17/10/2013 Question Time

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

Welcome to all of you in our audience, the people who ask

questions, to our panel, who do not know what they are until they hear

them from your lips. Conservative Immigration Minister Mark Harper,

Labour's new Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, Diane James from

UKIP, who got their best ever parliamentary result in the East the

by-election, Daily Telegraph political commentator Peter Oborne

and playwright Bonnie Greer, who wrote an opera about Question Time

last time she was here alongside Nick Griffin, so watch out.

We will take our first question from Scarlett Russell. Is the government

too weak to stand up to the energy companies? We have had British Gas

announcing over a 9% increase in prices today. Peter Oborne. I think

we know what we are going to get from the panel tonight. We will be

told the government should act, that there is a cartel in the energy

companies, that there is some sort of illicit skulduggery going on and

somebody has to keep prices down. This is a return to the illiterate

financial, economic arguments of the political class that we used to get

in the 1970s and 1980s. I know they are going to say it. All of them?

With luck we might get some sense from Mr Harper but a lot -- apart

from that we will get absolute drivel from the politicians on the

panel. We might as well go home! We have chosen, we have a capitalist

system in this country. It depends on supply and demand. And the reason

energy prices are going up business thing to do, as far as I can see,

unless somebody can prove it, with the greed of the energy companies.

It is to do with movements in global energy prices, which we are stuck

with. What to do about it? The Labour leader has very wisely and

rightly raised the issue. It is something which affects people in

their pocket. But what you cannot do is hold down prices. That is

interference with the capitalist system. It will not work. It is the

state taking over. So why did you call him brave? I thought he spoke

bravely about socialism. I quite admired that, that is a role for

politicians. What I think we need to do is to look at the structural

problems we have. If we really want to deal with high energy prices in

this country there is only one solution. That is getting more

supply, and that is fracking on a massive scale throughout Britain.

Tristram Hunt, you have had your card marked, so you had better have

a go. I do not think the capitalist system is working at the moment in

the interests of consumers. The market is not working, not

delivering for people. Week after week we will see the big six cartel

companies racking up the prices. For capitalism to really work, you have

to interfere. The thing about capitalism is that it consolidates

power and wealth. If you want it to work for the majority, you need a

hand on the tiller, which is why we have competition law and regulation

law. What we are saying in the Labour Party is that we want to

break up the control the big six have, which is racking up energy

prices for families. It is going to get really bad over the course of

this winter. We are saying we will introduce a price freeze. Ed

Miliband wants to make sure, during the price freeze, we reform the

regulatory market, reform the system so that we can get prices down for

consumers. Just as in the past we put a tax on utility companies when

they overcharged, and just as the Conservative Party in the early

1980s put a tax on North Sea oil because of excessive profits there,

these are the moments when politicians interfere in the market

for the good of the public. We had all of this stuff about the 1970s

and the rest of it, but I think Ed Miliband is more in line with Adam

Smith, who believed that you need to control the market and manage the

market to deliver good results the consumers and a market working

properly. -- good results for consumers. Mark Harper. What you

need in the market is more competition. We want more entrants

into the market. What Tristram says would be more compelling if when

Labour were in power we had not started with 14 energy companies and

ended with six. How do you get more? First, investment in the industry.

The Chancellor has been overseas and we will have more investment. We had

to diversify away from reliance on fossil fuels, and we need more

companies. How do you get them into gas, oil and electricity? We have

two new companies. We want more competition, and we should encourage

consumers to switch from companies when they put up prices. We have

seen a price rise today and everybody who is not happy with it

should switch. Do you really believe other companies will keep tariffs

low once they have sucked in the people who switch? I was looking at

available tariffs. There are some fixed rates available which if you

switch into them you will not be hit. I think people should switch

from companies that put up prices. What about more of this green stuff

which costs over 11% on bills? Do you want to cross some of this off?

We need to move away from dependence on imported gas. We need a mix of

energy supplies, more nuclear, renewable energy, some gas and some

coal. Being completely dependent on imported energy means we are very

dependent on the world global gas price. Ed Miliband admitted that if

global gas prices go up he would not be able to deliver his price freeze,

which is why the Prime Minister called it a con. But the second

biggest buyer of gas in the UK is Deutsche Bank. I do not know how

much gas that users, but I imagine it is very little, so what you have

is a market where they are racking up prices. I represent a part of the

country which uses gas great deal for kilns, potteries in

Stoke-on-Trent, and our businesses being absolutely hammered by not

being able to get competitive gas rates because the government is not

investing in gas storage. Let's hear from the audience. Is it fair to say

that privatisation of the energy companies has not worked and the

only way to bring down prices is to renationalise? Is that your view? I

wonder how many of the chief executive officers of the big fuel

companies worry about paying their fuel bills when they come through

the door. The man in the blue shirt. Peter Oborne was probably right.

When the Labour Party was last in, they allowed the producers to merge

with the distributors, which has distorted the market. They installed

a whole set of green energy policies which are taking an ever-increasing

proportion of the bills. And a lot of the investment in infrastructure

used to tie in windmills and other energy sources. But do you think the

government can stand up to energy companies? I think they should get

out of the way of energy companies and stop putting up taxes and

forcing these inefficient energy sources. Thank you for all of your

comments, ladies and gentlemen. I am listening to this argument and

thinking I have Ed Miliband and David Cameron completely out of

touch with what is going on out there. You have one political party

leader saying fix prices. You can do that. That has a ready been found.

There are fixed rates out there. And you have another suggesting there is

suddenly going to be this magical new company which will be immune to

what is happening with the market and is suddenly going to make price

of energy massively cheaper. This blame culture worries me. We have

had bashed the bankers. We are bashing the next sector in the

economy. When it comes down to it, if we took out this huge element of

the EU obligations in terms of energy, the reliance that we have

now got on imported gas to make up for the fact that we have closed so

many coal-fired power stations, we have taken away in indigenous power

source that we had here, and we are now saying we are going to go for

fracking, which I agree with Peter, I would do it because it is UKIP

Wallasey. But that will take at least ten years before it comes on

stream to such an extent that will make up for the deficit that we are

in. So it is the fault of the EU, according to you, not surprisingly.

Everything is, according to UKIP. You might well think so, Mark, but

when it comes down to it, we have an emphasis on the renewables sector

which is going to suddenly, like a white charger, coming to the energy

market. The gentleman made the point, in terms of inefficient wind

turbines, for instance. What about home improvements, which cost nearly

half the bill? 12 households have taken up the green deal. 12

households! What a waste of money, everybody. More people with their

hands up. We have seen this increase in energy prices coming in, and it

is the start of more to come. We have also seen an increase in the

use of food banks. Does this mean we are now going to see winter coats,

blankets, candles, as well as food at the food banks? Don't dwell on

the food banks because we might come to that later? I do not have a

strong, long, conference of answer about fracking and all of this. I am

opposed to fracking but I do not have a long answer about it. The

original question is, is this government too weak to face up to

the energy companies? No, it is not weakness, it is a matter of Trier at

ease. This government is interested in Britain plc. It wants to shrink

the state and make us stand up and be grown-ups and handle it, while

they reshape the country. So I don't think it is a matter of that. I

think it is frankly a matter to see how long we can take it, and if we

can take it. So I do not think we will see them stand up to these

companies, because they do not attack the financial sector. They

are much more interested in doing it to us. Hold on a second. See how

long we can take what? Well, see how long, as this lady was saying, see

how long we can be cold, to be honest with you. The idea and the

reality is that this government is more interested in big business, in

helping business, in appearing to be the friend of business, and not

necessarily on the side of the consumer or the population. The

problem with capitalism in this instance is that there is no

competition, so who do you switch to? What is the government's answer?

We want more competition in the market. So we need to do things to

make it easier. Part of the reason we want people to switch to the

lowest tariff, to encourage people to switch, is so that you get more

competition, that smaller new entrants will come into the market

base. We inherited a market with only the big six. When we left

power, there were 14 energy companies to choose from, you have

more competition, more options for people to switch to. That is what we

need to get back to, so people have real choice. There is a stage in the

political cycle at which you cannot keep blaming previous governments.

After three and a half years in power not taking any effective

action in this round, and now we are seeing the consequences of this. It

is part of a pattern of the Hague. When we look at the Prime Minister,

he is incapable of standing up against strong. When it comes to the

banks, to the Murdoch press, David Cameron is always on the wrong side,

and so it is with the energy companies. He is not on the side of

consumers, facing price hike is. He is on the side of the big energy

companies, and small businesses and consumers are taking the hit for it.

I think we live in this illusion that we live in an open and

transparent energy market and it is simply not the case. The amount of

subsidies, tax breaks and backroom lobbying that happens, and influence

on those energy companies. So now we have a discussion about fracking.

The only reason we are discussing that is because of lobbyists

exerting power. It will not bring down energy prices. It is locking us

into a fossil fuel future which we do not need. This is only weeks

after the IPCC report saying we need to move away from fossil fuels. This

is a path which is going to lead us towards greater fuel poverty. In the

winter, people will die. We have this political wrangling about

fracking, which has been forced upon us by big companies, and people will

die. When you make your attack on the government, how do you account

for us having very low fuel prices relative to the rest of Europe? What

I know about the prices is that when Ed Miliband was energy Secretary,

prices came down by ?100. And since David Cameron has been Prime

Minister, they have gone up by ?300. We live in a global market. And

everything the Minister said about dying in to much foreign gas is

absolutely right. But I do not accept the idea that we have

competitive energy rates relative to Europe. You look, for example, at

what is happening for German energy rates, particularly in the

industrial sector. They have vast hidden subsidies, to go back to the

gentleman's point, which allow businesses to compete. The world

demand is growing, China, India, a fume or companies. It is a

short-term fix. Surely we need to become independent and find a mix of

energies. What I was about to say myself. The argument we have been

having about more competition or energy prices exploiting us isn't

really true. I think that Mr Hunt knows it's not really true. We have

to look at the fundamental structural issues. One is much more

fracking, nuclear power. We need much more nuclear power, more wind

power. There is a problem, can we... The problem is democracy. At local

level you have no politician can devie his vouters saying let us have

fracking here, they are not going to do it. The same problem with nuclear

power. We have to understand that there are certain issues where

democracy is an absolute impediment. Instead of listening to winging from

left-wing politicians to the cartels that don't exist, let us have

long-term thought, please, Mr Hunt. I will tell you exactly.

APPLAUSE In Stoke-on-Trent we have huge

amounts of coal bed methane and exploit it to the full which is the

long-term energy strategy we need. On nuclear power, I don't agree with

it, on my constituency we have an existing nuclear power station. When

you confront people with some of these choices they can see you need

to make more investment. Hopefully, there will be new investment until

new nuclear power station there. The Chancellor has made positive

announcements today while he is in China about new investment into the

energy market so we have more diverse set of energy supplies for

the country. Thank you. Join in this debate, Twitter, text, you can

follow us at BBCquestiontime. This question from Aaron Dewey, please.

Can the UK cope with any more immigration after Christmas? Diane

James, UKIP has strong views on immigration? We do indeed. Thank you

for your question. I don't believe we can, it's as simple as that. We

have no idea, I'm sure everyone will agree, exactly how many people are

going to come from the two countries in question. Where the current

restrictions on... Them coming into the UK... About r Bulgaria and

Romania. There are two million of them in Spain. They have made that

move. The likelihood of them coming to the UK is pretty high. We also

know that the Government will not admit what sort of forecast they

have. We have this latest EU Commissioner report, this whole

issue of over 600,000 inactive EU migrants here already. 3% increase

in the number that haven't got a job. What that does mean, if we

translate that, I think we can translate that, I'm not going to

detract from that, there is going to be a pressure when these two

countries, their restrictions are lifted those people will come here.

They are going to come here. It's a very, very nice deal coming to the

UK, in terms of access to benefits. I'm sure Mark will try and come back

on me and say, we have this under control, the coalition, the

Conservatives haven't got it under control. What would you have a

government do that within the law of the EU, of which we are members

until you kip gets its way? I wouldn't mess about with this

discussion of repatriation of powers it would be a straight-forward, no,

they cannot come in. The way to achieve that is out of the EU. It's

as simple as that. APPLAUSE

Mark Harper? It's worth getting facts out there. It's worth

reminding people of the immigration into the country, only half of it is

from outside of the EU. A third of immigration is from the EU. When

Labour was in power and let European immigration get out of control, it

was the case that twice as much immigration was outside the EU. The

idea it's about the EU and there is nothing we can do, which is UKIP's

contention, is nonsense. The Government has reduced net migration

by a third. Rubbish. That is absolutely true. You can't count

them in, you can't count them out. They are robust figures. It's down

by a third. We have more skilled workers coming to Britain. We have

more students coming to Britain. The most important thing is, unlike when

Labour was in power, the growth in employment we have seen in Britain.

The million more people in employment, the bulk of that benefit

has gone to British people, which is not the case when Labour was in

power. What about after Christmas? We have been quite... A European

question it's Bulgaria and Romania? We haven't secret forecasts. There

are eight European countries who will remove them at the end of the

year. It's not like 2004 when we were the only country that let

people come to Britain when the Eastern Europeans joined, eight

other European countries, clearly, some people will come here. We have

to see what happens. They can go to eight other European countries. You

have not made a forecast? We haven't. Why not? Our experts said

trying to make a forecast when you have eight other countries... You

survey public opinion in this country every five minutes of the

day. Both parties. You alter your policies to fit every little tiny

change. You are saying you can't go to Bulgaria and Romania to ask them

what their plans are? Most of the people that Nigel talked to said

they didn't want to come to Britain at all, thank you very much. For the

Chinese to come? If they are coming to study and invest and spend money

in our shops. To visit? We have 200,000 coming to visit Britain. We

are talking about immigration, not Chinese visitors. Bonnie Greer.

Listen, I'm not a politician, I will not throw figures around at you. I'm

sick and tired of this conversation. I'm sick and tired every year and

every government talking about immigration. What we don't want to

have. I think that what this government has done, I think what

this government has done is allowed a vigorous, necessary discussion in

a thriving democracy to descend in a xenophobia. It is beneath the

British people to do that. It is beneath this democracy. Let's have a

sane, reasonable discussion. We are not going to have on January 1st

Bulgarians and Romanians coming over with their wagons and their horses

and their children and thieves and robbers. It's not going to happen.

We have to be very, very careful. We have to be very careful in talking

about this and make sure that we don't appear to be a replica of the

National Front in France. It's very, very important. Don't go to

xenophobia. Calm down and let's talk about this reasonably. You, sir. I'm

a district councillor in the neighbouring borough, and one of our

biggest issues is the development of all the houses they have to put in.

We had our local plan thrown away by the Government because they are

saying we fact Order in a zero net migration number. They have said

absolutely not. That's not the case. You have to develop more houses. We

are talking about 3,500 houses over the next 15 years. The Government

wants us to double that. Where will we put 7,000 new houses? How are we

going to have the bandwidth in our schools and hospitals and so on so

forth to accommodate all of those people? Can you pick up his exact

point? I don't know what the Government is proposing for you as

an elected Cllr in terms of how you will manage the migration --

councillor. This Government is not learning the lessons of our time

when the Labour Party was in government. We didn't have the

correct numbers for the number of EU nationals coming in to work. The

figures we were given by civil servants were wildly off. We didn't

drill down into the data effectively, as a result - Why not?

We believed the officials figures we were given they proved wildly off.

I'm hoping Mark Harper is drilling into this fracking-like vigour in

terms of some of these statistics. Hang on. What goodwill it do if he

finds out that the gentleman from Harte is correct he has to build

7,000 instead of 3 ,500 homes? You have to plan. Let us not under

estimate the importance of free movement of labour across the

European Union. Your children will want to work in France or Spain. You

might want to retire in France or Spain. You might have business

connections in Italy. The free movement of labour is an important

part of the European Union and we have grown in prosperity as a result

of it. Yes, we have to manage the transition as well, let us not lose

sight of the importance of where we are in the European Union in this. I

agree with Mr Hunt that free movement of Labour is a wonderful

thing -- labour. The problem with the European Union is it has gone

forward too fast. As it went much too fast towards the euro which is

causing utter destruction in southern Europe. It is moving too

fast on the freedom of labour. Here is one fact which is central to this

whole argument. That issing, the average wage in Bulgaria and Romania

is approximately half the minimum wage in Britain. So, this is why,

last time when Labour got it wrong, we had Polish professors coming

along to be cleaners in Britain. It does have, I'm afraid, what the

councillor described it beautifully, a massive effect on public services,

schools, housing, all of these things, I reckon that we... Europe

itself needs to admit it has made a frightful nonsense. It is going to

be the same problem in Germany and in France. I think it's time to look

again. I think you have time to look again and say to Bulgaria and

Romania, it's not a good idea at the moment to go-ahead with this.

Actually, for the sake of Europe, and for the sake of Bulgaria and

Romania which doesn't want to lose their best people, let us just put

it on hold for a few years. APPLAUSE

You at the back. The Tory elite in this area have got it totally wrong.

In my town we are close to waiting 21 days for a doctor's appointment.

In my county, there are about to pull down four care homes. Those

care homes are the family silver. They love, they look after, they

manage our elderly well. We are going to pull them down and put out

to privatisation. We are so out of touch in this area it's

unbelievable. Let him finish the point. They have completely lost

control of what is happening at a local level. The cuts, the cuts have

gone far too far. It's time to start rebuilding the fabric of our society

Raith rather than the Tory way of destroying it. Absolutely. How is

that relevant to immigration from Bulgaria and Romania? Quite simple,

we cannot take any more. Our county cannot absorb any more. We are full.

We are are going to close the business pretty soon. First of all,

we recognise some of the pressures on public services, housing the

gentleman made on immigration. Which is why we reduced it by a third we

will continue to reduce it from the uncontrolled levels we had under

Labour. Which immigration? Net immigration to the country. Most

immigration is from outis side the European Union. They are the people

you send vans around saying - go home if you are illegal? I don't see

in any problem with saying people who don't have a right to be in the

United Kingdom they shouldn't be any more. That gentleman's point at the

back... You still support that? Well, it was a pilot. We are

assessing the results at the moment. If the pilot shows that we were

successful in persuading people... How many? How many? I will not give

a running commentary. We will publish the results when we have

done the evaluation. If it's successful we will look at running

it out. If it's not successful we won't. I want people who have no

right to be here should leave the country. The immigration bill which

we published, which we debate next week, is about welcoming people to

the country who contribute and deterring those that don't. Holding

those views, you are not alarmed at the open door policy on both

Bulgaria and Romania? We don't have an open door policy. Who is not

allowed in? We have tightened up... On January 1st? We tightened up the

access to benefits. We tightened up access to services and social

housing. Local councils can prioritise access... You make it

undesirable to come here? If they come to work, pay taxes and make a

contribution I have no problem with that. Abuse of free movement is not

OK. This is one of the examples of why we don't trust politics or

politicians any more. I am not saying it to get applause

or anything. I am sitting here listening to Mark and Tristram, and

I am sure they are nice guys. But a sickly, Labour did not get the

numbers right. What are they hired for if they don't get the numbers

right? Mark is saying something about doing a pilot with a white

van. This is not what we expect. We expect our politicians to get it

right, to prepare us for whatever is going to happen, and not to start

some kind of dog whistle xenophobic rant about people coming in and out

of the country. At the end of the day, we pay for it, no matter what

the deal is. It is not a xenophobic rant. Not from you. But it descends

to that level. Why are you accusing these two men of a xenophobic rant?

I did not say they are making a xenophobic rant. Bonnie is right.

She is not accusing those men of being xenophobic. She is saying

there is an air of xenophobia. She is not pointing the finger. Thank

you. The discussion has nothing to do with xenophobia. It is about jobs

and services. We have large amounts of youth unemployment in this

country. What effect will more immigration have on that?

I agree that there is a nasty xenophobic wing of this argument.

Those go home bands are just horrible. But we have a housing

crisis. Thousands of people live in bed-and-breakfast with their

families. Thousands of the plant going to come to this country, and

where are they going to stay? It is easy to say it is xenophobic, which

a horrible amount of it is, but behind that is a logistical

argument. I do not disagree with that. I feel for our young people.

Despite what Mark would like to convince us, the Conservatives and

the coalition are not controlling immigration. I am a fellow borough

councillor by the way, so I sympathise with you completely. The

comment has been made that even with the current national housing

targets, we would have to build one new home every seven minutes, and if

we do not control immigration, when we get to the end of the next 15

year programme the Coalition Government has introduced, we will

have to embark on another huge round of house-building. We have to start

saying enough is enough at some stage, and bring control back into

this country, as to where the infrastructure goes, where the

housing goes, where it is allocated. That is not happening with Mark and

his team in government at the moment. I do not know whether you

have seen the same issues and papers that have come out. Allocating the

housing as it is, you can drive a coach and horses through it. It is

an absolute nonsense. Peter has highlighted the concerns with

immigration from the New Year. He has highlighted those quite

correctly. Whereas one he has talked about the wagon train scenario --

Bonnie Greer. I think it will be worse than the wagon train scenario

and I have a major concern about the social structure in this country and

what it will do to our English society. Having seen it happen

throughout Europe in Austria, in Switzerland, with people coming in

from the two countries mentioned and causing major issues there, and I

think it's going to be ten times worse over here. I am going to move

on. A question from Philippa Messenger. Should I still believe my

mother's advice that you can always trust a police officer? This is in

the light, of course, of what Deborah Glass, the deputy chair of

the Independent Police Complaints Commission said in this whole

business over what Andrew Mitchell did or did not say at the gates of

Downing Street. I do not want to go to the story because I am sure you

know it, but three police officers went to see him to see if they could

sort the thing out and then gave a description of what he had said, but

he had recorded it and that police officers gave a different view, and

the Independent Police Commissioner said that in her opinion the

surrounding circumstances do give an indication of an issue of honesty

and integrity and discreditable conduct, not merely naive or poor

professional judgement. There is more to go on this because they have

not decided whether to prosecute other people involved. But let's

deal with this issue and what was said, and not for too long. But

should Philippa Messenger trust a police officer? Tristram Hunt? It is

desperately depressing, this week's events. We have had two is

significant events this week in terms of police trustworthiness. We

are looking at the Mark Duggan inquest, which led to the riots, and

accounts of what happened there, and then this report from the IPCC about

what the police officers did or did not say in that meeting. The

instinctive, quite rightful, sense is always to trust a police officer.

But it does enormous amounts of damage to their integrity, this

situation. And the real issue is that if they could do this to a

cabinet minister, could they do this to a young lad from Bradford,

Brixton? If they are able to work together like this, arguably to

undermine a democratically elected political representative, what hope

does a young boy or girl have in the criminal justice system? That is the

real fear. So I feel a lot of angst about it. Today, I wrote a letter to

Andrew Mitchell, just a personal note of apology, because I believed

the police. I believed it was right that he should be removed from the

government. And, of course, we now know that the police lied. These

three officers lied. And let's bear in mind that they will be no

punishment to these officers. They are all going to go into the court.

Their power to arrest people, to give evidence against people, these

are officers who lied. They are going to expect to be listened to

with respect by a jury. And yet the police seem completely relaxed about

this. Look, this is not just about Mr Mitchell. Mr Mitchell had

powerful friends, influential people who came to his aid and made sure

this came out into the open. I absolutely agree with Doctor Hunt,

that the real issue is that the same thing is happening on working class

estates. Young youths are being framed. For them, that is the end of

their life, because they are going to jail. They are being framed and

going to jail. But Mr Mitchell, it was a career set back. These youths

have a criminal record and will not be employed. I think it is fair to

say these officers have made no comment since and the chief

constables who decided not to discipline them have asked to go

before a parliamentary committee to explain why. There are two stories.

And Andrew Mitchell still has not made an official complaint. Let's

put this into context. I would like to see a statement from him. To go

back to the question very quickly, I think the element of trust has been

severely undermined. And the next time, I hope it is not stopped for

speeding points or something, but if I am going to be questioned, am I

going to get a rightful hearing? But what worries me more than anything

is that what was effectively a relatively simple spat that involved

rather colourful language, if we look at this, has suddenly developed

into something much more serious. And the seriousness of it is, is

this the police fighting against the cutbacks and using this as

ammunition, or is it just the usual cover-up type scenario? And that is

what worries me more than anything. Are we just watching this battle

being fought out over something very fundamental? Recognising your

question, undermining our trust in the police. The IPCC did say they

were running a successful, high profile and teacups media campaign.

Do you think Andrew Mitchell should be reinstated? Let me answer

Philippa Messenger's question first. Don't forget mine. Generally, the

vast majority of police officers behave with honesty and integrity

and we often ask them to put their lives on the line. This evening, the

Prime Minister and Home Secretary are at the police bravery awards,

honouring officers who put themselves in danger. But Tristram

is right, this kind of behaviour does cause real damage to the image

of the police, which is why I think those chief constables or to deal

with it. Listening to what the IPCC have said, I think they ought to

have a disciplinary process so they can tease out what happened. If

those officers have behaved badly, it needs to be dealt with. That is

why we put reforms in place with the College of policing, strengthening

the IPCC. We want to change the culture in the police to make it

more open and these things less likely. The answer is, yes, you

should trust the police but we need to take action to make sure this

type of behaviour does not happen. Tristram was right, Andrew Mitchell

was a person who looks like he has been wronged but was in a position

where he was able to do something about it. The concern for people

watching is, for someone without that ability to do something about

it, how many other people are going to suffer? That is why we need to

take action to improve the integrity of the police force overall. You

heard what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons. You know

that David Cameron sacked him. Do you think the Prime Minister should

apologise? He did not sack him. He was there one day and gone the next.

As Chief Whip, it ended on the confidence of the Parliamentary

party and he said he was not able to do his job. I hope the situation is

resolved. I cannot comment on the original events because they are

subject of a police investigation. You want him back in office? That is

a matter for the Prime Minister. It is looking increasingly like he was

wronged. I do not know what happened in the original set of

circumstances. Clearly, if he is completely cleared, the Prime

Minister would be free to ask him back into government. To go back to

the question, there are many communities in this country who

would never even asked that question in the first place because they do

not trust the police. So they have not lost anything, to be honest with

you. The second thing, it is interesting to me as the only

immigrant on the panel, I think, to say that I come from a country, a

part of the country where you do not have police walking around unarmed.

Probably in the whole world, British policing is unique. It is called a

police service. Therefore, our police do their work in conjunction

with the consent of the people. And if they break that trust in any way,

they need to be accountable for it. It is as simple as that.

If it takes a Conservative whip to actually bring this to the fore and

make the Home Secretary asked for an apology or whatever, so be it. And

if these police officers have actually done something, or done

wrong, they need to go down, and it is as simple as that. Have we any

police officers in the audience who want to say anything? I will go to

the man on the right. I was wondering if the lady's mother is

still alive, and whether she heard the PM programme last night, because

there was a retired Deputy Assistant Commissioner from The Met red fires

-- advised people to record their encounters with the police. I think

it is a sad state of affairs if we have to say that. Philippa

Messenger, do you still believe your mother's advice? I liked Bonnie

Greer's point about the fact that it is hopefully a small minority that

are causing problems. I would like to continue to believe my mother's

advice and to follow it, because it is a bit depressing otherwise if I

do not. The trouble with a small minority is that you never know who

is a member of that minority in advance, do you? Let's go onto

another question. One from Bruce Mellstrom, please. Should teachers'

pay the performance related? -- should it be performance related? We

had strikes in several parts of Britain today, and that is one of

the issues. You are the new man on the block on education. Do not tell

us everything you know about it, but what on this particular point. I am

in favour of performance related pay. We had a great report today

from Alan Milburn on social mobility and the chapters on education are

totally compelling. And the difference which a good teacher, a

great teacher can make to the life chances, particularly of children

from deprived communities, is absolutely stunning. Conversely, the

difference which are bad teacher can make tickets from low income

communities is devastating. So we want to reward excellence in the

classroom, but we also want to create new pathways for teachers. At

the moment, great teachers get sucked into senior management,

become heads, deputy heads, super heads. I think we need a pathway for

teachers where we can -- they can excel in the classroom. Where they

have a career that means their love of teaching and imparting learning

gives a pathway, as a teaching career. So I am in favour of

performance related pay. I am in favour of making sure we do not have

bad teachers in schools. But what I am really in favour of is continuing

professional development of teachers, so we get the kind of best

quality teachers in the world. We have brilliant teachers at the

moment, but we can do more. It's fantastic that we should have

performance related pay. I I absolutely agree with every single

word by Dr Hunt. I'm hoping the important thing about him is has

been made Education Spokesman. He seems to agree with the wonderful

things that Michael Gove is doing. It's marvellous. The free schools,

the academy schools... No what he said this morning. He changes his

mind a little bit. I think the virtuous side of his character will

win out. I take the good bits. You mentioned free schools. Are you in

favour of free schools or not? We are in favour of keeping good free

schools and academies where you have qualified teachers... Why did you

call them vanity projects forumy mummies? They are. Maybe you would

enlighten us what a yummy mummy is. It' a female version of a faddy

daddy. What is that? The fael version of a yummy mummy. Was that a

stupid thing to say? Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. At least you

are honest about that. All parents should be involved with the schools

of their children. As many parents involved in the education of their

children is wonderful. Bethey yummy mummies, faddy daddies or

grandparents all the rest of it. We need local bureaucracy not involved

in local schools. Yes and no, Peter. I agree with introduced performance

related pay. Let me answer the gentleman's question. You are very

controlling tonight. No, no I want to answer the audience questions

first, it's their show, not ours. In answer to performance relating pay I

agree with performance related pay. Head teachers should have the

ability to reward good teachers and, you know, give them the rewards in

the classroom. It's disappointing today we have seen strikes across

the country. It inconvenienced parents and damaged the education of

the children. On the issue of free schools, free schools and academies

are great thing. He was trying to prevent he was now in favour of free

schools. Good ones. Changed his previous approach. He was scathing

about them this morning in the House of Commons. The fact, is the free

schools that we set up already, three quartersers of them are good

or outstanding. I want to make sure that all parts of the country we

have the ability for people to set up new schools, for those schools to

be successful. Where he is right, I want people who come from

working-class backgrounds, who went to state schools, like I did, to

have the same opportunities for having an excellent education that

people who went to private schools... There was the issue of

the Al-Madinah school in Derby. Let us hear from that lady. Specifically

to the pay related to attainment. This is going to be judged by the

the improvement of students in the class. I was actually with teachers

yesterday when I was told I was going to be coming here. The

allegations they wanted me to put forward to you, do you think it will

be detrimental to the lower atang students. Who will make the most

improvement relestically, the people at the top of the class already?

What will happen to the people at the bottom of the class? Thank you,

thank you. I have been a teacher in this country. I don't know if

anybody else on this panel has been. I want... Have you, sorry...

Unqualified though. Pardon? Performance related pay for teacher,

they are not performing seals or dogs, how do you measure how good a

teacher is? How do you do that? Do you do that... Let me finish. I only

have a second. Do you do that by seeing how many As come out of your

class? Do you do that by how clean the kids are? Do you do that by how

quiet they are? How do you do it? Teachers is one of the highest jobs

any civil sized society can have. We need to make teaching again

honourable. We need to make it an important vocation. It's not just a

job, it's a vocation. And this, this Education Secretary has made it a

position for chomps and how horrible is that? When you think at the, at

the end of the day, our children, eight, nine hours of the day are in

the hands of people who are going to shape them as human beings. Have

some respect for teachers, please. I will come back to you both. The

woman, three in in the back row. Looking at the other side of the

spectrum, looking at the students, my son, there is a guy in my son's

class who has just finished secondary school. He got all A

pluses for his exams and he comes from a working-class background. I'm

not sure if the family are on benefits. He passed all the exams

and qualifications to get into private school, but was turned down

because he couldn't have funding to go to that private school. Now, I

thought the Government was going to do something about that to reward

the lower classes if they made the grade? That is a slightly different

issue. Maybe it will be picked up here. Diane James, I haven't brought

you in on this issue of performance related pay for teachers. You heard

the attack from Jermaine? You always do that! You always do that,

Jonathan. I don't see the need for performance related pay. That is my

straight answer on this because the minute we start putting targets in

place, minute we start engineering abuse of those targets. We have

already seen a situation where employers have lost confidence in

the exam results, no matter how well the children think they have done

and how proud the parents might be. We have seen teachers already

manipulating results. Focussing on certain students that at the lower

end to push them up into a different category. The minute we start social

engineering on that scale, in the teaching profession, I think is the

wrong way to go. OK. We have a very, very clear message out there which

at the moment is there has been too much political interference in the

education system. You only have to look at countries like Singapore,

which maintains its system unchanged for years. It has held up as being a

top model, in terms of student quality output and this sort of

thing. Michael Goef, to give him credit, he is going back to

fundamentals, which is a good solid syllabus, focus, if you like, the

three Rs, that is what is needed if we are prepare our young people in a

global and very demanding world. Simple as that. Bonnie Greer said

there was no way... I will call him Jonathan. He is coughing too. She's

a friend of mine. The issue of whether you can actually measure

performance in teachers, which is what this is about? You say you are

in favour of it? We have systems of performance related pay already. The

industrial action today is a sort of almost a slightly narrow question

about the degree to which you judge it. To go back to the lady's point,

I will go to her point, how do you measure progression, particularly

for low attaining kids? We had a reform from the Government which we

are broadly in support of, you get rid of the A* to C which just

supported, in a sense, often coasting schools in wealthier

areas... The point is. We only have a few minutes left. Are you saying

you can measure the teachers? She says you can't? Absolutely. What is

the difference between you and the Conservatives? If you are going to

turn out to be them mark two, what is the point? We believe...

APPLAUSE What is the point? We believe in

improving teacher quality am we have a Government here which believes in

deskilling teacher quality. How do you measure it? Do you believe in

measurements? You can improve young people's life chances from very

difficult communities. It's not acceptable to say... We are talking

about the teachers Teachers. That is how you improve their life chances.

I'm concerned about the pupils above all. Well said. I have applied for

university, I'm very aware this is the third strike relating to

teaching in five months. It's vital for me to get the same standards of

education. Now is not the time for political interference in the

teaching sector. We don't need any more. It's done now. We need a good

education across the board. Have we teachers here, for a last comment,

who have a strong view about this? Are you a teacher? I've left the

school system. I was a visiting tutor, a music tutor. I wasn't

affected by this. I left because I was completely demoralised by the

school environment. Teachers in the staff room crying because they are

over stressed and can't deal with it. It is having a knock-on effect

on their pupils. They are picking up on the stress levels. It's a

depressing state of affairs. That is difference from the issue of whether

performance related pays, is that part of the stress? Teachers are

under pressure because of these performance related. The woman

behind? I'm a special needs Tate teacher and performance related pay

just doesn't apply to those children. OK. There are so many

hands up, I have to stop, our hour is up. My apologies to Bonnie

Greer... Say it again. Say it again. Say it once more. Bonnie Greer.

Good. APPLAUSE

OK. Next week we will be in Liverpool, the week after that we

will be in Cornwall. If you would like to come to Liverpool or St

Austell. Go to our website. The address is on the screen there:

if you have been listening to this on Radio 5 Live you can continue the

debate on Question Time Extra Time. From basing

debate on Question Time Extra Time. From Basingstoke and Question Time,

good night. Some crimes defy description.

Why did you choose me to lead this? We may dislike Mr Foyle,

but we do not have to like him to defend him. I'm just not

a very nice person.