28/01/2016 Question Time

Tonight we are in Stamford in Lincolnshire and this is Question

Time. And a big welcome, with whether you're watching or listening

to all our audience here and to our panel tonight, the Conservative

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, the Labour MP elected

last year one of the rising stars of the new intake, Jess Phillips, the

Westminster leader of the Scottish National Party, Laura Robson, the

columnist for the Independent, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and the boss

of the advertising firm Graham Satchell, who worked on last year's

election campaign, Aaron Lennon. APPLAUSE.

-- advertising firm M Saatchi. Thank you. The as ever get stuck

into this debate from home. You can join it on Facebook, on Twitter, you

can follow us at BBC Question Time. If you want to text comments, go to

83981. Press the Red Button to see what others are saying. Our first

question tonight. The average worker pays 20% tax

but Google pay only 3%. Why is it one rule for multinational

corporations and another Jess Phillips? Well, if Google are

only paying 3% tax, that's completely and utterly up fair. At

the moment... APPLAUSE. At the moment, we have

absolutely no idea what rate of tax Google are paying, because it seems

to be shrouded in secrecy. When the Ministers were asked, they said they

didn't know. The average taxpayer will tell you at what rate they pay

tax. I think Google should have to do the same. It should be fair. I'm

sure the Conservative on the panel will say it is great for the country

Google are paying, because they didn't pay anything for all those

years, Labour didn't bother to get anything... Don't do his work for

hem. When everybody in this room and in the world is being asked to

tighten their belts, have less care hours, pay more VAT, why are

companies like Google getting a bung?

APPLAUSE. What do you think? I think the gap between the rich and the

poor has never been larger than it is now. Unless we do something to

address it, this is going to continue. I think it is deeply

unfair. Aaron Lennon? Let me ask you a question. If you were asked, you

were told you can pay any tax rate you wanted, would pay more than you

are paying at the moment? I would guess you would probably say I would

put something into my pension, I might give some to my children, I

might pay less than die at the moment. That's the choice Google

has. The law says they can pay pretty much, with a little legal

shimmy here... But Google have a choice... They do what they like.

The law needs to change. I'm surprised at Google. Two years ago I

was doing Question Time in Corby. I said that the point Google should do

the right thing. The argument is they will do what's best to their

shareholders, they have to make a profit. The best thing for their

shareholders is sustainable proof societies people like you, like

them, they look after their customers and that includes paying

the right amount of tax. Do you think it was a major success when

George Osborne announced this? No, it was move forward. The much more

important thing is what happens in the future and whether the deferred

profit is effective so that going forward they'll be paying hundreds

of millions of tax which they should be at 20% rate, not a 3% rate.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown? I'm surprised you are that confident. Goodness me,

this shinning keeping, bring back the old, Rowntrees and Cadbury's,

they had a conscience. Do these guys know anything about ethics and

social responsibility? They are really smart. They've already said

they haven't a presence in London. Have you been there? You must have

been wined and dined there. Amazing places. And I don't think Labour can

get away with saying yes we should have done it then. They were

completely inthrall. Peter Mandelson saying, do you remember, we are

intensely relaxed about the filthy rich. They started it. In that sense

I agreed for a change with the Prime Minister when he said it started a

long time ago. But what would you do, change the tax rules? What

France is doing, what Italy is doing. You don't know what they are

doing. Their arrangements. They haven't changed them yet. I would go

with what the European Commission is suggesting, the OECD is suggesting

is, stop being this internal competition. We should stop being a

tax haven for these companies and we should stop subsidising the very

rich. APPLAUSE. Patrick McLoughlin? Well,

we have started to receive tax from Google, which is something that

hasn't happened for the ten years they've been established here. So in

that position the Chancellor was right to say it was a move in the

right direction. Of course I would like to see Google making more

payments to the country, and employing more people in this

country. They do employ 3,000 people, top end jobs. They are doing

a lot of investment in this country as well, which is good for the

long-term economic future of the country. But I believe in a low tax

base. I believe in attracting companies here. I believe when those

companies are here they should pay their tax, which is rightly

collected. But companies can and have found ways around paying

taxation and we've made a lot of changes to corporation, to the

taxation system that will make them pay more over the years to come.

Nasty newspapers are saying that there've been 20 meetings with

Google big shots... I didn't have that with my taxes. I have had many

meetings with with companies. I'm surprised you believe everything you

read in the newspaper. I know you write in them but you shouldn't

believe everything you read. Try to clarify from the Tory Party's point

of view, which you are representing. The Chancellor says it's a major

success. Boris Johnson says it is derisory, Anna Soubry the Business

Minister said it doesn't sound a lot of money. What's the truth? The

truth is it is a move in the right direction. There is more for them to

pay and I want them to pay more in the future. Would you call it a

major success? The fact they've not paid any tax and have now paid ?123

million, it is a move in the right direction. Doesn't the fact that we

accept such a small amount from such a large corporation send out a

dangerous message to all the corporations paying a minimal amount

of tax? APPLAUSE. And you, Sir. It amazes me

from members of the panel who've actually said, blamed it back on

previous Government as well, the fact is it is still taking six years

of the Tories and the cohorts, the Liberal Democrats, OK we keep

blaming the Blairites and the rest of it. The problem is definitely

seated in this last Tory Government, two governments, rather. Laura

Robson? Robson? Lump lump Angus Robertson? Is this a simple matter

to be resolved? We have to recognise the UK has the most advanced tax

laws in the world. It is a matter of companies and all of us paying our

fair share of taxes. Governments should simplify the tax code. Let's

not kid ourselves. The City of London is advertised around the

world as a place to do business and in large part because people can use

tax wheezes to get out of their taxes. Point one. And let's not walk

away from the responsibility the UK has amongst its crowned depend sis,

a series of island near and far, who make most of their money through tax

wheezes. What could the British Government do about that? The UK

Government has a responsibility to work with the crown depend sis and

close down these tax loop holes. I have never felt as much anger around

tax issues as I have in the last couple of days on this issue. The

idea that any of us could decide we are just going to pay 3% in tax,

that you can pick up the phone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will

meet you personally to discuss what tax rate you want to pay. This is

totally and utterly unacceptable. APPLAUSE. This first opportunity

I've had to speak on this subject. Let's clear the decks on this

subject. Let's have the issue properly investigated. Because if

the homework has been done and if the 3% is justified, and there's

some transparency, we could have some faith in ow things are being

managed on our behalf by the British Government and the HMRC. I want a

European Commission investigation into this. Patrick McLoughlin? The

NAO can investigate it and may well look at this. The since 2010 we've

made over 40 changes to the tax laws to close leap holes left behind when

you left office. Investment companies cut their tax bill by

flipping the currencies. We stopped this in 2011. Yes we want those

companies based in this country to pay their fair share of tax. We will

pursue them if they are not. Silence, Patrick. Nobody believes

you. Let's hear from members of the audience. I think the point that the

Tory member is making there is a small point. It is a drop in the

ocean what they've got from Google. And last year there's a lot of other

companies out there that are not, Google is in the forefront, Facebook

last year paid less tax than I did. It is really wrong. Google says

Governments make tax law, tax authorities, HMRC, enforce the law,

and Google complies with the law. That's the Google position. Is it

possible to do? Absolutely. It is important to remember just yesterday

there was a case taken up in the appeals court on the bedroom tax. We

are coming to that later. Don't talk about that. We may not come to it

but we may come to it. APPLAUSE. Isn't one of the

fundamental problems with this the fact there is a revolving door with

the HMRC and big accountancy firms. You run a big company, what do you

say so that point? I would like to make a point. There is another way

to some of this. It is not through the law but the law is the best way

to do that. It is referring to your anger is to take that anger to the

companies. Google and Facebook understand this very well. It is

their business. If you go online, if that anger goes online, they

understand that sentiment changes quickly. That will make them change.

How do you find out anything if you don't use doingle? We all use

Google? I wasn't say boycott, but use their product against them.

There is an argument I've heard that Google pays a lot of tax in the

United States. The problem sit pays most of its tax in the United States

and not in other European countries. Is that true? That's part of the

problem with multinational companies. You need international

agreements as to where tax is liable. The sales are, to the

advertising industry are in the UK. They book them in Ireland. Therefore

the tax is not paid in the UK. It shoot, a lawyer has to be

internationally agreed. And the first stage is transparency.

Transparency. Can I pay my taxes through Ireland? If you are clever

you could. The woman on the gangway. I think it is more a question of

legislation. Legislation. I'm not going to say Labour or the Tories

are to blame. It is being sorted now. What Mr Saatchi said is right,

what we are looking for between business, and I run a small

business, and I know percentage-wise I paid a higher percentage last year

than Google did. It is not going to bother me now, it's done. They are

going to pay more going forward. But we need balance between what we are

asking the general public to pay and what we are asking companies to pay.

We have paid out a lot more. We've got other companies like Tesco

who've made billions in profits. Yes, paid the first share of taxes

but we've subsidised them through tax credits. I'm not saying tax

credits are a bad thing, they've been needed. But if we can get

companies to not only pay their fair share of tax, their fair share of

wages, we will get equilibrium. That's what we need.

APPLAUSE. In fairness, you might mistake him

for Mr Saatchi but he is actually Mr McLevel and.

He runs the Saatchi show! I think we have to show the public how the tax

system works, let's bring out the HMRC investigation, and what I want

to know how much of the taxpayer's money does it cost to get this

minimal amount of tax. What was it that was agreed? Is that

confident shall? The direct negotiations between HMRC and the

company are confident shall. But there could be an audit. roux

Parker was asked... This happened in the last Parliament. We found that

every single action of HMRC was reasonable. It is up to the NAO.

They do not need advice from me. I'm sure that the pressure will come on

them to do it. Well, I am sure that Boris Johnson

would like it and Anna Soubry would like it.

I don't know about George Osborne. One more question.

Lots of good things come from paying tax, the NHS, education, our Social

Services, so I think it is disappointing that a company like

Google whose strap line was: Do no evil, are not leading the way.

You sir? It is not often that I agree with Yasmin Alibhai Brown...

She never knew that! However, tonight, you have won a fan. She is

quite right in what she is saying about the working class being

fleeced in this country for income tax by the Tory party and the fact

that the Tory Party is fleecing the working class and that the

multinationals are getting away with blue murder. Patrick McGloughlin,

you should know better, you are an ex-miner and you should remember

your roots. I don't need reminding about my

roots. You, sir? I'm sure that Google does

not have to wait an hour waiting to speak with the Tax Office! I

understand that they have their own a advisor to speak to, so I don't

know why we don't know more about their business and they have been

allowed to get away with such low taxes in the first place.

If you live in Bradford, near Bradford and would like to come to

the programme in West Yorkshire, you are welcome. And the week after

that, if you are in or around Llanelli in Wales, we would like you

to come too. The details are on the screen. I

will repeat them after the programme.

Can Britain afford or cope with taking more refugees? Can Britain

afford or cope with taking more refugees? What is your view? I I

think it would be the right thing to do, whether or not we can afford it

when we have so many of our own on the streets unable to pay the bills

and feed their children, I think we have to weigh up what is important

and what can go before we make room for what matters.

Andrew roberedson? Is it right, it is. We are hearing that we are going

to do soak about the children, the unaccompanied children in Europe, or

in surrounding countries, they have been trying to flee war. I am often

reminded of the role that the UK played in the 1930s when it took in

more than 10,000 Jewish children on the Kinkeder transport.

It is worth remembering the same debate took place at that time and

people said: Can we afford it, should we do it? The lessons of

history are yes, we had to do it, we did it, I think we should take the

same attitude now. The UK has taken in far, far less than our European

neighbours. We are facing the biggest calamity that has befallen

this country, in the movement of people through war and desperate

situations, it is incumbent on us to do everything that we possibly can.

APPLAUSE. What kind of number? The truth is

that this is between the parties, a game of numbers. Some people say

20,000 over the next five years, like the Tories do, then Jeremy

Corbyn says 3,000 from across the Channel. There are 1 million people

in Europe. So what would your estimate be? What balance? How do

you decide? We have problems here, how many can we afford to absorb in

this country? The honest answer is that we don't know the scale of the

crisis as it is ongoing. What we know, it has been 1 million in the

last year. We know when the spring and the summer come, more people are

going to come as well. We know that the situation in Libya is getting

worse. We are beginning to hear that on our screens now. It is not just

about people being displaced from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. Libya is

going to come back into the equation. What is an easier thing to

answer, the specific question: Do I think that the UK, a state of more

than 60 million people, could this country take in 3,000 children? The

answer is yes. All of them.

APPLAUSE. Yes, please? I wanted to comment

that I thought that the Prime Minister's comment at Prime

Minister's Questions was shameful in the way how he referred to migrants.

I think he continues to incite hatred and prejudice. He should

apologise. For a "bunch migrants"? Should he

apologise for saying "bunch migrants"? I don't think that is the

description of what Jeremy Corbyn surrounded himself with... They have

people that have faced much worse than you have face faced in your

life. Are a moral nation, we need to

fulfil our Morell responsibilities. I am part of a government that

meets, our numbers, the first government to do that.

We are are the second biggest bilateral donor in the humanitarian

crisis to Syria. More than any other country is doing, more than ?1.1

billion. We have sent in the Royal Navy to bring back people so they

are not drowning and don't get into terrible danger. They are in

terrible danger where they are. They are scared.

The simple fact is we don't know the numbers. Assangeus said, it was a

million last year. There was something like 12 million displaced

in Syria alone. We are co-hosting in London along with the Germans and

the UN conference on Syria, where to make progress. This is something not

just one country alone can do. How do you decide? How do you answer

the question of how many more refugees Britain can absorb? Is it a

malter of money? Welfare? Facilities? As a Government, what

are you doing when you sit down to say you will take 25,000 over five

years? Part of the money is given to camps in supporting the Syrian

families in the camps, so as I said, we are the second biggest donor

after the United States. You said that.

But you heard the appeal in the interruptions from the right here,

that there are hundreds of thousands of millions of people... We have

said that we would do 1,000 before Christmas, that was done. Fulfilled.

We have said we will take more of the displaced children. We said they

should be taken from the camps. Not necessarily those brought into

Europe. Jess Philips? The answer to the

question is of course we should take as many as we can.

What does that mean? The way to decide how to afford it is to look

at our areas. I live in Birmingham, if Birmingham City Council takes a

genuine look at what school places are available, housing is available.

Looks wholesale at where to fit in more and tightened our belts we

could take a certain number. That number needs to feed in. I bet there

are not any living in whit Which? In David Cameron's constituency. But it

is the poorest of the country that has to suffer the effects of

migration. I want everyone of every part of the country to look at what

they can offer. There are 4,000 children who have settled in Italy,

have gone missing, expected to have been trafficked for sex, those are

children. Imagine if that was your children. We should take our fair

share of the 26,000 children in Europe, in the UK that is 3,000.

There should be no question. APPLAUSE.

The woman there. Yes, you. That's it.

Yes, I'm just completely, I just think it is a disgrace. The Tory guy

there, to keep saying all of these figures, we have given this, given

that. That is not the point. It is what you guys are saying. We have

basically slammed the doors on these people. I have come back from

Lesbos. I have seen the shoes on the beach of babies, babygros, it is

happening every day. People are drowning in the seas. With the

Schengen and the pressure on Greece, how are they going to control their

borders? It is a complete joke. The Tory Government should be absolutely

ashamed of themselves. APPLAUSE.

Of course the UK can afford and can cope with more refugees. It is easy

to say that we should take more. We should take displaced children. We

should take them from the camps both in Europe, and in Turkey, Lebanon

and other places. The more difficult question is, is that the kindest

thing to do, to take as many as possible, to your shoes on the beach

point - it will encourage more shoes on the beach. That is the dilemma

that we have. I completely disagree. Have you been

there? At the moment, there are 6 million more refugees waiting to

come. Is the kindest thing to do is to get more people on boats drowning

on their way? No, it is not. And there is a slightly trickier when it

comes to taking 3,000 children... Angela Merkel summed... She is being

ostraciszeed. I am helping with the crisis, I am

serving in the Mediterranean. The key word that comes back is

desperation. The people are desperate to get back to the UK

because of what we are offering them. We are offering very good

things, they need that. But that point is correct. Is that the best

way to help them? Their desperation is putting them in horrible

situations where they are fighting for their lives to get across an

ocean, and really, what can we do to improve their lives where they are

coming from, so that they are not desperate to cross the seas, put

themselves in life-threatening situations or to go through forests,

freezing to death on the land side of things to get to through all of

these places in Europe, as we are offering aid, which is fantastic but

it is the element of giving them a fish, rather than teaching them how

to get a fish. Yasmin Alibhai Brown? Yesterday was

Holocaust Remembrance Day. This month we have seen Europe, the UK,

painting the doors of asylum seekers red, putting wrist bands on them and

the worst of all, Denmark... Suggesting that they are going to

take their few precious bits that they managed to smuggle out.

Remember the lessons. Remember how the Nazis took our gold teeth. The

answer to the question asked: When Jewish migrants were taken, and this

is the biggest crisis since then, this country had nothing, nothing at

all. We are still the seventh richest country in the world. I so

agree with Jess. If it was people, ordinary people across Europe, they

have been amazing. They are turning up at the camps. A musician e-mailed

me yesterday. A young female British musician who goes to Calais, she

said she watched a four-and-a-half-year-old whose heart

just stopped beating. It gave up. Now, I'm sorry, we have to do

better. No refugee ever fails unless we are talking about a wedge of

criminal, I am not talking about them. Most refugees, the IMF has

said this, they work harder than anybody else.

But I think I have a policy idea. Why don't we let people in just so

they can life and do what we do with them when we have student loans,

once they start earning enough, they pay back a section of the earnings,

even if we say after five years you have to go back. What is your view

of the numbers? That is the issue between the parties? Turkey has 1

million. The whole of Europe has 1 million.

I think Britain should have at least 60 to 70,000.

Of the most vulnerable. I think you are wrong on Turkey.

They are hosting over 2 million Syrians at the moment.

Exactly. Is it an example of Germany of how

mass immigration does not work. The woman in Cologne and the woman

unfortunately killed in Sweden, don't you think that they are scared

as well? I couldn't agree with you more,

there's obviously been, the very rapid nature of lack of cohesion has

been caused. However, there is violence against women and girls

that you are describing, a very similar situation to what happened

in Cologne could be described on Broad Street? Birmingham every week,

where women are bated and heckled. We have to attack what we perceive

is a patriarchal culture, but we should be careful not to rest on our

laurels when two women are murdered every week in this country.

APPLAUSE. Anyone who does doubt that Britain should take more, in other

words feels there's a problem, there was a lot of applause when the young

man spoke. Anyone else who takes that

was a lot of applause when the young man spoke. Anyone else who takes

that view? It is all very well taking a lot of these children in,

but who is going be left to build Syria up again? So what do you think

should happen? The government policy is to put the money into the camps

near Syria. Do you think they are right? All the time we've got

immigrants coming here, I'm afraid I think it just encourages more.

Europeans went all over the world. Europeans took over continents. Do

you remember that? Australia, New Zealand, South America, North

America. How is it that we can now deny just safety? Those people want

to go back when it's safe. The man up there and then we'll move on.

APPLAUSE. You Sir. There are a few fundamental issues at play here.

Firstly there've been three different terms used for these

people: Asylum seeker, refugee and migrant, all of which appear to be

disparaging. The Conservative gentleman spent 15 minutes pitching

his party. And had they got the right amount of tax from Google we

could afford to bring these people in?

APPLAUSE. He says he doubts it, but on to another question. We are

halfway through the programme. What will be the single-most

important factor that influences voters in the upcoming

EU referendum? You're an interpreter of electoral

mood, Moray MacLennan. What do you think will be the single most

important factor to influence voters when it comes to say, should we

remain or leave? I hate to bring it back to migration, but there was

news today, most of you heard it, that David Cameron's famous rabbits

our the hat, one of them was potentially produced earlier, to

limit migration. That will be a core issue in the up-coming referendum. I

think that most people, I think most people will accept that Britain is

probably better off economically trading, having the lack of tariffs

to trade with Europe. What they don't want is migration or

sovereignty to be impinged on. If he can produce those two rabbits out of

the hat it will be difficult for the Let's Leave Europe group to win. I

think it will come down to that at the end of the day. There'll be the

concern, are we nailing our colours to the mast of a sinking is ship in

Europe as well, and that is the other point of view. It will be a

very emotional argument and the staying in will be a rationale

argument. I think it depends on the deal the Prime Minister can strike.

Three weeks away is the council meeting which may well decide this

matter. It depends on the agreement of the 27 other members of the

European Union. If we can get that agreement we'll have the referendum

and everybody in this room will have an equal vote and we'll decide

whether to stay in. From my personal point of view I hope the Prime

Minister can get an agreement. It is important that we stay within the

European Union. That's what I would like to see, but it does depend on

getting the right deal. I think Europe itself is moving too far too

fast. We've had to learn some of the lessons in the past when Governments

have promised referendums on European treaties and not given

them. So I'm pleased that one of the things we've done as a result of the

last Government was to ensure that any future treaty change which

affects this country can only be taken after a referendum. The Prime

Minister has a good record on negotiating in Europe. He cut the

European budget and I'm hoping he'll be able to achieve the right

negotiations in the next few weeks. So it looks like you are going to

vote to remain in the EU. Is the current deal in the Cabinet that you

are allowed to say you are in favour of staying in but not to say you

want to leave, not yet. Only when the referendum is announced can you

say that? The Cabinet is fully supportive of the Prime Minister in

these renegotiations and Ministers will have an opportunity to take a

different deal if it is not good enough. You said everyone in this

room will have an equal opportunity to vote, but we are 16, we won't.

What's your opinion on 16 and 17-year-olds voting in EU referendum

like they did in the Scottish. How did you vote on that one Patrick?

Against, I'm not in favour of extending the voting age to 16. I

want it the same as votes for a general election. I'm sorry for

those people who are going to miss out who are 16. You are just an old

fogey. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, what do you think will be the single most

important question? As Murray said, we should think about what it would

mean for so much of our economy and our agriculture and so on. It's been

good for us actually. The problem is that the remain in the EU campaign

is so utterly incompetent and hopeless. In what way? Lord Rose

didn't even remember the name of the campaign this week and he's supposed

to be leading us to this? I have to give it to the Exit group, they are

doing it much better. But the big issue is the one Blair raised this

week. Scotland will leave the United Kingdom. Is that what you want? I

think that Scots are very pro-European. I didn't detect people

shouting no, don't let them go, but... Don't go, Scotland, stay with

us. You Sir in blue. My question is this. The UK science funding in this

country has got worse over the last five years. We are one of the worst

in the G8 and it is getting worse. The lowest funding in what way? By

GDP we get the lowest funding research. At the same time the

European Union has gained a massive appetite for science funding, has

increased its funding. By pulling out we risk losing all of this money

and that's my livelihood, it is the livelihood of people in Cambridge.

Newark has loads of science. How can we risk that? Jess Phillips? To go

back to the original question the biggest thing will be fear. About

the pennies in our pockets, our jobs, houses. People tend as they

did in the Scottish referendum to when it comes down to it go for the

status quo because they are fearful. The other fear is immigration. That

will go for the Out campaign far more. I agree with Yasmin

Alibhai-Brown. Neither of the campaigns are floating my boat, if I

was completely honest at the moment. I don't think they speak to normal

people and normal people's interactions. You hardly hear them

at the moment. They haven't started. Nobody talks about how 2 million

people every year go off into Europe. Do you want to queue for

longer when you go through passport control? I don't want to queue for

longer. I don't want to pay more for my mobile phone in France. They are

talking up here like men in suits talking about this much money, that

much money. It is all boring, to be honest.

APPLAUSE. Does it bore you? You find it all boring? Is it not extremely

dangerous for significant figures and forums categorically state their

intention to stay in the EU when the full negotiations haven't been told?

It lowers the need for policy makers in Brussels to give us the best deal

possible. What do you make of that, Angus Robertson? I don't think that

the negotiations by the UK Government are actually dealing with

any matters of profound substance. It is not a major renegotiation. If

it were it would lead to treaty change. The Prime Minister is

professionaling a three-card trick. He's trying to... Sorry, beside me

there's a voice saying we don't know that there may not be treaty change.

Let's watch that space. I very much doubt that the negotiations will

lead to referenda in Denmark and in Ireland. I think what the Prime

Minister is trying to do is assuage those people who are not sure about

the EU. To say there's been a change, look we've reformed it. I'm

a pro-European. I think the EU needs to be reformed. It is not perfect.

It cannot manage the borders properly. It can't deal with the

refugee crisis, the biggest crisis since the Second World War. It is

going to be a difficult pro-European case to make. The question asked was

what will be the single most important factors? Jess and I have

written down the same thing. It will be fear. The word I've written after

it, hope. I think that those of us who think it is a better thing that

we work together in Europe as sovereign states, trying to teal

with our challenges together, I think is the case we should be

making. I tell you, I don't want Scotland to become independent

because England votes to leave the EU. I want Scotland to be

independent and within the EU and the rest of the UK. Do you think it

might trigger independence of Scotland if England votes to leave?

I think it will profoundly change opinion in Scotland for many of

those who during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence

were promised by the no side vote no to Scottish independence, because if

you don't you will be outside the EU. And there were a number of

people who went, we don't want that. People's point about being fearful.

And the other outcome is an entirely believable prospect. Today is the

first time that the average of polls in the UK is 50-50 and heading in a

no direction. My last word on the subject is I hope that the campaign

that is run to remain within the EU is a positive campaign based on hope

and not on fear, which was the campaign that was run against

Scottish independence. APPLAUSE. You were involved in that.

In the no campaign. What's your take on the way this is going to be

fought out in the PR and publicity and the various views. I think

there'll be a lot of numbers thrown this way and that. Sorry about that.

Man in suit talking numbers. But there will. Uncertainty will play

very strongly for staying in. We don't know what would happen if we

chebd out. As the Hotel California thing, the you can check out but you

can't leave. We would have to renegotiate with Europe. What would

that look like? Uncertainty will play strongly for staying in. The

emotional point you made, not made strongly enough by the no campaign,

independence and staying with the UK is an emotional issue. There is

nothing wrong with that. Should wins that emotional argument will be key

as well. Have you within hired for the campaign? Not as yet. We are

waiting by the phone. APPLAUSE.

APPLAUSE Pot which campaign would it be?

Imagine we hope it might be the Prime Minister's campaign.

Let's move on to another question. Why is it cheaper to travel from

Sheffield to Essex, via air, and via Berlin, than on Britain's railways?!

Yes! APPLAUSE.

Well, this is the teenager Jordan Krovment ox who flew from Sheffield

to Essex, via Berlin and spent several hours sightseeing in Berlin,

and saved ?7, including buses from Stansted to Essex, at the same time

he found you can fly from London to Manchester via Milan, for ?33 but it

was ?131 via train and from Bristol to Newcastle, via Dublin and it was

?74. It is like the tax system, too

complicated. It is in your lap! When you are

young you have lots of time to go travelling, and when you are pushing

a blog, it can help you find these schemes, it shows that there is a

way to get cheap flights across Europe. On the more serious question

of train travel, we see the revolution in this country on the

railways, 27 years ago there were 750 million People using the

railways, lass year it was 1. 64 billion. I can see cheaper tickets

if you pre-book. There are lots of changes afar as train travel is

concerned. I think it is very good value with the cheaper tickets.

Also, with the massive investment we are doing in the railway, it means

that the places like King's Cross and St Pancreas, which used to be

awful places to go, are now destinations in their own right and

you can add to that Birmingham New Street Station, which used to be

awful but it is fantastic. I celebrate the ?38 billion we are

investing in the railways and on the new East Coast Main Line you will

get the new trains. But you have not answered the

question about why it is... But I gave you a good answer for my job!

You said if you had lots of time. Actually, as a working woman, I

don't have lots of time. But from Stanford we are 40 miles from

Nottingham, Cambridge and Lincoln it takes an 1. 20 minutes to get to

Cambridge, 1. 30 minutes to Nottingham and 30 minutes to get to

Lincoln. So as a commuter, you cannot do it. It is impractical for

us to get to work. That is why we are investing.

. But you are not investing. We are

improving the railways. I accept that there are more improvements to

make. I want to see it happen. The man next to you.

I would like to know why it is you allow the network operators to hide

the cheaper price tickets. Stan formed to Birmingham return is ?65.

But if I get two different returns I can save myself ?20. Those are

hidden. It is only because a member of staff told me do it that way I

was able to save ?20. Get in touch with Jordan Cox. Jess Philips? I got

on a train from London to Birmingham. It cost ?168. I did not

get a seat. So when the Transport Minister says that is good value for

money, I paid ?168 to stand up for hours. There are ridiculous offers

to find if you have hours to spend looking at which way to go but the

main thing is that many people are priced out of the market of

travelling at the times that they need to go to work. That is

unacceptable. APPLAUSE

Your Labour's Transport Secretary. I am.

Under Jeremy Corbyn, what is your policy? Well, there is a need to

look at renationalising rail services. Many exist, the French

government are benefitting from them...

APPLAUSE. You are in favour of

re-nationalisation? I am in favour of looking at the contracts when

they come up about what is the best value for the consumer in the

market. Let's not pretend when the railways were nationalised that they

were perfect and running on time and everybody got a cheap ticket, we

have to consider it as an option. Moray MacLennan? There is a simple

solution to this: Spend the ?30 billion which would be spent on HSR

so that you can get to Birmingham or London quicker, and deploy that

money in regional railways. APPLAUSE.

Lincolnshire is a rural County, the further east it is harder to get

anywhere on any form of public transport. It is not just the

tickets but the trains do not exist. They do not run on weekends, you

cannot get between pish and Lincoln, outside of the hours of 9-6 from

Monday to Saturday. Do you believe the successive

governments? Yes it is a problem. The railway lines are closed. The A

16 has been closed and turned into roads it is not helpful for people

who cannot afford cars or don't have access to a car, they cannot get to

places. You on the left? You mentioned money

invested in railway services, why did it not happen six years ago, we

would not have this discussion now? You mean if Labour could have done

it? Well, five-and-a-half years. Patrick McGloughlin? Briefly, we

have been been investing. I have spoken about King's Cross and St

Pancreas. It is always in London. The proof of the matter is we are

always talking about transport in London. Heathrow... We have to

increase the capacity. Moray MacLennan, the reason is so that we

can improve the capacity. 20 years ago when the railways were operating

under British Rail, there were 19 services a day from London to

Manchester. Today there are 47 services a day from London to

Manchester. That is the kind of change... But you can't afford to

get on it. I accept more regional services are very important.

I think that it is true, that some of the rebuilt stations are

wonderful and all of that. But one thing that is absolutely

indisputable, there are some people who need to take the trains at peak

times and what they are being charged is just criminal. They have

no choice. They do not have flexible time. People are really spending

such a percentage of their earnings on rail travel and that is unfair.

We are supporting the rail industry, more than we support the motorcar

industry... But you are not supporting the passengers. More than

the bus transport, more people go to work on the bus than on the train.

Can I bring us back to the question about the young man who went via

Berlin. There is a difference in buying tickets where you can get

cheap flights and they are easy to find on the internet, then you can

go where you want. But not as easy to find cheap options on the

railways. I came from London, I had to stand for the first part of the

journey, the train was late. That is an experience that most of the

people in the audience here will share. You deserve a better service

in this part of the world but there is more to be done to end the

Byzantine pricing structures that we have, and I don't understand why the

rail operators are not prepared... As people are wanting to travel by

train. If you can get a seat a hot cup of coffee. This is a bones. But

that is what we should expect. Where is the scale of ambition. Talk about

HS #26789, it was supposed to be joining up Britain but where is it

ending? It is not even getting to Scotland. So much more needs to be

done, Patrick. Indeed. I agree. I want to take this question from

Alison Jones. Where and when is the most appropriate place to wear your

pyjamas. This is because a head teacher is

saying that parents are coming in to school in pyjamas and dressing

gowns. Is that right? I think that the head was so right. I don't even

wear my pyjamas in my kitsch, I am so proper. Only in the bedroom.

Patrick McGloughlin? The only place to where them is in private!

Jess Philips? The Labour Party love it when people wear pyjamas on the

school run. No, I think that the mum has to do the school run under a

stressed circumstances, I look at woman wearing slippers and I feel

sorry for them rather than loathing them. I spend 20 minutes a morning

shouting get your shoes on over and over again. It is better if people

don't wear their pyjamas but let's not be too judging.

Have you ever? I have may have been to a drive-through in a dressing

gown. You don't get out of the car! And you, sir? I don't think I should

be advising people on what they are wearing. I will hold my advice.

Moray MacLennan? I think a designer pyjama is OK. Nothing wrong with

that at all. Anyone like to comment? I have three

kids under six, I think it is perfectly acceptable. Trust my, by

the time you get there, sometimes, you have no idea what you are

wearing. And would you go to the mativity

play and the parents' evening? They might have thought it was fancy

dress, who knows. Anyone else with a view on this? I

sleep naked so I would not... We won't go there.

A happy note to end on. Thank you for shipping that with us! Our time

is up. We are in Bradford next week. The week after that, we are in

Llanelli in Wales. To come to either of the shows go to the website on

the screen there. If you are listening on Radio 5

Live. You can continue the debate of course. As every it is on Question

Time, Extra Time. My thanks to all of the panelists. Before I go, I

have been chairing Question Time for many years. I have worked with six

editors in all of that time. One was Chancellor cry Cou are, tauld, who

died recently. He was clever, wit, he was very brave, he was an

inspiration to work for, I would like to dedicate this Question Time

to his memory. I think he would like it. Thank you all for coming to

Question Time. Good night.