27/02/2014 Question Time

And a big welcome to you as always at home, and welcome to the audience

who will question the panel, who do not know what those questions are.

Our panel tonight, Conservative defence Minister, Anna Soubry,

Labour Minister, Rushanara Ali, Plaid Cymru's leader in Westminster,

Elfyn Llwyd. Freelance columnist Melanie Phillips and novelist and

food critic Jay Rayner. I would like to start with a

question from Cynthia Jennings. Why is RBS paying bonuses when they have

lost money? The Royal Bank of Scotland, owned by

us, 83%, lost billions this year, paying over half ?1 billion in

bonuses. Why? Jay Rayner. Because they are bankers, and they behave

like bankers. We need banks. We have always needed them, just not the

kind we have got. The surprise that greets the bonus season when it

comes round mystifies me, because it is what they have always done, even

when losing large amounts of money. They will say, if we don't pay

bonuses we don't get the right people and if we don't get the right

people we want make any money. They do not make any money anyway, but it

is the way the banking system works. We have to decide what kind of

banking system want. We heard the RBS boss justifying the bonuses on

those grounds, where are people going to go? Is there a huge demand

for bankers? I suspect there is a huge demand. So it is justified?

There is an argument but they are floating between each other. The

main issue for RBS is that they have continued trying to have an

investment banking arm at the same time as a retail banking arm.

Investment banking is a nice phrase for playing bingo, which they have

been doing with taxpayers money for a long time, but they are not very

good at it. Are you shocked? The bonus culture is lost on me, if I am

honest. I have never been paid a bonus in my life. Some might say I

have never deserved one, but I never worked in a business where they paid

bonuses, so it is lost on me. I am pleased we put a cap on the RBS

bonuses. A cap of ?2000. So how is it spending ?500 million on bonuses?

You can buy shares and cash them in. The cap is 200% of income. I am not

going to sit here and defend the banks when they do these things

which seem incomprehensible, but I will say that I have no doubt that

the reputation of our banks is such, possibly with great merit, that they

do have problems actually recruiting and often retaining people. So I can

understand why they will pay out these bonuses. You, over there, sir.

If you look at the banking industry in context, they have been bailed

out to the point of 1.2 trillion. We are having austerity forced on us

across Europe as a result of that. And the industry still hasn't been

reformed. There is still no ring-fenced between investment banks

and retail banks, and they are still able to engage in casino practices

with our money. Bankers have also been responsible for fixing the

LIBOR rate, mis-selling PPI, bringing small businesses to their

knees through dubious selling practices on interest rate swaps. It

is time we had some proper legislation in this country and

across Europe to regulate the banking industry.

APPLAUSE Cynthia Jennings, what do you think?

I think, across-the-board, if nobody got paid bonuses and got paid a

reasonable salary, then the bankers would not be able to jump up to

wherever they want to go. I think for a government owned bank that was

partially owned, bailed out by the taxpayer, it is completely

irresponsible to give those sorts of bonuses. And at a time when you have

people queueing in food banks, high levels of poverty, I think the

government needs to step up and take action against this kind of reward,

which is completely unjustified when everyone else is suffering in this

country. How would you do it? Your party is in power. You had 13 years

to regulate and sort out the banks. You should take some responsibility.

We have done. We introduced a tax. We have taken the LIBOR funding and

we have given it to charities connected with the wounded, injured

Armed Forces personnel. We have taken tough action. Is that why,

today, people are getting bonuses, a partially owned government bank,

people are getting bonuses? What would your policy be? We have made

it absolutely clear that there should be a tax on bankers bonuses.

That money should be used to get young people back to work. Nearly 1

million young people out of work, that is unacceptable. Your

government should act to stop this irresponsible behaviour. You made 11

sets of promises. I hate to come between these warring parties, but

if I can be evenhanded about this, I think both the Labour Party and the

Tory party are just very frightened, once in government, of driving money

away, particularly from London. It is a source of great regret to many

of us that much of the economic activity, we measure progress of

this country by the wealth of the City of London. It has become a kind

of fetish, that this is where we are strongest, in making money out of

money. Isn't that true? What do you do about it if it is true and it is

where our money comes from? It would be very nice if this country was

making things again. APPLAUSE

And not making money out of money. How do you achieve that? Hang on.

Not for long. Why should it be not for long. This is a counsel of

despair. I don't believe Britain can never make things again. I think

there is unpleasant about the whole fat cat obsession. If someone has a

lot of money, then he should not have it almost by definition. I am

concerned about that but I also think that the RBS, as people have

said, it is taxpayer money. The taxpayer has bailed out this bank.

This bank and others have done a great deal of harm to the economy.

Ordinary people have suffered. They seem to show no sense of not

responsibility, but even a sense of acknowledgement of the enormity of

what they have done. You, in the pink shirt. It is not just

unacceptable that these people are doing this. It is unbelievable that

they can display such immense greed. I would like to see the two

governments, the former government and the current government, who

failed to curb these people. They are a powerful group of people and

they need both parties to work together to curb the greed of what

is an extremely avaricious group of people who are the true villains of

our depression. APPLAUSE

It is one thing to say that the Labour government did not regulate

against the banks for 11 years, but you still have not.

You are in government now and you still haven't. I will pick up on

Melanie's point as well. It is not that they have got a lot of money,

it is that they do not deserve it. I would agree with you when it comes

to RBS, but there is a mood in the country that no one who has a lot of

money deserves it. And this is very subjective. At what point do we say

a person does not deserve it? This is a dangerous road to go down. At

the point at which a banker is earning 100 times the wage of a

cleaner, that is when -- that is when we say it is enough. Who says?

You? Who draws the line, and on what basis? We have vast inequality in

this country. I can't believe you are backing bankers on this. There

is huge inequality in this country. I am not backing bankers in these

bonuses. Not the bonuses, but the huge pay that they get. It is

indefensible. APPLAUSE

Some people blame the banks for everything, but hearing news as we

did today, I am not surprised. Because they are actually taking us

for a ride. Part of my function is to try to negotiate with banks for

small loans for small businesses in my patch. They are closing down

viable businesses at the same time as they are pushing money into their

bankers' pockets. If it is the argument that if you do not overpay

them disgustingly they will work elsewhere, OK. The way to deal with

that, in my view, is to have a pan-European ruling. All European

countries come together and say, we are not having it. They want to make

an X it for the Far East, good luck to them. Can I just say this. There

has been an attempt to deal with them but it is not working. For

example, HSBC have announced this week that they will be to bring

similar bonuses to their top people, but calling it an extra salary. It

will not be a bonus but an increase in salary. But if you do not do it

on a pan-European basis, it simply will not work, in my view. I am not

an advocate for bankers. None of my best friends are bankers. But I

think we need to inject some realism. The whole of the global

free market system is invested in banking. All your pensions and

mortgages are invested in banking. We have built a system on banking.

The idea that we would have it on a pan-European scale would not change

anything. They will move to the States, to Switzerland. It might

take an age to get an agreement but it is worthwhile otherwise they will

continue to take us for a ride. If the European come together and

discuss - I was in a conference in Athens fortnight ago discussing

various things. Why don't we prioritise this issue and deal with

it on a pan-European basis? We will move on because we have a lot of

questions. You can join the debate. A question from Jonathan Sherwood.

Should the deals made with the IRA still provide immunity from

prosecution for alleged terrorists? This, in the light of the Downey

case that came before the courts this week. Should the deals made

with the IRA still provide immunity from prosecution? You will forgive

me if I sound like the lawyer I used to be before I got elected, but it

depends on the nature of the promise made. Downey should never, in any

event, have been made anything like the promise he was made. Why? First,

because there was clear involvement by him in an excerpt -- in an

explosion that cause people to be murdered. In any event, there was

also a warrant for his arrest because of the evidence against him

for this attack and this awful crime. And there was a warrant out,

and all they had to do, which I am assuming they did not do, and this

is what this judge leading choir in will discover, they only had to find

out from The Met whether or not there was a warrant outstanding

against any of them. They should have made those checks. I am

assuming they did and something happened, but if they had done and

had got the proper information, then they would never have given him this

letter that enabled him, therefore, to come to this country on the basis

that there will was no warrant for his arrest. The Northern Ireland

Secretary says these letters do not amount to immunity, exemption or

amnesty from arrest. So what are they about? Your government has been

issuing them as well as the previous one. There were two sets. The first

set were issued in 2007-2008. Downey is one of those 183. These letters

say to people that there is no reason to believe that there are any

warrants out against you. Downey's position seems to have been in

relation to the fact that, having come into this country, he is then

arrested, and effectively, from what I can gather, the reason why the

judge stayed the indictment, stopped the proceedings was because

effectively the state had said to him, we will not arrest you if you

come to the country. That is what you are doing with these other

letters. The second set, I have not seen the content. That is what

Theresa Villiers is referring to and we have to accept that she has seen

the content and she says they do not amount to a promise not to

prosecute. So what is the point of them? I do not know. It may be that

these letters are different. Elfyn and I are both lawyers, so we have

an understanding of the peculiarities and I accept it is

often very difficult to explain and for people to understand how a

promise by the state to a man like Downey, who was charged with very

serious offences, evidence against him, we end up having to stay the

indictment. The question was whether the deals made with the IRA should

provide immunity from prosecution? As I understand it, and I was

listening very careful to Dominic Grieve in the house the other day

when he went through it very carefully, what he was saying was

that these letters said that we are not currently interested in any

misdoings that you might have done and that is about all. They were a

snapshot in time. I agree with Anna. What we need to do, I do not think

you can withdraw them, it is not relevant any more, but whether there

is a case to investigate each and every one of these people again, I

do not know. I want to say this. All the parties in Northern Ireland were

furious about this and I can understand that because of the

nature of the awful crime that this man is alleged to have perpetrated.

Having said that, evidence is now coming out that the policing board

in Northern Ireland, which is comprised of every party in the

Northern Ireland political system, were aware of these letters some

time ago. In fact, back in 2010, if not before. So, it is not something

which has suddenly been sprung on them. The question is, should they

provide immunity? The point of the letter at the time was an

interpretation of the peace agreement, where they said, at this

moment in time, we are not interested in you as being a

potential... Why would you write that to someone? It was in order to

carry three parts of the Belfast agreement. Nothing anybody in this

room says tonight will make the pain of people who have lost someone in

the trouble is any better, nor will it make it any worse. -- the

Troubles. It is a deep and dark wound. But war is hard, peace is

even harder. At a time when the negotiations were going on, those

who issued these letters thought they had a chance. The thing that is

slightly distressing, if this had never come to light, if there had

not been the warrant held by Scotland Yard, if this turned up 20

years down the line, it would end up as a footnote to the history of

peace in Northern Ireland. Justice is an important thing but so is

peace. You in the spectacles. Perhaps it is not Peter Robinson who

should be resigning but the people who drafted the letters in the first

place. I'm just wondering, if you are creating a peace process, you

have to be able to trust the other side's word. The second that we

start going back against promises that are made, how will we ever

create peace in the future if no one is going to trust our government?

Despite what Theresa Villiers said, you think these letters are promised

not to prosecute. I cannot say what the letters say, we have not seen

them. Downie said what they said. If the letters themselves state that

there is a promise against prosecution and I am not saying that

they do, obviously, the situation is a disgusting situation in the first

place, if that is what the letter says, if we as a country are ever

going to negotiate peace, people have to be able to believe in the

promises we make. The second we start going against those promises,

our credibility as a peacemaking country is destroyed. Do you agree

with him, Melanie? I do not agree with this gentleman because the

arguments here are making -- he is making, is that the end justifies

the means. You do bad things in the case for the greater good. The

greater good was peace in Northern Ireland. But you can see from

today's amazing jitteriness from the government, and the threat of the

dissolution of the power-sharing executive, that the piece is very

fragile, it is conditional. The fear is that if this power-sharing

executive collapses, we will go back to violence. It is like a sort of

protection racket. The point about these letters as I understand it is

this, it is not a promise, it is not immunity... I want to pick up one

thing because I think you are missing the point. It is not just

about the peace in Northern Ireland, it is a large issue. We deal with

international incidents, terrorist organisations all round the world.

If we are saying in this one case it is acceptable to say promises we

made to create peace can be broken just before they have come to light

in a certain way, all of a sudden, any promise we make in the future

becomes incredible so you can therefore not create peace. The

point I was going to make is it is not a promise. As I understand it,

it was a nod and a wink to keep the peace process on track, nod and a

wink to a set of individuals who were on the run. They are called on

the runs. Why were they on the run? Because they were suspected of

terrorist activity. This letter said it explicitly, at this moment in

time, there is no evidence against you and we are not seeking any

evidence against you. In the case of John Downey, this was incorrect. The

Metropolitan police were seeking him. But that to one side. They are

saying, a nod and a wink, chaps, you can basically live your lives, we

are not coming after you. The question is is that acceptable? I

would say it is not acceptable. Justice denied can never produce a

just society. The piece is conditional. There is still a threat

of violence. You say promises must be kept and I agree with you and

that is why this case was thrown out. The promise was made to this

man John Downey. He thought he would come to England without a problem

and that is why the judge said, you cannot carry on with the trial. But

the promise was made behind the backs, as far as one can see, behind

the backs of parties to the peace process. They would never have

accepted it. In April 2010, there was a meeting of the Northern

Ireland policing board were these were, this matter was raised and at

that meeting there were three members of the DUP. They did not

discuss it with others. Hang on a second, I want to hear from

Rushanara. Clearly, a mistake was made in this case. With the review

that has been announced today, it has got to look into this issue. I

would know that if I was a family member of the victims I would want

justice. But at the same time, we have to recognise that the Northern

Ireland peace process has secured freedom from terrorism, freedom from

conflict and we have got to keep our eye on that issue, because as a

country, as a nation, we are better protected because of it. The

injustice that these families have faced needs to be addressed and that

is what the enquiry will need to look at. You, sir. Just one question

here, can we afford to put our troops in danger, by making promises

not to prosecute? Because our troops who are out there today, their

families who are out there today, are we going to make similar

promises with the government in power today or governments in the

future? Are you against the promises being made, no amnesty of any kind?

Is it peace at any cost? I think everyone has had to say so I am

going to move on. We have many questions. Jean Holloway, please. Is

it not time that Harriet Harman came out and apologised for her links

with the Paedophile Information Exchange? Melanie Phillips. I think

it is a good development what happened today, that Patricia Hewitt

who was running the National Council for Civil Liberties, during this

period when the Paedophile Information Exchange was associated

with them, has said very clearly that it was wrong, we were naive, we

should not have had them as part of the National Council for Civil

Liberties and I apologise. If Harriet Harman had said that at the

beginning, there would be no story. This whole furore ER I'm afraid has

been fuelled by Harriet Harman going of the deep end, being the raises,

accusing the newspapers of accusing her of stuff they had not accused

her of and above all, do denying that there was a problem with the

National Council for Civil Liberties having the Paedophile Information

Exchange is one of its members. I am at bit baffled about why she did not

to say what Patricia Hewitt has said today. It is an interesting

historical issue and I think it has some relevance to today, that

progressive opinion in those days, and I remember, I remember when they

were associated and I remember the unease around that whole issue at

the time. But there was then a climate, on the progressive side of

politics, on the left, which was assessed with rights. And it did not

draw a distinction between the rights of adults and the rights of

children and the whole issue of sex was mixed up with rights and

everyone had a right to everything, and children had rights. The whole

thing was framed in terms of rights. We find it hard to

understand this. I am old enough to have lived through it. It was a kind

of madness. I thought it was mad at the time. Children, in my view, do

not have rights to sexual activity. We as adults, have a duty to

children to protect them while they were children. This was the terrible

confusion of the time. I think that confusion has bled into all kinds of

attitudes which persist today. We today have this great anxiety, now

about paedophilia. Then it was not called paedophilia. Then it was

called... Love among children. It was presented in the most disgusting

way. But the point was, progressive circles accept it, because it was

all bound up, and the Paedophile Information Exchange gentleman, Mr

O'Carroll, said perfectly correctly, and I remember this at the time, he

said the problem was not that Harriet Harman supported

paedophilia, not that she supported the PIE. In fact, she came onto the

scene in the NCCL quite late on in this saga. The problem was it was

mixed up with the whole gay rights agenda and people could not talk

about paedophilia without talking about gay rights. Jay Rayner. If you

think Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey back in the

70s thought paedophilia was a really good thing, then hold them in utter

contempt, never vote for the Labour Party again, throw them out.

Personally, I can't help but see this as just the Daily Mail taking

its revenge on a bunch of people they do not like. The 1970s was a

strange time. You were on the left back in the 1970s as we all

remember. My memory goes back that far. This is not about the rights

and wrongs of paedophilia which we know is an obscenity and the way

things were done in the 70s is bizarre. It is about the Daily Mail

paper. The nearest we have to aid Paedophile Information Exchange is

the Daily Mail website and its pictures of kids. It is true. I just

think we need to understand this as another bit of anti-left, and to

Labour propaganda by the Daily Mail. -- antilabour propaganda. You have

not said whether she should apologise and is her reluctance to

apologise because they see the Daily Mail as an antilabour organ. The

story was in Private Eye many years ago, it is not new. The editor of

the Daily Mail sees it as a great way to have a go at people in the

Labour Party. You go back to the 70s, there are lots of things we

could apologise for. The Daily Mail could apologise for supporting the

black shirts back in the 30s if they like. It would be childish to ask

them to do so. This story has only come out because of the Jimmy Savile

affair. This is why it has been brought to our attention. It is

nothing to do with the Daily Mail. They may have made an issue of it.

Do you think it is legitimate to raise it? Because of that case there

is no investigating back to that time which is why the story is out

now. I did the Daily Mail have done a good job bringing it out. Anna

Soubry. I do think Harriet Harman has handled badly. If she had come

out and done all that the story would have gone away. It says a lot

more about our attitudes. I am really not interested, if I may say

in the fight between the Daily Mail and Harriet Harman, they can sort it

out themselves, but I do not think she and Jack Dromey have done

themselves any favours. I think it says more about the enormous change

during my lifetime and the time at the bar towards child abuse and

paedophilia. There is a much greater understanding, not only what an

awful wicked thing it is, but the appalling damage it does to

children. I have read some of those documents and Melanie is right. You

have to read some of those documents that say there is not much harm if

it is done to a child. It is the stuff of madness. The other thing we

now know about paedophiles is Howard could be coming they are. I suspect

Elfyn like I, have had the misfortune of representing

paedophiles. I can assure you, I do not like to stereotype but I think

we can with paedophiles, the things they do are bad and evil enough in

themselves, but their wickedness and cunning, the way that they will in

the their way into the affections of a child or a mother, that they will

then commit this horrible abuse, and it is sickening, but it is a

terrible perversion of that child as well. What do you make of the

documents submitted in 1976 to Parliament which said activities

willingly engaged in with an adult do not do any identifiable damage?

Appalling. Absolutely disgusting. There is no point saying it was

different in the 1970s. It was disgusting them, and it is

disgusting now. Rushanara Ali, come to the defence of Harriet Harman. I

have listened very closely to what everyone is saying here and it is

clear that PIE was a vile organisation that tried to

infiltrate and successfully infiltrated NCCL at that time. All

of the things that people have said highlight the manipulative nature of

paedophile organisations and paedophiles. But let's be clear,

Harriet Harman has spent a lifetime campaigning for women and children

and their rights. And the idea that she would condone and paedophiles is

completely wrong and baseless. And there is not a shred of evidence to

suggest otherwise. That is why I agree with Jay, that there is a

political angle to this, there is a dimensional which is that the Daily

Mail has a campaign against certain senior figures in the Labour Party.

First it was Ed Miliband, an attack on his father, and now Harriet

Harman. These allegations are baseless. Harriet has set out her

role in NCCL. We have to remember that when a paper goes this far in

attacking someone, despite her record, despite the work she has

done championing children's rights, that worries me deeply. She could

have said these things. I paid tribute to a lot of the work she has

done and I pay tribute to your last government for its work on rape and

enabling children to give evidence. That is why I think she has handled

it badly. Tricia Hewitt apologised. Shami Chakrabarti apologised. Why

didn't she apologise? Harriet has expressed regret. With respect,

there is a difference between Shami Chakrabarti, who has an officer of

Liberty, who has probably justifiably apologised. You are

dealing with Harriet Harman who, at the time, was a fairly junior lawyer

acting for the NCCL. She did not actually say we will affiliate to

the PIE, or whatever. But she was there as a lawyer. It would have

been better if she had said, I was a junior lawyer and I had nothing to

do with affiliating them but it was a big mistake and I regret that

mistake. But asking her to apologise is like asking me to apologise for

the First World War. I will take one more point from the man at the back.

Isn't there two points here? One, you put yourself in public office,

you have to accept whatever is written about you. Secondly, you

tell me any politician that will stand up and apologise when they are

wrong. They don't. Yes, they do. If they don't, they should. They will

find an excuse, always, never apologise to the public. Anna

Soubry, have you ever apologised? Yes. For what? I am sure I have

because I make so many mistakes. What you said about Nigel Farage,

did you apologise for that? I did. We won't repeat it. Repeat it,

please. We will not. Politicians do apologise. Trust me, the Daily Mail

also is horrible things about Tories. Melanie has often said

horrible things about me. They have not attacked the dead father of a

Conservative leader. Let's move on. Has Britain lost control of its

borders? Presumably in light of today's news that net immigration is

up 200,000. Would that be right? Yes. Well, I don't think it has lost

control, but everybody thought there would be an influx from within the

European Union. There is free movement, after all. We must also

remember that there are hundreds of thousands of British people in other

countries within the European Union as well, so it works both ways.

Didn't the Prime Minister say he would get it down to tens of

thousands. Yes. What has gone wrong? I don't know. I don't sign up to his

agenda and don't have any truck with the Conservative Party on this

issue. I think there is room for inward migration and if we are to

allow free movement within Europe, it works both ways and we need

people to come in and work in various jobs that, actually, local

people don't want to take up. APPLAUSE

Of course, we benefit from it. But to answer your question, it seems to

me that there is something radically wrong in the thinking of the Prime

Minister and the border agency, if he was thinking that it's going to

come down to tens of thousands in the next couple of years, when it's

actually gone up to 200,000, just as bad as it was under the Labour

government. You said just as bad. In his terms. Are you in favour or

against it? I am not against it. You did use the word bad. You are quick

today, David! If we are going to have free movement, it works both

ways, that is the point. What do you think? If you look at the figures

superficially, it is frightening but if you do the maths in terms of

extrapolation it is not as bad as you think. The main concern is that

the Southeast will get clogged up and infrastructure and transport

will get stasis. David Cameron's whole policy on migration, trying to

stop it, was dog whistle politics for the rump of his party and its

xenophobic fears. I live in Brixton, south London, which has one

of the highest proportions of visible ethnic minorities in Western

Europe. I am used to a city which has many nationalities. The great

thing about people who migrate is that they usually do it for good

economic reasons. They want to work. To come up with a facile

version of that, I am delighted with the arrival of Polish painters and

decorators because they turn up on time, do a good job and then they

leave. Unlike the British ones. These are people who are energetic,

want to be here and want to work. They get paid and they pay into the

tax kitty and we benefit from it. As the daughter of someone who came

here in the 1960s labour shortage, I recognise the positive contribution

people make to our country. And the strength in our diversity. And we

saw that in the 2020 Olympics, the best show on earth. We thrived in

our diversity. But there are major concerns about jobs, about youth

unemployment. I see that in London and around the country. What's

important is that we need confidence that the immigration system is going

to work for both our economy, but also making sure people feel secure,

people don't feel that change is happening too fast. That's a big

challenge. That means we have to focus on making sure people who are

able to work in our own country get the jobs they need, but at the same

time it's a give-and-take, as Elfyn has said already. If we want a free

and open Europe, where we benefit, 50% of our trade is with Europe,

that means we will need to accept a level of freedom of movement between

our countries, both people coming in and out. But that has to happen in a

sensible way. We have to have a sensible approach to immigration.

What brought your family from Bangladesh? My father came here in

the 60s during a labour shortage, his skills shortage. He worked in

manufacturing. He worked in the catering industry and later he

worked, in fact, for a company in the east End of London that made

hosepipes, garden hose pipes, which went bust, sadly after the ban on

hosepipes. You talk about having to be careful about immigration. Did he

find problems when he came in the 60s? Yes, he experienced huge

amounts of racism and discrimination. I am proud to live

in a country where that is ancient history now and written is a much

more open and inclusive society. -- Britain. Melanie and I would not be

here if it was not for economic migration because we are descendants

of migrants into Britain. And me. Jay is entirely correct, but I think

describing people who have concerns about the level of immigration,

speaking as the granddaughter and great-granddaughter of immigrants,

describing people with concerns about immigration in terms of dog

whistle and xenophobic is a great insult to the millions of people who

have genuine and decent concerns about this.

APPLAUSE Because, you and I both know, and

probably everyone around this table knows that immigrants bring a great

deal to the party, to the National party. They have contributed

enormously in all kinds of ways to our society, for the better. But we

are not talking about immigration in the abstract. We are talking about a

situation where if you have such large numbers coming in that public

services are simply overwhelmed, and, as somebody has said, it is

bottom heavy, so much concentrated in the south that it creates an

economic imbalance, using the cards do it. How many towns the size of

Peter Brewer or whatever have we got to construct in the next few years

to accommodate the numbers coming in? The real problem is not a

question of ethnic minorities. It is not a question of wonderful Polish

builders. We can all swap these stories. The issue is this, to do

with the European Union. The European Union's founding principle

is the free movement of labour. The European Union is founded on the

principle that basically national boundaries have to give way for the

greater good. We can all have a discussion about that founding

principle, but the fact is that the countries of the European Union are

variously in difficulties over this principle. Chancellor Angela Merkel

said today, freedom of movement remains one of the greatest

achievements of the EU and should be preserved. So it's not going to

change. This is the problem with being a member of the European

Union. Mr Cameron pretends that he is going to solve this while

remaining a member of the European Union. If he calls it a dog whistle,

you are whistling in the dark! I am not sure of the analogy, but I think

politicians should be honest with us. If you sign up to a club whose

founding principle is the free movement of peoples, that is the

rule you accept. If you don't want it, you have to get out. There isn't

an alternative. I think Elfyn made a very good point, that he said that

people don't want to do the job that immigrants are coming in to do. If

they don't want the job, they lose their benefits. It's as simple as

that. There was a person arguing with you. We are sending the wrong

messages with these jobs. We are educating our children that if you

start at what we class as a lower job it is not the right thing for

you. We should be saying to our children, they are jobs that you can

strive to better yourself, can learn and move on, but we are dismissing

them as jobs that are not worthwhile taking. Jobs for the Polish, in

other words. Any jobs. It is a job to move on from. In the checked

shirt at the back. It is not a matter of people not wanting to do

the jobs but the fact that they are advertised abroad and not in the UK.

Really? There has been a lot of truth in that. Under the last

government we had completely unfettered migrants coming in from

the European Union. There were agencies advertising in Poland and

other countries. We have sought to make sure we don't do that and it is

not allowed. I saw adverts today for theme park ride operators in the

mania. How did you see an advert in the mania today? I went on a

Romanian job site. On the internet. Some of you will have remembered the

scare stories put out by other political parties and you will know

it has not been the case. The reality of it is that the majority

of people, overwhelmingly, the majority of people who come to our

country come here to work and contribute. You are happy with

200,000, not worried. Let me finish. Get to the point. You want me to get

to the point you want me to make. Get to the point of the question. We

have regained control of our borders when it comes to non-EU. We have had

a significant drop in the number of people coming from non-EU countries.

We have done a good job there, particular in getting rid of the

phoney colleges, which were supposedly having people who were

students. We have done that well. We have also made sure that we have not

have the supposed flood of immigrants coming in from Romania

and Bulgaria. Those have proven to be scare stories. Just two points.

Maybe one. People are trying to make out that the British youngsters do

not want the jobs. I have got a youngster who does want a job. He

has got the same problem that this man said, the British youngsters do

want to work. The agencies are bringing in loads and loads of

people from these different countries and they are working on

contract to these companies and they do not employ them full-time.

Part-time workers are cheaper. One area that I am familiar with is

agricultural work and seasonal work like fruit picking. They said they

gave up five years ago and they could not get a workforce here which

is why the advertised abroad because people did not want the work here.

My son has a applied for three or four jobs, he is on skilled but he

cannot get a job because the agencies of filling the jobs with

remaining and Polish and various other immigrants that are coming in.

Agencies bring them over. What kind of jobs are you thinking of? I am

thinking of unskilled Labour. That is partly true. There is some truth

in what you say, sir, definitely. But there is the other side of the

coin as well. I know of many catering establishments in mid and

North Wales who cannot fall of Norma NATO get local people involved in

catering. -- love or money get local people involved. They do not want

the hour for the pay. I am not making it up. The young people from

that or Poland take the jobs. Accept that but you realise these agencies

are buying the jobs up in bulk. You made the point and the man there? I

do not think immigration is a problem. I think integration is the

problem. In this capitalist society there is competition for jobs. If

immigrants want to come over and compete for the jobs, fair game, I

do not think there is a problem with it. No problem? I wanted to return

to the comments the gentleman made earlier about his son. I see, every

day I meet young people, nearly 1 million young people are unemployed,

and we need to make sure that we do not lose another generation because

they are not getting the help they need. We have youth unemployment

falling now. The gentleman said his son needs help. What is important is

the government steps up and addresses this issue. Let me finish.

Because otherwise you end up with this false if you like, conflict.

Sometimes there is a genuine issue. I saw it during the Olympics when my

constituents, young constituents were struggling to get jobs and the

companies that were contracted did not reach out enough to local

people. We have a government that needs to take responsibility and

encourage companies to recruit locally first. So you want to stem

the flow of immigration is what you are saying? You want to stem the

flow of immigration by encouraging people to employ local Labour first

so they would be no demand for people from Bulgaria or remaining? I

am saying we need to do more to help our young people get back to work

and at the same time we have to make sure that as part of the European

Union, we have a responsibility for free movement of Labour, just as our

people can move between countries. We have a responsibility to young

people. My biggest concern is every aspect of education and health is

overcrowded. We cannot afford to have all these people coming in

here. And use there with the moustache and the beard. You can

talk all day about these different stories about immigration. The

bottom line is immigration benefits this country. It is evident that

immigration is a benefit to this country. You can scaremonger as many

people as you like, it will not work. The real reason this country

is going down is because of the bankers who take the massive bonuses

and people who do not pay tax. And the woman there. Why with an

increase in our population are we having a deep crease in our health

services? In Wales you have a problem with your health service.

And the problem you have is you have a Welsh Assembly that is not doing

the job it should be doing with your health services. They haven't met an

A targets since 2009. It is a Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly, it

is failing you, it is not spending the money, you have people on

waiting lists and I hope the people in the rest of the country look at

what Labour does with the NHS, compared with what we do in England,

you can trust the NHS in our hands, we have increased the amount of

money, the budget has gone up, I promise you that. Ever heard of mid

Staffordshire? That was not on our watch. Weight, everyone. That was

not the question but since the lady there raised it, just briefly, from

Labour's point of view, you are under constant attack in the House

of Commons for what has happened here in Wales and the way the Welsh

Assembly has cut back on the NHS. What you say? First of all, let's

look at the situation in Wales. There are 3 million people and the

Conservative Party keeps comparing the rest of the country with Wales.

There are clearly issues and the Welsh Government is dealing with

that. Let's focus on, let's look at the context. I am not going to say

that there is an improvement to make. You almost better than

anybody. -- there is not an improvement to make. Under this

government's watch, a back door privatisation effort and they do not

like to talk about what they are doing in the rest of the country but

the NHS is being decimated. Anna's parties responsible for that and she

and her party... I do not want to be unkind but obviously, I know the

more about the Welsh health service than you do. But I say that with

respect. Point number one, our colleague in Westminster has said

that at least six hospitals in Wales have disturbingly high mortality

rates and should be investigated. So far, nothing is happening. In the

First Minister's own constituency, a lady was dealt with terribly in a

hospital. Her medicine was poured away and she subsequently died. He

had known about that since 2010, 2012 are not done very much about

it. The short fact is, you may save there is only 3 million people but

the 3 million Wales deserve as good a service as anybody else.

The point is, I will give you one statistic, a snapshot, for people

waiting for surgery heart in England, there are 60 people. In

Wales, it is 185 and rising. That is not good enough. Do you agree with

all this? You feel Wales is hard done by? I think the health service

Wales is appalling. I know about it because I have worked on it and I am

a victim of it. It is absolutely outrageous. The length of the

waiting lists, the standard of care when you actually get in bed

clutches, my biggest fear is actually becoming ill and growing

old because it is appalling. Who do you blame for this? I am not a great

fan of the Welsh Assembly, I did vote against it. I think the money

that was spent to build the Senate in the beginning and the money it

takes to maintain this structure with the Assembly Members, all that

money could be going into health and education. Could I direct this

question to Rushanara? You say it is being sorted out why are people

you'll being sent to England to get treatment? It is important that the

Welsh Government text responsibility and this issue is addressed. What is

important is we recognise, the national government keeps using

Wales to divert attention from the wider problem and crisis facing the

NHS. That includes an A crisis up and down the country, in

constituencies across London, where I am based and there are big issues

for the NHS. Has the money being cut in England on the same scale as it

has in Wales? The figures suggest a 10% cut in Wales and a slight

increase in England. Though Welsh amount has declined. What is

important is we focus on recognising that our NHS and the staff in the

NHS overall should not be attacked. In Wales, A have not hit their

targets since 2009. The Welsh Assembly have the power to make a

big difference to the NHS Wales and are not using it. We have to come to

a close. A point from you, sir. Makes me laugh that you try and

blame the current government for the problems. In Wales we have a

stranglehold by the Labour Party. It is about time that Wales woke up and

stopped voting the Labour Party in. And very briefly, I will take a

point from you but it has to be quick, please. I think we have a

lackadaisical Labour government happy to blame the Tories in

Westminster and the Tories who do not give a dam about Wales because

they will not get any milage here. We need an alternative. On which

note we come to the end of our hour. Next week we will be in

Barking in East London. We will have Michael Heseltine on the panel,

Rachel Rees, Simon Hughes and Amanda Patel. A week after that we will be

in Nottingham. If you would like to come to barking or Nottingham, then

come to our website. If you are listening on radio five the debate

goes on. Here in Newport, thanks to our panel. Until next Thursday, from

all of us here, good night.