09/01/2014 Question Time

Tonight, we are in south London, and welcome to Question Time.

Welcome to you at home, to our audience for the first programme of

the New Year. They will be asking questions and our panel do not know

what will be put to them. They are Liberal Democrat Home Office

Minister Norman Baker, Labour's Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka

Umunna, Conservative backbench MP, Nadine Dorries, Deputy Leader of

UKIP, Paul Nuttall, and the journalist and the blogger known as

Fleet Street Fox, Susie Boniface. The first question is from Daniel

Rees. Should the young and the poor pay to maintain the living standards

of rich pensioners? This, in the light of the Chancellor, George

Osborne's announcement that he wanted to see 12 Ilion pounds of

cuts from the welfare budget in the next two years after the election.

-- 12 billion pounds. I knew you were going to come to me first. This

is not a policy which is set in stone. It was not a policy

announcement, it was simply announcing a direction of travel

that we are going to be going on after the next general election.

What is a direction of travel when he says he wants ?12 billion of

further welfare cuts? After the next election. He is indicating that the

bad times are not over, that we are still in a position where we are

going to have to make more cuts and the good days are not here yet. Does

he mean it when he says ?12 billion of further welfare cuts? He could

not have been missed speaking, surely. He does mean it, but I have

to make a confession. I have already voted in this Parliament for

something I did not agree with on principle and it is not something I

will do again. So I certainly will not be going into a voting lobby to

vote to remove housing benefit on the under 25-year-olds. I will not

be doing that. However, having said that, savings do have to be made and

I think that what we need to do is look at expanding, and we do have

two all be in this together. The cuts do have to come from a wider

perspective. I do not think it is right that we have pensioners, some

very wealthy, who are still in receipt of various benefits. I think

what we need, I am actually a supporter to a degree of the mansion

tax. I think we need to look at other ways of making the savings and

other areas they can come from. I am not sure we can continue to ring

fence some of the big budgets, which actually means there are very few

areas where the Chancellor can go to make savings. So it tends to target

the young and appears to be targeting the younger people and

welfare. Welfare is the right way to go. We were spending too much on

welfare but I am not they support of some of the announcements that have

been made. But I do think we need to look at other areas we can go to. We

invited you here as a vague support of the government, but clearly you

are not. George Osborne has already lost one vote. I vote on principle

and I will not vote to remove benefits from the under

25-year-olds. They have taken enough hits. The Liberals said these

proposals were extreme, unrealistic and a monumental mistake. The desire

to get some blue water between us and the Labour Party as the next

election approaches. I agree we have two eliminate the structural

deficit. There is more work to do on that. More has to be done. That does

not mean we have to balance the deficit on the back of the poorest

people in society. That is not the right way to do it. You mentioned

the mansion tax and that seems a sensible proposition. Houses do not

move and cannot be avoided in terms of paying tax. We should recognise

that increasing council tax bands by adding two or three at the top would

be a good way to raise money and not affect the poorest. We need to also

look at tax loopholes. Danny Alexander has done a great deal to

clamp down on tax evasion and these overseas Territories, where people

have been stashing their money. Let's have some more income from

that. We can look at capital gains tax, and why winter fuel allowance

is paid to pensioners in Spain. Paul Nuttall, where does UKIP stand? I

think what George Osborne is doing is playing politics on this issue.

At first they were talking about making a start on the 12 billion

from wealthy pensioners, looking at the winter fuel allowance, TV

licence, the bus pass. But they backtracked because generally

pensioners, wealthy pensioners vote, and will generally vote

Conservative, I suspect. Instead, they are attacking the most

vulnerable in society who do not generally vote Conservative. They

are looking at housing benefit for under 25-year-olds, and that people

who live in council houses who earn over ?60,000. To me, that only adds

up to ?1 billion of savings, out of 12 William. So there is still a huge

black hole. Are you in favour of cuts in welfare? The welfare budget

under labour spiralled out of control to the point whereby it was

costing each household ?300,000 -- ?3000 extra. It could not go on and

something had to be done. There is another budget which is

ring-fenced, which comes to around 12 billion, the foreign aid budget.

I am not against giving money to countries in dire need. People who

need to be fed. But what I'm opposed to his giving money to countries

like Argentina, whose sabre rattle over the Falklands, Brazil, which

has just overtaken us. You would save 12 billion that way. Let's get

it clear, are you in favour of cuts in the welfare budget or not? Yes or

no? I believe there have to be cuts but they are being made in the wrong

area, and the way you should pay for these cuts is by going for the

foreign aid budget and taking money from countries that do not need it.

Frankly, that is your tax, your money, and that foreign aid budget

should be spent on our own people in this country. This attack on

pensioners is rather imbalanced. Most pensioners are not rich. Those

that are, they pay a lot of tax. What is forgotten is five years of

very low interest rates, which has decimated many older people's

income. What do you make of the proposal to cut on younger people's

welfare and leave the pensioners protected? I think that is something

that should be very carefully reconsidered. I just do not think

this divide and rule of our society, the old against Young, is to get us

anywhere. Think about it. The pensioners we are talking about, we

say they do not care whether their grandchildren get jobs, or if they

are in work, that they can earn more. The cost of living crisis

which is affecting everybody in the country is something that needs to

be dealt with. We have people earning on average ?1600 less than

they were when the government came to office. Norman, for you to be

sitting on this panel talking about the need for fairness when you voted

through the bedroom tax is beyond me. The way, ultimately, we will be

able to deal with the public finances, and of course we are in a

tough situation in terms of debt and deficit, is by getting more people

into work. Tragically, we have almost 1 million young people out of

work. And for those in work, we need to ensure that their money goes

further. At the moment, at the end of the day they are working harder

than ever before for less. And we need to deal with that. Are you in

favour of any cuts in welfare? We accepted at the beginning of this

Parliament the switch of the operating of Anna fits from RPI to

CPI because we recognise there were issues that needed to be addressed.

But you have to do that in a fair way. People are not earning enough,

so we need to ensure, for example, that we enforce the National minimum

wage. There are 300,000 people who are not getting that who should be.

We need to make sure people are interesting of a living wage, that

you can actually live off. -- that people are receiving a living wage.

That way, you get more income tax revenue, more corporation tax

revenue, and then you can deal with your deficit. The reason we have

this debt and deficit issue coming out of the crash caused by the

bankers was because tax receipts plummeted. The bankers!

It is because you maxed out the credit cards of the country. With

the greatest of respect, your solution to the situation with

public finances is just to abolish the Department for International

Development and everything will be OK. No. We need more people in work

and earning more. At the heart of the question is more about whether

we feel those with less should shoulder the burden in times of

hardship. Actually, I do not think we are in it together. If you look

over the last few years, people on benefits are really struggling.

Rather than cutting welfare that much, we should be looking at

promoting growth. I do not mean in terms of what George Osborne has

been saying about doing great and coming out of the recession, because

people are not feeling it at the bottom. It means job creation and

opportunities, not just London focused, but everywhere. The

original was question, should young people pay the cost well pension and

age benefits are protected. The answer is no. But it seems that the

other people around this table are operating in a state of denial.

There is something we cannot argue about, which is that we have more

older people than young people. People will, at a certain age, get

pension age benefits. There are not enough younger people to pay for

that in the future. It is coming down the track. You cannot avoid it.

It is coming and the main parties need to find a way to address that

problem. The problem is, as the gentleman here mentioned, older

people vote in greater numbers than younger people do. And they feel

they have paid into a system for all of their lives and should get

something out of it towards the end. You did not pay into a saving

account and have the money allotted for you when you are 65. It has been

spent already. It has gone. What is your proposal? It is not me that has

to make the decision, it is these guys, but they have to decide how to

address pension age benefits because you cannot keep paying it to wealthy

pensioners. There is no harm whatsoever in starting that debate

and having a sensible debate and bringing in a voluntary opt out

system, so if you do not want your winter fuel allowance and if there

is a sensible government campaign that says, give up your ?300 and it

will go to helping a single mum in your street, you will find some

people opting out. Then it would become or palatable for some people

to agree that some benefits they can give up the car they do not need

them. That would be a start. -- they can give up because they do not need

them. The way is to get more people into work and earning. In fact,

since the general election, 1.6 million private sector jobs have

been created and have been filled. Today, there are more people in

work, and I queried this because I found it hard to believe, there are

more people in work today than there have ever been in work in this

country, ever. That is quite a statistic and an achievement. 8

million of those people are women. We have 8 million women in full-time

work today for the first time ever. What is the nature of the work and

how much are they earning? We have a proliferation of people on zero

hours contracts. Well, it is work they did not have before, work that

was not there before. When this government came to power, Ed

Miliband said, 1 million jobs will disappear. 1.6 million have been

created. Ed Balls said it was a fantasy that each private sector job

would grace a public sector job that had disappeared. Actually, private

sector jobs have replaced public sector jobs by four to one. Are we

really saying, though, I have said it is a good thing and I believe it

is a good thing, of course, that more people are in work. But the

question is, how ambitious are we for the country? Will any job do, or

do we actually want to see... If you have been on welfare out of work,

any job will do. I would say we want to get people earning more. If you

have a job that does not pay enough that you can live off...

The woman in pink? We don't need cuts to pensions. You are not

getting them they are protected. ?70 billion a year is lost to the

Treasury in tax evasion a further ?25 billion in tax avoidance. If

that money, if there was a serious attempt, I mean not just this

government, the previous government as well, if a serious attempt was

made to claw that money back from the tax havens and the tricks these

people use, if that was done we would have enough money to staff our

hospitals, education system and bring back the libraries we have

lost, replace the fire stations being closed down. It's very, very

easy. APPLAUSE

A serious attempt has been made and is being made and is bringing us a

significant income from that particular scream. We have invested

well over ?1 billion on dealing with tax avoidance. With every ?1 we have

spent we got ?9. It's working. It's a top priority... They cut the

number of tax inspectors. In terms of tax avoidance and evasion,

particularly in overseas deposit, we are getting ?9 in for every ?1. She

is saying you would get ?100 billion? We have got billions back.

?93 billion. Can I make the point about income tax as well. Chuka

Umunna was talking about helping, as I was, about helping the poorest in

society. The reality is, under Labour, we saw the abolition of the

10p tax raid rate, doubling income tax for the poorest people. We

raised the tax threshold to ?10,000 - ?705 better off as a consequence

of that every year. 2.7 billion taken out of tax altogether. That is

what this coalition government has done for the poorest people.

Employment is at its highest level. Unemployment is lower than we took

over from you in 2010. You should remember Ed Balls has started to be

nice to be the Liberal Democrats. You don't have to take it out on

Norman any longer. OK. I will move on. I will move on to another

question. As always you can join in this debate of course from home by

text or Twitter. Our hashtag is: When it right to shoot someone who

hasn't been unarmed? Who is unarmed? Who has been unarmed? When is it

ever right to shoot someone who is unharmed. Not when is it legal, but

when is it right? Mark Duggan is in Michelle's mind? I will come to your

question, but I think the first thing I'd like to say about this is

your heart goes out to the family here. Before we even answer your

question, you know we have a family that has lost a brother, a son,

above all a parent and his children were quite young. I lost a parent

when I was pretty young. It's tough. This has happened under the glare of

the media. On your question, which of course goes to the verdict, the

inquest verdict, to many people, many won't understand how it can be

that a man who can be shot who is unarmed, that is a lawful killing.

Ultimately, unless we were amongst the 10 jurors, ordinary people, like

all of us here, who heard the evidence, visited the scene, I'm

certainly... I don't know, I'm not prepared to second guess that jury.

At the end of the day, we have to be very clear what the police officer,

what they were being asked to determine, which is whether the

police officer concerned, who fired the shot, had an honest and

reasonably held belief that Mark Duggan posed an imminent threat and

obviously the inquest verdict was that he did. I tell you what I do

know. I might not know what I would have done in that position, what I

do know is that there are still a lot of questions to be answered. The

jury found that the police should have collected, or could have

collected, more evidence before stopping the car. Why? Why was the

car removed from the scene in the hours after? Why was no

investigating officer appointed within the first 48-hours after what

had happened? Of course, we also know that if you look at confidence

in the police per se, I mean I would say, in my borough, we are here in

London my constituency stealth ham is in Lambeth, police community

relations, the black community, is better than they were in the 1980s,

no doubt about that. We have outstanding issues. For example, the

disproportionate stop and search of young black people on London's

streets. APPLAUSE.

We have a situation where there are too many deaths in custody of black

people and people wonder why. In that context, when something like

what happened in the Mark Duggan case occurs, the trust isn't there

because you've got things undermining that trust. We need to

deal with that. I will finish by saying this though, I think the

police do an incredibly difficult job, I wouldn't do it. I'm not sure

I would be able to do that job. But for them to be able to do it

effectively, they have got to be able to command the trust of the

public who they are policing. That is the big problem right now.

APPLAUSE Norman Baker, you are a Home Office

Minister, do you agree with Chuka Umunna there are many questions that

remain unanswered about the way the police handled this whole thing?

Yes. I think the analysis was pretty accurate. The reality is that we

have had a jury verdict. We have to respect juries, it's an essential

part of our legal system. They did sit for three months and heard 93

witnesses as part of that process. They have reached a conclusion after

due consideration, but there were indeed elements of the police

activity that were brought into question. It's not finished here

because the Independent Police Complaints Commission is undertaking

further investigations into this matter. The we are looking, a at

Government Government, to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints

Commission anyway and bringing in a code of conduct, ethics for all

police officers. The stop and search powers that Chuka Umunna referred

to. We have started a review of those last year. We are taking that

very seriously. It's important we have policing by consent in this

country. When we have a serious incident like this it's important it

is properly looked into from all aspects to minimise any problems in

the past, in the future. You sir. The Metropolitan Police Police

Commissioner today suggested that armed response units should wear

video surveillance, do the panel this would increase trust in the

police? Yes. What do you think? It's does else world in the -- where in

the world. To good effect. It would have been very reassuring to the

family of Mark Duggan. APPLAUSE

I think you're absolutely spot on. I think that that video cameras on the

equipment of firearm officers would make a lot of sense. I think it

would provide us with greater transparency and more

accountability. It would give us, as people, probably a greater

understanding and a great sympathy, I suppose in many ways, about the

difficult job that these people do. Decisions have to be made in split

decisions. We are not talking about minutes here, we are talking

literally seconds. You know, it works for the armed forces. We had

the prosecution which came off the back of the murder of an

Afghanistan, where that type of equipment was used. It makes perfect

sense to incorporate it into firearms arm services here in this

country. Michelle's question wasn't whether it was legal, but whether it

was right ever to shoot someone who is unarmed, slightly different

question? I think the officer involved obviously thought that his

or others lives were in danger and the jury have supported that

version. Look, the jury have looked at this for three months. They have

interviewed 93 people. You know, this has been... They had a real

in-depth look at this. Let us not forget these are 10 people choosen

randomly performing a civic duty. I'm sorry, I don't think it helps

when politicians come out... I think it's irresponsible actually when

they try to question the decision that the jury have come to. I must

say that the family coming out this morning as well and calling for

calm, have you to give them respect for that, absolutely.

APPLAUSE I like the noises which have come

out of the Metropolitan Police today and the fact that the Commissioner

has gone to Tottenham to mean community leaders. Lettuce us hope

for calm and that things work out and people can move forward. We have

to consider the question of trust here. We have talked about that, but

we are talking about what happened in the moment. What happened

afterwards was that the police briefed the media. They didn't brief

the family. They didn't see the family they spoke to the media. They

briefed against dug Mark Duggan without seeing his family. That is

the real issue of trust here. That is something we all have to

consider. The Independent Police Complaints Commission misbriefed

what actually happened. The woman in the second row from the back there.

Yes. Sadly, this case is just one in a long line whether it was Ian

Tomlinson, Stephen Lawrence, Andrew Mitchell, where the police have not

only had serious failings, but also nothing seems to have changed. How

do we make the police more accountable in these cases? Susie

Boniface. APPLAUSE.

It's more than just... The original question was, is it ever right to

shoot an unarmed man. Of course the answer is no. Nobody can say it's

right. Part of the problem is this use of the world "lawful" in the

jury's verdict. Every day use of that word means it would be OK with

us, the definition in terms of that inquest is different, it doesn't

necessarily mean what it would mean in every day speech. That is why

there has been confusion and upset as what comes out as a lawful

verdict. It's also the fact that any of us in that situation, with the

information that police officer had, at that time, with your finger on

the trigger, how many of us may also have pulled the trigger? The issue

was that the intelligence he was given at the time the jury foundual

nanniously 10-0 he did not have the right information when he was put in

that position am we asked people to do very horrible jobs for us in the

police force on a regular basis and shoot people sometimes. I'm sure, I

don't know who he is, I don't want to make assumptions, I'm sure he

worries about that decision he made and thinking it over and over and

over. If he had the right decision, had the right information he would

have perhaps done differently. I wish it wasn't just miss briefing

the Independent Police Complaints Commission gave to journalists. When

they knew that was wrong, they did not tell the journalists. They

allowed that story to continue. That's more than wrong and

unethical, it's appalling. The police didn't see Duggan's mum for

four weeks after her son had been killed. She was getting information

from the TV news, that is what causes distrust, riots and problems.

Plagues. Everyone can understand... The man up there, you, sir. Why is

there this unquestioning belief in juries? Not many other countries use

the same system as us. We have to look into this as well? Would you

rather a judge made that decision? I have spoken to people who have been

in juries, they said decisions are made on purely illogical

information. The man there. Is there any strong evidence linking Mark

Duggan to actually having possession of the firearm? From what it seems,

if I was in the situation where I shot somebody until self-defence,

they had, there was no evidence to show they were going to shoot me, I

somehow think the outcome might be difficult for me compared to a

police officer. I think that should be questioned.

APPLAUSE. There are a number of aspects to

this case, the human aspect which is Mark and Mark's family. My own

brother died at the same age of Mark. I know the pain. I can

understand that pain of loss of a sibling. It's... They must have been

through this horrific process of waiting for the trial and all the

misinformation and being briefed against. It must have compounded

insult upon injury and their grief so much more intense. Then there is

the other side of the case, about what actually happened. My

understanding is the police had intelligence that Mark was

collecting a gun. They followed the car. The gun was in the car. Mark

left the car, with the gun in his hand. He lifted the gun. We know now

to throw it. If you're the policeman who is facing him, when Mark lifts

his hand with that gun, how do you know he is going to throw it? How

can do you know he isn't going to aim at you? I would ask the question

- what was Mark doing with a gun in his hand? Where was he going with

that gun? What was he going to do with it? If you carry a gun in

London you take a risk. I think it was an appalling situation. I'm

really glad to hear that the police are now going to wear cameras so

that every single second of what happeneds -- what happens, 50

people, 53 people were killed by guns in London over the last three

years, I think it is. Three police shots have been fired. Putting that

in context, the police are keeping us safe. 53 people were killed with

guns, it seems to be a growing problem, I think it's one that we

need to look carefully at because the police are dealing with a very

difficult situation, which is a rise in gun crime. I think cameras on

their uniforms is a very good way about making this problem -- making

sure this problem doesn't happen again. I think a lot of the problems

with the inherent distrust between members of the community and the

police probably has to do with, still very short on representation

of the black and ethnic minority community among the police,

especially among the senior ranks is, who have to make operational,

strategic and, you know, decisions they have to make.

I think what is concerning is that we now know he did not have a gun

and he was shot, unarmed, and killed. And you compare it to what

happened in Greenwich, where the two guys were brandishing weapons, and

the police maimed them. People are now wondering, he did not have a

gun, why was he killed when he could have been maimed? Maiming is usually

by accident. Police tend to fire at the body mass, because it is the

only way to guarantee you are getting the shot. There is also a

narrative growing that it was all right to shoot Mark Duggan because

he was a wrong one. That is not OK. The fact that he may have had a gun,

may have thrown a gun, does not make it right to shoot him after he

dropped the gun. The reports were saying he was shooting. People do

not trust the information when it comes to police shooting someone

dead. Let's go to another question. Now that the tidal wave of Romanian

and barbarian immigrants has failed to materialise, -- Algerie and, will

be racist rhetoric subside. URI mania on yourself. Yes. Will be

racist rhetoric subside, Paul Nuttall? How did I know you were

coming to me? We have said all along we do not know how many Romanians

and barbarians -- Bulgarians will come. Migration watch UK say that

50,000 will come per year for the next five years. That is 250,000.

The Institute for democracy says it will be 385,000 over five years,

which is a city not similar to Bristol. What we are saying in UKIP

is that it makes no sense economically to have a whole open

border, to the whole of Europe, because we have two welcome members

of the European union because freedom of movement and peoples is

enshrined in the treaties. It makes no sense to have an open door when

you have 2.4 million people unemployed and 1 million young

people in this country who cannot get a job. It makes no sense

whatsoever to saturate the employment market any further. And

on top of that, freedom of movement of people might work when you have

got economies of a similar size and where the wages are similar, so

ourselves, France, Scandinavian countries. When it does not work is

if you take, for example, Bulgaria, where the minimum wage is 150 euros

a month. The traffic will only be one way. Frankly, we do not think we

can cope, and we would like to see a points -based system, where if you

have the skills this country needs, yes, come and work. But it makes no

economic sense to have an open door when we have 1 million of our own

young people unemployed. Do you want to come back on that? There have

been any number of surveys which have proved that actually

immigration is of a positive economic and fit to this nation. --

positive economic benefit. Actually, there have been a number

of studies which prove actually it does not. Nigel Farage made the

point the other day, and I concur, if it means we are a little poorer,

I would like us to control our own borders. If we carry on the way we

are going the population of this country will be 88 million by 2060,

and I think we are pretty full already. You are full of something!

The question about whether racist rhetoric will end is plainly no,

because it will carry on. What was racist about that? I am descended

from migrants, Danish and Irish, both of whom have been treated

reasonably good and bad in this country, both of whom are

hard-working. One worked in the Army and the other as a house made for

very little money. Both came and have their families here and

produced and were part of Britain. If you want to send me back, feel

free. We have a migration issue in this country. We have always had

opened doors and people can come and go. That is what has made Britain

great over the years. That is what we are. Most migrants in this

country, 40,000 last year, came from China. What was the Prime

Minister's response to the terrible problem of Chinese migration? He has

relaxed the Visa rules for the Chinese. It is all right if they

come. He does not want people who looked dusky and dark and do not

bring enough money in. The way we talk about immigration... Frankly, I

find the way we have discussed the migration issue utterly appalling,

completely disgusting, obnoxious, offensive and very un-British. I

would like to grow up and be sensible. -- I would like it to grow

up and be sensible. In order to go for the populist cheer, she did not

mention that David Cameron has no authority whatsoever over our own

borders and the European Union and how many people come here. We cannot

set immigration targets on who comes to us from within the European

Union. We have no idea how many people are going to come, but we

know how many millions of people have the rights to come if they want

to. Now, a large part of Britain this week, over the last few weeks

and over Christmas has seen flooding. One of the problems with

flooding is that we are building on our flood planes, so we have less

and less area of the country where water can drain away from. You might

think we can deal with that. You might think so, as long as you are

not in the areas that have been flooded. The only way we can control

immigration into this country is to leave the European Union. The only

way that is going to happen is if we have a referendum, and the only way

you are going to get that is making sure you get the Conservative

government because it has committed to a referendum in 2017, to give

British people the choice whether we are in or out. So if you do not want

to have an open-ended target of people who can come to this country,

you will have an opportunity to go and vote and say no, because David

Cameron has no legal powers to stop anybody from in the European Union

coming here and settling here if they want to. That is what our entry

of the European Union means. Are you against the tidal wave of Romanian

and Bulgarian immigrants? There has been no tidal wave, but there might

be tomorrow or next year. We do not know. We don't know. This is the

problem. And I really object to these objectives and targets - we

are going to have a cap on immigration. We cannot cap

immigration because we have open borders and we are legally unable to

do that. The only solution is to vote Conservative and have your say

in a referendum in 2017, and go to the polls and decide whether you

want to be in or out of the European Union. And then you can come here

and argue the case about whether or not we have open borders. I take

issue with that. If you are Spanish, where unemployment among the under

25-year-olds is high, you might come to London to look for a job. If you

do not find a job quickly, you will probably go back to Spain. I pay

?600 a month in rent and bills to live in London. I think the 1

million people unemployed in the UK, which is continually rolled out,

those are people in the North of England, in areas where industry has

collapsed, in areas where there are no jobs for those people, there is

long-term unemployment which is endemic. We have around 750,000

illegal immigrant in the country and we do not know where they are. We

have net migration of 200,000. The scenario of people coming here and

deciding they can get a job and then going does not exist. People come

and base day. The people they present the biggest threat to, those

who come from Spain and Romania and other countries, who have not got

skills, who come and take the jobs of what we would call blue-collar

workers. So it is people in constituencies like Harlow and

others who actually feel the threat of not having protection on the

borders, because they feel their jobs are in competition. How do they

just take the jobs? It is someone's choice to employ somebody. They do

not pitch up and suddenly, I am going to have your job. They apply

for jobs in the same way that everybody else those. And in a

market economy, if I choose to employ someone from Spain... Because

of the black market economy, people taking less than the minimum wage to

work. That is a totally separate issue. It is a real issue and it

exists. Reith so do something about the back market economy. Norman

Baker, what do you say to him, her and him. I remember canvassing in

the easterly by-election last year, and what you conclude from the UKIP

campaign is that not only were the population of both those countries

coming to the country but going to that constituency. You have to be

very careful about language on this. Hyping a sensitive issue does not

help a sensible discussion about an issue which concerns many people.

There is a lack of logic applied to this. Vince Cable was telling me

that one of his constituents said, I am fed up with all these people

coming to the country and I am going to live in Spain, with no sense of

irony. He was exercising the same rights to live in Spain that people

were using to come here. We have Brits all over the European Union,

working, studying, exercising their rights. If we start limiting other

people's writes, they will start limiting hours as well. Of course we

want people to come and work. We do not want people to come here just

for treatment on the health service. The way this has been approached in

some elements of the media has been destructive. We have to be careful

with the language we use. Is anybody on the panel aware that 7000

Romanian and Bulgarian students have been capped from financing by David

Willetts? Nobody has been warned of this. The funds have been withdrawn

from their own accounts and they have been given short notice by the

college is to abandon their programmes. Are you one of these? I

am one of their representatives. I understand the point you are making.

Is that it? It is a summary cessation of financing for Romanians

and Bulgarians in practice. Wires that happening? I cannot give you a

direct answer to that. I am a son of an immigrant and I think immigration

has been a good thing for our country. Go back to the 1950s when

people arrived on the Empire Windrush and help to rebuild the

country after the war. What with the NHS do without immigrants, never

mind that we have got a funeral bell is as from our immigrants. The thing

is, I think all that people want is a system that is properly controlled

and managed. More work needs to be done on that. They want immigration

to work for us, economically, and also people coming over to

integrate. What I have found with this, I have heard some of the

comments already, I do not think it is an issue of racism with a lot of

people. In my constituency in the 2010 general election, ironically,

the people who raised the immigration issue with me more than

others were my African and Asian constituents. It was really about

that immigration is a proxy for people's concerns about the economy.

Where I have a big issue with what Nadine Dorries and Paul Nuttall are

saying is that the problem with our economy is that it is too low waged

and low skilled. Among Western economies, we are fifth in terms of

how our percentage of the labour force is made up of those jobs. If

we shut the borders and leave the European Union, it will not solve

that problem. What we need to do is to transform our economy, so that we

grow our manufacturing base and deliver more jobs that pay more

money and that will solve the problem.

Allowed in 13 years more people to come to this country than in the

1,000 years. 4 million net to come. You have been apologising for it

ever since? Have you been apologising for it ever since. You

miscalculated. In working-class towns and cities up-and-down the

country, people have come on to building sites, people have been

under cut and British workers have been driven off. You find them

either unemployed or driving taxis (inaudible) We heard Jack Straw and

David Blunkett apologising Saaing it was a mistake. You can include Peter

Mandelson, if you like. You don't apologise for, it you think Labour

has made no mistake? I certainly wouldn't say that. In terms of the

transitional controls in respect of the countries that joined the

European Union in 2004 we made a mistake in not play transition

controls. What I would say to Paul is, the way you help people is

enforce the minimum wage. Get living wages and grow our economy. I see

absolutely no suggestions what so ever coming from your party that

will help the communities that you are talking about at all. You don't

do it by saturating the job market even further. That is what is

happening. You need to transform the job market. You have nothing to

offer in that direction at all. Hold on a second, Paul. Hold on. What do

you have, as Labour, to say to the 77% of people in this country, you

have seen the statistic according to the British Social Attitudes, who

want to see immigration cut? What is Labour's answer on that? We believe

there was too much of it from the European Union. There is one

important thing about the European Union, the founders of the European

Union had in mind free movement of workers not free movement of job

seekers. Undoubtedly we do have to work with our European partners to

deal with that. I met with a number of them this week. They are very

open to that. If we constructively engage with them instead of saying -

do what we want or we will walk off. What is free movement of workers not

of job seekers. You can't go and look for a job - No the point is, if

you come over. A radical reform of the EU Treaty coming on. No, what

people intended when they built the European Union in the first

instance, people who had a job or had the skills to get a job would

move around the European Union. The problem that we have had at the

moment is that you had, during our time in office, this is where we did

make a mistake, you had high skilled people coming from other countries

to do low skilled jobs here. That is where we said... There was too much

- When it was set up, it was set up with countries with pretty similar

economies. When you let the whole of east Eastern Europe you let in

countries that were far poorer. It's all one way. Cannot deacon instruct

the argument. I promised this lady on the left she would have a quick

word. Nadine, I've forgotten your surname, the liberal gentleman, I

have forgotten your name. It doesn't matter. Being serious at the moment,

what I object to strongly is that this coalition government which both

of you belong to, use smokescreen of immigration to hide what you are

doing privatising the NHS, killing the welfare service. You're a woman,

you should care because women are going to be left holding the baby

when you bring us back to pre-1948 because we can't... You can't go

can't you can't get legal aid any more. Who suffers, women? They are

in a terrible marriage, they can't get out of it. The husband has the

money, or the partner. Somehow you are trying so well to make

immigration the big issue while you quietly, as I say, privatise the

health service, as you know, the welfare service you kill, are

bringing in the gagging law. Also, Lewisham, as you know, we went to

court with Mr Hunt, we won, both times, so just to say... You are

losing a bigger audience, people don't know what happened in

Lewisham. No. You have touched on a point which brings us to our last

question. The 118 clause. I'm so tired... You can answer. Janet.

Giving overcrowding in A and maternity departments, how will the

ongoing programme of closures help? Nadine you can answer that and the

lady on your left at the same time. Well, Section 1 18, so let us just

talk about that and bring that in. If I can touch on Lewisham. You have

to explain what Section 118 is, I'd rather you did. Lewisham A was

under threat. It was the last time I was here on Question Time. Under

Chuka Umunna government a PFI contract was set up so the hospital

had to pay ?1 million in debt interest payments. There was a

threat to the hospital. Section 118 has been brought in to enable an

administration organisation, which again was brought in under the last

government, to look at the most effective way using experts, made up

of both doctors and clinical staff and accountants to speedily deal

with the issues surrounding those hospitals because the reason why the

"speedily" is used is because people who use hospitals are patients and

are ill and people's lives are important. So when a hospital is

failing, as we've seen with a number of hospitals, that something has to

happen quickly. For anybody who thinks, I have seen the propaganda

that Section 118 will be used when it goes through on Lewisham. It will

not. Lewisham is stlutly protected. I had confirmation of that from the

Department of Health this afternoon. It will not apply to Lewisham. If

anybody is worried about that. We know that. You have had your go. How

is the ongoing programme of closures going to help? Norman Baker. I must

say in response to the last question, my party, the Lib Dems,

has not used immigration as a smokescreen for anything, I want

that on-the-record on this programme. Secondly, in terms of the

health service, this government has quaranteed above inflation funding

for the health service through this parliament. Despite the difficult

economic circumstances we find yourselves -- ourselfs in because of

the importance of the NHS, which is something I support. Some people

haven't liked the reforms. GP local commissioning and better integration

between health and social services and more treatment locally without

everybody having to go to A for the most minor incident. That has to

be good as a direction of travel. I think we have got quite a good story

to tell - Didn't they say they would stop central closure of maternity

and A wards? I don't think we are directing closures of hospitals.

They are happening? They may be happening because the GP

commissioning might be using other means. Paul Nuttall? From what I've

read. I have briefly read up on the Lewisham situation, is that the

protest group took Mr Hunt to court and they won. Mr Hunt appealed in

October and lost. Congratulations, well done to all you guys. Also,

from what I've read, Lewisham wasn't failing anyway. However, if I can

move on quickly. APPLAUSE.

You want to get to the NHS anyway? I'm not against the NHS. I would

like the NHS streamlined. The NHS is too big at the moment. You say, "the

very existence of the NHS stifles competition" that's what you told...

Look. I genuinely believe that competition drives quality, equally

the NHS, the cost of the NHS trebled under Labour. We are getting older.

The population is going up. We have to have a debate pretty soon in this

country how we fund healthcare. I'm telling you now, within the next 20

years it's going to be unsustainable if we continue on the road that

we're on. When you say "it's very existence stifles competition" I

quote you again "as long as it's the sacred cow of British politics" do

you want us to pay for it? We need a debate in this country how we will

fund healthcare in the next century. It's stuffed with managers. For

every nurse, there are two managers. 48%, 48% of people who work for the

NHS, in England, aren't clinically trained. I want to see money going

to nurses and doctors. I want to see red tape cut. I basically want to

see the NHS streamlined so we all get a better service. Thank you. The

clause 118 is extremely important. Clause 118 of the bill going through

the Lords at the moment. It's the Government's attempt to recover from

from the Lewisham defeats. Nadine wrongly said is a thriving

successful hospital -- I didn't say it wasn't. It wasn't solvent. From a

neighbouring trust with financial issues decided to draw Lewisham into

that. Close the A here. It was rejected by the courts. The

Government is trying to change the rule that any future administrator

would be able to willy nilly close other services. This is wrong. Let

us leave Section 118 and return to the question. I don't know how you

can sit there with a straight faces to say you are proud of your

Government's record. Let's look at A Let's look at A In the last

12 months over a million people have had to wait more than four hours to

be treated in A The problems we've got in A are partly also

triggered by the Government's cuts to social care. Which have meant

it's been more difficult to discharge elderly patients. There

has been a backing up in the beds. 5,000 less nurses. The Government

shut down a quarter of NHS walk-in centres. You say you are proud of

that? ! What planet are you on? Is The statistics of the NHS... It's

shameful the We can quote statistics selectively if you want to do so.

They demonstrate quite a good record on the A in this government. I'm a

resident of Greenwich my hospital is the one that had this scheme started

by Labour which was in debt which meant yours get closed. The question

was, would closures help the problem in the NHS, the answer is no. The

fundamental problem you've got, for 65 years, ever since 1948,

politicians have wanted to tinker with something, very, very good.

They have wanted to change it, fix it, streamline it, cut it and slice

it and think they can improve it somehow. The fundamental thing about

NHS, despite our financial and economic anxieties, in 1948 they

were worse than they are now, despite our anxieties the most civil

sized thing in the world to do is put the the welfare of the sick

above everything else. That is what the NHS does.

APPLAUSE. We have to stop. I will take a point

from the gentleman there. You, sir, yes. This problem has been ongoing

for many years that nobody has addressed. That's not rightle. In

2002 I went to A, spent more than 10 hours waiting in A, I don't

want to tell you the hospital where I went to. Someone said (inaudible)

all politicians want to kick the football, I kick it to you and you

kick it to me. We find a goal post, which is inaccurate. Someone

mentioned about the managers. There are too many managers. There are a

lot fewer now than there were. I have colleagues who work for the NHS

practitioners who tell me they push you about. They don't know what

should be happening on the ward. All right. That should be addressed. A

lot of hands up. The panel would like to come back and comment on

that. We only have one hour for Question Time. We have to stop. I'm

sorry about that. Our time is up. Next week, we will be in Durham, the

Archbishop of York will be among the panellist there. The week after that

we will be in Dundee. If you want to come o to Durham or Dundee apply,

the web address is on the bottom or call: If you are listening to this

on Radio 5 Live the debate goes on on Question Time Extra Time. My

thanks to our panellists here and all of you who came here to Lewisham

to take part in this were gram. Until next Thursday, on Question

Time, good night.