03/04/2014 Question Time

welcome to Question Time. Good evening to you at home and to

our audience who will be putting questions to our panel, who do not

know the questions that are going to be put. Tonight, the Liberal

Democrat Business Secretary, Vince Cable, Labour's former Northern

Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, feminist campaign and Guardian

columnist Julie Bindel, author, former fund manager and Conservative

MP, Kwasi Kwarteng, and associate editor of the Sunday Times, Camilla

Cavendish. So, our first question from Anthony

Ward, please. Has the sale of Royal Mail been a first-class disaster for

the taxpayer? Royal Mail, whose shares are worth 67% more than when

they were launched shortly ago. Peter Hain, has it been a first

class disaster for the taxpayer? Yes. Not only a disaster but a total

scandal, because what the government has done is to nationalise the depth

of the Post Office by taking on the pension fund for ?9 billion of

taxpayer liability, and then sold it off at a cut-price, at a really

cheap rate, quick and easy, for far less than they needed to. Having

allowed the Royal Mail to start making profit, they waited for it to

make profit, and then they sold it. So the taxpayers got short-changed

in every possible way, and the way that it was done, with 16, a

gentleman 's agreement, 16 fund managers getting the prime cut on

the basis that they would become long-term stakeholders, what do they

do, they immediately start selling the shares and their clients make a

massive killing at the expense of us. We owned the Post Office in the

first place, all of us. And then they sell it off.

APPLAUSE Are you saying this was a cock up,

or was it motivated, is their policy behind it?

Much of what this government does is a shambles, frankly, but I do not

know whether that was the reason. They were so keen to get rid of it

and reward their mates in the city, that they were prepared to do it,

come what may, regardless of the fact that actually we could have

built a lot more hospitals and schools with that money, which have

all been cut. And that is why I call it an absolute scandal. Vince Cable,

you were in charge of the sale, accused of rewarding your mates in

the city and of a gentleman 's agreement with 16 people who got

preferential treatment. I do not have many mates in the City. We have

done what the last government were planning to do, having committed

themselves to bringing private capital into the Royal Mail, as we

have. They backed off because the Communication Workers Union vetoed

it. They were going to sell a chunk. They were going to privatise it.

Still majority public ownership, actually. That was Peter

Mandelson's idea. We wanted to put the Royal Mail in a position where

it can compete in a very, very intensive, competitive market. It

was losing market share, faced with furious competition from Corriere

companies. And it has to be able to finance the universal service

obligation, delivering to every house at the standard rate, six days

a week. So what we determined to do was to sell a majority of shares,

some of them to the public, retail, some of them to institutional

investors, long-term institutional investors. And a substantial chunk,

also, to the workforce. This has become a controversy this week

because of the report of the National Audit Office. Their

comment, which you could take as a criticism but could be treated as a

compliment, is that the government was cautious. It was cautious. And

it was cautious for several reasons. The sale took place under threat of

a strike from the Communication Workers Union. We now know they were

bluffing but we did not know at the time, and neither did the investors.

So that induced caution into people buying the shares. More important,

there was a memory of lots of other attempts to float shares. Facebook,

the most famous brand in the world, had had a flop. Their share price

had fallen by half when they tried to float a few months earlier. So

did the leaning mining company. Previous attempts by different

governments to sell shares, BP, Britoil, had all failed. So the

people who did this in my department took the view, on independent

financial advice, that they should be cautious. And they consulted 500

companies as to what the price would be. And we sold at the upper end of

that range. Of course, the price now is significantly higher. It may stay

that way, it may not. If there is a return of industrial relations

trouble it could be hit badly. If the Royal Mail is unable to compete,

and it is a ferocious market, the price could drop. But it is

currently strong. You blame the unions forgetting the price wrong

because you say they bluffed the strike so you had to sell it cheap.

I am not blaming them but it was a fact that had to be considered. One

of the positive things that has come out of this, instead of having years

in which the union were trying to disrupt the work of the Royal Mail,

they now own a substantial chunk of it. Why is it so critical, the

report? They said we were cautious. They said you could have achieved

better value. They said we could have, not that we should have. They

said there was a risk, had we proceeded a significantly higher

price, that the whole thing would have flopped. They did say that this

deep caution, the price of which was borne by the taxpayer. Anthony

Ward, you asked the question, what is your view? It is very easy to be

wise after the event. It is notoriously difficult to predict the

future value and price people will pay for shares. It was important to

have a successful sale. If Peter Hain is outraged, perhaps he could

tell us why Gordon Brown sold off all our gold reserves?

APPLAUSE It annoys me when you try to make

political capital out of these kind of issues. Who is making political

capital? Peter Hain. He is coming out with huge hindsight. Where were

the arguments at the time? I think losing an estimated 1 billion, up to

one and a half billion, from this sale we potentially could have had,

it is not cautious, it is reckless, and the public have been shafted

once again. What is really obvious to me is that the bankers are

laughing all the way back to the bank, because they are the ones, of

course, who, through organising this sale, have dragged in millions.

Somebody made the point today that politicians make bad bankers and I

think that is right. But the public have lost out on this. Every time

there is one of these big sell-outs of public amenities, we know that

wages are slashed, services are cut to the bone and people suffer, and

we never get that back. We just have to look at the rail system. I want

to get back to Anthony's point. You have made more sense than anyone on

the floor of the house this week. It's very difficult to get pricing

right. If the price had been too high and it had flopped, Peter Hain

would be saying it was a disaster, the government had not done its

homework and they completely cocked it up. As it was, the government was

cautious, the price was low. We had no idea what the market would do in

the last six months. The economy is getting better and the stock market

has done appreciably better, but there was no way we could see that

in November, October, when the sale happened. How much did they go up in

the first day, the shares? 38%. But the point that Anthony makes is

true. If it had flopped, there would have been an inquest and an enquiry

and Peter Hain and Julie Bindel would have made the same points in

the reverse way. Peter Hain, you stand accused that Gordon Brown sold

the gold, so you are no wanted to, and secondly that you are using

hindsight. I was opposed to the sale. That is my point. Of Royal

Mail. Of Royal Mail. When we looked at doing it, selling off half of it.

The other thing that worries me a great deal about this situation, and

the price of a stamp is rocketing, and packets, so you will pay for it

twice, having been short-changed by the sale. But the thing that worries

me most, now that it has happened, is that I think the Royal Mail

should have at their level playing field with the competition. A lot of

the competitors do the easy to Bristol, and if it is an outlying

village in Somerset, Gloucestershire or somewhere, they pop it into the

Royal Mail to do the hard stuff. But Royal Mail has an obligation. They

are not competing on a level playing field, they are creaming off the

profitable traffic. I think what Vince Cable should do is to create a

level playing field for all competitors in the Royal Mail. You

said, which is a serious accusation, that he was rewarding his mates in

the City. In what way were they rewarding their mates? Knowingly

getting them to take shares which they knew they would then sell on

and make profit? They were so ideological and dogmatically

determined to sell it anyway, they did it recklessly, rather than

responsibly, and they were prepared to give their mates in the City a

good deal, rather than the taxpayers. That is my point. It is a

bit worrying that in a few years the government is going to have to sell

the banks back. If it struggles to sell an institution which is worth a

couple of billion, how is it going to sell the dozens of billions,

maybe hundreds of billions of shares back at a reasonable rate for the

taxpayer? You are thinking the same problem. Camilla Cavendish. There is

an answer, which is to sell more slowly. I think Anthony is right, it

is easy to be wise after the event. It was difficult to price because

the unions were threatening to strike, so I can see the

difficulty. But you did not have too sold 60%. You could have sold 25%,

you could have seen what the price was going to be. You could probably

do the same with the banks, test the market. The NAO, you say they paid a

compliment. The NAO were scathing about this sale. And the problem

was, you were cautious on price but you were reckless in how much you

sold, and the combination was devastating. But there is an upside.

We should the upside, which is the people with money and pension funds,

who I suppose is what Peter Means by the mates in the City, have done

well because the pension funds all sold at ?5 50. And luckily, the

postal workers who bought shares, at least they have got something out of

it. Let's go to the point Camilla made about the report from the

National Audit Office saying you should retain 49%, you should have

kept for the taxpayer 49%. Why did you go for 30%? We had to sell

enough to get the thing off the government's borrowing requirements.

That was the problem. In order for the Royal Mail to survive and

compete, it has to borrow in the markets and it will not get the

money from the government. So it had to be a significant majority in

private shares to do that. But not all at once. Peter says that somehow

or other I should manipulate the amount of competition that is

allowed. I am not allowed to do that. That is set by an independent

regulator which the last government established, setting the rules of

competition. You can ask them to change the re-met. We get this

moralistic lecture on privatisation. One of the models I looked at when

we decided how to do this was what the Labour government did when it

did its own privatisation. They sold a defence company, for example, and

after it was sold, the price increased by a factor of ten. It was

ten times what they sold it for. I am not making an ideological point.

How big was that? Considerably smaller than the Royal Mail. It was

not a vital public service. The universal service obligation is an

obligation that the new Royal Mail has to observe. And we have created

a position where it can draw capital from the market and compete, and

meet the social obligation. As an ordinary taxpayer, the scandal was I

was only entitled to ?270 worth of shares. The big city investors who

would sell them very quickly, were able to have what they wanted. I

would with have invested, I did in fact have money set aside, up to

?10,000 to invest. I didn't go over ?10,000, I would have got nothing.

That is where the scandal was. It wasn't offered... It wasn't offered

equally to the taxpayer, as it was - Not at all. Why was that? Most

people would consider that a reasonable investment. He wasn't.

Many of the institutional investors were not able to invest either. Can

I correct you. Private investors got ?700. You got less ?200. ?270. It

was oversubscribed we wanted 700,000 people to have a share. If we had

allocated it all to the very wealthy investors, then small investors

would not have the had anything. The wealthy investors were... They are

not wealthy. Are much wealthier now than when they bought the shares. If

I describe who they were. The Legal I describe who they were. The Legal

General, which has hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of

members, we are talking about Royal London, classic insurance companies.

Talking about local authority pension funds. Several of them,

Labour councils in some cases, invested their funds in the Royal

Mail. These are the wicked financial institutions - What about the hedge

funds? Very few hedge funds represented. The one that did buy in

has disappeared. Most of these are long-term pension funds. Run? They

did, actually. The people we wanted to sell to were the serious

long-term investors who have the Royal Mail's interest at heart. They

are still there. There is still a substantial of majority of shares

held by companies of that kind. A couple more points. You, sir.

Briefly, if you would. What sticks in my throat, I was unfortunate

enough to go margin Ali over the limit. I was eliminated totally

because Vince thought I was a city speculator, I think were the words.

Never mind about that. One thing that does bother me... Serious

accusation. One thing that bothers me, is it now Labour Party policy

that the hundreds of thousands of loyal employees, the small

shareholders in Royal Mail, and the many, many members of pension funds,

should not have benefitted from this privatisation. Are you saying that

no employee in a company that goes private, from the public sector

should benefit? I'm not saying that. That is what you are saying? I would

not have done it in the first place. They wouldn't have benefitted at

all. Since the Government was determined to do it, they did it in

a reckless way and shortchanged the taxpayer. That is my point. A point

from you. The six energy companies are privatised and makings assive

profits. The Government are doing nothing to protect the working-class

people from being squeezed right at the root. They are finding it

difficult to make ends meet. Why is privatisation always the best way

forward? APPLAUSE

As ever, you can join in this debate by text or Twitter tonight.

I'm going on to another question, this from Oliver Sloane. Is it

embarrassing that the Deputy Prime Minister was outclassed by Nigel

Farage in last night's debate on EU membership? Yes. 27% Nick Clegg won,

68% Nigel Farage won. Vince Cable, he is the leader of your party, what

do you say? I think he deserves a lot of credit for showing the bottle

to go out and debate this very difficult issue. The the people who

actually lost were the two party leaders who couldn't be bothered and

didn't want to confront the issue. The fact is, there is a lot of very

eurosceptic feeling in the country. Some of it is rationally based, some

of it is based on myth, someone had to confront it. On that scale do you

think 68% to 27%? We don't know what they would vote before the debate

started or they will vote in a referendum. Farage, to give him

credit, if a very effective debater. He scored his points effectively. We

acknowledge that. That merely underlines the extent of the

argument that we now have to make. I mean, I spent the day in Bristol

talking to manufacturering and other companies, and really underlining to

me how many livelihoods in this area depend on the European Union. Airbus

and its supply chain companies are dependant on the European Union. If

question marks were put over its future, there would be serious

doubts over the many jobs associated with it. I had to answer today

interviews with your local press about a survey that the BBC has done

in this area, which suggested that of local companies, half of them

were wholly committed to the European Union and seriously

concerned about the consequences of leaving. 18% were opposed. That is

the balance of people who actually are providing livelihoods and jobs.

We think in this country about 2.5 million, 4 million jobs are tide up

directly or indirectly with the European Union. Nick Clegg deserves

credit for having to take on on this debate and trying to tackle the

myths. The argument is he took on the debate, but lost. You, sir. Does

the panel think the three other major party leaders should have the

bottle to debate with Nigel Farage? I've debated with Nigel Farage on

Question Time. I disagree with him absolutely on a whole number of

things, including Europe. I agree with the points that Vince has made,

that for us to consider leaving Europe would be to turn our back on

at least 3.5 million jobs, dependant on trade with Europe, a whole lot of

other benefits that we get. Why did Nigel Farage win the debate

according to all the surveys? Nigel is very good at what he does. He's a

normal bloke. I don't think anybody would elect him to be Prime

Minister, but he benefits from the enormous anti-politician feeling

that there is. Vince and I we are disliked as a professional - we may

not be as individuals, as a group we are disliked. Nigel Farage ploughs

that seed effectively. He does it very well. That is one of the

reasons why I think he trounsed Nick Clegg last night, not least because

Nick Clegg is at the other end of the spectrum of popularity. It's not

just because politicians are unpopular. It's because Nigel Farage

puts his finger on something that a lot of politicians seem unwilling to

really talk about, which is that we have an overcentralised, brur

cattic, undemocratic EU, which has actually, because of the euro, made

millions of people in Spain and Greece incredibly poor. Has not

taken responsibility for that. Is not taking any action. I thought the

debate last night came when someone in the audience asked - how will the

EU look different in 10 years time? Nick Clegg said, I think it will

look about the same. I thought, if you don't understand urgency of the

question. If you don't understand what people are worried about. It

doesn't mean they want to walk away. It doesn't mean they think Nigel

Farage has the answers. Peter, if you don't understand. If

politicians, I don't mean you personally, politicians come across

as complacent not willing to address that issue, you are going to find

that Nigel Farage wins every single time. I agree with you.

APPLAUSE You, sir. I would like to know what

the point of these debates are. Whether Nigel wins or anybody else

wins the debate, unless the people are actually going to get a

referendum and a say in it, what is the point of having the debate?

Oliver made a great point. Nigel Farage won comprehensively that

debate. 68-27 is a massive 2-1 victory. As Camilla said, he is

definitely hit the popular nerve. I was a week old when the referendum

happened in 75. Anyone who is 18 years older than me and younger has

never actually had a say on this issue. There is a huge demand from a

large section of people to finally deal with this question of the EU. I

think there is a feeling that political elites in Westminster, we

are guys in suits, with white shirts, and all the rest of it, are

completely detached from people on this issue. Does that vote suggest

to you that is how people would vote in a referendum or not? I don't

think so. I think people are fair-minded and will hear the

arguments when the referendum happens. There is a demand to have

this debate questioned and to have a say. If we were to have a referendum

tomorrow, with the anti-European propaganda that has been fed to us

on a daily basis by the likes of the Daily Express, it costs us less per

day than a copy of the Daily Express to be a member of the EU. I would

insist upon, we all would, proper information in an accessible way to

the general public about what the benefits are. Why, don't we appoint

an independent research to examine what the benefits and what the

issues would be. The effect on the economy and on the political system

if we left the EU, which I think would be a complete disaster. We

don't just make money from the EU. We have millions of jobs, a legal

system that protects us. In terms of these two men debating, I think that

Farage and Clegg sounded a little bit like each other. Really? I

really think - Really? Not in terms of policies. If they were at public

school together they might be taking their trousers down to see whose

one's biggest! The woman at the back there. Yes. What worries me, if and

when we get a chance to get a referendum, most people's decision

will be based on who comes up with the best rhetoric on TV rather than

any information that we are not currently being given. You in the

fourth row. Back to the actual... Rather than talking about the

political bickering about whether we should have been in and out it was

Nick Clegg's performance at the debate that was particularly

disappointing. The way he was so patronising to people watching,

something called the Lisbon Treaty. As if no-one has ever heard of that

thing. On one question - someone asked a question on public services

his answer was - which she picked up on - that's the problem when you

have people. Which didn't make any sense. When you tried to get an

answer out of him... You, sir, in the third row. I think Nigel Farage,

we should not ignore Nigel Farage he is ride what the political

representative in France has been doing, she is riding high. For me,

Nigel Farage is riding on what is happening on France. We should keep

an eye on that. The man in front there. My question really, which

nobody has answered, should there be a debate before the general election

which includes Nigel Farage, no-one has answered that. Miliband said he

wouldn't debate Farage in the general election in the leadership

debate. Why not, what is Cameron afraid of? He was talking about the

European election. In the Guardian about a general election. What he

said all along. It's a matter for the broadcasters of the BBC and

others to determine who should appear. Not according to the

Guardian today. There are lots of debates that will involve Nigel. I

have taken part in a lot of them, including on this programme. That is

absolutely right. This programme is a discussion programme, not a debate

in the same way. The question is he asking - should Farage be given the

standing to stand alongside the Prime Minister, the leader of the

Liberal Democrats and the Labour leader as an equal? That is what I'm

about to come to. Nigel Farage does not have a member of parliament. The

Green Party has a member of parliament. Should the Green Party's

leader be on that platform as well? You are choosing who you want to be

the Prime Minister. That will either be David Cameron or Ed Miliband. Why

is Nick Clegg there? Because Nick Clegg is in coalition he had a big

bunch of MPs, much less than the Conservatives and Labour.

Ultimately, this is a broadcasting matser. It's not a question of being

afraid to debate. This is a choice for the country as to who you want

to be Prime Minister. The 15% for UKIP and 9% for the Liberal

Democrats. Let's go back to the issue of the debates and we must

move on. You there, on the side. I don't think he has earnt his space

at the general election debate, so far they are a fringe party that

have risen to prominence on one issue. The general election debate

won't be on Europe. Who here can tell you what UKIP's economic

policies are? How would they reform the NHS. We don't know these things.

So far they are the party who are anti-everything. Until they come up

with some credible alternatives he should not be at a general election

debate. He hasn't earned that space right. You are right. I think the

media dressed him as a cuddly teddy bear, that is why he is seen as the

man of the people. He hates the working-classes, hates women,

immigrants - that is why he is seen as the a member of the people. This

is a nonsense. I don't agree with everything he

says but to demonise him as the National Front, a hater of all these

people, is absolutely wrong. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and

raise taxes for the rest. He wants a flat tax of 31p. In terms of the

debate, I have a clear view. I think it should be a two person debate

between the people who are likely to be next prime minister, Ed Miliband

and David Cameron. That is my view, because we know these are the people

who are going to be prime minister after 2015. It is a binary choice.

It is a straight choice and I think we should have a debate between the

Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We go on to our next

question. Will a monthly ?10 membership fee encourage citizens to

value the NHS? A proposal by a former Labour health minister that

everyone should pay ?10 per month towards the NHS. You are a nurse in

the NHS. What do you think of this idea of people paying a ?10 on top

of their tax for the NHS? I am wholeheartedly against that, but I

do find that people are feeling demoralised in my profession and

there is a general feeling that the general public are complacent about

the NHS and do not appreciate it. The new boss of the NHS is on record

as saying the NHS has the most sustained budget crunch in its

history facing it. Camilla Cavendish, what do you think of it?

It is dangerous but there are good reasons for it. The fact that the

NHS is a universal service, free at the point of need, free when you

really need it, is really precious and we shouldn't lose that. If we do

lose that, a whole lot of things slide.

APPLAUSE But I also agree with you that I

think we have come to take the NHS for granted.

And we think of it as free. It is not free, we are all paying for it.

But because we think of it as free, there are more and more people who

are abusing it. AGP rang me yesterday to complain about

something I had written, and he rang because he had time because he was

sitting through his third missed appointment of the day. Nurses have

said to me, why don't we put the price on medicine? Why don't we tell

people that the antibiotics they cannot be bothered to finish costs

?30? Why don't we tell them the equipment they take home and do not

bring back costs money? I think you are right, if people were more aware

of the real cost of the NHS, they would value it more. I don't think

the answer is to slap a ?10 charge on it. Lord Warner, who made the

proposals, is a thoughtful man, a former Labour Health Secretary.

There were a lot of other proposals he made. But I do think we might

think about what we do when someone misses an appointment. What do we do

when someone rings 999 because they have a sore throat? What do you do,

find them? There are lots of doctors and nurses I have spoken to who are

getting to the point where we must not lose the principle of free at

the point of need, but we have to say, if you fail to show up three

times in a row, there has to be a price for that. I don't know how you

do it, but we need to put the value back, because otherwise we are going

to find that we can't afford the NHS any longer.

APPLAUSE I would agree with Camilla's point,

but I think you should extend it to people going out and getting drunk

on Saturday night. If they turn up at Accident

Emergency, they should get an invoice for their hotel room for the

night. Secondly, I am a healthy individual and I pay ?10 a month,

but do I get that back in the end of the year because I have not used the

NHS? Why should I be penalised, as a healthy citizen, for some people

being irresponsible? You know why? Because it is a collective. We need

to look after people who have made mistakes and fallen on hard times.

You can't start charging everybody who makes a mistake or gets a

particular disease. As I understand it, the proposal was for ?10 per

visit to a GPU. I think it is a seriously bad idea and Camilla's

introduction, I agreed with it. Once you start dismantling the principle

of free at the point of use, the edifice starts to crumble. For a lot

of people, ?10 is a lot of money and some of them have to go regularly,

so they don't go, and they don't go until it is too late and the disease

is too late. Others will try to avoid it by going to Accident

Emergency, which is already swamped with people. We are trying to get

people to GPs, not into Accident Emergency. And obviously, if people

are very poor, you have to let them off, so you create a means test in

the GPs surgery. Receptionists are already swimming in red tape and

would then be filling in forms, so it becomes self-defeating. There is

a general problem but -- about funding in the NHS. We realise that.

What do you make of the points about telling people what things cost,

charging them if they don't turn up, punishing people for abusing the

NHS. Trying to demonstrate the value. There is already charging for

certain kinds of medicine. The mechanisms are in place, but what

does punishment actually mean? How do you know whether somebody has

actually used the antibiotics when they take it home? I can understand

the frustration of genuine medics when they are dealing with patients

who do not take treatment seriously, but trying to have this policing of

the system is not practical, rather like this proposal. You were nodding

in approval when Camilla was talking. I remember a doctor coming

into my surgery as an MP and saying that one fifth of his appointments

do not show, and that is a chronic waste of his resource. It is also

terrible, because sometimes people in England have to wait a month to

get an appointment with their GP. Clearly, something needs to be done

about that, whether it is saying, if you don't show and provide an

explanation, if you ring up next time you will be at the back of the

queue, or whatever. But I agree that if you start down the road of

charging, it will never end, and you will hit those who need it most the

hardest. One other point, I think the National Health Service needs

better funding and I think it needs better funding from taxation, and it

is the cheapest health provision in the world, much cheaper than

America. America is private but it costs, per capita, much, much more

than the National Health Service costs us per head of population. We

should cherish it, and we should cherish community nurses like you

and support you, not attack you the whole time and denude the service of

the funding it needs. APPLAUSE

The woman next to the question. I am an ex-nurse, and I would agree

that it is about time that patients were aware of the costs involved,

particularly medication and treatment in hospital. Also, I would

happily pay ?10 to see my GP if it meant I could go at the time I

wanted and I could get an appointment on the day of my choice.

I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with Camilla's points but I

think that would create a two tiered system where those who could afford

?10 would get the best appointments, and those who can't would be

waiting, and those are often the ones that are the least advantaged.

I don't think you were quite saying that, were you? It is not about

priority, but about getting an appointment when you need one. That

is not priority, is it? I appreciate your point and I can see why you are

making it. I have called and been told there is not an appointment for

a week, or I have to wait all day. When you are busy, or you have

childcare, it is impossible. But I still think it would set up a two

tiered system where those who can afford it would get the better

appointments, those that are when they want them. I do think we should

appreciate the National Health Service. I do think we value it.

Remember, it is ours, we pay for it. It is not free. We pay for it

through prescription charges, through other ways, whether we

volunteer, there are all manner of ways in which we respect our health

service and it should continue. Perhaps it would be good to educate

people about the cost of medicine. Maybe it would. I have dumped think

tank pieces, and sometimes they get covered, sometimes they don't. -- I

have done think tank pieces. What do you mean? I have written think tank

pieces. Sometimes they get picked up in the media and people sometimes

criticise them. What this man is trying to do, yes, it is

controversial, but we have to have a mature debate about funding the NHS

in the future. People are getting older. The demands on the service

are increasing. If you look at age expectancy, it has risen 20 years

since the NHS was founded in 1947. Clearly, there will be more and more

costs. We have to think about how we are going to fund this. I completely

agree with Camilla, but to rely on the old methods and think we can

raise the money through more taxation is unrealistic. If you take

away the appointment system and you are ill and go to the GP, you will

not have anyone sat there waiting for someone to turn up. If you go,

you are sick, someone is waiting to serve you when you arrive, as

opposed to booking an appointment to see the GP, I would like to go today

but I can't because the appointment is in three weeks. Then you don't

bother to go and you end up with people becoming more unwell because

they have got a little better than become worse. You prefer the system

of sitting in the waiting room and taking your term. I have lived in

Wales and it works there. Wales does not have the best NHS reputation

today. When we are in Wales, everybody complains about the NHS.

When I am in England, everybody complains about the NHS. I have an

elderly relative who has just been discharged after a serious operation

who has not yet seen a GP after being a month out of the hospital,

and supposed to be getting care in the community which just does not

exist. Before I retired, I work as a Project surveyor in hospitals. I

agree that clinical costs are horrendously high. But like all

large institutions, there is a mindset where it is spending other

people's money and they really don't care. They think in telephone

numbers. I worked in a hospital where they completed a new maternity

complex. The doctor who laid out the brief realised he had not put in a

recovery room for the theatres. So they ripped out half of the whole

project. Your point is that big institutions always waste money. One

hospital I worked in, the only time it was cured, each department was

given its own budget and was not allowed to step outside that, and

that brought the cost right down, when people realised how much they

were spending. You think if clients of the NHS realised how expensive it

was it would make a difference. I think we should resist all attempts

to start charging people to see their GPs, because the only ones

that are going to lose out by this are the most vulnerable, which is

the very reason the NHS was set up in the first place.

APPLAUSE Let's go back to domestic politics

for a moment. If Maria Miller is not diligent

enough to reconcile her expenses how can she stay in her job? The Culture

Secretary, who had to apologise to the House of Commons, why should she

keep her job if she can't get her expenses right? Obviously, we have

heard a lot over the last few years about whether it is expense over

claiming or fiddling. I am grateful that we have been informed in detail

about the fact that so many serving members of Parliament are scamming.

But there are many who are not. And I think it is disgraceful what she

has done, and I think that the fact that she seems to have committed an

act of fraud, whether it is criminal or not, rather than made a mistake,

which definitely had happened with some of the cases, it is a real

scandal. And I think the apologies we are hearing over and over again

are just getting a little banal. So I want to see real accountability

with all public servants. Whether or not she has committed a worse

crime, if you like, than others, I don't know, but certainly it has

reopened the debate and I can imagine there will be others

following her. Peter Hain, you resigned as a minister over a

failure to declare. It was nothing to do with parliamentary expenses.

It was to do with not declaring donations to a deputy leader

campaign within the time limit. I went over the time limit. When I

discovered the problem I reported it and was then attacked. I thought the

best thing was to resign. I cleared my name and I went back to the

Cabinet. Do you think Maria Miller should do the same? It seems that

some MPs were treated in one way and she seems to have been treated in

another. That is the problem here. But what is also the problem is that

this is a hangover from the old system. The new system that has

operated since the last general election is extremely rigorous,

very, very clearly policed and use and he cannot do the kind of thing

that brought us all into disrepute. That minority of MPs did more to

destroy a trust between the voters and politicians like me than almost

anything else that has happened in the last few generations. And they

deserve every attack they get. In what way has she been treated

differently Labour colleagues have served prison sentences. They did

illegal things and were convicted. Is I will not have a go at Maria

Miller, she has been treated leniently compared to how others

have been treated. The public have an enormous comtempt for politicians

who scam their expenses. That is what I think. There is a problem

with expenses. There is the rule of law in Britain. If you break the law

there is a judicial process. People who broke the law, colleagues of

ours, have been sent to jail. They have done their time. Yeah. There is

no indication, no-one is suggesting that she broke the law. She was

accused of something, John Mann, parliamentary colleagues on the

Labour side, the investigation on John Mann what he said I understand

she was exonerated. She apologised fully. People say the apology could

have been longer. I think, as it stands, she should be allowed to

continue in her job. Is the Immigration Minister, Mark Harper,

resigned because she didn't know whether his cleaner had - Yes, I

think that was very harsh. At the same time - He choose to resign. He

was the Immigration Minister. It's different! There was a peculiar

sensitivity about that, given the fact he was the Immigration Minister

employing an illegal immigrant there was paradox. You thought his

resignation... He wasn't forced to do. It he behaved honourably and

handed in his resignation. Vince Cable I worry when I hear people

bandingy about words like "fraud". There is a distinction between fraud

and cheating and scams on the one hand, and mistakes on the other. I

don't know the details of this case, the people who investigated it,

there is a Parliamentary Standards group, people from each of the

different parties are represented on it, who looked at this case and came

to the conclusion, on the facts, that she was not involved in

deliberate deception, but that there had been a mistake. Why did she have

to apologise then? To for making a serious mistake. She repaid the

money. There was a proper process. I mean, had she been involved in

anything dishonest, and had the standards Committee found that she

would have had to go and had to face police action, as some of our

colleagues would. There was a clear distinction. An independent body

established there was no fraud in this case. Apology was for the way

that that she handled the commissioner's inquiries. That is

the point. What I find depressing about this, I don't know the

details, she obviously was exonerated. What I did read was that

the inquiry had found that she was unco-operative. That is what

depresses me about this. She may have been above board, it may have

been fine... APPLAUSE

You know, you have to have the grace, as a public servant, to treat

these inquiries seriously. The woman there shouted out. The apology was

for obstructing the investigation, that is what she was apologise

guising for. What does that say about her character? Should she

really be... Do you think she should have resigned? Yeah, yes, I do. On

the left there. I want to get people who haven't spoken. She should have

been sacked. This is black-and-white. At the end of the

day, take law out of the equation, she is an MP and there is a moral

grounds here for her to be sacked. There is one thing to make a mistake

over a couple of months. This is over a prolonged period of time. She

claimed for interest she wasn't being charged. I work in the

private-sector, if I made mistakes on my expenses every month, I would

be sacked. APPLAUSE

You are a colleague of hers in the same party. Briefly answer that

point. I want to go on to another question. She is capable minister.

She is doing a very good job. She is in a moral position, she is an MP,

voted in. She should be sacked. She has grounds to live up to. Going to

say that the the rules she was living with at the time mean that

she didn't have to live up to a certain code is irrelevant as well.

She is in a role. She has a moral code to live up to. She failed that

and she failed the public. APPLAUSE

I know passions are strong here. I disagree with you. I don't think

there was an independent inquiry. There was an independent inquiry

that exonerated her. Other colleagues of mine have faced

criminal charges and they have been convicted and they have been sent

down to court... Sent down to jail. I don't think this is a resigning

matter. You, sir, in the tie. You can't say that. Ultimately what this

is about is the three of you telling us you are whiter than white. Simple

as that. I'm a civil servant. If I did that, I would be sacked. We must

leave this. You are saying he is right she should resign. I'm not

saying she should resign or be sacked, that is a matter for others.

When politicians don't pay a price, when something like this happens, it

brings us into even more contempt. It does. Let us go on to another

question. One more. Joseph Llewellyn has it, please. Is it a good idea

for children to start school at the age of two or should we allow them

to be children for a little longer? Ofsted's boss, was suggesting this

today, that children should start their schooling at the age of two,

Camilla, what do you think of that proposal. I have three quite small

children, so I don't know how you would answer the question, I suspect

by the wayer asking it, you think children should be allowed to be

children. Him, he will tell you. You tell us first. I think a child being

allowed to run around and play is massively important part of growing

up. To make them start school at the age of two doesn't make sense to me.

I have recently come out of school, I have had five years of continuous

exams. It's been horrible. I hated it. To give give the contact. He

said that more than two-thirds... He stressed of our poorest children in

some of our poorest communities, that is eight children out of ten,

go to school unprepared. They can't hold a pen. They have poor language

and communication skills. They don't recognise simple numbers, and they

can't use the toilet independently and so on. So it seems to be that

that he is aiming at, including everybody in it? Exactly. The point

is what you mean by "school"? I have a lot of time for Michael Willshaw.

He did brilliant work as teacher in Hackney, what he did for

disadvantaged children who before then had no hope, he is

extraordinary. He is genuinely concerned about that group of

children that you are talking about, David, who clearly are not getting

the kind of learning that they need, which is pretty basic at that age. I

don't think he is suggesting they should all sit down at tables and

recite their times tables. Which would be completely ludicrous. I

city on Frank Field's Early Years Foundation Trust, we are looking at

the huge disadvantage that kids from certain backgrounds start with at

the age of five. You know, you can't make up for that later. All the

studies now show if you arrive at school without those basic things,

without your basic vo calibry you are so far behind. You are overtaken

so quickly by children who have a better home life and who have

parents who provide those things. I think it's absolutely vital for

social mobility that we look seriously at that group of children.

But it's equally vital if we want to send them back to school, whatever

we mean by that, we have to absolutely top quality people doing

that job. I think just sort of sticking them in a factory, around a

desk, certainly isn't going to work. Yes, definitely I would suggest that

as a really good way forward. It would benefit parents, it would

particularly benefit single parents, in the main single mothers. Those

working-class children that don't have a house full of books. Parents

that have the time to engage with them. Because of the stress of

living on benefits, below the poverty line, ing three jobs, for

whatever reason. The rich kids, the kids from middle-class backgrounds,

wealthier backgrounds, should go to school with those kids from lower

social groups because it's a brilliant equaliser. I think that it

would be amazing for children to start mixing together across class

and races and cultures at such a young age before prejudices set in

and before disadvantage sets in. What do you make of the point about

should we allow them to be children for longer? I would accept that. The

way in which society has evolved is that the schools for two-year-olds

wouldn't be fully comprehensive in the way you describe. I'm sure

richer people would pay to send their children at that age to

private schools. If we had a proper comprehensive system and abolished

the private system then it would. Nobody is suggesting that. The

former Children's Minister said today, what next, he said SATS tests

for embryos? That's nonsense! Tim, has his own way of expressing

himself. I think he make as good point. I don't think - He does make

a good point. Don't think two-year-old children should go to

school. Let me tell you. I will get to the bottom of this. Willshaw

said, let's not pander to those who think children's childhoods are

being toll stolen... I agree there are huge social problems that we

face as a society. There is massive inequality that we face. I don't

think that is solved by forcing two-year-olds, every two-year-old to

go to school. I don't think... We should address social causes and not

force everyone to go to school. Speak to teachers in nursery and

reception classes and some even in the first year of primary school,

the kids come, not even being able to go to the toilet. Not being able

to hold knives and forks, let alone read a book. Not just for the

reasons Julie says, which are valid in terms of very poor parents,

parents need to take their responsibilities properly. I speak

as a parent and a grand parent. One. Things we have to do, we are

creating an enormous problem that stacks up for schools when they get

into schooling unless we deal with the problem - This isn't about...

APPLAUSE This isn't or shouldn't be about

sending two-year-olds to formal school. There are some very good

education systems in northern Europe where people don't start until six

or seven. The issue, several of the panellists identified, this enormous

gulf we find five or six you can predict how children will succeed or

fail. Somehow or other one has to counter that disadvantage. What my

side of the coalition has done done in the Government introduced a Pupil

Premium, it applies in school, also applies to pre-school and helps with

breakfasts or helping in nursery schools and helping those children

between two and five to get up to a reasonably equally playing field

when they are at school. Agree with the proposal? I agree with the

proposal of helping not children. It's not sitting two-year-olds in

formal classroom setting. That is not the issue. It's giving people

from disadvantaged backgrounds proper help, proper support, so when

they do go to school they are there on a level playing field. Time is

up. We must stop. Next week, we will be in West London, Harriet Harman

will be among the politicians on the panel. Sir Martin Sorree ll and

Billy Brag. We will be back on 1st May in Leeds. To make a note. Next

week, we will be in West London, and in Leeds three weeks away. If you

would like to come to either programme, as I always say, if you

can read it on your television, the address is there. #6 the telephone:

number: do apply. If you are listening on 5 Live this debate goes

on. As far as Bristol is concerned, this debate comes to a halt. My

thanks to all of you on the panel. Thanks to you the audience here,

until next Thursday, on Question Time, good night.

APPLAUSE