08/05/2014 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Southampton, and welcome to Question Time.

Good evening to you at home, welcome to our audience, who will be putting

questions to the panel who do not know what the questions are until

they hear them. Two weeks until the local and European elections, so we

have five politicians on the panel tonight. Conservative Party

chairman, Grant Shapps, Labour's Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka

Umunna, Liberal Democrat peer and the party's former leader in the

House of Lords, Shirley Williams, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage,

and Green Party MP and former leader of that party, Caroline Lucas.

Thank you. We begin with a question from Robert Easlick. Does the UK

need to come out of the EU to stop the flow of immigrants living in

this country? Chuka Umunna? Look, I am the son of an immigrant. I

believe immigration has brought tremendous benefits to our country.

In the wake of the war, immigrants helped to rebuild our country. Many

public services would not be able to operate where it not for immigrants

working in them. And if you look at the cultural diversity and richness

of our nation, I think immigration has bought a lot. In terms of

people's concerns, all that they ask is that we have properly controlled

borders, that we don't have people coming in and undercutting British

workers, and that they are not exploited themselves. But I

certainly don't think pulling out of the EU would be a good thing for our

economy. The EU is our nearest and biggest market and is actually the

key that unlocks the door to many of these emerging markets. And that

overrides any concerns your party may have, remembering they

apologised for what they did on immigration, on the flow of

immigrants into this country? I don't think we got everything right

from immigration. But we have gone through a difficult period as a

country, and economically it has been very difficult coming out of

the 2008-2009 crash. We have some big challenges ahead. Automation,

the use of computers, is changing the nature of jobs, and we face

challenges from India, China and other emerging markets. I don't

think pulling out of the EU is necessarily going to solve that. I

also don't think doing one of those things people sometimes do when

going through adversity, blaming the other for the problems we face, is a

way to ensure we win in the future. You have seen the latest net

migration figures which are pretty much the size of the city of

Southampton last year. Are those numbers, for you, acceptable, right?

We would like to see immigration come-down, but let's not forget, by

the way, we have around 2 million Brits living in the EU. I think we

have slightly more than that from the EU living here. But do I think

coming out of the EU is going to solve the issues we have, competing

in the world against the emerging market economies? No, I don't. To do

that, we are going to have to innovate, make sure we invest in our

science base, and we have to ensure that our people have the skills they

need to succeed in the world. I don't think pulling out of the EU is

going to solve those problems we have as a country.

APPLAUSE Nigel Farage.

It's a very good question, and the answer is, yes. Either you want to

have an immigration policy, or you don't. When I hear Chuka use the

word control, we need to control our borders, and if I hear it from

anyone else on the panel, let's be frank. We have signed up through a

series of treaties in Brussels to a total unrestricted open door. 485

million people have the right to come and live in settle in this

country. The first three arcades of our membership of Europe, no one

noticed, because we actually had roughly similar living standards,

similar education systems and health care. And then we let in, and it was

Labour that did it, a series of countries, eight countries, that had

not long been out of coming as, in many cases had not readjusted to

being the kind of countries in terms of culture that we were. We have

extended that to Romania and Bulgaria. Our minimum wage is nine

times that of Romania and now we have in the eurozone a catastrophe

in the Mediterranean, with youth unemployment at 60% in some of those

countries. The numbers we have seen from the EU already are as nothing

compared to what we will see over the next four years. My argument,

and I would not dispute that controlled immigration can be a big

net benefit to Britain, economically, culturally and

everything else, but we have no control. And we have no idea next

year whether 200,000 are coming, 500,000 are coming, 800,000 are

coming. There is nothing we can do. I would advocate that one of the

benefits of not being a member of the EU is that we get control of our

borders so we can decide who comes to Britain. We shouldn't be

discriminating against people from India and New Zealand, as we

currently do, because we have an open door to Romania and Bulgaria.

Let's have our own immigration policy and control not just the

quantity of who comes to Britain, at the quality of who comes to Britain.

APPLAUSE .

We have heard this from my jaw before. Apparently there is going to

be a catastrophe in the eurozone in the coming months and 26 million

people are going to want to come here. -- we have heard this from

Nigel. You said we would have this huge wage of people coming from the

mania and Bulgaria and that has not happened. Have you seen the

migration figures? There are five people on the panel! I am the third

person on this panel. Let's be quite honest,

person on this panel. Let's be quite dependent on some of the immigrants

who have come here. Go into any NHS hospital, go and have an operation,

look to see who the health systems are, who the doctors are. Many of

them will not be from this country. Some will be from other EU

countries, some from Commonwealth countries. Frankly, the NHS, of

which I am extremely proud, would break down without them. They have

been indispensable to it. Go into your hotels, pubs and cafes. I am

not in favour of the low wages we pay people in catering. I think it

should be at the very least the minimum wage.

should be at the very least the doing jobs we cannot get English

people to do because the pay is too poor. Are you not worried by the

numbers who come, over 200,000? It is not the numbers,

numbers who come, over 200,000? It people who come here are fitting

into jobs that we need to be done. Unemployment has not soared in the

way that Nigel and others said it would. We have relatively

way that Nigel and others said it around here and they are not worth

looking at carefully because they are exactly that, spectres.

looking at carefully because they say one other thing. Many people do

not realise that if we didn't have, for example, a steady flow of

substantial numbers of overseas students, including into Southampton

University, we would have to close one course after the other. There

aren't enough people in the technical, mathematical and economic

courses to keep them open for Brits, technical, mathematical and economic

And overseas students now pay a very substantial part of all the costs of

our universities, a much higher cost than would be met simply by tuition

fees. We would see tuition fees go up even further if we did not invite

overseas students. APPLAUSE

I will come back to you. I think the policies are wrong to

start with. Why should they be able to turn up in this country and

expect everything they can get over here? Why not have jobs that are

open to them? A bit like Australia or America, where they have a green

card. You apply for what you get when you come here. I don't have an

issue with people coming over here with the hospitals and everything.

We have a minimum wage as well. It is not one-sided. I had an extremely

ill close relative, an NHS patient, a brick. -- a Britain. He became

extremely ill last year with a serious heart condition and was

looked after absolutely brilliantly in France, and later in Italy. And

he never paid a penny because there is a common NHS card which is served

by the whole of the European Union, which means everyone of us who

travels to Europe would get what we would never get if we travel to the

United States or China. We get full health safety.

APPLAUSE Let me come back to the question.

Grant Shapps. Does the UK need to pull out of Europe to control

immigration? The answer is, we want you to be able to have a say in

this. I believe that immigration has benefited this country. I believe it

is important that people are allowed to travel around a free market which

includes people being able to move around. I am surprised to hear what

Nigel had to say. Who would be his secretary without his German wife if

there was no free movement? The question is what kind of free

movement and how far should it go? When you countries joined the EU, as

we just saw, we have been arguing when countries come in and they have

a different standard of living, there should be potential for a

longer transition period. That is exactly the sort of thing we want to

renegotiate with the EU on, and we want to put it to a referendum so

not the politicians, not Labour and the Lib Dems, who I would argue do

not want anything but to take us further into Europe, nor Nigel, who

can't deliver, but the Conservatives, who can deliver, and

we will do that by giving you an in-out referendum. Is that giving

people a say, Nigel? Why don't you tell them the truth? The question

was, do we have to put up with the EU to control immigration? He says,

I don't have an opinion and it is up to you in a referendum. We heard

that before when David Cameron promised one at the last European

elections and didn't deliver. You, along with Labour, the Lib Dems, the

Greens, the political establishment have all voted. You are the

establishment. You have been an MP for 15 years. I will tell you what,

they haven't tamed me yet. Grant, no party has been keener on the free

movement of peoples within the European Union than the

Conservatives. So much so that your leader even once Turkey to join the

European Union. Caroline Lucas, and then people with their hands up. I

am going to say is thing unusual because I agree with Nigel on one

point only. I do think people should have a say about the EU and I don't

think kicking it into the long grass, as the Conservatives are

doing, is the right thing to do. And what would your say be in a

referendum? Did you vote for it? Yes, I did, thank you. I do think we

should have an in-out referendum and if we were to have such a referendum

the Green Party would be voting to stay in. When I was thinking this

might possibly, tonight I made a note on the train of the things that

the EU has done for us. When people say, what has the EU ever done for

you, I have a view things. Providing 50% of our trade, clean beaches and

rivers, cleaner air, lead-free petrol, restrictions on dumping,

improved food protection and labelling, a ban on hormones and

other food additive -- additives. How much more? I have hardly

started. Pulling out of the EU would be a disaster. And it is a false

choice. But the thing that mix me most cross is when Nigel Farage

tries to pretend he is a man of the people, that he is

anti-establishment. If you look at the UKIP policies they are anything

but. UKIP is the party claiming lots of money from rich bankers who are

bankrolling them. Is that relevance to this question, Caroline? This is

an immigration question. I will tell you how it fits in if you will be

quiet for a second. You said you are antiestablishment. You are at the

centre of the establishment. You said you were counter to the

establishment. He actually said he had not been tamed. He will say that

he says what no one else dares to say. What I dare to say is that we

have a chronic housing shortage, an NHS under strain, a culture of low

pay, but the fault lies with the government, not with migrants.

The woman in the second row? I'd like to add to Shirley Williams'

list that the care industry also is heavily dependent on immigrants. I

have also been to Italy and been ill. I had to show my passport and

had x-rays and excellent care without paying a penny. There was

bound to be a huge period of adjustment when the new countries

joined Europe with regard to immigration. But it will settle

down, I believe. I think that making immigration the reason for leaving

Europe seems to me to be very short-sighted. I'm with you. I'd

agree with you. I would add one other thing. The countries that have

come into the EU in the last few years, like Bulgaria, Romania,

Poland, are countries that have become democracies. We should be

very proud of that fact that the concept of democracy and the rule of

law has spread throughout Europe, including Eastern Europe and Central

Europe, in a way that our grandparents would never have

believed possible. Did it need to involve free movement of people?

Yes. Why? The essence of the idea was the equality of all citizens in

the EU and above all, what was said years ago, "I want to live in a

continent where you can go from one place to the other without showing a

passport." The former Labour Foreign Secretary. You, Sir? Will anybody

admit that immigration has got out of hand? I will. He will. Hold on.

You know Nigel Farage will. Who do you want to admit it? Any of them.

Nobody's taking it on. Grant Shapps? First of all... There's too many.

Especially in Southampton! It means that millions of Brits have gone and

settled in places like Spain and France and elsewhere to work or

retire. So we have to be looking at this in the round. The idea that you

ban it one way, of course they ban it the other way. I do agree that

you have to control these things. That is why this Government has

introduced measures to make sure that you cannot now go to the front

of the housing queue if you haven't lived in an area. You can't use the

Health Service as if it is the lived in an area. You can't use the

was wrong. We have put an end to that. It is interesting to see that

because we have taken a that. It is interesting to see that

different steps that the that. It is interesting to see that

mass movement of people from Romania and Bulgaria does not appear to have

taken place. Is that because of the and Bulgaria does not appear to have

measures you took? Yes. and Bulgaria does not appear to have

things. One of the and Bulgaria does not appear to have

early on was extended and Bulgaria does not appear to have

minimum amount of time that and Bulgaria does not appear to have

had put in for transitions, we added another two years

had put in for transitions, we added between the time that

had put in for transitions, we added Bulgarians came into the EU and were

able to come here. Is the coalition getting it right where Labour got it

wrong? The things they have been doing are things that we called for,

like strengthening the habitual residence test. Sometimes the tone

like strengthening the habitual of the debate in our country has

become ugly. When people like Nigel say, "When I'm on a bus or train, I

feel awkward if I hear people speaking another language." That is

ugly. Let's have a calm and... Do you? I do. Do you not think that

ugly. Let's have a calm and... Do people coming to this country in

reasonable controlled numbers, learning English and integrating is

not important? It is very, very important, indeed.

Very important. You have completely misinterpreted

Very important. You have completely there. I haven't argued

Very important. You have completely against is letting this debate

descend into something that against is letting this debate

constituency in London, where you would hear other people talking

different languages other than English and you say that makes you

feel awkward. What you say makes me feel awkward.

Surely, the essence is about should we

Surely, the essence EU so we can

Surely, the essence argument is that unless we can

control the numbers that come in, we will not get integration, we will

get separation communities that is something that

nobody wants. Alright. You, Sir? I want to say - we are saying about

coming in or out of the EU for immigration. There are hundreds more

reasons to be doing it, for and against. I'm sort of quite proud to

say I'm only a young chap and I am just getting into politics and

enjoying it as well! The only way I can go is these decisions to go in

were made before I had a choice and the referendum gives people a chance

to redo that. It is not a bad thing to look at the balance and say all

our heads are better than one, the same as a country's way forward is

better than one party. Labour have good points. UKIP might have good

points. The Conservative Party are the only people putting forward to

give everyone a chance to choose a way forward. Well done to Caroline

for voting for the Bill when it was in front of Parliament. Shame on

Labour and the Lib Dems for not allowing this Parliament to give

people the in-out referendum. Shirley? I don't expect Grant to

remember my whole history - why should he? I was the member of the

Cabinet who resigned on the grounds that we weren't going to have a

referendum. I'm not the right one for him to pick on! Let me be

precise, though. Hang on. I want to address the

gentleman. We are getting distracted in the whole EU discussion by what

we are can only describe as issues like tossing to and fro, party views

on immigration and things of that kind. I read yesterday in the

newspaper, the American newspapers, the devastating effects of climate

change. The only people who can do anything serious about climate

change are not individual countries like the UK or Germany, or France,

it is the whole lot together. Absolutely. As they had some chance

about doing something about organise niessed crime. I -- organised crime.

I'm making this point to Nigel who I respect, he is a highly intelligent

man and great fun to have a drink with. Thank you. Let me put... That

is after the programme! Let me put one serious question to him. His

people in the European Parliament voted against a directive from the

EU to limit and stop human trafficking. Human trafficking of

children and people who were dragged into this country as semi-slaves. I

think Nigel's got to take a grip on his party because he's got some very

funny characters in it. Hang on. I'm not being rude. I want to say that.

I gave you an example that bothers me. You have pushed in Brussels and

Strasbourg the idea of justice and home affairs becoming issues that

move from the jurisdiction of the British Parliament to the European

institutions. And you can talk about people trafficking and all the rest

of it. Your party sponsored the European arrest warrant. We did.

That led to a guy from North London with no prima facie evidence being

dumped in a hell hole in Greece without facing charge. We have had

the presumption of innocence before guilt and they are the things that

you - you call yourself a Liberal Party - and you have thrown them

away. The Great Train Robber who was living for years in Spain. Caroline

Lucas? I only wanted to go back to the young man in the front row who

was saying he was enjoying getting involved in politics and wanted the

opportunity to vote on membership of the EU. The kinds of issues we have

been talking about now are the ones that need to be properly thrashed

out with people who haven't had the opportunity to have their say at the

moment. The point Shirley raises - it is vital and we need to have that

debate. This will enable us to engage people with the EU. If you

went out on the streets of Southampton and said, "What's the EU

for?" People don't know anymore. We need to reinspire a vision of what

the EU could be for. It needs a lot of reform. It needs to be

accountable. How? There are lots of easy ways. How? It wouldn't happen

if you leave, that's for sure. It is never going to reform. How can you

reform something that is based on treaties? Our audience has come here

not to just listen to you, but also to debate with you and other members

of the panel. Let's have a go. If net immigration is the size of the

city of Southampton, where are my children going to find a house to

live? Chuka Umunna? At the end of the day, the reason that we have

housing problems right now is because we have the lowest rate of

new-builds since the 1920s and, again, to go to the point that was

made earlier, we can blame all our problems on the EU, but we have to

sort them out here. That is a responsibility of Government. Can I

say something else? We are talking about whether we are in or out. If

we come out, we are still likely to have to comply with all their rules

and regulations to sell our goods. If you are on the field playing the

match, batting for Britain, you can get a good deal. You would walk off

the field! But the argument... Alright. OK. The argument... The

argument we can battle for Britain has been given light to. On 55

occasions since 1996, mostly under a Labour Government, on 55 occasions

the British Government have said we are going to fight hard against this

directive and we have lost on all 55 occasions. Surely, this is nonsense.

Grant Shapps? Surely, what we are... You are saying absolutely... Were

you saying absolutely? Absolute nonsense. Grant Shapps? No, Grant

Shapps? Surely, what we are witnessing here are two extremes.

One party, the Labour Party, that will not give you an in-out

referendum on Europe. The other party, UKIP, who say they want one,

but admit at the same time they cannot deliver. People of our

generation, with the exception of Shirley, have never been given a

say. Let's put it to the British people. And vote to stay in. You can

vote how you like, Nigel. Can I ask you one simple question? Why is it

always renegotiate and then have a referendum? Why not have a

referendum? If you had a referendum without having agreed what the

subject was - in other words... Should you be in or out of Europe?

The better option is rather than just say these two extreme positions

- it is all fine. Or it is all disastrous. You can do things like

renegotiate the people. How do you avoid it being the trick that Harold

Wilson paid when he renegotiated a little bit and have everybody say,

"Go for it"? I remember because I voted. People like the two of you

will remind us that that was the trick and we won't fall for it

again. It will be up to everyone else to make the decision. Have we

returned power to this country? Have we come to a position which people

are comfortable with and give people an in-out referendum. Only the

Conservatives will deliver that. Hold on. It is fantasy. Let's listen

to our audience again. Yourself and Caroline and Chuka, what you miss

about UKIP is that the motivation for what you do politically is

almost as important as what you do. The fact you have offered a

referendum is great. You will never claim the political credit for it.

Cameron reneged on his cast-iron promise. Let me finish, then you can

come back. Now, you are saying we will put it to you. People are

saying - as an electorate, we want to be led as much as we want you to

listen. What UKIP have done is they have put their finger on a problem

and they have led. What you have all done is you have responded to things

happening because you don't understand what life

happening because you don't people out there in Britain. You

don't understand that. Caroline? I think that gentleman has

put his finger on something incredibly important. When people

look at people who are going to vote UKIP - and sometimes they are very

rude - I don't think that is the case. They are very angry. Probably

many of you are very, very angry. That is because it feels to you, I'm

sure, that the political elite at Westminster simply doesn't

understand your lives. When you look in on them, at Westminster, it feels

as if... It feels as if they are out of touch and the danger of that,

though, is that UKIP's policies, which are in so many areas, are so

dubious. It is almost as if it doesn't matter about the policies

because your anger is so great. I understand that. It is incredibly

dangerous. When you look at UKIP's policies... We want our democracy

back. What is wrong with that? I'm talking about your other policies.

All we want... Let me finish. We have never said that. Wait, wait. We

are not going into UKIP's manifesto at this stage.

We are not going into the UKIP manifesto this stage. We do not know

what will happen in future. If we have elected representatives that we

trust, we know they will deal with the situation in the way we would

want them to. You don't have the trust at the moment. First of all,

the biggest lie that needs to be quashed is that somehow a referendum

was promised in a previous manifesto. That is not the case.

Hold on a minute. We are talking manifesto. That is not the case.

about the manifesto upon which this Conservative led government got

elected, and there was no manifesto in there. In 2009, you said vote for

us and we will guarantee you a referendum. Nigel... Be straight

about it. If you will let someone get the wording, the fact of the

matter is that in the last general election that was not in our

manifesto. The only reason it was in the previous one is that it was

before the Lisbon treaty had been passed, which I voted against, along

with every Conservative in Parliament. The reason why we can

and should be trusted when we say we want a referendum in 2017 is that

during this parliament we have cut the EU budget, something that Nigel

and his colleagues in Europe voted against. It saves this country ?8

billion over the next ten years. We vetoed the EU Treaty, got out of the

bail out fund which Labour signed up to in the dying days of their

government. When we say we will give you an in-out referendum, we mean

it. We will give it to you. As you know, if you are a regular watcher,

you can join in the debate from home by text or Twitter. Surely, whatever

issues we have with Europe, whether we want to be in or out, it would be

a mistake to see the answer to vote in MEPs who will then not turn up

and try and change what is going on in Europe. You are saying that UKIP

MEPs don't turn up? It is not that I think, it is there. What happens is

that your posters display, and I saw one the other day, a man in the back

of the car saying that your tax payers money funds his millionaire

's lifestyle. Actually, how taxpayers money funds you as well,

going over there and not turning up to do the job which you are paid to

do. You can't have this argument both ways. Either we turn up and

enjoy the luxury lifestyle, or we don't. What we want to do, we are

the turkeys that would vote for Christmas. We want to get rid of

British MEPs and commissioners. We don't need any of this to trade and

cooperate with our next-door neighbours in Europe. 40% of your

MEPs elected last time round have resigned, defected or gone to jail.

Not one of them has gone to jail. If you start talking about expenses

scandals... Two of them. None of them. OK, it was the last

Parliament. I just want to pick up on the last point which was made

about trust in politicians. I think we have fundamental issues of trust,

not just in politics, but the police, the media, many parts of

society. I think that is right. I think there is also a sense that

there is a disconnect between the government, policymakers and the

people we are supposed to work for. There is also anger. I don't think

the solution is setting up different parts of our community against each

other, setting up the other as the target that we blame for all our

problems. I think actually we need to return to our values of social

solidarity. Chuka, do you think I would do that? I am half Indian! You

were also talking about the kind of policies UKIP have been promoting. I

don't think people want to pay for key NHS policies, as Nigel would

have you do. Where does that come from? Your manifesto. You set

yourself up as the voice of working people and you would do so me things

which would damage communities. We don't know what your policies are.

You don't have a manifesto, do you, isn't that right? New abandoned it.

Nobody has an election manifesto for next year. The gentleman raised a

serious point about trust I have to ask him whether the crisis of trust

is a much wider one than he was implying. Let's look at the attitude

we have had towards the banks. The banks have been so troubling that

people like the Archbishop of Canterbury have said they have lost

their moral compass. If you look at what Barclays has done in the last

week, it has housed at # has had to lay off a huge number of people,

including most of its investment bank, because of the record of the

past. You have to ask a deeper question of how to restore trust,

not just in politicians, and that is important, but in politics as a

whole. I think the answer to that is two things. One, there needs to be a

greater acceptance of our joint responsibility for the way we behave

and the moral standards we try to uphold. Secondly, it also means we

have to actually have a far more active democracy, where we involve

people at local community level in their own decisions. I think

centralisation in this country has gone too far. In particular, London

dominates everything. Having said that, with great respect to you, you

have to look deeper than just flicking at politicians, because

that is the easy, cheap one, but it is much deeper than that. I

absolutely agree with you. The man at the back, in the back row. Nigel,

let me finish, please! You haven't started. That is the point. I am old

enough to have read about McCarthyism, and to have read the

river of blood speech. Enoch Powell's speech. And your point is?

I am also aware of what happens in elections where a climate of fear is

caused among the electorate by the charismatic, the bombastic, and to

me the very dangerous. This has driven Europe to war in the past. I

have no time for you, sir. None. APPLAUSE

. You are very lucky, because there

are four parties on this platform you can vote for, who believe we

should not govern our own country. It won't be you. And that we should

have the vast majority of our laws made somewhere else, over which we

have virtually no save. If that is what you want, that is fine. Be

aware of one thing. Firstly, we are giving people a choice. We want to

trade and cooperate with Europe but not be governed by their

institutions. But recognise this, the European dream is failing and

crumbling. And goodness we did not join the euro zone. This whole

political project in a decade's time as head of a disaster for tens of

millions of European peoples. There you go. I can talk over you, just as

you can talk over me. You are merely putting a scenario. Bring your

remarks to a conclusion. The point is that what is happening is that

the very nationalisms, intolerances and extremism is the EU was supposed

to stop, it is creating because of the disastrous failure called the

eurozone. I will give you a chance to reply. Just hold on. The law of

unforeseen consequences. If we come out of Europe, you have to

renegotiate everything. Europe creates tax regimes which mean that

car-makers, and if Pfizer get their hands on it, AstraZeneca, go over to

Europe. We lose the skills base, we are marginalised. That is the real

Europe. We lose the skills base, we fear, that is the economic fear

facing this country. But we will do business anyway. I am now going to

move onto another question, business anyway. I am now going to

we have a number. My goodness, only 20 minutes left. This one from

Alison Ayling. Is the intervention of the US in the search for the

abducted Nigerian girls likely to inflame the situation and provoke

Boko Haram to more violence? The Americans moving into Nigeria to try

and find these 200 girls and others that have been abducted since. The

actual role of America against Boko Haram. What do you think, Caroline

Lucas? Well, I think the impetus of the Americans and indeed the

international community as a whole is entirely understandable and long

in coming, to be honest. Because this happened three or four weeks

ago. The Nigerian president didn't really notice until a couple of

weeks ago, thanks to a fantastic campaign about bring back our girls,

which is why I am wearing my red ribbon today. There is now more

international as well as Nigerian noise about saying we have to do

more to bring these girls back. I understand why Barack Obama is

trying to take the lead on this. To the extent that it felt there was

something of a vacuum in terms of its national leadership before

that, it is helpful that he did. Answering your question, if you

that, it is helpful that he did. talking about US boots on the

ground, that would be disastrous. talking about US boots on the

kind of surveillance, the negotiation skills, the kind of

people that can go and try and find these girls. That is what we need

and if the international community can help with that, they absolutely

should. It strikes me as so odd that these girls have been missing for so

long and there was for a long time so little response. If you compare

it to the Malaysian airline, that was on the front page of our

it to the Malaysian airline, that newspapers and TV all the time, and

yet the chances of finding those people alive was really slim.

yet the chances of finding those girls, hopefully, are still alive

and we have to redouble our efforts to get them back. Also, we need to

think about what they are coming back to. If you look at Nigeria,

look at the corruption, look at the way in which the political elite

have that huge oil wealth, but it is not trickling down to any other part

of the country at all, then I think we need to keep that spotlight on

Nigeria and say, yes, let's sort out the issue around the girls, around

education, because it is no accident that Boko Haram are targeting

education, but there is so much more to be done on education in Nigeria

as well. If there is any hope that can come out of this, hopefully we

will get the girls back and focus on more girls getting into education,

and on the corruption of the Nigerian regime.

APPLAUSE Allison, what is behind your

question? Do you fear the intervention of the

United States may be counter-productive? It could be,

because Boko Haram appears quite volatile. My daughter has just spent

three months in Nigeria and one of the impressions that she had was how

poor the communication is within the country, and the fact that although

people are aware of Boko Haram, of course, she was there when the

explosion took place in Abuja, and everybody just knows they have to

live in fear. These are people out in the country. So it is just

whether or not such a volatile organisation would be just flown

further in tatters, if you like, by having an uncoordinated

intervention. As long as the intervention is coordinated, I think

it could be extremely successful. Well, there is an ongoing war on

terror on going in the northern states of Nigeria. My family are

from the south-east. I think what has happened here is abhorrent. It

is a disgrace that it took so long to become a big, international

story. But I think Caroline is right. The assistance that the US

and the UK are providing, in terms of the technical assistance,

particularly the satellite technology to identify where the

girls are being held, is welcome and necessary. But to really win this

war on terror, Caroline is right, there are more fundamental issues

that need to be addressed, in terms of looking at wide Boko Haram is

able to recruit people, and Caroline is absolutely right that the

corruption is still endemic in Nigeria. Frankly, and this is very

much a personal view based on my own family and personal experience, I

suppose, but the way that the security forces go into communities,

exercise sometimes extreme violence, extreme human rights violations, on

top of the fact that, despite the fact, this is the great shame about

Nigeria, Nigeria is going places at the moment. You have this burgeoning

middle growth, but you still have a situation where two thirds of

Nigerian people are living on less than $1 per day. For all the extra

wealth we are seeing, it is not being properly shared. Frankly,

since independence, I think the Nigerian people have been let down

time and time again by the different regimes that there have been. And

they deserve better. And unless we get better government in Nigeria, I

fear you will see the likes of Boko Haram carry on. That is no excuse

for what they do, of course it isn't, but you have to look at the

causes and win the war around hearts and minds to deal with this terror

once and for all. Shirley Williams? Some people here

will remember the great battle in the rivers province of Nigeria to

try to get some wealth ploughed back into that part of Nigeria. It never

happened. Effectively they hung the man who was leading the movement for

the Renaissance of the rivers province and we in the West went

along with that. We didn't complain about it. Number two - the United

Nations Human Development Index shows year after year after year

that the countries where women have the right to education are countries

that soar upwards, countries like Asia, India, China. The countries

that refuse it to them are buying themselves a decline in their

economic prosperity across the whole range. It is appalling. I will be

frank about this. These have been 200 young men, if they had been, we

would have seen more attention paid and the Nigerian government would

have done something more effective. I hope we don't stop at a certain

amount of help of the kind that Chuka is talking about. The key

thing is that the United Nations itself has got to build-up an

emergency international force which can go in right away when things

like this happen. What you have got at the moment was that desperate

two-week-long delay that Caroline talked about which means that the

poor girls will have been dispersed all over the jungles of Nigeria. If

the United Nations had come in and said to the President of Nigeria,

"We are here to help and we will move right away." Then I think we

could have saved many lives. Nigel? Nigel Farage? It is a good question.

What American military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has done -

of course with the support of the Labour Government and the

Conservative opposition - what actually it's done is to not

stabilise those countries, or make them better, but to leave behind a

bitter legacy, a split behind, tens of millions of Islamic people and

the Americans to be wider than ever before. I understand the nature of

your question. In this particular occasion, we should recognise there

is a massive difference between sending an army into a country

looking for regime change and doing something for purely humanitarian

reasons and I think, thank goodness Obama, it may have been delayed, but

thank goodness he said what he said. It's got the whole international

community saying something must be done and for once, I would be happy

if we were to help the Americans and go out there and try and find these

girls. I really would. You, Sir? It is a huge wake-up call

that Boko Haram are out there. I'm a father of three. Lots of people will

be imagining what it must be like for one of your children, or your

girl not to come home from school. It is tragic. The Nigerians have no

doubt been very slow to respond. William Hague spoke to his

counterpart as long ago as Good Friday, immediately this was going

on. The Prime Minister spoke to the Nigerian President yesterday. We

have been offering help throughout and we have got military, British

military teams there in Nigeria. Foreign Office counter terrorism

experts there. We have some ability to help. It is extraordinary it's

taken this long. Thank goodness things are now happening. To

directly answer the question, I think the American impetus has been

very important. We are working with the French and Americans on this. I

will make one final point. This country can be proud that through

our work and our aid budget, 800,000 Nigerian children, including 600,000

girls, are going to school in that country every day. It is all because

of Britain. I will take a couple of points from people with their hands

up - from you and then from you - and then from you? I know that you

are saying that military intervention wouldn't be a good

idea. What can be done to get these girls back? That is where the

satellite and surveillance assistance is crucial. I think

President Goodluck Jonathan was referring to that today. You can

send in the troops, but it is in the bush. Where do they go? You, on the

left? I'm troubled by the expression "war on terror". It is a crime. It

is kidnap and people trafficking. If people had seen this as a crime from

the outset, people would have been quicker to act. It's a crime. Pure

and simple. The answer to that is it is both. Of course, it is a crime,

but undoubtedly in the northern states in Nigeria, there are no-go

areas for people because of what is happening. You? I would like to add

Christians are being heavily persecuted and killed by people and

is there anything the West can do to help? OK. I will take one last

question. Being from Afghanistan - I agree with 100% with Nigel Farage.

If America go somewhere, they stay in that country. Rather than

humanitarian things, we don't want them to go there, gun blazing and

ruin Nigeria. We are talking about counter-intelligence... Alright. I

don't trust him, that is the problem. You have made the point. We

have five minutes. I want to take this question, which has caused a

storm in the House of Commons at Question Time on Wednesday. It comes

from Peter Haylings. In five minutes, I hope we can hear. Should

shareholders or politicians decide the outcome of Pfizer's bid to buy

AstraZeneca? This is this huge bid, it last stood at ?63 billion. The

biggest-ever takeover of a British company. The question is do the

politicians decide whether it should go ahead, or the people who are

shareholders in the companies? OK, Grant Shapps? The shareholders

ultimately are the people who own the company. But, it is very

important to say that the British Government should have the stance of

being neutral, making sure we get the best deal for Britain and I can

tell you exactly what that means... Hang on, should be neutral? Neutral

in terms of making sure it is the best deal for Britain. How can you

decide that? I will tell you if you let me finish the question. British

jobs, British research, British R, British medicines in this particular

case, British technology. Those are the tests, what is going to provide

the best outcome for Britain. If you look at things like the British car

industry as it stands today. Nissan produce more cars in this country

than the whole of Italy. That is because Britain has been an economy

which has attracted more foreign investment to this country than the

whole of the rest of Europe put together. You don't know, do you,

what is going to happen with Pfizer? No no-one can predict the future. If

you can't predict the future, can you stop them coming, can you stop

them if you want to? You speak to both sides. Can you answer MY

question? Can you stop them? The laws mean there's limited ability

for governments to intervene. These are laws... So you can't? Wait a

moment. No, wait a moment. Let's be clear. You are saying that the

Government, despite expressing an interest, cannot stop this deal

going ahead? The Government is able to put in place public interest

tests according to a 2003 piece of legislation that the previous Labour

Government put through. They removed politicians directly from the role

unless there are specific national interests. I can tell you what they

are. No, no. Everybody has their view. The question is whether

anything can be done? Shirley Williams? Can anything be done? In

2002, the Enterprise Act was brought in by the Labour Government and

removed public interest except for two things. One was national

security. The second one was you couldn't have one owner owning the

press. Everything else was ruled out. They went from a liberal

position to a more regulated position which did not permit, did

not permit the public interest to cover the whole range. What that

means is we are emasculated in doing much about AstraZeneca and what is

really sad is a brilliant emergence as a scientific and research nation

is put at risk. Don't blame the politicians. The law doesn't allow

the Coalition Government to do what you want it to do. One other thing.

It can try and get a pledge out of Pfizer and they haven't been very

good at upholding pledges. The only strength, the only power we have,

frankly, is the ability of the NHS to go out and buy pharmaceuticals

and maybe we should use that ability more strongly than we have done so

far. Chuka? You were making great play of this in the House of

Commons. Do you accept the point Shirley makes, there isn't anything

a British Government can do? There isn't at the moment, which is why we

have extended a hand to the Government and said we will work

with them to change the law so something can be done. The question

was should it be the shareholders or the politicians? Where you have

certain strategic national assets - let's not forget, this is one of the

jewels in the crown of British industry. It is our second biggest

pharmaceutical company. It accounts for 3% of our exports. That is why,

particularly when you have got companies like this, which are so

important to our science base, so important to our R, Government has

a role to play. Can I say... No, just a role to play? Do you want to

see a British Government able to prevent a deal like this going

ahead, that is the question? If it is not good for R and science

base, we would like to see... That is what you would like to see? The

question is - in November 2012, you said it seems to me having a broad

public interest test risks creating uncertainty and you came out against

it. You are saying the same as I'm saying. Jobs, R

it. You are saying the same as I'm Caroline? The Pfizer CEO gave a

number of commitments... You believe commitments... ? They are not worth

the paper they are written on. He then said on a call with journalists

on Friday that he was going to break up the company in three different

parts which could be sold off. Let's stick to this question. Caroline

Lucas? You want to change the law? You agree with changing the law? You

are not. OK. We should get the best deal for Britain. Caroline Lucas?

The point is... No, no. The answer is making sure we get the direct

investment... Caroline Lucas? And then Nigel Farage and then we must

stop. We should reform the laws so that politicians can intervene in a

strategic area. I think that the whole era of economic globalisation,

where we are at the mercy of corporate takeovers is something

that needs to be challenged. I don't want to see a Britain where we have

our manufacturing, what is left of it, hollowed out. I don't want to

see a Britain where we are just flaunting ourselves as a tax haven.

I tell you what, if people come, if Pfizer comes to Britain because we

have the lowest tax, you can bet your bottom dollar that when another

country has a lower tax rate, they will be off again. It is

unsustainable. Nigel Farage? Can I say one thing? You can't. We have

run out of time. Nigel Farage, you have the last say. Will it be in

your manifesto? It will not be the British Government that decides and

the... He is going to say Europe. These three parties on this panel -

if you listen to them - they say the law needs to be changed. Let Nigel

Farage just finish his sentence, Chuka. You are either wilfully lying

to these people or you are pig ignorant. Vince Cable in this

debate, when he was pushed, admitted the ultimate decision as to whether

AstraZeneca... No, he didn't. I was in that debate. Pfizer will be

taken... Nigel, you... We have given away... Listen, everybody. Steady

on! This is what it is like. Nigel? We have had years of this from these

people. There is an enormous elephant in the room. Nigel Farage?

Will you listen to me, just for a moment? Yes. That is the end of the

debate. If Britain pulls out of the EU, are you saying that a British

Government would be able to stop takeover? Yes. Finally. Alright.

You have got one point to go in your manifesto. Our time is up. Next

week, we will be in Coventry. We have a panel that includes Caroline

Flint, Paddy Ashdown and Esther Mcvey. If you would like to take

part in either programme, go to www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. If you

are listening to this on BBC Five Live, the debate goes on there. It

probably goes on here once we have left this studio! My thanks to this

panel and to all of you who came to take part as our audience here in

Southampton. From Question Time, until next Thursday, good night.

My fellow friends, it's time to get your glad rags on,

invite your friends over, and bring out the hors d'oeuvres,