27/03/2014 Question Time

welcome to Question Time. And good evening to you at home and

here in the audience, waiting to ask the questions of the panel, who do

not know the questions until they hear them. Tonight, the Conservative

International Development Secretary, Justine Greening. Labour's Diane

Abbott, free to rebel after her return to the backbenchers. UKIP MEP

and party spokesman on energy and industry, Roger Helmer. Chief

Executive of the high-street chain next, sitting on the Tory benches in

the House of Lords, Simon Wolfson, and singer songwriter, Mick

Hucknall. Frances Traynor has the first

question. Is the Ofgem enquiring into the big six a sign that the

delivery of energy is too important to be left to the market. -- the

enquiry. No. It is a huge mistake to assume that if you take something

away from the market that the state will do a better job of it. I think

the problem with energy is that everyone is looking at the 5%

profits that are made by the energy companies and asking, is it too

much? It might be but we might save one or 2%. They are missing the main

point, what about the other 95%? What about the cost of fuel and

generation? Here, there is a policy vacuum. This country does not know

whether it is building wind turbines, or gas stations. We have

to make up our minds. If we do that and invest as a nation, we will have

cheaper generation. We could have cheaper, cleaner energy if we

adopted gas. If we went for fracking, we could have cheaper,

cleaner energy. There are all sorts of problems, and I know I am in

Brighton, but what we must do as a nation is addressed that quickly and

decide whether we are going for fracking. Because if we do, we will

have cheaper, cleaner energy in the UK. When you say you know you are in

Brighton, I am glad. The point about Brighton being that fracking is a

big issue here. But what about the Ofgem enquiry? Is it a good idea?

There has been criticism from some companies saying it will slow down

delivery. What do you think as energy spokesman for UKIP? For a

start, I find it extremely difficult to disagree with Simon. I think the

old parties have done a brilliant job in deflecting blame from the

political leaders who have created this mess, and instead focusing

public blame on the utility companies. Simon has already said

that typically they make a return of something like 5%. I do not know

what Mix makes but I would not be surprised if it is not in the same

ballpark. If you read the accounts, they are not making outrageous

profits. There are in mind that we have run down our generating

capacity, partly because of the European Union large combustion

Plant directive, forcing us to close perfectly good coal plants. We have

the nuclear fleet coming to the end of its life which needs replacing.

We are facing a crisis situation and we need the industry to invest at

least ?100 billion in order to keep the lights on. You cannot get an

industry to invest these very large amounts of money, and at the same

time do what Labour have done, which is to propose a price freeze, and

indeed perhaps with an enquiry, and maybe we need one, but it does mean

that investment decisions will be delayed for a considerable length of

time. Diane Abbott. The question was, does the enquiry show that

energy is too important to be left to the market? I would say yes. And

the reason I would say that is because there are markets and

markets. There is a market like an open-air market where you compare

the price of apples, and there are rigged markets, cartels,

conspiracies against the public. I believe the energy companies, and

this is what Ofgem suspects, are engaged in a conspiracy against the

public. Energy prices are the second highest expenditure that families

face. Prices have shot up, gone up by about ?300. Profits for energy

companies have gone through the roof. And what we find is that when

the wholesale price of energy goes up, the energy companies put prices

up. But when it goes down, they keep prices where they are. It is not a

genuine market. It is rigged against the public and it definitely needs

an enquiry. How is it read, if SSP have frozen prices and the others

have not? This is the first time this has happened and I do not think

it is disconnected from the fact that we have had a critique of

energy prices for over 12 months. We think there should be a freeze while

it is supported out. We think it is suspicious that generally they put

prices up and down together. It is not a genuine market. It is a

cartel. APPLAUSE

I think it is good news that we have had energy companies referred to the

Competition Markets Authority. It is time we got to the bottom of

whether the competitive market is working for consumers and customers.

Do you think it is a possibility it is a cartel, acting against the

consumer? We need to find out. If it is not working, then we need to take

action necessary to make sure it does work for consumers, which is

how markets are supposed to work. Over the last decade, we have seen

fewer suppliers, so customers have had less choice. We have tried to

cut some of the taxes that get added to the bills. We tried to make

switching easier, so consumers can take advantage of the competition

that is there. But we recognise there are serious questions about

whether the market works effectively, which is what this

enquiry can get to the bottom of. The second thing is around long and

whether we are investing enough in our energy generation capacity to

make sure we can keep the lights on. That is the other key part of

this. It is good news for consumers today that we are finally going to

get the right enquiry to understand whether this market is working

effectively. If it is not, we need to take step to make sure that it

does. I find the audacity of Diane Abbott quite extraordinary. It was

her government and Ed Miliband as energy secretary that created the

cartel that are putting up energy prices. You are responsible for it,

and it is this coalition government that are sorting it out. You are not

connecting me to Tony Blair, are you, by some chance? You are part of

the same party. You voted with him. Very often I did not. Did you on

that point? Don't hold me responsible for everything the last

Labour government did. The truth is that the amount of switching has

fallen in the past few. In 2009, energy prices fell by 45%, but

household bills only fell 5%, and you are telling me it is not the

cartel. Which would be criminal, wouldn't it? If it were a cartel, it

would be criminal and people would end up in jail. I think politicians

have to be careful what they wish for, because as part of the

announcement yesterday, they also referred to the possibility of 500

voluntary redundancies. Also, the GMB union today issued a statement

where they said this review was bad for jobs, bad for investment and

would not make a scrap of difference to the consumer. It also said that

when it came to long-term energy policy, most politicians are

useless. Well, there is an argument that most politicians are useless

anyway. For the sake of this hour of Question Time, let's assume you have

a purpose. The man on the far right. There was a staggering

statement today on the five o'clock news from part of the energy

companies. He said, this investigation will deter us from

investing in gas generation. If Mr Putin turns off the gas, the lights

go out as well. Mick Hucknall. What is your view of this? If it is true

that freezing prices will mean 500 jobs lost, as the SS E say they are

going to lose, what happens when Labour coming and freeze prices,

there will be 5000 jobs lost? It is not good news about the job losses.

You have to give credit to Ed Miliband for raising the issue in

the first place, but I seem to recall that he was energy minister

when these cartels were created. So it is a little bit this, a little

bit that. The one thing I would say is that it would be nice, as a

member of the public, to see politicians actually working hard

for us to get these prices down. People are struggling and it is hard

out there. They must do everything they can to put pressure on the

energy companies to get these prices down. I am not, however, entirely

convinced about the idea of a blanket freeze that just covers

everybody, presuming that they really are all the same. I also

wonder about what the implications are regarding energy companies on

the European mainland, bearing in mind that I think the company that

provides energy for me are actually French. So I don't quite know how

that would work out, freezing it here. How does that impact mainland

Europe as well. Can I come back with an important point. Amazingly, we

think of Germany as being a wonderfully green country, but the

Germans are actually now building or refurbishing 24 new coal-fired power

stations and taking advantage of low-priced coal, because the world

price is very low. Germany and the German economy will benefit from

that. The thing that is driving up costs is green subsidies and

excessive investment in renewables that are not delivering adequately.

It is these decisions in Brussels and Westminster that are driving up

the cost, not the companies. and Westminster that are driving up

the cost, not the Coal is definitely not green energy. Also, fracking is

not clean energy either. The problem this government has is that it has

not invested in green energy, which it should do. We should take

advantage of the fact that we are an island. Other countries in Europe

are on track for supplying their whole countries with energy they

have provided themselves, which is green. And it was great news this

week that Siemens announced huge investment of the Humber that is

going to create about 1000 jobs, and it is all around offshore wind. The

biggest problem is that the same companies generate the power that

sell it to us. They should be split up and they should not be able to

sell it at an artificial high price to themselves, to then pass it onto

consumer. You can join the debate. Let's go on to a question from

Oliver Woodley. Our Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg part of Premier League

politics or a carnival sideshow? I take it this is in light of last

Mike's debate about in or out of Europe. Mick Hucknall, Nigel Farage

and Nick Clegg, are they part of Premier League politics or a

carnival sideshow? I don't know whether you saw last night. I did

see it. There is an interesting scenario taking place here because

it seems to me that at the next general election, from what we are

seeing in the polls, it is quite unlikely that either the

Conservatives or Labour will gain a majority. Therefore, they will have

to climb into bed with somebody. It seems also that the Lib Dem poll

ratings are ever diminishing and Nigel Farage is on the up. So what

would be the scenario is the scenario of labour getting into bed

with Nigel Farage, or Dave getting into bed with Nigel Farage, and how

does Nick feel about that? Do you want to stay in the bedroom,

Simon Wolfson? It depends on the nature of what goes on in the

bedroom. It is very interesting, this debate. Debate is a good

thing. Here you have two extremes. You have one party saying we must

stay in and accept whatever Europe throws at us, and the other saying

we must come straight out. The vast majority of British people, and

certainly British industry, want something down the middle. We want

to stay in the European Union, but we wanted to be about free trade,

the free movement of goods, services and capital that create jobs. We

don't want a superstate, a government of government, endless

bureaucracy, and we don't want this huge imperial structure that will

control our futures. The debate should be not at either end of the

spectrum. It should be, how are we going to make sure we change the

nature of the European Union to get the European Union that we want to

stay in, not whether we stay in or out of the one that we have got.

Why wasn't your Party Leader there last night to put those views? It is

very disappointing that the middle ground doesn't speak up. It is an

indictment of the major political parties that they have allowed the

fringe parties to take control of this issue. It is something - it is

central to the future of this country. It is something that all

the major parties should be talking about. Diane Abbott, do you think -

should Ed Miliband have been there last night, and David Cameron? I

don't know about Ed Miliband voting with Nigel Farage. What did you say,

sorry? I'm not so sure of the relevance of Ed Miliband debating

with Nigel Farage. I want to answer the question, at least, initially.

They are not a sideshow, actually. The Lib Dems, in particular, are

propping up a Tory Government. And what the debate was really about was

a process by which the Lib Dems want to fool people that they are somehow

separate from the Tories. It is a process of differentiation. People

should not forget everything you don't like about this Coalition

Government, the Lib Dems have equal responsibility. They shouldn't get

away with pretending they have become these nice, cuddly, green Lib

Dems after four years of propping up David Cameron.

Yes, you, Sir? Whatever the debate was last night, we did learn one

thing. We learnt that UKIP are against Europe. They are against

immigration. They are against gay marriage, which is an outrage. So,

what are they for? Robert Helmer? Well, in three words - freedom,

democracy and prosperity. I would love to come back on Simon's point.

I agreed with some of the things he said. The first point I would make

is that given the poll which put UKIP at the top of the list, I don't

think you can call us a fringe party. Tell us your views on

same-sex marriage? We will come to that later. Leave him alone. I'm

sure that will come up. It will all happen. The second thing I would say

- what you want is a Europe of free trade where business can trade

freely with Europe, where we are not governed centrally by undemocratic

institutions. That is what we want. The only way to deliver it is to

take Britain out of the European Union and then to negotiate a free

trade agreement and that will give you the solution. What about the

free movement of people? The free movement of people - this gentleman

said we are against immigration. We are not. I was furious when Nick

Clegg talked last night about pulling up the portcullis. Our

policy is a policy of managed immigration based on numbers na are

reasonable for our society and our welfare system and our schools and

our hospitals to support and skills. We are not interested in

nationality, colour, race, any of those issues. You can shake your

head all you want. This is how it is. I would rather have a well

qualified Indian software engineer coming here than an Eastern European

with no qualifications. That is our position and we are quite clear on

it. Answer me one question. Farage said last night that he attends the

thing, he does debate but he doesn't vote. If you don't vote, what is the

point of us voting for you? As I typically work 12 to 14-hour

days, I'm not impressed by your suggestion that we do nothing. If

you don't vote, why vote? What he said was he did not vote for more

power for the commission - and nor do I. My voting participation record

happens to be 8 .-something per cent. I have to tell you, it is

above the average for the Liberal Democrat MEPs, too. We vote in the

British interest, not in the Commission interest. Let's leave

that for a moment. Justine Greening? The question - are Farage and Clegg

a carnival sideshow? I enjoyed listening to the debate last night.

The bottom line is it is going to be a sideshow until we get the chance

to have a referendum. We can have endless debates on LBC. But we need

to give people the choice. They are on BBC next week! I am looking

forward to that. I had to tell you that. The bottom line is we have to

allow people in our country for the first time in decades the choice on

this and that's only going to happen if we can get over passing a law

through Parliament that will give people that referendum that

everybody wants. Otherwise we will never get beyond having a debate in

Question Time. The only party in Parliament who is supporting that is

the Conservative Party. There is only one Government after this

election that will allow us, allow YOU, to have that debate and that's

a Conservative Government. So we can have all the... To have the debate

or the referendum? To have the referendum. A slip of the tongue to

call it a debate. It is one of the most important debates our country

needs to have. That is why we support giving the British people

their support. The Labour Party and the Lib Dems voted against it and

that is why it is not in law today. But we will try and we will pledge

that we will have that referendum by 2017 if we are in power. I'm

interested to know. Do the majority of people in Britain want a

referendum? I don't know. What? Have a referendum. Or a Government

inquiry! The woman in blue? I don't want a referendum because I want to

stay in the EU. Hang on, you think a referendum would vote the wrong way?

I'm concerned that after decades of EU-bashing from the media, that

whether there is a referendum or not, the arguments, you know, they

are so pie yased in favour of pulling out because of the mad

straight banana stories that the press have been running and not

talking about the benefits for working parents we have got from the

EU. Justine Greening, you say you want a referendum. Would you vote to

stay in in a referendum? I will see what the position is at the time.

What we have said is we want to try and renegotiate to get a better deal

for Britain. We have been unhappy about the direction that the EU has

been going over recent years, so we need to get through that, do our

negotiation and people should have their choice. The woman in blue? I'm

one of quite a small percentage of people in this audience who had the

chance to vote because I'm a lady of a certain age. Quite honestly, I

voted for a Common Market. That's the way it was sold to me. It made

sense, I'm part of Europe, good trading agreements, friends just

across the Channel. I did not vote for what we have today. I certainly

want a referendum. How would you vote? I would - well, there's no...

Would you wait to see? I think that David Cameron is perfectly right to

try and renegotiate some of the things that the British people

aren't happy about. Once he's done that, give the people the chance to

vote. It's an insult in a democracy not to. OK. The person up there with

the red shirt on? I saw a poll that the EU was not in the top ten of

issues that are important to people coming up to the next election. Why

have a referendum on the EU but not on the other important decisions

that we elect a Government to make for us such as education, or

reforming the NHS? Why pass the buck on that one issue? I think what we

all recognise is that on the other issues - health and education -

people get chance to vote on the kind of approach they want at a

general election. As the lady said, we have had such a huge change... We

can do that anyway. If we want to come out of Europe, we can vote for

UKIP. The reason we want a referendum is because it's a

fundamental constitutional question. But you say why don't we concentrate

on British issues? The point is that Europe decides a great majority of

them. Why do we have high-energy prices? Because of the European

climate and energy package. Why do we have unemployment? That is what

you want. You can twist your argument in that way because that is

the message you are trying to put across. Simon Wolfson? What we are

seeing in Europe is a seismic shift in the democratic control, the

British people have over their Government. It is absolutely right

that on something so important, even if it doesn't poll, if a poll

doesn't notice it, it is about what is really important to this country

and its democratic future. If we are going to commit ourselves to

becoming part of the European Union super state, the people of this

country should have a choice. Simon Wolfson, do you believe in the

renegotiation, or do you think this is a way of having a referendum and

the cover is that there will be a renegotiation? You won't remember,

but the earlier referendum, Harold Wilson said there had been all these

changes. People who looked at it said there hadn't been many changes.

It was an opportunity to get a "yes" vote from the British people? I'm

optimistic about Britain's ability to change Europe. The thing that

gives me the encouragement is doing so much business on mainland Europe

and talking to businessmen and people in Europe. What we don't see

here is that a lot of the people in Europe, in Germany, in France, in

Italy, are also thinking exactly the same thing. They never voted for a

European super state. We have this one chance now to renegotiate and

turn Europe into something better. We should take it. You, Sir? If we

had a referendum in 2017 and we vote to come out of the EU, won't that be

the end of UKIP? Can I answer that gentleman's question? The gentleman

towards the back asked why have the Tories going on about this

referendum when it is not in the top ten. I will tell you why. Cameron is

being held hostage first of all by an anti-Europe bunch of backbenchers

and they are running scared of UKIP. I'm not opposed to a referendum in

principle. Our position is we won't give a referendum unless there is a

chance for a pass. If you are pro-European, you ought to be able

to think you can win. Cameron is being held hostage to a bunch of

really, I think, obsessive Tory backbenchers and men like him. It is

a cynical device to kick the issue into the long grass until after the

general election. That is completely wrong. We shall see. Let's go on to

another question. Alexander Reynolds? Is the Help to Buy Scheme

fuelling another unsustainable housing price boom? The Help to Buy

Scheme and the Government giving help to people with their mortgages.

We have also had the freedom not to take annuities and people are going

to buy houses that way, too. Mick Hucknall, you are a property owner,

in quite a big way. What do you think? Is there an unsustainable

house price boom going on in this country? I don't know. Right. Sorry

I asked! But the impression I get, the Help to Buy Scheme is at least

getting people on to the property ladder. And for somebody just

starting out to buy their first house, I can see that that is surely

a good thing. Justine Greening, what do you make of the complaints there

have been and the concerns expressed? I see the Prince of Wales

yesterday talking about the dangers of London house prices that are

rising so much that talented young individuals starting their careers

will be driven away from London? I think we have had a problem with the

level of London house prices and partly across the country. We have

had 20 years of not enough homes being built for people so we don't

have the level of supply that we need. Housing starts - we had more

houses built last year than any time since 2007, so that is coming back

on stream. By how many? It is easy to say "more" and it's a thousand or

two. How many more than 2007? We have seen 200,000 homes built.

Compared with 2007. What was the figure then We had no housing starts

by the time the recession hit. If you look at affordable housing as

well, we have seen 150,000 affordable homes built over the

course of this Parliament, more to come. And the bottom line is that is

part of it. But the fundamental issue, for lots of young people in

Britain today, they want to get on the housing ladder now. It makes

sense to help them get that deposit to be able to buy their first home.

That is what help to buy is all about. I think we are right to fix

not only the underlying problem of a lack of supply, but making sure that

young people who want to buy their home now have got the support to do

that. The Help to Buy Scheme has made sure that 50,000 people have

been able to do that. OK. We will see more over the coming months. The

question is whether there is an unsustainable housing price boom.

How is it in Brighton? The man on the back row? No, it is a woman! I

can't see which the arm is attached to! I now see it is YOUR arm? Two

things. Firstly, where are the affordable houses you are talking

about? They are not in Brighton. They are probably not in the South

East. And, secondly, there is not just a problem with buying houses,

the rent prices in Brighton are a disgrace and we have had so many

problems even trying to find a house that we can live in that's perfectly

healthy, there's such problems with mold, landlords don't do anything

about it. We have to fight to get everything dealt with. Where is the

support for people in rented accommodation? Especially

considering I'm going to be in rented accommodation for the rest of

my life because I will never be able to afford a house.

And over there on the left. You have just made the argument that the

reason house prices are going up is because there are too few homes.

There is another argument to say that there are too many people and

that demand is purely driven by the amount of people and the amount of

people that have come into the country in a very short space of

time. So a question of recent immigration. It has to have a

bearing. No one seems to want to talk about it but you can't have

millions of people arriving that need roofs over their heads. The

first thing to say is that there is no question that Help To Buy is

driving a housing bubble. This is what economists are saying, what the

Bank of England is saying. And when I say hey housing bubble, house

prices in London and the south-east are ridiculous. If in a borough like

Hackney nobody on an average wage has any hope of eyeing a house,

there is something wrong with the housing market. -- buying a house.

The idea that immigrants cause high housing prices, I do not go along

with an argument that blames immigrants for every social ill, but

there is a specific issue in London which is super wealthy non-domiciled

buyers buying homes off plan in central London, holding them empty,

driving up house prices, driving the middle classes out of the centre and

into areas like Hackney and Battersea, driving up house prices

there. So you are reaching a situation where people on average

wages cannot afford to live in zones one and two. It is not sustainable.

How do you recruit teachers and doctors in the centre of London if

they can't afford homes? The growth that this government is boasting

about is built on a housing bubble. It will necessarily pop. The problem

with this artificial housing bubble, it also affects rentals.

Rental prices in London and the south-east are ridiculous. I think

the Tories have stoked an artificial bubble to win the next general

election but we will pay the price with a broken housing market. And

did that answer your point? On the second point that Diane Abbott

raised, I agree. I know the people. I am in shipping and I know people

all around the world. There are people that buy houses and flats in

London for millions of pounds. They might visit for a couple of weeks in

the summer. In other countries they call it closed shutters. There is no

one living there. These are driving up prices. Local people should be

living in those places, not people looking at it as an investment.

Firstly, what is affordable housing? You always go on about it

but what is the price bracket? Secondly, do any of you want to live

in these houses? I never hear anything about MPs saying, I will

stay in this one. Lead by example. We used to have tax relief and now

we have Help To Buy. It is helpful that Justine tells us we are up to

200,000 each year. Commentators who understand the market are saying we

need 350,000, so we have a long way to go. It is basic economics that if

you stoked demand by helping people to have the funding but you do not

stoke up the supply, prices increase. Eventually, there is a

bigger incentive to build more houses. Diane Abbott is right about

foreign money coming into London. Much of that will be Russian money.

In that context, I was reading that the European Union has given 2.7

billion of our money over the last 20 years to the Commonwealth of

Independent States. I suspect some of that money is coming back into

the London property market, that which is not going into diesel in

the tanks of Mr Putin. But you cannot get away from the fact that

if you had substantial immigration, it increases housing demand. That is

a plain fact. You cannot have more people without more housing demand

so that is a factor. What about Help To Buy and annuities being exchanged

for buy to rent? Are those factors you would remove from the market if

you could? The idea of getting rid of the rules around and annuities is

a good idea. The question is why it has taken so long to get there. And

its affect on the housing market? It would probably be to allow money to

trickle and allow people to get on. Prices have obviously skyrocketed of

late. One thing that has not changed is stamp duty rates, which certainly

stopped a lot of people from getting on the ladder because the bill is

horrendous. So the question is, has Help To Buy caused the bubble? The

answer is that it has not caused it but it is just making it a lot

worse. What has caused it is a chronic shortage of new homes in

Great Britain. House prices going up, there is a large section of

society that owns their own homes that thinks it makes the whole

country richer. Of course, it doesn't. All that it does is make

those people who have homes richer at the expense of those who do not.

It makes the rich richer and transfers wealth from young to old,

stops people moving from north to south. It is extremely damaging. The

answer is amazingly simple. Take some of the 92% of this country that

is open land and build homes that people want to live in. I think the

gentleman made an excellent point. Don't build the homes, little boxes

that people don't want to live in. Build nice homes that people want to

live in, and do it optimistically. We have a terrible problem in this

country in that people assume that new buildings are somehow going to

be awful. They don't have to be. We can build fantastic homes. We can

break the price bubble, and we don't need Help To Buy making the

existing, encouraging people to buy overpriced houses. It is all very

well saying build, but how do you do it as a government? We need a

fundamental review of planning laws. If you look at the new housing

estates, travel on the motorways and you will pass brand-new houses built

right beside motorways. We are allocating the wrong land. If you

ask why that land has been allocated heap will say, it is no good for

agriculture because the cows will not be comfortable there. So you

want building on green belt, building on the South Downs,

building on all the places that other people would want to leave as

countryside? 1% of the country, and not the most beautiful countryside,

but the ugly flatlands. The land that is drenched in pesticide. Take

that and turn it into beautiful homes for people. Whilst I agree

with Help To Buy, I think the annuities thing has been not

involving young people in the decision to release annuities. I may

never own a house because I am only 21 and I may never be able to afford

to. If you let people with large pension savings have all of their

money to buy houses, all that I will end up doing is end up renting from

people who already have houses. I do object to that because I should have

the right to buy a house in my life. Marilyn Balmer, please. The first

gay marriage will shortly take place in Brighton. Why do we need to

change the definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of

years, when equality already exists? This coming Saturday, I think it is,

all over Britain. You said we would come to this, Roger Helmer, so what

is your view of gay marriage, and is there a need to change the

definition of marriage? It would be churlish not to send good wishes to

those who intend to tie the knot, no doubt in Brighton, at the weekend.

That said, we have to remember that there are many millions of our

fellow citizens who are deeply uncomfortable with a change to a

treasured institution which has been at the basis of society for a very

long time. Not just many millions of our fellow citizens, but also faith

groups who are extremely concerned. As a party, we opposed the change.

The change has now happened. Our concern now is the combination of

same-sex marriage and the European Conventionn on Human Rights. Because

the government has given certain assurances that faith groups will

not be obliged to conduct ceremonies which are against their conscience.

We are not content with those assurances. We are sure there will

be cases brought to the European Court and there will be rulings in

favour of same-sex marriages amongst faith communities. Yes,

anti-discrimination is a fine thing, but freedom of conscience is also a

fine thing and those principles seem to me to be in conflict in this

case. Mick Hucknall. I think of loving people that want to spend the

rest of their lives together, that it is a beautiful thing. And if they

want to show commitment by being married and being able to look at

their neighbours who are also married, then I struggle to see what

the problem is with that. It is a noble thing. The idea that you look

into someone's dies and you say, I want to spend the rest of my life

with you, I want to be married to you. Isn't that lovely? Why is that

so bad? APPLAUSE

Can we hear from Marilyn Balmer, who asked the question. I feel it is

very wrong. I am a committed Christian and I think it is against

everything that we know. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the

procreation of children. Diane Abbott, do you have sympathy with

her view? I am afraid not. I think it is a wonderful thing that people

in Brighton will be able to have same-sex marriage is a wonderful

thing that people in Brighton will be able to have same-sex marriages

this weekend. It's something I have campaigned for all my political

life. I campaigned for it when people sneered and jeered and said

it was an extremist position. And I've lived to see the notion that

who you love, you can marry become mainstream. Even the Tory Prime

Minister was supporting it. I think it is wonderful. This stuff about

the government does not own marriage, actually, marriage is a

legal concept. No one is saying the churches have to recognise same-sex

marriage. No one is saying that, and UKIP are trying to scare people. But

it is a legal concept and the government of this country is

entitled to say that people can have same-sex marriages. Why should you

love your somebody will your life and then not be able to have it on

the by the name of marriage? You talk about your conscience, but what

about people's lives, what about the people they love, what about their

relationships? I think it is one of the few things that David Cameron

pushed for that I would support him on. I campaigned for it for years

and I think it's a great thing. APPLAUSE

Just before we go to the other members of the panel, Roger Helmer,

you were talking about the complications which might ensue.

Are you yourself against the concept of gay marriage? I am very

uncomfortable with it. I don't understand the word uncomfortable.

Are you for against it? I would have voted against it, had I been in a

position to do so. Justine Greening. I think it is fantastic people of

the same-sex have the choice to get married now if they want to. I do

not see why their relationship should be less than anyone else. If

people want to make a commitment to one another that is a fantastic,

amazing thing and they should be allowed to get on and do it. I never

thought I would say this, but I totally agree with Diane Abbott. Why

did we have to go through the rigmarole of civil partnership, if

you believe in marriage? Why didn't we go straight to marriage? Why did

we start with civil partnership? When we look back, it will have been

seen as an important step on the way to true equality. But I think we did

the right thing putting the bill to parliament. Parliament voted for it

and I'm delighted that over the course of the next few days the

first same-sex marriages will be taking place. I have been invited to

one myself. The person on the left. I came out 30 years ago and I am so

proud to be a British person who is able to celebrate equal marriage,

because I think it's a wonderful achievement and I'm proud to be

British. I think it's amazing. It is well over June, but I'm very proud.

-- it is well over June. Love has no gender, colour or creed,

and for you to think about religion when it comes to love is wrong,

because love is not religion, and it's not wrong to love someone. It's

wrong to allow the Catholic church to allow people to be abused and not

be reprimanded about it. That is wrong. To love someone is not wrong.

People are murdered because they are gay across the world and I think we

should embrace love and be happy that people can embrace each other

and be free to do so. Simon? I think there's very little

to add to what the vast majority of people have already said, other than

that to the lady in the audience who said no-one owns the word

"marriage". If people love each other, it makes sense to allow them

to use the word we have had the privilege of using for many years.

This is a non-issue in this century. APPLAUSE

Marilyn Balmer put the question and said she wasn't in favour of gay

marriage. Anybody else in the audience support what Marilyn said?

We have heard a lot of talk about love. Marriage is not about love, it

is part of it. Marriage is about a child -centric institution. What do

you say when we have had the coalition for marriage, have

garnered over 660,000 signatures of people saying, "We are uncomfortable

with this, we don't want this to come in." The Government has

completely ignored a huge swathe of the population. Marriage is about

children. That is the main purpose. Why do people want the state, if two

people want to get together and we have civil partnerships, why do you

need the state to mandate your relationship? Why do you need the

state to mandate your relationship? Hold on. Answer the person sitting

next to you. Why do we have to have something different? If you accept

gay people in this country, why can't you accept us being married?

It is not - when you get married to someone, you are thinking about

making a vow to this person for the rest of my life. I want the whole

world to know that I love you. That is what it is about. It is not about

children. It's not. APPLAUSE

When you look - Robert Helmer is quite right here. When you look at

the legal implications of this, it isn't set in stone that there aren't

going to be legal challenges. I know the Church of England is

particularly worried. There are certain gay couples who are saying,

"I haven't got what I want yet, I'm going to challenge the Church of

England." We will end up seeing disestablishment. You should argue

for disestablishment on its own merits. Do you approve of gay

couples adopting children? Having children, or not? I'm not sure from

what you say. I think when it comes to the issue of children, obviously

I'm not saying that gay couples can't be good parents and can't be

good and loving parents, no, but I think there is something very wrong

about gay couples having children to order. Where you have a child, you

have a biological mother and you have a biological father. Let her

speak. When you have a child, you have a biological mother and you

have a biological father somewhere. Now, when you have a gay couple,

they are deliberately excludeing one of the child's parents and every

single child has a right to a relationship with its biological

mother and father. Alright. One more point from you, you are saying no,

no, no. I know families where there are two gay people and the parents,

the father is involved as well in the upbringing of the child. Can I

say that I have been with my partner for 32 years and I'm a member of the

Church of England. I bitterly regret that the Church of England is not

accepting gay marriage. You have a definition of marriage that has been

come over the centuries, but when it first started it was a very

different thing from what we talk about marriage now. I do not believe

that God frowns on my love for my partner. I believe God is happy.

OK. We've got time for one more question. Bruce Byrne? With the

general election over a year ago, was the recent Budget a turning

point in the fortunes of the Conservative Party? Diane Abbott,

there was a lot of criticism of Labour's response and a lot of

praise for the Chancellor and the opinion polls showed Conservative

and Labour closer rather than further apart after the Budget. Is

it a turning point in the fortunes of the Conservatives? There is no

doubt, politically, it was a very clever Budget. You have David

Cameron with people being able to cash out their pension pots. David

Cameron is bribing people with their own money, which is always clever!

In the short-term, they have got a bounce out of it. I don't think it

is a turning point. If people think about the past four years and what

this Coalition Government has done, whether it's scrapping the Education

Maintenance Allowance, whether it is the cuts on disabled people and

other benefits, if people really think about this Coalition

Government, I think there is no question about what is going to

happen on the general election. Are you a supporter of the way Ed

Miliband is preparing for this election? Are you one of those

Labour members who are rather critical of the way things are

going? I'm 101% supporter of Ed Miliband. When he comes to make

decisions about the programme we are going into the general election

with, they will be bold decisions, not nonsense. How can you say that

when last night you rebelled against the decision that he had made to

support the Tories there you are out on your own, rebel Diane Abbott once

again? I'm 101% supportive of Ed Miliband, but just occasionally

whether it's Syria, or whether it's the welfare cap, I like to give him

a nudge in the right direction. OK. Mick Hucknall, you have funded the

Labour Party, are you still a supporter of Labour Party and Ed

Miliband? We are in an interesting scenario here. Diane mentioned the

Blair administration. The Blair administration won three elections

with a massive majority because New Labour grabbed the centre ground.

Now, Ed Miliband has a problem here, now. Because the coalition has

grabbed that centre ground, you look at the polls and they are virtually

neck-and-neck. If I were Ed Miliband, I would be very worried at

this stage, in the lifetime of a Government that the opposition can

only just manage neck-and-neck. I see Ed Miliband's problem in a way.

He must be perhaps thinking that well, I can't go to the middle

ground because the coalition have got the middle ground. I can't go to

the right of the coalition, clearly, because I'm Labour. So where do I

go? So, I can see that the it would be natural for him to have to veer

towards the left. But then the problem comes whether or not a

left-wing Labour Party would ever gain a majority to get into

Government. I have news for you. Excuse me... He is not veering to

the left. If he was, I would be the first one to... He could veer to the

left. I didn't say he was. I'm trying to imagine. You would be the

first to support him if you were, is that what you were going to say? It

was. I'm trying to imagine his scenarios. If I was to look at the

polls now, I would be thinking this is not very good right now, what am

I going to do? I wouldn't be surprised towards the end, as we

come closer to the election, that he might start to try and grab some of

the centre ground back and Ed, Labour, may end up morphing into New

Labour all over again. You can't deny the success of those three

election victories. Robert Helmer? It was a clever kf budget. It was

politically astute. This coalition was created in order to resolve the

problem of the debt and they said that at least they would get rid of

the deficit by the end of the Parliament. I believe the deficit

next year is anticipated to be around ?100 billion. People get

confused between debt and deficit. Deficit means the rate of increase

of the debt so when we say the deficit next year will be ?100

billion, that means the British national debt will increase, it is

like your credit card, it is the amount you add to the credit card in

the course of a year. I'm interested by this discussion of where Labour

is going. Labour is ceasing to be the party of working people as it

used to be. It is becoming the party of the public sector, of a

Metropolitan do-gooder, leftist, elite. It is losing the traditional

working-class vote. I tell you where that working-class vote is going, I

have campaigned in Rotherham, I have talked to Labour voters and they are

coming to us. And when we have - in my dreams and on election day, that

is what is happening. More than half of our support doesn't come from

former Conservatives, it comes from Labour, even some Lib Dems and

especially from people who haven't voted for ten or 20 years and

suddenly see something that makes sense that they want to vote for.

Justine Greening? I think people can see through the Budget. We are

working to a long-term economic plan. That's meaning that the

deficit is starting to come down. It means that unemployment is coming

down. Employment is going up by 1.3 million jobs, that is 1.3 million

people who have now got a pay packet coming in at the end of every week,

month, financial security. They are seeing us invest in skills and our

schools, they are seeing us taking the steps wherever we can... Is it a

turning point? I think people are starting to see we have this

long-term economic plan, but by contrast, Labour don't have

anything. They don't know what Labour stands for. They do think Ed

Miliband's weak. They think he is politically opportunistic. George

Osborne isn't? Four years into the Parliament, when he had to stand up

and respond to George Osborne's Budget, he had nothing to say. That

is because he has no policies. The Lib Dems will benefit as well,

because this is their Budget as much as yours, yes? We worked in

coalition with the Lib Dems. We have been two parties working together to

fix the mess left by the Labour Party. We are well on track to do

that. That's an answer we have heard many times. Simon Wolfson? I don't

know if it is a turning point in political fortunes. We are at a

turning point in the economy. A very important milestone has been passed.

Wage inflation has caught up with and just overtaken inflation. For

the first time in six years, people are no longer getting poorer. That

is an amazing turning point. Now, the question for me is not what will

the Tories get elected because they have got us through the recession.

The real question is what are either party going to do about making sure

the recovery is as strong and as fair as possible? That is the

question we should be looking to David Cameron and Ed Miliband for.

What are they going to do in the next five years? I'm sorry to those

who have got your hands up. Our hour has come to an end. So that is it

for Question Time this week. Next week, we have - first, there is the

second Farage-Clegg debate which will be on BBC Two on Wednesday.

Then Question Time on Thursday comes from Bristol with Vince Cable among

our panelists. The following week, we will be in West London. So if you

can come to Bristol or West London, apply to our website -

www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. Or call the number.

If you are listening to this on Five Live, you can continue the debate on

Question Time Extra Time. From here in Brighton, my thanks to my panel.

Until next Thursday, good night.