:00:00. > :00:17.tonight, we are in Gelling, in Kent, and welcome to Question Time.
:00:18. > :00:25.Welcome to you at home, to our audience, here to ask the questions,
:00:26. > :00:30.our panel, here to answer, and who are not told what the questions are.
:00:31. > :00:34.Tonight, Conservative Skills and Enterprise Minister Matthew
:00:35. > :00:39.Hancock, former Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, tipped to be Labour's
:00:40. > :00:45.candidate for Mayor of London, Respect MP George Galloway, who
:00:46. > :00:54.could run against her, economist and author Alison Wolf, and his story
:00:55. > :01:01.Starkey. -- historian and broadcaster David Starkey.
:01:02. > :01:09.Our first question from Lisa Gibson, please. In the wake of two
:01:10. > :01:13.Coronation Street actors being cleared of sex abuse charges, should
:01:14. > :01:25.the accused be given anonymity in future rape cases? George Galloway,
:01:26. > :01:32.the coalition agreement between Labour, between the Conservatives
:01:33. > :01:37.and the Liberal Democrats did have a proposal that anonymity should begin
:01:38. > :01:43.than to the person charged. What is your view? It is tricky, because
:01:44. > :01:47.when accusations are made and the accused is named, sometimes people
:01:48. > :01:56.come forward with evidence, and sometimes with further allegations
:01:57. > :02:00.of other crimes. And it would obviously mitigate against that if
:02:01. > :02:07.the accused was granted anonymity. But in the light of what happened
:02:08. > :02:11.today, this fastly expensive, potentially devastating, disastrous
:02:12. > :02:17.set of false act is a nation is against an innocent man, cleared by
:02:18. > :02:22.the court, indeed, some of the charges were dropped well into the
:02:23. > :02:31.case, before even reaching the jury. I think that this matter will return
:02:32. > :02:36.to the agenda in a very big way. The accusers are, of course, granted
:02:37. > :02:41.anonymity, correctly, and I think the time may be coming for the
:02:42. > :02:45.accused similarly to be granted anonymity. You mean because there is
:02:46. > :02:51.an increase in the number of cases that are being put before the
:02:52. > :02:58.courts? Well, there appear to be, in these high profile cases, people in
:02:59. > :03:03.this post Jimmy Savile here, who are the victims of opportunistic
:03:04. > :03:11.accusation, and that seems to me to be invidious, unjust to them. I have
:03:12. > :03:21.no reason to second-guess the jury today, which was apparently
:03:22. > :03:25.absolutely unequivocal, but William Roache has spent many months under
:03:26. > :03:35.the cloud of suspicion, entirely unjustifiably, as it has turned out,
:03:36. > :03:45.and that can't be right. Tessa Jowell. What concerns me about rape
:03:46. > :03:52.generally is that it is a very heavily under reported crime. And I
:03:53. > :03:57.wouldn't want to see any step taken that would reduce the likelihood of
:03:58. > :04:03.women coming forward, being helped to come forward, in some cases many
:04:04. > :04:08.years later. Notwithstanding the case today, I don't think that this
:04:09. > :04:14.case, for all its celebrity and the suffering of William Roache and his
:04:15. > :04:19.family, is a reason to take what is a very major step, by allowing
:04:20. > :04:26.anonymity for those charged with rape. I think the major priority is
:04:27. > :04:37.to ensure that women who do suffer rape come forward, are supported to
:04:38. > :04:41.come forward, and that the police are, there is an insistence that the
:04:42. > :04:47.police take accusations of rape more seriously. Why is that affected by
:04:48. > :04:56.anonymity being granted to the accused? Because I think that, you
:04:57. > :05:01.know, in many cases women are afraid, they are not confident about
:05:02. > :05:09.the protection of their own anonymity. And I think that if you
:05:10. > :05:13.look at this in the round, the priority for us as a society is the
:05:14. > :05:21.protection of women who are subject to rape, and putting absolutely no
:05:22. > :05:26.obstacle in the way of their coming forward and being supported to come
:05:27. > :05:33.forward and bring cases of rape where they have suffered this
:05:34. > :05:40.terrible sexual violence. What about when they haven't? I agree with
:05:41. > :05:44.George Galloway, and the time has come for people accused of rape to
:05:45. > :05:47.be granted anonymity until the end of the trial. If they are found
:05:48. > :05:51.guilty, the name comes forward, but I cannot see why putting people
:05:52. > :05:57.through this helps in any way to encourage women to come forward with
:05:58. > :06:01.accusations. It seems to me that there is actually a huge number of
:06:02. > :06:05.unjust accusations being made against people in our society. Most
:06:06. > :06:09.of them do not hit the headlines. It is a living nightmare for many
:06:10. > :06:13.teachers, and I think it is perfectly possible to have a fair
:06:14. > :06:17.trial with the accused remaining anonymous. And I cannot see how we
:06:18. > :06:23.can possibly justify the number of innocent people who are being put
:06:24. > :06:28.through this. And of course, as many of them will say, there is this
:06:29. > :06:33.muttering, no smoke without fire, mud sticks. These things are
:06:34. > :06:38.perfectly true. What about the Stuart Hall case, where he pleaded
:06:39. > :06:40.and said these were all lies. His name came out and other people
:06:41. > :06:46.accused him and then he pleaded guilty. That is like saying that you
:06:47. > :06:50.should hang people because there are people who will not commit murder
:06:51. > :06:53.because they are terrified of being hanged. Our primary duty is to
:06:54. > :07:02.protect the innocent and make sure they get a fair trial. I think,
:07:03. > :07:07.given the way that the case ended, there was a clear lack of concrete
:07:08. > :07:15.evidence. Mr Galloway touched on that. But these allegations have
:07:16. > :07:19.potentially damaged women coming forward who genuinely have these
:07:20. > :07:26.gripes. It makes you think, she is making it up. These sort of things,
:07:27. > :07:31.the media intrusion into the accused and also the potential victim, it is
:07:32. > :07:34.damaging to the real victims. It has been horrible for William Roache,
:07:35. > :07:44.but what about the women who are scared to come forward because of
:07:45. > :07:49.this? There are two points I would like to make. The first relates
:07:50. > :07:53.specifically to the question, why was that idea of anonymity in the
:07:54. > :07:57.coalition agreement? It was directly because of the intervention of an
:07:58. > :08:01.old and dear friend of mine, Conrad Russell, who, when he was at York
:08:02. > :08:06.College, dealt as a Chuter with exactly the kind of case we are
:08:07. > :08:10.talking about. That is why it was there. The second thing is that we
:08:11. > :08:15.have got into a hopeless confusion on the whole question of rape. The
:08:16. > :08:21.word rape means violence. That is the Latin root. That is how it has
:08:22. > :08:26.always existed in English. That is how it has always been understood.
:08:27. > :08:31.What we have tried to do is to take that word, with -- with all of its
:08:32. > :08:36.terrible associations, and apply it to a whole series of much more
:08:37. > :08:43.awkward, much more difficult to establish, much more contested and
:08:44. > :08:47.contentious sexual encounters, by focusing on the issue of consent,
:08:48. > :08:53.which so often boils down, as it did in this case, to his word against
:08:54. > :08:58.her word. Now, I cannot see that the law is at all good at dealing with
:08:59. > :09:06.this. It really isn't. It works very badly. And I think it encourages
:09:07. > :09:11.false accusation. It also encourages other things as well on the other
:09:12. > :09:15.side. It's a very, very awkward, difficult law. We are in a state of
:09:16. > :09:20.complete confusion about sexual etiquette, aren't we? Complete
:09:21. > :09:25.confusion about what is right and what is wrong. We are trying to use
:09:26. > :09:29.the law to change it, and you, Tessa, said something which I find
:09:30. > :09:34.deeply shocking. You said our interest as a society is on bringing
:09:35. > :09:38.forward more victims of rape. I am sorry, we have one interest in
:09:39. > :09:47.society when the law is applied, and it is called justice. Justice is
:09:48. > :09:52.blind, and justice is evenhanded. This sense of a very large female
:09:53. > :09:59.Paul resting on one pan of the scale is bad and it is wrong, and it is
:10:00. > :10:08.immoral. That is utterly reactionary Tosh. Rape does not have to involve
:10:09. > :10:17.violence. No means no. If you proceed, it is a comma whether there
:10:18. > :10:23.is violence involved or not. I am outraged at what you said, and so
:10:24. > :10:28.will half the country B. Good, because it might make them think.
:10:29. > :10:34.Just mouthing these things, no means no, I am not heterosexual. I have
:10:35. > :10:37.been in very complex sexual situations, being gay. I know what
:10:38. > :10:47.is involved, I know the complexities. No means no? In a
:10:48. > :10:54.relationship in which sex is the norm, then clearly, nobody watching
:10:55. > :11:06.this asks their wife verbally, would you like to have sex, dear, nobody
:11:07. > :11:11.does that in relationships. Let's go back to the question. Matthew
:11:12. > :11:15.Hancock, we have not heard from you. I think this case has been a
:11:16. > :11:19.high-profile disaster. It has been a disaster both on its own terms and
:11:20. > :11:26.for the impact on William Roache. But also because of how it has made
:11:27. > :11:32.this very debate more difficult. Because the concept of open justice,
:11:33. > :11:36.of everything being done in open in court is based on everybody taking
:11:37. > :11:43.the opinion of innocent until proven guilty. And the problem in these
:11:44. > :11:49.cases is precisely because of people not thinking of the perpetrators,
:11:50. > :11:56.the alleged perpetrators, as innocent until proven guilty. And I
:11:57. > :11:59.would rather try to establish the principle of innocent until proven
:12:00. > :12:08.guilty, because of the downsides of ringing in anonymity, which
:12:09. > :12:14.undoubtedly, making an accusation, if true, does bring forward other
:12:15. > :12:18.victims. How do you achieve that? It is about the national culture. It
:12:19. > :12:24.involves how the media respond. Innocent until proven guilty is an
:12:25. > :12:30.important principle on which our whole justice system is built.
:12:31. > :12:36.Talking about what George was saying, about asking your partner
:12:37. > :12:40.for intercourse. Most girls would complain after a couple of months
:12:41. > :12:44.that there is no spontaneous love, no care in the relationship, if you
:12:45. > :12:50.are asking every 20 seconds if you want them. Where is the spontaneous
:12:51. > :12:55.real love? We are on to the issue about what rape is, rather than
:12:56. > :13:00.anonymity. William Roache was never going to be anonymous. He is too
:13:01. > :13:05.famous. We should not use high profile cases to talk about a major
:13:06. > :13:09.change in the law. As for people being confused, I think that is
:13:10. > :13:13.rubbish. A man knows if he has had sex with a woman against her will,
:13:14. > :13:25.and chateau does she. There is no confusion. -- and so does she.
:13:26. > :13:30.I think, due to the media circus and frenzy that surrounded the cases, I
:13:31. > :13:34.believe in the premise of innocent until proven guilty. The fact that
:13:35. > :13:45.these are two famous household actors, they should be allowed to be
:13:46. > :13:50.in court, and in both cases a trial jury should decide rather than the
:13:51. > :13:57.press and the media. Tessa Jowell, do you want to come back, because
:13:58. > :14:02.David Starkey laid into you? Not that I noticed. My test for this
:14:03. > :14:08.is, does any change in the law make it less likely that some of the
:14:09. > :14:14.young women that I represent, and who I know turn up at the local
:14:15. > :14:17.hospital, go to the police, or they languish in school because something
:14:18. > :14:24.horrific has happened to them, does it make it less likely that they are
:14:25. > :14:28.going to come forward that the perpetrator is going to be charged
:14:29. > :14:32.and they are going to be given the help that they need? And I think
:14:33. > :14:40.that celebrity is a very bad moment at which to undertake a fundamental
:14:41. > :14:47.change in the law. I think the lady who made that point, perhaps rather
:14:48. > :14:56.better than I have, is the view that certainly represents what I want to
:14:57. > :15:04.say. If anonymity was granted, why would it make people less likely to
:15:05. > :15:09.come forward and accuse them? I think the absence of anonymity sets
:15:10. > :15:16.a higher threshold. That is the first thing. A higher threshold for
:15:17. > :15:27.somebody to be charged. I think also UC... Doesn't evidence do that? It
:15:28. > :15:32.is tempting to bring full style is when you want to harm somebody and
:15:33. > :15:42.hurt somebody. You do not care if they are acquitted. -- falls charges
:15:43. > :15:46.when you want to harm somebody. Many women in this country has suffered
:15:47. > :15:52.forms of sexual violence and never had the confidence to come forward.
:15:53. > :16:02.This has no relationship to the issue of anonymity. I will hand this
:16:03. > :16:06.argument over to you at home. Textual comments or use the red
:16:07. > :16:15.button. We will move on to another question. How can state schools be
:16:16. > :16:21.the same as private schools with half the funding and doubled the
:16:22. > :16:27.pupils? Michael Gove said you should be able to walk into a school and
:16:28. > :16:32.not be able to tell if it was private or state. Once upon a time,
:16:33. > :16:38.the sort of school I went to, which was a local grammar school, was in
:16:39. > :16:45.many ways indistinguishable from the middle right public school. I had
:16:46. > :16:50.the sort of education that boys up and down the road had. I have the
:16:51. > :16:56.same kind of extracurricular activities and the same enthusiasm
:16:57. > :17:08.of staff. I had the same range of subjects. My school may do no
:17:09. > :17:17.difference as to how I was treated when I got to Oxbridge. -- my school
:17:18. > :17:23.made no difference. Some of the motives were good but many were
:17:24. > :17:28.absolutely foul. We wilfully destroy our best schools in the public
:17:29. > :17:37.sector. We have been running behind hand ever since. That is what
:17:38. > :17:42.happened. George Galloway... If our state schools had the money, the
:17:43. > :17:48.resources, the playing field is that the private schools have, our state
:17:49. > :17:51.school playing fields are almost now all sold off by this government,
:17:52. > :17:58.which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Then they
:17:59. > :18:03.would be, many of them would be, the equal of private schools that we
:18:04. > :18:09.perversely called public schools in our language. I speak all the time
:18:10. > :18:16.at the very best of these private schools, where the cost of the
:18:17. > :18:23.parents is in the case of Harrow ?32,000 a year. 35,000, I think, at
:18:24. > :18:29.Eton. Errors are getting what they are paying for. They are not paying
:18:30. > :18:34.it for nothing. -- parents are getting. They have wonderful school
:18:35. > :18:41.teachers and facilities. Then I go back to Bradford and I can see we
:18:42. > :18:47.are not getting what we pay for. We are being starved of the resources
:18:48. > :18:52.and of the creativity from the centre, from the state, that would
:18:53. > :18:58.rescue these schools and rescue these children, who are, of course,
:18:59. > :19:03.the vast majority. I am very candid about this or that they'd might
:19:04. > :19:12.cancel my next invitation to eat in or Harrow. We should abolish public
:19:13. > :19:16.schools, starting with abolishing their charitable status. If it is a
:19:17. > :19:30.charity, you get it deducted from your tax. These same comment, these
:19:31. > :19:40.same idiots who never learn. You people never learn. You are on a
:19:41. > :19:50.cycle of destruction. People like you. You quoted Shakespeare. I am
:19:51. > :19:57.furious. The children in my constituency are amongst the worst
:19:58. > :20:03.schools in the country. That leans, when they leave school, their life
:20:04. > :20:11.chances, unlike you, will not reach these Elysium Fields of pop history
:20:12. > :20:17.and academia that you have reached. I am absolutely furious about it. It
:20:18. > :20:26.is my job to sound off about it. Every child has the same right to a
:20:27. > :20:33.good education. Of course. Unconnected to how much money their
:20:34. > :20:41.parents have got. The thing is, you are talking about getting rid of the
:20:42. > :20:46.private school sector. Where do those children go? Do they go into
:20:47. > :20:53.the state school sector and the classroom sizes go from 30 to 60?
:20:54. > :20:58.That will not improve the situation. I am becoming something of an expert
:20:59. > :21:03.on this question. My university is setting up a state school. We are
:21:04. > :21:08.setting up a specialist mathematics School for 16 to 19-year-olds which
:21:09. > :21:13.will be funded as a state school. At one level, you cannot do it with the
:21:14. > :21:19.same amount of money as other state schools. If you are a private school
:21:20. > :21:25.you have more money to play with. Private schools are caught in and
:21:26. > :21:32.amenities arms race. One has one covered some wall so the next has to
:21:33. > :21:41.have two covered summing. That is not what schools are about. We
:21:42. > :21:48.believe we can create a school which is just as good, academically, and
:21:49. > :21:53.in terms of encouraging creativity and excitement, that the best
:21:54. > :22:00.schools do, with the sort of funding we can get. What has gone wrong in
:22:01. > :22:05.Bradford? I think a lot of things have gone wrong in Bradford. I
:22:06. > :22:08.suspect one of the major things that has happened in Bradford is very few
:22:09. > :22:17.teachers have stayed in Bradford. One of the things I do believe that
:22:18. > :22:20.both actually the previous Labour government which started in
:22:21. > :22:26.academies and this government, which encourage free schools, has done, is
:22:27. > :22:31.to create enthusiasm and energy for teachers. You get a good school when
:22:32. > :22:41.you have a group of staff that give themselves a day and night for it.
:22:42. > :22:45.On the present funding... It will not be eaten but can you produce a
:22:46. > :22:51.really good school on the current funding? Yes, you can. It is a bit
:22:52. > :22:57.unfair to automatically assume because it is a state school it is
:22:58. > :23:02.not a good school. I am a teacher myself. There are lots of very good
:23:03. > :23:05.teachers in the school I teach out. Just because you are in a private
:23:06. > :23:13.school, it does not mean that teachers are better but they have a
:23:14. > :23:24.lot better facilities and it makes it a lot easier. What is behind your
:23:25. > :23:29.question? It is hard to compare when it is not on an even playing field.
:23:30. > :23:33.You cannot say to a school where students paid ?30,000 a year, when
:23:34. > :23:37.they have facilities out of this world, and compare it to a school
:23:38. > :23:46.with one football pitch and maybe a couple of hard courts, it is not the
:23:47. > :23:51.same. You cannot compare the two. Is his aspiration that you should not
:23:52. > :23:57.be able to tell the right aspiration for a Secretary of State for
:23:58. > :24:03.education or is it fatuous? At the moment, it is factual. I would love
:24:04. > :24:08.the same facilities that private schools have. If that is the case,
:24:09. > :24:13.maybe Mr Gove will give us more money and reduce class sizes and
:24:14. > :24:19.give us more holidays. I agree with a lot of what you have said. You
:24:20. > :24:24.have left out an essential question and so has Allison. The key thing
:24:25. > :24:29.about public schools is the implied contract between the parents, the
:24:30. > :24:32.teacher and the people. In other words, those pupils are there and
:24:33. > :24:46.they will learn and there are virtually no disciplinary Robins. --
:24:47. > :24:49.problems. My experience on Jamie 's dream school makes it clear that the
:24:50. > :24:55.key issue is that of discipline. This is what Michael will share has
:24:56. > :25:07.been on about and you must not insult peoples. -- the pupils. Good
:25:08. > :25:18.teachers insult their pupils the whole of the time. Telling one he
:25:19. > :25:28.was too fat to learn... I do not want to go down That Road any
:25:29. > :25:33.further. Askew Hancock. I agree very strongly with the gentleman who just
:25:34. > :25:37.spoke. This is a vision, obviously, not a reality now. The reason that
:25:38. > :25:44.this is a goal towards which we should march is because it is
:25:45. > :25:51.possible, doable, to have very high standards in the state sector, even
:25:52. > :25:56.though obviously cash is much tighter. We know that even with
:25:57. > :26:00.tight cash you can dramatically improve the standards because it has
:26:01. > :26:05.happened. It has happened over the last five, ten years. I have paid
:26:06. > :26:11.tribute to some of the Labour ministers. Some of the schools in
:26:12. > :26:15.the worst areas of London are now some of the best schools in the
:26:16. > :26:19.country and this is increasingly happening across the country. One
:26:20. > :26:26.thing has not been mentioned yet and that is a core driver of how this
:26:27. > :26:29.happens and that is expectations. These schools that have really
:26:30. > :26:35.improved set very high expectations for every child - every child to
:26:36. > :26:41.reach potential. Even if they are not naturally gifted or they have
:26:42. > :26:45.had a difficult time so far, you set high standards and expectations and
:26:46. > :26:49.huge challenge children to get to those expectations. Boy, have we
:26:50. > :26:54.discovered through trial and error, that if you set high expectations
:26:55. > :26:59.for children, more likely than not they reach them. I care passionately
:27:00. > :27:08.about doing that in the state sector. There is a huge, huge golf
:27:09. > :27:17.that we have got to get over. Can we move in that direction? Absolutely,
:27:18. > :27:25.yes we can. What about the suggestion from George Galloway
:27:26. > :27:29.about cutting the charitable status? I think there are two reasons it
:27:30. > :27:33.would be a disaster. As the lady said, you would end up with more
:27:34. > :27:40.people in the state sector. We do not have much cash in the state
:27:41. > :27:52.sector. We are borrowing ?100 billion a year still. There is cash
:27:53. > :27:58.for banks, cash for bankers bonuses, cash for tax cuts. You are giving it
:27:59. > :28:05.away to your powers, your fellow public school boys and girls. That
:28:06. > :28:10.is what you are doing with the cash. With the spectacles in the
:28:11. > :28:18.background. You have not got spectacles on, that is my bad
:28:19. > :28:21.eyesight. Frequently, the debate is more aimed at bringing the top down
:28:22. > :28:27.rather than bringing the lower school back up. We should not be
:28:28. > :28:38.caring down the top layer, we should be bringing below will air back up.
:28:39. > :28:42.-- caring down. Surely, private schools will always want to be
:28:43. > :28:51.better than public schools so it will always be a tit for tat. Great,
:28:52. > :28:55.then they would all get better. You will spend more money on public
:28:56. > :29:04.schools. Surely that will be a waste of money. This question touches on a
:29:05. > :29:08.whole number of issues. It is absolutely not the case that all
:29:09. > :29:13.public schools, all independent schools, are better than state
:29:14. > :29:17.schools. There are fantastic state schools in which brilliant teachers
:29:18. > :29:22.are teaching up and down the country, across London in my own
:29:23. > :29:29.constituency. I think this is first of all an argument we should
:29:30. > :29:34.reject. State means inferior in every case to private school. I
:29:35. > :29:40.think the argument tends to be dominated by four or five very
:29:41. > :29:45.famous high achieving, highly selective private schools that tend
:29:46. > :29:51.to dominate the entrance to Oxford and Cambridge. What is it that makes
:29:52. > :29:57.a good school? It is a combination of things. It is excellent
:29:58. > :30:03.leadership by a motivated and brilliant head. It is also dedicated
:30:04. > :30:08.staff. It is engaged parents. The other thing is, and I think this is
:30:09. > :30:14.a really important thing, children go to school to learn, so that they
:30:15. > :30:18.are informed, confident and so forth. The diversity of state
:30:19. > :30:26.schools is what is teaching children to be citizens of the modern world.
:30:27. > :30:30.That is what I think is so important and so incredibly uplifting about a
:30:31. > :30:34.lot of our primary schools and a lot of our secondary schools. Of course
:30:35. > :30:40.we have got to do better and do more. The ambition in a way never
:30:41. > :30:44.stops because there are more children from disadvantaged, poorer
:30:45. > :30:50.families, unmotivated families in state schools.
:30:51. > :30:56.What did you make of Michael Gove's comparison of the state and private
:30:57. > :31:01.system of having a burly and wall between them which he wanted to
:31:02. > :31:06.knock down? I represent a constituency with a large number of
:31:07. > :31:12.independent schools, and a large number of increasingly successful
:31:13. > :31:16.state schools. So the comparison is wrong? Also, I think this assumption
:31:17. > :31:22.that you walk into an independent school and fine excellence, and you
:31:23. > :31:31.walk into a state school and find mediocrity is deeply insulting and
:31:32. > :31:35.untrue. There will always be a difference between private schools
:31:36. > :31:41.and state schools. The cultures are different. But I think Michael
:31:42. > :31:46.Gove's point was that he is trying to say that the standards, the gap
:31:47. > :31:51.in standards can be closed. One of the examples he gave was a longer
:31:52. > :31:53.school day, which is what they do in private schools, extracurricular
:31:54. > :31:58.activities, help with home works and stuff like that, which would help
:31:59. > :32:03.people from poorer backgrounds, and also discipline. David Starkey
:32:04. > :32:06.mentioned that, and it is a huge thing that needs to be migrated from
:32:07. > :32:12.the private to the state school more, where there is a gap. We are
:32:13. > :32:19.going to go on. A question from Joan Morris. Should workers in essential
:32:20. > :32:28.services be refused the right to strike? Matthew Hancock, thinking of
:32:29. > :32:34.the current difficulties that have brought London to a halt for 48
:32:35. > :32:39.hours. Many of us were delayed on the way down here. I support the
:32:40. > :32:42.trade union movement and I work with the trade union movement, for
:32:43. > :32:45.instance, on expanding apprenticeships. And I think that
:32:46. > :32:52.they are badly served by their bosses. Because there was not a
:32:53. > :32:57.majority of trade unionists who voted for this action. The majority
:32:58. > :33:02.of trade -- of workers on the tube did not vote for this action and
:33:03. > :33:08.were driven into it by their bosses. And I think that we do need to look
:33:09. > :33:13.at the way that those votes take place. We also need to think about
:33:14. > :33:19.whether essential services can be brought to a standstill. For
:33:20. > :33:22.instance, the police cannot strike because you would not want a moment
:33:23. > :33:29.when all of the police in the country were not at work. Are you in
:33:30. > :33:32.favour of essential services being refused the right to strike? I
:33:33. > :33:39.believe the New York subway have no right to strike. I think we need to
:33:40. > :33:46.consider it. What does that mean? Well, I do not think we should do it
:33:47. > :33:51.in the midst of a strike which has been so destructive. Why not, is
:33:52. > :33:55.that not the right moment? On the one hand, we need to balance the
:33:56. > :34:01.right to withdraw your labour, but just as important and, I would say
:34:02. > :34:04.this week, more important, is the ability to keep our country going
:34:05. > :34:08.and the ability for people to be able to get on with their lives. The
:34:09. > :34:11.strike this week has shown that, despite the fact that a majority did
:34:12. > :34:16.not vote for it, they managed to have a big disruptive impact,
:34:17. > :34:19.meaning doctors have been unable to get in to treat patients, teachers
:34:20. > :34:23.have been unable to get into schools to teach. I think this strike was
:34:24. > :34:28.absolutely wrong and we need to look at whether we need to change the
:34:29. > :34:33.rules about it. Do you want the right to strike refused?
:34:34. > :34:36.Personally, I think members of the London Underground who decide to
:34:37. > :34:41.strike, I think it is an essential service. If you look at horrific
:34:42. > :34:46.situations, such as a terrorist attack, you look at those
:34:47. > :34:49.supervisors, the number of people in stations who helped to evacuate
:34:50. > :34:55.people who were in the tunnels, who were in those moments, those crucial
:34:56. > :34:58.moments, where they were then supported by emergency services, you
:34:59. > :35:02.can see the focus and the importance of that service, and you can see the
:35:03. > :35:07.importance of it to London as a financial capital. The real losers
:35:08. > :35:11.at the end of the day are going to be the millions of Londoners who
:35:12. > :35:15.have not got to work, are unable to get to work. The economy then
:35:16. > :35:21.suffers. To be honest, personally, I find the fact that the RMT officials
:35:22. > :35:24.have not really met properly with Boris Johnson, there is a breakdown
:35:25. > :35:33.in communications, frankly ridiculous. This is what happens
:35:34. > :35:39.when you elect a clown is the Mayor of London. And it's not very funny.
:35:40. > :35:43.And the suffering that has occurred over the last 48 hours is not funny
:35:44. > :35:48.for anybody. It's not funny for the workers, who had to lose two days
:35:49. > :35:54.pay over it. By the way, the workers voted to strike. I wouldn't like
:35:55. > :36:00.anyone to be misled. You support trade unions like the rope supports
:36:01. > :36:07.a hanging man. The truth is that Boris Johnson provoked this strike
:36:08. > :36:11.by issuing a Fiat to close every ticket office in London and make
:36:12. > :36:15.hundreds of people redundant, without negotiating with the people
:36:16. > :36:22.who are paid to represent the interests of the staff. It is not
:36:23. > :36:29.rocket science. Five years, Boris Johnson has not met with the leaders
:36:30. > :36:33.of the RMT. This is contempt, Tory contempt for working people and
:36:34. > :36:37.their organisations. And in the final analysis, working people only
:36:38. > :36:42.have their labour to withdraw. They don't have your money. They don't
:36:43. > :36:46.have the money that the people in the City of London have. They don't
:36:47. > :36:51.have any power except their own they buy power and the right, legally,
:36:52. > :36:59.democratically, to decide to withdraw it for a day or two. Only
:37:00. > :37:05.30% of members of the RMT voted for this strike. You are assuming the
:37:06. > :37:14.others are against it. Only 30% of people voted for Boris Johnson. The
:37:15. > :37:18.plan is reasonable and not to close every ticket office. It is to close
:37:19. > :37:22.every single ticket office on the London Underground. You do not even
:37:23. > :37:28.know what your own mayor is doing. That's just not true. Also, it is
:37:29. > :37:31.well covered by people applying for voluntary redundancy. It's a
:37:32. > :37:36.perfectly reasonable plan and there is no reasonable argument for
:37:37. > :37:39.bringing London to a halt. Firstly, I think it is unfair of you to
:37:40. > :37:43.suggest that people are just striking to prevent people getting
:37:44. > :37:47.to work. They are striking because they are angry. If politicians are
:37:48. > :37:50.going to say they will only consider helping them in the future, it is no
:37:51. > :37:56.wonder they want to strike to begin with.
:37:57. > :38:00.I totally support the right of anyone to take strike action, but
:38:01. > :38:06.the London Underground is one of the most expensive underground systems
:38:07. > :38:08.in Europe. Surely this is a way of improving efficiency on the
:38:09. > :38:13.Underground system and hopefully reducing the fares. Let's come to
:38:14. > :38:16.the issue of whether it is so important there should be no right
:38:17. > :38:22.to strike in this and other essential services. Generally, the
:38:23. > :38:25.rule is that there should be no right to strike. What is happening
:38:26. > :38:30.in this strike and has happened in the London Underground over the last
:38:31. > :38:42.15 to 20 years is a process of pure extortion. Bob Crow is not an
:38:43. > :38:46.ineffective trade union leader. Bob Crow. The large fat man with the
:38:47. > :38:53.pinochle larder. He is an incredibly effective trade union leader. They
:38:54. > :38:58.are paid ?52,000 a year. Heaven forbid! How much do you earn? A lot
:38:59. > :39:06.more than that for a less owner is job. They could be replaced by a
:39:07. > :39:11.dummy. Most of the trades are designed to run automatically. --
:39:12. > :39:15.most of the trains. They are designed to run automatically as
:39:16. > :39:18.every subway system in the world is increasingly doing. London
:39:19. > :39:23.Underground has been mismanaged by Ken Livingstone and by the current
:39:24. > :39:27.mayor. Ken Livingstone deliberately encouraged the trade unions. Boris
:39:28. > :39:32.is a hopeless administrator. Ken Livingstone is a maligned genius.
:39:33. > :39:36.Transport for London needs shaking up from top to bottom. The reason
:39:37. > :39:42.the fares are scanned the list the expensive is mismanagement on an
:39:43. > :39:46.unbelievable scale. -- scandalously expensive. Is it so essential that
:39:47. > :39:51.the law that applies to the police and the military that they are not
:39:52. > :39:55.allowed to strike should apply? In any other European country, it would
:39:56. > :40:00.be. We are the only country in Europe without a coherent body of
:40:01. > :40:04.law defining essential services, and defining what you have to do in the
:40:05. > :40:08.event of a strike. It is not about never being allowed to strike, but
:40:09. > :40:12.if you do go on strike there is a basic minimum you are obliged to
:40:13. > :40:17.maintain. I was astonished. Every country in Europe except us as a
:40:18. > :40:22.clear body of law relating to that, and it includes public transport in
:40:23. > :40:27.large cities. What would the effect be in London? It would mean you have
:40:28. > :40:32.to keep the service going on every line-out is certainly a full. It
:40:33. > :40:38.would have meant that people who really had to get around occurred.
:40:39. > :40:41.In terms of withdrawing labour, I have friends who have lost large
:40:42. > :40:46.amounts of money because their businesses effectively had no
:40:47. > :40:50.takings over the last two days. It is pure extortion, a protection
:40:51. > :40:55.racket. They are essential because they are essential to allowing other
:40:56. > :40:58.people to carry out their normal life, essential to allowing people
:40:59. > :41:08.to get to doctors appointments, get to school, to work, to businesses.
:41:09. > :41:16.Tessa Jowell, you may be the person who challenges the Mayor of London.
:41:17. > :41:22.Many people tip you to be Mayor of London. If you were Mayor of London,
:41:23. > :41:25.what would you do? First of all, I would not support withdrawing the
:41:26. > :41:29.right to strike from public sector workers. In response to Alison's
:41:30. > :41:36.point, I got the Chu, the bus yesterday. It was inconvenient, long
:41:37. > :41:42.delays, but it was possible. It met your standard of a basic service.
:41:43. > :41:45.But I think withdrawing the right to strike assumes that public sector
:41:46. > :41:55.workers undertake industrial action in a kind of reckless, unthinking
:41:56. > :42:02.way, and they don't. Bob Crow does. David, stop it! This was a strike
:42:03. > :42:07.that was completely preventable had, first of all, Boris Johnson not
:42:08. > :42:11.broken the promised that he made when he was elected. He promised
:42:12. > :42:18.that no ticket offices would be closed. I actually think that there
:42:19. > :42:22.is a case for getting people out of ticket offices and out on the
:42:23. > :42:30.platforms. All of that could have been negotiated, had we not had the
:42:31. > :42:34.farce of Boris Johnson and Bob Crow. The only way they could talk to each
:42:35. > :42:50.other was by phoning LBC and having their discussion mediated. That is
:42:51. > :42:54.not the way to do it. Boris stood on a clear platform of modernising the
:42:55. > :43:03.Chu. You know why we need to modernise the Chu. He promised to
:43:04. > :43:07.keep the ticket offices. In 2010, the mayor takes his promises to
:43:08. > :43:11.London extremely seriously. Every station that has a ticket office
:43:12. > :43:17.will continue to have one. Statement from City Hall. The question is, how
:43:18. > :43:20.many people do you put in ticket offices? And our people bet on the
:43:21. > :43:29.station platforms, this is the proposal, on station platforms
:43:30. > :43:34.helping people? Only 3% of the travelling public use the ticket
:43:35. > :43:39.offices. So why did he go out on a limb to say every station will have
:43:40. > :43:46.a ticket office? Because there will still be places you can go in each
:43:47. > :43:52.station. You are struggling there! No, I am very clear. There will be
:43:53. > :43:59.people available for when people have difficulties. This is called
:44:00. > :44:03.the student loans moment! The important thing is that then we
:44:04. > :44:06.could keep the prices down. You cannot keep the travelling public
:44:07. > :44:12.moving at a reasonable cost if you set everything in stone and say
:44:13. > :44:15.that, when 97% of people who used London Underground do not go through
:44:16. > :44:26.a ticket office, we need to have because Bob Crow says so. Everyone
:44:27. > :44:45.should have the right to strike. It depends on a job. What about the
:44:46. > :44:49.firefighters? You have said everyone should have the right to strike. Are
:44:50. > :44:59.you saying the police should have the right to strike? Well, yes. The
:45:00. > :45:11.threat of that strike should make decisions. I do not think it is wise
:45:12. > :45:20.to insult the audience, David. I will take one more point. I think
:45:21. > :45:26.the most important thing in this is being lost. The people involved in
:45:27. > :45:30.the underground, who work for TEFL, are being completely forgotten. You
:45:31. > :45:35.have to eat goes dominating the argument. The media are spinning it
:45:36. > :45:40.to be a Bob Crowe versus Boris Johnson. If you take away the
:45:41. > :45:45.peoples right to strike, what else do they have? If the unions are not
:45:46. > :45:55.working, what protection is that for common man? Have you heard of
:45:56. > :45:59.employment law? Do you know the huge structure of employment protection
:46:00. > :46:05.that exists? Strikes in the public sector are extortion against you and
:46:06. > :46:11.me. That is why they are paid 52,000 a year. Some underground workers
:46:12. > :46:23.earn 52,000 a year. The drivers, who do nothing. 52,000 is a bad month 's
:46:24. > :46:28.bonus for a banker in London. Give me a cheap driver, that is a
:46:29. > :46:33.responsible and important job. If the bankers went on strike, we would
:46:34. > :46:44.all be better off. Now for another question. Why are there still so few
:46:45. > :46:47.women in Parliament? This issue surfaced yesterday in the House of
:46:48. > :46:51.Commons when the Labour front bench seemed to be entirely made up of
:46:52. > :46:57.women and the Tory front bench seem to not have one single women on it.
:46:58. > :47:04.Much was made of this. Why are there still so few women in Parliament?
:47:05. > :47:09.Labour has 34% of its membership and the Conservatives about 16. After
:47:10. > :47:15.the next election, we hope that proportion will increase. My party,
:47:16. > :47:19.the Labour Party, has since 1993/94, being impatient to increase the
:47:20. > :47:23.number of women. Why is it important? When you look at
:47:24. > :47:28.Parliament and are at the receiving end of the laws we were talking
:47:29. > :47:31.about rape earlier, that Parliament passes, you can be confident they
:47:32. > :47:37.are made by a parliament that is representative of the country. A
:47:38. > :47:41.balance between men and women. You know, it does not happen. The
:47:42. > :47:46.Liberal Democrats and the Tories have been very critical of us in
:47:47. > :47:51.doing this. It does not happen and if you have a period of positive
:47:52. > :47:55.action. We have all women short lists. That is why we have a bigger
:47:56. > :48:03.proportion of women in parliament than any of the other parties. These
:48:04. > :48:13.are constituencies where you do not allow men to stand. It is half hour
:48:14. > :48:19.winnable seats. Almost in every case, I think in every case, we will
:48:20. > :48:25.replace women who are standing down with all women short lists. Half
:48:26. > :48:35.hour winnable seats will have short lists. We live in great hope and
:48:36. > :48:39.strong campaigning. I hope that this can change. I am a passionate
:48:40. > :48:48.supporter of having more women in Parliament. What is the answer as to
:48:49. > :48:53.why there are so few? There is the question about passage of time.
:48:54. > :48:59.People tend to be in Parliament for a long time. The Conservative Party
:49:00. > :49:03.went from 17 women to 48 women when we first introduced positive action
:49:04. > :49:11.to get more women into Parliament. It does take time. There is another
:49:12. > :49:16.reason as well. In the past, the way Parliament has operated, frankly,
:49:17. > :49:22.has been antifamily. It has been designed on a principle of
:49:23. > :49:31.19th-century -- a 19th-century principle with folks at 10pm,
:49:32. > :49:34.10:30pm in the evening. I was proud to campaign amongst MPs to change
:49:35. > :49:38.the sitting hours so we could start earlier in the day and finish at
:49:39. > :49:43.7pm. That is not desperately early but it does help with those who have
:49:44. > :49:47.families and it helps with the work/ life balance, so you can then go
:49:48. > :49:54.home. Changing the way that Parliament operates to make it more
:49:55. > :49:57.family friendly will help. What about the match in masculine culture
:49:58. > :50:05.we see on display every Prime Minister's Questions on a Wednesday?
:50:06. > :50:10.What about the way that Prime Minister is on both sides conduct
:50:11. > :50:21.their business and the Corsa two of Cabinet members who are women. The
:50:22. > :50:26.proportion of Conservative Cabinet ministers is the same as was under
:50:27. > :50:31.Gordon Brown. I wish it were higher. I imagine it will be higher.
:50:32. > :50:36.I do not want to predict who will be in the cabinet in the future but I
:50:37. > :50:46.wish it were higher. Taking action will take time but we have got to
:50:47. > :50:51.get that. The man up there... Seeing more women in politics will be
:50:52. > :50:57.wonderful. I do not think having all women short lists is the way to go
:50:58. > :51:02.about it. I think it is a deeply patronising gesture. I think women
:51:03. > :51:08.should go into politics on their own merit. They are more than capable of
:51:09. > :51:12.competing with men. We're not going to see all homosexual short lists or
:51:13. > :51:24.Asian short lists. Women should get into Parliament on their own merit.
:51:25. > :51:33.I totally agree. I am against all women short lists. You can have half
:51:34. > :51:37.and half short lists. I do not think that makes it representative. I have
:51:38. > :51:41.never understood why a female who has gone to Oxford and go straight
:51:42. > :51:47.into politics is more representative of a country than a male. I think
:51:48. > :51:51.that is an artificial way of doing it and it does not encourage really
:51:52. > :51:55.good women to come forward. As to why there are so few, I think it is
:51:56. > :52:04.partly time and that things will improve. It is partly, curiously
:52:05. > :52:09.enough, on the conservative side, a reluctance for females to be
:52:10. > :52:13.selected as candidates. That is part of a changing culture. I think it
:52:14. > :52:21.will always be difficult to get women who are in their 30s and 40s
:52:22. > :52:25.and have children to be active Members of Parliament and do the job
:52:26. > :52:31.properly. The reality is it is a very demanding job. It is not just
:52:32. > :52:34.about our culture. I am full of aberration for people who managed to
:52:35. > :52:40.do it and doubly for people who managed to do it with children. --
:52:41. > :52:49.admiration. One of the best ways to increase numbers of women in
:52:50. > :52:53.Parliament would be if we were ageist. If we were to encourage
:52:54. > :52:59.people in their 50s to go into Parliament, rather than it being
:53:00. > :53:04.seen so much as a full-time job which you start doing when you are
:53:05. > :53:16.18 and do carry on doing it. I think that would do a huge amount for the
:53:17. > :53:23.balance. It should be done on an individual 's ability to stand as an
:53:24. > :53:30.MP. It discriminates against men with a women 's short list. I want
:53:31. > :53:35.to see more working class people in Parliament. Parliament is full,
:53:36. > :53:41.unfortunately, in all three parties, of public school, young,
:53:42. > :53:47.careerists, like Matthew, God bless him. I hope he does well but that is
:53:48. > :53:52.what he is. Parliament is full of researchers, who go from a good
:53:53. > :53:56.school to Oxford University and you can see them looking at the older
:53:57. > :54:00.Members of Parliament walking across the tea room, wondering whether they
:54:01. > :54:07.are going to fall over and there might be a by-election and they can
:54:08. > :54:10.get a place. I want to see positive discrimination in favour of better
:54:11. > :54:17.Members of Parliament who do not fill their pockets at the public 's
:54:18. > :54:23.expense of charging their dinner, charging scatter cushions, charging
:54:24. > :54:28.to get notes cleared out. Why are there still so few women? We have
:54:29. > :54:33.had women. Margaret Thatcher was the woman and it did not make her any
:54:34. > :54:37.good. Tessa and her friends told us for years in the Labour Party, if
:54:38. > :54:44.only we could get more women into Parliament, there would be fewer
:54:45. > :54:48.wars, less aggression. There were 101 Blair babes elected and all but
:54:49. > :54:56.three of them voted for every war that Tony Blair took us into. I am
:54:57. > :55:02.not big on this. I sort of agree with George. I think we need to ask
:55:03. > :55:07.some very hard questions. Why is it so important that there be an even
:55:08. > :55:12.balance between men and women? Why do we not have a similar quotient
:55:13. > :55:19.for Asians, homosexuals, left-handed people or whatever? If we demand
:55:20. > :55:27.that Parliament reflects us, that is a question worth asking. What is it
:55:28. > :55:33.that women actually bring? This needs answering and it needs
:55:34. > :55:37.thinking about. Are we talking simply about social justice? Are we
:55:38. > :55:43.saying, as George was hinting, that women are supposed to do it
:55:44. > :55:47.differently? My sense in politics is that successful women are at least
:55:48. > :55:52.as brutal and nasty as successful men. Margaret Thatcher is an
:55:53. > :56:00.outstanding example. Some of our very worst ministers have been
:56:01. > :56:05.women. Please let's confront this. Nobody is stopping you. We had left
:56:06. > :56:09.down Morris, who at least had the merit of realising she could not do
:56:10. > :56:16.the job and decide within a year. She knew she could not do it. And we
:56:17. > :56:21.had Jacqui Smith, who is probably the worst Home Secretary ever and
:56:22. > :56:27.was, of course, sprouting the trough in the largest possible way. Women
:56:28. > :56:33.are not a panacea. They do not bring a miracle or do mysterious good. Can
:56:34. > :56:39.we all start to be adult and think? On that note, we have to stop
:56:40. > :56:46.because the hour is up. Sky one more thing. David Cameron has had more
:56:47. > :56:55.people for dinner called Michael than he has women. So, why don't we
:56:56. > :56:58.start a twitter campaign nominating women to have dinner with the Prime
:56:59. > :57:24.Minister? All right. Prizes for the list of my
:57:25. > :57:28.calls. And the women. Time is up. Next week we go to Scunthorpe in
:57:29. > :57:33.Lincolnshire. The week after that we will be in Swindon. Take your choice
:57:34. > :57:35.of Scunthorpe or Swindon. The website gives the address you can
:57:36. > :57:46.apply to all call us. If you have been listening to us on
:57:47. > :57:52.the radio, the argument goes on. Thank you to the panel and all of
:57:53. > :57:55.you who came to take part in Gillingham. Good night.