19/09/2013 Question Time

tonight, we are in Rochdale, and welcome to Question Time.

We are in the magnificent setting of the Victorian town hall of

Rochdale. A special welcome to our audience. They have come to question

and debate with our panel who are not told the questions in advance.

Tonight, they are the Conservative Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke a

Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, Liberal Democrat peer,

Shirley Williams, New Statesman columnist, Lori -- Laurie Penny, and

the chef Antony Worrall Thompson. Deon Webber has the first question.

Would you be happy to be treated in hospital by someone wearing a full

face veil? A controversial debate going on about the NHS this very

day. I think I would want to see the faces of the people that were

nursing me, treating me. Of course, when you are in the operating

theatre, you don't want to see anything and they are wearing a

mask. But I think the whole debate about the veil, whether it is about

whether or not people should be allowed to cover their face in

court, or whether they should be able to cover their face when

court, or whether they should be teaching in school, I was brought up

at a time when we used to hear about the struggles of women in Turkey, or

at a time when we used to hear about in Egypt, or Algeria to not have

too, or in Afghanistan, to not have to cover their face, to be able to

choose not to. So I have always been in solidarity with those women in

the Arab world who have wanted the choice not to wear the veil. Now, we

have got women asserting the right and wanting to choose to wear the

veil. I remember coming back on a plane from Qatar, and there was a

load of women going on the plane wearing the veil, and one by one

they went to the toilet on the plane and came out in miniskirts. In one

context, they were wearing the veil. In another context, they were

making a different choice. I am not comfortable with the veil. I do not

see why women have to cover their face outside the home. However, I

would not be for banning it in public laces. There are a lot of

things I disapprove of in relation to women which I do not think should

be subject to a band, like Page three of the Sun, for example, but I

do not think it should be banned. But I think we have to be careful

with this discussion because for me it is about women's rights and

autonomy, but a lot of people join this debate out of Islamophobia

autonomy, but a lot of people join I find that ugly and poisonous, and

I hope that is not the tenor of this debate at all. Antony Worrall

Thompson. No, I would not like someone wearing a veil treating me

in hospital. I think it is one of those places, like going through

security at airports, being a schoolteacher, being a police

officer. There are areas where the veil should not be allowed, and I

think we need clear outlines, guidelines for these areas from

government. I mean, we get confused between cultural and religious. The

thing about wearing the niqab is that it is not religious. It is a

cultural thing, which originated in Persia and was picked up by the

Muslims. And it does not have to be worn. As far as I am aware, when you

do your pilgrimage to Mecca you are not allowed to wear covering on the

face. For daily prayers, you are not allowed to have a covering on the

face. For me, there are areas, as in the court the other day, where the

niqab should be removed. I do believe facial expression is a very

important part of all sorts of life, and I just in, especially in

schools, children can feel alienated from the other parts of the school

if they have to wear these things. If they are taken off and allowed to

be the same as other children, they are far more likely to integrate.

For me, any woman should be allowed to wear what she wants at the right

time. We cannot dictate to male or female what you should wear in your

own private life and going out to the shops and things like that.

Laurie Penny. Well, the fundamental issue here is one of gender and one

of race and religious discrimination. The bottom line has

of race and religious to be that it is sexist for any man

to tell any woman what she may or may not wear, whether it be a burka

or a bikini. And it is racist for any white person to tell any Muslim

woman what they may or may not wear. And the debate right now about face

coverings is playing on a trend of Islamophobia which is extremely

worrying, which we are seeing more and more being pandered to by the

tabloids. What is more worrying, however, is the fact that this

campaign is not just going to affect Muslims and women who wish to wear

the niqab, or a full face covering. The campaign against the rights to

cover your face in various public laces that is starting right now is

eventually going to affect everyone. -- public places. The face coverings

act, coming in next year, is also about the right to anonymity in

public per se. That has not been picked up on much by the press. What

about the specific issue of hospitals and appearances in court?

Are there circumstances where you think people should be ordered not

Are there circumstances where you to go fully veiled? Frankly, I think

discussions about being treated in hospital and appearing in court,

whilst those circumstances might individually be distressing, are an

enormous red herring to allow us to discuss whether or not we should ban

the niqab per se. And that discussion is brutally Islamophobic

and deeply sexist. And whether or not it makes us uncomfortable, as

Harriet said, I appreciate that there is a big question of women's

rights and women's choice involved, but the people who should be talking

about choice and talking about what should be allowed our Muslim women,

and nobody else. -- those people are Muslim women, and nobody else. I

think in health care, in hospitals, it is such compassionate

think in health care, in hospitals, environment, you just do not want to

be treated by somebody unless you can see that nonverbal

communication. To have somebody looking at you with a full face mask

on, telling you some quite serious health news, it just would not be

suitable at all. You think there is not an issue for the NHS, because

they are now going to try and decide whether there should be a rule laid

down. I do not think it should happen. Maybe they need to ask

individual patients if they would be comfortable having consultations,

but I just do not agree. As long as the patient receives a

high level of treatment, does it really matter how they dress? There

are people in Syria right now who do not even get the choice of medical

treatment. I think it is totally diabolical that we should just

discriminate against a person just because of what they are wearing.

The person in front of you. I worry about the reasons that females want

to wear the veil. Are we being Islamophobic about them wearing the

veil, or are they being anti Christian about the need to wear it?

Sometimes it is a demonstration of their own strength of belief. And it

is to be condemned because of that? We have to be very careful that it

does not marginalise the different communities and different cultures

does not marginalise the different more than is necessary. Shirley

Williams. We should remember that 50 or 60 years ago it was unacceptable

for women to wear trousers to work in this country. And it was

unacceptable for women 50 years before that too, for example, show

their ankles. It is really important to recognise that a lot of this is a

culture that passes on. My belief is that in the next 50 or 60 years we

will see the disappearance of the hijab, but it will be a cultural

shift as women become accepted as equals within the Muslim community.

Having said that, two things to add. First, the Muslim Council of great,

a thoughtful body, has said that where there are specific reasons why

the hijab would be inappropriate, there should be permitted to be, and

Islam permits it to be, exceptional cases. The one we talked about in

the NHS could fall into that category and probably does. The

second thing is that the absolutely crucial issue is getting across to

our Islamic brothers and sisters that women are the equal of men. We

have a long struggle here in this country on the same issue, and they

are having a long struggle, too. The only point I would this agree with

Laurie Penny on, is that it is not, unfortunately, just an issue form a

slim women. Muslim women often live unfortunately, just an issue form a

in families which are very patriarchy or, where the head of the

house is a man who is going to lay down some of the rules over his

daughters, for example. So it is a bit of an illusion to suppose that

Muslim women on their own can decide this. It has to be decided by both

men and women in the Kim unity. Having said that, I am against

trying to ban it. -- women in the Muslim community. You think it is a

demonstration of women's inferiority to men? And you do not agree with

that. If somebody tried to make me wear a face veil against my will,

they would quickly find it in an uncomfortable position. But I think

there is a big difference between a choice to wear a garment and being

forced to wear a garment. That is the distinction we are not making.

The lady in the brown jacket hit the nail on the head when she said,

wanted that make Christians feel marginalised. That is the subtext of

this discussion. It is whether or not everybody else will feel

uncomfortable about women wearing not everybody else will feel

face veils in public. That, of course, is the issue we are not

talking about. Whether or not that really matters is what we need to

think about. Does it matter if we are uncomfortable, really? I am not

too bothered about banning the veil, but as a health care worker, I think

it puts a barrier between the patient and the health care worker.

And there is no way, if I had the choice to wear a veil, there is no

way I would be wearing a veil. The Muslim women who wear the niqab,

it is a religious reason, not cultural. It is their choice to

interpret the Koran and how they perceive it advises them to cover

themselves. It is their choice, a freedom of choice. You think it is a

free choice? It really is. What about Islamic schools requiring

pupils to wear the burka or the niqab? Those parents have made a

choice to send their children to an Islamic school. There are guidelines

they have to follow and they are appreciative of that. Just like if

children go to a Christian school, they have an ethos to follow, and

that is what they do. Muslim women are intellectual women and they make

the choice. It is not about being held back. I think we are free to

wear exactly what we like, so it would be ludicrous to start

legislating about what people wear or do not wear on any occasion,

unless there is some overwhelming or do not wear on any occasion,

public reason for it. Personally, I think wearing the niqab is rather

sad, that some woman is persuaded that she has somehow got to retreat

from the world in this way and she is being ogled by men and has to

retreat find a veil. It does not fit with my concept of society. But I

agree that most of them choose with my concept of society. But I

wear the niqab and I would not dream of challenging the religious or

cultural beliefs that lie behind it. That is my starting point. The only

exceptions I would make, really, because a lot of people wear daft

things and I am not a very snappy dresser myself, but I do not think

things and I am not a very snappy it is anything government should

have anything to do with. There are a few things where you should. I

think the judge was right. The GT of the jury, the magistrate or

whatever, is to try to tell which business is telling the truth, which

is lying, are they telling the whole truth, are they trying to deceive

me? You cannot do that if the person is invisible apart from their eyes.

So should you have blind juror 's? Blind jurors develop their own

techniques. We do not know what our own techniques are. It is something

to do with body language, expression, their demeanour. But if

they put themselves in a sack, I would not want to judge what they

say. Similarly, in a hospital. I would not want to judge what they

have never seen a nurse wearing a niqab. I was a health minister for

many years and I have been to an awful lot of hospitals. If she was

wearing -- taking my temperature, or if she was giving me my pills, or

checking my charts, I think it is rather a pity that someone has

decided she has to live like this in today's world of equality for women.

But I would not mind. If she is discussing my symptoms, trying to

relate with me, I think it is quite important she is not wearing a veil.

But one problem with overloading it with this vast significance, as

though suddenly we will have lots of nurses wearing the niqab, is that it

encourages this Islamophobic element to the discussion. And I deplore

Islamophobia much more than the niqab. I was out walking the other

day I passed the nabg naked rambler. niqab. I was out walking the other

This completely naked man, he had walking boots. He came down, I said,

"good afternoon" he had been jailed for six years over his lifetime - He

goes on doing it. Yes. Perfectly harmless. Quite surprising. Let us

goes on doing it. Yes. Perfectly go on. Look before we go on to the

next question. You can join in on the debate from home, texting us or

Twittering us. You can follow us at: if you push the red button you will

see what others are saying. Can we have another question from Sean

Geeling? Should the children of wealthy parents get free school

meals? Should the children of wealthy parents get free school

meals in the light of the Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg's announcement

this week that all five, six and seven-year-olds would get free

school meals regardless of the seven-year-olds would get free

income. I have to declare a slight interest. My son coauthored the

report, which was behind this announcement. Having said that, let

us go to the discussion of it. Laurie Penny. This all comes down

us go to the discussion of it. really to what sort of country we

want to be, doesn't it? Talking about universal free school meals, I

really support any universal benefits. I support the principle of

the common good. I think one of the most important common pieces of

common good in this country is the idea that all children should be

well fed and healthy. Yes, maybe it will... Maybe some people who don't

necessarily need free school meals will be receiving them, I think much

more important is that we all collectively put in for the health

and the future prospect of our children. I don't have any children

myself, I would be delighted to pay towards the future of the nation's

health and to ensuring that five, six and seven-year-olds get a decent

health and to ensuring that five, meal at school. Hopefully it will be

decent. If half the country can afford to pay it, why should it be

subsidised by the taxpayer when times are tough? It will cost £600

million I think a year? The principle of universal welfare is

bigger on whether or not any individual family can or cannot

afford a certain benefit. There are lots and lots of children who

skip... Who fall through the cracks right now. People who are not

necessarily signed up for free school meals but go to school

hungry. Food poverty is on the increase in the UK. That is

something we all have to worry about. Shirley Williams. If any of

you teach in school or are parents of children of this kind of age in

school, let's hear from you. Absolutely, yes. The study that was

done behind this decision, which you will be familiar with, David, for

the reasons you have said, show that children who get free school meals

consistently out perform children that don't. Now, one of the reasons

for that is that something like 40% of parents never claim a school meal

they are entitled to because they of parents never claim a school meal

feel themselves to be held up or their children to be held out as

needy. They don't even claim it very often the poorest parents are among

those who don't claim it. Secondly, we should be quite honest and say

that a lot of kids get to school who have not had a proper breakfast,

couldn't get a proper lunch, not necessarily because their parents

are poor, because their parents are stressed in some cases trying to

hold down two jobs at the same time and nobody gets round to feeding the

kids properly. There is a third reason, a very important one, for

six and seven-year-olds, Laurie is right about this, to grow up healthy

and to grow up with a proper diet essentially is crucial they get free

school meals and no distinctions are made as to what one kid is entitled

and what kid is no. I repeat, many, many parents don't claim they don't

like to see their children singled out. It's a good thing. Southwark

Council did this, Simon Hughes opposed it. I have this wonderful

poster here that the Liberal Democrats produced, "Labour's bad

choices." Millions of free fool for the richest kids. It's a big

mistake. Simon is not a parent. If the richest kids. It's a big

he was, he would never have made those statements. ? Yes, surely. By

not having children he's out of touch with... Yes. What happens is,

if you don't realise this extraordinary non nick fact that

many parents don't claim free school meals. You don't realise that if you

are not in schools where it happens, you make remarks like Simon has

done. I will not try to defend, I'm a great believer in Simon, he is an

excellent MP. I think that was a big mistake and one that he probably now

would change his mind about. In the white shirt? I'm a teacher in

Rochdale, quite often at the school I work at Shirley Williams is

absolutely right that children don't come to school having had breakfast

and quite often the first meal they have is at lunchtime. To me it would

have made more sense to serve free breakfast rather than free meals at

lunchtime. OK. The woman in the middle there. There have been huge

cuts to Children's Services this year and job losses with further

cuts proposed by the Chancellor for 2015, do you not think the money

could be better spent? What do you think, it could? I definitely think

it could. Anthony Worrall Thompson? I think if you have to make cutbacks

in these hard times it shouldn't be on food. The implications are huge.

These children are not getting fed properly. Whether they are rich or

poor, there is so much bad attitude going on. So many kids living on

junk food. So many kids really don't get enough to eat or the right food

to eat. Shirley is right, it's about a stigma. It's not about rich and

poor. It's about the poorest people feeling different because they are

getting free meals at the moment when their colleagues, their school

mates are having to pay. I think... I mean, to me, when I was at school,

a long time ago, we got one meal, we had a teacher sat at the end of the

table making sure we ate it, and we all very healthy. The big problem we

made in the past about school meals, in my opinion, is giving kids

choice. We know when they have a choice, they make the wrong choice.

It should be a fixed meal. I'm choice, they make the wrong choice.

sounding a bit radical, I know. It should be fixed a meal apart from

religious belief, vegetarians, all kids should learn to appreciate food

as it is given to them. Learn to love cabbage? Yes, the more you feed

them, the more they enjoy it. It's like force feeding. It's about a

sense of table manners and all sort of things. I work in a school,

nobody knowes who is on free school meals and who is not. It would be a

complete waste of money to spend we don't need to in these times? Do you

have parents who pay and those who don't? Is Yes. Unless the children

tell each other whether they are on don't? Is Yes. Unless the children

free school meals or not nobody is distinguished from anyone else. Ken

Clarke are you in a favour of this was it a trade off between the

married couples tax allowance for was it a trade off between the

the Tories and this one for the Liberal Democrats? I don't think so

the married tax allowance was already in the coalition agreement.

It hasn't come into effect? I must admit I don't altogether know. Why

don't you know? Well I don't know what led to the background of it

being announced at the liberal assembly. We are in a coalition. The

being announced at the liberal liberals are claiming the credit for

this. I don't buy this principle of universe at it has been taken too

far in the benefit system. Far too many things we hand out cash to

people who we say are wealthy must pay high rates of tax but so poor we

have to give them money to do something else. That is one thing in

reform we are tiding up. We have given free food to hospital it in

London as far as we can remember. Quite a lot of rich people get free

food if they are treated by NHS. £1.2 billion when we have this

deficit? You have to make a case are for. It we have to find the money

from somewhere else. We muss not start deciding it doesn't matter to

cut debt and deficit. An election coming up. That is Ed balls problem.

Would that be the answer? We have controlled debt and deficit quite

spectacularly, we have saved the country from... It doesn't mean you

don't do any new you stop spending money on anything. You have to have

a case for spending money and have to work out where the

a case for spending money and have coming from. The best case is the

a case for spending money and have one made by Shirley. It does seem to

me it's quite clear that quite a lot of people who would qualify for free

school meals if they want... If they knew about it and applied for it

don't. So that must be a good reason. The other reason, I hope is

right, there is this report. That is what caused it. If it be the case, I

think not that they outperform the better off pupils, sadly, that is

one of the problems, people from under deprived back dwroundz tend

not to do as well as their better off colleagues. If their

not to do as well as their better in the performance of children is

very pronounced if five-year-olds to seven-year-olds, the most crucial

years, you could improve the start they make in school, in my opinion

it a's worth £400 million I wouldn't extend it to primary schools which

Nick Clegg Shirley is telling us will do which an old Chancellor

would say would cost a fortune to do. Let us evaluate it. If you can

improve the performance of children do. Let us evaluate it. If you can

by making sure they get a balanced hot meal you find the public demand

it gets spread through the system. Start with the ones where it matters

most their start in school and see if we get value-for-money. It's

most their start in school and see worth trying. The person up there.

My children are grown up now. As they were growing up I wanted to

make my own decision about what they ate. I would make sure they had a

balanced diet and that I would put... Make meals for them that I

balanced diet and that I would knew they would eat. Often when they

balanced diet and that I would had school meals they would leave it

and not eat it. I always wanted to make sure they had an adequate meal

that I had prepared for them myself. I feel this policy takes away the

choice of the parent to decide for I feel this policy takes away the

themselves what the children shall eat. You would resent it if it was

compulsory to eat the school meal? Yes. The woman in the third row? Not

subsidise school meals for all primary school children instead of

five, six or seven? All? Subsidise rather than offer free meals for the

first three years, subsidise it across the board so it's cheaper

throughout all the years. I think across the board so it's cheaper

it's a good idea. There is a lot of gut I think stink here that would

tell you when you see all the kids, as ants any has said, sitting down

together, some of them learning to use knives and forks in a way that

they don't necessarily at home. Actually, having the collective

experience of all sitting down and eating together. I think that that

is very important. I think Ken is right there are children whose

parents are entitled to free school meals, but don't claim it, then

those children suffer. I think on health grounds, obviously there is a

real impetuous for ensuring this, not only attractive desirable food,

also healthy food to tackle obesity and get them into good eating habits

and also educational grounds as well as health grounds. I hope that

this... They say it will cost £600 million. I hope they won't actually

take that money away from schools, away from the children centres they

are already closing. I have a suggestion, which is, instead of

taking it away from other Children's Services they odd to reverse the tax

cut for people earning more than £150,000 a year that would be a way

they could finance it. I think that £150,000 a year that would be a way

would be a very good change. The other thing is, I hope they won't be

on a quid pro quo with the Lib Dems saying they want free school meals,

which we support, the Tories get their way to introduce the married

man's tax allowance. Really, the idea of giving a tax allowance, this

is what is pose -- supposed to be the d deal, Lib Dems got the free

school meals the Tories are able to announce there is a tax allowance.

The idea that people will get married for the sake of £150 a year

or stay happy in their marriage for married for the sake of £150 a year

the sake of £150 a year, the idea it can go to a man on his third wife,

but not to the two wives bringing up his children, the previous wives,

the thing is absolutely ridiculous. We need evidence-based support for

children and families and not the married man's tax allowance.

I could not help saying, I don't know how many times Harriet and her

colleagues have spent that 5% cut we made in the top rate of income tax.

They only announced it just before made in the top rate of income tax.

the election. It gets spent over and over again. On the married couple 's

allowance. It was in the coalition agreement. I don't think there has

been a horse trade. I think there is a case for a transferable tax

allowance where you have a nonworking wife. If you have a

couple who is going to spend so much, quite rightly, childcare, to

help the one who goes to work. It is a woman's liberty to choose. She can

choose to miss more of her career staying home looking after

children. Why can't her tax allowance be transferred. If you

think it is so important for women to stay at home whilst raising

kids, why are you penalising single mums by making them go back to work

early. This does not make sense. I wasn't saying it's important. I was

saying it's entirely a woman's right to choose. Most couples nowadays,

they will both go to work. Some couples, the spouse, usually the

wife, prefers not to. If you are doing so much for childcare, quite

rightly, to help working mother in a partnership, why don't you allow the

tax allowance to be transferred? It is a subsidy for stay at home mums.

Are you objecting to married couples is a subsidy for stay at home mums.

getting equivalent tax allowances to people who get it as married

couples? What if they live together and are bringing up children but

they are not married? They would not get the married couple 's allowance.

I do not think the state has any business telling people whether they

should get married or stay married. I think basically they should be

supporting families and children. You should be in a

supporting families and children. me, because I know you do not agree

with this. The old married couple 's allowance, I tried to get rid of it

with this. The old married couple 's when I was Chancellor. I got rid of

the first half and Gordon got rid of the second. But what we are talking

about here is the support that you give to people with children. One

difference married couples and just give to people with children. One

partnerships is that it is easier to deal with married couples, because

you are certain there is a partnership. You have a definite way

of giving tax relief and not giving tax relief. You can do it with

couples but it is far more difficult to work out whether they are really

in a settled relationship. Sean Stafford. Does reducing the Housing

benefit of people with a spare bedroom help to increase, to address

the housing shortage? Does reducing housing benefit because people have

the housing shortage? Does reducing a spare bedroom actually address the

the housing shortage? Does reducing housing shortage? Shirley Williams.

Not much, I do not think. I suspect this is one of those things that is

a mistake that will have to be corrected. Let's be blunt about it.

The basic problem is that we have a great many people who are

desperately waiting for housing, thousands upon thousands of them. We

have a totally inadequate housing programme, and although it was

controversial at the Lib Dem conference, my own view is that we

should have a bigger housing programme. Whether that is financed

by, for example, local authorities being able to borrow more, which is

a very contentious issue because there is not much control over it,

or whether it should be funded by raising money in other ways, for

example by the mansion tax, which my party is in favour of, is, for me,

something that is less important than actually putting more money

behind the building of social housing. On the bedroom tax, do you

regret that Nick Clegg was not able to stop it happening? Yes. Was their

opposition to it? There was an argument about it, but the crucial

point is that it is the wrong way to argument about it, but the crucial

address it. It is not so much the bedroom tax but the failure to

produce enough social housing. I think the only way you can do that

dash and incidentally it also gives jobs too many youngsters who are

studying as apprentices in the construction trades and need jobs at

the end of that process, the construction trades and need jobs at

way to deal with it is to recognise that we have to finance a much

bigger housing programme with a very substantial part of it social

housing. Harriet Harman. Well, I do not think it does address the

housing shortage, and I think the idea that there are all these people

on the waiting list, which there are, and then all these homes would

be freed up because people would the financially incentivised to move,

the problem is that where are these financially incentivised to move,

one-bedroom places for people in two bedrooms to actually move into? The

thing is that the government knew at the time that it is not a question

of April just refusing to move to smaller homes. It is that those

homes are not necessarily there. Therefore, I think the act is very

harsh, very unfair. The whole basis is wrong. And I think the government

not only should never have introduced it, and we voted against

it, but as the evidence mounts that it is plunging people into arrears,

many of whom are falling behind in their rent for the first time in

their lives, which is a terribly anxious and worrying thing, I think

it is shameful that they are saying, we are going to solve the problem of

public debt by forcing your family personally into debt. I think it is

absolutely shameful. Is there a Labour commitment to reverse it?

There is a Labour commitment to calling on the government to reverse

it now, and not waiting until 2015, as the evidence mounts of the

hardship it is causing for people. But come the next general election,

if they have not actually reversed it, you will have to see in our

manifesto what we put forward. But we are campaigning now. And I am

glad that surely has said that the Lib Dems made a mistake on it. It is

very easy to say, we are opposing the government, the coalition now,

and you have to wait until 2015 to see what we put in our manifesto.

When the manifesto comes, you are dealing with what you would have to

do in government, and you are hedging your bets, because you are

not saying you will get rid of it. What I am saying is that I will not

say what is in our manifesto but it is obvious what we think about the

say what is in our manifesto but it bedroom tax. We voted against it,

brought forward votes in the House of Commons for them to drop it now.

We think it is iniquitous. But you voted against every other aspect of

welfare reform and have not committed to reversing any of them.

You just always vote against any expenditure on social security.

Without going into absolutely loads of anecdotes, which many people of

my constituency have found so many problems with it, leaving aside the

administration with all the bedrooms being measured as to whether they

are a box room or something else, not really a bedroom. There is one

woman who has epilepsy, and she does not have a fit all the time, but

when she does, her daughter comes to stay with her in the spare bedroom

until she gets back on her feet and sorted again. She said, I suppose I

will have to find a one-bedroom flat to be moved into, but if I do, my

daughter will not be able to come and stay with me when I have an

epileptic fit, her daughter who lives outside London, and I will

have to have help from social services. Why not have support for

families and communities that are working together? Also, on the

mansion tax... Hang on. We are not talking about the mansion tax. If

you are under occupying a mansion, you have to be protected from

you are under occupying a mansion, mansion tax. In a council home,

under occupying, you have to be chucked out and have your rent put

up. I would like to ask Harriet Harman whether she would call on

Labour councillors not to evict people from their homes, especially

if they are on job-seeker's allowance? You get the situation

where they are sent letters saying that you are allocated the minimum

amount to live on, yet expected to pay the bedroom tax and council tax.

Rochdale Council actually charges people 25% of their council tax.

This is a Labour-controlled council. Harriet Harman. I think that the

Labour councillors have been horrified by the imposition of the

bedroom tax, and it pushing people into arrears. But obviously, they

have to run the legal rules as they are, which is why we think central

have to run the legal rules as they government that has imposed this

should actually reverse it. Labour councillors are all totally opposed

to this. So you do not blame them. I worked in a homeless section and I

found there were 40 or 50 people waiting for four houses. They were

waiting and waiting and realising they were not, so it felt there was

no end to their situation. So then the mental health services were

needed and social services the mental health services were

come in to try and deal with the situation of going further and

further down, due to know housing being available. The obvious first

way to tackle the housing shortage, which we certainly have, is to build

more houses. I will not -- the government is busting a gut to get

house building up from the collapse that occurred in this country in the

house building up from the collapse recession we inherited. It is

house building up from the collapse obviously more tricky when you start

house building up from the collapse dealing with over occupied houses.

The moment it gets more difficult, there is no point in retreating.

There are many people who cannot get accommodation for themselves and

their families. It is the harrowing, marginal cases that are

cited. Somebody sitting in a property that is far too big for

their needs and says they sometimes want to put up their relatives

should not be paid more by way of housing benefit than somebody living

in something of the right size. That is what we did. Even the example

that Harriet gave about somebody, their daughter sometimes visited so

that was what the tearoom was for. That is very nice, but should the

taxpayer they extra money for that empty room when somebody is waiting

for a gut accommodation? She added the epileptic attacks to make it

appealing. I am sure truthfully, but... I am not a hard man. It is

very nice to have spare rooms, but it was always an anomaly, actually,

when you are reforming welfare. You look at it and you ask yourself,

logically, why do we pay people more housing benefit if they have empty

spare rooms that they do not actually need? Why do those people

get more benefit? Housing benefit goes directly to private landlords.

If we want to reduce spending on housing benefit, Winnie to introduce

rent control right now -- we need to introduce rent control. This is

ridiculous. I must be doing well because you are trying to get me off

the point. That has been changed as well, paying direct to landlords.

The rules were that you got extra money if you had rooms that you did

not really need. That has been changed. The Labour Party always

oppose any reductions in welfare. Of course, they do not promise to

reverse them because they know they have not the first idea how they

would pay for them. The Liberals can be persuaded. They are the centre

ground. They can be persuaded to join this, but once they get near

the Liberal conference, they start going wobbly and decide they might

want to spend the money again. You and I are marvellous coalition

partners 90% of the time, surely. This is 10% of the time. The liberal

conference makes me go wobbly. The logic but we are doing, we should

not have had extra payments for spare bedrooms. We do not apply to

pensioners, to people where there is a medical reason for it, but there

are many people who cannot get a house, they are on the waiting list

and have kids and they cannot get somewhere big enough for them, and

there are people sitting in big accommodation being paid extra

benefits are having the empty room. Can I ask Ken Clarke what he thinks

now about Margaret Thatcher's policy of selling off council houses in the

1980s and never building any to replace them? I was a keen

supporter. Margaret was not too keen. She had to be persuaded. It

was Peter Walker's policy, really. Margaret thought it was wrong to

was Peter Walker's policy, really. give a discount on the market rate

when we were selling to the sitting tenant. Peter somehow managed to get

across to her that there was a sitting tenant discount. It was a

great breakthrough, extremely important, and gave people the

chance of owner occupation who would never have had it. The old council

house building, some had been modernised and were very nice, but

those awful if Stein -- estates that were the main form of house building

that went on outside every city in the country, thank heavens we got

rid of that. Her question was, and not allowing them to build another

house to replace the ones that they had to sell. That is the key point

she was making. Shortly before we came in, the councils had started

building these awful tower blocks. They were frightfully keen on

building workers tower blocks of the sort in Eastern Europe. They started

coming into all of our cities. One sentence. I was a member of

Parliament for a new town, Stevenage. What happened was that

most of the new towns moved to the Conservatives after this proposal.

But Harriet is right, if the money had gone to a Treasury fund to

finance new housing, it would have been all right. As it was, it simply

took chunks out of the housing stock and that was a disaster. The man in

the blue shirt. What Ken Clarke doesn't realise is that when people

have to pay their benefits out, the doesn't realise is that when people

bedroom tax, it works out roughly 20% of somebody's actual income.

What I'd like to see, I think Michael Portillo may have done it

previously, Ken Clarke, to spend a week living on benefits and then see

how he is able to cope with the amount of money what you actually

receive. I' agree with that. I think he would find it an interesting

experience. Agree. The You don't pay anything. Your benefit goes down to

the level somebody else gets who is living in the accommodation they

require. If you had money it is taken away... That is why the

transition, changing from one to the other is difficult that is why there

is £180 million to... It's outrageous that the Tory party and

the Lib Dems are being allowed to mince words over the bedroom tax

which has been fiasco from the start. For the government it's an

embarrassment. For 180,000 people living at the very margins of our

society, it's a catastrophe. You do not understand... Clearly, because

of your comments earlier, you don't understand what it is like for

people to live with long-term disabilities. These are people who

are being hammered not just by the bedroom tax, but by welfare cuts,

ESA, which Labour brought in. I think one, the one point I agree

with Ken Clarke, surprisely on this panel, Labour need to be coming back

Ando posing these welfare cuts and saying they would not support them

in office. There are a lot of people on low incomes. Most people

receiving welfare benefits are in work. People on low incomes and

people jobless who feel let down by the Conservatives and Labour right

now who see no option out there. Nobody fighting for them. It's an

absolute outrage. Do you want to answer that, you are

not fighting? I can understand Laurie's frustration. It is

frustrating being in opposition. We are standing up for the people who

are suffering from the bedroom tax. The point is, if you can't move, you

actually... Your income goes down and it can be down below what you

really should be entitle -- entitled to have to live on. Anthony Worrall

Thompson? This bickering drives me mad. Which bickering? Everyone. They

are having an argument no-one is coming to a conclusion. The

conclusion is building new houses. That is the answer. We have to relax

planning Lous. We can't just look for brown sites, we have to go out

and build. It's as simple as that. Isn't it sad we got to a stage where

and build. It's as simple as that. we are telling people they have to

move out of their own homes or get less benefits? Their own homes which

they built on their... All their possessions around they have been

told they have to go or get less benefits. We are not running a

prison society here. We have to respect that people have homes

whether they are government homes or their own homes. I mean, this to me

is completely enickious tax. I'm normally a Tory. On this occasion,

I'm definitely not. Time is... The sands are rushing out. A question

from Steve Mullington, please. Hard politics here. Given the likelihood

of the 2015 general election being another hung parliament, should Nick

divorce David and remarry with Ed next time round? If it is a hung

parliament? All right. Anthony Worrall Thompson, you start. I knew

you'd do that. I mean, Nick will choose anyone that is going. I

mean... Let us be honest. I have been

talking about bickering. The Liberals bicker, bicker. You have

Vince Cable at everyone's throats stirring up all sorts of things.

They haven't got what it takes. Let us be honest. The grassroots need to

stop bickering as well. It is the only chance you will get to govern

is in the next year-and-a-half. You will never get another chance.

Forget it. The Liberals are finished. I'm sorry about that.

Sorry, Shirley. I'm sorry. You can't have disunity in a coalition. You

can't have Vince Cable calling Tory policies ugly when he votes for all

of them. He hasn't had a non vote since 2010. He has voted for

everything that has gone through. To me, he will choose Labour. If Labour

have more people he will run skavrperring after Labour, God

forbid. Shirley Williams Antony should get back to his kitchen! You

don't like what he says. I don't. It's terribly unfair. Look, Nick

Clegg has stood up to colossal damnation by the media. Read the

Daily Mail if you don't believe me, any day of the week. It took guts to

decide that the country's economic situation, I will not go into who

decide that the country's economic was responsible, whether it is the

banks or the government, that is a matter for you (inaudible) it was a

hell of a situation. One of the few things that enabled this country to

actually maintain a low interest rate, to stop having a scare that

would have driven sterling out of the world markets was to see a

government that would work together and have a majority. We have a

government that has a majority that works together. Ken and I don't

always agree. The very great strength that got us through from

the crisis to where we are now, a gradual recovery, gradual, it's

coming, because governments and parties were prepared to work

together in that situation. Almost parties were prepared to work

like in wartime. It is such a cheap remark to make that Nick Clegg would

take on anything he likes. That guy stood up for things he believes in.

I don't always agree with him. If he stood up for things he agreed with

in tremendous storms of anger and protest. He gets beaten up all the

time much he stands up. Never making per -- personal remarks, doesn't lay

into other people. He goes on for what he is standing for. I take

extreme resentment for what Antony said. I hope he will make a nice

meal... Vince Cable, to be fair, he had to be part of a coalition. There

seems to be this in house bickering between the Liberals... Is the

argument, Shirley... Anti-Tory Europeans. Is the argument that Nick

Clegg put forward the reason to vote Liberal Democrats is to stop Labour

ruining the recovery, economic recovery and the Tories being

unfair? Is that the right argument? Do you think the Liberal Democrats

are an essential part of government now? Yes. Which way would you like

to see him go? It's a matter whether the... A great deal will depend on

gets the porality. They will put that to a potential coalition

partner if the Tories do... No objection either way the principle?

Of course I do. I will not say so it will be totally unhelpful. You

rather be with Ken or Harriet? I like them both. It is called a

coalition, it certainly feels and looks to us in parliament every day

when we are voting that there is Tory proposals, whether it is top

dawn reorganisation of the NHS, treble trebling tuition fees or

putting up VAT and all the other things we are talking about, Tory

proproposals, and the Lib Dems vote for it. I feel it's not so much as

coalition as collusion by the Lib Dems in what the Tories are doing.

Shirley talked about the great strength of this them being together

in the sake of the economy. The fact of the matter is, because they

pulled the plugs on the economy cutting spending so far and so fast

it created austerity, which created the situation getting even worse, we

have had three years lost of stagnation into the recovery and the

lowest recovery. I don't begin to agree with the basics it has been

somehow good for Britain what has actually happened since the Tories

got in. I think that it is bizarre that the key policy for Nick Clegg

at the moment appears to be that whoever won the election and him

coming third that he still has to be Deputy Prime Minister. That is to be

the one policy above all that seems to stand out. Agree with what Ed

Miliband said running for the leadership that he would not go into

the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, you agree with that? He

said he wanted us to have an over all majority to put our position to

the electorate and get into government and carry those out. We

don't actually entertain discussion about what happens if we didn't

actually win the election. In the New Statesman he said you wouldn't

work with Nick Clegg. Miliband replied, "that's right, no." I'm

sure that must be a misquote. He has worked with him on, for example,

tackling the problems of all the phone-hacking and you know, the

Tories trying to rig the boundaries. When we have put forward a proposal

which the Lib Dems are prepared to support, they do work with us. We

want an overall majority. Coming to support, they do work with us. We

the end. I have to rush this through. We should be quite clear

that when we talk about this recovery that is happening, for most

people this in this country there has been no leg cover ril what so

ever -- recovery what so ever. In Rochdale unemployment has doubled

since 2008. What about the election, which is what the question is about?

I am coming to that. We are coming to the end? The Liberal Democrats

have betrayed the electorate. Betrayed the young people who voted

for them in 2010. Clearly, they are behaving like...

You have no idea... School meals all these have failed? You have no idea

of the sense of betrayal that young people and everybody who voted for

the Liberal Democrats, not including people and everybody who voted for

myself actually, in 2010 feels at this party. It's not about

mitigating what the Tories have done in government. You are legitimating

what they have done on the major... May I finish. On the major points,

for example, tuition fees there has been a turn around in what the

Liberal Democrats are prepared to stand up for. Compromise that has

sold-out the most needy in this society. No. Pupil premium, free

sold-out the most needy in this meals. How many more do you want me

to list? I have to stop you. Ken Clarke? I'm a fan and friend of Nick

Clegg. What separates Britain from other European countries who are in

a desperate mess in 2010 is two parties put the national interest

above their party interests and this coalition has been extremely

successful. Nick has one fatal problem. Great speech at his

conference. What he is saying is, who actually leads Government to the

next party, in the next parliament, will be either Labour or

Conservative. It will be decided by those people who don't vote Liberal

Democrat. If you vote for us, we are sitting in the centre, it will all

be decided by all the other voters. We will go with whoever the Labour

Party or the Conservative Party who get most votes. Same argument

applies to Greenses, UKIP, all these other people. It's the awful dilemma

of being a centre party that has plunged one way this time, but

doesn't... It does make it difficult to describe what on earth they are

standing for really in such -- at such a critical time. We have to

stop, thank you very much. I'm sorry not to have brought any of you in on

that last question, but you saw how it went. There was no space left.

Our time is up, I'm afraid. We will be in Uxbridge next week. We will be

in Birmingham the week after that. Uxbridge and Birmingham to take

part. Do come. Argue with our panellists, put questions to them.

Go to our website or call: if you have been listening to this on Radio

5 Live, you can call in there and continue the debate on Question Time

Extra Time. Thank you to our panel and thank you to all of you who

invited us here to this wonderful Town Hall. Until next time, good

night.