29/10/2015 Question Time

Welcome, whether you're watching or listening, to our audience here,

Former Leader of the Scottish Conservatives Annabel Goldie.

The Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for

Infrastructure, responsible among other things for the Forth Road

Labour's newly-elected Leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale.

The Editor of MoneyWeek magazine, Merryn Somerset Webb.

And the English musician who campaigned

for Scottish independence, one of many campaigns he has put

If you want to text or tweet, our hashtag is BBCQT.

Text comments to 83981, and press the red button to see what

Our first question, please. I would like to ask the panel, is the House

of Lords more in tune with the British public than our elected

representatives in Westminster? This is, of course, over the tax credit

issue, when the House of Lords voted down the House of Commons. Among

those voting was the newly ennobled Annabel Goldie. Is the House of

Lords more in June with public opinion? I think the important issue

to remember is that the House of Commons is the elected parliament,

the Parliament voters elect MPs to. The house of lords is unelected.

Some might want to get rid of it, but I think it does a good job of

reviewing legislation and is needed as a secondary chamber at

Westminster. But I voted with the government on Monday night because I

thought it was wrong that an unelected House of Lords should be

overflowing the duly processed decisions of an elected House of

Commons. So I think there is a point of principle in there, but that is

not to say that the House of Lords proved to be a very both useful and

a very well-informed forum for addressing an issue which clearly

has generated a great deal of interest, great deal of passion, and

a great deal of concern, which is the matter of reforming tax credits.

You are saying they should not have done this and now you are beginning

to say they are in tune with public opinion, as the question was asking.

I am saying there is a conflict between assuming that an unelected

body like the House of Lords should be in a position to overthrow the

decisions of the elected parliament, the House of Commons. I believe

strongly that is an issue of principle. I am saying I think the

House of Commons is the correct place for decisions to be made. That

does not mean the House of Lords does not have a role, and I was

explaining why I think it performed a useful role. But that the end of

the day, and I would not hide from this, I also voted with the

Government on Monday night because actually I do approve of what the

Chancellor is trying to achieve, in terms of turning our economy round

from a high welfare, high tax and low waged economy. I want to see us

give people decent wages without having to subsidise wages with tax

credits, which I don't think it's healthy. We are talking about who

has the ear of the British public, the House of Commons or the House of

Lords. Kezia Dugdale. They don't look like or sound like the rest of

the country but I am glad they were there this week. Annabel said this

was a point of principle. I'm a late -- afraid it wasn't. In the TV

debates during the election David Cameron told us he would not cut tax

credits. It was not in his manifesto and now he is trying to cut ?3000

from families across the country. I think the Lords voted this week to

try to hold David Cameron to what he told the British public and I'm glad

they did that. That is a really good thing that that legislation has now

been sent back to have another look at, because this will hurt working

people across the country. So you do believe they are more in tune than

the House of Commons? No, I don't. I want to scrap the House of Lords. It

is important to have a second chamber to go over the details when

the government gets it wrong but it does not have to be full of Lords in

ermine robes and cloth caps. We can do it differently and it is high

time that we should. APPLAUSE

For me, I don't think the House of Lords should be there, they should

be abolished and elected. But practically, my mother relied on tax

credits for both me and my brother. If I was brought up now, that would

mean she would lose that money. If there was an emergency in my

household, say a car breaks down, washing machine, where do you turn

when you have no safety net? George Osborne says he wants to get rid of

the debt, but what actually happens is payday loans. My mum would have

to get a payday loan, she is in debt, and it is fine for the

millionaires, isn't it? APPLAUSE

I approve of having a second house and every democracy should have won,

which is why I am concerned Scotland does not have one. In this case, the

Lords did exactly the right thing, thinking -- given what they think

about the tax credit debacle. But I am not convinced that means they are

in tune with the country on this issue or any others. If you look at

the polls on this matter, there was huge public support and remains

public support for change to the tax credit regime. So in this case you

could say the Lords were more in tune with media opinion than with

population opinion. The woman in the front, in the 2nd row. I have to

disagree. Scotland does have a second tier, called the public. If

the government does not do what we ask, we vote them out. The Lords is

completely unelected and needs to be scrapped straightaway. The money we

save, why don't we use that to go towards what will be missing from

tax credits? There is no need for people to go without tax credits

while waiting four years on their wages to hit a living wage. It is

disgusting. APPLAUSE

On the political point, the House of Commons, after all the Tories have a

majority there and they were elected by the UK, do you think it is right

that the House of Lords, you don't want a House of Lords? I don't

believe in the House of Lords. Because it is not proportional

representation, the House of Commons is unfair anyway. Let's change it,

get proportional representation, as in Scotland, and when we are not

happy, we change the government. Kezia would know about that. The

first thing is that the House of Lords is a democratic abomination

and we should not have it. It costs a lot of money. If it does something

we agree with, that does not justify it and we should get rid of it.

There is another democratic element. The point that was made before is

that David Cameron was asked by you on a programme before the election

if he would lower tax credits and he said he would not. Lo and behold,

?4.5 billion of cuts comes forwards. These cuts to family tax credits

will help to pay for the tax reduction for those who pay

inheritance tax. The poorest will be subsidising some of the most well

off. That is not democratic either. There is a good Scots word, and when

George Osborne put it in a statutory instrument hoping to squeeze it

passed, he was rumbled. None of this justifies the House of Lords, but

there is no way for justifying the cut to tax credits. We talk about a

ladder of opportunity and the Tories are about taking away the bottom

three rungs for ordinary people. APPLAUSE

I should say, your leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, said the

tax credit cuts were not acceptable. We can't have people

suffering in this way. So you were voting against the wishes of the

Tory leader in Scotland on this occasion. What Ruth made clear was

that she supports the aim of the changes, but she felt there was a

need to look at those who might be most disproportionately affected.

Did you feel that? A view which I share. So why did you vote in

favour? Because I supported the principle of what we are trying to

achieve, but I have a concern about the impact for certain groups of

people on the lower end of the earnings scale, and I have written

to the Chancellor about that. Nevertheless, because you thought it

was wrong for the House of Lords to overrule George Osborne and the

Government, you voted in favour of no change. Had you won the day,

there would have been no change. I disagree. The Chancellor had made

clear he was in listening mode, and I think that was absolutely right.

He did not say that until afterwards. He said before that he

was in listening mode, and I think what has happened is a sensible

response to this. The Chancellor will look at this and I think that

is right. And he will try to ensure the transition is eased so that the

people the gentleman was referring to, that and I is kept on that and

appropriate steps are taken. Do you agree with what Keith Brown said

that Cameron did say that he was not going to do this and then changed

his mind? What the Conservatives said in the manifesto was, they laid

out how they wanted to continue with the economic recovery. That is why I

want to come back to Keith, who is indicating we are living in some

sort of economic nightmare. We are not, we are transformed from five

years ago. We are transformed in terms of the many more thousands of

people, millions of people who have jobs. The question was about the way

in which you bring down the deficit and whether Cameron had given the

promise. In the manifesto the Conservatives put to the electorate

in May, they said we have to keep going with the economic recovery. It

is still fragile, we can't walk away from it. That means saving money in

a variety of areas. So what you say on Question Time in the run-up to an

election does not matter. What you say to David Dimbleby does not

matter. That never matters! Everything matters on your

programme, David. Billy Bragg. I think that what has happened really

is a slight of hand by George Osborne on a number of levels.

Firstly, by seeking to appropriate Labour's clothes by announcing a

living wage, and then finding out that he has announced a living wage

does not really cover in any way the amount that has been taken from

people by cuts in tax credits. That has left him rather embarrassingly

exposed. The 2nd sleight of hand was to use a statutory instrument to

deprive the Labour Party and the SNP and other parties opposed to these

tax cuts any time to hold the Government to account over this,

wing it into the House of Lords and get it sorted out. This is part of

the reason why we need to make the 2nd chamber elected. It is not only

because it is the biggest assembly in any democracy in the world, it

has 816 members. David Cameron has been the worst for this. He has put

more new members in there than any Prime Minister since life peerages

were implemented in 1958. He has put 236 peers in there. Still outvoted

by the other parties. Now he is turning round and saying what a bad

idea it is. The point of the House of Lords is not to represent the

people, it does not represent us in any way. But what was proven the

other night is the necessity of a revising chamber. We need someone to

stand as a backstop in our democracy, but they must be elected.

They must be elected. APPLAUSE

The reason they need to be elected, and I believe they should be

indirectly elected, but the reason they need to be elected is because

they need to stop governments, and Blair did this as well, using things

like statutory instruments to deprive our elected representatives

of the right to hold the Government of the day to account. If the 2nd

chamber had teeth, there is no way the Government could whiz stuff

through the House of Commons. Reforming the House of Lords helps

the House of Commons. The woman at the back. If David Cameron did not

lie to everybody, this would not be an issue, would it? If I go for a

job and I lie and get found out I would expect to be sacked. Why is he

not getting sacked, quite frankly? On the gangway, for throw up. I do

agree with the principle that the government should not be topping up

low wages but I am confused as to why the cuts in tax credits are

coming now and are not coming with the increase in wages. Merryn, what

is your view of that? Do you think the timing is wrong? It should have

been done at roughly the same time. There is an important point that has

not been discussed in the conversation about tax credits,

which plays to your point about your mother, which is that we are not

just paying tax credits to people in the lower percentage of income, but

right up the way, to people in the 2nd and third quintile. It is

possible on tax credits, working child credits and others to have a

high income. We are paying vast amounts of welfare to what we would

consider the middle classes, not just to the lower parts of society.

That has not been recognised in the media debate and was not recognised

in the Lords either. So this reform is absolutely vital. There has to be

considerable reform to welfare. The money we are paying to what most of

us consider the middle classes is money that is not being spent on the

NHS, pension disasters, education. We have to make choices and right

now we are making the wrong ones. APPLAUSE

Why isn't the free market paying a proper wage? There is a fundamental

failure in the free market paper per wages, because over the years the

rights of people to organise in the workplace have been taken away from

them. People need more cooperation in the workplace. What is the

problem, what is wrong with capitalism? There are lots of

problems and one of them is welfare. If a company knows wages will be

topped up by the state and taxpayers they have licensed to pay less. You

would not shop in Tesco if the people behind the tills were

starving to death, of course not. So they would have to pay higher wages.

They do not have too because we are topping it up. This is a fundamental

problem. There has been a big shift from Labour towards capital but it

is shifting back. Capitalism moves in big cycles and we are seeing a

proper shift back towards Labour and away from capital. In the 2nd row

from the back. I think this situation is ironic.

The House of Lords has the chief executive of next saying a person

can live in a certain amount of money if you are told your policies

are too harsh, how out of touch is the elected government and not how

out of touch the is House of Lords? We must go on. Before I take another

question, we are going to be in Tottenham next Thursday and Stoke on

Trent the Thursday after that. On the screen is the way to apply. I

will give the details at the end of the programme. With Jeremy Corbyn as

leader, will the Labour Party be saved in Scotland? This is being

watched with great interest south of the border. Keith Brown... All the

evidence suggests not. Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected, there are a

number of reasons for that. We expected to see something different

and that has not transpired. One of the big promises was on Trident. We

were going to see a real debate in the Labour Party which did not

happen at the conference in England. It might happen this weekend in

Scotland. Jeremy Corbyn will not be there to see that. We end up with a

difficult situation for the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn, whether it

is of his making or his party's. He said, I would never press the button

for nuclear weapons. It is immoral. You cannot perceive the situation

way should be pressing a button. For a party that wants to spend ?160

billion on nuclear weapons the leader says he would never use is

utterly immoral. Some of the promise which was there and many people

brought into that, some literally for ?3 in order to cast a vote.

Either he is a prisoner of a party that does not want to change, you do

not see much evidence of the kinder, nicer politics from others. I do not

think the changes which people expected are being followed through.

Who knows over time? There is no evidence as yet. A poll came out

which said, since being elected, he has gone down in the polls. If that

continues and there is no sign of a Labour revival across the UK, what

we are facing in Scotland is virtually perpetual Tory government.

There is only one way we can avoid that happening in the future. I do

not think that Jeremy Corbyn will oversee an increase in terms of the

Labour Party in Scotland. We're not seeing that so far. At every

opportunity, the Labour Party says the SNP is bad for everything it has

done. I cannot see anything positive. I do not see a bounce.

APPLAUSE Kezia Dugdale before the election,

it you said about Jeremy Corbyn, you have to convince me he can be Prime

Minister. You had rather a low view of him. Now he is leading the Labour

Party, what is your view of him? Lots of people have said it was a

disparaging remark. I desperately want there to be a Labour government

in this country. I want the Tories out. I see Labour as the only party

across the whole of the United Kingdom that can stand up for

working people. When I cast my vote for who should be Labour leader, I

had to focus on the idle could be Prime Minister, uniting this country

and making it fairer for everyone. I voted for Yvette Cooper. What I

would say to you, I have never said that publicly before but ask a

straight question and you get a straight answer. Straight talking,

honest politics, as Jeremy would have it. I have spent a lot of time

with Jeremy over the past you weeks. He is a man of tremendous

principle. He feels the pain of working families across this country

in his bones and he will transform this country with a message about

why it does not have to be this way. Tomorrow can be better than today.

He has the vision we need. I am excited about what he might set out

in the months ahead. If I can express your questions specifically,

you asked whether the Scottish Labour Party has the future. We are

in terrible trouble. It is why I went for the job. The values of the

Labour Party are as relevant as they ever have been. Believing in the

potential of people and using the power of government to realise that

potential, that is the Labour way. I want to build a fairer and more

equal country. In the next few months we were see Labour policy

platform coming forward to inspire you once again. That was met with

silence. Annabel Golding. I think the problem for Labour in the United

Kingdom, and in Scotland, people do not know what they stand for. As far

as I can understand, on the 1 hand, Jeremy Corbyn wants to espouse a

type of socialism which, in terms of his right to do that guy is totally

legitimate. It is a form of socialism going back 40 years to the

days of Harold Wilson which proved to be completely unelectable. If you

look at what Jeremy Corbyn has been talking about, he believes in...

Harold Wilson won election after election. No, he did not. He

eventually lost. He retired. APPLAUSE

What Harold Wilson did was to lead an economic legacy, which was the

product of Labour's economic policies, which were a complete

failure. It was all about how not to run an economy, how not to generate

wealth, create jobs and give people opportunities. That is why we are

headed -- we headed into the disaster of the 70s. The

International Monetary Fund ran the country. The thing about Jeremy

Corbyn, he is, I think, completely incredible on the issue of defence.

For me, economy and events are two of the most important obligations

for government. I respect that Keith has a view about Trident. I respect

his view and there is a clarity about the SNP position, it does not

want Trident. Jeremy Corbyn does not believe in Trident, he does not

believe in the nuclear deterrent. He is not keen on military forces. He

has Shadow Cabinet colleagues who do believe in Trident. In Scotland no 1

knows what Labour believes. Kezia Dugdale Trident. Is that true? You

cannot run a party like that. Do you believe in Trident? I am a

multilateralist. I stood on a platform to lead by party, to lead a

more democratic party. I am given the power to decide our party

position to our membership this weekend. I think there are mixed

views on this position regardless of party politics. The good thing to do

is to be honest and frank about it. My party is not in trouble because

people do not know where we stood on the issue of Trident, my party is in

trouble... I got this message loud and clear from the general election

result, people thought we were run from Westminster and the Scottish

Labour Party did not put Scotland first. I am going to turn that

around. That is why have been talking about a more autonomous

Scottish Labour Party determining our future in Scotland. You will

have two parties? It is not an independent party, it is an

autonomous party. There are lots of examples of this across Europe. If

this does not work at the elections in May and the Tories get more votes

than you... In Scotland? I think you will find that is very unlikely.

Would your position as leader be on the line? That is not really for me.

It would be great you could say, I am resigning. I do not expect the

fortunes of the Labour Party in Scotland can be turned around

overnight. Let's just hear from some members of the audience. Let's go to

you over here, in the spectacles. When considering the question, we

should consider it on two grounds, the crucial need for a voice in

Scotland in the Westminster Parliament and a need for a party to

take into consideration Scottish issues and needs. And reiterating

them in the Westminster Parliament. When considering Corbyn as Leader of

the Labour Party, the problem, and I think it has been clearly shown in

the media of the incompetency he has of running the Labour Party. As the

panel has most kindly said, the problem he has with the Shadow

Cabinet, the problem he has with members of his party standing

against him and public are giving statements against things that he is

saying that the party should be focusing on. In effect you are

saying he cannot restore Labour in Scotland. I am saying there is a

competency in his leadership. You, sir. One of the biggest problems

with this entire thing is the fact that 60% of members in Labour voted

for Corbyn yet there are so many MPs within Labour who are not publicly

yet, but voting against him. It shows how divided Labour is. They

need to show more togetherness rather than having a broken apart

party. Togetherness means, who wins? I think they should back the leader

and have a debate that, at the same time, I think there should be more

togetherness. Labour is a party that is very much supposed to be about

togetherness and I feel it has gone against that. Both those comments

have touched on Kezia Dugdale is a real problem. The silence you heard

after your first comment is the sound of scepticism. The people of

Scotland are not stupid. They recognise that where Teva Corbyn

says and stands for, it does not have the support of the

Parliamentary Labour Party. He can come up with some great ideas but

they cannot be carried through. He has the support of the leadership

but he does not have the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Until that is resolved, that will not happen. You cannot expect the

leader of a British mainstream political party to talk about

independence. That is not possible. Corbyn must have something to say

about self-determination to the people of Scotland. I do not

understand why he is not talking about federalism. The answer to the

West Lothian question is not English votes for English laws, the answer

is, if you have a Scottish parliament, you have to have an

English Parliament. I really think if the Labour Party could come out

in favour of federalism, not only would they have something to talk to

people in Scotland about, they would also be able to speak to a lot of

people who feel disenfranchised in England. A new Assembly would surely

be elected under proportional representation, to give

representation to the people who are disenfranchised and voting Ukip at

the last election. I do not know why they are not talking about it.

APPLAUSE The man with the spectacles on.

Jeremy Corbyn will go down as the man who consolidated the two parties

in Scotland and England into two-party state. He is that

unpopular. The SNP and the Conservatives in England. You think

that will happen? It has already happened. I would not write him off

yet. Hang on. Look at what he has faced, the media onslaught, people

raking through his bins, cameras in his face when he goes out to collect

the papers. Empty of people do not want him to do well. I look beyond

the Parliamentary Labour Party and I see a growing political movement,

660,000 people signed up to be a member of the party, to support the

Labour Party. That is a tremendous step forward. I have said tonight I

did not vote for him but I am 100% loyal to him because I believe in

the Labour Party and I believe in what it can do to transform the

fortunes of this country. I wouldn't write off Jeremy Corbyn.

It doesn't take much for a crisis to change people's mines, and there are

many potential crises out there. Going back to Scotland, the

interesting point is that Scotland is not as left wing as it thinks it

is. The social attitude surveys which are done in Scotland and

Britain, if you flick through those, they are statistically

significant, and you can see that on almost every issue the Scottish, as

a whole, tend to think about things in the same way as the English.

Scotland is not, by its nature, as left wing as it likes to think it

is. What do you mean as it likes to think it is? When you read Scottish

newspapers, talk to the Scots, or if you ask them if they are more

left-wing than the English, they say yes. But the social attitude surveys

do not tell you that, they tell you that generally the Scottish and

English think about things in a remarkably significant way. The only

significant difference is the EU. My point being that it is very hard for

there to be two parties in Scotland that are perceived as left wing, the

SNP and Labour. They cannot really coexist. If you are going to have

separate parties, there has to be a third party. Is the SNP perceived as

left wing? You have certainly taken the left very firmly from Labour, no

doubt about that. They certainly present as. We have this quite a

lot, and we often get it from the Labour Party that you are not

redistributive, not anti-austerities. To give concrete

examples, but we have put to the parliament is free school meals,

which was opposed by the Labour Party in the parliament. We have

also led in terms of the council tax benefit, made sure the bedroom tax

did not hurt people in Scotland, unlike Wales where Labour are in

control. So there is a lot we do that is redistributive. We are also

pro-business, especially small business. The crucial point is the

point that Kezia made, if the Labour Party this weekend discusses trident

and comes out against spending ?167 billion of your money on Trident,

will Kezia then say to Ian Murray, the sole remaining Labour MP in

Scotland, when you go to London you must vote against Trident? That will

be the test of whether we have an autonomous Labour Party. Generally

speaking, most left wing Scott 's identifiers nationalists and

therefore vote SNP, regardless of whether or not they are as left wing

as they say they are. I don't understand how Scottish Labour can

move to the left and expect to pick up these nationalists who vote for

the SNP because they are nationalists. Therefore, the only

place you can pick up voters from the centre and the right, and Jeremy

Corbyn is not going to win them. All that Jeremy Corbyn is doing is

failing to win voters that have gone to the SNP and driving others to the

Tories, who by the way were one percentage point behind Labour last

time I checked in the polls. Nobody thought that sending a parliament to

Scotland would lead towards a more independent Scotland. Everybody

thought that it would kill the issue of independence. It didn't. Nobody

thought that 45% of the Scottish people would vote in favour of

independence but they didn't. So to sit there and tell me what is going

to happen to Jeremy Corbyn, mate, I think you have another thing coming.

I look forward to the landslide, Billy. What people want from

politics is changing. It is easily visible in Scotland, not yet in

England, but Jeremy Corbyn is a representative of that urge for

change. This is grassroots Labour. The reason Ed Miliband did not win

last time was because that was the old way of doing things, a hollowed

out party, top-down orders and the membership disregarded. All of this

is changing and the sort of excitement I saw in Scotland during

the independence campaign, and I was fortunate to be in Scotland on the

day the yes campaign were first put forward to win, we are starting to

feel that excitement in England because Jeremy is the leader. We

just have to convince first the parliamentary Labour Party and then

everybody else that he really does represent genuine positive change.

You can't convince your own party, you can't convince the electorate.

As I said, we first have two convince the party and I hope they

are all watching this and thinking about this. A few more points and

then another question. At the end of May when I was looking at the four

Labour leadership candidates, I looked at them all, Burnham, Cooper,

Kendall, and I joined the Scottish Green Party. I can't bear to vote

for any of these people. This is not the Labour Party I want to be even

affiliated with. And then Corbyn got nominated and, well... But I don't

know if Jeremy Corbyn can save the Scottish Labour Party because I

don't know if his MPs will let him, but I do know that none of the

leadership candidates had a chance, and I like Jeremy Corbyn, he has

popular, middle-of-the-road left-wing opinions. Polling says

what Jeremy Corbyn once domestically, rayon mashed

novelisation, save the NHS, is what people want. -- rail

nationalisation. Firstly, when they had a huge

majority in Westminster, Labour ignored Scotland and took Scottish

MPs for granted and thought they would always get 50 MPs up here.

Secondly, they did the dirty work for the Tories during the referendum

campaign. As simple as that. APPLAUSE

I think we should go to another question.

Was it right to bail out the banks but not the steel industry? There

are various measures being proposed to help the steel industry but no

bailout. Merryn. And unpopular answer but yes, we absolutely were.

I think it is generally good to try and avoid bailing out industries,

but there is a good case for bailing out industries that are in

short-term trouble and systemically important to an economy and will

definitely return to profit. That has been the case with the banks,

approve or not of the way the financial industry works. It has

returned to profit. It is a long-term, sustainable business.

Other businesses are not necessarily long-term sustainable and the truth

is that the steel industry falls into that group. It has been in

trouble for a long time and is in trouble now, and I can't see it

being the case in five years, seven years, ten years that we suddenly

have a profitable steel industry that can last for the long-term. So

we should not, I don't think, be looking to bail out that kind of

industry. What we should be doing is looking to help the people that are

suffering as a result of that industry. So we can't help the steel

industry but we can help the steelworkers afterwards. Kezia

Dugdale, do you agree? No. I really don't. If you look at the two plants

in Scotland, they do road steel plate. As I understand it those

plants are profitable. The reason they are closing down is that Tata

want to make savings across the whole of their bases. I think the

plants in Scotland have a viable future, there is a positive future

for steel production in this country but we have to take steps to realise

that. We need some new assets in those plants so they can make more

than one thing. We have to protect the highly skilled engineers that

work in the plants. Short time working would do that, letting these

jobs stay for a few days per week until we can get a new company into

the plant to operate it. And we should use Scottish steel in

Scottish products, put it in the heart of our infrastructure and

everything we are the building. I think there is a viable future for

this industry that we have to believe it, not just manage the

decline. That is not acceptable. APPLAUSE

What is the Scottish Government's review? It is difficult but not

impossible. A few months ago, the last shipbuilding concern on the

Clyde was about to go to the wall. Through a lot of effort that has now

been saved and it is now prospering in terms of orders for new ferries.

You also had Prestwick airport which was going to the wall with the loss

of thousands of jobs in the West of Scotland and we did essentially

nationalise that. Coming back to the point about the banks, why did we

bail out the banks? We were told they were a cornerstone of the

system and you need the banking system. But the perception for most

people was that you were keeping the banks so that they could continue to

lend to people and businesses. But they used the money they got from us

to build up their capital sheets. Even now they are not lending to

small businesses. There is a contrast today with David Cameron in

Iceland. Ice and jailed the bankers. -- Icelander. Corrupting the LIBOR

mechanism, the cornerstone of the capitalist system, corrupting that,

and they are now looking to ease back on the regulations. These were

huge crimes, nobody has gone to jail for that. There is a court case

ongoing but nobody has gone to jail. In Iceland, they jailed the bankers

when they were found to be corrupt and we should have done the same

thing. APPLAUSE

Are you going to bail out the steel plants? As I said, the Scottish

Government has started working, there was a meeting today for the

first time with the concerns. We want to keep it viable. One last

word on the banks. You have said a lot on the Goldie. I think it is

important that politicians are realistic about what we can do in a

difficult situation like this and equally realistic about what we

cannot do. I am struck by what Keith Brown is saying because it is a

departure from the line of the Scottish Government, which has said

that if the two steel plants in Scotland can find a commercial buyer

it will do everything to assist that. I think that is sensible and a

realistic way to go forward. I think what government can also do, as is

happening with the UK Government, they are attempting to ensure that

projects within this country will procure British steel. I think that

is a very good way to go forward. They are providing help to people

affected at the moment. But I think we have to be very clear about how I

think not viable it is for a government to buy a failing

industry. If it is failing because there is not a demand for product

out there at a price that will keep the industry going. That is the

difficulty. Steele has global oversupply and the price has

plummeted. That is bitter, harsh and difficult for the workers in the

plants affected, but it does mean that when you talk, as Kezia did,

about trying to take it over because it is basically profitable, well, it

is not profitable if actually market prices will not give the company the

return it needs to keep the thing going. And that is the dilemma and I

think politicians have to be utterly realistic about where they can help.

They can help in many ways but they have two be realistic about what is

not viable. You cannot take over an industry that has not apparently got

a viable commercial future. It is not fair to taxpayers, not fair to

public services, because you create a drain on the public purse by using

money, sadly, for something that cannot give a return. You have made

the point. You, on the right. Is it possible for British industry, such

as the steel industry, to compete with China, India, those economies?

Is it your view that it is possible? I don't really think it is. I just

wonder if there is a way that we can produce higher quality goods and

encourage our industry to do that, rather than just shelving the

plants. Well, Adams and, going for some local colour, said there was an

invisible hand, capitalism worked with an invisible hand that would

deal with, like the laws of the jungle, would deal with businesses

that are not viable. This is what is being given to the steelworkers. The

invisible hand of capitalism is strangling their hopes for the

future. Whereas the bankers at RBS, the invisible hand just tickled

them. By the rules set down by Adam Smith, those banks should have

failed. We could not let them fail because of how important they are to

our economy. But having rescued the banks, we are letting them get up

and do exactly the same thing as before. We need to be making sure

that the banks we have nationalised, particularly the biggest, RBS, we

should have made it into a national bank and said, it is not going to

speculate on the stock market, it is going to help small to medium

businesses, help the community. But the Tories have a total rejection of

any kind of nationalisation. They see that the free market should go

into places like Redcar, Motherwell... You would nationalise

the steel industry? It should not be socialism for the bankers and

capitalism for the steelworkers. APPLAUSE

Does he convince you? Working in the financial services industry myself,

recently for RBS, I think it is not quite as clear-cut as that. It never

is for bankers! I am not a banker, I work for bank. I am just saying, for

bankers it is or was blurred, they never quite did it themselves. There

is the casino banking side of things, then there is the retail

side. There has been legislation trying to separate those two. Would

that be viable? I think it is. What about his answer on the steel

industry, because you made the point that it could not sell because of

Chinese and Indian steel? It is difficult to compete on a global

market. How can we expect workers in this country, with the

quality-of-life and lifestyles that we have, how can we expect them to

work for as little as people are prepared to in developing countries?

That is not to say it is acceptable for people in developing countries,

but their cost of his much lower. The man in the pink.

I think it is appalling the bankers were bailed out. Those at the bottom

of the heap are struggling. Why don't they refinanced and restart

the major British industries and give people a meaningful employment

like they have before. The Germans still have a perfectly good steel

industry and so do other European countries. Why can we not do that?

The cost of power in this country is massive.

APPLAUSE That is a very important point. You

are quite correct. Industries like steel have been suffering hugely

with energy charges. The bottom line remains. If global prices and

pressures mean you do not have a market for what you're doing at a

price you can sustain it, you have a problem. I was wanting to pick up

particularly on what you said about banking being a sustainable

business. I do not want to direct this question just a Cuba industries

in the UK seem to be disappearing more and more. One of the

extraordinary things about this discussion is there is a lot of

grandstanding. Steel is something special. Why aren't accountants

special? Why aren't journalists special? In my industry, jealous are

losing jobs every day. Two local newspapers shut down in Scotland

every week. I do not see anyone stepping in to save us,

nationalising the newspaper business. That is not happening.

Manufacturing is considering to be something everyone can grandstand

about. A still working job is not superior to an accountancy job, a

financial services job, a journalist job, working for a printing

company, it just is not and we should not behave as though it is.

Kezia Dugdale this is more than a job, it is an iconic Scottish

industry. That is grandstanding. You cannot protect the past at the

expense of the future. Every time you say and industry is iconic... I

listened to your point of view, let me say mindful that the reason the

cost is so low is because the Chinese are dumping steel onto our

markets. We can build a viable future for this industry for years

government money to help diversify the kind of products they make. What

do you mean by iconic? It is the skyline of central Scotland, to see

the steelworks, the pride people have in the jobs. When the steel

industry goes, a whole generation of Scottish history goes with it. I am

not prepared to see the light go out without a fight. I believe there is

a viable future for the industry. I applaud your passion. Nobody doubts

for one moment your sincerity about the issue. Under Labour 16,000 steel

jobs were lost under the last government. Why was this policy and

support not adopted then? APPLAUSE

The original question was about fairness and justice and how we have

treated bags and how we are currently treating the steel

industry. Until we deal with the legacy of the banking crisis and

hold those to account properly, and it includes possibly sequestering

the assets that are owned by key individuals who are responsible for

that, we could be using that money to finance a whole number of

different things. Somebody in the fourth row has had her hand up for a

long time. If we let the steel industry fall by the wayside, what

are we going to do to plug the gap? It sounds a lot like the

conversation we had in the 1980s under Thatcher when the coal

industry declined and thousands and thousands of jobs were lost yet,

still today, there are whole communities across the whole of

Scotland, the north-east of England and Wales, who are still depressed,

without jobs, nothing. If you are going to let the steel industry

fail, you need to replace it with something.

APPLAUSE Can a country like Britain afford to

lose its manufacturing base? That is what you are talking about. Can we,

as a modern economy, afford to have no manufacturing base? Aye first I

would say, a job is a job is a job. It does not matter if it is

manufacturing or not. We still have a manufacturing base. We have a high

quality manufacturing base. If you look at the North of England, there

is solid manufacturing and it is growing. The man in the blue shirt.

Why is the Forth crossing not being made with British Steel?

APPLAUSE Just briefly, we have a number of

questions. It is Scottish steel being used in the bridge. The main

part of the steel contract, there was no bid from anywhere in Scotland

was not made in Scotland. That steel is not made in Scotland any more.

The last point I want to make is about the banks. When they sold off

the shares of Lloyds, they took -- we took a ?1 billion hit. We sold

them off for less than they were worth all to imagine what we could

have done for the steel industry if we got the right rate. That shows

the way we treat manufacturing differently. It is not because it is

iconic, it is about a 50-year-old male, for example, a steel worker.

He knows if the steel industry goes he will not get a chance to get

another job. It is nothing to do the iconic nature of the industry, it is

an iconic industry and it is about safeguarding people stop. It is very

difficult in those communities to get another job. That is why we have

to save them. APPLAUSE

Time for a question from you, Jackie. Should there be any enquiry

into that the delay of the Chilcott enquiry and, if so, how long with

this take? APPLAUSE

We are going to get it by June or July. Billy Bragg... I really think

there should be. I think the process of asking people to respond to what

is there, I do not see why it has taken such a long time. It is

relatively straightforward. Consideration should have been given

to the sensibilities of families of service men and women who have

served there, some of whom never came back. The fact it has taken so

long as less so much speculation. It has only been bad for the idea that

ultimately if we do find out what Chilcott thing for those who made

mistakes, those who are responsible, will be held to account. We have

already seen Tony Blair tried to get his to Penrith in before it all

comes back. I am sure the Americans do have a big part to play as they

supplied the original intelligence which led to the dodgy dossier.

Whether they are trying to hold it back, I do not know. The British

public really does deserve to know the truth about what happened, why

we were involved in Iraq. The issue still divides people very heavily.

The sooner it comes out and the sooner we can talk about it, the

better it will be, not just as, but more importantly for the families

who lost loved ones. Kezia Dugdale has it been and Julie delayed?

People have said that Tony Blair might have tried to hold it up? It

certainly feels that way for the it should be published at the earliest

possible opportunity, and that should be yesterday. It does account

to 2 million words. It will be huge and will take people a long time to

get their heads around it. People need to know what has happened. Our

experience of Iraq has clouded our approach and attitudes towards UK

foreign affairs for a decade. As a country, I do not think we can ever

move on until we have this report. It needs to be published now. The

British public needs to know. Can you imagine, if you are a soldier

going to Iraq, you are told you are going there because of weapons of

mass destruction, can imagine seeing your mates being killed and then

finding there were no weapons of mass destruction? That would have

been horrific. In personnel. These families are trying to find out

answers. The second point... Ayew critical of the delay? I think the

delay is appalling. -- Ayew critical? For years later, a half

promise which may come out next year. We are told it will be vetted

for national-security reasons. What was said? Is the stuff going to be

lifted out of the process? APPLAUSE

At the very least, there has to be a democratic oversight of anything

that is taken out. Summary needs to look and needs to make sure they're

not just covering someone's embarrassment. Are you worried about

the announcement they will have a security check about what has been

said by Chilcott? I totally and stand the best racing and anger

about the delay. I know it has been complex and a huge form of enquiry.

The Prime Minister vented that frustration. He said to Sir John

Chilcott, we need to get this done and dusted. There are interests of

families, of service men and women who are over there, interests of the

public to know what happened and why decisions were made. As to the

security issues, we have still to bear in mind we have service men and

women engaged in conflicts elsewhere. We have a difficult

situation at the moment in relation to Syria. Yes, I think there may be

intelligent security issues. What the public is wanting and making a

demand for, we need this enquiry produced now, please get in public

as quickly as possible. We will not work -- know what is taken out for

security reasons, are you concerned about that? I am concerned about the

whole thing. I am amazed it was not time-limited in the first place. The

main thing that I think politicians should be considering here, trust

has gone from politics in the UK. It has gone across the board, not just

in the UK but across much of the world. This is exactly the kind of

reason why. You asked a simple question, you think you can get an

answer in less than 2 million words and you cannot and you do not.

We're in North London next week with writer and broadcaster Victoria

Coren, Chuka Umunna for Labour, and Justine Greening for the Tories.

The following week we'll be in Stoke-on-Trent.

To be in the audience for either programme - London or

Stoke - apply by going to our website, or call 0330 123 99 88.

If you are listening on Radio 5Live, you can continue the debate

We will debate in our own way what we have been hearing but the

programme has to come to an end. My thanks to the panel and all of you

and everyone he has come here to take part. Thank you very much

indeed. Until next Thursday, from Question Time, good night.