:00:18. > :00:22.welcome to Question Time. As ever, welcome to you at home, to
:00:23. > :00:26.our audience who will be putting the questions, and to our panel, who do
:00:27. > :00:31.not know the questions until they hear them. The Conservative Defence
:00:32. > :00:35.Secretary, Philip Hammond, Labour's shadow health minister, Liz
:00:36. > :00:37.Kendall, former leader of the Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy,
:00:38. > :00:42.philosopher and writer Roger Scruton, and the author of many
:00:43. > :01:04.novels, Jeanette Winterson. Excellent. Sandra Seldon has the
:01:05. > :01:13.first question. Do Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms represent a
:01:14. > :01:16.moral mission? This is in the light of the Archbishop Nichols of the
:01:17. > :01:19.Roman Catholic Church saying they were a disgrace, the Church of
:01:20. > :01:24.England today saying there was a moral imperative to act, and the
:01:25. > :01:30.Prime Minister, rebutting all of this, saying the Tories are on a
:01:31. > :01:35.social and moral mission. Charles Kennedy. First things first, I have
:01:36. > :01:38.been a critic of some of these welfare reforms the coalition has
:01:39. > :01:44.brought forward. I have spoken against some and voted against some
:01:45. > :01:49.in the House of Commons. So I am perhaps not the best proponent of
:01:50. > :01:51.the argument. But going to the nub of the question, the moral
:01:52. > :01:58.dimensional, I think it is very appropriate that the clergy speak
:01:59. > :02:02.out on social issues which have a moral dimensional. I think they have
:02:03. > :02:06.every right to. They have done so under successive governments. It is
:02:07. > :02:10.the mark of a smaller liberal democracy that they should do so
:02:11. > :02:15.whenever any combination of parties is in power. Secondly, I think if
:02:16. > :02:18.you look at the letter published today in the Daily Mirror from
:02:19. > :02:22.church leaders, I listened to an interview this afternoon on my
:02:23. > :02:30.travel getting here today, with the Bishop of Manchester. He was making
:02:31. > :02:34.the point that quite a lot of the government's aims they were not
:02:35. > :02:38.disagreeing with, but they were pointing out gross deficiencies in
:02:39. > :02:41.the welfare system. Leave aside the specific changes the government is
:02:42. > :02:46.making. You can be critical aspects of those, against them and so on,
:02:47. > :02:52.but the endemic problems within the benefit system, of people changing
:02:53. > :02:55.from one category to another, getting wrongly assessed,
:02:56. > :03:00.encountering delays, having to go to food banks even if they were in
:03:01. > :03:04.employment, because there were gaps in their benefit payments, or the
:03:05. > :03:08.sustainability of their income. These are all things that needed to
:03:09. > :03:13.be looked at. Did you agree that half a million people in this
:03:14. > :03:19.country regularly go hungry? Well, I am not in a position to criticise it
:03:20. > :03:23.or to undermine that argument. You only need to listen to what
:03:24. > :03:29.nutritionists in the clinical profession are saying about two
:03:30. > :03:32.contradictory things. One, the prevalence of obesity in society,
:03:33. > :03:36.but that the other end, too many children in particular going to
:03:37. > :03:41.school not properly nourished. Roger Scruton. I agree that this is a
:03:42. > :03:45.conflict question which has been wound into politics at a time when
:03:46. > :03:53.everybody is looking for some kind of moral crusade to conduct. I would
:03:54. > :03:59.say of course this is a moral issue. It is a moral issue because people
:04:00. > :04:02.are suffering and people need to be supported if they have come to the
:04:03. > :04:09.stage when they can't support themselves. It is also a moral issue
:04:10. > :04:12.because a vast number of people feel that the benefit system is being
:04:13. > :04:18.exploited by those who are using it for their own benefit and not taking
:04:19. > :04:23.responsibility for their own lives. That is a moral question, to, the
:04:24. > :04:28.extent to which individual citizens ought to be responsible for their
:04:29. > :04:32.own lives. And I think all the reforms, as I understand them, have
:04:33. > :04:36.been brought about because there is widespread discontent with this fact
:04:37. > :04:41.that the benefits system creates a culture of dependence, where people
:04:42. > :04:46.come to it wanting and needing it, of course, because that is the way
:04:47. > :04:48.it has turned out for them, but nevertheless not accepting that it
:04:49. > :04:59.is their responsibility to do something about it.
:05:00. > :05:07.Sandra, what did you make of what the Archbishop and the bishops of
:05:08. > :05:11.the Church of England said? My view is that I feel there is a moral
:05:12. > :05:16.mission in regard to benefit fraudsters, who we all want to see
:05:17. > :05:20.sorted. But unfortunately they only represent a small percentage of
:05:21. > :05:24.people who desperately need welfare support and might be in a great deal
:05:25. > :05:28.of hardship as a result of these reforms, so I agree with the
:05:29. > :05:32.Archbishop. When the Prime Minister says he is on a social and moral
:05:33. > :05:38.mission with welfare reforms, do you agree? That is what I mean, it is
:05:39. > :05:44.only in the sense that it is targeting a few, rather the majority
:05:45. > :05:49.who need welfare support. -- rather than the majority.
:05:50. > :05:51.I think the benefit fraud is a smoke screen which hides the impact on
:05:52. > :05:55.people with autism and other disabilities. I spend a lot of my
:05:56. > :05:59.day job hearing from parents and adults with autism and other
:06:00. > :06:02.disabilities and hearing about the impact that the assessment of
:06:03. > :06:06.benefits through and trained assessors is having on their lives,
:06:07. > :06:10.and depriving them of the basic support that they need to live their
:06:11. > :06:13.life, which can be washing, shopping, going out and trying to
:06:14. > :06:18.get a job. I really do think that some of the rhetoric in the media
:06:19. > :06:26.around benefits and benefit fraud is hiding that impact.
:06:27. > :06:32.Philip Hammond, would you like to answer his point? Firstly, I don't
:06:33. > :06:38.think many people would have an issue with the need to clamp down on
:06:39. > :06:42.benefit fraud. But equally, benefit fraud is a relatively limited
:06:43. > :06:46.problem. The moral mission David Cameron was referring to is a much
:06:47. > :06:51.broader one. It is about getting away from a system that for many
:06:52. > :06:55.years, under governments of all colours, has simply dumped people on
:06:56. > :07:01.welfare for the long-term, has not helped them to help themselves, has
:07:02. > :07:05.not recognised that the only really sustainable way the people to get
:07:06. > :07:08.out of poverty and to stay out of poverty is to help them into work,
:07:09. > :07:13.if they are able to work. And the mission we have set ourselves is to
:07:14. > :07:16.make sure that the welfare system supports those who cannot work,
:07:17. > :07:21.because it is morally right that we should, but for those who can work,
:07:22. > :07:27.we help them with the right incentives, the right skills, to get
:07:28. > :07:30.back into work. And it is not just about welfare reform. It is about
:07:31. > :07:36.immigration reform. It is about creating jobs in society so that the
:07:37. > :07:39.jobs are there for people. It is about reforming our educational
:07:40. > :07:45.system, so that people have the skills that will allow them to learn
:07:46. > :07:50.a pay packet, and that in turn gives them the security and the peace of
:07:51. > :07:54.mind that families need. Are you made uneasy when you have ahead of
:07:55. > :07:56.the Roman Catholic Church saying the welfare are punitive and a disgrace,
:07:57. > 2:40:04the Archbishop of Canterbury welfare are punitive and a disgrace,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that government policy means children and families pay the price
2:40:05 > 2:40:04for high inflation, rather than the government? Are you uneasy at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04moral issue, the moral charge being laid against you, the charge of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04immorality? Like Charlie Kennedy, I think it is perfectly acceptable for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04churchmen to engage in this kind of debate. It is an ethical issue and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04they have a right to engage in the debate. I don't very much like the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04choice of language. When I looked at Archbishop Nichols' article, there
2:40:05 > 2:40:04were quite a number of things in it which I could agree with. What I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04don't, of course, except is the implication that there is in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04morality in the motive. We are trying to do what is right. We are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04trying to help people to be able to help themselves, get them to ring
2:40:05 > 2:40:04gauge with work, get them to acquire the skills that they will need. --
2:40:05 > 2:40:04get them to engage with work. Do the things that most of us take for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04granted, hold down a job, support our families, bring home a pay
2:40:05 > 2:40:04packet. The woman in the fifth row down. When the welfare system was
2:40:05 > 2:40:04first set up, it was supposed to be a safety net for those who had
2:40:05 > 2:40:04fallen on hard times. I think what we are seeing right here, right now
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is not a new problem. This is something that has been growing and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04building steadily for the last 20, possibly even 30 years, which is why
2:40:05 > 2:40:04right here, right now, the enormity of the problem is just so big. Are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you sympathetic to what Ian Duncan and the Prime Minister are trying to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04do? I am sympathetic. We absolutely need to ensure that we care for the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04vulnerable people, disabled people in society, the people who are just
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not in a position to help themselves for one reason or another. But I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04think for too long there are people who have been exploiting the system.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04The man up there. A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a single mum on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04benefits sat down to have a packet of a dozen biscuits. The banker took
2:40:05 > 2:40:0411 biscuits and whispered to the Daily Mail reader, watch out for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04her, she is trying to Nick your biscuits. It has always been the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04case, throughout history, that the rich and powerful turn to the people
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who work and make them turn against the people who can't work. This is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04exactly what is happening now. Jeanette Winterson. Do you agree.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Yes. There are all kinds of benefit fraud. Three more people have been
2:40:05 > 2:40:04indicted for rigging the LIBOR rate. Google and Amazon fine perfectly
2:40:05 > 2:40:04legal loopholes so they don't have to pay the taxes that they should
2:40:05 > 2:40:04pay. -- they find legal loopholes. We just sold Royal Mail at a huge
2:40:05 > 2:40:04loss to the taxpayer. That money could have gone on welfare benefits,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to a lot of good causes. Instead, it went to make rich people richer.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04That is not a good system. The postmen did not. I asked my post man
2:40:05 > 2:40:04if he was going to buy shares and he said he could not afford them and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the bank would not lend him money. People who ran the post offices were
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not even offered shares. It is rubbish to say the postmen have got
2:40:05 > 2:40:04rich cause of the Royal Mail sell-off. They have not. Everybody
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who worked for the Royal Mail got shares. And they did not get rich.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04You know where the money went. Do you know where it went? I want to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04continue. The moral issue is, if you read the Bible, I do not see any
2:40:05 > 2:40:04sign of Jesus advocating tax breaks for the rich. I see him feeding the
2:40:05 > 2:40:045000, going to the rich man and saying, give away everything to the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04poor if you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, sitting with
2:40:05 > 2:40:04prostitutes. There are many right-wing so-called Christians who
2:40:05 > 2:40:04believe somehow that the poor are responsible for all of their own
2:40:05 > 2:40:04problems and nobody needs to do anything. I have one more thing to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04say which is this. If we create a society where people can have work,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04dignified work, where they can hold up their head, earn a living wage to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04support themselves and their families, that is a different thing.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04You can work 60 hours a week on the minimum wage and not be able to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04support your family. So all of this rhetoric about get out there and get
2:40:05 > 2:40:04a job, even if you get a job you are still going to get into debt, you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04can't afford a house, can't support your family. David Cameron has never
2:40:05 > 2:40:04been hungry in his life and does not know anybody who has ever been
2:40:05 > 2:40:04hungry. He is not fit to be prime minister. Liz Kendall. Do you agree?
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I think having a job and earning a decent wage gives people a sense of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04dignity for having the self-reliance that they can look after themselves
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and their families. And I think it is a mark of a moral society that we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04look after the people who cannot support themselves. The problem is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that what the government is doing is not working. We have a work
2:40:05 > 2:40:04programme that in many places is worse than having nothing at all.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04And we are having people who are severely sick and disabled, whose
2:40:05 > 2:40:04partners all loved ones are looking after them but need to sleep in a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04separate bedroom, who are being made to pay the bedroom tax. I think
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people are asking, if it is not really helping people get work and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04earn a decent wage, and if the government is also penalising some
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of the poorest and most vulnerable, they don't think that is fair. And I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04think it is right that the bishops have spoken about that. We want a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04system where people have strong incentives and support to work, but
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that is not happening. And we need a proper safety net for those who
2:40:05 > 2:40:04can't, and that is not happening either. When I see in my
2:40:05 > 2:40:04constituency 200 tonnes of food each year going out through food banks,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people are not going to food banks because it is easier than popping to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Tesco or Sainsbury is. Rachel Reeves. It is Liz Kendall, not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Rachel Reeves. Are you flattered by the comparison? Most flattered. I do
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not think people are going to food banks because it is easier than
2:40:05 > 2:40:04popping to the supermarket, they are going because they are desperate and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04we need to address that. Can you remind the audience how many
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of our welfare reforms the Labour Party has supported? Labour wants to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04avoid the difficult decisions. No, we don't. How much have you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04supported? Have you supported the cap on benefits that stops people on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04benefits being able to earn more than a family in work? We think the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04way you have done it, hasn't worked. Have you supported the cap on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04housing benefit. We wanted a compulsory job scheme where people
2:40:05 > 2:40:04are offered work -- How long is it funded for? You scrapped our Future
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Jobs Fund, which was far more successful than your work programme.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Your programme is funded for one year. Rachel Reeves has admitted as
2:40:05 > 2:40:04much. Is All benefits would benefit from comparative judgments. With
2:40:05 > 2:40:04what country are we comparing ours when we make these great decisions?
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Everywhere that I've read about, including America, France, Germany
2:40:05 > 2:40:04as well, has had this problem about the welfare system and the claimants
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of the people claiming benefit and how to rectify the all the political
2:40:05 > 2:40:04imbalances and the resentments that come from this. It's not as though
2:40:05 > 2:40:04we were facing this alone. The policies that the Government are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04proposing have their parallel elsewhere in Europe and elsewhere in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the world. In what way is our country supposed to be doing
2:40:05 > 2:40:04something morally despicable? Is it perhaps everybody is in this
2:40:05 > 2:40:04position? Is Hang on a second. Let me bring in members of the audience.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I will come back to the panel. One of the major problems we have got is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not how much people get, it's how they spend it. One of the most
2:40:05 > 2:40:04immoral things we have ever done in this country is the relaxation of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04all the gambling laws. So many people who are poor find gambling so
2:40:05 > 2:40:04attractive. All right. You sir, over here on the right. Can we get back
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to the question. Get back to it, yes. The clergy have commented that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the well fair safety net is shredded. The Mr Cameron, his
2:40:05 > 2:40:04policies, he's got every faith in them surely the question is one of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04timing. The policies that Mr Cameron has advocated and they may work, or
2:40:05 > 2:40:04may not, their medium and long-term policies. They are already working.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04We are seeing people - Excuse me, I'm speaking. The clergy are talking
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about a situation here and now. The clergy... We get the point.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Recognise... Charles Kennedy. People cannot live on hope as Mr Cameron
2:40:05 > 2:40:04has said. OK, Charles Kennedy. I couldn't help but smile actually,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the gentleman at the front who mentioned gamble. Harry Macmillan,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04when he was Chancellor or Prime Minister, he introduced premium
2:40:05 > 2:40:04bonds. The Archbishop of Canterbury of the day condemned them for the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04institutionalisation of gambling. His answer was, unlike His Grace the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Archbishop I don't think it's my job to (inaudible (is (politicians
2:40:05 > 2:40:04should tread with infinite care. I appreciate that David Cameron has
2:40:05 > 2:40:04been pulled onto the moral argument in response to what has been said
2:40:05 > 2:40:04this week. I do think that Macmillan had a point, that morality is better
2:40:05 > 2:40:04perhaps in the pulpit than in party politics. In that sense. It's not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04right. Do we want to be to be a moral people or not? Is I don't
2:40:05 > 2:40:04think you want moral lectures from people like the three of us in that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04sense. It's not about lectures. What kind of people do we want to be.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04That is a different thing. Britain over took Germany for the many
2:40:05 > 2:40:04market for Ferraris. We are rich. We can afford to look after our people.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04You can't hive off the moral argument saying it's for church, not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04for politicians. You sir. I think with this issues like this people
2:40:05 > 2:40:04tend to talk about the benefit fraudsters and the poor suffering
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people that do deserve benefits. The problem in the middle that is the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04biggest problem because a lot of people that are scrounging off
2:40:05 > 2:40:04benefits, within the eyes of the law, are more than deserving of it.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Because the system doesn't dictate who properly who should have it and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who shouldn't. I think that's the biggest problem we need to tackle.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04You have raised a really important point, which is that more than
2:40:05 > 2:40:04two-thirds of people living in poverty now are actually in work.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04And the problem is that our economy has too long relied on low skill,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04low paid jobs. We haven't taken the long-term decisions we need to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04invest in skills, technology and our infrastructure. Actually, we need to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04shift our mind set here. We are never going to succeed in our
2:40:05 > 2:40:04families or communities or as a country if we try and fight a race
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to the bottom. Actually, it is that issue of people who are in work, but
2:40:05 > 2:40:04on low pay, and aren't able to get the skills and the jobs they need to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04really build a better life. We have got to shift our economy. You
2:40:05 > 2:40:04describe it, what are you going to do? Is I will tell you. The The
2:40:05 > 2:40:04description is accepted? Sort out on the problems of housing, we need
2:40:05 > 2:40:04more social and affordable housing so people can get on the housing
2:40:05 > 2:40:04ladder. Transform skills so that we have the skills for the future.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Thirdly, I'd like to see a new system of regional banks that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04support different parts of the country so we are not perhaps so
2:40:05 > 2:40:04dominated by London and the south-east. That would make a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04difference. People within the eyes of the law are deserving of these
2:40:05 > 2:40:04benefits, morally they are not. It's costing the system how many billions
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of pounds a year when that money should be going somewhere else. It's
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not the raw sters, in the legal sense of the world, that is the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04problem. I doubt there is that many in comparison, as Phillip touched
2:40:05 > 2:40:04on. What do you mean people who deserve it's morally wrong they take
2:40:05 > 2:40:04it? The way the system is dictated at the moment, a lot of people are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04claiming benefits legally that from a moral point of view, to most
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people's standards shouldn't be deserving of it Why? They are not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04disabled, no problem with their skills. They could be in work. They
2:40:05 > 2:40:04should be in work, they, for whatever reason, choose not to be.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Isn't that our obligation to create a system where the incentives point
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people strongly towards work? I agree with Rachel. Yes! There is no
2:40:05 > 2:40:04future for Britain as a low wage economy. We need to be a high skill,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04high wage, high productivity economy. We need to point people
2:40:05 > 2:40:04towards work. We need to give them the skills to be able to earn. The
2:40:05 > 2:40:04so that they can deliver the security that the their families
2:40:05 > 2:40:04need. What will you do about the minimum wage that doesn't pay his
2:40:05 > 2:40:04bills? Shall I pin this! One more point from the man at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04back there. I agree with Rachel as well! I think the chap with his pact
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of biscuits is quite frankly crackers. This is all... This is not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about bankers, trying to get people into work. I don't think we should
2:40:05 > 2:40:04apologise for having a debate about that. Being on benefits is no fun.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04It's extremely difficult. But, you know, it's detrimental to people's
2:40:05 > 2:40:04long-term physical and mental health as well as their wallets. The
2:40:05 > 2:40:04government's efforts to take people out of tax at a low level are to be
2:40:05 > 2:40:04welcomed. This is about getting people into jobs because it's
2:40:05 > 2:40:04long-term in their best interests. In society's best interests. A topic
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I know we will come back to in the following... In successive weeks. If
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you want to join in the debate you can, Twitter. You can follow us at
2:40:05 > 2:40:04BBC Question Time. If you are texting our number is: 83981. The
2:40:05 > 2:40:04red Tton will tell you what people are saying. A question now from
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Philip Webb. In view of the recent events, why are we still planning to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04build on floodplains in Swindon and elsewhere? Are you building on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04floodplains in Swindon? There is planning permission gone out. , the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04area has been flooded for donkey years, everybody knows about it.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04It's still going ahead. Do you know why it's happening? I have no idea.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04They keep saying about the farmers not doing the drains and everything
2:40:05 > 2:40:04else. You need to go down the roads around here locally and you will see
2:40:05 > 2:40:04they are flood ared even though the farmers dig them out all the time.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Let us not talk about, we talked about the floods last week. Let us
2:40:05 > 2:40:04talk about the planning, the building planning on floodplains.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Roger Scruton, you are a countryman and follow country events. What is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04your view about the planning decisions? Is Well, there are two
2:40:05 > 2:40:04enormous problems that we confront, one is that obviously the British
2:40:05 > 2:40:04weather, the English weather in particular. Which has always been
2:40:05 > 2:40:04unpredictable, suddenly this year become much worse than normal.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04That's not something you can plan for. Secondly, our country is over
2:40:05 > 2:40:04populated. England in particular. We have to build somewhere to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04accommodate the people. Without a long-term policy about population
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and demographics there will be no answer to this. People are going to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have to build on the territory adjacent to towns. Some of that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04territory is going to be in a floodplain. I think it's not the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04planners that are responsible for the problems. They do their best to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04avoid that, they still have to answer to the nation's need for new
2:40:05 > 2:40:04homes. OK. The Phillip Hammond, you are taken your boots off to come in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04here tonight. You seem to have been everywhere over the last fortnight.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I thought you had given up being Secretary of State for Defence and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04become Secretary of State for Floods? No Secretary of State for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Defence and defence has been glad it has played a constructive role in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04responding to the crisis. The problem we have got, we are -
2:40:05 > 2:40:04southern England is a a low-lying bit of the country. 13% of England
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is floodplain. Unfortunately, the floodplains are often the places
2:40:05 > 2:40:04where economic activity is happening, for historical reasons,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04much of London is a floodplain. I don't think it's practical to say,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04no building at all in floodplains. Clearly, we must avoid building in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the highest flood risk areas. Where we do allow any building in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04floodplains we have to make sure that building is a-- accompanied by
2:40:05 > 2:40:04investment in flood eleavation and protection schemes so that, if you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04take a floodplain, like the Thames Valley, my constituency, significant
2:40:05 > 2:40:04part of which was flooded over the last 10 days, there are parts, new
2:40:05 > 2:40:04developments that haven't flooded at all because they had been well
2:40:05 > 2:40:04constructed with proper defences. Other relatively new developments
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that have gone under at the first signs of the Thames over topping its
2:40:05 > 2:40:04banks. We have to get the balance right. We can, I think, build some
2:40:05 > 2:40:04development in floodplains, but we have to do it properly. We musn't
2:40:05 > 2:40:04scrimp. You, sir, up there. Every year we seem to be hearing about
2:40:05 > 2:40:04another year of floods. 2007, 2010 and now. Surely, we need a long-term
2:40:05 > 2:40:04plan to deal with these floods they are becoming more and more common.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04We have one. Ha what are we going to do about it? What is your long-term
2:40:05 > 2:40:04plan? For the first time we have set out a five-year forward plan for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04flood defence investment. The Environment Agency can start
2:40:05 > 2:40:04planning. We have invested - You are not going to stop flooding? We are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04making great progress. Everybody has focussed over the last couple of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04weeks, rightly, on the properties that have flooded. For any person
2:40:05 > 2:40:04whose property floods, that is a tragedy. We should also remember
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that 1.3 million homes in this country are protected by flood
2:40:05 > 2:40:04defences. In 2 #0 7 we had floods, 55,000 homes flooded. In 2013/14,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04this flooding event, we have had 6,500 homes flooded because we have,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04under both this Government and the previous government, invested in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04flood defences. The situation is getting better. The woman at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04back there, the second row. Going back to the first question on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04building on floodplains. Yes. I wonder why we are allowing people to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04legislate greenfield sites. Due to the economic downturn we have any
2:40:05 > 2:40:04number of unused brownfield sites that are unused. We know these sites
2:40:05 > 2:40:04are useable and relatively safe for buildings, why aren't we developing
2:40:05 > 2:40:04these rather than building on sites used for agriculture and other
2:40:05 > 2:40:04enterprises? Is Who wants to take that one on? Is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I think it is a good point and the right point that we do not use
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Brownfield sites sufficiently well, or make in the city is more
2:40:05 > 2:40:04attractive. There are plenty of places we could think about
2:40:05 > 2:40:04imaginatively for housing, not the obvious Greenfields targets. Flood
2:40:05 > 2:40:04plains are a problem. It is no good saying it is getting wetter and 13%
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of England is flood plains. With respect, James Lovelock was saying
2:40:05 > 2:40:04in the 1970s that the result of climate change for the UK would be
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that we would get wetter and wetter. That was in the mid-1970s, James
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Lovelock stood up and said, this is what climate change will mean for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the UK. He has been proved right. Everybody laughed at him. Climate
2:40:05 > 2:40:04change is real. Nobody has mentioned it yet, but it is real and we are in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04it. There are things we are going to have to do as a country, and looking
2:40:05 > 2:40:04larger, for global action, otherwise we will not have a planet to live
2:40:05 > 2:40:04on, never mind flood plains and Brownfield sites. We will
2:40:05 > 2:40:04destabilise so much of our fragile planet that we will cause real
2:40:05 > 2:40:04catastrophes. But we still have to build houses in Britain. What do you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04think? We are talking a lot about expensive flood defence schemes. Why
2:40:05 > 2:40:04aren't we going back to the basic geography of maintaining flood
2:40:05 > 2:40:04plains and keeping with the channels as they used to be? There were
2:40:05 > 2:40:04photographs of the press this week of river channels taken in the 1960s
2:40:05 > 2:40:04this wide. And this year, they just don't have the capacity. This is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04fundamental, O-level geography. Is it as simple as that, Charles
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Kennedy? I don't know, Jonathan. The lady is making a very serious
2:40:05 > 2:40:04point, because whatever government is in power there will be more
2:40:05 > 2:40:04pressure for housing for all of the very good reasons outlined earlier.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I have not seen the figures in England lately, but last time I was
2:40:05 > 2:40:04looking at them, they are astonishing. If you look at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04numbers, the total numbers for England and Wales, these figures
2:40:05 > 2:40:04were, those categorised as homeless, and then you look at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04number of empty properties that are not being utilised, particularly on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04old-fashioned high streets, above the shops. Back in the day, the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04shopkeeper lived over the premises. That has gone. You have all sorts of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04social problems that have come. The police will tell you, you can have
2:40:05 > 2:40:04CCTV and this and that, the best security that you can have in a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04township setup is actually having people living in the middle of the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04place. APPLAUSE
2:40:05 > 2:40:04You address a lot of social problems, from homelessness to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04disorder in the streets, but you also begin to cut into the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04relentless erosion, if you will pardon the pun, of natural land,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04which we are building and building on and yet it is finite and we can't
2:40:05 > 2:40:04cope with the capacity that we have got. Thank you, Nigel! That Lady's
2:40:05 > 2:40:04point about managing the flood plains is absolutely valid.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04However, if government and local authorities are going to continue to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04authorise building on flood plains, they should provide the funds to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04prevent flooding. In Germany, I think in Hamburg, they built a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04complete business sector on a flood plain and they put their defences in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04place and it has never ever been flooded. If we are going to still
2:40:05 > 2:40:04keep building on flood plains we should be prepared to spend the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04money to stop the houses and other properties flooding. Liz Kennedy. I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04wanted to come back to the point that the gentleman in the check
2:40:05 > 2:40:04shirt made about we have to have a long-term plan for this. Certainly,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I think the government's climate change committee has said the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04investment in the flood defences is about half a million down on what it
2:40:05 > 2:40:04should be, and if it was in place we would make sure that we would not
2:40:05 > 2:40:04end up spending up to about ?3 billion in terms of the cost of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04failure. This comes back to a point we have been talking about before,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04which is to shift our thinking to the longer term. I do agree with
2:40:05 > 2:40:04your initial point, which is that it does not make sense to people to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04build a huge numbers of houses on areas that are really at risk,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04because then you will have to spend even more on the defences. So we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04need a balance, and we also need to critically start waking up to the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04bigger, longer issue of climate change. We know the world is getting
2:40:05 > 2:40:04warmer and that is creating more moisture. It means when stormy
2:40:05 > 2:40:04conditions happen, it makes rain more intense. That is a medium to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04long-term issue that we have to face up to. We can do a lot in this
2:40:05 > 2:40:04country but we have to work with others. It is the long-term approach
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that I think we really need. Another question from Claire Evans. Does the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04yobbery of MPs during a minister 's questions give the best impression
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of the political elite? -- juror in Prime Minister's Questions? This was
2:40:05 > 2:40:04said by the speaker, that they behave like yobs and upper toffs and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04all sorts of other things and were giving themselves a bad name. No, it
2:40:05 > 2:40:04doesn't give us a good name. I think Prime Minister's Questions, the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04behaviour there is unprofessional, it is childish, it is at times
2:40:05 > 2:40:04nasty. We are at work. This is our workplace. You would not tolerate
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that behaviour in a classroom, let alone a boardroom. Are you saying
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you are whiter than white and you never shout out? OK, twice I have,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04if not shouted, loudly projected about two things I felt strongly
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about but I did not feel good afterwards. I thought if my
2:40:05 > 2:40:04constituents had seen me, let alone my mother, my life would not be
2:40:05 > 2:40:04worth living. So I think Prime Minister's Questions needs to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04change. I think it can change. I think we can change the culture if
2:40:05 > 2:40:04party leaders and party whips to side that is what they want to see
2:40:05 > 2:40:04happening. This is a personal view, but I would like to see real changes
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to PMQs. I think if we went back to two sessions a week, and made one
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about perhaps a specific topic, so you can have much more in-depth
2:40:05 > 2:40:04questioning, or you made one more like a kind of select committee
2:40:05 > 2:40:04session, where groups of MPs, small groups in rotation could question
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the Prime Minister, having a meaningful discussion, rather than -
2:40:05 > 2:40:04this is our window on the world. If, like me, you believe in the power of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04politics and democracy, potentially, to change the world for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04good, and this is our window on the world, it is not a good
2:40:05 > 2:40:04advertisement. Charles Kennedy, you have been there longer than anybody
2:40:05 > 2:40:04on the panel and you know that half a million people in this country
2:40:05 > 2:40:04watch it and people in the knighted States watch it for the political
2:40:05 > 2:40:04excitement. Do you think it should change? -- people in the united
2:40:05 > 2:40:04states. The Americans love it because they have no equivalent.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Imagine if George Bush had had to do Question Time. He would never have
2:40:05 > 2:40:04got a second term. It has its advantages. There was a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04distinguished parliamentary commentator years ago called Norman
2:40:05 > 2:40:04shrapnel. He once wrote that too much silence is much more ominous
2:40:05 > 2:40:04than too much noise in a parliamentary democracy. I am not a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04fan of Prime Minister's Questions. I used to have to ask two questions
2:40:05 > 2:40:04once a week for the seven years I was party leader, getting shouted at
2:40:05 > 2:40:04by both sides. Perhaps not both colleagues here, but their
2:40:05 > 2:40:04equivalent in days gone by. I do not think it is a good advert, but it is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04not also a typical representation of Parliament at work. And I find, for
2:40:05 > 2:40:04example, as a political consumer, I like when the Prime Minister goes a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04couple of times again in front of a committee for a couple of hours
2:40:05 > 2:40:04chaired by all of the select committee chairs, and you get
2:40:05 > 2:40:04meaningful exchange. If you want a bit of entertainment, Prime
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Minister's Questions is your slot. But our job is not to entertain, is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04it? There is an element of entertainment about politics. There
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is an element of showbiz about politics. Privatise it with Simon
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Cowell then, if you want to be entertaining. Sometimes, if you want
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to make a point that gets through to people, it can be a very lethal
2:40:05 > 2:40:04weapon in politics. APPLAUSE
2:40:05 > 2:40:04The lady with the blue scarf. I think the downside is particularly
2:40:05 > 2:40:04for women. Many women are turned off politics. They do not like the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04adversarial way they are picked on and spoken to. Although you have
2:40:05 > 2:40:04been very brave about speaking up, I think shouting out, shouting over
2:40:05 > 2:40:04men and taking part in that is very bad for women. Do you think Margaret
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Thatcher didn't enjoy it? I do not think she epitomises all women in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04politics. I think you are right, if we could get more women into
2:40:05 > 2:40:04politics the culture would change naturally. Even in the best
2:40:05 > 2:40:04situation is commie go into a bar with four guys, it is very different
2:40:05 > 2:40:04than if there are ladies present, or if it is just women. We do not have
2:40:05 > 2:40:04enough women in politics and we need to encourage women to get more
2:40:05 > 2:40:04involved. I hope that will happen. The Tories have no commitment to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04getting women into politics. Labour does seem to. You have dropped your
2:40:05 > 2:40:04all women short lists. They never had any. I would like to see women
2:40:05 > 2:40:04change the culture naturally by our presence. In the judiciary, only 18%
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of women are QCs. There are not 30% of women in boardrooms. Women are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04underrepresented everywhere in public life. Then we will see the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04change without having to legislate. I was going to pick up the point
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about all women short lists. I don't think that is the way forward. You
2:40:05 > 2:40:04man, so you wouldn't. There are very good women in Parliament already and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04they got there on merit and that is the way it should be going forward.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04It doesn't work like that. If you take that argument, here is the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04problem, if you take that argument, you are saying if women succeed,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that means all women can succeed and the fact that there are not more
2:40:05 > 2:40:04means that women are just not very good at succeeding. Or you can look
2:40:05 > 2:40:04at society and say maybe there are social issues here, which is why
2:40:05 > 2:40:04women are not yet represented properly according to the population
2:40:05 > 2:40:04statistics in those echelons of power. That is what I'm talking
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about. Women very much have the ability to break through those
2:40:05 > 2:40:04barriers. It was only because Labour had all women short lists that we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04actually got the" in the number of women in Parliament. You are all
2:40:05 > 2:40:04making the assumption that women would not shout. Roger Scruton, do
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you think women would not shout? There is the assumption, absolutely,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that somehow manners are going to be better. It is not that, Roger. This
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is what Liz was implying, at least. Of course, on a panel like this you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04are on your best behaviour and you do seem to be a very acceptable
2:40:05 > 2:40:04voice for your sex. I don't know what you're going to be like when in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that situation you are confronted with somebody who really opposes you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and hates the things you are saying and thinking. If you have knocked on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04doors and campaigned, you will find people who tell you exactly what
2:40:05 > 2:40:04they think about you. I have done that, yes. Nevertheless, isn't the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04problem not the yobbery of members of parliament, but the bad judgement
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of the people who vote for them? Controversial! The speaker goes on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about yobbery, but it is half an hour once a week. As everybody else
2:40:05 > 2:40:04says, that is not what goes on in the House of Commons the rest of the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04time. It is the only thing that really gets on television. That is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the problem. That is what people see. That is the conundrum. Of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04course, very worthy work goes on in parliament and committees are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04televised, but people watch PMQs. We need to engage the public. In a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04democracy, we need the public to be interested in what is going on in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Parliament. We all believe that it would be great if the public watched
2:40:05 > 2:40:04our very dignified proceedings in committee, but they are interested
2:40:05 > 2:40:04in Prime Minister's Questions. Prime Minister's Questions is a unique
2:40:05 > 2:40:04institution pretty much in the world. Most politicians around the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04world that we talk to are terrified at the prospect of having to face
2:40:05 > 2:40:04anything like that. It gives a huge amount of accountability to Prime
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Minister of any party, who has no idea what the question is that he is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04going to be asked. I do not agree Liz's idea about having sessions
2:40:05 > 2:40:04where it is defined, a certain subject. The whole point about PMQs
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is that the Prime Minister has to demonstrate that he is across the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04whole of his brief. Why couldn't he do it without consulting the leader
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of the Opposition week after week? APPLAUSE
2:40:05 > 2:40:04And it is not reciprocated? Of course it is. But Cameron when he
2:40:05 > 2:40:04came in said he was fed up with Punch and Judy politics,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04name-calling, backbiting, point-scoring, finger-pointing. He
2:40:05 > 2:40:04vowed to change the way we behave. That was December 2005, ten years
2:40:05 > 2:40:04ago. What has happened? Maybe you should have a word with your leader.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I think we are all captured. We all go into the chamber intending to be
2:40:05 > 2:40:04extremely well-behaved on a Wednesday. Do you feel forced by
2:40:05 > 2:40:04peer pressure? That is not good, is it? The mood of the chamber captures
2:40:05 > 2:40:04this. Even you, Liz, I have seen you getting excited. It was only in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04health questions. Is part of the problem the narrow
2:40:05 > 2:40:04field that politicians tend to be drawn from? There was something the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04other day, released from the House of Commons, that said 57, around
2:40:05 > 2:40:04about, just under 10%, of current MPs had family connections who had
2:40:05 > 2:40:04been MPs in the past. That seems a mass ve skew is inbreeding and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04nepotism the problem? OK. On that happy note let us go on to another
2:40:05 > 2:40:04question, from Morira Brodie. The OECD reports that our best maths
2:40:05 > 2:40:04pupils are lagging behind the poorest Chinese students. Should we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04adopt Chinese-style teaching to raise our standards? This was the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04latest attack on British education and in particular pointing out that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04in maths China did unbelievable well, we did unbelievable badly.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Jeanette Winterson? You ought to try the test online. It's really easy.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04If our children are so bad at maths, as bad as this test would suggest.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04It's a very simple test, yes, we are in trouble. The test that everybody
2:40:05 > 2:40:04had to do. Look, if I can get 90% shall anybody can. You have done it,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have you? Yeah, I did. It's a b pro. What do we want our children to be?
2:40:05 > 2:40:04How do we want our children to learn? We need to have teachers that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04we can respect, as a society, we can teach our children to respect. All
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the systems in the world won't make a difference unless we have teachers
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who are passionate, interested and excited in the classroom and make
2:40:05 > 2:40:04children think - I want to learn this, this is for me. It's no good
2:40:05 > 2:40:04sitting there and learning the drill. You look... I have been to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04China. I don't know if many of you have, you go into some schools, you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04don't feel they are particularly happy places to be. You don't...
2:40:05 > 2:40:04APPLAUSE I don't want to stop you, the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Education Minister went to China. He said that they have "a can do
2:40:05 > 2:40:04attitude to maths contrasting with our anti-maths culture. Unless we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04change our philosophy and get better at maths we will suffer economic
2:40:05 > 2:40:04decline." We won't. Just wrong? I think it is wrong. I think she is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04right. We want children to be interested in all subjects, not just
2:40:05 > 2:40:04maths. We can only do that through quality teaching. Only 5% of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04teachers have maths degrees. This is something we need to change. A lot
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of teachers are teaching maths when it's not particularly their main
2:40:05 > 2:40:04subject, their primary subject. That is something we have to alter, of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04course we do. I want the excitement into the classroom. That is about
2:40:05 > 2:40:04supporting teachers and supporting schools. It's not about going to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04look at systems and bring them back wholesale and force them here on our
2:40:05 > 2:40:04children. We are not Chinese. We are very different. A different culture.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04We need to really respect those differences and not try and make our
2:40:05 > 2:40:04children be something they cannot be. This is being alarmist really,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you are saying? These comparisons? I think it's alarmist. Yeah. OK. In
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the back row, yes. Having worked in an international language school,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04particularly with Chinese students, having ConVersed with them, they
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have said that while they value the education, they don't like the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04manner in which it's taught. They have very long days. Very little
2:40:05 > 2:40:04control over what they learn and which interests they follow. Many of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04them aspire to come here to actually widen their, what they are allowed
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to study. They view our summer schools, where they come here to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04learn English, as a way to have a choice in what they learn and their
2:40:05 > 2:40:04education, which our education system does allow. Do you think
2:40:05 > 2:40:04there is a danger of being complacent about this disparity on
2:40:05 > 2:40:04mathematics, do you think it's an irrelevancy, yourself? Yes, we need
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to raise standards. With he know... But I think it's also we need to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04interest people. It's not necessarily the, you know, the hard
2:40:05 > 2:40:04line, you will study this, sit down and study this for two hours. We
2:40:05 > 2:40:04need to interest people in the subject. OK. Rather than just ram it
2:40:05 > 2:40:04down their throats. Roger Scruton, what did you make of the report? I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04was not surprised by it. I agree with Jeanette Winterson's basic
2:40:05 > 2:40:04thought, there are not enough qualified teachers in the field of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04mathematics in our country. That's not only true of schools, it's true
2:40:05 > 2:40:04of universities too. People do not read Matt mattics. They --
2:40:05 > 2:40:04mathematics. They don't go for the hard subjects like that any more.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04It's part of a culture (inaudible (is (. People go to university, many
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people in order to relax for a few years. You know... They are ng up
2:40:05 > 2:40:04huge debts who is going to relax when they have ?50,000 they owe when
2:40:05 > 2:40:04they come out. That is not relaxing to come out of university Ando
2:40:05 > 2:40:04?50,000? Not a great debt when you consider the amount of pleasure that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04it represents. APPLAUSE
2:40:05 > 2:40:04The fact is - You really think people are running up, they are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04paying ?9,000 a year, plus supporting themselves to doss about
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and do easy subjects and coming out with ?50,000 worth of debt,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04thinking, that is worth it. I can't afford a house. I have to work until
2:40:05 > 2:40:04I'm 70, I have no pension, never mind? Not quite as bad as you are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04implying. Many of these students are actually from the wealthy
2:40:05 > 2:40:04middle-classes who are not running up debts or passing those debts onto
2:40:05 > 2:40:04their parents. The fact is, when given the choice to... Between
2:40:05 > 2:40:04reading for a degree in mathematics and reading for a degree in media
2:40:05 > 2:40:04studies, whatever, they will take the second option. You are a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04philosopher? Is What has that to do with it? He is a philosopher. It's a
2:40:05 > 2:40:04hard subject. It depends, Roger, doesn't it. Never had a drink and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04never stayed out late. Is the woman at the very back there. Yes. I want
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to say that some of those statistics might mask other degrees that people
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have, such as engineering physics where you have a very high level of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04maths. The man there. I have a seven-year-old daughter. She comes
2:40:05 > 2:40:04out of school not well up to speed with mathematics, frankly I think
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the school has failed her. I think I've failed her as a parent as well.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Phillip Hammond. I'm not sure that importing a Chinese system wholesale
2:40:05 > 2:40:04will be the solution. I would certainly not want to stamp out of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04our children the sort of question creative approach that we value,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04which I think the Chinese system very definitely doesn't value and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04actively discourages. But we should still be hearing an alarm bell
2:40:05 > 2:40:04ringing about, not just maths, but engineering, sciences. Whether we
2:40:05 > 2:40:04like it or not, we are aring -- competing with countries like China
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and emerging nations of Southeast Asia. If we want our economy to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04prosper in the future we want people to have the good jobs, opportunities
2:40:05 > 2:40:04for work, abilities to feed their families, provide for their
2:40:05 > 2:40:04families, that we have all been talking about earlier this evening,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04we have to make sure that our - the next generation is equipped with
2:40:05 > 2:40:04with the skills they need. We are beginning I think to make progress.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04We are seeing more children taking the "hard subjects" in schools. More
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people looking to study the maths, science, engineering subjects at
2:40:05 > 2:40:04university. I think we have to do it in a British way, which combines the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04discipline of those subjects with the sort of creativity and the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04enquiring approach that makes us what we are. The
2:40:05 > 2:40:04APPLAUSE You agree? Is you clearly agree with
2:40:05 > 2:40:04him? May I suggest that if Mr Goef stops moving the goal posts and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04getting Ofsted to change its reachings, teachers could teach! Gsh
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Gove. We do need to be worried about where we are in terms of maths,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04having those basic skills is vital. We do need to have more teachers who
2:40:05 > 2:40:04are properly trained in that and Labour introduced Teach First
2:40:05 > 2:40:04getting the best and brightest grat waits involved, this Government
2:40:05 > 2:40:04continued it. I want to come to the essence of how you really grasp
2:40:05 > 2:40:04kids' minds and brains and inspire them. The best teachers I've seen
2:40:05 > 2:40:04don't use a one-size-fits-all, they find out what excits and motivates
2:40:05 > 2:40:04that child. They understand, if we show how maths fits into a job that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is involved in design, technology or engineering. If you can bring in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people from those professions to kids from the poorest backgrounds,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who probably have never met an engineer, to say - if you do maths,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you can have this kind of an exciting job. I saw a brilliant
2:40:05 > 2:40:04thing in - doing this in a primary school in my stwis, Parks Primary
2:40:05 > 2:40:04getting engineers into children who hadn't aspirations. They hadn't seen
2:40:05 > 2:40:04anyone with a job like that. They suddenly realised, that would be
2:40:05 > 2:40:04good. That is why it's worth doing maths. It is those children who
2:40:05 > 2:40:04understood that, child by child. That is the passion we all need to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04inspire. There. Would Liz agree it would be an advantage to let
2:40:05 > 2:40:04engineers teach without necessarily having to go forward for an extra
2:40:05 > 2:40:04degree before they can get into the classroom? Do you think - I don't
2:40:05 > 2:40:04know, sorry, how old you are or whether you have been to college or
2:40:05 > 2:40:04university? University. Would you think it would be good to go
2:40:05 > 2:40:04straight into a classroom without any proper follow-up to give you the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04teaching and skills? Do you think you would be able to do that?
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Professionals who have worked in an industry for a long period of time
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have developed the incredible skills should have the opportunity to get
2:40:05 > 2:40:04back into the classroom and really share their knowledge with students.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04The next generation. They are the most inspirational people that are
2:40:05 > 2:40:04around. I think they should be allowed to get back into the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04classroom. Charles Kennedy. Hands up, I hated maths at school. I was
2:40:05 > 2:40:04hopeless at it. I loved English. I was quite good at that. Would you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04believe, I ended up with a university degree auto 50% English
2:40:05 > 2:40:04and 50% moral philosophy. Stimulated along the way by the professor of
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Glasgow University those days who is a colleague and well-known to Roger,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Professor Robert Downie who introduced me to this distinguished
2:40:05 > 2:40:04man on the panel tonightment I do recognise some of the descriptions
2:40:05 > 2:40:04you give of university life, at least of 50 years ago, slightly
2:40:05 > 2:40:04different today. What about China and maths? China. Reverting to the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04question, for a moment. Is I think we're right. I mean sitting, as I
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have been involved at Glasgow University Richter, sitting at the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04university court, St Andrews and Oxford will be the same, the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04internationalisation of education is going full gun, full guns ahead and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04we've got to keep up with it as a country, in terms of getting
2:40:05 > 2:40:04students in, but also not falling behind. I think on the maths and the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04sciences we've really got to work, cut out to keep pace. We can't do it
2:40:05 > 2:40:04grafting a different culture on to us. I don't think that will work.
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Who replaced you as Richter? It was that chap Snowden. Worthy successor,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04is that? Is The students choose me twice, they have impeccable taste
2:40:05 > 2:40:04when it comes to choosing a Richter. I want to go back to what the young
2:40:05 > 2:40:04man at the back mentioned earlier. The need to get people into schools
2:40:05 > 2:40:04who have expertise in subjects which we are lacking. I think that he was
2:40:05 > 2:40:04right to say that this requirement that they have a special, extra
2:40:05 > 2:40:04teaching qualification is keeping those professionals out of the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04schools. Keeping these engineers from coming back into the education
2:40:05 > 2:40:04system. I was surprised, since you admired the whole Teach First
2:40:05 > 2:40:04initiative, which your party introduced, you didn't see that as
2:40:05 > 2:40:04actually the way forward. I do. That is what I said. You want to produce
2:40:05 > 2:40:04professional qualification. The point of that is that it enables
2:40:05 > 2:40:04people to enter the school without getting a qualification - We can
2:40:05 > 2:40:04design something that people who have been in industry, come forward,
2:40:05 > 2:40:04have three months to know how to face the classroom. Is a couple more
2:40:05 > 2:40:04points. You sir over there, first of all. I think we shouldn't beat
2:40:05 > 2:40:04ourselves up so much. You only used to watch the BAFTAs this week to see
2:40:05 > 2:40:04the world leading technicians that this country are producing
2:40:05 > 2:40:04transforming the film industry. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you
2:40:05 > 2:40:04are in your subject if you don't have the skills to impart that
2:40:05 > 2:40:04wisdom and teach correctly. It doesn't matter. You have to have the
2:40:05 > 2:40:04teaching skills. We have to stop there. A lot of you are waiting to
2:40:05 > 2:40:04get in. Our hour is up here much we had better stop. We will be in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Newport in Wales next week. The week after that we will be in Barking in
2:40:05 > 2:40:04East London. If can come to Newport or Barking the way to get to us is
2:40:05 > 2:40:04to apply with the address on the website there. Or call us:
2:40:05 > 2:40:04if you are listening on Radio Five Live the debate goes on in Question
2:40:05 > 2:40:04Time Extra Time. It's my pleasure to thank our panel very much indeed and
2:40:05 > 2:40:04all of you who came to take part in the programme in Swindon. Until next
2:40:05 > 2:40:05week, from Question Time, good night.