16/01/2014 Question Time

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

And welcome to you watching at home, to our audience, who asked the

questions and argue with the panel, who do not know what will be asked

of them. The chairman of the Conservative Party, Grant Shapps,

Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary, Mary Creagh, president of the

Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, radio talk show host Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.

Our first question is from Matthew Ferguson. Is Benefit Street an

example of broken Britain, and what more can be done to stop people

living off the state for their entire lives? This was the programme

put out by Channel 4. Is it an example of broken Britain, and what

can be done to stop evil living off the state their entire lives? -- to

stop people living off the state. There have been a lot of people

complaining about that programme. To characterise all those on benefit to

be that is really what is going on in our society, I do not think it is

right. I used to be Bishop of Birmingham and I know the problems

in that city. I also know there are people at the moment who are not

just on benefits but working and finding it very difficult to make

ends meet. So I think it took a particular section of people and

tried to give the impression that everybody on benefit is just like

that, so we had better stop it. I believe individual responsibility

matters and people have to be careful what they do. Also, there

are some places where to get a job is very difficult. But it is

readable -- reasonable to talk about that part of Birmingham. It is

clearly a place with an interesting story and the problem. It is an

interesting story and a problem but the problem we have at the moment is

the suggestion that people are feckless and that is why they are

all on benefits. We have to be very careful. The money that has been

taken out of welfare and caring is so huge, and we are expecting people

to just make ends meet. It is good to be in and study it, but do not

sensationalise it in the sense of suggesting that most people on

benefits are just as that particular street. That street needs a lot of

help, support, care and encouragement, and make sure it is

not simply a question of out of benefits into work. Some problems

actually to break the cycle of this dependency takes a long time, and

sometimes generations. Matthew Ferguson, what did you make of it? I

think it shows what is wrong with the welfare system that people on

benefits can go and spend all of their money on cigarettes, alcohol

and drugs, but people who are working cannot do the same thing. I

think the government should start giving people food vouchers for

supermarkets and travel passes, so they can get to the job centre and

work, instead of giving them free money. And did you see it as typical

of broken Britain, the phrase used by the Conservatives at the last

election? I think it is. The cap the government has put on welfare is

probably the right step and more needs to be done. You, in the second

row. What do you think? Many of the benefits are paid to the working

poor. There are other feckless, but they are not the majority. I have

seen some deprivation around the world, which makes that street

looked like luxury. But many benefits are paid to older people,

to working people who have been badly treated in this country with

regard to the minimum wage, living wage, zero hours contracts and what

have you. Yes, there is a bad picture in Benefits Street. I

certainly believe it has been edited. But politicians, look at

yourselves. What are you going to do to deal with it, to help people?

What are you going to do, admittedly, with less money? I do

not know about the production quality and standards of that rogue

RAM. There have been accusations about whether it was complete. --

that programme. This morning on the radio there was a couple who work in

that street who have not featured in the programme is shown. But the

worst thing of all, as has been suggested, is the idea that when you

try to get out of the trap of benefits, it does not pay. In other

words, work must always pay in this country. And that is a fundamental

change is to the benefits system. Through the universal credit that

Iain Duncan Smith has spent so much time bringing in, that is the most

important thing that could happen in this country. The gentleman

mentioned the working poor. You may not have heard this afternoon but

the Chancellor has said that the government would like to see that

minimum wage rise to perhaps something like ?7, to take into

account inflation. He said that is possible because we have taken some

of those really difficult decisions, as the Archbishop says. We came into

government at a time when this country was about to go bust. When

we had the same debts as Greece, where your family had all been cost

?3000 because of the great recession. We had to do something,

and that included making sure that benefits, like housing benefits,

came under control. But the biggest help we can give is making sure that

when people work they are always better off by doing a days work than

on benefits. My first reaction to the programme was that I did not

need to watch the television to see the effects of poverty on the lives

of people, because my casework, my surgeries are full of people

describing the effects of the government's welfare changes on

their lives. And they come to me when their disability living

allowance has been stopped, and they are waiting for six months, 12

months on a reduced income with the same outgoings, waiting for an

assessment. And I see people who have delays in their benefits, and I

talk to my local church and the food bank they are running, and I see the

heartbreaking letters. I visited a food bank in Stevenage last week,

and they described to me the people crying as they got their Christmas

hampers, as they came just before Christmas and there was a hamper and

they were collecting outside Asda. That was my first instinct, but then

I watched the second episode. What I saw in that episode was the church

and the counsellors working together to try to enter the street into

Britain in Bloom. I saw people trying to brighten up the area,

clearing up the rubbish, planting hanging baskets. I also saw people

coming to work on the fields as labourers, working 17 hours a day

and getting ?10. What is the government doing to tackle the

abuses in the employment industry that means that we effectively, in

the agricultural sector and other sectors of the economy, are having

people working effectively in slave like conditions? You, sir, over

there. I worked for 21 years, and Jude to this government's policies I

was made unemployed for three months. To be labelled a scrounger

by someone like Matthew at the back of the room is an absolute

disgrace. I am not a scrounger. I paid taxes for 21 years. I did not

think you called him a scrounger. He labelled me as a drug addict. I

don't think he did. He didn't even see you from where he was. It was

more the people who cheat the system and stay on it for their whole

lives. The woman in the middle. I just think people are rude equipped

to say, go and get a job, if you are not in that situation. -- people are

really quick to say it. We have graduates who cannot get a job and

we expect people with possibly no work experience to get a job. I

tried getting a job when I had no work experience when I was younger

and they said, you do not have work experience. How do you expect people

to get it? If you want people to volunteer, that does not pay money.

They still need benefits, so you don't realise how much people are

trying to get these jobs. Did you see the programmes? Yes, and I agree

that they generalised way too much. The vast majority of people who are

unemployed wants to get work but there is a minority working the

system. Why can't we talk about that? Why is a programme that

highlights that being accused of demonising them? Isn't that

something we can talk about? Exactly. There seem to be two

different criticisms this week of Benefits Street as poverty porn. One

was that these people do not exist and this is outrageous, a

generalisation. And then there was, if they do exist, we should not

demonise them. The vast majority of people claiming unemployment benefit

do so for a matter of months between getting jobs, but there is an

underclass, a section, a small but growing minority of people who are,

you say working the system, but I think the system is working them. I

think the problem is not people being angry at these people, but

people should be angry at the system and the politicians, including those

on this panel, who have allowed this to happen. We have an entire section

of society being left to rot. How would you stop it happening if you

were a politician, because you are in the comfortable position of being

a commentator? It is very difficult to get people into work when we have

so many unemployed. There are not enough jobs for everybody who is

under -- unemployed. But in the boom years, under Labour, there were

enough jobs. We were importing people to do the jobs while we left

an underclass out of work on the scrapheap with no incentive to get

up. You have no skills or qualifications. But it does not

matter, we will pay you to live a life like that. Drinking lager at

10am. If I had nothing to get up for, I would be drinking lager at

10am. These people are making rational choices. They can do a

minimum wage job if they can get it and they will be a couple of quid

better off than they would be on the dole. Why would they bother? We have

created a system, and voters have allowed to happen as well, where we

will accept that there are 500,000 people left on the scrapheap for the

rest of their lives. It is a terrible economic waste, but also a

terrible waste of a human life and potential. Everyone who has been a

politician in the last 20 years should be ashamed of themselves. Is

she right? Is it the fault of the politicians? I suspect that when the

welfare state was set up, Beveridge never intended it to be something

for nothing. It was always something for something. He intended it to be

a social insurance through which people could be helped in the

short-term. The problem is that we have 5 million low paid workers who

are now, most of them, needing to depend on food banks. So it isn't

true that work pays. Until you lift the 5 million out of poor wages so

they can actually support their families properly, you will always

have this problem. The other thing is that the Prince of Wales trust

bought out a report that three quarters of a million young people

feel they have no future, no hope. How are you going to do that unless

you get a system in which, that is why I am on the living wage

commission, it is good that the Chancellor talks about ?7, but

Professor Baines, who started the minimum wage actually said, had it

kept up with inflation people would now be paid ?19 and our, not just

?7. So you need something more dramatic than that. -- ?19 per hour.

It is not dishonest journalism. It is a better programme than some of

the press has suggested that it is selective. These are real people and

they represent a proportion of the UK. But you could just as easily

picked a street in Kensington and Chelsea with people on seven figure

salaries who are absolutely scrounging and not paying any tax.

That is absolutely absurd! No more observed than what we are talking

about. Those people exist in this country. It is appalling that you

have a group of people, represented by this programme, who, whether they

realise it or not, are effectively robbed of their dignity. It is right

that we understand that the way out of poverty has to be work. What I

find intolerable is the way that many people decide to divide and

rule between the working poor and the nonworking poor. The average

person who is out of work desperately wants to get into work,

and we need to support them to do that, which is why I am delighted

that George Osborne has caught up with Vince Cable and wants to

increase the minimum wage. That should happen. It is right that the

government has lifted the income tax threshold so you now have 24 million

people with an ?800 tax cut and the lowest paid 2 million paying knowing

contacts. I meet tonnes of people in my constituency in the late strict

with low unemployment, who are better off on benefit. -- my

constituency in the late district. The answer is not to demonise those

who through no fault of their own are on benefits.

You, Sir? Poverty is a disease. It's very difficult to get out of that

disease. The people that are in poverty are the people that are

being exploited by the power companies, the gas companies and the

landlords that are supplying their houses. This is a big problem. The

exploitation of people in poverty because most of the people in

poverty have came from poverty and the benefits system is only improved

in the last 20 years. You can't say it's always been a fantastic

benefits system. I must admit, it is a wonderful benefits system we have.

But people in poverty have came from poverty. It is very difficult to

escape it. OK. You? Being a recent graduate from the North East, I have

struggled to get a job here. I want to stay in the North East. I know in

order to do what I want to doily have to move to London. Why can't we

recognise that decentralisation of jobs and opportunities need to be

brought to the North East? What did you make of the stories that were

told in Benefits Street and the conundrum that was posed there? I

think, there are people who genuinely do want to work. Those

people are not represented on reality TV shows. It's always like

the archbishop said, the people wo we think are the feckless ones in

society. The woman up there, on the left? I don't believe in "Broken

Britain." I think there's part of Britain that is rubbing along quite

nicely, thank you very much. There are broken communities within

Britain. Successive governments through changes in industry, which

has been completely removed from this community, have robbed people

of the chance for a really decent working wage. Then we had a

Government after that that created an over-reliance on state handouts.

People don't need money, they need community-led initiatives that will

help them find their own opportunities out of the situation

they find themselves in. APPLAUSE

I'm from the other side of the Pennines. I loved every minute of

the four years I spent up here at university in Newcastle. What I saw

in this part of the world - and you see it in the North West as well -

is you have big industries where people work really hard all their

lives that collapsed in the '80s. What happened then was you got a

sequence of inherited welfare dependency, a one generation ended

up out of work and without hope. That almost became inherited. That

is why we have to understand that the solution to "Broken Britain," or

whatever it is, is not to concentrate everything on the City

of London and on the South East of England. There are proud cities like

this one that can lead from the front. #6 Let's come back to

Matthew's question -- let's come back to Matthew's question. Grant

Shapps, what can be done to stop people living off the state?

Archbishop John Sentamu says it should be ?18 or ?19? I don't think

the figure is correct. He is sitting on the Committee. Alright, let's

check it now. Lord Baines who started the minimum wage said that

had the Government followed his recommendation and his policies, it

would now be about ?19. Why? Because of the rising prices and even the

Office of National Statistics said the drop to 2% was due to two

things. First, the slow rising of food prices. Then they went on to

say the trouble is prices are still rising twice the ordinary wage is

rising and therefore the crisis is still very strong. As I sit on the

Living Wage Commission, we will make recommendations so people can get

income on which they can live and the companies that can afford it,

they may not at the beginning, but it is important to recognise why

should I earn a lot of money and pay the same amount of gas like anybody

else, and then those on very low wages struggling and we say to them,

"Come on, do better than that." They can't. Grant Shapps? What this rise

would do would bring it back to where it was pre-recession. That is

what the ?7 will do. What I - I listened to the audience - what I

think about the Benefits Street programme, it doesn't reflect true

realities of Britain, as other panel members have said. You wouldn't know

that there are fewer workless households in Britain from ever

before watching that programme. You wouldn't know there were more people

in work in this country. As Julia was saying, there are many changes

that still need to be made. You talked about the universal credit.

It hasn't come in because it is in universal chaos. No. You had a vote

yesterday. You and Tim, yesterday, there was a vote from the Labour

Party on the National Minimum Wage saying it needed to be strengthened,

restored and proper enforcement. Two firms have been prosecuted for

non-payment of the National Minimum Wage since you two came into power

and you voted against that. You insulted both the parties? The idea

that... George Osborne is going to raise the National Minimum Wage...

The fine is... Let's talk about the work that people are doing, Grant.

Low-paid, zero hours, poverty pay, part-time contracts and they aren't

able to feed their families and pay their bills at the end of the week.

APPLAUSE In which case, you will be pleased

to hear we are about to quadruple the fine on firms who don't pay a

minimum wage... Means nothing if you are not prosecuting them. Do you

know how many prosecutions in the last year of Labour there were for

firms not paying the minimum wage? One. You have done two in four

years. What we have got to have is HMRC staff... We brought it in. This

is getting very tedious. You, there? I think - I would like to continue

on what Tim Farron was saying. No-one in the UK doesn't want to be

working. No-one wants to live a pointless existence for nothing and

the problem is that there are too many people in this country

directing their anger and passions towards the most vulnerable people

in society rather than directing their passions where it should be on

companies like Vodafone and Amazon that have robbed our high street of

jobs, robbed money from the public pocket and do nothing for this

country but rob us from tax. One last point from you? I personally

think that when it comes to Benefits Street that I saw - sorry - the

positives that came out of that. There was great community spirit and

the fact of the matter is when we have got an aging population, more

than half of our population is going to be over 70 and we are almost

doubling our dementia cases. Who is going to be making the best dementia

communities with that kind of spirit? You thought that was a good

community? I did, in its spirit, I definitely thought it was. Benefits

Street, or whatever, if you want to join in the debate from home, you

can text or Twitter us. You can push the red button and see

what other people are texting. This question is from William

Kilvington-Shaw. Despite the potential hazards, the economic

benefits and job opportunities of fracking are too good to miss? What

is your view? We look in America - there was quite a lot of opposition

and problems with it. Now, we see a lot of investment in it and they are

reaping the rewards with lower gas prices. We just discussed the

problems with people finding jobs, so it will create a large number of

jobs, so I can't see why it is a bad thing. You are excited by fracking?

LAUGHTER Yes. Tim Farron? I am less excited. It is not for some of the

reasons that have been put out there. I don't know really the

geological consequences, the science is not all that clear. The impact on

the water table, the impact on the landscape and all those things. They

are interesting points made on both sides. The most serious problem is

climate change. What on earth are we doing signing up to another fossil

fuel? What do you make of David Cameron's proposal of tax relief and

all the rest of it? If a community is going to be blighted by any

development, there is a fairness in that there should be some

compensation. I wouldn't say what I have said about the securing of

shale gas if I didn't think there were obvious other alternatives.

This island is surrounded by water because islands tend to be! Lack of

use that we make of tidal power. You think of Germany with something like

a fifth of the coastline that we have, yet several times more tidal

energy than we are making use of here. 95% of the supply chain of the

Hydro and tidal energy industry is British, unlike shale gas, unlike

nuclear. Not only would you be able to set a future that can protect and

mitigate against climate change, you will create hundreds of thousands of

British jobs. You are a funny old party, the Liberal Democrats, aren't

you? Well spotted! You are President of the Liberal Democrats. One of

your senior Ministers in this Government, the Energy Minister, has

responsibility for this. He says the exact opposite? We compromise. Where

is the compromise? I retain the right to stand up for what I

believe. To pull the rug from under his feet? I understand the argument.

We have to look for where does the energy come from. The argument in

favour of shale gas are about energy security and the speed about being

able to get it. I just think there are arguments on both sides. The

bottom line is, when we are trying to fight climate change, going for

another form of carbon emission is just foolish and short-sighted. OK.

Mary Creagh? Gas is an important part of our energy mix. If shale can

replace our dwindling North Sea reserves and improve our energy

security, we need to look at it seriously. However... Looking at

something seriously is... Of course it is serious. "Yes" or "no"? It

needs to be regulated and monitored. What that means is... Is? Testing

the water supplies before anything happens. Monitoring for seismic

activities for 12 months beforehand. Working out what impact this is

going to have on the local community and making sure there is a proper

Environmental Impact Assessment that is carried out. What we must not

have is a sort of feeling that the Government offering bribes to local

councils saying you can keep 100% of the business rates. Councils that

are making the planning decisions on these fracking applications have to

do that in a quasijudicial role. Should communities not benefit from

taking on fracking? Communities should benefit. Not through the

councils? I don't think it should be done through the business rates.

That creates perverse outcomes. I also think - to go back to Tim's

point about climate change - gas is half the carbon footprint of oil and

coal. If we could reduce our carbon footprint by 50% in one go, most

people would be happy. Grant Shapps, it is a bribe? I will come to that

in a second. Go to it straight, that is what she said? OK. I don't think

it is a bribe. 1% of the revenue and all of the business rates, it does

provide incentives for the communities to benefit. If you are

going to have inconvenience in your community - fracking is nowhere near

as inconvenient as a coal mine for instance - there should still be

benefits back. On the wider question that was asked: If the shale is to

be ex-plated in this country -- exploited in this country, don't we

owe it to the hard-working families in this country to give them that

secure energy supply? Of course it does. They are doing it in America.

There is no international evidence at all of problems to do with

earthquakes or contaminated supplies. We want to make sure we

have got the safest possible rules and regulations in place. We will do

that. It makes sense for hard-working families to be able to

access cheaper energy to heat their homes. Yes. Where is the evidence

that it will be cheaper? The Conservative policy was the large

uninhabited and desolate areas of the North East that were suitable

for it. You can only frack for shale gas where it is. It is all over the

country! So it is not Tory policy to follow Lord Howe and deal with -

yes, Sir? Tim Farron suggests we should use renewables as much as

possible. That is a good idea. You cannot rely on them. If we want to

have electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we have got to have

something as a back-up supply. You are in favour of fracking? I am. We

have to use gas to make electricity when the renewables are not making

enough for us. There is nothing more reliable than the tide. It happens

all the time. No, it does not. Twice a day. It is particularly expensive.

No, it lasts forever. Does it, with salt? Does it last forever? You have

to maintain things. When the shale is gone, the shale is gone. The sea

will be there for some time. What do you think, Sir? Unless it is allowed

to go ahead, nobody will ever know if it's totally viable. Absolutely.

You would like to see experiments with it? I would. The woman in

yellow, what do you think? I disagree with the original

questioner. We are not America. We haven't got the vast spaces that

America has. We are a tiny island and the impact on us would be

enormous. I agree with you, Tim Farron, that we should be going for

renewables. Apparently, in America, the shale is already beginning to

run out. It hasn't led to lower prices because they have been

exporting the coal that they continue to mine in order to raise

the prices. I disagree with fracking. Lets not follow the

example of the French economy. The problem in this country is that we

have no say in energy policy. In fact, we do not have an elegy policy

at all and we have not for a long time. -- and energy policy. Every

government has kicked it into the long grass. The problem I have with

those who oppose fracking, is that they seem to be the same people who

oppose nuclear energy, coal, gas, oil, people who will not be happy

until we are sitting in mud huts surrounded by wind turbines and

reading by candlelight. I like heat and light. I do not want the lights

to go off. I want factories to be able to stay working. I would like

heat and light 24 hours a day. We need new energy resources. It's all

very well saying that gas supplies might run out. We have been a gas

importer for ten years. We need energy we can rely on that will be

secure. Yes, we need it to be saved, but we have tighter regulation in

this country than in America. Shale gas is not running out in America.

What has happened there is that energy prices have come down. That

will not happen here because it is a French company that is doing all the

work. I want it to go ahead but I wanted to be a British company. I do

not want French shareholders benefiting. I want British people

who buy their energy here to be benefiting from it, and I do not

know why the government cannot make this happen. Why can't the

government make it happen? We need to welcome investment from anybody

who wants to invest in this industry. Nobody in Britain does?

There is British expertise and investment going into shale. How

much is Total putting in? 40% gesture marked here is the expert.

You are now. We have lots of oil and gas expertise in this country, so

lots of expertise will go into this. Because we are getting into it

before France, for example, who have banned it at home and are happy to

carry on paying high prices, we will be able to X -- export that

expertise in future, in the same way as North Sea oil enabled this

country to export that expertise. But rises will not come down. Nobody

has predicted prices will come down. There are new ways of generating

electricity, including through nuclear. Why don't prices come down?

When these things come online, they will come down. They will not. You

are speculating. I am quoting reports from select committees.

Nobody knows for sure. Nobody is predicting that prices will come

down. I am predicting that prices will come down if we can get more

and different supplies of energy. The oil will run out and we need to

be replacing it with other things. Gas is environmentally much better

for the environment. You cannot pipe shale gas out of the US, but you can

out of the UK. As long as you can pipe it to Europe, that is what the

energy companies will do because that is what they always do. It is

extremely annoying when you hear politicians such as Mary Creagh talk

about looking at things very seriously. We are not looking to

reinvent the wheel. The Japanese and Americans have led the way in

fracking, so much so that America will be entirely producing their own

energy within half a generation. We should be embracing the comments

that were slightly misspoken by the Tory peer, who said we should be

fracking in the north-east. We should be looking at Northumberland,

County Durham, and rebuilding the industry in the area. This is a

novel industrial process. If you want communities to come with you,

it is a novel process and we do not have the regulatory regimes set up

and the processors are not there. We need to ensure the Environment

Agency is able to issue the permits. That is how you get communities to

have confidence. Let's not make those points again. John Sentamu. On

this question, I am ambivalent, simply because I am not so sure that

we have secured the whole question of the environment, that there will

be security that can be sustained, proper controls. I am also not

persuaded about prices. Remember when everything was privatised in

times of oil, and gas and electricity? We were told it would

bring down prices and it is gas companies and oil companies that

have been charging us far, far too much. The same thing will happen

here unless we know that the end result will lead to lower prices.

The fact that the chairman of the Conservative Party cannot commit

himself to this. I do not want to live in a mud hut, by the way. I

left that back in Uganda when I left it. The people who really are asking

questions, they must be answered. And the government has to come up

with very clear answers why it must be done, that we will be secure in

terms of geology. Remember Blackpool, there was a difficulty

there when they first started to experiment? I am not sure the

questions have gone away. I wish them well but I remain slightly

sceptical. Because I do not want to live in a mud hut, I do not know why

the government, for example, does not work on nuclear fusion, because

that would be a much cleaner power to use. Why not? I actually think

again we are taking our eye off the ball here. One of the big issues we

have in the north-east is fuel poverty. People are finding it very

hard to heat their homes and afford to eat as well. Actually, I think we

are missing a trick, because there is a huge amount of opportunity to

invest in our existing housing, to save energy and prices through

investment in the housing structure, and give people that

opportunity to actually do more with their own income. That is an area we

need to focus more on. Insolation rather than fracking? Insulation,

efficient boilers, easy measures without the environmental risks.

Steps have taken to encourage that and they do not seem to have helped.

Lee they need further investment and support and that is what I am

looking to see from the government. In relation to the north-east,

fracking would be a great opportunity for the area. Many

people when they think of the north-east think about the loss of

industry. I think David Cameron's suggestion of 1% revenue as soon as

gas starts coming out would be beneficial to many communities in

this area. The land grab that is going on,

historic land owners are clamouring to establish boundaries, so what is

coming back to the communities might not be as much as the government

says. They will claim their share first. Just one comment. A couple of

the audience have mentioned the industrial benefits. The Institute

of directors reckon 74,000 jobs could eventually be created through

the fracking industry. This gives a chance to help to end fuel poverty

and bring down fuel prices. Why on earth would we not, as a country,

want to go ahead and do this? I don't know much about the

environmental arguments for war against fracking, but what I do

think is that the energy companies and utility companies have not

exactly proved themselves to be trustworthy, or to put consumers

first, so I don't see why we should trust them on this issue either.

Alix Bell, let's go to you. In an area of high unemployment, what

impact will mass immigration have on the north-east? Alix Bell, what is

your view of that? Overall, it would be a negative impact. There is lots

of unemployment and it would create higher competition for jobs. It

would also put further strain on public services which are already

under pressure. You are worried about it. Yes. Obviously, I work for

a radio station in London, where there has been a massive impact of

immigration, and around the south-east as well. I am not as

familiar with the situation up here. We have a lot of reports from

politicians saying about the economic cost, the overall cost.

There was a report from the office of budget responsible this week

saying there is a small net benefit to Treasury coffers of immigration.

We keep hearing about the ratio of people who claim tax and claim

benefits compared to people who come from abroad. I think that ignores

the real issue. The cost of immigration is to individual

people, local families and communities. It is the competition

for jobs, housing, competition certainly in London for school

places, for maternity services, access to your GP and Accident

Emergency. I have nothing but admiration and respect for someone

who leave their homeland, their family and goes to make a new life

and tries to better themselves and their family. They deserve

absolutely nothing but respect and admiration. But there is

nevertheless an effect on people who are already living here,

particularly on people who are often the children of previous immigrant

families, because they tend to be at the bottom of the economic and

social pile. Those are the people they are competing with the jobs. My

problem is that we have a political and media class, of which I am one,

where immigration on a mass scale as has happened in the last 14 years

means that we get nannies, gardeners, and I suppose the bankers

get help walkers, we have Eastern European immigrants, immigrants from

across the world who provide services. Are you saying you are

influenced by having someone to walk your dog? I do not have a dog. I

have a guinea pig. I am saying that the political and media class who

control the debate... RU Sirius? Let me finish. Are you saying that

politicians and the media, because they get cheap servants from

immigration... Their experience of immigration is that they get a

lovely nanny, not their children going to a school where half the

children do not speak English, not the entire neighbourhood changing

irrevocably over a matter of years. It is not about racism or

xenophobia, not about fear or hatred, it is about the ability of

any country, regardless of colour or cult, the ability to absorb large

numbers of people who can assimilate and join those communities and be

part of those communities. What should the policy be? I am largely

in favour of the UKIP side of the policy, in terms of having a stall

on mass immigration in this country. The Tory cap does not appear to be

working. And having a realistic look at how many people can live on a

very small island. The woman in spectacles. I believe that most

people in this country would welcome immigrants if they come and are able

to support themselves and have a job to come to. Most people in this

country are against immigrants when they come and in three months time

they can claim benefits, they can ask for a council house. I don't

think that is right. We are a very small island. We have a large

population and it is growing all the time. We cannot support all these

people coming. If it was reversed, and we could go to their countries

and claim the same, which I don't think we can, then it would be a

fair and level playing field. Immigration is a massive issue, and

a big issue in my constituency of Wakefield. The government has a

target on net migration which it is not meeting. Net migration is up

cost the target depends on the number of Brits who go abroad to

live and work. -- because the target. My parents came here to live

and work in the 60s. Most people who move abroad to work wants to build a

better life for themselves and their family. And they contribute to the

tax revenue, and they build a home and a life for themselves. The point

about the question was, in an area of high unemployment, is it

desirable? Migrants tend not to move to areas of high unemployment to

find work, which is why we see the population growing in London and the

south-east. Some of the very big pressures on schools, public

services and housing. That is not to say those pressures do not exist in

my constituency in Wakefield. We have a very multicultural education

system and that has changed over the last 10-year is. But we are seeing

the government failing to take action on illegal migration, failing

to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable workers, failing to

tackle the overcrowded housing in which they are living, and failing

to deport those who should not be here and who are here illegally.

My personal Experience is it impacts on our public services. I thought I

should learn Polish because it was - the amount of time that we had to

spend getting an interpreter in so we were able to communicate and

effectively treat patients and interestingly, on the subject of

whether people, when we were talking about benefits, the same cohort

misused the service. People who haven't been in the country for a

long time haven't registered with GPs, use services inappropriately,

it means we can't operate efficiently as an Accident

Emergency department. There are a lot of people who use

A inappropriately. It is not helpful to say - people find it very

difficult to get access to their GPs. We have seen the unfurling of

the Government's reorganisation will haves Let's come back to the point.

We have had this week the fact that the amount of locums going up...

Let's not go into the NHS. Julia said, Grant Shapps, that she was in

favour of UKIP's policy on this. Nigel Farage said he would rather

give up growth than have more immigration. Do you agree with that?

No, I don't. Is that a fair choice? It's not. Is it a false dichotomy? I

believe over the decades and the centuries immigration has enriched

this country. It has helped Britain develop the economy it's got today.

The problem is that when the system is completely unchecked and nobody

is paying attention to the system, the pressure on the Health Service

that you work in, or on housing, the area that I used to look after, or

on benefits, gets out of control. Frankly, to hear a Labour politician

on this panel attack this Government, which has brought net

immigration down by nearly a third, when they were responsible for 2.3

million more people coming into this country under a completely broken

system, that Lord Mandelson has written that in 2004 as a Labour

Government, they were not only welcoming people into this country,

but sending out search parties for people to be savaged by Labour

politician on record on immigration, it is completely ludicrous. We are

getting... The effect on a place with high unemployment. This part of

Britain has unemployment higher than the rest of the United Kingdom. Is

it going to be adversely affected? As I said, in answer to the

question, the problem is when services get squeezed and that is

why we have taken action, for example, to make sure some of those

false colleges have been closed down, that we ensure that people

can't come here and bring other family members here from outside of

the EU and that even with the new EU immigration, they don't get

automatic access... You don't want to stop immigration dead? We are in

Europe. We must have a referendum on Europe and the only way we can do...

Any time you want! We are ready. Are you going to vote out of Europe? We

won't have that referendum. You want have it? Until it passes through

Parliament. I have been voting for that Bill. The Lib Dems failed to

vote for that... Will you vote for leaving Europe or not? He won't

answer my question! I will answer it. Will you vote "yes" or "no"? I

can't vote for it until there's a referendum. As soon as that

referendum comes, which we can all have by 2017, with a Conservative

Government elected next time round, I will vote depending on how the

negotiation has gone to get powers back to Britain. Alright. Archbishop

John Sentamu? In an area of mass unemployment, Alix Bell, I think

that if more people came into that area, sometimes willing to take jobs

which others won't want to take, that would create much better

pressure. We have to be honest about it. It would create great pressure

on those already unemployed and trying to look for work. All I would

say, this particular region by the way, has got a much balanced surplus

of trade than any other region in the rest of the country. Nissan cars

and all they have been doing, amazing what they have done. That

doesn't take away, they have to tackle youth unemployment. It seems

to me that should not be just purely the region that looks after it, the

Government has to have a responsibility for it as well.

Finally, I would say, I'm answering that question because myself I've

got an interest, I'm an immigrant, too. I'm glad nobody shut the door

on me. Did you seek asylum? We are, too. You were an asylum seeker, not

an economic - a religious immigrant as it turned out. No, Uganda, I had

taken the decision of law, which he didn't appreciate. My wife and I had

to get out. I'm very grateful for the support. Most people were coming

here - let's be very careful - the Polish who are willing to come and

work, some of them were willing to be paid very, very low wages. That

is why, it seems to me, that this minimum wage question has to be

answered. They all saw - it displaced a lot of people. It is a

small island. It cannot constantly take in everybody. Please could we

take the kind of, what I call it, ideology and be more civil? Could we

take out the blame culture and be more interested about solutions?

Thank you. Is Tim Farron? I want to, without

hesitation, say immigration is a blessing and not a curse. More

politicians need to say that. When you think about what immigration and

the diversity of our communities has done for this country over the

years, it has been a net benefit. Look at the financial side of it,

the OECD estimates immigration is worth ?7 billion to the British

economy. It is not one-way street. 1. Million British people are living

elsewhere in the EU. 10,000 are on the dole in Germany at the moment.

The idea that this is a country that is allowing itself to be sponged off

is nonsense. This is a country that has always been proud of being

inclusive and open and that is how I want it to remain. OK. We have only

got a few minutes left. I will take a question from Dorothy Puchala. Is

Francois Hollande's affair a public matter? Or should he be allowed to

conduct his private life in any way he chooses? Francois Hollande's

affair a public matter? Who would like to answer this one? Me. Go for

it. What consenting adults do between themselves after work is a

matter for them and them alone. What's been interesting is the way

that the French press and the French public don't really seem to care a

jot and have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. He is the

President. Where does he get the time? Alright. You in the front

here? One of the things I think is that somebody who cheats on their

partner or wife, or something, if they will cheat in one way, they

will cheat in another way. Right. Can I come back? Yes? I absolutely

do agree with that. I don't think it excludes someone from high office.

He believes it's a "construction" I believe. Francois Hollande is lucky

that I'm not the First Lady of France, he would be the one in

hospital! I have admiration for a man who looks like he is the middle

manager in a small branch of ASDA that has done so well with the

ladies. For many decades, the French haven't taken an interest. It is

down to what he is is doing to the French economy! The man there?

Another example of personal integrity seems unimportant in the

world of politics. I thought leaders were supposed to lead by example?

Tim Farron? You got your own local difficulty over Lord Rennard,

haven't you? You are trying to get him to say sorry for inappropriate

behaviour - he won't - and you won't do anything? On the Rennard issue,

I'm not here to defend the Liberal Democrats. Over a decade, this issue

has been allowed to fester. What has happened this week is not the source

of the problem. If you are in an organisation - let this be a lesson

for any party - if you allow issues to fester like that, you end up with

the appalling situation we found ourselves in. He denies wrongdoing?

He is entitled to do so. He makes it very clear... You didn't give him

the QC's report? In the statement that he's made, that Chris Rennard

has seen, he made it clear that he must apologise. Alright. That is an

unsatisfactory situation. What was it you said? We have forgotten it

now. It was another example of how personal integrity seems unimportant

in the world of politics? People are entitled to a private life. My heart

goes out to Valerie Trierweiler, and it is not a laughing matter that she

was hospitalised as a consequence of this. My concern for Hollande's

privacy stretches as far as her in this respect. You mentioned earlier

on, the reality is the character of a politician, a leader, anybody, is

demonstrated not just in what they do in the public's sphere, but what

they do in their private lives. If you cheat on people close to you,

you might cheat on others in another way. Grant Shapps, do you agree,

that if you commit adultly, you will commit adultery on the economy, on

the voter, on industry? I don't quite see it that way. I'm probably

closer to the view that what he does with his private life is his

business. I will say this: When he was over here in France's fifth

biggest city, London, before his election, I do remember Ed Miliband

saying that he wanted to follow in Hollande's footsteps. I don't think

he meant in this regard. The bit that I should think worries the

French people right now and will worry Brits is that unemployment in

France is 11%, there are more companies going bust in France than

ever before. The country is heading back into recession. His policies

have been a disaster and they have hurt the poorest people in society

the most. It is a warning sign for us. It is something we must never

make allow to happen in this country. Archbishop John Sentamu,

last word to you. Is it a public matter what Francois Hollande does

with his private life? It is genuinely a private matter, that is

the French way of looking at life. The problem is this. They have been

asking do we have a First Lady. They are beginning to realise it has

limits. You can't go all the way. All I would say, once you are in

public life, the private can't easily be separated. As my mother

said, "Never point a finger at anybody because when you do, if the

others are pointing at you, I'm a sinner who is needing the grace of

God." You can't separate public from private. That seems to me a cop out.

OK. Thank you very much. That's our hour up. Next week we

will be in Dundee and the week after that we will be in Norwich. If you

would like to come to Dundee or to Norwich to argue with our panel,

take part, ask them questions, do the usual thing. You can apply to

the website - www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. You can

call the number there: If you are listening to Radio Five

Live, the debate goes on on Question Time Extra Time. My thanks to all my

panelists. And to all of you who came to take part in the programme.

Until next Thursday, from Question Time, good night.