:00:05. > :00:16.Tonight, we are in Cambridge, and welcome to Question Time.
:00:16. > :00:21.Wellcome, as always, to our audience welcome to Question Time.
:00:21. > :00:23.in Cambridge, here to ask questions and argue with the panel, and to our
:00:23. > :00:28.panel, who do not know the questions and argue with the panel, and to our
:00:28. > :00:33.in advance. The Liberal Democrat Business Minister, Jo Swinson.
:00:33. > :00:36.Labour's Diane Abbott, who may be free to speak her mind even more
:00:36. > :00:41.than usual, after being sacked by Ed Miliband from his front bench this
:00:41. > :00:45.week. The Conservative MP challenging his party leader, David
:00:45. > :00:51.Cameron, to call an early referendum on the EU, Adam Afriyie. Times
:00:51. > :00:54.columnist, Matthew Parris, and Sarah Churchwell, professor of American
:00:54. > :01:05.literature at the University of East Anglia.
:01:05. > :01:18.to you all. First question from Oliver Richardson. With today's 8%
:01:18. > :01:28.rise in energy bills, is it time for eight -- price freeze? Well, I
:01:28. > :01:32.understand why that seems so attract to have, because at the end of the
:01:32. > :01:35.day, people are finding it tough at the moment to balance household
:01:35. > :01:39.budgets. It feels sometimes like energy bills keep rowing through the
:01:39. > :01:44.roof. But I do not think Ed Miliband has identified the right solution to
:01:44. > :01:50.this problem, and there are a few reasons why that is the case. Can
:01:50. > :01:54.you give the main one? If you announce a price freeze and sable
:01:54. > :01:59.happen in 18 months, you get the energy companies that will hike up
:01:59. > :02:06.prices before it happens. -- if you say it will happen. But that is
:02:06. > :02:09.something which does not, therefore, get you the ultimate goal
:02:09. > :02:15.you were aiming for. The other thing is that we have an energy market
:02:15. > :02:20.which is quite dysfunctional and was created, in fact, when Ed Miliband
:02:20. > :02:28.was energy secretary. It allowed the big six to thrive, where 90% of
:02:28. > :02:32.people with one of those companies. That lack of competition is not
:02:33. > :02:36.good, but Ed Miliband's plans would make it worse. What are the type of
:02:36. > :02:41.companies that would withstand the 20 months of the price freeze? Those
:02:41. > :02:46.that had already built fat profits, the big six. The ones that it would
:02:46. > :02:50.hurt would be the smaller companies that we need to provide competition
:02:50. > :02:53.to the larger operators. They would be much more likely to go bust and
:02:53. > :02:57.go out of the market, leaving us with an entrenched week six, which
:02:57. > :02:59.is the opposite from the direction we need to be going to get better
:02:59. > :03:08.is the opposite from the direction deals for consumers. -- be
:03:08. > :03:11.entrenched big six. I said it is a joke, but do you think there is a
:03:11. > :03:16.possibility prices are being hiked because of what Ed Miliband said
:03:16. > :03:22.about a freeze if Labour came to office? I think there are wholesale
:03:23. > :03:27.rises in energy prices globally. But do you think his statement has
:03:27. > :03:31.anything to do with it? It could well have an impact. If you are in
:03:31. > :03:34.the energy market and you see it has been announced by one of the major
:03:34. > :03:35.parties, that could factor into calculations, and that is on helpful
:03:35. > :03:45.will stop Diane Abbott. She seems to calculations, and that is on helpful
:03:45. > :03:49.have been taken in by the big energy companies saying, if the prices are
:03:49. > :03:53.frozen, the lights will go out and we will go bankrupt. The truth is
:03:53. > :03:57.that the market is rigged, and the energy companies have been making
:03:57. > :04:02.hay with it for far too long. They put up prices less than 12 months
:04:02. > :04:06.ago. This company is talking about an 8% rise, and they will all
:04:06. > :04:12.follow. If it was a genuine market, you would not need intervention, but
:04:12. > :04:15.it is a dysfunctional market. We are saying we would freeze prices for
:04:15. > :04:19.two years while we sort out the regulation and the market. These
:04:19. > :04:23.price rises are very serious for ordinary people. There will be old
:04:23. > :04:28.people who will have difficulty finding the money to heat their
:04:29. > :04:32.homes this winter. And for the government just to wring its hands
:04:32. > :04:37.and criticise Ed Miliband, the government does not have a practical
:04:37. > :04:40.proposal which will make energy affordable for people, particularly
:04:40. > :04:44.in East Anglia which can get very cold in the winter, who will have
:04:44. > :04:53.difficulty heating their homes. Wringing your hands is not enough.
:04:54. > :04:56.We believe in market, but we believe in a genuine market. This is a
:04:56. > :04:57.dysfunctional market and the problem is the future profit margin. You
:04:57. > :04:59.dysfunctional market and the problem think this government should freeze
:04:59. > :05:12.things now Western Mark they will not do it. We would certainly do it
:05:12. > :05:18.in 2015. David, alone on the panel, you and I are old enough to remember
:05:18. > :05:21.the price freeze is in the 1970s. Governments in the 70s tried
:05:21. > :05:27.freezing prices. They tried having a basket of prices. What happened was
:05:27. > :05:31.that retailers put up other prices. It does not work. I am torn between
:05:32. > :05:36.thinking this is a cheap gimmick on Ed Miliband's Park, which I hope, or
:05:36. > :05:41.that he really believes that you can rig the markets, fix the markets in
:05:41. > :05:48.this way. I wish there was any politician who was brave enough to
:05:48. > :05:54.challenge this assertion that the energy market is dysfunctional. They
:05:54. > :05:58.are typically making profits of five to 6%. That is what Sainsbury's make
:05:58. > :06:02.and we do not it -- expect a freeze on the price of groceries. If you
:06:02. > :06:07.were to wipe out their entire profit margins, you would destroy the
:06:07. > :06:11.industry, but were you to do it, it would be about £5 per week off the
:06:11. > :06:17.average household bill. There is not such a big problem here. Well, you
:06:17. > :06:21.say that. It is all very well to talk about not interfering in
:06:21. > :06:26.markets. You should not interfere in a working market but this is not a
:06:26. > :06:31.working market. They are looting the pocket of ordinary people trying to
:06:31. > :06:36.pay their electricity bill. If the market is so rigged, how come gas
:06:36. > :06:42.and electricity prices are lower than the EU average? Why do
:06:42. > :06:46.politicians keep saying this, rather than giving us back the £100 subsidy
:06:46. > :06:51.for the wind farms they want to put up? You think part of the problem is
:06:51. > :06:56.that 10% or whatever that goes towards green energy. It is all very
:06:56. > :07:01.well saying that poor people should not have high bills, but you have
:07:01. > :07:05.applied a £100 tax, in the form of subsidies on our gas and air because
:07:05. > :07:13.of the bills, which applies to everyone, whether poor rich. Part of
:07:13. > :07:15.the problem is about evidence. We get these assertions but it is not
:07:16. > :07:21.clear what the wholesale price is that they are paying. They say they
:07:21. > :07:25.make a profit of five or 6%, but they are also making profits on
:07:25. > :07:29.other parts of their business. It seems to me that they blind faith in
:07:29. > :07:33.the market is as objectionable as the idea that we can control
:07:33. > :07:36.international prices, which has been the idea that we can control
:07:37. > :07:40.one of the objections made to this idea. We need to make a distinction
:07:40. > :07:46.between essential and discretionary services. When people are actually
:07:46. > :07:51.going to be at risk, as Diane Abbott is saying, of not being able to pay
:07:51. > :07:55.their prices, and in extreme cases, actually dying, then somebody needs
:07:55. > :07:58.to do something. Whether price-fixing is the answer, I do not
:07:58. > :08:02.remember the price freeze is of the 1970s, and if it does not work we
:08:02. > :08:08.need to try something else. Simply saying more, the dish and we'll sort
:08:08. > :08:13.it out is demonstrably not the case. -- more competition. It is a very
:08:13. > :08:17.simple point - we have the cheapest gas prices in Europe, the fourth
:08:17. > :08:26.cheapest electricity prices. They are not ripping us off. It is just a
:08:26. > :08:34.lie. Electricity is expensive. It is a cost, but it is an international
:08:34. > :08:37.problem and we cannot change that. At electricity prices may be
:08:37. > :08:43.relatively low component to Europe, but people in the city and up and
:08:43. > :08:46.down the country, what people pay in Europe is not their problem. Their
:08:46. > :08:50.problem is how steeply prices are rising and how the big energy
:08:50. > :09:01.companies are abusing a rigged market. That is their problem. The
:09:01. > :09:05.exact same thing. I am not sure it is necessary to rig
:09:05. > :09:11.an entire market just to help a small minority who are poor, elderly
:09:11. > :09:15.and cannot pay their bills. We should concentrate on helping that
:09:15. > :09:22.minority, rather than messing up an entire market by price-fixing. When
:09:22. > :09:26.anyone opens the envelope with the Energy Bill, one is always nervous.
:09:26. > :09:32.I am going to say something controversial. I actually think that
:09:32. > :09:37.Ed Miliband is right. I think he is right in his analysis of the problem
:09:37. > :09:41.with energy prices. I also think he is completely wrong. It would be
:09:41. > :09:46.absolutely barmy to try to control the energy price. First, for some of
:09:46. > :09:49.the reasons already given. I come from a business background.
:09:49. > :09:55.Businesses will just raise the price in anticipation of a Labour
:09:55. > :10:00.government. The second thing is that he cannot possibly do it. The
:10:00. > :10:05.wholesale price of gas and electricity is set by the world
:10:05. > :10:07.markets. So what is he going to do, if the wholesale price of gas and
:10:07. > :10:12.markets. So what is he going to do, electricity goes up? As a
:10:12. > :10:13.businessman, you know that these companies have already bought it,
:10:13. > :10:20.businessman, you know that these they buy forward. But if the world
:10:21. > :10:27.price goes up, over whatever time frame, what will Ed Miliband do?
:10:27. > :10:31.What are you going to do, Adam? He is asking what you are going to do.
:10:31. > :10:35.I have told him. Is he going to is asking what you are going to do.
:10:35. > :10:40.constantly pour money from the Exchequer to try and hold the price
:10:40. > :10:45.down. It does not make any sense. If he managed to achieve a £100 per
:10:45. > :10:48.year saving for consumers, that could be completely surpassed if we
:10:48. > :10:53.actually simply helped the market to run smoothly. In this regard, the
:10:53. > :10:57.Coalition Government is doing a good job, looking at competition within
:10:57. > :11:00.the market, so that anyone of us can look between many suppliers and try
:11:00. > :11:03.to find the lowest energy price. I think that is the way forward and it
:11:03. > :11:12.is going to work. We have a lot of think that is the way forward and it
:11:12. > :11:20.questions to get through. One or two more points the audience. I am
:11:20. > :11:24.afraid markets do not work as Diane Abbott seems to think. Markets only
:11:24. > :11:28.care about purchasing power. If there are lots of people who do not
:11:28. > :11:33.have the necessary purchasing power for your product, the market will
:11:33. > :11:39.not supply them the product. So people must freeze to death? I am
:11:39. > :11:47.surprised to see this attachment to markets in the Labour Party. The
:11:47. > :11:51.market is not the solution. I support what Diane Abbott is
:11:51. > :11:54.saying, because as a staff nurse, I see patients coming in, suffering
:11:54. > :11:57.from the cold, and that is pretty much more of the reason why they
:11:57. > :12:02.have been admitted. It is the syndrome of heat or eat. When I go
:12:02. > :12:08.into communities, I see them huddled into a room. We have the inevitable
:12:08. > :12:13.fact that the energy prices are going up and are likely to go up,
:12:13. > :12:17.and wages are going lower. What do you make of the point that was made
:12:17. > :12:22.beside you, that the focus should be on the elderly and those with not
:12:22. > :12:30.enough money to pay their bills, rather than on the whole consumer?
:12:30. > :12:38.Capping might not be the best means. Interest rates did not work, so
:12:38. > :12:41.controlling energy prices will not work either. But by offering more
:12:41. > :12:48.help to the people that are vulnerable, but that help is not out
:12:48. > :12:52.there, not in time. The gentleman made the point about roughly 9% of
:12:52. > :12:55.the Energy Bill is the result of government policy. That picks up on
:12:55. > :13:00.the point the lady at the back made, which is about targeting help to the
:13:00. > :13:05.most vulnerable. The vast majority of what is as a result of government
:13:05. > :13:09.policy is actually going to help people who are vulnerable. Things
:13:09. > :13:12.like the warm home discount, which means that people in that difficult
:13:12. > :13:16.scenario do not have to choose between heating and eating, they get
:13:17. > :13:23.help with their bills. And energy efficiency, to cut everyone buzzing
:13:23. > :13:28.energy bills. That is a tiny part, £11 per year. £47 per year for
:13:28. > :13:33.various other things - home improvements, renewables, £30 per
:13:33. > :13:38.year. 3% is investment on renewable and green technology. We need those
:13:38. > :13:41.jobs for our economy. We have to think of the long-term challenge,
:13:41. > :13:45.not just getting the economy back on track, but also the threat of
:13:45. > :13:50.climate change. To address that, we need to change the way we generate
:13:50. > :13:56.electricity. It is important that small part of energy bills goes to
:13:56. > :14:18.that real threat. You can comment on what is being said here tonight:
:14:18. > :14:44.Should Britain have a referendum on the general election?
:14:44. > :14:53.Of I am pro-European, I was in Barcelona this summer, I had a
:14:53. > :14:56.wonderful time. But... That is not being pro-European, that is having
:14:56. > :15:04.wonderful time. But... That is not a nice holiday. In the Treasury
:15:04. > :15:10.Select Committee I was all over talking about a single currency and
:15:10. > :15:15.Europe is an aid project. The European elite do not want ordinary
:15:15. > :15:21.people to have a debate. There is a democratic case for having a debate
:15:21. > :15:26.and a referendum. I am not sure before at the general election, but
:15:26. > :15:30.I think it is an excellent idea and Adams should be congratulated.
:15:30. > :15:34.Would you like to see Ed Miliband, now that you can speak your mind,
:15:34. > :15:39.not that you ever stop, which is probably why you are not on the
:15:39. > :15:47.front bench, would you like to see Labour book that in the next
:15:47. > :15:52.election? Yes, it is not anti- European to allow the people to
:15:52. > :15:56.debate and decide. I think we should have a referendum, but not
:15:56. > :16:01.before the general election. We should have a referendum when there
:16:01. > :16:05.is a significant change of powers between the UK and the rest of
:16:05. > :16:13.Europe and that seems to be a sensible time to have the
:16:13. > :16:15.referendum. Adam's proposal for a referendum in 2014 is flawed. It
:16:15. > :16:18.takes no regard of the fact we have referendum in 2014 is flawed. It
:16:18. > :16:26.a Scottish referendum coming up a month before that and that is not
:16:26. > :16:32.featured in his calculations. It seems to have no regard to the fact
:16:32. > :16:37.that this would be showing a hand grenade into Europe where people
:16:37. > :16:42.are trying to recover from a terrible set of circumstances. It
:16:42. > :16:46.seems this proposal has achieved two things. It has got Adam onto
:16:46. > :16:51.seems this proposal has achieved the front of the Mail on Sunday and
:16:51. > :16:55.I have to congratulate him for this, perhaps the only time the
:16:55. > :16:58.Conservative Party have ever managed to be united in
:16:58. > :17:08.disagreement with this particular proposal is something that deserves
:17:08. > :17:12.congratulations. Adam. I believe the British people need to have a
:17:12. > :17:17.say and 80% of the British people want a referendum. 80% of
:17:17. > :17:19.businesses that want a referendum, more than half what it sooner
:17:19. > :17:25.rather than later. It is not more than half what it sooner
:17:25. > :17:31.revolutionary for a backbench MP to suggest people have a referendum in
:17:31. > :17:36.2014. The answers I am already hearing here, you have got a
:17:36. > :17:38.political class who kept saying, it is not the right time, we have got
:17:38. > :17:43.to have complicated things is not the right time, we have got
:17:43. > :17:49.happening beforehand. 12 months is to plenty of time to negotiate. If
:17:49. > :17:54.we set the date in October, 2014, the pressure is on the European
:17:54. > :17:59.Union leaders to come to Britain to convince people to stay in. It is
:17:59. > :18:03.the right thing to do and I would rather be on the side of the
:18:03. > :18:16.British people than the political elite that was to deny them a vote.
:18:16. > :18:22.You got a letter today, didn't you? From 140 Tory MPs. So I hear. I
:18:22. > :18:34.will read it to you if you like. It says you are wrong. 140 of the 147.
:18:34. > :18:39.Are you going to go on pressing for this referendum? Are you going to
:18:39. > :18:46.say, I had my moment to explain what I thought, but I am now going
:18:46. > :18:50.to drop it? I came from a tough background in Peckham in south-east
:18:50. > :18:52.London and I have had tough challenges in my life. People said
:18:52. > :18:57.London and I have had tough I could not achieve things, but I
:18:57. > :19:01.pushed through. If the establishment is uniting and saying,
:19:01. > :19:06.no, a backbench MP cannot have a say on this, I am prepared to fight
:19:06. > :19:13.all the weight so the British people can have a say. You are not
:19:13. > :19:17.withdrawing it? Why has to listen to Parliament for the debate. One
:19:17. > :19:23.has to listen to what the politicians have to say and take
:19:23. > :19:28.soundings. But I am absolutely sure that the way to ensure, for the
:19:28. > :19:33.Conservative Party, electoral victory in 2015, is we have this
:19:33. > :19:39.referendum and the incoming Government must remain in the EU or
:19:39. > :19:46.come out. Why did you abstain in 2011 when 81 Tory MPs call for a
:19:46. > :19:52.referendum? You were not there? I was there and I was standing in the
:19:52. > :19:56.debate. I did not want the coalition and I did not believe in
:19:56. > :20:00.it and I made a decision. The Conservatives are leading the
:20:00. > :20:05.coalition and I am a Conservative MP and I was not going to stand in
:20:05. > :20:11.the way of what a Conservative lead Government wanted to do. It was a
:20:11. > :20:17.three-line whip and I decide it. I did not vote for the Government.
:20:17. > :20:20.That is the way Parliament works. Either you vote for something or
:20:20. > :20:26.That is the way Parliament works. against something. Or you abstain.
:20:26. > :20:33.I defied the whip and I will continue to do so on this one if
:20:33. > :20:36.necessary. Matthew Parris. As a fellow Conservative nobody in the
:20:37. > :20:41.party is saying you have no right to an opinion and no-one is saying
:20:41. > :20:47.you have no right to put forward a proposal, they are saying your
:20:47. > :20:52.proposal is stark raving bonkers. To give people a say in a
:20:52. > :20:57.referendum is bonkers? I do not think so. We have a prime minister
:20:57. > :21:02.who says if he is re-elected, he will renegotiate the terms of our
:21:02. > :21:08.membership of the European Union, he will bring back those
:21:08. > :21:10.renegotiated terms and put them to the country. If the country like
:21:10. > :21:17.them, we can vote es, or we can the country. If the country like
:21:17. > :21:23.vote know. Now in the middle of an economic crisis, there would not be
:21:23. > :21:30.a proposition to vote on. It is not the right time. Do you think it is
:21:30. > :21:36.bonkers? I do not think it is bonkers. If we have a referendum
:21:36. > :21:39.and we vote to come out, we will have further referendum until the
:21:39. > :21:48.political elite get the answer they want, which is to stay in. You, sir.
:21:48. > :21:52.Do you not think that in the European elections next summer or
:21:52. > :21:58.we might have a referendum at that point? I did think about that idea,
:21:58. > :22:03.but we have to be practical and you need at least 12 months when
:22:03. > :22:07.something is passed into Parliament. When it comes to the Scottish
:22:07. > :22:12.referendum I have taken that into account. One can have a referendum
:22:12. > :22:18.us Scotland, we have an answer to that, and several weeks later we
:22:18. > :22:23.have a referendum on the European Union. We have got a coalition
:22:23. > :22:29.Government and we are settling our constitutional issues. We have had
:22:29. > :22:34.a vote on alternative voting. We have had a referendum on the United
:22:34. > :22:39.Kingdom in terms of Scotland, why are we not sorting out the elephant
:22:39. > :22:45.in the room, our relationship in the European Union. Adam and I were
:22:46. > :22:50.reminiscing in the Green Room. This first time we met was on another
:22:50. > :22:55.panel programme debating the European referendum and it was 10
:22:55. > :22:58.years ago. That debate does not seem to have moved on very much in
:22:58. > :23:04.that decade. It seems to me from seem to have moved on very much in
:23:04. > :23:06.the point of view of somebody who has relatively recently arrived in
:23:06. > :23:11.this country you are never going to has relatively recently arrived in
:23:11. > :23:17.get away from this. You will have to have the referendum. However, a
:23:17. > :23:22.coalition Government in the middle of an economic crisis is not the
:23:22. > :23:28.best time to do it. There is never a good time to have it, but it has
:23:28. > :23:33.become a shorthand for a foregone conclusion, which is the vote would
:23:33. > :23:38.be to leave Europe. I sincerely hope it is not the case. It is
:23:38. > :23:44.important Britain remains part of the European Union, but you cannot
:23:44. > :23:47.keep going backwards and forwards. Hopefully Britain will come to its
:23:47. > :23:58.senses and state in the European Union and you can move on. Adam was
:23:58. > :24:03.saying the Europeans have got to come over here, but what happens if
:24:03. > :24:09.they say, you are so much trouble, leave us and we will be fine
:24:09. > :24:16.without you, thank you very much. Parallels with the Scottish
:24:16. > :24:21.referendum. At the very back. I totally agree with Sarah Churchwell,
:24:21. > :24:26.I hope the UK will come to its senses. But there is a grave danger
:24:26. > :24:39.that that will not happen unless there is not a decent information
:24:39. > :24:44.campaign before any referendum. Do you want to see a referendum before
:24:44. > :24:49.the election? I do not want to see one for a long time. It is complete
:24:49. > :24:55.nonsense to bring it up at this critical time in Europe. People do
:24:55. > :24:59.not realise in this country they never have an information campaign
:24:59. > :25:03.that shows the advantages they have had over an enormous number of
:25:03. > :25:13.years of being in the European Union. The woman on the right. I am
:25:13. > :25:18.a teacher in a secondary school in England and I am interested in what
:25:18. > :25:25.the Government proposes to do to educate 18 year-olds about Europe,
:25:25. > :25:33.especially because the new history curriculum is increasingly Anglo
:25:33. > :25:37.centric. The man next to you, sir, the person on your right. It is
:25:37. > :25:41.presumptuous to say it would be on the person on your right. It is
:25:41. > :25:46.the EU leaders to come and say to England why we should stay. It is
:25:46. > :25:53.the job of your party to say why we should leave. There are quite a lot
:25:53. > :26:01.of attractive things being part of the EU. Postgraduates paid tens of
:26:01. > :26:09.thousands of pounds and in other countries it is free. Why on earth
:26:09. > :26:16.would we want to leave? How would you vote? If we had the referendum
:26:16. > :26:20.today, like Michael Gove, I would vote to come out. But 12 months
:26:21. > :26:26.from now and there is a different offer on the table, it might be
:26:26. > :26:31.different. The Conservative Party is united behind the idea of a
:26:31. > :26:37.referendum. The Conservative Party does not have a view as to whether
:26:37. > :26:42.we should stay in or come out. The British public should decide. All
:26:42. > :26:49.the information we require from the various campaigns will be available.
:26:49. > :26:58.The point is to have it out and have our country united in Europe
:26:58. > :27:03.or outside Europe. Let's go on to another question from Phil portent.
:27:03. > :27:07.The OECD's skills survey has shown our young adults perform poorly in
:27:07. > :27:12.comparison to those of other countries. Where have we gone
:27:12. > :27:17.wrong? These are the figures that came out from a long list of 24
:27:17. > :27:24.countries with England, not Scotland and Wales, England at
:27:24. > :27:30.number 19 on literacy and number 21 on numeracy. Sarah Churchwell, what
:27:30. > :27:34.do you think has gone wrong? I arrived here 14 years ago and I
:27:34. > :27:42.have been teaching literature ever since. Literacy has dramatically
:27:42. > :27:47.declined. I see it every day. These results are no surprise to me. My
:27:47. > :27:55.colleagues have problems with numeracy. As far as what has gone
:27:55. > :28:00.wrong my own feeling is that, and now I will say something that might
:28:00. > :28:05.shock everybody, I am not sure I believe in a national curriculum. I
:28:05. > :28:10.do not come from that background. I am not sure one Cabinet can sit
:28:10. > :28:17.down and decide what is the best way to teach everybody across a
:28:17. > :28:23.nation. I think the results that are comparing the best with the UK
:28:23. > :28:28.are often from places that have more flexible teaching options.
:28:28. > :28:33.Except that America, where you come from, is below England in these
:28:33. > :28:39.figures. Nobody mentioned that, they mentioned Finland at being at
:28:39. > :28:45.the top. United States is bottom innumeracy. Absolutely. In the
:28:45. > :28:50.United States the Government has shut down, nothing is working there.
:28:50. > :28:56.The United States is not a test example and I was not suggesting it
:28:56. > :29:02.is currently working. As far as what can fix this, I think and
:29:02. > :29:07.believe you have to let teachers teach and you have to trust them
:29:07. > :29:13.that they can do their jobs. You should not make everything all the
:29:13. > :29:20.time. You are against testing? You have to do some testing, but they
:29:20. > :29:23.are constantly testing, they only know the answers to the test and
:29:23. > :29:25.they are not learning the skills they need to understand the subject.
:29:25. > :29:45.It is a waste of everybody's time. Where have we gone wrong? I am not
:29:45. > :29:50.sure we have. You should come to my classroom and you will find a
:29:50. > :29:54.demonstrate all declining literacy. You are simply wrong. I was a member
:29:54. > :29:58.of Parliament the caves ago and the most illiterate letters often came
:29:58. > :30:04.from more elderly constituencies. -- decades ago. I am not sure we have
:30:04. > :30:11.ever been brilliant at literacy or numeracy. We have always been crap,
:30:12. > :30:15.so it is OK! Children learn the skills they think they are going to
:30:16. > :30:21.need, and there may be other skills children are learning. Perhaps they
:30:21. > :30:27.are not as fluent in the classics. I think you need to read and write.
:30:27. > :30:29.Beyond that, you can do it on your mobile phone these days, a bit of
:30:29. > :30:32.adding up. People will teach mobile phone these days, a bit of
:30:32. > :30:39.themselves the skills that they need. I never learned very much at
:30:39. > :30:46.school anyway. Except, obviously, to read and write. How is your
:30:46. > :30:49.numeracy? Matthew, you just said people can learn on the mobile
:30:50. > :30:53.phone, but it is things like text speak and various things like that,
:30:53. > :30:58.internet and anagrams and things like that, that mean that literacy
:30:58. > :31:04.is devolving in the UK. It is no surprise, really, is it, when people
:31:04. > :31:09.are talking in abbreviated forms, that people cannot spell and
:31:09. > :31:13.articulate themselves efficiently. That other countries do exactly the
:31:13. > :31:17.same thing, don't they? Why are they at the top of the list? They
:31:17. > :31:22.obviously focus on their own language as well. They do not just
:31:22. > :31:28.look at the devolved grammar that a lot of youngsters are using. They
:31:28. > :31:34.don't assume they naturally know how to speak their language perfectly.
:31:34. > :31:38.It does not work that way. At my old school, students performed badly
:31:38. > :31:46.because the teachers did not love the subject, they loved the
:31:46. > :31:56.paycheque. You have to give the name and address of the school to the
:31:56. > :32:06.teachers here! Quite a few of these countries at the top of the charts
:32:07. > :32:12.have a much later starting age for schools. Finland is six or seven. Do
:32:12. > :32:19.the panel think that would help in the UK? Somebody thrust up their
:32:19. > :32:25.hand as they heard that being said. I think part of the problem may be
:32:25. > :32:29.in our primary schools today is that maybe our schools are trying to
:32:29. > :32:36.juggle too many subjects. There is such a focus on giving a very
:32:36. > :32:40.rounded syllabus, focusing on the sciences, giving a foundation
:32:40. > :32:45.knowledge of foreign languages. Maybe there should be a greater
:32:45. > :32:48.focus on getting kids to know the basic English grammar, rather than
:32:48. > :32:52.trying to put too many things in their heads when they do not know
:32:52. > :32:59.the basics of their own language. Diane Abbott. This did not happen
:32:59. > :33:05.overnight, and if you are going to look to the roots of the problem,
:33:05. > :33:09.part of it emerged when you had a Labour government. We did some
:33:09. > :33:15.fantastic things in education. Investment in schools and so on. But
:33:15. > :33:18.I think perhaps the emphasis which said that 50% of the education
:33:18. > :33:23.population has to go to university, perhaps that skewed the debate to
:33:23. > :33:28.university and the sort of trial that can get to university, at the
:33:28. > :33:36.university and the sort of trial expense of basic skills and crafts
:33:37. > :33:40.and just real skills. -- the sort of child. We are having a debate now in
:33:40. > :33:44.the party about redressing that, and child. We are having a debate now in
:33:44. > :33:47.focusing on people who may not get to university but should no valuable
:33:47. > :33:53.skills. We need to reset education policy. University will always be
:33:53. > :33:57.the right thing for a great many people and we want as many people
:33:57. > :34:07.who can benefit to go there, but we need to reset and focus on basic
:34:07. > :34:16.skills. Jo Swinson, these figures do not apply to you, do they, because
:34:16. > :34:18.they do not include Scotland? Apparently the Scottish Government
:34:19. > :34:27.did not want to pay to be part of the study. You have two paid to put
:34:27. > :34:31.yourself at number 19 of 24. It is useful to understand where we are
:34:31. > :34:37.against other countries. We are competing in a global economy and
:34:37. > :34:40.this is incredibly important. Diane Abbott says the Labour government
:34:40. > :34:45.did some good things but Tony Blair promised his priority would be
:34:45. > :34:51.education, education, education. These figures are from children that
:34:51. > :34:59.started between 1998 and 2007. It is pretty damning to be at the bottom
:34:59. > :35:01.of those tables. I am a London MP and I have five brand-new schools in
:35:01. > :35:06.my constituency. The results for London children have shot up. I am
:35:06. > :35:10.not saying everything Tony Blair did was perfect but we did some great
:35:10. > :35:16.things in education. It is not fair to the teachers to see something
:35:16. > :35:20.different. I am saying we need to be incredibly worried. Matthew is
:35:20. > :35:24.perhaps a bit complacent. I think we need to be worried because literacy
:35:24. > :35:27.and numerous ER the basic skills. You will find it hard to get a job
:35:27. > :35:32.without a sick literacy and numeracy. It is not good enough to
:35:32. > :35:35.say we have not been good at this traditionally, and perhaps things
:35:35. > :35:39.will be OK in some parts of the country. We are letting those young
:35:39. > :35:42.people down and that is why it is important that we are raising the
:35:42. > :35:48.age at which young people have to learn to 18, and making them have to
:35:48. > :35:52.continue maths and English in some form until that age. We also need to
:35:52. > :35:57.make sure that young people who have been failed, in that 16-24 cohort,
:35:57. > :36:00.some of whom are finding it difficult to get a job cause of the
:36:00. > :36:04.lack of skills, that they get the support they need. That is why I
:36:04. > :36:12.think the new traineeship model the government is undertaking is vital.
:36:12. > :36:17.So that is why you did away with the educational maintenance allowance,
:36:17. > :36:18.was that what it was about? We are making sure those skills can be
:36:18. > :36:22.was that what it was about? We are developed with young people, so they
:36:22. > :36:28.can get a job, which will be difficult with no literacy or
:36:28. > :36:31.numerous sea. Diane Abbott, you did not show much confidence in state
:36:31. > :36:42.education, sending your children to private school. Yes, but... But I
:36:42. > :36:46.would say this. My son is now 22. When I had to decide on a secondary
:36:46. > :36:52.school, Labour had just come into office. If I had to make the same
:36:52. > :36:55.decision again, thanks to the investment in secondary schools in
:36:55. > :36:59.Hackney over the years of Labour government, I would happily send him
:36:59. > :37:07.to a range of schools in Hackney, including one which was led by the
:37:07. > :37:16.Chief Inspector of education. Do we have any teachers here who would
:37:16. > :37:22.like to comment? I trained in east London to be a teacher, and I was
:37:22. > :37:25.really shocked at the poverty a lot of children are experiencing. I
:37:25. > :37:28.really shocked at the poverty a lot think a more shocking statistic is
:37:28. > :37:32.that to be a child in this country is very bad. I think the root cause
:37:32. > :37:37.is that actually children have other worries, apart from learning to
:37:37. > :37:40.read. When they are at home, they are worried about food, sharing a
:37:40. > :37:46.bedroom with three siblings. There are basic care issues that I did not
:37:46. > :37:52.think existed. Rather than the education system. In London, you see
:37:52. > :37:58.a massive transformation of education but you are still facing
:37:58. > :38:10.chronic inequality when you are in the shadow of Canary Wharf. Point
:38:10. > :38:13.taken. I think Diane Abbott was incorrect, talking about the
:38:13. > :38:21.education maintenance allowance which no longer exists. That was in
:38:21. > :38:25.plagiarism this study. I was talking about Jo Swinson saying she wanted
:38:25. > :38:28.to help young people. The point I wanted to make was that the other
:38:28. > :38:32.observation was that we were moving down at that point. It is not just
:38:32. > :38:39.about where we were, we are moving backwards. Part of it is that we
:38:39. > :38:43.were dumbing down the exam system. This is no criticism of teachers or
:38:43. > :38:46.pupils. But there was this whole feeling that everybody must get a
:38:46. > :38:53.higher grade. There was this grade inflation. I know Michael Gove is
:38:53. > :38:56.not very popular with teachers, but he is doing some fantastic work in
:38:56. > :39:00.terms of making the dam system robust, so that when you leave
:39:00. > :39:05.school you know that the grades you have will be recognised around the
:39:05. > :39:10.world. -- the exam system. It is very telling that the percentage of
:39:10. > :39:14.people taking the baccalaureate fell to 25% under the Labour government
:39:14. > :39:23.and it is now up to 50%. Something good is happening and I hope it
:39:23. > :39:28.continues. Sarah said, and I cannot contradict her, that she has noticed
:39:28. > :39:34.the standard of writing of her students has gone down a lot in the
:39:34. > :39:38.last 14 years. Of course, juror in the last 14 years there has been a
:39:38. > :39:45.huge increase in the proportion of school leavers who go on to
:39:45. > :39:50.university. I wonder whether part of the explanation may just be a drop
:39:50. > :39:56.in the calibre of your students. I do not think so. Part of the issue,
:39:56. > :40:00.because I am in contact with other people at other universities, and we
:40:00. > :40:04.see at across-the-board. What I think is the issue, and I would
:40:04. > :40:08.agree with the gentleman who asked about children going to school
:40:08. > :40:13.older. I think that is a good idea. I think they are starting to young.
:40:13. > :40:17.The testing culture has absolutely proven to be detrimental. It is not
:40:17. > :40:22.teaching them what they need to learn. The other issue is the
:40:22. > :40:26.gentleman was raising about poverty and other anxieties and concerns of
:40:26. > :40:31.children, these are all things we need to deal with as a society. But
:40:31. > :40:36.these are absolutely key skills without which you cannot get forward
:40:36. > :40:39.in life. We have to make a priority of making sure that the skills are
:40:39. > :40:43.taught. I believe we have to trust of making sure that the skills are
:40:43. > :40:47.teachers and stop interfering with them all the time. Just let them do
:40:47. > :40:52.what they do. It is really important. I am going to go on. Matt
:40:52. > :40:58.Webb. Will the Dutch coalition and important. I am going to go on. Matt
:40:58. > :41:03.Shadow Cabinet appointments in this week's reshuffles make any
:41:03. > :41:07.difference to UK politics, or is it just window dressing. -- will the
:41:07. > :41:14.coalition and Shadow Cabinet appointments make a difference?
:41:14. > :41:17.Matthew Parris. I can give you a short answer. It is simply
:41:17. > :41:23.windowdressing. It is just window dressing. Why did he want to window
:41:23. > :41:28.dressed Diane Abbott out of his front bench. We are always sorry
:41:28. > :41:37.when a star falls from the firmament. It is mostly an exercise
:41:37. > :41:41.in encouraging people within the party to believe that there is a
:41:41. > :41:45.hope for them, that things may change, things are moving up there
:41:45. > :41:49.in the stratosphere, and so and so has a job, so maybe you will. There
:41:49. > :41:55.is a lot of that, but really a change in the identities of a small
:41:55. > :41:57.number of junior ministers or spokesmen makes no difference to the
:41:57. > :42:08.overall direction of politics. Diane Abbott. I was a bit of a curtain
:42:08. > :42:13.that was removed from a window. A bit of what? Bit of a curtain. I
:42:13. > :42:18.have never thought of you as a bit of curtain before. I have never been
:42:18. > :42:23.on the front bench before, never been sacked, never been involved in
:42:23. > :42:26.a reshuffle. Reshuffles leave most people unhappy. The people who did
:42:27. > :42:31.not get promoted, those who did not get the right job. Most of the
:42:31. > :42:39.people in the reshuffle are unhappy. Does it make a difference? It is
:42:39. > :42:43.probably correct to say it does not. But I understand that one of the
:42:43. > :42:54.reasons I got chopped is because I came out publicly and said we should
:42:54. > :42:58.not bombed Syria. And I did it because Ed Miliband was wobbling at
:42:58. > :43:02.that point. They brought us back early because they wanted to bomb
:43:02. > :43:07.Damascus that weekend. I believe that would have dragged us into
:43:07. > :43:11.civil war in Syria, where there are no good guys. Syrians would have
:43:11. > :43:16.died. And if I got the push because I refused to vote for bombing Syria,
:43:16. > :43:28.I would do the same thing over and over again.
:43:28. > :43:38.But the motion did not ask for permission to bombed Syria. No. You
:43:38. > :43:41.know how it works. We could have put forward a motion, it would have
:43:41. > :43:44.fallen, and then the leadership would have said, we have to vote
:43:44. > :43:51.with the government. That route was blocked for the leadership, and then
:43:51. > :43:57.the Tory motion failed. Which also did not give permission for bombing
:43:57. > :44:02.Syria. Does it make any difference? I don't think it necessarily will be
:44:02. > :44:06.earth-shattering. But clearly, every so often party leaders, in terms of
:44:06. > :44:10.the management of what they are trying to do, in the same way that
:44:10. > :44:15.any organisation does, they have to consider whether they have the right
:44:15. > :44:18.people in the right job doing well. Politics is not your textbook
:44:18. > :44:22.management, in terms of doing human rights or sources. There is not
:44:22. > :44:26.enough continuing personal development, or proper appraisal
:44:26. > :44:32.systems where people could be helped out on what they could do better. It
:44:32. > :44:37.chucks people in and sees it facing or swim. Was putting Norman Baker in
:44:37. > :44:40.the Home Office, a man who believes the security forces covered up the
:44:40. > :44:43.murder of David Kelly, the weapons inspector, was that throwing Norman
:44:43. > :45:03.Baker in the deep end? security services was responsible
:45:03. > :45:13.for a cover-up in the murder of a senior official. On a whole range
:45:14. > :45:17.of other issues Norman Baker has been standing up and was putting in
:45:17. > :45:22.Freedom of Information requests to been standing up and was putting in
:45:22. > :45:26.uncover the expenses scandal. He will do an excellent job in the
:45:26. > :45:32.Home Office and is a strong supporter of civil liberties. If
:45:32. > :45:39.you have him back, if you have me back, I will be able to discuss how
:45:39. > :45:48.he has been. But was he not very unhappy? Was Theresa May not happy?
:45:48. > :45:56.I have not had a conversation with her to ask that and it is not our
:45:56. > :45:59.job to make her happy. It is not the Liberal Democrats job in a
:45:59. > :46:10.coalition to make the Conservatives happy? Putting somebody with strong
:46:10. > :46:15.human-rights credentials in the Home Office is the way to go. I am
:46:15. > :46:21.a big fan of civil liberties and it is important we have that
:46:21. > :46:26.represented in the hope Office. Jo Swinson was saying a change of this
:46:26. > :46:33.nature should be done on ability, but it strikes me from some of Ed
:46:33. > :46:40.Miliband's decisions that rather than meritocracy and ability they
:46:40. > :46:49.are trying to please the unions and taking the union box. I have to say
:46:49. > :46:54.that is absurd. The headline promotion was a wonderful guy
:46:54. > :47:02.called Tristram Hunt. Is he a left winger? No, he is not. The man in
:47:02. > :47:07.red at the back. I used to work in the Civil Service working for
:47:07. > :47:12.ministers for all of the three parties and have experienced the
:47:12. > :47:19.impact of ministerial reshuffles. It causes a huge amount of
:47:19. > :47:22.disruption within Government. The Institute for a Government and the
:47:22. > :47:26.Public Administration Select Committee have published reports on
:47:26. > :47:32.the impact of reshuffles. Because of the regular reshuffles that have
:47:32. > :47:36.happened, the impacts that it had meant none of the politicians were
:47:37. > :47:42.able to gain any expertise in their policy areas. Each of the defence
:47:42. > :47:47.policy areas were captured by a very wealthy vested interests. You
:47:47. > :47:57.think people should stay in post longer? I think the Prime Minister
:47:57. > :48:04.has done a fantastic job. No, I think so. I thought you wanted to
:48:04. > :48:09.replace him. Not back to that old one. You get one newspaper story
:48:09. > :48:14.and everybody thinks you are running for a leadership. I support
:48:14. > :48:20.the Prime Minister and I hope he is therefore 1000 years. Anyway, as I
:48:20. > :48:26.was saying, he has done a great job because he has kept stability. Some
:48:26. > :48:30.people have been in position for almost four years. In terms of
:48:30. > :48:36.reshuffles, there will always be a lot of career politicians. But a
:48:36. > :48:40.bit like share prices Koreas go up and come down. People returning to
:48:40. > :48:45.bit like share prices Koreas go up the backbenches will be valued,
:48:45. > :48:51.they have got good experience. People moving from the backbenches
:48:51. > :48:59.to the front benches is a good idea and it is a win-win situation. I
:48:59. > :49:06.agree with the gentleman at the back. I have never understood the
:49:06. > :49:12.concept of a reshuffle. Surely shuffle is adequate to the concept.
:49:12. > :49:19.There speaks a professor. Exactly, I deal with words. The idea of
:49:19. > :49:23.shuffle is randomness and dis order. I do not want a Government that
:49:24. > :49:29.throws up the cards and sees how they land. I want a Government that
:49:29. > :49:32.has a strategic idea of where it wants to go. I do not understand
:49:32. > :49:37.why experience, expertise and wants to go. I do not understand
:49:37. > :49:41.skills are not being emphasised. I have never understood why somebody
:49:41. > :49:46.in charge of the economy has somebody who has got a degree in
:49:46. > :49:53.Modern History. I do not understand that. Certainly the evidence
:49:53. > :50:00.suggests he does not understand much about history either. But the
:50:00. > :50:05.fact is I would like to hear a conversation... It is great there
:50:05. > :50:09.are more women in leadership roles, but I want to know they are good at
:50:09. > :50:14.the jobs into which they have been put. We never hear about what their
:50:15. > :50:26.skills or experience is are that makes them appropriate for the
:50:26. > :50:32.position they have just been put in. A question from Patrick Kirkham.
:50:32. > :50:38.Has the publication of articles in the Guardian about GCHQ damage
:50:38. > :50:43.national security? This is a very important argument. The chief of
:50:43. > :50:49.MI5, Andrew Parker, made a speech in which he said enormous damage
:50:49. > :50:53.was done in the pursuit of terrorists because of information
:50:53. > :50:57.published in the Guardian which handed information to the
:50:57. > :51:06.terrorists, the gift they need to evade as an strike as at well. Jo
:51:06. > :51:11.Swinson. Understandably the head of MI5 is going to make the case that
:51:11. > :51:14.he has done. We need to recognise there are some things MI5 and other
:51:14. > :51:19.he has done. We need to recognise agencies do to keep us all says
:51:19. > :51:25.that need to be kept secret. But there is a balance to be struck in
:51:25. > :51:29.recognising their knees to be some accountability and we are able to
:51:29. > :51:34.do that through parliament and Government and that to a degree the
:51:34. > :51:39.press within our country has always played a role in that. I do not
:51:39. > :51:43.think it would be fair to say that always publishing anything that is
:51:43. > :51:51.leaked is always the wrong thing for a newspaper to do. What about
:51:51. > :51:56.these publications and the way it tapped into terrorist and other
:51:56. > :52:02.communications? I can understand why the head of MI5 is making that
:52:02. > :52:06.case. It is probably the case it would have been better in terms of
:52:06. > :52:11.our national security had that not all been published, but it is worth
:52:11. > :52:13.recognising the Guardian did not publish everything they were given.
:52:13. > :52:20.It was not entirely indiscriminate, publish everything they were given.
:52:20. > :52:23.like some of the things we have seen on WikiLeaks. We need to take
:52:23. > :52:30.great care about these particular issues, but there can be a
:52:30. > :52:35.legitimate role for newspapers in a free press. It is important there
:52:35. > :52:41.is accountability and transparency of what the security services do.
:52:41. > :52:47.Do stop being so judicious. I was not 500 yards from here and many
:52:47. > :52:54.years ago I was interviewed for a job in British intelligence. It
:52:54. > :53:01.gets worse. They offered me a job. You have been a spire all this time.
:53:01. > :53:10.They were the only people who knew anything about me who had not
:53:10. > :53:15.realised I was gay. It is a banned to being in intelligence? Certainly
:53:15. > :53:21.it would have been in 1973. Did you proffer yourself for this job? It's
:53:21. > :53:26.was like in the spy novels, one is approached by a don who one has
:53:26. > :53:31.never met before and asked if you would be interested in a
:53:31. > :53:35.specialised branch of work. I have always taken our intelligence
:53:35. > :53:42.services' utterances with a pinch of salt and I take this one with a
:53:42. > :53:47.pinch of salt. On the other hand the Guardian's absurd grandstanding
:53:47. > :53:53.is irritating. Why it grandstanding for those of us who do not read it
:53:53. > :53:56.every day? They are fighting a magnificent battle for her freedom.
:53:56. > :54:00.every day? They are fighting a A lot of the stuff that Edward
:54:00. > :54:08.Snowden has been releasing should not have been released. If you are
:54:08. > :54:14.against invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, you have to have an answer
:54:14. > :54:19.to the question of how should the nation's security be protected? If
:54:20. > :54:23.that is not by having a good, well- staffed, well-resourced
:54:23. > :54:29.intelligence service which is able to find things out and keep secrets,
:54:29. > :54:32.I do not know what the answer is so. You were accusing her of being
:54:32. > :54:38.pompous and you are saying the same thing, it is very important. It is
:54:38. > :54:43.very important and I do not think the Guardian have been right in
:54:43. > :54:47.what they have done. You cannot simply release bucket loads of
:54:47. > :54:58.state secrets and know which will be damaging to security and which
:54:59. > :55:03.will not be. I have yet to see any evidence, however, that these
:55:03. > :55:08.leaked documents have indeed brought harm to anyone. I have not
:55:09. > :55:13.seen evidence that somebody was harmed as a result of these
:55:13. > :55:19.revelations. What we have seen is a series of organisations in America
:55:19. > :55:24.and here which are making it very clear that their ideas about their
:55:24. > :55:29.own power and their insistence on secrecy as the way they control
:55:29. > :55:34.things is under a massive threat, it is being transformed. They will
:55:35. > :55:40.have to figure out more flexible ways of dealing with the world in
:55:40. > :55:44.which we lead. There has to be a role for the free press in this
:55:44. > :55:50.because it is what holds Government to account. These guys have not
:55:51. > :55:54.been held to account. Shirting at us that this is a question of
:55:54. > :56:00.national security, how do I know that? We are being asked to trust
:56:01. > :56:05.people who have proven to be untrustworthy. I believe the
:56:05. > :56:10.Guardian should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and is the
:56:10. > :56:19.CPS does not do this, I would like them to tell us why. Diane Abbott.
:56:19. > :56:23.There is always a defence, the Official Secrets Act and public
:56:23. > :56:30.interest. If we are talking about the Edward Snowden revelations, I
:56:30. > :56:34.think it is wrong for the head of MI5 to step out of the shadows,
:56:34. > :56:38.assert that this has damaged national security, and step back
:56:38. > :56:44.into the shadows. He cannot be challenged, he cannot prove it.
:56:44. > :56:47.Whatever we think of Edward Snowden or the Guardian, they have been
:56:47. > :56:54.very careful about what they have published. As a woman of the left I
:56:54. > :57:00.have always vaguely assumed my telephone has been tapped, nobody
:57:00. > :57:05.knew that the states in America and here was able to monitor your every
:57:05. > :57:10.telephone communication, your every activity on e-mail. Nobody knew
:57:10. > :57:15.that companies like Dougal had engaged with backdoor deals with
:57:15. > :57:21.the state. We did not know these things and I believe we are
:57:21. > :57:26.entitled to know them. I think the way it MI5 into being should not
:57:27. > :57:32.have happened in this society. On balance, I believe what was printed
:57:32. > :57:39.in the Guardian which shows as the extent of surveillance... And how
:57:39. > :57:43.they exceeded their authority. It seems to me on balance what the
:57:43. > :57:50.Guardian did was in the public interest. We have to stop. Our hour
:57:50. > :57:53.is up. Sorry to those of you who still have your hands up. Question-
:57:53. > :58:04.time always passes speedily. We are going to be in Basingstoke
:58:04. > :58:10.next week. Tristram Hunt is on the panel. After that we are in
:58:10. > :58:16.Liverpool. If you can come to buy the programme to take part, and put
:58:16. > :58:27.questions and argue with our panel, the website is the best place to go
:58:27. > :58:32.to. If you have been wrestling -- listening to this on Radio 5, the
:58:32. > :58:37.debate continues. Thank you to all of you who came to Cambridge to
:58:37. > :58:39.take part. Until next Thursday, from the Guild Hall in Cambridge,
:58:39. > :58:44.good night.