14/11/2013 Question Time


David Dimbleby presents debate from Portsmouth where shipbuilding is about to end. The panel includes Ed Davey, Stella Creasy, Nigel Lawson, Paul Kenny and Nikki King.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, we are in Portsmouth, a city that has built warships for 500


years and last week was told ship building would end with the loss of


almost 1000 jobs. Welcome to Question Time.


Welcome to you at home, to our audience here, and to our panel.


From the Cabinet, the Liberal Democrat energy Secretary, Ed Davey.


Labour's shadow competition minister, Stella Creasy. Margaret


Thatcher's former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson. The leader


of the GMB, Paul Kenny. And from Isuzu Truck 's, the first woman to


run a UK truck company, Nikki King. We have, in effect, three


generations of politicians here for you to tax with your questions. A


question from Mark Green. Was Portsmouth dockyard sacrificed to


keep Scotland in the UK? Does anybody else have views on this? I


think it is a terrible decision for Portsmouth and Britain, and really


bad for the Navy. If Scotland is independent, where will they build


their ships? The Royal Navy will have to buy foreign ships. A


terrible decision. Anybody else? Just in response to that, being a


Scot myself and living in Portsmouth and worried about the impact of ship


building stopping, you need to realise there are a lot of Scottish


people who do not want independence, and chances are it


will not happen. Well, what I would like to discuss


is if BAE themselves took over and moved to Portsmouth, what was their


plan for the future? To go up to Scotland, where they have very


little shipbuilding experience in small ships? And you, with the


beard. Ship builders do not have a job for life by divine right. This


is about the government ordering, or not ordering, ships for the royal


navy. We are still in island nation, we import 95% of our food,


fuel, oil, daily, by C. The decision has been made to dramatically reduce


the size of the Royal Navy, which is why you guys have not got any job


is. You cannot expect to have a job for life, all the time you have a


government decimating the size of the Royal Navy. The original


question was, was Portsmouth dockyard sacrificed to keep Scotland


in the UK? As we know, the work is going to Scotland. It is difficult


when there are people who have lost jobs, families who are worried. It


is not just 1000 skilled workers who will be losing their jobs, but the


knock-on jobs connected to that. It is extraordinary difficult, but it


is not to do with the Scottish referendum. There are some difficult


decisions in a ship building and for maybe ship building. Remember, there


are 800 jobs being lost in Scottish shipyards as well. What we have to


do as a government is to do as much as we possibly can to help the


people who have lost their jobs, and to help the economy here in


Portsmouth. That is why we are going to invest ?100 million in the


harbour, so when the aircraft carriers come here, they can be


based here and we will have those jobs, and this can continue to be


the home, the proud home of the Royal Navy. And then we need to do


more. That is why there is a city deal being struck with Portsmouth


and Southampton to unlock land that the Ministry of Defence had, so more


business can be created in future, more homes can be built, because


they are needed, too. We are going to try and do as much as we can. But


I am clear, this is a difficult decision, and it is not going to be


easy for Portsmouth. But as a government, we are going to be there


to help Portsmouth. When your Defence Secretary said he did not


anticipate the UK would wish to place orders for ships outside the


UK, and it is something people in Scotland need to think about very


carefully, was that not a threat about removing this building from


Scotland and returning it to Portsmouth, if Scotland votes for


independence? If not, what did it mean? I understand it is a legal


requirement. If the ships were built in independent Scotland, the tender


would have to be across the whole of the European Union, and the rules


say that you can have a defence tender in your own country because


of security and fence interests, but as soon as those ships are built


outside, you have to offer it to all of the defence industry across the


European Union. He was stating a legal fact. Paul Kenny. I think we


need a dose of reality. In the last few days, the last week we have seen


about 10,000 jobs go out of our economy. The jobs at Portsmouth and


in Scotland are part of that pattern. I want to say this about


it. You cannot turn on and off highly skilled jobs, about building


ships, to protect them island nation. I will pick up the point


made by the gentleman in the audience. We have decimated the


Royal Navy. We have decimated it. We now have an entire surface fleet of


18 ship 's. We could not fight a Cold war, let alone go around the


world and protect interests. We could not fight an exclusion zone


around the Isle of Wight. We have run our nation into the ground. 1000


highly skilled jobs from Portsmouth. Another factory down the road,


absolutely decimating this area. I listened carefully to what Ed Davey


said and I will pick him up on it. 18 months ago, our union pleaded,


almost begged to the government, not to give the contract for ?500


million of ship welding work to Korea. These are ships, four ships,


that service the Royal Navy when they are at the. Four ships, and the


government, and the minister at the time was not you, but Philip


Hammond, gave that contract to Korea. And all they had to do was to


designate those ships as warlike. Put a catapult on the front. That is


something the French might have done to protect their ship holding. Was


it done on a money basis? They said no British company bid for those


jobs. There were not effectively any bids from British companies because


they were told it was going to Korea. That is the reality. If they


had been deemed as warlike, because they service the Royal Navy, the


truth of the matter is that that would have been work which would


have fitted into these yards and kept the jobs here and in Scotland.


This is not a battle between Portsmouth and Scotland because a


lot of people in Scotland will lose jobs. This is about proper support


for the Royal Navy and getting jobs that can be put, keeping skills in


this country here. You could have kept those ships in the UK. In the


same way that Mr Hammond sent rail carriages to do Germany instead of


giving them to Derby, he sent those ships to career, instead of keeping


British skilled workers in British yards and keeping our Royal Navy


afloat. Ed Davey, I will come back to you


later on those points. I run a small ship building yard in Portsmouth,


very small. We are very proud of our export record. We do not borrow any


money and the government has never helped us. Our landlord has now told


When you actually look at the we have to


When you actually look at the evidence, it was cold-blooded


murder, full-stop. I do not think there was any question that he


should be held accountable. She is absolutely right and I think this is


accepted by the Royal Marines themselves. Gillian Thompson, who


served in the Falklands, said that he was not going to stand around


bad-mouthing him, I do not condemn him, he is like a member of the


family who broke the law. What do you think of the Daily Telegraph's


petition to have the judge show leniency? Well, it might well be a


good journalistic stunt, but it does not alter my view, which is exactly


the same as that already expressed. That murder is murder? Yes, and


there were no circumstances to change that verdict. It was


thoroughly done, it was a prosper procedure, and I'm afraid there were


not any mitigating circumstances. One of the major differences between


the Royal Marines and the Taliban are that the Royal Marines work


within the parameters of the law, and the Taliban does not, so what


that Royal Marines in question did with one shot from his pistol was to


blur the lines between what is right, and what the Royal Marines to


nine times out of ten, or even more, and what the Taliban do on a daily


basis. If it was your son that was at the end of that bullet, Howard


you feel about that situation test murder is murder and there is no


justification for it. Does anybody disagree? I would turn that question


around, what if it was your son who had been out in Afghanistan for six


months, and they had seen their comrades' arms and legs hanging from


trees as we do not know the stress they were under. I think to condemn


him is awful. And he was out there in our name. I would agree if you


had not read the dialogue that was recorded at the time. There is that


point about the question about the incredible stress that we put our


Armed Forces under in the most difficult scenarios, but let's be


clear about it, that standard. How do we hold up the moral line


effectively if what we do is to execute injured prisoners? If the


boot was on the other foot, we rightly would be condemning whoever


did that to our personnel, irrespective of what the opposition


is, you do not execute people like that in cold blood, you just do not


do it. We have just had Remembrance Sunday, a hugely important day for


the families of those who serve, because we ask them to make the


ultimate sacrifice. One of the reasons we do that is to uphold


those values and freedoms, so we must consistent about that. My worry


about this case is that it has the potential to sustain the good name


of so many people. I have friends and family who serve and I'm the


president of the Royal British Legion in my local community. I feel


passionately about the importance of defending the good name of those who


serve overseas. Part of the way we do that is that when those people


transgress we say, it is not acceptable, not any different. You


are right, sir, murder is murder. Another question. Ed Davey, I am


sorry. I am going to agree, but I want to make the point following


from what Stella was saying, that the Royal Marines have a proud


history. They have done this country some magnificent achievements. One


of the reasons we have to see this process through, allow the evidence


to be judged and the sentencing to go through is because of that proud


history of the Royal Marines. Because we do not want the


reputation of the Royal Marines besmirched. Getting justice seem to


be done is the best way to uphold the proud tradition of the Royal


Marines. Obviously, with this individual case it is right that


justice is done. But if we are talking about murder is murder, what


about the civilians killed when we bombed Baghdad and Libya?


If this is murder, and I believe it is, what do they think about the


drone operators that kill hundreds of people every day? And the


civilians who are killed? Does anybody want to come in on that. On


the drones, it is a serious question we have to face up to. I think, if


the Americans keep using drones in the way they have been doing, I


think everyone is going to say this is setting a very, very dangerous


precedent. And I think the UN and the international community has to


look very seriously at these weapons, that they are potentially


transgressing sovereignty. In the case we know about, the sovereignty


of Pakistan. And while drones can be, if they are not used in a


military way, they can be used for surveillance very effectively, which


is how the British use them. There are serious issues on the


international law of the use of drones. The American government is


beginning to look at that. The point is, how do you compare this one


Royal Marines killing the injured member of the Taliban and, one must


assume, with what we know are hundreds of killings of women and


children in Afghanistan and Pakistan by drones? And we just say, well, we


ought to look at that. There are lots of strict rules of


international engagement and conflict. My concern with drones is


that international law has not caught up with them, and it must do,


so that people using this technology actually have to abide by the law.


The Royal Marines do. What do you mean by abide by the law? The law is


not being applied to those. The law has not caught up with the


technology, and I'm calling for it to do that. But until then you can


use them with impunity? We should not, and we don't. I do not know


enough about how the Americans use them. The Americans in the Armed


Forces are saying we have got to make sure we do not set a precedent


so other countries start doing what we are doing with drones, because


that would be very dangerous. Killing innocent civilians is wrong,


if it is wrong, it is wrong universally, and we should have the


courage to say that. I do not find that a difficult problem. I think


the difficulty is that the drones are getting away from us because the


Americans are now working on robot drones. They do not even have people


at the end of the TV screens guiding them. They are preplanned when they


take off, and the basic mission is to kill people. They do not even


have the possibility of aborting the thing if they look and see lots of


civilians instead of the supposed target. Simon Frost, please. Is


Typhoon Haiyan further evidence of mankind creating climate change? If


so, what can we do to reduce the risk of further disaster? There is


no connection at all between this typhoon and climate change. If you


look at tropical is, you will find there has been no increase in the


amount, or the strength of tropical storms for the past 100 years.


Indeed, this year, Typhoon Haiyan is terrible, appalling, but I am afraid


these things happen in the tropics. In the Atlantic hurricane season,


this year has been one of the quietest seasons in the Atlantic


within living memory. It is the quietest, although they predicted


there would be more for 30 years or more. If you look at what the


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says, recognised as an


authority on this, they say there is absolutely no connection between


so-called climate change and tropicals or is, all tropical of all


kinds. -- tropicals or is. This is a scare which people latch onto but


there is no scientific merit in it, no statistical merit in it. There


has been no increase in extreme weather events at all, and this is


fact. Ed Davey, do you agree? I am glad to see that Lord Lawson is now


praising the IPCC. On this question, I think he is absolutely


right that there is no evidence that climate change is increasing the


frequency of tropical storms. There is evidence that it is increasing


the impact of the intensity of those storms. And this is how it is doing


it. Sea levels are rising. That is a fact and I hope Nigel Lawson will


agree. That is happening because of climate change because the ice caps


and glaciers are melting. With higher sea levels, islands like they


have in the Philippines and low-lying coastal areas are far more


vulnerable to these storms than they ever used to be. At is the real


danger of climate change. It is not always increasing extreme weather


events, although the IPCC says that in some cases they think it is, but


it is making these areas far more vulnerable. That is why these


disasters are on a scale we have never seen before. We have to take


climate change extremely seriously. We have to lead by making sure we


are taking measures, investing in renewables, low carbon and energy


efficiency. Next week I'm going to the global climate change talks in


Warsaw and working to sign a global deal in 2015. The world has to take


action. The evidence says it is more urgent than ever before and I hope


that Nigel, when he looks at the evidence from the IPCC, which he is


now quoting in favour, I hope he will realise the world have to take


action on climate change. -- the world has to. Isn't this so


confusing? One minute I am told I have two save my rubbish and the


next minute I am told it all goes to the same landfill site. One minute I


am told if we do not save the planet it will die in 20 years, and


somebody else says it is just the natural life of the planet. I wish


somebody would tell me exactly what is going on and then I could make a


decision. It is so difficult. I find it very confusing. I am in the truck


business. You will probably agree that the motor industry has done an


awful lot for climate change. Sorry, done an awful lot for climate


change? It has cleaned up its act, enormously. One of my trucks parked


in Calcutta, the air coming out of the exhaust pipe is cleaner than the


air going in. If you look around Calcutta, you will see thousands of


vehicles that are ten or 15 or 20 years old. I am not quite sure what


this little Europe can do when there is so much of the rest of the world


that needs to come up to speed. Stella Creasy. Nigel, I hope you


will take up the offer made by the Filipino delegate to the climate


change conference. I don't know if you saw his impassioned speech that


made a lot of people cry, about his view that there was a connection. I


take the scientific evidence. The evidence shows there is a 95% chance


that climate change is man-made. That means there is a 5% chance that


it is not, and it is right that we have a public policy debate about


that risk ratio. My sense is that 95% is a pretty good standard to


start thinking about what we can do to address that. That gentleman was


talking about trying to take dead relatives out of the rubble of


buildings and dealing with the consequences. We are not immune to


our own responsibilities about things we can do to create a more


sustainable way of living, and I do not want to take the risk that we


might be in that 5%, when the 95% of independent scientific evidence,


when I hear you talk, Nigel, opinion meets fact. The fact is that climate


change is happening. We can have different debates about how we


address it, but the idea that we can ignore it and make it go away, talk


to people in the Philippines and you will hear a very different story. I


think you are very confused, if I may say so. First of all, where


there is no scientific connection, and this is accepted by the IPCC and


the majority of scientists, is between global warming and


hurricanes and typhoons, including this terrible one in the


Philippines, which is particularly bad. That is what the question was


about. As for the 95%, what they are saying is that they are 95% certain


that the amount of global warming that there has been is largely due


to carbon emissions. But in fact, there has been very little global


warming. There has been none at all over the past 15 years. This is a


fact. If you go to The Met office, they admit this. Everybody knows


about this ad mitts on it. The amount of global warming is very


little. Ed Davey, what do you say to that? Every decade, it has been


getting warmer. This year will be the seventh warmest on record. It is


not just global temperatures, but temperatures in the oceans. The ice


caps are melting. It is not just that, but the sea level rising. It


is also the acidity in the seas. There is overwhelming evidence that


climate change is happening. Do not believe me as a politician. Believe


the scientists. The IPCC had 259 scientists from 39 countries, 50,000


comments for peer review. It was the most peer-reviewed piece of science


in human history. I think what Nigel Lawson challenged you with was that


there has been no change over the past 15 years. Is that true, or not?


It is flat. It is not flat. When we are talking about climate change, we


are talking about long periods. The global warming foundation, which


Nigel Lawson shares, which is trying to undermine the scientific


consensus on climate change, they take this 15 years. Because the


increase in global temperature has been slowing down, they say climate


change is not happening. When you ask scientists, they say, over a


short period, we do not expect to bridge is always to go up. If you


take a longer time period, temperatures are definitely going


up. He chooses his periods and he should not do that. Why do you say


he tries to undermine scientific opinion? What do you think his


motive is when you say that? You suggest an ulterior motive. Nigel


will have two answer that. Used the verve undermine, as though there is


some malpractice in disagreeing. He has done it in a very open way. He


writes a good book about it, but I disagree with most of what is in it.


What he does, he puts his argument, but he denies, as far as I can see,


the evidence from the international scientific immunity. It is not just


the international scientific community. The current chief


scientist in Britain believes there is a problem. The previous chief


scientist thought so, and his predecessor as well. The scientists


are telling us we have to take this seriously. Wasn't the second part of


the question, and what are we going to do about it? What can we do to


reduce the risk of further disasters? Getting on to actually


doing something about it will be slightly more difficult. Paul


Kenny. Throw that one to me! I remember in the 1970s scientists


were telling us that the ozone layer was being depleted. I remember it


well. Everybody went around changing from hairspray and getting rid of


fridges and all sorts of things. The idea that this has not been a long,


long, long run into where we are now is not an honest as Isham. The


acidity of the oceans is rising. It is man-made. -- it is not an honest


position. Somebody did not leave the fridge open. The ice caps are


melting. I do not have the scientific knowledge of other


colleagues, but that is what I see. What we need to do about it, this is


where the argument comes about how we have two adapt, what energy we


use and how we use it. Nicky is right. Many car manufacturers to the


decision to move to lower emissions. Really low emissions. This was


because they recognised this was where the markets were going to be.


That is what we have to force other people to do. In some sense, it is


just good business to lower carbon emissions. It is good business to


take the view that there is global warming and adjust our energy use,


our types of energy. We have been talking about carbon capture for


years. What about adding to fuel bills for the development of green


sources and other sources, are you in favour of that? I am, but I more


in favour of using some of the profits which the energy company


makes, instead of taking it out of the pockets of the consumers. Let me


hear from some members of our audience. The person in the blue


shirt up on the left, 1st... I think these are valid points which have


been raised, that I think scientific data is available only for such a


small window, given how long the planet has been in existence. I am


not a scientist, I am a person who works out on the water, and I think


the quickest way we can make an impact is to stop carrier bags.


There are so many things we can do. But that pollution. Stop carrier


bags in supermarkets, how simple can it be? And you in the middle. We are


missing the point. If you went to the Philippines and said, what is


the single most significant thing we can do to help them survive, they


are not going to be saying, carbon tax and Climate Change Act, they are


going to be saying, help me build a house with proper foundations. And


the person over there on the right hand side? In answer to the


question, what can we do about it, things like green levies are just a


drop in the ocean, when you compare it to parts of Asia and China, who


are having a massive impact on CO2 emissions. Nigel Lawson, do you


approve of green levies? I think the whole policy which Ed Davey is


promoting is positively immoral. It is not going to work, but it is


positively immoral. The gentleman towards the back there who said that


what the Philippines people want is to rebuild their country, I want to


get richer, because they are poor country, which has been exacerbated


in a huge increase in population, fastest-growing population in the


world... Ed is going to try to go to Warsaw to try to get a global


agreement, but he is not going to get that. We are not expecting to


get agreement next week. And they did not get one in Copenhagen, and I


will tell you why. But what is the positive immorality? I will tell you


what it is. The reason we use carbon -based energy, fossil fuels, is


because it is far and away the cheapest form of energy, and will be


for the foreseeable future, although not for ever. But for the


foreseeable future. And if you move away from that, you are moving from


cheaper energy to more expensive energy. It is causing enough


problems in this country. The developing world, China, is not


going to do that, and quite right, too. The increase in Chinese


emissions in one year is bigger than the total emissions from the United


Kingdom. So what we do is neither here nor there, unless there is this


global agreement. The immorality is that if you are inhibiting their


economic development by forcing them or persuading them to use expensive


energy instead of cheaper energy, which they are not going to do, then


you are going to condemn hundreds of millions of people in China and


India and in the developing world to premature death, unnecessary


disease, unnecessary poverty and destitution, that is what you are


doing if you get them to do that. It is positively immoral. It is


economic growth which will solve the problems in the Philippines and


elsewhere, and that means using cheapest form of energy. So you are


preventing growth in poorer parts of the world, which is immoral. We are


not doing that. What we are saying is that the developed world makes


the biggest cut in carbon emissions, and we need to help the poorer


countries get a cleaner form of development than we have had. Let's


take China, China is investing more in low carbon technology than any


other country in the world. It has woken up to the problems of


pollution and climate change, and I will tell you why. I have just been


to China. If you go to their big cities, the air pollution in places


like Beijing is dramatic, it is appalling. Nothing whatever to do


with climate change humble that is not what they think. They are going


to tackle this seriously. They are talking about building what they


call an ecological civilisation. They are moving hard and fast on


green growth, in order to try to change their whole model of growth,


so as not to damage the air and the environment and the climate. You are


behind the times, Nigel. If you look at China, other countries, even


America, at what President Obama is now doing with Secretary Ceri, they


are moving fast to try to reduce carbon emissions. That is why I


think we can get a global deal, which we desperately need. We need


to make sure that it enables our economies to grow, as well as


developing countries. In my industry, the Chinese are working on


low emission technology to sell to the rest it is not actually


happening in the remote villages of China. The Chinese plan is that by


2020, only 5% of their energy will be generated by wind power. And for


solar power, it is less than 1%. They have been building


coal-fired... If you look at the facts, they have been building


coal-fired power stations at the rate of pretty well worn a month for


several years, and they are continuing with that. These are not


being billed for decoration, they are for use. You have been taken for


a ride. There is a big change happening. Let me give you an


example of solar. The costs of solar have plummeted in recent years,


because China is manufacturing solar panels on a massive scale. It is


brilliant for villages in sub Saharan Africa which cannot connect


to the grid. They are going to have power much cheaper than some of the


fossil fuels which they currently use. They are going to save money


and go green. I am a materials scientist and I have been involved


in developing materials to move away from CFCs, to reduce greenhouse


warming within the atmosphere, and I would say that what we really need


to look at, whether we have got warming or not, and I do believe it


is happening, is that we reduce our need for fossil fuels, resource


efficiency. Nikki will have been developing her vehicles to have


light weight and parts which are efficient, and that is what we


should do. China are doing it. They know that is the way to go. Do you


agree with Nigel on this? And usually for me, I find myself


agreeing with Ed. We have scarce resources, why would we encourage


profligate use? Whether you think climate change is happening or not,


surely being more efficient with what we have got makes good business


sense? When the evidence is there that it is 95% likely that climate


change is man-made, I want to see Britain leading in this, because of


all the jobs that will come in renewable energy, from that


different way of living. I do not want Nikki Tuohy cycle more, I want


her to have a more sustainable way of living. I am sorry, Nigel, you


are the one who is confused, if you think we can carry on as we are now


without there being any consequences. Of course there will


be, and it is not just the people in the Philippines who will feel it. I


would like to hear from one or two more. We have got to keep doing it,


we cannot pretend that nothing is happening. Your turn. I was going to


say, everybody talks about emissions and industry, but farming accounts


for an enormous amount of greenhouse gases. Sheep in New Zealand, cows in


America, I remember learning it in geography GCSE. It is arrogant of


human beings to think that there is anything that we can do which will


destroy the planet. If it goes too far, the planet is going to have


enough, and it will just say goodbye to us. I am not sure whether you are


for cows and sheep or against them? I do not really have a political


stance on that! Up there, you, with the spectacles on. Greater use of


renewable energy is also about energy security, so we are not


vulnerable. All prices rose massively if you years ago, and then


fell again. Renewable energy is probably more stable in terms of its


cost. We have got a big audience here, to any of you side with what


Nigel Lawson has been saying? I agree totally. If you think that at


the moment, the ice cap in the Antarctic is as big as it has ever


been, and the planet, since the big bang, has been going in and out of


cold, hot, wet, drive. It does what it does. We are not the dinosaurs,


do we want to be extinct? We have got no choice. The planet will do


what it does, and we will have no influence. So you would take no


action on any front? One of those things you are talking about are


great, but we cannot affect the climate. We cannot affect the


change. Cleaning up the air is a great idea, renewables are a great


idea, none of that is wrong, but it is arrogant to think that we can


actually do anything to change the world. But scientists are telling us


that there is a good possibility that we are responsible, so we could


do things to limit the damage, is it not the right thing to do? The


science is telling us that it is 95% likely that man is responsible for


climate change, so therefore, we can do something about it. Why would we


not? And who is a coastal city? We are, in Portsmouth. Why risk this


city? Well, we started with Portsmouth, and we have come back to


Portsmouth. Next week we are going to be in Salford, in greater


Manchester. We have got a rather different kind of audience. We are


looking for people who are either under 30 or over 60, so that we can


see how to Geoffrey to generations you the big issues. So, we have got


on the panel, at the moment, the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and


the broadcaster Joan Bakewell. So, that is next week, in Salford. The


week after that we are in Falkirk, during the week when the Scottish


Government will be publishing its detailed case for independence. If


you want to come to Salford and you are the right side of 30 or 60, or


if you are any age and you want to come to Falkirk, you can apply via


our website or call the telephone number which is on the screen. The


debate continues meanwhile on BBC Radio 5 Live. Thanks to our panel,


and to all of you who came here. Good night.


David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Portsmouth where shipbuilding is about to end with the loss of almost a thousand jobs. On the panel: Energy Secretary, Ed Davey; Shadow Business Minister for Labour, Stella Creasy; Nigel Lawson, Conservative former Chancellor; Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB union; and Nikki King, director at Isuzu Trucks UK.