29/05/2014 Question Time

Tonight we are in the new Terminal Two at Heathrow Airport which opens

next week. Welcome to Question Time. Good evening, to you at home, and to

our audience here, to the panel, who don't know the questions unfill they

hear them. David Willetts, Labour's Shadow Scottish Secretary, Margaret

Curran, one of UKIP's newly-elected MEPs, Louise Bours, the journalist,

television presenter, former editor of the Mirror, Piers Morgan and

football's philosopher king, Joey Barton.

Our first question from Kevin Robinson. Will UKIP cause another

earth quake in the general election next year? Piers Morgan? It has been

very interesting watching the rise of UKIP from America, where I have

been the whole time it's been going on. Looking from the outside, my

initial reaction was, like most people, a bunch of crackpots, this

isn't going to last and slowly they gather momentum and I have tried to

work out why this was happening. I think the answer is the British

people are basically fed up with mediocrity. They look at the leaders

of these three parties and they see three very similar sounding,

similar-looking, white middle-class, middle-aged, quite posh gentlemen

who seem to have no relation to the real world. You have Mr Boring, Mr

Weird, Mr Useless and along comes Nigel Farage, who, for all his

faults - and he's got faults - he seems like a regular guy. He is a

guy who puts a pint on his head and you can kind of understand why a lot

of people in this country - particularly working-class people -

look at him and think he is making sense. He's been very clever, very

smart as a politician. Two issues. Focus on two things. Europe and

immigration. Two issues which most people have concerns about and they

are right to have concerns about them. So I think that the rise of

UKIP has been a very good thing for the democratic process in this

country. I think it's shaken up Westminster. It's shaken up the main

parties. But there comes a point where you have to say, if they are a

protest vote, I'm in favour. The moment you start to take them

seriously as a party that can govern, I think you have got massive

problems. I tried to find out what else UKIP stood for other than get

out of Europe and send all the foreigners home that we don't like.

And I just did a quick check on Google and it was... Not a great

information source. End gay marriage, ignore climate change and

bring backhand guns. I thought, are we serious? Is this a serious party?

So the question is can there be another UKIP earthquake in a real

general election? A lot will depend on the three parties and how they

respond to this threat, but UKIP - and I will be interested to hear

what the lady to my left has to say - has to take itself more seriously

and has to present policies coming on the momentum they built up which

can resonate a lot more than just Europe and immigration. Briefly, if

it does that, can it cause another earthquake? It's indisputable they

have caused an earthquake. That is a good thing. They have shaken things

up. Can they do it again? I don't know. Do they really want to stand

for more than Europe and immigration? I don't believe the

next election will be fought on that. It will be fought on the

economy. Do they want to expand to that? It is an interesting situation

we are in. I congratulate Nigel Farage for coming this far. I'm

worried by what lies underneath UKIP and whether actually it sustains

itself. We will come to UKIP in a moment. Margaret Curran? I think it

can be explained by the deep resentment by what's going on in

politics. They saw the economic crisis, they saw it caused by

bankers, but they see bankers' bonuses going, they see the energy

companies who keep saying that prices, their prices have got to go

up and our prices have got to go up. But their profits go on

unchallenged. I think people are deeply resentful of that and feel

something has to be done. Following on from MPs' expenses and such like,

people have a deep complaint about the political system and feel

politicians are not talking enough about their lives and the things

that matter to them. It is your fault that UKIP rose? Well, partly

it's the whole political class. I do feel Labour is trying to understand

and talk about the issues that affect people in this country, such

as the energy crisis and the cost of living. Ed Miliband said that this

has to be about changing the way that we do politics. OK. It hasn't

happened yet because it didn't happen in the European elections.

The question is, is there going to be another UKIP earthquake in under

a year from now? Who knows. We are asking your view. You are a

professional politician, you should know. It depends on the reasons why

people voted UKIP. UKIP are deeply wrong. We need to take on some of

the arguments of UKIP and that now needs to happen and we need to be

assertive and explain why UKIP are wrong. It is about understanding and

addressing the fundamental issues in people's lives and I think Labour

does have a programme for that and I am confident that we can answer

people's needs. We do need to make sure that we take on UKIP and expose

some of them... What would be the one wrong thing you would take on?

You say we have to expose where they are wrong. If you took one thing

that you could take to the election? This presentation - you can solve

all problems by those issues - that is the thing we need to take on. We

need to live in a much more tolerant society. We need to look at what we

have got in common with each other. That is how you address the deep

malaise. You don't do it by setting people apart against each other. OK.

We've got a lot of hands up. I would like to hear from Louise Bours.

Thank you. Thank you to my two panelists for completely insulting

and denigrating the 5.5 million people who did vote for UKIP last

week. I did not so thing. Yes, you did. The fact is 5.5 million people

did vote for UKIP. Obviously, what the establishment cannot understand

in any way is the disconnect that the normal people of this country

feel with the establishment. There is a total disconnect. They look at

Westminster, they look at the green leather and they see nobody at all

that represents them. Nobody who looks like them. Nobody who talks

like them. And so they have looked to something else. And that is why

UKIP won last Thursday. The fact is, people want to see people they

recognise. We want to recognise what they feel. We want to know they are

going through the things we go through on a regular basis. That is

what the political class is not doing in this country. In fact, the

political class and the establishment are - we are the

symptom of how they have treated the people of this country. The

misinformation like Piers has given out about banning gay marriage -

what utter nonsense. Wait a minute. You have had your say. Nigel Farage

said he wanted to legalise handguns. And the media in this country is

incredible. What I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, over the

summer, we will be putting together a domestic manifesto. This election

has been fought on two things. It's a European election. So, of course,

it's been fought on Europe. Of course it has. It's a European

election. Over the summer, we will have a full manifesto of domestic

policies that all of you will be able to scrutinise and so you

should. That is right. Is it not true that Nigel Farage said he

wanted to legalise handguns? That is not true. What he was talking about

was the fact that it was a disgrace that the Olympic gun team had to go

outside of this country to train and he said that was ludicrous. You are

telling me that is not ludicrous? That wasn't what he said. It is what

he said. It isn't. Let's leave guns. The man up there at the top left? In

response to Piers' first comment that all the party leaders are

similar. Is this not in response to our voting system because we have

got to have someone who compromises between the 51% and the 49% whilst

party leaders such as Farage, they are a leader for about 30%. I

personally would look at moving abroad if Nigel Farage was our

leader next year. You, over there? In my personal opinion, UKIP support

will fall in the general election when people start to focus on issues

which affect them. I live in Hammersmith and there's been a

stunning victory there from Labour in the council election because they

focussed on the local NHS. I think that when people read UKIP's last

manifesto, where they wanted to privatise large parts of the NHS, as

a doctor, I think the British public are going to reject that. They have

done. That is misinformation. Again, this is misinformation that's

perpetuated by the establishment. We have never said we want to privatise

the NHS. What we have said is we would like to streamline the NHS,

there's 48% of people who work for the NHS who aren't clinically

trained. Why aren't those resources targeted at doctors and nurses? We

don't need to talk about... The manifesto of 2010 is drivel,

according to Nigel Farage. He said, "I didn't read it, it was drivel,

486 pages of drivel." At least he is honest! It is the new manifesto we

should be concentrating on. Joey Barton? The thing that keeps getting

me about it is everyone is saying UKIP have done so well. From what

little I know about it, I don't think they have done that well. Only

34% of the people voted... Winning the election is not doing well? You

have no MPs. You can't have done that well! We won a national

election, Joey. Hang on. Do you think - I listened when you spoke -

do you think that 34% of those eligible to vote cared enough about

what they were voting for to make a drastic change? For me, they didn't.

The others didn't mobilise their vote. We did. We won the election.

You won some seats in Europe in the European Parliament that nobody

really cares about. Well, they should care about it. They should

care about it. If you make the same traction in a general election,

people will sit up and take notice. The mainstream political parties are

sitting up and taking notice. All you represent to me is the best of a

bad bunch. So if I'm somewhere and there was four really ugly girls,

I'm thinking she's not... Oh dear. That is all you are to us. I have to

say the ignorance here - he fulfils the mission that footballers' brains

are in their feet. He has proved that to me tonight. What an

offensive thing to say. Maybe you do. You have to frame your argument

a little... UKIP have not made the progress that everyone is

professing... Winning the national election... 34% of those eligible to

vote voted. They voted for UKIP. Nobody cares. It was a protest vote.

That's all it was. I call it democracy. The Lib Dems are really

bad at the minute, as everyone knows. I have got more chance of

winning a general election than the Lib Dems, or Nick Clegg! And the

other parties have failed to perform. UKIP come in, I will give

you credit for that. That is what democracy is. Whilst I agree with

the general premise of what Joey is saying, the figures are 9% of all

eligible voters so it's less than what you are saying. It even

highlights the fact that they don't have that much support in those

elections. The 27% support of those who voted comes out at 9% of

everybody who could have voted? Exactly. Is that significant? David

Willetts? It is five million people voting in the democracy, that is

significant. That is messages for all of the political parties about

the kind of anxieties people have. They have anxieties about Europe

heading in the wrong direction. They have anxieties about Europe

heading in the wrong They have anxieties about migration. I think

there's a deeper anxiety. They have an anxiety that our kids are not

going to have the same quality of life that we have enjoyed and they

expect politicians to do something to ensure our kids do have better

lives than the previous generation. So I think that is the challenge for

us. I don't think UKIP are going to be able to rise to that challenge.

The clue was in what Nigel Farage said on election day. He said a vote

for UKIP was a free hit. He meant it was an opportunity to get a message

to the Government without any real consequences. Next year, people will

be choosing a Government. They will be choosing who are the grown-ups

who will do the long-term things that will ensure Britain keeps on

growing, that our kids have a decent education, they have an opportunity

to get on the housing ladder. On those issues, it will be a different

election than the one we have just had. It is one I look forward to

when people are choosing the Government of this country.

that, having clearly touched a nerve in the European election? Because,

if you look at their - they are touching a chord, an anxiety I

understand. As a democrat, the fact that five million people vote is

very significant. When you tilely look at what the policies are, they

are completely pass Sewell. It's not the case this nation's problems are

solved simply by leaving Europe. It's actually a kind of diversion

tactic. We have real challenges of investing more in infrastructure and

real challenges in ensuring people get high quality healthcare. Leaving

Europe is not relevant for any of that. People want to ensure Europe

doesn't head in the wrong direction. I think this Prime Minister has been

very effective in that. We have vetoed a treaty, delivered the first

cut in the European budget. They want governments that do serious

things. What Nigel Farage was offering was a kind of escape from

those real tasks that real governments have to give on with.

Why are you offering an a referendum if it's an irrelevant issue? There

are other things like health and education I doubt that anybody who

voted UKIP last Thursday knew what UKIP would do, I'm not totally sure

the UKIP MEPs agree on what they would do on health or It's a

education. European Why are election. You offering a referendum?

Why are you making a big deal about the referendum if you don't think

it's the potential to solving Europe's problems? Europe is heading

in the wrong direction. Too many powers are being taking in Brussels.

Part of the frustration is that Europe are doing things that are

better decided by national governments. Who will effectively

negotiate and who will give you a choice in a referendum and the

outcome of that negotiations? There is only one party that can credibly

offer that at the next election, that is is the Conservatives. The

person in the fourth row. The man there. Is it not very worrying that

so many UKIP associates and MEPs and people who represent UKIP have come

out as racist or making homophobic - You name me one MEP who has come out

as being racist? The gay weather fiasco? He is a Conservative

councillor. When he was a Conservative councillor spouting

that nonsense nobody heard it. A couple of days ago someone

associated with UKIP say with Downs children should have forced abortion

- I have not read that. It was in the papers. What about Dave Small.

Is he the Worcester councillor? He came out with some repellent and

hideous comments. He was suspended and expelled within three days am we

take notice of these things. We know that some of our procedures have

been flawed. We are the first ones to admit that, hold our hands up.

When the people speak out we throw them out. What about your leader who

goes on radio who says he doesn't want to live next to Romanians. He

didn't say that. You are twisting and spinning it like a media man. He

did not say that at all. He did not say that at all. Exactly what he

said. All right. You, sir. I voted UKIP for the first time. Why?

Because what Louise was saying actually. Because, I think, for the

last few years, all I've heard is talk, talk, talk, UKIP at last are

talking on behalf of the British people. They are certainly talking

to me. As long as the major parties keep on making these noises that

they are listening to us, I'm going to - well, as I say, until they

actually deliver, I want to vote UKIP at least they give us a voice

and. How can I put this? It's... Ah... It just feels as though I'm

being talked to like a naughty schoolboy. That will my vote is a

protest vote and next year I will be a good boy and come back into the

fold and vote Conservative. They don't understand it. By saying it it

is a protest vote - A free hit. What does that mean? There was a poll

conducted by ITV of people who voted UKIP at this election. 2% of those

people said they would continue to vote UKIP in 2015. We know -

honestly, I would not insult your intelligence. We know we have a long

way to go. We know we are flawed. As a political party we are a baby. We

have been in existence for 21 years our procedures and things - people

get through the net. We are working really, really hard. When those kind

of things, sir, come up that you mentioned before we kick them out. I

also think those things are repellent. Think of where we have

been. Where we are now. I tell you what, when our domestic manifesto is

launched in September you can skriet nigh it and ask questions and make

your own mind up in 2015. You, sir. As someone who values diversity and

supports gay marriage and refuses tovillify people based on their

nationality, religion or race, UKIP do not and will never speak for me.

APPLAUSE The lady over here on the right.

Yes. Yes. I thoroughly endorse what I've just heard. What I want to say,

what I feel might answer this question about a landslide and what

a party could do next year to prevent UKIP gaining any more

momentum, is for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to take a moral stand.

Don't appease UKIP. Don't say that UKIP is not racist. UKIP does have,

I would say - You think five million people are racist in this country? I

would like to see this country... You think Labour hasn't taken UKIP

on properly? I think Ed Miliband should speak out against it. We are

a country who can take a moral stand. We are enriched by

immigration. All of us here are enriched by immigration. I would

like to see that stressed and emphasised. OK. Hold on a second.

Anybody else here who is a UKIP supporter or voted UKIP, who I would

like to hear from. A whole row there! Did you come together? No.

The question I think is that the European election that we've just

had is on proportional representation. We had effectively

virtually 30% of the voting public voted for UKIP for particular

reasons in a European election. We now have an ordinary by-election

coming up in Newark, which is my hometown, and it will be very

interesting to see whether that momentum can carry on into a

conventional election on a first-past-the-post system. I think

that's the real growing up of UKIP to extend its support, not only to

cover other issues, but to enable its MPs to, candidates, to become

successful. When, at the moment, the UKIP support is pretty well evenly

spread throughout the country and including Wales and including

Scotland. Of but it's not peaking in any particular place. There are

hotspots. It will be interesting to see whether Newark is a hotspot. The

younger are disill Lewesed. They have decided not to vote. They can't

be bothered. They haven't voted for UKIP. Everyone who votes for UKIP

are the older voter. Obviously, the fact that 34% turned out to the poll

say there is is a young of disill Lewesed voters like myself who could

never imagine voting for UKIP. Only reason you would vote for UKIP, in

my opinion, is that you were really disill Lewesed with the mainstream

parties. Two or three of you had your hands up as UKIP supporters.

Yes, the gentleman with his hand up there. I don't - I'm a Labour

supporter, but I voted for UKIP at the last election. I think the

question is - why did the five million people vote for UKIP? Why

did you as a Labour supporter? Because, I mean, this is real-life.

I mean, what UKIP are talking about, it is happening on the street. It's

not about racism. It's about the economy, accepting immigrants more

than what they can afford. When people go on - to look for a job,

and they can't find it, people get angry. It's real. People get

frustrated because they can't get housing or their kids can't get to

the next school. It's real-life. When - the answers like from David,

saying that, OK, it's a protest. We know we will sort it out. You are

forgetting, you are the ones who put us in that situation in the first

place. You know. Vote for UKIP, it's a real vote. If you don't do

something about it, I will vote for UKIP again. You say, we have to do

something about it. I would say the coalition, in the four years we have

been in Government, have been sorting out a mess. We have have

been doing things about a lot of people's worries. If you want an

effective voice in Europe, it stops keeping taking powers from us. That

is what David Cameron has been delivering. I think at the next

election - People don't believe that, do they? The reason UKIP is

attracting support in significant numbers is precisely because they

don't think David Cameron has been batting for this country in Europe.

I think that is a perfectly valid charge to We will make. Come to that

in a moment. Take the decisions we took on the economy. We took tough

decisions in the economy in 2010 - Immigration is what he was talking

about. He was talking about immigration, not the economy. We

have reduced the total amount of migration. We have tightened the

regime for migrants coming from outside Europe. We have tightened

the rules on - you mentioned housing, sir, we tightened the rules

on housing so that people who have been living in an area for a time do

have priority about - over people who arrived. We understand these are

the type of legitimate anxieties that people have. We are tackling

them. Do you want to come back on that? The Tories policy on

immigration doesn't work. Exactly. No because they cannot affect what

is happening on Europe owe immigration. They are just attacking

students and people outside the EU. You can tighten the rules. You are

absolutely right. I have been polite. In this panel you have to

talk over people. It's polite. In this panel you have to

talk over people. the only way I will get to speak. The lady here

made an important and direct point about Labour. I want to take the

opportunity to address this. I think it's current in the debate. What Ed

Miliband and Labour is saying is clear, you have to make a

distinction between UKIP as a party and the things they say and do. You

can't avoid responsibility in the way that you're trying to do tonight

to dodge the bullets, in terms of some of the arguments, you are being

irresponsible and not facing up to some of the arguments about some of

the things that UKIP have said and do stand for and what they try and

presents as politics. There is a distinction between that and why

people voted for them. I don't absolutely write off those five

million people that voted for UKIP. I will make, Labour will be out to

win your votes back. Those of you that are remotely sympathetic to our

view of the world. We would make a big distinction. For example, if

there is a problem about housing, we know housing and access to housing

caused tensions and difficulties in communitiesment we would say - don't

blame the people applying for the houses. We need to tackle the supply

of housing. I'm the daughter of an immigrant myself. I believe

immigrants have made an he enormous and important contribution to this

country. We have to say that loudly and clearly. I respect anybody that

comes here with enterprise and creativity and puts in hard graph.

We need to respond to that. We need to have a managed, fair and

effective system of immigration. We need to have an honest debate about

that. You can do that in a progressive way and the Labour way

not the way the Tories have done it. We need to answer people's deep

concerns about politics. On their issues we can provide answers to

them. It is not stigmatising people and not getting into the (inaudible)

of politics. You, sir. I'm young. I did vote UKIP. I'm passionately

interested in politics. You voted UKIP? Yes. The reason I voted for

UKIP wasn't for immigration. I believe the UK should be a sovereign

nation which shouldn't have to be part of the European United States

project. I don't feel personally European. If you look at everyone in

the European Commission they talk about a European dream and European

state and European armed forces. I don't want to be part of that. Joey

Barton says young people don't vote. I think the reason people don't vote

isn't because they are disill Lewesed they haven't been educated

in politics. I'm one of only a very few number of people in my school

who do politics. A lot of people did vote at the last general election

and because of what Lib Dems were promising. The reason they don't

vote is because they haven't been informed about politics at Do you

all. Think there will be an earthquake in the general election?

No, I don't. The first-past-the-post system you have absolutely no hope.

Would you vote UKIP again in 11 months' time. I will try to vote to

get Vince Cable out of Twickenham. can't remember what they decided

about that. Let's go on to another question. You can, of course, join

in this debate, as you well know, text, Twitter - #bbcqt, you can

follow us @bbcquestiontime or you can go to the website -

www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. One day, we hope to get Twitter on to the red

button. We will catch up. It will be great. You are scared of it. The

comments people make. A question from Cliff Barrowman. Should full

details of discussions between George Bush and Tony Blair in

respect of the Iraq War be made public? This is the row that's been

going on over the Chilcot report and the decision that was announced

today in a letter that they have now reached an agreement on what can and

can't be published. Who would like to start on this? Piers Morgan, you

start on this. When I was editor of the Daily Mirror, we fought long and

hard a campaign against the Iraq War. Nothing that has happened since

has persuaded me War. Nothing that has happened since

has persuaded that it was not a valid campaign. I had lots of

dealings with Tony Blair at the time at Downing Street and was into his

mind a little bit. I always believed - my brother was fighting for the

British Army in Basra, so I had a vested interest on all sides of

this. I always believed that basically Tony Blair had said to

George Bush, "I'm in whatever happens." And I believe when he

didn't get the second UN Resolution that he had already told George Bush

and the Americans, "We are going in." That, to me, turned our

involvement in the Iraq War into an illegal involvement in the Iraq War.

And I think that what you are seeing now in terms of selective details of

the conversations between the British Prime Minister and the

American President is absolutely outrageous that we are not going to

get all the details which can determine once and for all whether

that agreement was made without authorisation from the British

Parliament or not. There is only one we are not getting them - it's a bad

reason - it is because the details that are contained in those

conversations would be deeply embarrassing to Tony Blair, not so

embarrassing to the Americans. To the British Prime Minister, Tony

Blair, at the time, who led us into that war, a war that I believe was

illegal, I think this is fundamentally important and we, as

the British public, have a right to see the details of those

conversations. He said last week it is not me who is holding it up, the

sooner it's published the better. Somebody is holding it up. Tony

Blair can say that with the safety of knowledge, I don't know - I don't

think it is Tony Blair personally - maybe he has knowledge that we don't

about what has been going on behind-the-scenes. I don't think

there is anyone in this room, or anyone watching at home, who when

they heard today that we are not going to get the details of those

conversations didn't think this stinks. Yeah. I can't understand

what the point of the Chilcot Inquiry is if we are not going to

get the full truth. We have been involved in the Hillsborough sort of

campaign that was going on a while back and is still ongoing. It smells

a little bit of the same about what was going on. You can't give

information but say we are are only going to give select information. It

has to be the whole truth. I have read on the way over that it is over

100 pages of direct conversations between Blair and Bush in the

lead-up to us going into the war. I mean, how can we - what is the point

of the inquiry if they don't have this information? I agree with Piers

and Joey. You will be glad to know! We have a fundamental right as

British people to know what is in those papers. Our men and women in

the armed forces went out and fought and died because of those decisions.

I think it highlights the disconnect between the politicians and the

public. They forget that they work for us, actually. We have elected

them into office and they are public servants, they are there on our

behalf. We have a fundamental right to know why we were taken into what

I believe was an illegal war. Even - I think it is quite insulting to say

that we will only get the gist, we will only get excerpts... Margaret

Curran, a Labour supporter and supporter of Tony Blair, why do you

think it's not all being published? Why has Sir John Chilcot accepted

that it won't all be published? I have not seen all the details of

what has been said today. I saw the word "gist" being used and it won't

be everything. That's my understanding of what's happened. I

think the principle of disclosure is important and I think the principle

- and that is what Chilcot is trying to do for the British people - and

some of the previous inquiries have tried to do that. People are aware

of what happened in Iraq and why we went to war and why leaderships and

governments behaved the way they did. I assume that part of the

explanation for not full disclosure is about secrecy and protocols of

Government and secret shared security and that is part of the

explanation. I would have to say that Tony Blair has been through

full investigations through Chilcot and through some of the other

inquiries. It is obviously still a deeply important issue to Britain

and obviously of course to the Armed Services who served so significantly

for us. I do understand the depth of feeling there is still about Iraq. I

think we would need to look and see the security arguments as to why

there is not full disclosure. It doesn't seem to be just security.

There is a line in it about not attempting to explain George Bush's

position, which is very curious. That is because the Americans have

to explain their own position. What about explaining Tony Blair's

position? I think this is what has to be explained. If they don't

quote, if you don't quote from telephone conversations, you just

give the gist of a telephone conversation, you know what that

means, that is what people do in ordinary life, they give a gist of

something and you don't get a real flavour of what the people were

saying? You can't imply they are misleading or deceitful. There has

to be a guarantee that it's the truth that is being exchanged. Do

you not think the families of those soldiers or people who served in the

war, who died, have the right to say why their children's lives were

lost? Of course. We must have full disclosure. That is what Chilcot is

about. You are going to get the reasons why... But... We can't - to

protect Anglo American relations we can't say we can't, you know, we

can't show that because it will damage this, it will be the secret.

There's people who have lost their sons and daughters. They have the

right to know why their lives were taken. You, Sir? Your party took us

against the will of the people into an illegal war. We deserve to know.

The people of the world deserve to know what happened. We don't deserve

to get a gist. We deserve to know every single thing that went wrong

and why we spent billions going into an illegal war and why it has

worsened our national security. David Willetts? I think... Do you

agree with him? I don't believe that the war was illegal, no. I do think

there is all the key questions that people are asking about the war and

Piers got, he put a fair and crucial question, which is what exactly was

going on between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush and what

assurances ordeals were being done. That is a crucial part of Chilcot.

We do need to know that. That is absolutely essential. The Chilcot

Inquiry is an independent inquiry, it is not - I believe that the

people on that Chilcot Inquiry are going to try to get to the bottom of

that. Hang on. On that point. Why has he then accepted the deal that

he's been offered, simply giving the gist of conversations? I don't know

what has been - the details of this arrangement. My understanding of

what has been agreed between Chilcot and Prime Minister Blair is that

there will be extracts so that there will be real words in quotation

marks, but it will not be a transcript of everything that was

said between Blair and Bush. I would assume that one of the issues is,

what is going to happen in any future conversation between a

British Prime Minister and an overseas... I absolutely agree - and

you are correct in what you say about the parents of people who died

needing to know everything about the circumstances of this war. The

question is whether we can answer that question which is absolutely

right and crucial whilst, at the same time, and a future American

President able to say things to a British Prime Minister without his

feeling that what I say in the next few years is going to appear in a

transcript. If that, I assume that one of the issues is what kind of

conversation - when our Prime Minister is talking to President

Obama next week about what they are going to do in Nigeria to help with

the security issue of the school kids that have been abducted in

Nigeria - at what point can people say this is a conversation that we

are having in confidence? Someone has to reach that judgment. It is a

difficult judgment. I'm not privy to it. Clearly, Blair and Chilcot have

tried to reach some sort of agreement. Hang on a second. When

you have a war that is fought on an entirely false pretext that Saddam

Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have never accused

Tony Blair of lying. I think he probably did believe that Saddam had

those weapons. I'm sure George Bush believed it, too. When it turned out

that he did not have them, at that point this inquiry becomes

incredibly important because the lives that Joey talked about - the

soldiers, including my brother who went on the frontline and risked

their lives, they are doing it for the wrong reasons. That is why this

transcript could clear up whether Tony Blair, the British Prime

Minister, gave assurances which he did not share with the British

people or with the British Parliament. If you don't reveal

them, everyone is going to assume that is what is on them. To pick you

up on one point, David. You say it was an agreement made with Tony

Blair. The letter Chilcot has written is written to the present

Cabinet Secretary and... He has responsibility. He is not a party

figure. He has responsibility for the crucial question which shouldn't

be decided by any politician, which is are there any conversations that

a British Prime Minister can have with the President of the US that

the President of the US should be able to think the text is not going

to be revealed? We shall never know the answer to that. The challenge is

whether Chilcot can answer the crucial question - they are

reasonable questions - whether he can answer those questions by he and

his independent members of his inquiry looking at everything that

was said between Bush and Blair in so far as we have any record of it

anywhere in Whitehall. The thing that gets... This is what Jeremy

Hayward has to decide. Whether that should be word-by-word publicly...

Alright. You, Sir? I think Piers has hit the nail on the head. I think

the reason we are not going to get the full conversations made public

is one, we will find out the reasons we went to war. Two, I think this is

the crucial thing, the public will realise that the national interest

is not synonymous with the public interest. They will realise the

national interest, whenever the establishment talks about the

national interest, it is about protecting those people at the

highest end of power in Whitehall. It is not about the public interest.

How could anybody argue that fully publishing in full these

conversations is not in the public interest? It shows one more thing.

Why are we not talking about declassifying the conversations

between the joint Joint Intelligence Committee over here and the Director

of National Intelligence in the US? The intelligence was proved false,

the dodgy dossier. The decision was taken at the top between two people

who had a phone conversation where one probably said to the other, "I'm

with you all the way, pal." You will get them, but it will just be 30

years. The key thing is when Blair said after 9/11 we stand by the

shoulders of our brothers or whatever the words were. I would

like to see if it's Blair following through on that to say we would

stand by you and the Americans using the premise of the 9/11 attacks to

go and do what they want with the ridiculous foreign policy and

whether Blair has tried to talk Bush out of it, whether Blair has agreed

with him. I would like to see that. People have lost their lives. I want

to know why they have lost their lives. The woman there on the left?

disconnect that people feel with their parties. A quid pro quo that

needs to happen if our phone calls and our emails and our communication

is going to be tapped at will, surely that transparency should work

both ways. We are in the age of Big Brother. That should work both ways.

The second point I want to make. Joey Barton, I was with you some of

the things he said, the analogy he may of four ugly girls will be on

Twitter. Tomorrow you will be buried for. It I do apologise. I couldn't

think of a better one. It's the first time I have ever done it. As

Louise pointed out, my brains are in my face. J On your face it realise

what had you said. I was nervous, I apologise. Let's go on to another

question. Melissa Hughes. Should Heathrow Airport have a third

runway. Here we are sitting in Heathrow. The great debate about

whether there should be an extended runway, Gatwick runway, governments

can't make up their minds. A report that won't be decided on until

safely after the next general election. The Joey Barton without

bringing in four girls, what is your view? I will never live that down,

will I? No, you're not. I'm biased in this, in terms I live on the

flight path. I'm dead against Heathrow having a third runway. And,

I mean, am I right in thinking the last three parties at the general

election had in their manifesto they were going to be against the third

runway. From what little I've seen about it or what little I know about

it, I've seen the Gatwick proposal, the Heathrow proposal. I travel on

the Tube and seen Gatwick wanting to expand. As somebody who lives on the

flight path I'm against it. Surmising most of the people who

live around Heathrow don't want the extra traffic. Don't want the extra

pollution. Somebody else should have it? Gatwick. They were talking about

making Heathwick - People live around Heathrow and have houses -

They seem to want it. Has anyone done research. People in this region

are against it. I don't understand why the other parties on the

manifesto were against it. What has changed? Have we got silent planes,

less pollution. What has changed now? The woman up there, second row

from the back. I think they should have a third runway, more economical

than HS2, provide more jobs, bring in international jobs. It would be a

lot better for the UK as a whole. You live one way or another close to

Heathrow. Are you in favour of it? I'm in favour of Heathrow and

Gatwick. Since Gatwick has been the nationalisation was taken off, I

think Gatwick should be given a chance for being a global hub. They

have restrictions until 2018. Their local council is in favour of it. I

have done research as part of my management course. A lot of the

debate was that Heathrow needs another runway because of the

capacity is at maximum. Also I think Gatwick, they have a new CEO who has

also been City of London Edinburgh he should be given a chance to give

Gatwick another What is runway. UKIP's policy on it? There is a

north/south divide on this one. I represent the north-west. When we

had the lead story on the news about the Tube strikes. We really don't

care if you have a Tube strike in London, it doesn't affect us in

Manchester. It's like this with the Heathrow runway. The capacity point,

sir, I was reading a little bit about that. As far as I can see,

capacity, talk about capacity, that will create more demand. They had a

really good example of that was in Frankfurt in 1984, the same

problems. They built the third runway. Now, two years ago, they

have now built a fourth runway. If you increase capacity, you will

increase demand it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The lady

mentioned HS2 this is meant to be dispersed economic activity across

the country. Heathrow, you get another runway, it will again suck

everything into London. You know what, there are lots of things going

on outside of the M25. I know it's really incredible. We have flushing

toilets, we have running water in the north-west. Manchester is a

great city. Liverpool is a great city. I would like to see, come on,

let us see some of that economic activity diverted to other areas.

Picking up on what Joey said. You know, I believe passionately, UKIP

believe, that the people should have say. You will be affected, the

people who live in this area. It's absolutely vital that you are

consulted. You have to have that through a role referendum. The

people affected in London don't want it, it shouldn't happen. Piers

Morgan. Job creation where? It seems a classic British debate we are

having. We are finding endless excuses not to do something which is

absolutely overwhelmingly in our interest to do. Heathrow is the

number one aviation brand that we have in this country. America, where

I live most of the time, they love Heathrow. They don't talk about

Gatwick. It doesn't have the same prestige, nothing against Gatwick.

Heathrow is our blue ribboned airport, if you like. We need the

capacity. We want to encourage the people who will be flooding from in

from China, America, other countries, the Far East,

predominantly. They will come from their own airports which are

sensational. I have been to Shanghai, I have been to the Middle

East, their airports are way ahead of most of us go. To Terminal 5 here

at Heathrow, a fantastic terminal. Recently voted one of the best

terminals in the world. I've used it all the time. Tremendous. Terminal 2

about to open is modelled on Terminal 5, it looks fantastic. We

should be proud of this. We should say - right, we have something

special here. We are redeveloping Heathrow to become a genuinely

world-class airport. Let us give them a third runway, let us become

not just one of the best airports in the world, let's become THE best.

Let us not be British about it and say, oh, it's noisy. Oh, the traffic

will be bad. Oh, the pollution... Joey. Let's be the best! Piers, you

know if you travel in Heathrow or in - I live under the path too. It will

go over my head. I thought you lived in New York? At the moment I'm back

here for reasons that are slightly beyond nigh my control. I have a

house that be under the flight path. The 747 was the noisest hair

aircraft in the world. It's one of the quietest. Right. You have to

work out, the planes are getting quieter and quieter. Planes are

getting quieter. Technology will mean they will continue to get

quieter. Do not let noise, pollution and traffic stop us being a

world-class airport that makes us - What about the rest of the country.

Build another one in Manchester and Birmingham where ever else you want

to build one. I don't see you begging to do it. They should let

these people decide. I have to tell you how wonderful Glasgow is. Build

one everywhere! The trick and difficulty in this is you have to

balance out economic development. Piers made that argument strongly.

You can't always throw things out because a certain group of people

don't want them. As a country and across the globe have to take

account of aviation emissions too. That is a challenge. I think it's

right, believe it or not, what the Government have done through the

Davis Commission, the proper way to come to this conclusion is to look

at evidence-led policy. Where we look at the different arguments and

you try to come to a conclusion that allows you, hopefully, to look at

noise pollution and do something about CO2 emissions. I wouldn't be

in a position where we are under cutting developments in the

south-east. I do think point to point air travel and our airports

across (inaudible) are important. David Willetts can you answer

briefly. That's why I do think having Howard Davis looking through

the options will assess these arguments we are hearing about

noise, pollution or global hubs best to give him the objective analysis

and look forward to his report. That is the only way we will ever resolve

this. I live on the flight path. It's noisy. It is. Maybe they will

get quieter. Anyone who lives on it will testify to it. You hear them

going over. Is all right. The thing that strikes me is expanding Gatwick

theory. You can - they were talking about putting 15 minutes or 20

minutes high-speed link between the two. Gatwick essentially becoming

Heathwick. London is our capital city. It should be the pride of the

country. It should be should be the one we work hard to make the best. I

will bow to Louise Bours, not everybody is obsessed whether

Heathrow has its extra runway. I will take a question, if we can just

do it in a few minutes, from Robert Benjamin, please. Yes. Are NHS

funded slimming clubs really the best way towards a healthier nation?

This is a kind of big story. You are a nutritionist, aren't you? Yes. The

NHS will pay for you to go to Weight Watchers and lose weight. Are you in

favour of that or not? I think it's a nice idea. I fear it's not

preventative enough. Obesity is a very big problem. UK girls ranked -

One for Joey Barton. The third heaviest girls, is that right? You

are a health freak, are you in favour? Am I? I thought you were.

I'm struggling to see how the NHS we should subsidise. I really am. I

have written about the carrot-and-stick argument about

introducing a "fat tax" people obviously are aware of the kind of

things they are are ping in their mouth. What gets me, this may be

where the Government can help. I know a lot of people (inaudible)

they would really like to eat healthily, eat organic, it's very

expensive. The alternative for them, they have to feed the kids. The

stuff that is really cheap is the stuff that is pretty crap. If the

Government could introduce something where maybe people on low income or

benefits can receive a coupon or a token or something that allows them

to get fresh vegetables, fresh fruit and veg and give the kids a healthy

diet. I think that would be a good ?5 billion thing. Every single year

the NHS spends on obesity-related illnesses. If someone is willing to

make the effort to try, I believe Weight Watchers and Slimming World

change to how you look and cook food. That has to be cheaper than

spending ?5 billion on gastric bands and type two diabetes etc, etc. Why

not look at the alternatives. You have to take it further. Why are so

many girls in particular, the boys figures weren't much better, so

obese in this country compared to other European countries? The answer

is, we have become a sedatory country. My four kids love their

sport. They play it all the time. It keeps their weight down. A lot of

orchids don't get sports at schools. I have banged this drum for a long

time. The one thing I agreed with Boris Johnson about, more than

anything else, bringing 90 minutes or two hours of compulsory sport in

school. They are on laptops and phones all day. Get them running and

losing weight. David Willetts. We have an obesity problem. It's

serious. I agree with Piers. We have added an extra hour of sport across

all our schools because people do need more examiner countries. After

the Olympics we are actually doing more sport. You are in favour of the

NHS putting slimming clubs - No, I think - it is their decision for

local individual authorities. I'm not convinced that is a good use. I

think examiner countries is the right way. Whether that would be a

long-term solution I don't know. We need to get people into looking at

food. The world has changed. How you eat for the long-term, not just some

of the short-term fads which some of the slimming clubs are guilty of. If

I agree with Louise about this, if it helps you think about food, that

is good. It's not just young people, maybe we could show by example about

some of the way we behaviour - Did you point to me as a sign of fine

physical fitness. What a perfect way to end the show! We all have to wise

up and show by example. We are all guilty. You should look at what they

did in Dubai? What did they do in Dubai They gave a gram of gold for

every kilogram of weight lost. They spend ?400,000 - Something for the

UKIP manifesto. Something for the manifesto. Once more, you can yo-yo

you get a gram every other year. I will sign up for that one now. That

is it. Next week Question Time will be in Wales. The following week we

will be in King's Lynn. The website is there on our screen You can call

the number: If you are listening on 5 Live the debate goes on on

Question Time Extra Time. My thanks to my panel, all of you who came to

take part in this programme, in this brand new Terminal 2. Until next

time, from Question Time, good night.