10/10/2013 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Cambridge, and welcome to Question Time.

Wellcome, as always, to our audience welcome to Question Time.

in Cambridge, here to ask questions and argue with the panel, and to our

panel, who do not know the questions and argue with the panel, and to our

in advance. The Liberal Democrat Business Minister, Jo Swinson.

Labour's Diane Abbott, who may be free to speak her mind even more

than usual, after being sacked by Ed Miliband from his front bench this

week. The Conservative MP challenging his party leader, David

Cameron, to call an early referendum on the EU, Adam Afriyie. Times

columnist, Matthew Parris, and Sarah Churchwell, professor of American

literature at the University of East Anglia.

to you all. First question from Oliver Richardson. With today's 8%

rise in energy bills, is it time for eight -- price freeze? Well, I

understand why that seems so attract to have, because at the end of the

day, people are finding it tough at the moment to balance household

budgets. It feels sometimes like energy bills keep rowing through the

roof. But I do not think Ed Miliband has identified the right solution to

this problem, and there are a few reasons why that is the case. Can

you give the main one? If you announce a price freeze and sable

happen in 18 months, you get the energy companies that will hike up

prices before it happens. -- if you say it will happen. But that is

something which does not, therefore, get you the ultimate goal

you were aiming for. The other thing is that we have an energy market

which is quite dysfunctional and was created, in fact, when Ed Miliband

was energy secretary. It allowed the big six to thrive, where 90% of

people with one of those companies. That lack of competition is not

good, but Ed Miliband's plans would make it worse. What are the type of

companies that would withstand the 20 months of the price freeze? Those

that had already built fat profits, the big six. The ones that it would

hurt would be the smaller companies that we need to provide competition

to the larger operators. They would be much more likely to go bust and

go out of the market, leaving us with an entrenched week six, which

is the opposite from the direction we need to be going to get better

is the opposite from the direction deals for consumers. -- be

entrenched big six. I said it is a joke, but do you think there is a

possibility prices are being hiked because of what Ed Miliband said

about a freeze if Labour came to office? I think there are wholesale

rises in energy prices globally. But do you think his statement has

anything to do with it? It could well have an impact. If you are in

the energy market and you see it has been announced by one of the major

parties, that could factor into calculations, and that is on helpful

will stop Diane Abbott. She seems to calculations, and that is on helpful

have been taken in by the big energy companies saying, if the prices are

frozen, the lights will go out and we will go bankrupt. The truth is

that the market is rigged, and the energy companies have been making

hay with it for far too long. They put up prices less than 12 months

ago. This company is talking about an 8% rise, and they will all

follow. If it was a genuine market, you would not need intervention, but

it is a dysfunctional market. We are saying we would freeze prices for

two years while we sort out the regulation and the market. These

price rises are very serious for ordinary people. There will be old

people who will have difficulty finding the money to heat their

homes this winter. And for the government just to wring its hands

and criticise Ed Miliband, the government does not have a practical

proposal which will make energy affordable for people, particularly

in East Anglia which can get very cold in the winter, who will have

difficulty heating their homes. Wringing your hands is not enough.

We believe in market, but we believe in a genuine market. This is a

dysfunctional market and the problem is the future profit margin. You

dysfunctional market and the problem think this government should freeze

things now Western Mark they will not do it. We would certainly do it

in 2015. David, alone on the panel, you and I are old enough to remember

the price freeze is in the 1970s. Governments in the 70s tried

freezing prices. They tried having a basket of prices. What happened was

that retailers put up other prices. It does not work. I am torn between

thinking this is a cheap gimmick on Ed Miliband's Park, which I hope, or

that he really believes that you can rig the markets, fix the markets in

this way. I wish there was any politician who was brave enough to

challenge this assertion that the energy market is dysfunctional. They

are typically making profits of five to 6%. That is what Sainsbury's make

and we do not it -- expect a freeze on the price of groceries. If you

were to wipe out their entire profit margins, you would destroy the

industry, but were you to do it, it would be about £5 per week off the

average household bill. There is not such a big problem here. Well, you

say that. It is all very well to talk about not interfering in

markets. You should not interfere in a working market but this is not a

working market. They are looting the pocket of ordinary people trying to

pay their electricity bill. If the market is so rigged, how come gas

and electricity prices are lower than the EU average? Why do

politicians keep saying this, rather than giving us back the £100 subsidy

for the wind farms they want to put up? You think part of the problem is

that 10% or whatever that goes towards green energy. It is all very

well saying that poor people should not have high bills, but you have

applied a £100 tax, in the form of subsidies on our gas and air because

of the bills, which applies to everyone, whether poor rich. Part of

the problem is about evidence. We get these assertions but it is not

clear what the wholesale price is that they are paying. They say they

make a profit of five or 6%, but they are also making profits on

other parts of their business. It seems to me that they blind faith in

the market is as objectionable as the idea that we can control

international prices, which has been the idea that we can control

one of the objections made to this idea. We need to make a distinction

between essential and discretionary services. When people are actually

going to be at risk, as Diane Abbott is saying, of not being able to pay

their prices, and in extreme cases, actually dying, then somebody needs

to do something. Whether price-fixing is the answer, I do not

remember the price freeze is of the 1970s, and if it does not work we

need to try something else. Simply saying more, the dish and we'll sort

it out is demonstrably not the case. -- more competition. It is a very

simple point - we have the cheapest gas prices in Europe, the fourth

cheapest electricity prices. They are not ripping us off. It is just a

lie. Electricity is expensive. It is a cost, but it is an international

problem and we cannot change that. At electricity prices may be

relatively low component to Europe, but people in the city and up and

down the country, what people pay in Europe is not their problem. Their

problem is how steeply prices are rising and how the big energy

companies are abusing a rigged market. That is their problem. The

exact same thing. I am not sure it is necessary to rig

an entire market just to help a small minority who are poor, elderly

and cannot pay their bills. We should concentrate on helping that

minority, rather than messing up an entire market by price-fixing. When

anyone opens the envelope with the Energy Bill, one is always nervous.

I am going to say something controversial. I actually think that

Ed Miliband is right. I think he is right in his analysis of the problem

with energy prices. I also think he is completely wrong. It would be

absolutely barmy to try to control the energy price. First, for some of

the reasons already given. I come from a business background.

Businesses will just raise the price in anticipation of a Labour

government. The second thing is that he cannot possibly do it. The

wholesale price of gas and electricity is set by the world

markets. So what is he going to do, if the wholesale price of gas and

markets. So what is he going to do, electricity goes up? As a

businessman, you know that these companies have already bought it,

businessman, you know that these they buy forward. But if the world

price goes up, over whatever time frame, what will Ed Miliband do?

What are you going to do, Adam? He is asking what you are going to do.

I have told him. Is he going to is asking what you are going to do.

constantly pour money from the Exchequer to try and hold the price

down. It does not make any sense. If he managed to achieve a £100 per

year saving for consumers, that could be completely surpassed if we

actually simply helped the market to run smoothly. In this regard, the

Coalition Government is doing a good job, looking at competition within

the market, so that anyone of us can look between many suppliers and try

to find the lowest energy price. I think that is the way forward and it

is going to work. We have a lot of think that is the way forward and it

questions to get through. One or two more points the audience. I am

afraid markets do not work as Diane Abbott seems to think. Markets only

care about purchasing power. If there are lots of people who do not

have the necessary purchasing power for your product, the market will

not supply them the product. So people must freeze to death? I am

surprised to see this attachment to markets in the Labour Party. The

market is not the solution. I support what Diane Abbott is

saying, because as a staff nurse, I see patients coming in, suffering

from the cold, and that is pretty much more of the reason why they

have been admitted. It is the syndrome of heat or eat. When I go

into communities, I see them huddled into a room. We have the inevitable

fact that the energy prices are going up and are likely to go up,

and wages are going lower. What do you make of the point that was made

beside you, that the focus should be on the elderly and those with not

enough money to pay their bills, rather than on the whole consumer?

Capping might not be the best means. Interest rates did not work, so

controlling energy prices will not work either. But by offering more

help to the people that are vulnerable, but that help is not out

there, not in time. The gentleman made the point about roughly 9% of

the Energy Bill is the result of government policy. That picks up on

the point the lady at the back made, which is about targeting help to the

most vulnerable. The vast majority of what is as a result of government

policy is actually going to help people who are vulnerable. Things

like the warm home discount, which means that people in that difficult

scenario do not have to choose between heating and eating, they get

help with their bills. And energy efficiency, to cut everyone buzzing

energy bills. That is a tiny part, £11 per year. £47 per year for

various other things - home improvements, renewables, £30 per

year. 3% is investment on renewable and green technology. We need those

jobs for our economy. We have to think of the long-term challenge,

not just getting the economy back on track, but also the threat of

climate change. To address that, we need to change the way we generate

electricity. It is important that small part of energy bills goes to

that real threat. You can comment on what is being said here tonight:

Should Britain have a referendum on the general election?

Of I am pro-European, I was in Barcelona this summer, I had a

wonderful time. But... That is not being pro-European, that is having

wonderful time. But... That is not a nice holiday. In the Treasury

Select Committee I was all over talking about a single currency and

Europe is an aid project. The European elite do not want ordinary

people to have a debate. There is a democratic case for having a debate

and a referendum. I am not sure before at the general election, but

I think it is an excellent idea and Adams should be congratulated.

Would you like to see Ed Miliband, now that you can speak your mind,

not that you ever stop, which is probably why you are not on the

front bench, would you like to see Labour book that in the next

election? Yes, it is not anti- European to allow the people to

debate and decide. I think we should have a referendum, but not

before the general election. We should have a referendum when there

is a significant change of powers between the UK and the rest of

Europe and that seems to be a sensible time to have the

referendum. Adam's proposal for a referendum in 2014 is flawed. It

takes no regard of the fact we have referendum in 2014 is flawed. It

a Scottish referendum coming up a month before that and that is not

featured in his calculations. It seems to have no regard to the fact

that this would be showing a hand grenade into Europe where people

are trying to recover from a terrible set of circumstances. It

seems this proposal has achieved two things. It has got Adam onto

seems this proposal has achieved the front of the Mail on Sunday and

I have to congratulate him for this, perhaps the only time the

Conservative Party have ever managed to be united in

disagreement with this particular proposal is something that deserves

congratulations. Adam. I believe the British people need to have a

say and 80% of the British people want a referendum. 80% of

businesses that want a referendum, more than half what it sooner

rather than later. It is not more than half what it sooner

revolutionary for a backbench MP to suggest people have a referendum in

2014. The answers I am already hearing here, you have got a

political class who kept saying, it is not the right time, we have got

to have complicated things is not the right time, we have got

happening beforehand. 12 months is to plenty of time to negotiate. If

we set the date in October, 2014, the pressure is on the European

Union leaders to come to Britain to convince people to stay in. It is

the right thing to do and I would rather be on the side of the

British people than the political elite that was to deny them a vote.

You got a letter today, didn't you? From 140 Tory MPs. So I hear. I

will read it to you if you like. It says you are wrong. 140 of the 147.

Are you going to go on pressing for this referendum? Are you going to

say, I had my moment to explain what I thought, but I am now going

to drop it? I came from a tough background in Peckham in south-east

London and I have had tough challenges in my life. People said

London and I have had tough I could not achieve things, but I

pushed through. If the establishment is uniting and saying,

no, a backbench MP cannot have a say on this, I am prepared to fight

all the weight so the British people can have a say. You are not

withdrawing it? Why has to listen to Parliament for the debate. One

has to listen to what the politicians have to say and take

soundings. But I am absolutely sure that the way to ensure, for the

Conservative Party, electoral victory in 2015, is we have this

referendum and the incoming Government must remain in the EU or

come out. Why did you abstain in 2011 when 81 Tory MPs call for a

referendum? You were not there? I was there and I was standing in the

debate. I did not want the coalition and I did not believe in

it and I made a decision. The Conservatives are leading the

coalition and I am a Conservative MP and I was not going to stand in

the way of what a Conservative lead Government wanted to do. It was a

three-line whip and I decide it. I did not vote for the Government.

That is the way Parliament works. Either you vote for something or

That is the way Parliament works. against something. Or you abstain.

I defied the whip and I will continue to do so on this one if

necessary. Matthew Parris. As a fellow Conservative nobody in the

party is saying you have no right to an opinion and no-one is saying

you have no right to put forward a proposal, they are saying your

proposal is stark raving bonkers. To give people a say in a

referendum is bonkers? I do not think so. We have a prime minister

who says if he is re-elected, he will renegotiate the terms of our

membership of the European Union, he will bring back those

renegotiated terms and put them to the country. If the country like

them, we can vote es, or we can the country. If the country like

vote know. Now in the middle of an economic crisis, there would not be

a proposition to vote on. It is not the right time. Do you think it is

bonkers? I do not think it is bonkers. If we have a referendum

and we vote to come out, we will have further referendum until the

political elite get the answer they want, which is to stay in. You, sir.

Do you not think that in the European elections next summer or

we might have a referendum at that point? I did think about that idea,

but we have to be practical and you need at least 12 months when

something is passed into Parliament. When it comes to the Scottish

referendum I have taken that into account. One can have a referendum

us Scotland, we have an answer to that, and several weeks later we

have a referendum on the European Union. We have got a coalition

Government and we are settling our constitutional issues. We have had

a vote on alternative voting. We have had a referendum on the United

Kingdom in terms of Scotland, why are we not sorting out the elephant

in the room, our relationship in the European Union. Adam and I were

reminiscing in the Green Room. This first time we met was on another

panel programme debating the European referendum and it was 10

years ago. That debate does not seem to have moved on very much in

that decade. It seems to me from seem to have moved on very much in

the point of view of somebody who has relatively recently arrived in

this country you are never going to has relatively recently arrived in

get away from this. You will have to have the referendum. However, a

coalition Government in the middle of an economic crisis is not the

best time to do it. There is never a good time to have it, but it has

become a shorthand for a foregone conclusion, which is the vote would

be to leave Europe. I sincerely hope it is not the case. It is

important Britain remains part of the European Union, but you cannot

keep going backwards and forwards. Hopefully Britain will come to its

senses and state in the European Union and you can move on. Adam was

saying the Europeans have got to come over here, but what happens if

they say, you are so much trouble, leave us and we will be fine

without you, thank you very much. Parallels with the Scottish

referendum. At the very back. I totally agree with Sarah Churchwell,

I hope the UK will come to its senses. But there is a grave danger

that that will not happen unless there is not a decent information

campaign before any referendum. Do you want to see a referendum before

the election? I do not want to see one for a long time. It is complete

nonsense to bring it up at this critical time in Europe. People do

not realise in this country they never have an information campaign

that shows the advantages they have had over an enormous number of

years of being in the European Union. The woman on the right. I am

a teacher in a secondary school in England and I am interested in what

the Government proposes to do to educate 18 year-olds about Europe,

especially because the new history curriculum is increasingly Anglo

centric. The man next to you, sir, the person on your right. It is

presumptuous to say it would be on the person on your right. It is

the EU leaders to come and say to England why we should stay. It is

the job of your party to say why we should leave. There are quite a lot

of attractive things being part of the EU. Postgraduates paid tens of

thousands of pounds and in other countries it is free. Why on earth

would we want to leave? How would you vote? If we had the referendum

today, like Michael Gove, I would vote to come out. But 12 months

from now and there is a different offer on the table, it might be

different. The Conservative Party is united behind the idea of a

referendum. The Conservative Party does not have a view as to whether

we should stay in or come out. The British public should decide. All

the information we require from the various campaigns will be available.

The point is to have it out and have our country united in Europe

or outside Europe. Let's go on to another question from Phil portent.

The OECD's skills survey has shown our young adults perform poorly in

comparison to those of other countries. Where have we gone

wrong? These are the figures that came out from a long list of 24

countries with England, not Scotland and Wales, England at

number 19 on literacy and number 21 on numeracy. Sarah Churchwell, what

do you think has gone wrong? I arrived here 14 years ago and I

have been teaching literature ever since. Literacy has dramatically

declined. I see it every day. These results are no surprise to me. My

colleagues have problems with numeracy. As far as what has gone

wrong my own feeling is that, and now I will say something that might

shock everybody, I am not sure I believe in a national curriculum. I

do not come from that background. I am not sure one Cabinet can sit

down and decide what is the best way to teach everybody across a

nation. I think the results that are comparing the best with the UK

are often from places that have more flexible teaching options.

Except that America, where you come from, is below England in these

figures. Nobody mentioned that, they mentioned Finland at being at

the top. United States is bottom innumeracy. Absolutely. In the

United States the Government has shut down, nothing is working there.

The United States is not a test example and I was not suggesting it

is currently working. As far as what can fix this, I think and

believe you have to let teachers teach and you have to trust them

that they can do their jobs. You should not make everything all the

time. You are against testing? You have to do some testing, but they

are constantly testing, they only know the answers to the test and

they are not learning the skills they need to understand the subject.

It is a waste of everybody's time. Where have we gone wrong? I am not

sure we have. You should come to my classroom and you will find a

demonstrate all declining literacy. You are simply wrong. I was a member

of Parliament the caves ago and the most illiterate letters often came

from more elderly constituencies. -- decades ago. I am not sure we have

ever been brilliant at literacy or numeracy. We have always been crap,

so it is OK! Children learn the skills they think they are going to

need, and there may be other skills children are learning. Perhaps they

are not as fluent in the classics. I think you need to read and write.

Beyond that, you can do it on your mobile phone these days, a bit of

adding up. People will teach mobile phone these days, a bit of

themselves the skills that they need. I never learned very much at

school anyway. Except, obviously, to read and write. How is your

numeracy? Matthew, you just said people can learn on the mobile

phone, but it is things like text speak and various things like that,

internet and anagrams and things like that, that mean that literacy

is devolving in the UK. It is no surprise, really, is it, when people

are talking in abbreviated forms, that people cannot spell and

articulate themselves efficiently. That other countries do exactly the

same thing, don't they? Why are they at the top of the list? They

obviously focus on their own language as well. They do not just

look at the devolved grammar that a lot of youngsters are using. They

don't assume they naturally know how to speak their language perfectly.

It does not work that way. At my old school, students performed badly

because the teachers did not love the subject, they loved the

paycheque. You have to give the name and address of the school to the

teachers here! Quite a few of these countries at the top of the charts

have a much later starting age for schools. Finland is six or seven. Do

the panel think that would help in the UK? Somebody thrust up their

hand as they heard that being said. I think part of the problem may be

in our primary schools today is that maybe our schools are trying to

juggle too many subjects. There is such a focus on giving a very

rounded syllabus, focusing on the sciences, giving a foundation

knowledge of foreign languages. Maybe there should be a greater

focus on getting kids to know the basic English grammar, rather than

trying to put too many things in their heads when they do not know

the basics of their own language. Diane Abbott. This did not happen

overnight, and if you are going to look to the roots of the problem,

part of it emerged when you had a Labour government. We did some

fantastic things in education. Investment in schools and so on. But

I think perhaps the emphasis which said that 50% of the education

population has to go to university, perhaps that skewed the debate to

university and the sort of trial that can get to university, at the

university and the sort of trial expense of basic skills and crafts

and just real skills. -- the sort of child. We are having a debate now in

the party about redressing that, and child. We are having a debate now in

focusing on people who may not get to university but should no valuable

skills. We need to reset education policy. University will always be

the right thing for a great many people and we want as many people

who can benefit to go there, but we need to reset and focus on basic

skills. Jo Swinson, these figures do not apply to you, do they, because

they do not include Scotland? Apparently the Scottish Government

did not want to pay to be part of the study. You have two paid to put

yourself at number 19 of 24. It is useful to understand where we are

against other countries. We are competing in a global economy and

this is incredibly important. Diane Abbott says the Labour government

did some good things but Tony Blair promised his priority would be

education, education, education. These figures are from children that

started between 1998 and 2007. It is pretty damning to be at the bottom

of those tables. I am a London MP and I have five brand-new schools in

my constituency. The results for London children have shot up. I am

not saying everything Tony Blair did was perfect but we did some great

things in education. It is not fair to the teachers to see something

different. I am saying we need to be incredibly worried. Matthew is

perhaps a bit complacent. I think we need to be worried because literacy

and numerous ER the basic skills. You will find it hard to get a job

without a sick literacy and numeracy. It is not good enough to

say we have not been good at this traditionally, and perhaps things

will be OK in some parts of the country. We are letting those young

people down and that is why it is important that we are raising the

age at which young people have to learn to 18, and making them have to

continue maths and English in some form until that age. We also need to

make sure that young people who have been failed, in that 16-24 cohort,

some of whom are finding it difficult to get a job cause of the

lack of skills, that they get the support they need. That is why I

think the new traineeship model the government is undertaking is vital.

So that is why you did away with the educational maintenance allowance,

was that what it was about? We are making sure those skills can be

was that what it was about? We are developed with young people, so they

can get a job, which will be difficult with no literacy or

numerous sea. Diane Abbott, you did not show much confidence in state

education, sending your children to private school. Yes, but... But I

would say this. My son is now 22. When I had to decide on a secondary

school, Labour had just come into office. If I had to make the same

decision again, thanks to the investment in secondary schools in

Hackney over the years of Labour government, I would happily send him

to a range of schools in Hackney, including one which was led by the

Chief Inspector of education. Do we have any teachers here who would

like to comment? I trained in east London to be a teacher, and I was

really shocked at the poverty a lot of children are experiencing. I

really shocked at the poverty a lot think a more shocking statistic is

that to be a child in this country is very bad. I think the root cause

is that actually children have other worries, apart from learning to

read. When they are at home, they are worried about food, sharing a

bedroom with three siblings. There are basic care issues that I did not

think existed. Rather than the education system. In London, you see

a massive transformation of education but you are still facing

chronic inequality when you are in the shadow of Canary Wharf. Point

taken. I think Diane Abbott was incorrect, talking about the

education maintenance allowance which no longer exists. That was in

plagiarism this study. I was talking about Jo Swinson saying she wanted

to help young people. The point I wanted to make was that the other

observation was that we were moving down at that point. It is not just

about where we were, we are moving backwards. Part of it is that we

were dumbing down the exam system. This is no criticism of teachers or

pupils. But there was this whole feeling that everybody must get a

higher grade. There was this grade inflation. I know Michael Gove is

not very popular with teachers, but he is doing some fantastic work in

terms of making the dam system robust, so that when you leave

school you know that the grades you have will be recognised around the

world. -- the exam system. It is very telling that the percentage of

people taking the baccalaureate fell to 25% under the Labour government

and it is now up to 50%. Something good is happening and I hope it

continues. Sarah said, and I cannot contradict her, that she has noticed

the standard of writing of her students has gone down a lot in the

last 14 years. Of course, juror in the last 14 years there has been a

huge increase in the proportion of school leavers who go on to

university. I wonder whether part of the explanation may just be a drop

in the calibre of your students. I do not think so. Part of the issue,

because I am in contact with other people at other universities, and we

see at across-the-board. What I think is the issue, and I would

agree with the gentleman who asked about children going to school

older. I think that is a good idea. I think they are starting to young.

The testing culture has absolutely proven to be detrimental. It is not

teaching them what they need to learn. The other issue is the

gentleman was raising about poverty and other anxieties and concerns of

children, these are all things we need to deal with as a society. But

these are absolutely key skills without which you cannot get forward

in life. We have to make a priority of making sure that the skills are

taught. I believe we have to trust of making sure that the skills are

teachers and stop interfering with them all the time. Just let them do

what they do. It is really important. I am going to go on. Matt

Webb. Will the Dutch coalition and important. I am going to go on. Matt

Shadow Cabinet appointments in this week's reshuffles make any

difference to UK politics, or is it just window dressing. -- will the

coalition and Shadow Cabinet appointments make a difference?

Matthew Parris. I can give you a short answer. It is simply

windowdressing. It is just window dressing. Why did he want to window

dressed Diane Abbott out of his front bench. We are always sorry

when a star falls from the firmament. It is mostly an exercise

in encouraging people within the party to believe that there is a

hope for them, that things may change, things are moving up there

in the stratosphere, and so and so has a job, so maybe you will. There

is a lot of that, but really a change in the identities of a small

number of junior ministers or spokesmen makes no difference to the

overall direction of politics. Diane Abbott. I was a bit of a curtain

that was removed from a window. A bit of what? Bit of a curtain. I

have never thought of you as a bit of curtain before. I have never been

on the front bench before, never been sacked, never been involved in

a reshuffle. Reshuffles leave most people unhappy. The people who did

not get promoted, those who did not get the right job. Most of the

people in the reshuffle are unhappy. Does it make a difference? It is

probably correct to say it does not. But I understand that one of the

reasons I got chopped is because I came out publicly and said we should

not bombed Syria. And I did it because Ed Miliband was wobbling at

that point. They brought us back early because they wanted to bomb

Damascus that weekend. I believe that would have dragged us into

civil war in Syria, where there are no good guys. Syrians would have

died. And if I got the push because I refused to vote for bombing Syria,

I would do the same thing over and over again.

But the motion did not ask for permission to bombed Syria. No. You

know how it works. We could have put forward a motion, it would have

fallen, and then the leadership would have said, we have to vote

with the government. That route was blocked for the leadership, and then

the Tory motion failed. Which also did not give permission for bombing

Syria. Does it make any difference? I don't think it necessarily will be

earth-shattering. But clearly, every so often party leaders, in terms of

the management of what they are trying to do, in the same way that

any organisation does, they have to consider whether they have the right

people in the right job doing well. Politics is not your textbook

management, in terms of doing human rights or sources. There is not

enough continuing personal development, or proper appraisal

systems where people could be helped out on what they could do better. It

chucks people in and sees it facing or swim. Was putting Norman Baker in

the Home Office, a man who believes the security forces covered up the

murder of David Kelly, the weapons inspector, was that throwing Norman

Baker in the deep end? security services was responsible

for a cover-up in the murder of a senior official. On a whole range

of other issues Norman Baker has been standing up and was putting in

Freedom of Information requests to been standing up and was putting in

uncover the expenses scandal. He will do an excellent job in the

Home Office and is a strong supporter of civil liberties. If

you have him back, if you have me back, I will be able to discuss how

he has been. But was he not very unhappy? Was Theresa May not happy?

I have not had a conversation with her to ask that and it is not our

job to make her happy. It is not the Liberal Democrats job in a

coalition to make the Conservatives happy? Putting somebody with strong

human-rights credentials in the Home Office is the way to go. I am

a big fan of civil liberties and it is important we have that

represented in the hope Office. Jo Swinson was saying a change of this

nature should be done on ability, but it strikes me from some of Ed

Miliband's decisions that rather than meritocracy and ability they

are trying to please the unions and taking the union box. I have to say

that is absurd. The headline promotion was a wonderful guy

called Tristram Hunt. Is he a left winger? No, he is not. The man in

red at the back. I used to work in the Civil Service working for

ministers for all of the three parties and have experienced the

impact of ministerial reshuffles. It causes a huge amount of

disruption within Government. The Institute for a Government and the

Public Administration Select Committee have published reports on

the impact of reshuffles. Because of the regular reshuffles that have

happened, the impacts that it had meant none of the politicians were

able to gain any expertise in their policy areas. Each of the defence

policy areas were captured by a very wealthy vested interests. You

think people should stay in post longer? I think the Prime Minister

has done a fantastic job. No, I think so. I thought you wanted to

replace him. Not back to that old one. You get one newspaper story

and everybody thinks you are running for a leadership. I support

the Prime Minister and I hope he is therefore 1000 years. Anyway, as I

was saying, he has done a great job because he has kept stability. Some

people have been in position for almost four years. In terms of

reshuffles, there will always be a lot of career politicians. But a

bit like share prices Koreas go up and come down. People returning to

bit like share prices Koreas go up the backbenches will be valued,

they have got good experience. People moving from the backbenches

to the front benches is a good idea and it is a win-win situation. I

agree with the gentleman at the back. I have never understood the

concept of a reshuffle. Surely shuffle is adequate to the concept.

There speaks a professor. Exactly, I deal with words. The idea of

shuffle is randomness and dis order. I do not want a Government that

throws up the cards and sees how they land. I want a Government that

has a strategic idea of where it wants to go. I do not understand

why experience, expertise and wants to go. I do not understand

skills are not being emphasised. I have never understood why somebody

in charge of the economy has somebody who has got a degree in

Modern History. I do not understand that. Certainly the evidence

suggests he does not understand much about history either. But the

fact is I would like to hear a conversation... It is great there

are more women in leadership roles, but I want to know they are good at

the jobs into which they have been put. We never hear about what their

skills or experience is are that makes them appropriate for the

position they have just been put in. A question from Patrick Kirkham.

Has the publication of articles in the Guardian about GCHQ damage

national security? This is a very important argument. The chief of

MI5, Andrew Parker, made a speech in which he said enormous damage

was done in the pursuit of terrorists because of information

published in the Guardian which handed information to the

terrorists, the gift they need to evade as an strike as at well. Jo

Swinson. Understandably the head of MI5 is going to make the case that

he has done. We need to recognise there are some things MI5 and other

he has done. We need to recognise agencies do to keep us all says

that need to be kept secret. But there is a balance to be struck in

recognising their knees to be some accountability and we are able to

do that through parliament and Government and that to a degree the

press within our country has always played a role in that. I do not

think it would be fair to say that always publishing anything that is

leaked is always the wrong thing for a newspaper to do. What about

these publications and the way it tapped into terrorist and other

communications? I can understand why the head of MI5 is making that

case. It is probably the case it would have been better in terms of

our national security had that not all been published, but it is worth

recognising the Guardian did not publish everything they were given.

It was not entirely indiscriminate, publish everything they were given.

like some of the things we have seen on WikiLeaks. We need to take

great care about these particular issues, but there can be a

legitimate role for newspapers in a free press. It is important there

is accountability and transparency of what the security services do.

Do stop being so judicious. I was not 500 yards from here and many

years ago I was interviewed for a job in British intelligence. It

gets worse. They offered me a job. You have been a spire all this time.

They were the only people who knew anything about me who had not

realised I was gay. It is a banned to being in intelligence? Certainly

it would have been in 1973. Did you proffer yourself for this job? It's

was like in the spy novels, one is approached by a don who one has

never met before and asked if you would be interested in a

specialised branch of work. I have always taken our intelligence

services' utterances with a pinch of salt and I take this one with a

pinch of salt. On the other hand the Guardian's absurd grandstanding

is irritating. Why it grandstanding for those of us who do not read it

every day? They are fighting a magnificent battle for her freedom.

every day? They are fighting a A lot of the stuff that Edward

Snowden has been releasing should not have been released. If you are

against invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, you have to have an answer

to the question of how should the nation's security be protected? If

that is not by having a good, well- staffed, well-resourced

intelligence service which is able to find things out and keep secrets,

I do not know what the answer is so. You were accusing her of being

pompous and you are saying the same thing, it is very important. It is

very important and I do not think the Guardian have been right in

what they have done. You cannot simply release bucket loads of

state secrets and know which will be damaging to security and which

will not be. I have yet to see any evidence, however, that these

leaked documents have indeed brought harm to anyone. I have not

seen evidence that somebody was harmed as a result of these

revelations. What we have seen is a series of organisations in America

and here which are making it very clear that their ideas about their

own power and their insistence on secrecy as the way they control

things is under a massive threat, it is being transformed. They will

have to figure out more flexible ways of dealing with the world in

which we lead. There has to be a role for the free press in this

because it is what holds Government to account. These guys have not

been held to account. Shirting at us that this is a question of

national security, how do I know that? We are being asked to trust

people who have proven to be untrustworthy. I believe the

Guardian should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and is the

CPS does not do this, I would like them to tell us why. Diane Abbott.

There is always a defence, the Official Secrets Act and public

interest. If we are talking about the Edward Snowden revelations, I

think it is wrong for the head of MI5 to step out of the shadows,

assert that this has damaged national security, and step back

into the shadows. He cannot be challenged, he cannot prove it.

Whatever we think of Edward Snowden or the Guardian, they have been

very careful about what they have published. As a woman of the left I

have always vaguely assumed my telephone has been tapped, nobody

knew that the states in America and here was able to monitor your every

telephone communication, your every activity on e-mail. Nobody knew

that companies like Dougal had engaged with backdoor deals with

the state. We did not know these things and I believe we are

entitled to know them. I think the way it MI5 into being should not

have happened in this society. On balance, I believe what was printed

in the Guardian which shows as the extent of surveillance... And how

they exceeded their authority. It seems to me on balance what the

Guardian did was in the public interest. We have to stop. Our hour

is up. Sorry to those of you who still have your hands up. Question-

time always passes speedily. We are going to be in Basingstoke

next week. Tristram Hunt is on the panel. After that we are in

Liverpool. If you can come to buy the programme to take part, and put

questions and argue with our panel, the website is the best place to go

to. If you have been wrestling -- listening to this on Radio 5, the

debate continues. Thank you to all of you who came to Cambridge to

take part. Until next Thursday, from the Guild Hall in Cambridge,

good night.