:00:17. > :00:21.welcome to Question Time. Good evening to you at home and to
:00:22. > :00:24.our audience who will be putting questions to our panel, who do not
:00:25. > :00:30.know the questions that are going to be put. Tonight, the Liberal
:00:31. > :00:34.Democrat Business Secretary, Vince Cable, Labour's former Northern
:00:35. > :00:39.Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, feminist campaign and Guardian
:00:40. > :00:43.columnist Julie Bindel, author, former fund manager and Conservative
:00:44. > :00:45.MP, Kwasi Kwarteng, and associate editor of the Sunday Times, Camilla
:00:46. > :01:04.Cavendish. So, our first question from Anthony
:01:05. > :01:14.Ward, please. Has the sale of Royal Mail been a first-class disaster for
:01:15. > :01:18.the taxpayer? Royal Mail, whose shares are worth 67% more than when
:01:19. > :01:23.they were launched shortly ago. Peter Hain, has it been a first
:01:24. > :01:29.class disaster for the taxpayer? Yes. Not only a disaster but a total
:01:30. > :01:35.scandal, because what the government has done is to nationalise the depth
:01:36. > :01:40.of the Post Office by taking on the pension fund for ?9 billion of
:01:41. > :01:46.taxpayer liability, and then sold it off at a cut-price, at a really
:01:47. > :01:52.cheap rate, quick and easy, for far less than they needed to. Having
:01:53. > :01:58.allowed the Royal Mail to start making profit, they waited for it to
:01:59. > :02:01.make profit, and then they sold it. So the taxpayers got short-changed
:02:02. > :02:09.in every possible way, and the way that it was done, with 16, a
:02:10. > :02:12.gentleman 's agreement, 16 fund managers getting the prime cut on
:02:13. > :02:16.the basis that they would become long-term stakeholders, what do they
:02:17. > :02:20.do, they immediately start selling the shares and their clients make a
:02:21. > :02:25.massive killing at the expense of us. We owned the Post Office in the
:02:26. > :02:33.first place, all of us. And then they sell it off.
:02:34. > :02:38.APPLAUSE Are you saying this was a cock up,
:02:39. > :02:42.or was it motivated, is their policy behind it?
:02:43. > :02:45.Much of what this government does is a shambles, frankly, but I do not
:02:46. > :02:49.know whether that was the reason. They were so keen to get rid of it
:02:50. > :02:54.and reward their mates in the city, that they were prepared to do it,
:02:55. > :02:57.come what may, regardless of the fact that actually we could have
:02:58. > :03:03.built a lot more hospitals and schools with that money, which have
:03:04. > :03:08.all been cut. And that is why I call it an absolute scandal. Vince Cable,
:03:09. > :03:11.you were in charge of the sale, accused of rewarding your mates in
:03:12. > :03:17.the city and of a gentleman 's agreement with 16 people who got
:03:18. > :03:22.preferential treatment. I do not have many mates in the City. We have
:03:23. > :03:25.done what the last government were planning to do, having committed
:03:26. > :03:30.themselves to bringing private capital into the Royal Mail, as we
:03:31. > :03:34.have. They backed off because the Communication Workers Union vetoed
:03:35. > :03:41.it. They were going to sell a chunk. They were going to privatise it.
:03:42. > :03:46.Still majority public ownership, actually. That was Peter
:03:47. > :03:50.Mandelson's idea. We wanted to put the Royal Mail in a position where
:03:51. > :03:56.it can compete in a very, very intensive, competitive market. It
:03:57. > :04:02.was losing market share, faced with furious competition from Corriere
:04:03. > :04:05.companies. And it has to be able to finance the universal service
:04:06. > :04:10.obligation, delivering to every house at the standard rate, six days
:04:11. > :04:15.a week. So what we determined to do was to sell a majority of shares,
:04:16. > :04:17.some of them to the public, retail, some of them to institutional
:04:18. > :04:25.investors, long-term institutional investors. And a substantial chunk,
:04:26. > :04:28.also, to the workforce. This has become a controversy this week
:04:29. > :04:31.because of the report of the National Audit Office. Their
:04:32. > :04:34.comment, which you could take as a criticism but could be treated as a
:04:35. > :04:42.compliment, is that the government was cautious. It was cautious. And
:04:43. > :04:45.it was cautious for several reasons. The sale took place under threat of
:04:46. > :04:49.a strike from the Communication Workers Union. We now know they were
:04:50. > :04:54.bluffing but we did not know at the time, and neither did the investors.
:04:55. > :05:03.So that induced caution into people buying the shares. More important,
:05:04. > :05:07.there was a memory of lots of other attempts to float shares. Facebook,
:05:08. > :05:11.the most famous brand in the world, had had a flop. Their share price
:05:12. > :05:18.had fallen by half when they tried to float a few months earlier. So
:05:19. > :05:22.did the leaning mining company. Previous attempts by different
:05:23. > :05:27.governments to sell shares, BP, Britoil, had all failed. So the
:05:28. > :05:30.people who did this in my department took the view, on independent
:05:31. > :05:35.financial advice, that they should be cautious. And they consulted 500
:05:36. > :05:42.companies as to what the price would be. And we sold at the upper end of
:05:43. > :05:48.that range. Of course, the price now is significantly higher. It may stay
:05:49. > :05:52.that way, it may not. If there is a return of industrial relations
:05:53. > :05:57.trouble it could be hit badly. If the Royal Mail is unable to compete,
:05:58. > :06:01.and it is a ferocious market, the price could drop. But it is
:06:02. > :06:04.currently strong. You blame the unions forgetting the price wrong
:06:05. > :06:09.because you say they bluffed the strike so you had to sell it cheap.
:06:10. > :06:13.I am not blaming them but it was a fact that had to be considered. One
:06:14. > :06:17.of the positive things that has come out of this, instead of having years
:06:18. > :06:20.in which the union were trying to disrupt the work of the Royal Mail,
:06:21. > :06:30.they now own a substantial chunk of it. Why is it so critical, the
:06:31. > :06:35.report? They said we were cautious. They said you could have achieved
:06:36. > :06:41.better value. They said we could have, not that we should have. They
:06:42. > :06:43.said there was a risk, had we proceeded a significantly higher
:06:44. > :06:51.price, that the whole thing would have flopped. They did say that this
:06:52. > :07:00.deep caution, the price of which was borne by the taxpayer. Anthony
:07:01. > :07:11.Ward, you asked the question, what is your view? It is very easy to be
:07:12. > :07:15.wise after the event. It is notoriously difficult to predict the
:07:16. > :07:23.future value and price people will pay for shares. It was important to
:07:24. > :07:26.have a successful sale. If Peter Hain is outraged, perhaps he could
:07:27. > :07:36.tell us why Gordon Brown sold off all our gold reserves?
:07:37. > :07:41.APPLAUSE It annoys me when you try to make
:07:42. > :07:49.political capital out of these kind of issues. Who is making political
:07:50. > :07:57.capital? Peter Hain. He is coming out with huge hindsight. Where were
:07:58. > :08:02.the arguments at the time? I think losing an estimated 1 billion, up to
:08:03. > :08:06.one and a half billion, from this sale we potentially could have had,
:08:07. > :08:12.it is not cautious, it is reckless, and the public have been shafted
:08:13. > :08:15.once again. What is really obvious to me is that the bankers are
:08:16. > :08:19.laughing all the way back to the bank, because they are the ones, of
:08:20. > :08:25.course, who, through organising this sale, have dragged in millions.
:08:26. > :08:28.Somebody made the point today that politicians make bad bankers and I
:08:29. > :08:33.think that is right. But the public have lost out on this. Every time
:08:34. > :08:37.there is one of these big sell-outs of public amenities, we know that
:08:38. > :08:41.wages are slashed, services are cut to the bone and people suffer, and
:08:42. > :08:51.we never get that back. We just have to look at the rail system. I want
:08:52. > :08:56.to get back to Anthony's point. You have made more sense than anyone on
:08:57. > :09:00.the floor of the house this week. It's very difficult to get pricing
:09:01. > :09:04.right. If the price had been too high and it had flopped, Peter Hain
:09:05. > :09:07.would be saying it was a disaster, the government had not done its
:09:08. > :09:13.homework and they completely cocked it up. As it was, the government was
:09:14. > :09:19.cautious, the price was low. We had no idea what the market would do in
:09:20. > :09:23.the last six months. The economy is getting better and the stock market
:09:24. > :09:26.has done appreciably better, but there was no way we could see that
:09:27. > :09:39.in November, October, when the sale happened. How much did they go up in
:09:40. > :09:42.the first day, the shares? 38%. But the point that Anthony makes is
:09:43. > :09:46.true. If it had flopped, there would have been an inquest and an enquiry
:09:47. > :09:52.and Peter Hain and Julie Bindel would have made the same points in
:09:53. > :09:56.the reverse way. Peter Hain, you stand accused that Gordon Brown sold
:09:57. > :10:03.the gold, so you are no wanted to, and secondly that you are using
:10:04. > :10:09.hindsight. I was opposed to the sale. That is my point. Of Royal
:10:10. > :10:16.Mail. Of Royal Mail. When we looked at doing it, selling off half of it.
:10:17. > :10:23.The other thing that worries me a great deal about this situation, and
:10:24. > :10:27.the price of a stamp is rocketing, and packets, so you will pay for it
:10:28. > :10:31.twice, having been short-changed by the sale. But the thing that worries
:10:32. > :10:35.me most, now that it has happened, is that I think the Royal Mail
:10:36. > :10:38.should have at their level playing field with the competition. A lot of
:10:39. > :10:44.the competitors do the easy to Bristol, and if it is an outlying
:10:45. > :10:49.village in Somerset, Gloucestershire or somewhere, they pop it into the
:10:50. > :10:55.Royal Mail to do the hard stuff. But Royal Mail has an obligation. They
:10:56. > :10:59.are not competing on a level playing field, they are creaming off the
:11:00. > :11:02.profitable traffic. I think what Vince Cable should do is to create a
:11:03. > :11:08.level playing field for all competitors in the Royal Mail. You
:11:09. > :11:12.said, which is a serious accusation, that he was rewarding his mates in
:11:13. > :11:17.the City. In what way were they rewarding their mates? Knowingly
:11:18. > :11:24.getting them to take shares which they knew they would then sell on
:11:25. > :11:26.and make profit? They were so ideological and dogmatically
:11:27. > :11:31.determined to sell it anyway, they did it recklessly, rather than
:11:32. > :11:35.responsibly, and they were prepared to give their mates in the City a
:11:36. > :11:42.good deal, rather than the taxpayers. That is my point. It is a
:11:43. > :11:46.bit worrying that in a few years the government is going to have to sell
:11:47. > :11:51.the banks back. If it struggles to sell an institution which is worth a
:11:52. > :11:55.couple of billion, how is it going to sell the dozens of billions,
:11:56. > :12:01.maybe hundreds of billions of shares back at a reasonable rate for the
:12:02. > :12:06.taxpayer? You are thinking the same problem. Camilla Cavendish. There is
:12:07. > :12:12.an answer, which is to sell more slowly. I think Anthony is right, it
:12:13. > :12:15.is easy to be wise after the event. It was difficult to price because
:12:16. > :12:18.the unions were threatening to strike, so I can see the
:12:19. > :12:24.difficulty. But you did not have too sold 60%. You could have sold 25%,
:12:25. > :12:28.you could have seen what the price was going to be. You could probably
:12:29. > :12:35.do the same with the banks, test the market. The NAO, you say they paid a
:12:36. > :12:42.compliment. The NAO were scathing about this sale. And the problem
:12:43. > :12:46.was, you were cautious on price but you were reckless in how much you
:12:47. > :12:51.sold, and the combination was devastating. But there is an upside.
:12:52. > :12:55.We should the upside, which is the people with money and pension funds,
:12:56. > :12:59.who I suppose is what Peter Means by the mates in the City, have done
:13:00. > :13:04.well because the pension funds all sold at ?5 50. And luckily, the
:13:05. > :13:11.postal workers who bought shares, at least they have got something out of
:13:12. > :13:14.it. Let's go to the point Camilla made about the report from the
:13:15. > :13:18.National Audit Office saying you should retain 49%, you should have
:13:19. > :13:25.kept for the taxpayer 49%. Why did you go for 30%? We had to sell
:13:26. > :13:30.enough to get the thing off the government's borrowing requirements.
:13:31. > :13:33.That was the problem. In order for the Royal Mail to survive and
:13:34. > :13:37.compete, it has to borrow in the markets and it will not get the
:13:38. > :13:42.money from the government. So it had to be a significant majority in
:13:43. > :13:49.private shares to do that. But not all at once. Peter says that somehow
:13:50. > :13:51.or other I should manipulate the amount of competition that is
:13:52. > :13:57.allowed. I am not allowed to do that. That is set by an independent
:13:58. > :14:03.regulator which the last government established, setting the rules of
:14:04. > :14:08.competition. You can ask them to change the re-met. We get this
:14:09. > :14:11.moralistic lecture on privatisation. One of the models I looked at when
:14:12. > :14:17.we decided how to do this was what the Labour government did when it
:14:18. > :14:21.did its own privatisation. They sold a defence company, for example, and
:14:22. > :14:27.after it was sold, the price increased by a factor of ten. It was
:14:28. > :14:33.ten times what they sold it for. I am not making an ideological point.
:14:34. > :14:42.How big was that? Considerably smaller than the Royal Mail. It was
:14:43. > :14:46.not a vital public service. The universal service obligation is an
:14:47. > :14:51.obligation that the new Royal Mail has to observe. And we have created
:14:52. > :14:58.a position where it can draw capital from the market and compete, and
:14:59. > :15:04.meet the social obligation. As an ordinary taxpayer, the scandal was I
:15:05. > :15:08.was only entitled to ?270 worth of shares. The big city investors who
:15:09. > :15:13.would sell them very quickly, were able to have what they wanted. I
:15:14. > :15:19.would with have invested, I did in fact have money set aside, up to
:15:20. > :15:24.?10,000 to invest. I didn't go over ?10,000, I would have got nothing.
:15:25. > :15:31.That is where the scandal was. It wasn't offered... It wasn't offered
:15:32. > :15:40.equally to the taxpayer, as it was - Not at all. Why was that? Most
:15:41. > :15:43.people would consider that a reasonable investment. He wasn't.
:15:44. > :15:49.Many of the institutional investors were not able to invest either. Can
:15:50. > :15:59.I correct you. Private investors got ?700. You got less ?200. ?270. It
:16:00. > :16:04.was oversubscribed we wanted 700,000 people to have a share. If we had
:16:05. > :16:09.allocated it all to the very wealthy investors, then small investors
:16:10. > :16:14.would not have the had anything. The wealthy investors were... They are
:16:15. > :16:16.not wealthy. Are much wealthier now than when they bought the shares. If
:16:17. > :16:20.I describe who they were. The Legal I describe who they were. The Legal
:16:21. > :16:24.General, which has hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of
:16:25. > :16:27.members, we are talking about Royal London, classic insurance companies.
:16:28. > :16:33.Talking about local authority pension funds. Several of them,
:16:34. > :16:37.Labour councils in some cases, invested their funds in the Royal
:16:38. > :16:42.Mail. These are the wicked financial institutions - What about the hedge
:16:43. > :16:47.funds? Very few hedge funds represented. The one that did buy in
:16:48. > :16:52.has disappeared. Most of these are long-term pension funds. Run? They
:16:53. > :16:55.did, actually. The people we wanted to sell to were the serious
:16:56. > :16:59.long-term investors who have the Royal Mail's interest at heart. They
:17:00. > :17:02.are still there. There is still a substantial of majority of shares
:17:03. > :17:07.held by companies of that kind. A couple more points. You, sir.
:17:08. > :17:11.Briefly, if you would. What sticks in my throat, I was unfortunate
:17:12. > :17:17.enough to go margin Ali over the limit. I was eliminated totally
:17:18. > :17:20.because Vince thought I was a city speculator, I think were the words.
:17:21. > :17:25.Never mind about that. One thing that does bother me... Serious
:17:26. > :17:30.accusation. One thing that bothers me, is it now Labour Party policy
:17:31. > :17:35.that the hundreds of thousands of loyal employees, the small
:17:36. > :17:41.shareholders in Royal Mail, and the many, many members of pension funds,
:17:42. > :17:45.should not have benefitted from this privatisation. Are you saying that
:17:46. > :17:49.no employee in a company that goes private, from the public sector
:17:50. > :17:53.should benefit? I'm not saying that. That is what you are saying? I would
:17:54. > :17:56.not have done it in the first place. They wouldn't have benefitted at
:17:57. > :18:01.all. Since the Government was determined to do it, they did it in
:18:02. > :18:05.a reckless way and shortchanged the taxpayer. That is my point. A point
:18:06. > :18:10.from you. The six energy companies are privatised and makings assive
:18:11. > :18:13.profits. The Government are doing nothing to protect the working-class
:18:14. > :18:18.people from being squeezed right at the root. They are finding it
:18:19. > :18:25.difficult to make ends meet. Why is privatisation always the best way
:18:26. > :18:28.forward? APPLAUSE
:18:29. > :18:32.As ever, you can join in this debate by text or Twitter tonight.
:18:33. > :18:49.I'm going on to another question, this from Oliver Sloane. Is it
:18:50. > :18:53.embarrassing that the Deputy Prime Minister was outclassed by Nigel
:18:54. > :19:03.Farage in last night's debate on EU membership? Yes. 27% Nick Clegg won,
:19:04. > :19:07.68% Nigel Farage won. Vince Cable, he is the leader of your party, what
:19:08. > :19:11.do you say? I think he deserves a lot of credit for showing the bottle
:19:12. > :19:14.to go out and debate this very difficult issue. The the people who
:19:15. > :19:18.actually lost were the two party leaders who couldn't be bothered and
:19:19. > :19:22.didn't want to confront the issue. The fact is, there is a lot of very
:19:23. > :19:28.eurosceptic feeling in the country. Some of it is rationally based, some
:19:29. > :19:34.of it is based on myth, someone had to confront it. On that scale do you
:19:35. > :19:38.think 68% to 27%? We don't know what they would vote before the debate
:19:39. > :19:43.started or they will vote in a referendum. Farage, to give him
:19:44. > :19:47.credit, if a very effective debater. He scored his points effectively. We
:19:48. > :19:51.acknowledge that. That merely underlines the extent of the
:19:52. > :19:55.argument that we now have to make. I mean, I spent the day in Bristol
:19:56. > :20:01.talking to manufacturering and other companies, and really underlining to
:20:02. > :20:07.me how many livelihoods in this area depend on the European Union. Airbus
:20:08. > :20:10.and its supply chain companies are dependant on the European Union. If
:20:11. > :20:13.question marks were put over its future, there would be serious
:20:14. > :20:18.doubts over the many jobs associated with it. I had to answer today
:20:19. > :20:23.interviews with your local press about a survey that the BBC has done
:20:24. > :20:27.in this area, which suggested that of local companies, half of them
:20:28. > :20:30.were wholly committed to the European Union and seriously
:20:31. > :20:37.concerned about the consequences of leaving. 18% were opposed. That is
:20:38. > :20:41.the balance of people who actually are providing livelihoods and jobs.
:20:42. > :20:45.We think in this country about 2.5 million, 4 million jobs are tide up
:20:46. > :20:48.directly or indirectly with the European Union. Nick Clegg deserves
:20:49. > :20:52.credit for having to take on on this debate and trying to tackle the
:20:53. > :20:59.myths. The argument is he took on the debate, but lost. You, sir. Does
:21:00. > :21:06.the panel think the three other major party leaders should have the
:21:07. > :21:10.bottle to debate with Nigel Farage? I've debated with Nigel Farage on
:21:11. > :21:14.Question Time. I disagree with him absolutely on a whole number of
:21:15. > :21:18.things, including Europe. I agree with the points that Vince has made,
:21:19. > :21:23.that for us to consider leaving Europe would be to turn our back on
:21:24. > :21:27.at least 3.5 million jobs, dependant on trade with Europe, a whole lot of
:21:28. > :21:31.other benefits that we get. Why did Nigel Farage win the debate
:21:32. > :21:37.according to all the surveys? Nigel is very good at what he does. He's a
:21:38. > :21:42.normal bloke. I don't think anybody would elect him to be Prime
:21:43. > :21:50.Minister, but he benefits from the enormous anti-politician feeling
:21:51. > :21:56.that there is. Vince and I we are disliked as a professional - we may
:21:57. > :22:00.not be as individuals, as a group we are disliked. Nigel Farage ploughs
:22:01. > :22:06.that seed effectively. He does it very well. That is one of the
:22:07. > :22:09.reasons why I think he trounsed Nick Clegg last night, not least because
:22:10. > :22:13.Nick Clegg is at the other end of the spectrum of popularity. It's not
:22:14. > :22:17.just because politicians are unpopular. It's because Nigel Farage
:22:18. > :22:21.puts his finger on something that a lot of politicians seem unwilling to
:22:22. > :22:26.really talk about, which is that we have an overcentralised, brur
:22:27. > :22:31.cattic, undemocratic EU, which has actually, because of the euro, made
:22:32. > :22:35.millions of people in Spain and Greece incredibly poor. Has not
:22:36. > :22:41.taken responsibility for that. Is not taking any action. I thought the
:22:42. > :22:47.debate last night came when someone in the audience asked - how will the
:22:48. > :22:50.EU look different in 10 years time? Nick Clegg said, I think it will
:22:51. > :22:54.look about the same. I thought, if you don't understand urgency of the
:22:55. > :22:58.question. If you don't understand what people are worried about. It
:22:59. > :23:01.doesn't mean they want to walk away. It doesn't mean they think Nigel
:23:02. > :23:06.Farage has the answers. Peter, if you don't understand. If
:23:07. > :23:08.politicians, I don't mean you personally, politicians come across
:23:09. > :23:12.as complacent not willing to address that issue, you are going to find
:23:13. > :23:17.that Nigel Farage wins every single time. I agree with you.
:23:18. > :23:25.APPLAUSE You, sir. I would like to know what
:23:26. > :23:29.the point of these debates are. Whether Nigel wins or anybody else
:23:30. > :23:32.wins the debate, unless the people are actually going to get a
:23:33. > :23:40.referendum and a say in it, what is the point of having the debate?
:23:41. > :23:46.Oliver made a great point. Nigel Farage won comprehensively that
:23:47. > :23:51.debate. 68-27 is a massive 2-1 victory. As Camilla said, he is
:23:52. > :23:56.definitely hit the popular nerve. I was a week old when the referendum
:23:57. > :24:00.happened in 75. Anyone who is 18 years older than me and younger has
:24:01. > :24:04.never actually had a say on this issue. There is a huge demand from a
:24:05. > :24:09.large section of people to finally deal with this question of the EU. I
:24:10. > :24:12.think there is a feeling that political elites in Westminster, we
:24:13. > :24:16.are guys in suits, with white shirts, and all the rest of it, are
:24:17. > :24:19.completely detached from people on this issue. Does that vote suggest
:24:20. > :24:23.to you that is how people would vote in a referendum or not? I don't
:24:24. > :24:25.think so. I think people are fair-minded and will hear the
:24:26. > :24:29.arguments when the referendum happens. There is a demand to have
:24:30. > :24:34.this debate questioned and to have a say. If we were to have a referendum
:24:35. > :24:38.tomorrow, with the anti-European propaganda that has been fed to us
:24:39. > :24:44.on a daily basis by the likes of the Daily Express, it costs us less per
:24:45. > :24:50.day than a copy of the Daily Express to be a member of the EU. I would
:24:51. > :24:53.insist upon, we all would, proper information in an accessible way to
:24:54. > :24:58.the general public about what the benefits are. Why, don't we appoint
:24:59. > :25:03.an independent research to examine what the benefits and what the
:25:04. > :25:08.issues would be. The effect on the economy and on the political system
:25:09. > :25:12.if we left the EU, which I think would be a complete disaster. We
:25:13. > :25:15.don't just make money from the EU. We have millions of jobs, a legal
:25:16. > :25:20.system that protects us. In terms of these two men debating, I think that
:25:21. > :25:29.Farage and Clegg sounded a little bit like each other. Really? I
:25:30. > :25:33.really think - Really? Not in terms of policies. If they were at public
:25:34. > :25:40.school together they might be taking their trousers down to see whose
:25:41. > :25:46.one's biggest! The woman at the back there. Yes. What worries me, if and
:25:47. > :25:51.when we get a chance to get a referendum, most people's decision
:25:52. > :25:55.will be based on who comes up with the best rhetoric on TV rather than
:25:56. > :25:59.any information that we are not currently being given. You in the
:26:00. > :26:02.fourth row. Back to the actual... Rather than talking about the
:26:03. > :26:05.political bickering about whether we should have been in and out it was
:26:06. > :26:09.Nick Clegg's performance at the debate that was particularly
:26:10. > :26:14.disappointing. The way he was so patronising to people watching,
:26:15. > :26:19.something called the Lisbon Treaty. As if no-one has ever heard of that
:26:20. > :26:23.thing. On one question - someone asked a question on public services
:26:24. > :26:27.his answer was - which she picked up on - that's the problem when you
:26:28. > :26:32.have people. Which didn't make any sense. When you tried to get an
:26:33. > :26:39.answer out of him... You, sir, in the third row. I think Nigel Farage,
:26:40. > :26:48.we should not ignore Nigel Farage he is ride what the political
:26:49. > :26:54.representative in France has been doing, she is riding high. For me,
:26:55. > :26:59.Nigel Farage is riding on what is happening on France. We should keep
:27:00. > :27:03.an eye on that. The man in front there. My question really, which
:27:04. > :27:07.nobody has answered, should there be a debate before the general election
:27:08. > :27:11.which includes Nigel Farage, no-one has answered that. Miliband said he
:27:12. > :27:15.wouldn't debate Farage in the general election in the leadership
:27:16. > :27:20.debate. Why not, what is Cameron afraid of? He was talking about the
:27:21. > :27:24.European election. In the Guardian about a general election. What he
:27:25. > :27:28.said all along. It's a matter for the broadcasters of the BBC and
:27:29. > :27:33.others to determine who should appear. Not according to the
:27:34. > :27:37.Guardian today. There are lots of debates that will involve Nigel. I
:27:38. > :27:41.have taken part in a lot of them, including on this programme. That is
:27:42. > :27:45.absolutely right. This programme is a discussion programme, not a debate
:27:46. > :27:50.in the same way. The question is he asking - should Farage be given the
:27:51. > :27:53.standing to stand alongside the Prime Minister, the leader of the
:27:54. > :27:57.Liberal Democrats and the Labour leader as an equal? That is what I'm
:27:58. > :28:00.about to come to. Nigel Farage does not have a member of parliament. The
:28:01. > :28:05.Green Party has a member of parliament. Should the Green Party's
:28:06. > :28:08.leader be on that platform as well? You are choosing who you want to be
:28:09. > :28:12.the Prime Minister. That will either be David Cameron or Ed Miliband. Why
:28:13. > :28:17.is Nick Clegg there? Because Nick Clegg is in coalition he had a big
:28:18. > :28:21.bunch of MPs, much less than the Conservatives and Labour.
:28:22. > :28:24.Ultimately, this is a broadcasting matser. It's not a question of being
:28:25. > :28:32.afraid to debate. This is a choice for the country as to who you want
:28:33. > :28:36.to be Prime Minister. The 15% for UKIP and 9% for the Liberal
:28:37. > :28:40.Democrats. Let's go back to the issue of the debates and we must
:28:41. > :28:45.move on. You there, on the side. I don't think he has earnt his space
:28:46. > :28:50.at the general election debate, so far they are a fringe party that
:28:51. > :28:54.have risen to prominence on one issue. The general election debate
:28:55. > :28:58.won't be on Europe. Who here can tell you what UKIP's economic
:28:59. > :29:03.policies are? How would they reform the NHS. We don't know these things.
:29:04. > :29:09.So far they are the party who are anti-everything. Until they come up
:29:10. > :29:13.with some credible alternatives he should not be at a general election
:29:14. > :29:19.debate. He hasn't earned that space right. You are right. I think the
:29:20. > :29:26.media dressed him as a cuddly teddy bear, that is why he is seen as the
:29:27. > :29:32.man of the people. He hates the working-classes, hates women,
:29:33. > :29:34.immigrants - that is why he is seen as the a member of the people. This
:29:35. > :29:47.is a nonsense. I don't agree with everything he
:29:48. > :29:54.says but to demonise him as the National Front, a hater of all these
:29:55. > :29:58.people, is absolutely wrong. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and
:29:59. > :30:06.raise taxes for the rest. He wants a flat tax of 31p. In terms of the
:30:07. > :30:11.debate, I have a clear view. I think it should be a two person debate
:30:12. > :30:15.between the people who are likely to be next prime minister, Ed Miliband
:30:16. > :30:18.and David Cameron. That is my view, because we know these are the people
:30:19. > :30:25.who are going to be prime minister after 2015. It is a binary choice.
:30:26. > :30:29.It is a straight choice and I think we should have a debate between the
:30:30. > :30:41.Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We go on to our next
:30:42. > :30:48.question. Will a monthly ?10 membership fee encourage citizens to
:30:49. > :30:51.value the NHS? A proposal by a former Labour health minister that
:30:52. > :30:56.everyone should pay ?10 per month towards the NHS. You are a nurse in
:30:57. > :31:03.the NHS. What do you think of this idea of people paying a ?10 on top
:31:04. > :31:09.of their tax for the NHS? I am wholeheartedly against that, but I
:31:10. > :31:12.do find that people are feeling demoralised in my profession and
:31:13. > :31:16.there is a general feeling that the general public are complacent about
:31:17. > :31:22.the NHS and do not appreciate it. The new boss of the NHS is on record
:31:23. > :31:25.as saying the NHS has the most sustained budget crunch in its
:31:26. > :31:29.history facing it. Camilla Cavendish, what do you think of it?
:31:30. > :31:36.It is dangerous but there are good reasons for it. The fact that the
:31:37. > :31:40.NHS is a universal service, free at the point of need, free when you
:31:41. > :31:44.really need it, is really precious and we shouldn't lose that. If we do
:31:45. > :31:45.lose that, a whole lot of things slide.
:31:46. > :31:57.APPLAUSE But I also agree with you that I
:31:58. > :32:02.think we have come to take the NHS for granted.
:32:03. > :32:06.And we think of it as free. It is not free, we are all paying for it.
:32:07. > :32:11.But because we think of it as free, there are more and more people who
:32:12. > :32:14.are abusing it. AGP rang me yesterday to complain about
:32:15. > :32:17.something I had written, and he rang because he had time because he was
:32:18. > :32:23.sitting through his third missed appointment of the day. Nurses have
:32:24. > :32:27.said to me, why don't we put the price on medicine? Why don't we tell
:32:28. > :32:33.people that the antibiotics they cannot be bothered to finish costs
:32:34. > :32:37.?30? Why don't we tell them the equipment they take home and do not
:32:38. > :32:41.bring back costs money? I think you are right, if people were more aware
:32:42. > :32:46.of the real cost of the NHS, they would value it more. I don't think
:32:47. > :32:51.the answer is to slap a ?10 charge on it. Lord Warner, who made the
:32:52. > :32:56.proposals, is a thoughtful man, a former Labour Health Secretary.
:32:57. > :33:01.There were a lot of other proposals he made. But I do think we might
:33:02. > :33:07.think about what we do when someone misses an appointment. What do we do
:33:08. > :33:14.when someone rings 999 because they have a sore throat? What do you do,
:33:15. > :33:16.find them? There are lots of doctors and nurses I have spoken to who are
:33:17. > :33:21.getting to the point where we must not lose the principle of free at
:33:22. > :33:24.the point of need, but we have to say, if you fail to show up three
:33:25. > :33:29.times in a row, there has to be a price for that. I don't know how you
:33:30. > :33:32.do it, but we need to put the value back, because otherwise we are going
:33:33. > :33:33.to find that we can't afford the NHS any longer.
:33:34. > :33:48.APPLAUSE I would agree with Camilla's point,
:33:49. > :33:50.but I think you should extend it to people going out and getting drunk
:33:51. > :33:53.on Saturday night. If they turn up at Accident
:33:54. > :33:59.Emergency, they should get an invoice for their hotel room for the
:34:00. > :34:03.night. Secondly, I am a healthy individual and I pay ?10 a month,
:34:04. > :34:09.but do I get that back in the end of the year because I have not used the
:34:10. > :34:16.NHS? Why should I be penalised, as a healthy citizen, for some people
:34:17. > :34:20.being irresponsible? You know why? Because it is a collective. We need
:34:21. > :34:24.to look after people who have made mistakes and fallen on hard times.
:34:25. > :34:33.You can't start charging everybody who makes a mistake or gets a
:34:34. > :34:39.particular disease. As I understand it, the proposal was for ?10 per
:34:40. > :34:45.visit to a GPU. I think it is a seriously bad idea and Camilla's
:34:46. > :34:48.introduction, I agreed with it. Once you start dismantling the principle
:34:49. > :34:54.of free at the point of use, the edifice starts to crumble. For a lot
:34:55. > :34:58.of people, ?10 is a lot of money and some of them have to go regularly,
:34:59. > :35:04.so they don't go, and they don't go until it is too late and the disease
:35:05. > :35:07.is too late. Others will try to avoid it by going to Accident
:35:08. > :35:11.Emergency, which is already swamped with people. We are trying to get
:35:12. > :35:16.people to GPs, not into Accident Emergency. And obviously, if people
:35:17. > :35:23.are very poor, you have to let them off, so you create a means test in
:35:24. > :35:28.the GPs surgery. Receptionists are already swimming in red tape and
:35:29. > :35:31.would then be filling in forms, so it becomes self-defeating. There is
:35:32. > :35:37.a general problem but -- about funding in the NHS. We realise that.
:35:38. > :35:41.What do you make of the points about telling people what things cost,
:35:42. > :35:47.charging them if they don't turn up, punishing people for abusing the
:35:48. > :35:52.NHS. Trying to demonstrate the value. There is already charging for
:35:53. > :35:56.certain kinds of medicine. The mechanisms are in place, but what
:35:57. > :36:01.does punishment actually mean? How do you know whether somebody has
:36:02. > :36:05.actually used the antibiotics when they take it home? I can understand
:36:06. > :36:09.the frustration of genuine medics when they are dealing with patients
:36:10. > :36:14.who do not take treatment seriously, but trying to have this policing of
:36:15. > :36:17.the system is not practical, rather like this proposal. You were nodding
:36:18. > :36:26.in approval when Camilla was talking. I remember a doctor coming
:36:27. > :36:30.into my surgery as an MP and saying that one fifth of his appointments
:36:31. > :36:35.do not show, and that is a chronic waste of his resource. It is also
:36:36. > :36:39.terrible, because sometimes people in England have to wait a month to
:36:40. > :36:44.get an appointment with their GP. Clearly, something needs to be done
:36:45. > :36:47.about that, whether it is saying, if you don't show and provide an
:36:48. > :36:53.explanation, if you ring up next time you will be at the back of the
:36:54. > :36:57.queue, or whatever. But I agree that if you start down the road of
:36:58. > :37:03.charging, it will never end, and you will hit those who need it most the
:37:04. > :37:06.hardest. One other point, I think the National Health Service needs
:37:07. > :37:11.better funding and I think it needs better funding from taxation, and it
:37:12. > :37:16.is the cheapest health provision in the world, much cheaper than
:37:17. > :37:21.America. America is private but it costs, per capita, much, much more
:37:22. > :37:27.than the National Health Service costs us per head of population. We
:37:28. > :37:29.should cherish it, and we should cherish community nurses like you
:37:30. > :37:36.and support you, not attack you the whole time and denude the service of
:37:37. > :37:44.the funding it needs. APPLAUSE
:37:45. > :37:48.The woman next to the question. I am an ex-nurse, and I would agree
:37:49. > :37:51.that it is about time that patients were aware of the costs involved,
:37:52. > :37:58.particularly medication and treatment in hospital. Also, I would
:37:59. > :38:01.happily pay ?10 to see my GP if it meant I could go at the time I
:38:02. > :38:11.wanted and I could get an appointment on the day of my choice.
:38:12. > :38:16.I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with Camilla's points but I
:38:17. > :38:19.think that would create a two tiered system where those who could afford
:38:20. > :38:22.?10 would get the best appointments, and those who can't would be
:38:23. > :38:27.waiting, and those are often the ones that are the least advantaged.
:38:28. > :38:33.I don't think you were quite saying that, were you? It is not about
:38:34. > :38:39.priority, but about getting an appointment when you need one. That
:38:40. > :38:44.is not priority, is it? I appreciate your point and I can see why you are
:38:45. > :38:48.making it. I have called and been told there is not an appointment for
:38:49. > :38:53.a week, or I have to wait all day. When you are busy, or you have
:38:54. > :38:57.childcare, it is impossible. But I still think it would set up a two
:38:58. > :39:04.tiered system where those who can afford it would get the better
:39:05. > :39:10.appointments, those that are when they want them. I do think we should
:39:11. > :39:15.appreciate the National Health Service. I do think we value it.
:39:16. > :39:19.Remember, it is ours, we pay for it. It is not free. We pay for it
:39:20. > :39:24.through prescription charges, through other ways, whether we
:39:25. > :39:28.volunteer, there are all manner of ways in which we respect our health
:39:29. > :39:33.service and it should continue. Perhaps it would be good to educate
:39:34. > :39:37.people about the cost of medicine. Maybe it would. I have dumped think
:39:38. > :39:42.tank pieces, and sometimes they get covered, sometimes they don't. -- I
:39:43. > :39:49.have done think tank pieces. What do you mean? I have written think tank
:39:50. > :39:54.pieces. Sometimes they get picked up in the media and people sometimes
:39:55. > :39:58.criticise them. What this man is trying to do, yes, it is
:39:59. > :40:02.controversial, but we have to have a mature debate about funding the NHS
:40:03. > :40:09.in the future. People are getting older. The demands on the service
:40:10. > :40:15.are increasing. If you look at age expectancy, it has risen 20 years
:40:16. > :40:20.since the NHS was founded in 1947. Clearly, there will be more and more
:40:21. > :40:25.costs. We have to think about how we are going to fund this. I completely
:40:26. > :40:28.agree with Camilla, but to rely on the old methods and think we can
:40:29. > :40:34.raise the money through more taxation is unrealistic. If you take
:40:35. > :40:37.away the appointment system and you are ill and go to the GP, you will
:40:38. > :40:43.not have anyone sat there waiting for someone to turn up. If you go,
:40:44. > :40:46.you are sick, someone is waiting to serve you when you arrive, as
:40:47. > :40:49.opposed to booking an appointment to see the GP, I would like to go today
:40:50. > :40:54.but I can't because the appointment is in three weeks. Then you don't
:40:55. > :40:56.bother to go and you end up with people becoming more unwell because
:40:57. > :41:02.they have got a little better than become worse. You prefer the system
:41:03. > :41:09.of sitting in the waiting room and taking your term. I have lived in
:41:10. > :41:17.Wales and it works there. Wales does not have the best NHS reputation
:41:18. > :41:21.today. When we are in Wales, everybody complains about the NHS.
:41:22. > :41:25.When I am in England, everybody complains about the NHS. I have an
:41:26. > :41:31.elderly relative who has just been discharged after a serious operation
:41:32. > :41:34.who has not yet seen a GP after being a month out of the hospital,
:41:35. > :41:40.and supposed to be getting care in the community which just does not
:41:41. > :41:44.exist. Before I retired, I work as a Project surveyor in hospitals. I
:41:45. > :41:50.agree that clinical costs are horrendously high. But like all
:41:51. > :41:54.large institutions, there is a mindset where it is spending other
:41:55. > :41:59.people's money and they really don't care. They think in telephone
:42:00. > :42:04.numbers. I worked in a hospital where they completed a new maternity
:42:05. > :42:08.complex. The doctor who laid out the brief realised he had not put in a
:42:09. > :42:14.recovery room for the theatres. So they ripped out half of the whole
:42:15. > :42:20.project. Your point is that big institutions always waste money. One
:42:21. > :42:23.hospital I worked in, the only time it was cured, each department was
:42:24. > :42:28.given its own budget and was not allowed to step outside that, and
:42:29. > :42:32.that brought the cost right down, when people realised how much they
:42:33. > :42:40.were spending. You think if clients of the NHS realised how expensive it
:42:41. > :42:44.was it would make a difference. I think we should resist all attempts
:42:45. > :42:47.to start charging people to see their GPs, because the only ones
:42:48. > :42:52.that are going to lose out by this are the most vulnerable, which is
:42:53. > :43:00.the very reason the NHS was set up in the first place.
:43:01. > :43:09.APPLAUSE Let's go back to domestic politics
:43:10. > :43:13.for a moment. If Maria Miller is not diligent
:43:14. > :43:24.enough to reconcile her expenses how can she stay in her job? The Culture
:43:25. > :43:27.Secretary, who had to apologise to the House of Commons, why should she
:43:28. > :43:34.keep her job if she can't get her expenses right? Obviously, we have
:43:35. > :43:40.heard a lot over the last few years about whether it is expense over
:43:41. > :43:45.claiming or fiddling. I am grateful that we have been informed in detail
:43:46. > :43:48.about the fact that so many serving members of Parliament are scamming.
:43:49. > :43:53.But there are many who are not. And I think it is disgraceful what she
:43:54. > :43:56.has done, and I think that the fact that she seems to have committed an
:43:57. > :44:01.act of fraud, whether it is criminal or not, rather than made a mistake,
:44:02. > :44:06.which definitely had happened with some of the cases, it is a real
:44:07. > :44:12.scandal. And I think the apologies we are hearing over and over again
:44:13. > :44:16.are just getting a little banal. So I want to see real accountability
:44:17. > :44:21.with all public servants. Whether or not she has committed a worse
:44:22. > :44:24.crime, if you like, than others, I don't know, but certainly it has
:44:25. > :44:28.reopened the debate and I can imagine there will be others
:44:29. > :44:34.following her. Peter Hain, you resigned as a minister over a
:44:35. > :44:41.failure to declare. It was nothing to do with parliamentary expenses.
:44:42. > :44:43.It was to do with not declaring donations to a deputy leader
:44:44. > :44:47.campaign within the time limit. I went over the time limit. When I
:44:48. > :44:51.discovered the problem I reported it and was then attacked. I thought the
:44:52. > :44:56.best thing was to resign. I cleared my name and I went back to the
:44:57. > :45:02.Cabinet. Do you think Maria Miller should do the same? It seems that
:45:03. > :45:07.some MPs were treated in one way and she seems to have been treated in
:45:08. > :45:10.another. That is the problem here. But what is also the problem is that
:45:11. > :45:15.this is a hangover from the old system. The new system that has
:45:16. > :45:20.operated since the last general election is extremely rigorous,
:45:21. > :45:26.very, very clearly policed and use and he cannot do the kind of thing
:45:27. > :45:29.that brought us all into disrepute. That minority of MPs did more to
:45:30. > :45:33.destroy a trust between the voters and politicians like me than almost
:45:34. > :45:41.anything else that has happened in the last few generations. And they
:45:42. > :45:46.deserve every attack they get. In what way has she been treated
:45:47. > :45:51.differently Labour colleagues have served prison sentences. They did
:45:52. > :45:55.illegal things and were convicted. Is I will not have a go at Maria
:45:56. > :46:01.Miller, she has been treated leniently compared to how others
:46:02. > :46:05.have been treated. The public have an enormous comtempt for politicians
:46:06. > :46:10.who scam their expenses. That is what I think. There is a problem
:46:11. > :46:14.with expenses. There is the rule of law in Britain. If you break the law
:46:15. > :46:17.there is a judicial process. People who broke the law, colleagues of
:46:18. > :46:24.ours, have been sent to jail. They have done their time. Yeah. There is
:46:25. > :46:30.no indication, no-one is suggesting that she broke the law. She was
:46:31. > :46:33.accused of something, John Mann, parliamentary colleagues on the
:46:34. > :46:39.Labour side, the investigation on John Mann what he said I understand
:46:40. > :46:44.she was exonerated. She apologised fully. People say the apology could
:46:45. > :46:47.have been longer. I think, as it stands, she should be allowed to
:46:48. > :46:51.continue in her job. Is the Immigration Minister, Mark Harper,
:46:52. > :46:55.resigned because she didn't know whether his cleaner had - Yes, I
:46:56. > :47:01.think that was very harsh. At the same time - He choose to resign. He
:47:02. > :47:05.was the Immigration Minister. It's different! There was a peculiar
:47:06. > :47:11.sensitivity about that, given the fact he was the Immigration Minister
:47:12. > :47:16.employing an illegal immigrant there was paradox. You thought his
:47:17. > :47:21.resignation... He wasn't forced to do. It he behaved honourably and
:47:22. > :47:28.handed in his resignation. Vince Cable I worry when I hear people
:47:29. > :47:32.bandingy about words like "fraud". There is a distinction between fraud
:47:33. > :47:37.and cheating and scams on the one hand, and mistakes on the other. I
:47:38. > :47:41.don't know the details of this case, the people who investigated it,
:47:42. > :47:44.there is a Parliamentary Standards group, people from each of the
:47:45. > :47:49.different parties are represented on it, who looked at this case and came
:47:50. > :47:53.to the conclusion, on the facts, that she was not involved in
:47:54. > :47:59.deliberate deception, but that there had been a mistake. Why did she have
:48:00. > :48:03.to apologise then? To for making a serious mistake. She repaid the
:48:04. > :48:09.money. There was a proper process. I mean, had she been involved in
:48:10. > :48:13.anything dishonest, and had the standards Committee found that she
:48:14. > :48:17.would have had to go and had to face police action, as some of our
:48:18. > :48:20.colleagues would. There was a clear distinction. An independent body
:48:21. > :48:26.established there was no fraud in this case. Apology was for the way
:48:27. > :48:29.that that she handled the commissioner's inquiries. That is
:48:30. > :48:32.the point. What I find depressing about this, I don't know the
:48:33. > :48:39.details, she obviously was exonerated. What I did read was that
:48:40. > :48:43.the inquiry had found that she was unco-operative. That is what
:48:44. > :48:48.depresses me about this. She may have been above board, it may have
:48:49. > :48:51.been fine... APPLAUSE
:48:52. > :48:56.You know, you have to have the grace, as a public servant, to treat
:48:57. > :49:01.these inquiries seriously. The woman there shouted out. The apology was
:49:02. > :49:04.for obstructing the investigation, that is what she was apologise
:49:05. > :49:10.guising for. What does that say about her character? Should she
:49:11. > :49:16.really be... Do you think she should have resigned? Yeah, yes, I do. On
:49:17. > :49:19.the left there. I want to get people who haven't spoken. She should have
:49:20. > :49:24.been sacked. This is black-and-white. At the end of the
:49:25. > :49:27.day, take law out of the equation, she is an MP and there is a moral
:49:28. > :49:32.grounds here for her to be sacked. There is one thing to make a mistake
:49:33. > :49:35.over a couple of months. This is over a prolonged period of time. She
:49:36. > :49:40.claimed for interest she wasn't being charged. I work in the
:49:41. > :49:48.private-sector, if I made mistakes on my expenses every month, I would
:49:49. > :49:50.be sacked. APPLAUSE
:49:51. > :49:54.You are a colleague of hers in the same party. Briefly answer that
:49:55. > :50:01.point. I want to go on to another question. She is capable minister.
:50:02. > :50:05.She is doing a very good job. She is in a moral position, she is an MP,
:50:06. > :50:10.voted in. She should be sacked. She has grounds to live up to. Going to
:50:11. > :50:13.say that the the rules she was living with at the time mean that
:50:14. > :50:17.she didn't have to live up to a certain code is irrelevant as well.
:50:18. > :50:26.She is in a role. She has a moral code to live up to. She failed that
:50:27. > :50:28.and she failed the public. APPLAUSE
:50:29. > :50:32.I know passions are strong here. I disagree with you. I don't think
:50:33. > :50:36.there was an independent inquiry. There was an independent inquiry
:50:37. > :50:39.that exonerated her. Other colleagues of mine have faced
:50:40. > :50:44.criminal charges and they have been convicted and they have been sent
:50:45. > :50:49.down to court... Sent down to jail. I don't think this is a resigning
:50:50. > :50:53.matter. You, sir, in the tie. You can't say that. Ultimately what this
:50:54. > :50:58.is about is the three of you telling us you are whiter than white. Simple
:50:59. > :51:05.as that. I'm a civil servant. If I did that, I would be sacked. We must
:51:06. > :51:10.leave this. You are saying he is right she should resign. I'm not
:51:11. > :51:14.saying she should resign or be sacked, that is a matter for others.
:51:15. > :51:18.When politicians don't pay a price, when something like this happens, it
:51:19. > :51:29.brings us into even more contempt. It does. Let us go on to another
:51:30. > :51:34.question. One more. Joseph Llewellyn has it, please. Is it a good idea
:51:35. > :51:40.for children to start school at the age of two or should we allow them
:51:41. > :51:44.to be children for a little longer? Ofsted's boss, was suggesting this
:51:45. > :51:51.today, that children should start their schooling at the age of two,
:51:52. > :51:55.Camilla, what do you think of that proposal. I have three quite small
:51:56. > :52:01.children, so I don't know how you would answer the question, I suspect
:52:02. > :52:04.by the wayer asking it, you think children should be allowed to be
:52:05. > :52:08.children. Him, he will tell you. You tell us first. I think a child being
:52:09. > :52:11.allowed to run around and play is massively important part of growing
:52:12. > :52:15.up. To make them start school at the age of two doesn't make sense to me.
:52:16. > :52:18.I have recently come out of school, I have had five years of continuous
:52:19. > :52:24.exams. It's been horrible. I hated it. To give give the contact. He
:52:25. > :52:29.said that more than two-thirds... He stressed of our poorest children in
:52:30. > :52:32.some of our poorest communities, that is eight children out of ten,
:52:33. > :52:36.go to school unprepared. They can't hold a pen. They have poor language
:52:37. > :52:40.and communication skills. They don't recognise simple numbers, and they
:52:41. > :52:45.can't use the toilet independently and so on. So it seems to be that
:52:46. > :52:49.that he is aiming at, including everybody in it? Exactly. The point
:52:50. > :52:57.is what you mean by "school"? I have a lot of time for Michael Willshaw.
:52:58. > :53:00.He did brilliant work as teacher in Hackney, what he did for
:53:01. > :53:02.disadvantaged children who before then had no hope, he is
:53:03. > :53:05.extraordinary. He is genuinely concerned about that group of
:53:06. > :53:08.children that you are talking about, David, who clearly are not getting
:53:09. > :53:12.the kind of learning that they need, which is pretty basic at that age. I
:53:13. > :53:19.don't think he is suggesting they should all sit down at tables and
:53:20. > :53:26.recite their times tables. Which would be completely ludicrous. I
:53:27. > :53:29.city on Frank Field's Early Years Foundation Trust, we are looking at
:53:30. > :53:33.the huge disadvantage that kids from certain backgrounds start with at
:53:34. > :53:37.the age of five. You know, you can't make up for that later. All the
:53:38. > :53:42.studies now show if you arrive at school without those basic things,
:53:43. > :53:46.without your basic vo calibry you are so far behind. You are overtaken
:53:47. > :53:50.so quickly by children who have a better home life and who have
:53:51. > :53:54.parents who provide those things. I think it's absolutely vital for
:53:55. > :53:59.social mobility that we look seriously at that group of children.
:54:00. > :54:02.But it's equally vital if we want to send them back to school, whatever
:54:03. > :54:05.we mean by that, we have to absolutely top quality people doing
:54:06. > :54:11.that job. I think just sort of sticking them in a factory, around a
:54:12. > :54:14.desk, certainly isn't going to work. Yes, definitely I would suggest that
:54:15. > :54:18.as a really good way forward. It would benefit parents, it would
:54:19. > :54:23.particularly benefit single parents, in the main single mothers. Those
:54:24. > :54:27.working-class children that don't have a house full of books. Parents
:54:28. > :54:32.that have the time to engage with them. Because of the stress of
:54:33. > :54:37.living on benefits, below the poverty line, ing three jobs, for
:54:38. > :54:41.whatever reason. The rich kids, the kids from middle-class backgrounds,
:54:42. > :54:46.wealthier backgrounds, should go to school with those kids from lower
:54:47. > :54:51.social groups because it's a brilliant equaliser. I think that it
:54:52. > :54:56.would be amazing for children to start mixing together across class
:54:57. > :55:00.and races and cultures at such a young age before prejudices set in
:55:01. > :55:06.and before disadvantage sets in. What do you make of the point about
:55:07. > :55:11.should we allow them to be children for longer? I would accept that. The
:55:12. > :55:17.way in which society has evolved is that the schools for two-year-olds
:55:18. > :55:21.wouldn't be fully comprehensive in the way you describe. I'm sure
:55:22. > :55:27.richer people would pay to send their children at that age to
:55:28. > :55:31.private schools. If we had a proper comprehensive system and abolished
:55:32. > :55:34.the private system then it would. Nobody is suggesting that. The
:55:35. > :55:43.former Children's Minister said today, what next, he said SATS tests
:55:44. > :55:46.for embryos? That's nonsense! Tim, has his own way of expressing
:55:47. > :55:51.himself. I think he make as good point. I don't think - He does make
:55:52. > :55:55.a good point. Don't think two-year-old children should go to
:55:56. > :56:02.school. Let me tell you. I will get to the bottom of this. Willshaw
:56:03. > :56:08.said, let's not pander to those who think children's childhoods are
:56:09. > :56:14.being toll stolen... I agree there are huge social problems that we
:56:15. > :56:18.face as a society. There is massive inequality that we face. I don't
:56:19. > :56:23.think that is solved by forcing two-year-olds, every two-year-old to
:56:24. > :56:29.go to school. I don't think... We should address social causes and not
:56:30. > :56:32.force everyone to go to school. Speak to teachers in nursery and
:56:33. > :56:36.reception classes and some even in the first year of primary school,
:56:37. > :56:41.the kids come, not even being able to go to the toilet. Not being able
:56:42. > :56:44.to hold knives and forks, let alone read a book. Not just for the
:56:45. > :56:49.reasons Julie says, which are valid in terms of very poor parents,
:56:50. > :56:52.parents need to take their responsibilities properly. I speak
:56:53. > :56:57.as a parent and a grand parent. One. Things we have to do, we are
:56:58. > :57:00.creating an enormous problem that stacks up for schools when they get
:57:01. > :57:06.into schooling unless we deal with the problem - This isn't about...
:57:07. > :57:09.APPLAUSE This isn't or shouldn't be about
:57:10. > :57:12.sending two-year-olds to formal school. There are some very good
:57:13. > :57:18.education systems in northern Europe where people don't start until six
:57:19. > :57:23.or seven. The issue, several of the panellists identified, this enormous
:57:24. > :57:28.gulf we find five or six you can predict how children will succeed or
:57:29. > :57:32.fail. Somehow or other one has to counter that disadvantage. What my
:57:33. > :57:37.side of the coalition has done done in the Government introduced a Pupil
:57:38. > :57:43.Premium, it applies in school, also applies to pre-school and helps with
:57:44. > :57:50.breakfasts or helping in nursery schools and helping those children
:57:51. > :57:53.between two and five to get up to a reasonably equally playing field
:57:54. > :57:57.when they are at school. Agree with the proposal? I agree with the
:57:58. > :58:00.proposal of helping not children. It's not sitting two-year-olds in
:58:01. > :58:05.formal classroom setting. That is not the issue. It's giving people
:58:06. > :58:09.from disadvantaged backgrounds proper help, proper support, so when
:58:10. > :58:13.they do go to school they are there on a level playing field. Time is
:58:14. > :58:19.up. We must stop. Next week, we will be in West London, Harriet Harman
:58:20. > :58:30.will be among the politicians on the panel. Sir Martin Sorree ll and
:58:31. > :58:34.Billy Brag. We will be back on 1st May in Leeds. To make a note. Next
:58:35. > :58:37.week, we will be in West London, and in Leeds three weeks away. If you
:58:38. > :58:42.would like to come to either programme, as I always say, if you
:58:43. > :58:50.can read it on your television, the address is there. #6 the telephone:
:58:51. > :58:55.number: do apply. If you are listening on 5 Live this debate goes
:58:56. > :59:00.on. As far as Bristol is concerned, this debate comes to a halt. My
:59:01. > :59:05.thanks to all of you on the panel. Thanks to you the audience here,
:59:06. > :59:09.until next Thursday, on Question Time, good night.
:59:10. > :59:17.APPLAUSE