:25. > :05:30.woman what they may or may not wear. And the debate right now about face
:05:30. > :05:34.coverings is playing on a trend of Islamophobia which is extremely
:05:34. > :05:39.worrying, which we are seeing more and more being pandered to by the
:05:39. > :05:45.tabloids. What is more worrying, however, is the fact that this
:05:45. > :05:49.campaign is not just going to affect Muslims and women who wish to wear
:05:49. > :05:53.the niqab, or a full face covering. The campaign against the rights to
:05:53. > :05:57.cover your face in various public laces that is starting right now is
:05:57. > :06:03.eventually going to affect everyone. -- public places. The face coverings
:06:03. > :06:08.act, coming in next year, is also about the right to anonymity in
:06:08. > :06:13.public per se. That has not been picked up on much by the press. What
:06:13. > :06:17.about the specific issue of hospitals and appearances in court?
:06:17. > :06:19.Are there circumstances where you think people should be ordered not
:06:20. > :06:26.Are there circumstances where you to go fully veiled? Frankly, I think
:06:26. > :06:30.discussions about being treated in hospital and appearing in court,
:06:30. > :06:33.whilst those circumstances might individually be distressing, are an
:06:33. > :06:39.enormous red herring to allow us to discuss whether or not we should ban
:06:40. > :06:43.the niqab per se. And that discussion is brutally Islamophobic
:06:43. > :06:47.and deeply sexist. And whether or not it makes us uncomfortable, as
:06:47. > :06:51.Harriet said, I appreciate that there is a big question of women's
:06:51. > :06:55.rights and women's choice involved, but the people who should be talking
:06:55. > :07:03.about choice and talking about what should be allowed our Muslim women,
:07:03. > :07:15.and nobody else. -- those people are Muslim women, and nobody else. I
:07:15. > :07:16.think in health care, in hospitals, it is such compassionate
:07:16. > :07:20.think in health care, in hospitals, environment, you just do not want to
:07:20. > :07:24.be treated by somebody unless you can see that nonverbal
:07:24. > :07:28.communication. To have somebody looking at you with a full face mask
:07:28. > :07:33.on, telling you some quite serious health news, it just would not be
:07:33. > :07:37.suitable at all. You think there is not an issue for the NHS, because
:07:37. > :07:43.they are now going to try and decide whether there should be a rule laid
:07:43. > :07:46.down. I do not think it should happen. Maybe they need to ask
:07:46. > :07:52.individual patients if they would be comfortable having consultations,
:07:52. > :07:55.but I just do not agree. As long as the patient receives a
:07:55. > :08:00.high level of treatment, does it really matter how they dress? There
:08:00. > :08:04.are people in Syria right now who do not even get the choice of medical
:08:04. > :08:08.treatment. I think it is totally diabolical that we should just
:08:08. > :08:15.discriminate against a person just because of what they are wearing.
:08:15. > :08:20.The person in front of you. I worry about the reasons that females want
:08:20. > :08:24.to wear the veil. Are we being Islamophobic about them wearing the
:08:24. > :08:30.veil, or are they being anti Christian about the need to wear it?
:08:30. > :08:38.Sometimes it is a demonstration of their own strength of belief. And it
:08:38. > :08:43.is to be condemned because of that? We have to be very careful that it
:08:43. > :08:45.does not marginalise the different communities and different cultures
:08:45. > :08:52.does not marginalise the different more than is necessary. Shirley
:08:52. > :08:56.Williams. We should remember that 50 or 60 years ago it was unacceptable
:08:56. > :09:01.for women to wear trousers to work in this country. And it was
:09:01. > :09:07.unacceptable for women 50 years before that too, for example, show
:09:07. > :09:11.their ankles. It is really important to recognise that a lot of this is a
:09:11. > :09:15.culture that passes on. My belief is that in the next 50 or 60 years we
:09:15. > :09:18.will see the disappearance of the hijab, but it will be a cultural
:09:18. > :09:23.shift as women become accepted as equals within the Muslim community.
:09:23. > :09:28.Having said that, two things to add. First, the Muslim Council of great,
:09:28. > :09:33.a thoughtful body, has said that where there are specific reasons why
:09:33. > :09:38.the hijab would be inappropriate, there should be permitted to be, and
:09:38. > :09:42.Islam permits it to be, exceptional cases. The one we talked about in
:09:42. > :09:46.the NHS could fall into that category and probably does. The
:09:46. > :09:52.second thing is that the absolutely crucial issue is getting across to
:09:52. > :09:57.our Islamic brothers and sisters that women are the equal of men. We
:09:57. > :10:00.have a long struggle here in this country on the same issue, and they
:10:00. > :10:06.are having a long struggle, too. The only point I would this agree with
:10:06. > :10:08.Laurie Penny on, is that it is not, unfortunately, just an issue form a
:10:08. > :10:13.slim women. Muslim women often live unfortunately, just an issue form a
:10:13. > :10:17.in families which are very patriarchy or, where the head of the
:10:17. > :10:21.house is a man who is going to lay down some of the rules over his
:10:21. > :10:25.daughters, for example. So it is a bit of an illusion to suppose that
:10:25. > :10:29.Muslim women on their own can decide this. It has to be decided by both
:10:29. > :10:36.men and women in the Kim unity. Having said that, I am against
:10:36. > :10:43.trying to ban it. -- women in the Muslim community. You think it is a
:10:43. > :10:50.demonstration of women's inferiority to men? And you do not agree with
:10:50. > :10:54.that. If somebody tried to make me wear a face veil against my will,
:10:54. > :10:58.they would quickly find it in an uncomfortable position. But I think
:10:58. > :11:02.there is a big difference between a choice to wear a garment and being
:11:02. > :11:06.forced to wear a garment. That is the distinction we are not making.
:11:06. > :11:11.The lady in the brown jacket hit the nail on the head when she said,
:11:11. > :11:16.wanted that make Christians feel marginalised. That is the subtext of
:11:16. > :11:18.this discussion. It is whether or not everybody else will feel
:11:18. > :11:21.uncomfortable about women wearing not everybody else will feel
:11:22. > :11:26.face veils in public. That, of course, is the issue we are not
:11:26. > :11:30.talking about. Whether or not that really matters is what we need to
:11:30. > :11:36.think about. Does it matter if we are uncomfortable, really? I am not
:11:36. > :11:40.too bothered about banning the veil, but as a health care worker, I think
:11:40. > :11:44.it puts a barrier between the patient and the health care worker.
:11:44. > :11:51.And there is no way, if I had the choice to wear a veil, there is no
:11:51. > :11:56.way I would be wearing a veil. The Muslim women who wear the niqab,
:11:56. > :12:01.it is a religious reason, not cultural. It is their choice to
:12:01. > :12:05.interpret the Koran and how they perceive it advises them to cover
:12:05. > :12:13.themselves. It is their choice, a freedom of choice. You think it is a
:12:13. > :12:18.free choice? It really is. What about Islamic schools requiring
:12:18. > :12:22.pupils to wear the burka or the niqab? Those parents have made a
:12:22. > :12:26.choice to send their children to an Islamic school. There are guidelines
:12:26. > :12:29.they have to follow and they are appreciative of that. Just like if
:12:29. > :12:35.children go to a Christian school, they have an ethos to follow, and
:12:35. > :12:38.that is what they do. Muslim women are intellectual women and they make
:12:38. > :12:49.the choice. It is not about being held back. I think we are free to
:12:49. > :12:52.wear exactly what we like, so it would be ludicrous to start
:12:52. > :12:54.legislating about what people wear or do not wear on any occasion,
:12:54. > :13:00.unless there is some overwhelming or do not wear on any occasion,
:13:00. > :13:04.public reason for it. Personally, I think wearing the niqab is rather
:13:04. > :13:08.sad, that some woman is persuaded that she has somehow got to retreat
:13:08. > :13:13.from the world in this way and she is being ogled by men and has to
:13:13. > :13:16.retreat find a veil. It does not fit with my concept of society. But I
:13:16. > :13:20.agree that most of them choose with my concept of society. But I
:13:20. > :13:23.wear the niqab and I would not dream of challenging the religious or
:13:23. > :13:37.cultural beliefs that lie behind it. That is my starting point. The only
:13:37. > :13:40.exceptions I would make, really, because a lot of people wear daft
:13:40. > :13:43.things and I am not a very snappy dresser myself, but I do not think
:13:43. > :13:44.things and I am not a very snappy it is anything government should
:13:44. > :13:48.have anything to do with. There are a few things where you should. I
:13:48. > :13:51.think the judge was right. The GT of the jury, the magistrate or
:13:51. > :13:57.whatever, is to try to tell which business is telling the truth, which
:13:57. > :14:01.is lying, are they telling the whole truth, are they trying to deceive
:14:01. > :14:07.me? You cannot do that if the person is invisible apart from their eyes.
:14:07. > :14:14.So should you have blind juror 's? Blind jurors develop their own
:14:14. > :14:17.techniques. We do not know what our own techniques are. It is something
:14:17. > :14:21.to do with body language, expression, their demeanour. But if
:14:21. > :14:22.they put themselves in a sack, I would not want to judge what they
:14:22. > :14:29.say. Similarly, in a hospital. I would not want to judge what they
:14:29. > :14:34.have never seen a nurse wearing a niqab. I was a health minister for
:14:34. > :14:40.many years and I have been to an awful lot of hospitals. If she was
:14:40. > :14:46.wearing -- taking my temperature, or if she was giving me my pills, or
:14:46. > :14:49.checking my charts, I think it is rather a pity that someone has
:14:49. > :14:54.decided she has to live like this in today's world of equality for women.
:14:54. > :15:00.But I would not mind. If she is discussing my symptoms, trying to
:15:00. > :15:05.relate with me, I think it is quite important she is not wearing a veil.
:15:05. > :15:08.But one problem with overloading it with this vast significance, as
:15:08. > :15:12.though suddenly we will have lots of nurses wearing the niqab, is that it
:15:12. > :15:17.encourages this Islamophobic element to the discussion. And I deplore
:15:17. > :15:23.Islamophobia much more than the niqab. I was out walking the other
:15:23. > :15:30.day I passed the nabg naked rambler. niqab. I was out walking the other
:15:30. > :15:36.This completely naked man, he had walking boots. He came down, I said,
:15:36. > :15:43."good afternoon" he had been jailed for six years over his lifetime - He
:15:43. > :15:46.goes on doing it. Yes. Perfectly harmless. Quite surprising. Let us
:15:46. > :15:50.goes on doing it. Yes. Perfectly go on. Look before we go on to the
:15:50. > :15:53.next question. You can join in on the debate from home, texting us or
:15:53. > :16:08.Twittering us. You can follow us at: if you push the red button you will
:16:08. > :16:12.see what others are saying. Can we have another question from Sean
:16:12. > :16:15.Geeling? Should the children of wealthy parents get free school
:16:15. > :16:19.meals? Should the children of wealthy parents get free school
:16:19. > :16:22.meals in the light of the Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg's announcement
:16:22. > :16:26.this week that all five, six and seven-year-olds would get free
:16:26. > :16:30.school meals regardless of the seven-year-olds would get free
:16:30. > :16:34.income. I have to declare a slight interest. My son coauthored the
:16:34. > :16:39.report, which was behind this announcement. Having said that, let
:16:39. > :16:41.us go to the discussion of it. Laurie Penny. This all comes down
:16:41. > :16:46.us go to the discussion of it. really to what sort of country we
:16:46. > :16:49.want to be, doesn't it? Talking about universal free school meals, I
:16:49. > :16:54.really support any universal benefits. I support the principle of
:16:54. > :16:58.the common good. I think one of the most important common pieces of
:16:58. > :17:04.common good in this country is the idea that all children should be
:17:04. > :17:08.well fed and healthy. Yes, maybe it will... Maybe some people who don't
:17:08. > :17:12.necessarily need free school meals will be receiving them, I think much
:17:12. > :17:15.more important is that we all collectively put in for the health
:17:15. > :17:21.and the future prospect of our children. I don't have any children
:17:22. > :17:26.myself, I would be delighted to pay towards the future of the nation's
:17:26. > :17:29.health and to ensuring that five, six and seven-year-olds get a decent
:17:29. > :17:32.health and to ensuring that five, meal at school. Hopefully it will be
:17:32. > :17:37.decent. If half the country can afford to pay it, why should it be
:17:37. > :17:43.subsidised by the taxpayer when times are tough? It will cost £600
:17:43. > :17:47.million I think a year? The principle of universal welfare is
:17:47. > :17:49.bigger on whether or not any individual family can or cannot
:17:49. > :17:53.afford a certain benefit. There are lots and lots of children who
:17:53. > :17:57.skip... Who fall through the cracks right now. People who are not
:17:57. > :18:01.necessarily signed up for free school meals but go to school
:18:01. > :18:05.hungry. Food poverty is on the increase in the UK. That is
:18:05. > :18:11.something we all have to worry about. Shirley Williams. If any of
:18:11. > :18:16.you teach in school or are parents of children of this kind of age in
:18:16. > :18:21.school, let's hear from you. Absolutely, yes. The study that was
:18:21. > :18:25.done behind this decision, which you will be familiar with, David, for
:18:25. > :18:29.the reasons you have said, show that children who get free school meals
:18:29. > :18:34.consistently out perform children that don't. Now, one of the reasons
:18:34. > :18:37.for that is that something like 40% of parents never claim a school meal
:18:38. > :18:41.they are entitled to because they of parents never claim a school meal
:18:41. > :18:46.feel themselves to be held up or their children to be held out as
:18:46. > :18:49.needy. They don't even claim it very often the poorest parents are among
:18:49. > :18:54.those who don't claim it. Secondly, we should be quite honest and say
:18:54. > :18:57.that a lot of kids get to school who have not had a proper breakfast,
:18:58. > :19:01.couldn't get a proper lunch, not necessarily because their parents
:19:01. > :19:05.are poor, because their parents are stressed in some cases trying to
:19:05. > :19:08.hold down two jobs at the same time and nobody gets round to feeding the
:19:08. > :19:12.kids properly. There is a third reason, a very important one, for
:19:12. > :19:17.six and seven-year-olds, Laurie is right about this, to grow up healthy
:19:17. > :19:21.and to grow up with a proper diet essentially is crucial they get free
:19:21. > :19:26.school meals and no distinctions are made as to what one kid is entitled
:19:26. > :19:30.and what kid is no. I repeat, many, many parents don't claim they don't
:19:30. > :19:34.like to see their children singled out. It's a good thing. Southwark
:19:35. > :19:41.Council did this, Simon Hughes opposed it. I have this wonderful
:19:41. > :19:47.poster here that the Liberal Democrats produced, "Labour's bad
:19:47. > :19:49.choices." Millions of free fool for the richest kids. It's a big
:19:49. > :19:54.mistake. Simon is not a parent. If the richest kids. It's a big
:19:54. > :19:58.he was, he would never have made those statements. ? Yes, surely. By
:19:58. > :20:06.not having children he's out of touch with... Yes. What happens is,
:20:06. > :20:09.if you don't realise this extraordinary non nick fact that
:20:09. > :20:14.many parents don't claim free school meals. You don't realise that if you
:20:14. > :20:19.are not in schools where it happens, you make remarks like Simon has
:20:19. > :20:23.done. I will not try to defend, I'm a great believer in Simon, he is an
:20:23. > :20:27.excellent MP. I think that was a big mistake and one that he probably now
:20:27. > :20:31.would change his mind about. In the white shirt? I'm a teacher in
:20:31. > :20:36.Rochdale, quite often at the school I work at Shirley Williams is
:20:36. > :20:40.absolutely right that children don't come to school having had breakfast
:20:40. > :20:45.and quite often the first meal they have is at lunchtime. To me it would
:20:45. > :20:51.have made more sense to serve free breakfast rather than free meals at
:20:51. > :20:57.lunchtime. OK. The woman in the middle there. There have been huge
:20:57. > :21:01.cuts to Children's Services this year and job losses with further
:21:01. > :21:04.cuts proposed by the Chancellor for 2015, do you not think the money
:21:04. > :21:11.could be better spent? What do you think, it could? I definitely think
:21:11. > :21:16.it could. Anthony Worrall Thompson? I think if you have to make cutbacks
:21:16. > :21:20.in these hard times it shouldn't be on food. The implications are huge.
:21:20. > :21:25.These children are not getting fed properly. Whether they are rich or
:21:25. > :21:30.poor, there is so much bad attitude going on. So many kids living on
:21:30. > :21:34.junk food. So many kids really don't get enough to eat or the right food
:21:35. > :21:40.to eat. Shirley is right, it's about a stigma. It's not about rich and
:21:40. > :21:44.poor. It's about the poorest people feeling different because they are
:21:44. > :21:49.getting free meals at the moment when their colleagues, their school
:21:49. > :21:55.mates are having to pay. I think... I mean, to me, when I was at school,
:21:55. > :22:01.a long time ago, we got one meal, we had a teacher sat at the end of the
:22:01. > :22:05.table making sure we ate it, and we all very healthy. The big problem we
:22:05. > :22:09.made in the past about school meals, in my opinion, is giving kids
:22:09. > :22:11.choice. We know when they have a choice, they make the wrong choice.
:22:11. > :22:16.It should be a fixed meal. I'm choice, they make the wrong choice.
:22:16. > :22:21.sounding a bit radical, I know. It should be fixed a meal apart from
:22:21. > :22:27.religious belief, vegetarians, all kids should learn to appreciate food
:22:27. > :22:33.as it is given to them. Learn to love cabbage? Yes, the more you feed
:22:33. > :22:39.them, the more they enjoy it. It's like force feeding. It's about a
:22:39. > :22:44.sense of table manners and all sort of things. I work in a school,
:22:44. > :22:48.nobody knowes who is on free school meals and who is not. It would be a
:22:48. > :22:53.complete waste of money to spend we don't need to in these times? Do you
:22:53. > :22:55.have parents who pay and those who don't? Is Yes. Unless the children
:22:55. > :22:59.tell each other whether they are on don't? Is Yes. Unless the children
:22:59. > :23:04.free school meals or not nobody is distinguished from anyone else. Ken
:23:05. > :23:07.Clarke are you in a favour of this was it a trade off between the
:23:07. > :23:10.married couples tax allowance for was it a trade off between the
:23:10. > :23:16.the Tories and this one for the Liberal Democrats? I don't think so
:23:17. > :23:21.the married tax allowance was already in the coalition agreement.
:23:21. > :23:26.It hasn't come into effect? I must admit I don't altogether know. Why
:23:26. > :23:29.don't you know? Well I don't know what led to the background of it
:23:29. > :23:32.being announced at the liberal assembly. We are in a coalition. The
:23:32. > :23:37.being announced at the liberal liberals are claiming the credit for
:23:37. > :23:41.this. I don't buy this principle of universe at it has been taken too
:23:41. > :23:46.far in the benefit system. Far too many things we hand out cash to
:23:46. > :23:50.people who we say are wealthy must pay high rates of tax but so poor we
:23:50. > :23:54.have to give them money to do something else. That is one thing in
:23:54. > :23:59.reform we are tiding up. We have given free food to hospital it in
:23:59. > :24:06.London as far as we can remember. Quite a lot of rich people get free
:24:06. > :24:10.food if they are treated by NHS. £1.2 billion when we have this
:24:10. > :24:14.deficit? You have to make a case are for. It we have to find the money
:24:14. > :24:19.from somewhere else. We muss not start deciding it doesn't matter to
:24:19. > :24:27.cut debt and deficit. An election coming up. That is Ed balls problem.
:24:27. > :24:30.Would that be the answer? We have controlled debt and deficit quite
:24:30. > :24:34.spectacularly, we have saved the country from... It doesn't mean you
:24:34. > :24:37.don't do any new you stop spending money on anything. You have to have
:24:37. > :24:39.a case for spending money and have to work out where the
:24:39. > :24:41.a case for spending money and have coming from. The best case is the
:24:41. > :24:45.a case for spending money and have one made by Shirley. It does seem to
:24:45. > :24:50.me it's quite clear that quite a lot of people who would qualify for free
:24:50. > :24:54.school meals if they want... If they knew about it and applied for it
:24:54. > :24:58.don't. So that must be a good reason. The other reason, I hope is
:24:58. > :25:03.right, there is this report. That is what caused it. If it be the case, I
:25:03. > :25:08.think not that they outperform the better off pupils, sadly, that is
:25:08. > :25:12.one of the problems, people from under deprived back dwroundz tend
:25:12. > :25:14.not to do as well as their better off colleagues. If their
:25:14. > :25:18.not to do as well as their better in the performance of children is
:25:18. > :25:21.very pronounced if five-year-olds to seven-year-olds, the most crucial
:25:21. > :25:27.years, you could improve the start they make in school, in my opinion
:25:27. > :25:32.it a's worth £400 million I wouldn't extend it to primary schools which
:25:32. > :25:37.Nick Clegg Shirley is telling us will do which an old Chancellor
:25:38. > :25:41.would say would cost a fortune to do. Let us evaluate it. If you can
:25:41. > :25:44.improve the performance of children do. Let us evaluate it. If you can
:25:44. > :25:48.by making sure they get a balanced hot meal you find the public demand
:25:48. > :25:52.it gets spread through the system. Start with the ones where it matters
:25:52. > :25:55.most their start in school and see if we get value-for-money. It's
:25:55. > :25:59.most their start in school and see worth trying. The person up there.
:25:59. > :26:03.My children are grown up now. As they were growing up I wanted to
:26:03. > :26:08.make my own decision about what they ate. I would make sure they had a
:26:08. > :26:10.balanced diet and that I would put... Make meals for them that I
:26:10. > :26:12.balanced diet and that I would knew they would eat. Often when they
:26:12. > :26:17.balanced diet and that I would had school meals they would leave it
:26:17. > :26:21.and not eat it. I always wanted to make sure they had an adequate meal
:26:21. > :26:23.that I had prepared for them myself. I feel this policy takes away the
:26:24. > :26:27.choice of the parent to decide for I feel this policy takes away the
:26:27. > :26:32.themselves what the children shall eat. You would resent it if it was
:26:32. > :26:38.compulsory to eat the school meal? Yes. The woman in the third row? Not
:26:38. > :26:44.subsidise school meals for all primary school children instead of
:26:44. > :26:49.five, six or seven? All? Subsidise rather than offer free meals for the
:26:49. > :26:55.first three years, subsidise it across the board so it's cheaper
:26:55. > :26:59.throughout all the years. I think across the board so it's cheaper
:26:59. > :27:02.it's a good idea. There is a lot of gut I think stink here that would
:27:02. > :27:07.tell you when you see all the kids, as ants any has said, sitting down
:27:07. > :27:10.together, some of them learning to use knives and forks in a way that
:27:10. > :27:14.they don't necessarily at home. Actually, having the collective
:27:14. > :27:18.experience of all sitting down and eating together. I think that that
:27:18. > :27:23.is very important. I think Ken is right there are children whose
:27:23. > :27:28.parents are entitled to free school meals, but don't claim it, then
:27:28. > :27:34.those children suffer. I think on health grounds, obviously there is a
:27:34. > :27:38.real impetuous for ensuring this, not only attractive desirable food,
:27:38. > :27:43.also healthy food to tackle obesity and get them into good eating habits
:27:43. > :27:47.and also educational grounds as well as health grounds. I hope that
:27:47. > :27:52.this... They say it will cost £600 million. I hope they won't actually
:27:52. > :27:57.take that money away from schools, away from the children centres they
:27:57. > :28:04.are already closing. I have a suggestion, which is, instead of
:28:04. > :28:09.taking it away from other Children's Services they odd to reverse the tax
:28:09. > :28:11.cut for people earning more than £150,000 a year that would be a way
:28:11. > :28:14.they could finance it. I think that £150,000 a year that would be a way
:28:14. > :28:20.would be a very good change. The other thing is, I hope they won't be
:28:20. > :28:23.on a quid pro quo with the Lib Dems saying they want free school meals,
:28:23. > :28:28.which we support, the Tories get their way to introduce the married
:28:28. > :28:33.man's tax allowance. Really, the idea of giving a tax allowance, this
:28:33. > :28:38.is what is pose -- supposed to be the d deal, Lib Dems got the free
:28:38. > :28:42.school meals the Tories are able to announce there is a tax allowance.
:28:42. > :28:46.The idea that people will get married for the sake of £150 a year
:28:46. > :28:50.or stay happy in their marriage for married for the sake of £150 a year
:28:50. > :28:56.the sake of £150 a year, the idea it can go to a man on his third wife,
:28:56. > :29:02.but not to the two wives bringing up his children, the previous wives,
:29:02. > :29:07.the thing is absolutely ridiculous. We need evidence-based support for
:29:07. > :29:19.children and families and not the married man's tax allowance.
:29:19. > :29:26.I could not help saying, I don't know how many times Harriet and her
:29:26. > :29:28.colleagues have spent that 5% cut we made in the top rate of income tax.
:29:28. > :29:33.They only announced it just before made in the top rate of income tax.
:29:33. > :29:41.the election. It gets spent over and over again. On the married couple 's
:29:41. > :29:46.allowance. It was in the coalition agreement. I don't think there has
:29:46. > :29:49.been a horse trade. I think there is a case for a transferable tax
:29:49. > :29:54.allowance where you have a nonworking wife. If you have a
:29:54. > :30:00.couple who is going to spend so much, quite rightly, childcare, to
:30:00. > :30:05.help the one who goes to work. It is a woman's liberty to choose. She can
:30:05. > :30:08.choose to miss more of her career staying home looking after
:30:08. > :30:13.children. Why can't her tax allowance be transferred. If you
:30:13. > :30:17.think it is so important for women to stay at home whilst raising
:30:17. > :30:26.kids, why are you penalising single mums by making them go back to work
:30:26. > :30:30.early. This does not make sense. I wasn't saying it's important. I was
:30:30. > :30:37.saying it's entirely a woman's right to choose. Most couples nowadays,
:30:37. > :30:42.they will both go to work. Some couples, the spouse, usually the
:30:42. > :30:45.wife, prefers not to. If you are doing so much for childcare, quite
:30:45. > :30:51.rightly, to help working mother in a partnership, why don't you allow the
:30:51. > :30:55.tax allowance to be transferred? It is a subsidy for stay at home mums.
:30:55. > :30:59.Are you objecting to married couples is a subsidy for stay at home mums.
:30:59. > :31:06.getting equivalent tax allowances to people who get it as married
:31:06. > :31:10.couples? What if they live together and are bringing up children but
:31:10. > :31:14.they are not married? They would not get the married couple 's allowance.
:31:14. > :31:17.I do not think the state has any business telling people whether they
:31:17. > :31:21.should get married or stay married. I think basically they should be
:31:21. > :31:23.supporting families and children. You should be in a
:31:23. > :31:34.supporting families and children. me, because I know you do not agree
:31:34. > :31:36.with this. The old married couple 's allowance, I tried to get rid of it
:31:36. > :31:41.with this. The old married couple 's when I was Chancellor. I got rid of
:31:41. > :31:45.the first half and Gordon got rid of the second. But what we are talking
:31:45. > :31:46.about here is the support that you give to people with children. One
:31:46. > :31:51.difference married couples and just give to people with children. One
:31:51. > :31:54.partnerships is that it is easier to deal with married couples, because
:31:55. > :31:58.you are certain there is a partnership. You have a definite way
:31:58. > :32:02.of giving tax relief and not giving tax relief. You can do it with
:32:02. > :32:07.couples but it is far more difficult to work out whether they are really
:32:07. > :32:13.in a settled relationship. Sean Stafford. Does reducing the Housing
:32:13. > :32:22.benefit of people with a spare bedroom help to increase, to address
:32:22. > :32:24.the housing shortage? Does reducing housing benefit because people have
:32:24. > :32:26.the housing shortage? Does reducing a spare bedroom actually address the
:32:26. > :32:33.the housing shortage? Does reducing housing shortage? Shirley Williams.
:32:33. > :32:37.Not much, I do not think. I suspect this is one of those things that is
:32:37. > :32:40.a mistake that will have to be corrected. Let's be blunt about it.
:32:40. > :32:44.The basic problem is that we have a great many people who are
:32:44. > :32:50.desperately waiting for housing, thousands upon thousands of them. We
:32:50. > :32:53.have a totally inadequate housing programme, and although it was
:32:53. > :32:55.controversial at the Lib Dem conference, my own view is that we
:32:56. > :33:00.should have a bigger housing programme. Whether that is financed
:33:00. > :33:04.by, for example, local authorities being able to borrow more, which is
:33:04. > :33:07.a very contentious issue because there is not much control over it,
:33:07. > :33:12.or whether it should be funded by raising money in other ways, for
:33:12. > :33:16.example by the mansion tax, which my party is in favour of, is, for me,
:33:16. > :33:19.something that is less important than actually putting more money
:33:19. > :33:25.behind the building of social housing. On the bedroom tax, do you
:33:25. > :33:30.regret that Nick Clegg was not able to stop it happening? Yes. Was their
:33:30. > :33:33.opposition to it? There was an argument about it, but the crucial
:33:33. > :33:37.point is that it is the wrong way to argument about it, but the crucial
:33:37. > :33:40.address it. It is not so much the bedroom tax but the failure to
:33:40. > :33:45.produce enough social housing. I think the only way you can do that
:33:45. > :33:48.dash and incidentally it also gives jobs too many youngsters who are
:33:48. > :33:50.studying as apprentices in the construction trades and need jobs at
:33:50. > :33:54.the end of that process, the construction trades and need jobs at
:33:54. > :33:57.way to deal with it is to recognise that we have to finance a much
:33:57. > :34:06.bigger housing programme with a very substantial part of it social
:34:06. > :34:11.housing. Harriet Harman. Well, I do not think it does address the
:34:11. > :34:14.housing shortage, and I think the idea that there are all these people
:34:15. > :34:18.on the waiting list, which there are, and then all these homes would
:34:18. > :34:20.be freed up because people would the financially incentivised to move,
:34:21. > :34:28.the problem is that where are these financially incentivised to move,
:34:28. > :34:31.one-bedroom places for people in two bedrooms to actually move into? The
:34:31. > :34:35.thing is that the government knew at the time that it is not a question
:34:35. > :34:40.of April just refusing to move to smaller homes. It is that those
:34:40. > :34:47.homes are not necessarily there. Therefore, I think the act is very
:34:47. > :34:52.harsh, very unfair. The whole basis is wrong. And I think the government
:34:52. > :34:56.not only should never have introduced it, and we voted against
:34:56. > :34:59.it, but as the evidence mounts that it is plunging people into arrears,
:34:59. > :35:04.many of whom are falling behind in their rent for the first time in
:35:04. > :35:07.their lives, which is a terribly anxious and worrying thing, I think
:35:07. > :35:11.it is shameful that they are saying, we are going to solve the problem of
:35:11. > :35:23.public debt by forcing your family personally into debt. I think it is
:35:23. > :35:28.absolutely shameful. Is there a Labour commitment to reverse it?
:35:28. > :35:32.There is a Labour commitment to calling on the government to reverse
:35:32. > :35:36.it now, and not waiting until 2015, as the evidence mounts of the
:35:37. > :35:40.hardship it is causing for people. But come the next general election,
:35:40. > :35:44.if they have not actually reversed it, you will have to see in our
:35:44. > :35:49.manifesto what we put forward. But we are campaigning now. And I am
:35:49. > :35:58.glad that surely has said that the Lib Dems made a mistake on it. It is
:35:58. > :36:02.very easy to say, we are opposing the government, the coalition now,
:36:02. > :36:06.and you have to wait until 2015 to see what we put in our manifesto.
:36:06. > :36:09.When the manifesto comes, you are dealing with what you would have to
:36:09. > :36:14.do in government, and you are hedging your bets, because you are
:36:14. > :36:18.not saying you will get rid of it. What I am saying is that I will not
:36:18. > :36:20.say what is in our manifesto but it is obvious what we think about the
:36:20. > :36:24.say what is in our manifesto but it bedroom tax. We voted against it,
:36:24. > :36:30.brought forward votes in the House of Commons for them to drop it now.
:36:30. > :36:33.We think it is iniquitous. But you voted against every other aspect of
:36:33. > :36:37.welfare reform and have not committed to reversing any of them.
:36:37. > :36:43.You just always vote against any expenditure on social security.
:36:43. > :36:47.Without going into absolutely loads of anecdotes, which many people of
:36:47. > :36:51.my constituency have found so many problems with it, leaving aside the
:36:51. > :36:54.administration with all the bedrooms being measured as to whether they
:36:54. > :37:02.are a box room or something else, not really a bedroom. There is one
:37:02. > :37:06.woman who has epilepsy, and she does not have a fit all the time, but
:37:06. > :37:10.when she does, her daughter comes to stay with her in the spare bedroom
:37:10. > :37:15.until she gets back on her feet and sorted again. She said, I suppose I
:37:15. > :37:19.will have to find a one-bedroom flat to be moved into, but if I do, my
:37:19. > :37:23.daughter will not be able to come and stay with me when I have an
:37:23. > :37:26.epileptic fit, her daughter who lives outside London, and I will
:37:26. > :37:30.have to have help from social services. Why not have support for
:37:30. > :37:39.families and communities that are working together? Also, on the
:37:39. > :37:43.mansion tax... Hang on. We are not talking about the mansion tax. If
:37:43. > :37:45.you are under occupying a mansion, you have to be protected from
:37:46. > :37:50.you are under occupying a mansion, mansion tax. In a council home,
:37:50. > :38:02.under occupying, you have to be chucked out and have your rent put
:38:02. > :38:06.up. I would like to ask Harriet Harman whether she would call on
:38:06. > :38:11.Labour councillors not to evict people from their homes, especially
:38:11. > :38:16.if they are on job-seeker's allowance? You get the situation
:38:16. > :38:20.where they are sent letters saying that you are allocated the minimum
:38:20. > :38:27.amount to live on, yet expected to pay the bedroom tax and council tax.
:38:27. > :38:35.Rochdale Council actually charges people 25% of their council tax.
:38:35. > :38:42.This is a Labour-controlled council. Harriet Harman. I think that the
:38:42. > :38:45.Labour councillors have been horrified by the imposition of the
:38:45. > :38:53.bedroom tax, and it pushing people into arrears. But obviously, they
:38:54. > :38:55.have to run the legal rules as they are, which is why we think central
:38:55. > :39:00.have to run the legal rules as they government that has imposed this
:39:00. > :39:06.should actually reverse it. Labour councillors are all totally opposed
:39:06. > :39:11.to this. So you do not blame them. I worked in a homeless section and I
:39:11. > :39:15.found there were 40 or 50 people waiting for four houses. They were
:39:15. > :39:21.waiting and waiting and realising they were not, so it felt there was
:39:21. > :39:22.no end to their situation. So then the mental health services were
:39:22. > :39:27.needed and social services the mental health services were
:39:27. > :39:30.come in to try and deal with the situation of going further and
:39:30. > :39:36.further down, due to know housing being available. The obvious first
:39:36. > :39:41.way to tackle the housing shortage, which we certainly have, is to build
:39:41. > :39:44.more houses. I will not -- the government is busting a gut to get
:39:44. > :39:47.house building up from the collapse that occurred in this country in the
:39:47. > :39:49.house building up from the collapse recession we inherited. It is
:39:49. > :39:51.house building up from the collapse obviously more tricky when you start
:39:51. > :39:55.house building up from the collapse dealing with over occupied houses.
:39:55. > :39:59.The moment it gets more difficult, there is no point in retreating.
:39:59. > :40:04.There are many people who cannot get accommodation for themselves and
:40:04. > :40:07.their families. It is the harrowing, marginal cases that are
:40:07. > :40:11.cited. Somebody sitting in a property that is far too big for
:40:11. > :40:15.their needs and says they sometimes want to put up their relatives
:40:15. > :40:19.should not be paid more by way of housing benefit than somebody living
:40:19. > :40:24.in something of the right size. That is what we did. Even the example
:40:24. > :40:28.that Harriet gave about somebody, their daughter sometimes visited so
:40:28. > :40:32.that was what the tearoom was for. That is very nice, but should the
:40:32. > :40:37.taxpayer they extra money for that empty room when somebody is waiting
:40:37. > :40:44.for a gut accommodation? She added the epileptic attacks to make it
:40:44. > :40:49.appealing. I am sure truthfully, but... I am not a hard man. It is
:40:49. > :40:55.very nice to have spare rooms, but it was always an anomaly, actually,
:40:55. > :40:59.when you are reforming welfare. You look at it and you ask yourself,
:40:59. > :41:02.logically, why do we pay people more housing benefit if they have empty
:41:02. > :41:10.spare rooms that they do not actually need? Why do those people
:41:10. > :41:13.get more benefit? Housing benefit goes directly to private landlords.
:41:13. > :41:21.If we want to reduce spending on housing benefit, Winnie to introduce
:41:21. > :41:27.rent control right now -- we need to introduce rent control. This is
:41:27. > :41:31.ridiculous. I must be doing well because you are trying to get me off
:41:31. > :41:35.the point. That has been changed as well, paying direct to landlords.
:41:35. > :41:40.The rules were that you got extra money if you had rooms that you did
:41:40. > :41:46.not really need. That has been changed. The Labour Party always
:41:46. > :41:49.oppose any reductions in welfare. Of course, they do not promise to
:41:49. > :41:55.reverse them because they know they have not the first idea how they
:41:55. > :41:58.would pay for them. The Liberals can be persuaded. They are the centre
:41:58. > :42:02.ground. They can be persuaded to join this, but once they get near
:42:02. > :42:07.the Liberal conference, they start going wobbly and decide they might
:42:07. > :42:12.want to spend the money again. You and I are marvellous coalition
:42:12. > :42:20.partners 90% of the time, surely. This is 10% of the time. The liberal
:42:20. > :42:24.conference makes me go wobbly. The logic but we are doing, we should
:42:24. > :42:27.not have had extra payments for spare bedrooms. We do not apply to
:42:27. > :42:31.pensioners, to people where there is a medical reason for it, but there
:42:31. > :42:35.are many people who cannot get a house, they are on the waiting list
:42:35. > :42:38.and have kids and they cannot get somewhere big enough for them, and
:42:38. > :42:42.there are people sitting in big accommodation being paid extra
:42:42. > :42:48.benefits are having the empty room. Can I ask Ken Clarke what he thinks
:42:48. > :42:51.now about Margaret Thatcher's policy of selling off council houses in the
:42:51. > :43:03.1980s and never building any to replace them? I was a keen
:43:03. > :43:09.supporter. Margaret was not too keen. She had to be persuaded. It
:43:09. > :43:11.was Peter Walker's policy, really. Margaret thought it was wrong to
:43:11. > :43:13.was Peter Walker's policy, really. give a discount on the market rate
:43:13. > :43:21.when we were selling to the sitting tenant. Peter somehow managed to get
:43:21. > :43:24.across to her that there was a sitting tenant discount. It was a
:43:24. > :43:28.great breakthrough, extremely important, and gave people the
:43:28. > :43:33.chance of owner occupation who would never have had it. The old council
:43:33. > :43:38.house building, some had been modernised and were very nice, but
:43:38. > :43:41.those awful if Stein -- estates that were the main form of house building
:43:41. > :43:50.that went on outside every city in the country, thank heavens we got
:43:50. > :43:54.rid of that. Her question was, and not allowing them to build another
:43:54. > :44:04.house to replace the ones that they had to sell. That is the key point
:44:04. > :44:07.she was making. Shortly before we came in, the councils had started
:44:07. > :44:11.building these awful tower blocks. They were frightfully keen on
:44:11. > :44:23.building workers tower blocks of the sort in Eastern Europe. They started
:44:23. > :44:30.coming into all of our cities. One sentence. I was a member of
:44:30. > :44:34.Parliament for a new town, Stevenage. What happened was that
:44:34. > :44:37.most of the new towns moved to the Conservatives after this proposal.
:44:37. > :44:42.But Harriet is right, if the money had gone to a Treasury fund to
:44:42. > :44:46.finance new housing, it would have been all right. As it was, it simply
:44:46. > :44:54.took chunks out of the housing stock and that was a disaster. The man in
:44:54. > :44:56.the blue shirt. What Ken Clarke doesn't realise is that when people
:44:56. > :45:02.have to pay their benefits out, the doesn't realise is that when people
:45:02. > :45:08.bedroom tax, it works out roughly 20% of somebody's actual income.
:45:08. > :45:12.What I'd like to see, I think Michael Portillo may have done it
:45:12. > :45:16.previously, Ken Clarke, to spend a week living on benefits and then see
:45:16. > :45:20.how he is able to cope with the amount of money what you actually
:45:20. > :45:26.receive. I' agree with that. I think he would find it an interesting
:45:26. > :45:31.experience. Agree. The You don't pay anything. Your benefit goes down to
:45:31. > :45:36.the level somebody else gets who is living in the accommodation they
:45:37. > :45:41.require. If you had money it is taken away... That is why the
:45:41. > :45:46.transition, changing from one to the other is difficult that is why there
:45:46. > :45:50.is £180 million to... It's outrageous that the Tory party and
:45:50. > :45:54.the Lib Dems are being allowed to mince words over the bedroom tax
:45:54. > :45:59.which has been fiasco from the start. For the government it's an
:45:59. > :46:04.embarrassment. For 180,000 people living at the very margins of our
:46:04. > :46:08.society, it's a catastrophe. You do not understand... Clearly, because
:46:08. > :46:13.of your comments earlier, you don't understand what it is like for
:46:13. > :46:17.people to live with long-term disabilities. These are people who
:46:17. > :46:22.are being hammered not just by the bedroom tax, but by welfare cuts,
:46:22. > :46:28.ESA, which Labour brought in. I think one, the one point I agree
:46:28. > :46:31.with Ken Clarke, surprisely on this panel, Labour need to be coming back
:46:32. > :46:37.Ando posing these welfare cuts and saying they would not support them
:46:37. > :46:40.in office. There are a lot of people on low incomes. Most people
:46:41. > :46:46.receiving welfare benefits are in work. People on low incomes and
:46:46. > :46:49.people jobless who feel let down by the Conservatives and Labour right
:46:49. > :46:52.now who see no option out there. Nobody fighting for them. It's an
:46:52. > :47:06.absolute outrage. Do you want to answer that, you are
:47:06. > :47:09.not fighting? I can understand Laurie's frustration. It is
:47:09. > :47:13.frustrating being in opposition. We are standing up for the people who
:47:13. > :47:18.are suffering from the bedroom tax. The point is, if you can't move, you
:47:18. > :47:24.actually... Your income goes down and it can be down below what you
:47:24. > :47:30.really should be entitle -- entitled to have to live on. Anthony Worrall
:47:30. > :47:36.Thompson? This bickering drives me mad. Which bickering? Everyone. They
:47:36. > :47:40.are having an argument no-one is coming to a conclusion. The
:47:40. > :47:48.conclusion is building new houses. That is the answer. We have to relax
:47:48. > :47:53.planning Lous. We can't just look for brown sites, we have to go out
:47:53. > :47:55.and build. It's as simple as that. Isn't it sad we got to a stage where
:47:55. > :48:00.and build. It's as simple as that. we are telling people they have to
:48:01. > :48:06.move out of their own homes or get less benefits? Their own homes which
:48:06. > :48:09.they built on their... All their possessions around they have been
:48:09. > :48:13.told they have to go or get less benefits. We are not running a
:48:13. > :48:17.prison society here. We have to respect that people have homes
:48:17. > :48:24.whether they are government homes or their own homes. I mean, this to me
:48:24. > :48:35.is completely enickious tax. I'm normally a Tory. On this occasion,
:48:35. > :48:41.I'm definitely not. Time is... The sands are rushing out. A question
:48:41. > :48:46.from Steve Mullington, please. Hard politics here. Given the likelihood
:48:46. > :48:52.of the 2015 general election being another hung parliament, should Nick
:48:52. > :48:59.divorce David and remarry with Ed next time round? If it is a hung
:48:59. > :49:05.parliament? All right. Anthony Worrall Thompson, you start. I knew
:49:05. > :49:07.you'd do that. I mean, Nick will choose anyone that is going. I
:49:07. > :49:20.mean... Let us be honest. I have been
:49:21. > :49:24.talking about bickering. The Liberals bicker, bicker. You have
:49:24. > :49:29.Vince Cable at everyone's throats stirring up all sorts of things.
:49:29. > :49:34.They haven't got what it takes. Let us be honest. The grassroots need to
:49:34. > :49:37.stop bickering as well. It is the only chance you will get to govern
:49:37. > :49:41.is in the next year-and-a-half. You will never get another chance.
:49:41. > :49:51.Forget it. The Liberals are finished. I'm sorry about that.
:49:51. > :49:57.Sorry, Shirley. I'm sorry. You can't have disunity in a coalition. You
:49:57. > :50:01.can't have Vince Cable calling Tory policies ugly when he votes for all
:50:01. > :50:06.of them. He hasn't had a non vote since 2010. He has voted for
:50:06. > :50:12.everything that has gone through. To me, he will choose Labour. If Labour
:50:12. > :50:17.have more people he will run skavrperring after Labour, God
:50:17. > :50:27.forbid. Shirley Williams Antony should get back to his kitchen! You
:50:27. > :50:32.don't like what he says. I don't. It's terribly unfair. Look, Nick
:50:32. > :50:37.Clegg has stood up to colossal damnation by the media. Read the
:50:38. > :50:41.Daily Mail if you don't believe me, any day of the week. It took guts to
:50:41. > :50:44.decide that the country's economic situation, I will not go into who
:50:44. > :50:47.decide that the country's economic was responsible, whether it is the
:50:47. > :50:52.banks or the government, that is a matter for you (inaudible) it was a
:50:52. > :50:57.hell of a situation. One of the few things that enabled this country to
:50:57. > :51:02.actually maintain a low interest rate, to stop having a scare that
:51:02. > :51:05.would have driven sterling out of the world markets was to see a
:51:05. > :51:10.government that would work together and have a majority. We have a
:51:10. > :51:17.government that has a majority that works together. Ken and I don't
:51:17. > :51:22.always agree. The very great strength that got us through from
:51:22. > :51:25.the crisis to where we are now, a gradual recovery, gradual, it's
:51:25. > :51:26.coming, because governments and parties were prepared to work
:51:26. > :51:30.together in that situation. Almost parties were prepared to work
:51:30. > :51:34.like in wartime. It is such a cheap remark to make that Nick Clegg would
:51:34. > :51:38.take on anything he likes. That guy stood up for things he believes in.
:51:38. > :51:43.I don't always agree with him. If he stood up for things he agreed with
:51:43. > :51:48.in tremendous storms of anger and protest. He gets beaten up all the
:51:48. > :51:53.time much he stands up. Never making per -- personal remarks, doesn't lay
:51:53. > :51:57.into other people. He goes on for what he is standing for. I take
:51:57. > :52:03.extreme resentment for what Antony said. I hope he will make a nice
:52:03. > :52:07.meal... Vince Cable, to be fair, he had to be part of a coalition. There
:52:07. > :52:13.seems to be this in house bickering between the Liberals... Is the
:52:13. > :52:17.argument, Shirley... Anti-Tory Europeans. Is the argument that Nick
:52:17. > :52:20.Clegg put forward the reason to vote Liberal Democrats is to stop Labour
:52:21. > :52:25.ruining the recovery, economic recovery and the Tories being
:52:25. > :52:28.unfair? Is that the right argument? Do you think the Liberal Democrats
:52:28. > :52:37.are an essential part of government now? Yes. Which way would you like
:52:37. > :52:45.to see him go? It's a matter whether the... A great deal will depend on
:52:45. > :52:49.gets the porality. They will put that to a potential coalition
:52:49. > :52:55.partner if the Tories do... No objection either way the principle?
:52:55. > :53:00.Of course I do. I will not say so it will be totally unhelpful. You
:53:00. > :53:05.rather be with Ken or Harriet? I like them both. It is called a
:53:05. > :53:09.coalition, it certainly feels and looks to us in parliament every day
:53:09. > :53:16.when we are voting that there is Tory proposals, whether it is top
:53:16. > :53:19.dawn reorganisation of the NHS, treble trebling tuition fees or
:53:20. > :53:26.putting up VAT and all the other things we are talking about, Tory
:53:27. > :53:32.proproposals, and the Lib Dems vote for it. I feel it's not so much as
:53:32. > :53:36.coalition as collusion by the Lib Dems in what the Tories are doing.
:53:36. > :53:40.Shirley talked about the great strength of this them being together
:53:40. > :53:45.in the sake of the economy. The fact of the matter is, because they
:53:45. > :53:50.pulled the plugs on the economy cutting spending so far and so fast
:53:50. > :53:57.it created austerity, which created the situation getting even worse, we
:53:57. > :54:01.have had three years lost of stagnation into the recovery and the
:54:01. > :54:05.lowest recovery. I don't begin to agree with the basics it has been
:54:05. > :54:09.somehow good for Britain what has actually happened since the Tories
:54:10. > :54:16.got in. I think that it is bizarre that the key policy for Nick Clegg
:54:16. > :54:20.at the moment appears to be that whoever won the election and him
:54:20. > :54:24.coming third that he still has to be Deputy Prime Minister. That is to be
:54:24. > :54:28.the one policy above all that seems to stand out. Agree with what Ed
:54:28. > :54:30.Miliband said running for the leadership that he would not go into
:54:30. > :54:35.the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, you agree with that? He
:54:35. > :54:38.said he wanted us to have an over all majority to put our position to
:54:38. > :54:44.the electorate and get into government and carry those out. We
:54:44. > :54:49.don't actually entertain discussion about what happens if we didn't
:54:49. > :54:53.actually win the election. In the New Statesman he said you wouldn't
:54:53. > :55:00.work with Nick Clegg. Miliband replied, "that's right, no." I'm
:55:00. > :55:05.sure that must be a misquote. He has worked with him on, for example,
:55:05. > :55:09.tackling the problems of all the phone-hacking and you know, the
:55:09. > :55:13.Tories trying to rig the boundaries. When we have put forward a proposal
:55:13. > :55:16.which the Lib Dems are prepared to support, they do work with us. We
:55:16. > :55:20.want an overall majority. Coming to support, they do work with us. We
:55:20. > :55:25.the end. I have to rush this through. We should be quite clear
:55:25. > :55:29.that when we talk about this recovery that is happening, for most
:55:29. > :55:34.people this in this country there has been no leg cover ril what so
:55:35. > :55:38.ever -- recovery what so ever. In Rochdale unemployment has doubled
:55:38. > :55:42.since 2008. What about the election, which is what the question is about?
:55:42. > :55:46.I am coming to that. We are coming to the end? The Liberal Democrats
:55:46. > :55:48.have betrayed the electorate. Betrayed the young people who voted
:55:48. > :56:02.for them in 2010. Clearly, they are behaving like...
:56:02. > :56:06.You have no idea... School meals all these have failed? You have no idea
:56:06. > :56:08.of the sense of betrayal that young people and everybody who voted for
:56:08. > :56:12.the Liberal Democrats, not including people and everybody who voted for
:56:12. > :56:15.myself actually, in 2010 feels at this party. It's not about
:56:15. > :56:20.mitigating what the Tories have done in government. You are legitimating
:56:20. > :56:24.what they have done on the major... May I finish. On the major points,
:56:24. > :56:28.for example, tuition fees there has been a turn around in what the
:56:28. > :56:32.Liberal Democrats are prepared to stand up for. Compromise that has
:56:32. > :56:37.sold-out the most needy in this society. No. Pupil premium, free
:56:37. > :56:42.sold-out the most needy in this meals. How many more do you want me
:56:42. > :56:49.to list? I have to stop you. Ken Clarke? I'm a fan and friend of Nick
:56:49. > :56:54.Clegg. What separates Britain from other European countries who are in
:56:54. > :56:58.a desperate mess in 2010 is two parties put the national interest
:56:58. > :57:01.above their party interests and this coalition has been extremely
:57:01. > :57:05.successful. Nick has one fatal problem. Great speech at his
:57:05. > :57:09.conference. What he is saying is, who actually leads Government to the
:57:09. > :57:13.next party, in the next parliament, will be either Labour or
:57:13. > :57:17.Conservative. It will be decided by those people who don't vote Liberal
:57:17. > :57:23.Democrat. If you vote for us, we are sitting in the centre, it will all
:57:23. > :57:28.be decided by all the other voters. We will go with whoever the Labour
:57:28. > :57:33.Party or the Conservative Party who get most votes. Same argument
:57:33. > :57:38.applies to Greenses, UKIP, all these other people. It's the awful dilemma
:57:38. > :57:43.of being a centre party that has plunged one way this time, but
:57:43. > :57:47.doesn't... It does make it difficult to describe what on earth they are
:57:47. > :57:52.standing for really in such -- at such a critical time. We have to
:57:52. > :57:56.stop, thank you very much. I'm sorry not to have brought any of you in on
:57:56. > :58:02.that last question, but you saw how it went. There was no space left.
:58:02. > :58:07.Our time is up, I'm afraid. We will be in Uxbridge next week. We will be
:58:07. > :58:10.in Birmingham the week after that. Uxbridge and Birmingham to take
:58:10. > :58:17.part. Do come. Argue with our panellists, put questions to them.
:58:17. > :58:23.Go to our website or call: if you have been listening to this on Radio
:58:23. > :58:28.5 Live, you can call in there and continue the debate on Question Time
:58:28. > :58:35.Extra Time. Thank you to our panel and thank you to all of you who
:58:35. > :58:37.invited us here to this wonderful Town Hall. Until next time, good
:58:37. > :58:40.night.