28/04/2016 Question Time


David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Hull. Panellists include Greg Clark, Andy Burnham, Alex Salmond, Jill Kirby and hedge fund manager Paul Marshall.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, we are here in Hull City Hall. Welcome to Question Time.


Good evening and a big welcome, whether you are watching on


television, listening on the radio, in the audience, and to our panel.


The Conservative Communities Secretary, Greg Clarke. Labour's


Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham. Former leader of the Scottish


National Party, Alex Salmond. Writer and former director of the Centre


for Policy Studies, Jill Kirby. The founder of one of the country's


biggest hedge fund is, and the founder of a chain of academy


schools, Paul Marshall. Thank you. Just before we go,


remember, Facebook, Twitter, if you want to comment on what is said. You


can text and pushed the red button to see what is said by others. Our


first question from Philip Green, please. In light of remarks made by


Ken Livingstone, is there an issue surrounding anti-Semitism within the


Labour Party? There was a shout of yes. Let's hear what the panel says.


The remarks were that Hitler was supporting Zionism before he went


mad, he said this morning, and this afternoon he was suspended from the


Labour Party. Alex Salmond. I think there is an issue about Ken


Livingstone. I am in the position that I don't think that Naz Shah,


who was the Labour MP whose suspension started all this, I don't


actually think she should have been suspended. If you remember, she made


an offensive tweaked two or three years ago, which was shameful and


the wrong thing to do, and certainly anti-Semitic. But she made an


apology yesterday in the House of Commons, a full sun, graceful


apology. She has a young MP. Unless there is something I don't know


about, some track record of this behaviour, which there does not seem


to be, I don't understand why she was suspended. However, I certainly


understand why Ken Livingstone was suspended. I should declare that I


am a board member of the Holocaust Memorial Day foundation, which is


working to get a suitable memorial to commemorate the Holocaust, so


that future generations can understand why it was the most


devastating event of the 20th century. Ken Livingstone has been in


politics a long time, and he should know the great deal better than to


use the Holocaust, or Hitler, as a debating point, or no more than


people should use it as a joke. It is right above and beyond that.


Tomorrow is the anniversary of the liberation of Dakar concentration


camp. For Ken Livingstone, with all his experience, to make that point


was shameful and I think he is rightfully suspended. However, we


should be more generous to Naz Shah, the young MP who apologised. I think


Ken Livingstone was rightfully suspended, Jeremy Corbyn did the


right thing. If he needs to take further action against others in the


Labour Party, I hope he has the guts to do so.


APPLAUSE Andy Burnham, is there an issue


about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? If I thought for one second


that I was a member of an anti-Semitic party, I would cut up


my membership card right here, right now and send it back to them. That


is what I would do. But I don't believe that is the case. Let me say


what I think is the case. These allegations, when they surface, are


not being dealt with properly and quickly enough. They need to be


dealt with much more speedily in future. The second thing is that it


is clear that some people in the party have made anti-Semitic


comments. Like Alex, I find Ken Livingstone's comments ill-advised,


deeply offensive, deeply distasteful. The question, and this


is true for Naz Shah as well, were those comments made carelessly,


inadvertently, or was their real intent behind the comments? That is


why they have to be investigated and people have to have the chance to


put their reasons. You have to allow that. That is why it is suspension


is right now. But if anti-Semitism is found, then expulsion is what


should follow. No ifs or buts. APPLAUSE


Jill Kirby, of course Jeremy Corbyn says there is no crisis in the party


and people who claim there is are nervous of the strength of the


Labour Party and local level. Do you see it like that? It seems to me


that this is a crisis brought upon Jeremy Corbyn in large part by his


attitude towards the party, towards prejudices that our existing within


the party. I am quite sure Andy does not hold them, but they are there


within a party that can select and choose Naz Shah as a suitable


candidate. Did no one look into her record? This wasn't just one


retweet, as far as I am a stand it. There were other comments that she


had been passing around. We all know the danger of social media, you see


something stupid that catches your eye and you pass it on. But she had


a track record. It was not one random thing. Andy Burnham says we


have to ask whether there was intent. Someone who wants to be in


public life, who visualises themselves having a responsible


role, she chose to participate in a dialogue which involved likening


sending the Jews to America in transportation. Would anybody in


this room consider that a good thing to pass on, even in a moment of


frivolity? You just don't do it, do you? The question was whether there


is an issue around this within the Labour Party, or whether it is just


one or two cases. I think there is. Yesterday, it was not until David


Cameron pointed out that it was time for the whip to be withdrawn that


the whip was finally withdrawn. This was out in the open and Jeremy


Corbyn did not decide to do anything until it came up in Prime Minister's


Questions. This is no kind of party management, is it? Ken Livingstone


was brought back into the fold by Jeremy Corbyn as his special


adviser. He already has a terrible track record of anti-Semitic


remarks, as well as plain offensive remarks. I agree about Ken


Livingstone but I don't think it is fair to say that about Naz Shah. I


have no knowledge that she has done what you say she has done. She is


somebody who made a mistake several years ago, she admitted it, she


apologised, and I think we should give her a bit of slack. And


certainly not attack her when she is not here to defend herself. Anyone


who talks about a swarm of migrants is the last person to complain about


racism! APPLAUSE


Did you just say that careless racism was in some way excusable? I


am sorry. racism was in some way excusable? I


careless or otherwise. It is simply not on. I didn't say that, if that


is what you not on. I didn't say that, if that


what I said at all. People can inadvertently say


can be read a certain way. It is often the case when people are


commenting on the Israel- Palestine situation. I dislike the language


used against Israel at times. Sometimes it can go over that line


and appear anti-Semitic. It does not mean they are anti-Semitic, just


that their comments appeared anti-Semitic. Let me make the point.


You have to investigate it, and if you find they meant it, then they


have to go. That is the bottom line. Let's hear from one or two members


of the audience. At the moment, we are asking whether there is


anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. What issues is the party actively


tackling to not allow members who are going to voice that, especially


members in public office? So what is your assertion, that Labour is too


easy on who it allows in? What measures will Labour take to


discourage people from joining the party and representing the party


discourage people from joining the Parliament? You, sir, over there. I


wonder how forgiving Andy and Alex would be if it was a member of Ukip


who had said these things. APPLAUSE


I do think this is a serious moment. What we know about anti-Semitism


over the years is that it is a virus. It is never suppressed,


eradicated completely. It emerges from time to time in different


countries and at different moments in different guises. As soon as it


appears, it has to be crushed very decisively, because it will happen


again and again. APPLAUSE


I think this is an important moment for Labour. I am sad that the Labour


Party, whose traditions have always been to combat racism, should be


going through this. I think it is right that Jeremy Corbyn should be


required to act absolutely decisively. If you don't, and you


see it in other decisively. If you don't, and you


world, if you let it fester it will grow and be even worse in the


future. Paul Marshall. This is an issue which is important to me


personally because last year I discovered that my wife's family


lost quite a few members in the Holocaust. So it is not a trivial


matter for me. And I think that the views that were expressed by Ken


Livingstone are part of a wider worldview. This is what I find


worrying. It is shared by Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and


Jeremy Corbyn, and that view is rooted in anti-American is and


support for victims, as they see them, of all kinds, whether it be


Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA. Part of that worldview is also opposition to


Israel. They are all linked together. It finds expression in


what they call anti-Zionism. If you look on the web, you get the use of


a word which is increasingly used as a form of anti-Semitism, a different


way of saying Jewish. It is quite the real and, as Greg has said, and


it is very much within the London clique of Labour leadership. It is


dangerous for the Labour Party and for the country and it has to be


rooted out. To link to a subject which will no doubt come Ken


Livingstone said last week that if we voted for Brexit he would think


about emigrating. That might be a solution to everything.


APPLAUSE I am not defending what these


politicians have said, but three times over the past year I have seen


in a political context anti-Semitism used as a political tool. In the NUS


presidency, in the young NEC, and now. Anti-Semitism is not the same


as disagreeing with what Israel do. It is not the same thing.


I want to move on, but I want Andy Burnham to answer the question from


over there, which was, is Labour doing enough to stop people joining?


And you know the attacks on Labour from the board of the pity of


British Jews on Jeremy Corbyn. Various people have had to resign


for other anti-Jewish remarks. What is being done to stop this? The


gentleman said we have been too forgiving. I am not, actually. I


think it was right to suspend Naz Shah, unlike Alex. Find it, and


rooted out, no question about it. What is the party doing? We are the


party that for decades has promoted equality, has fought discrimination.


Jeremy Corbyn has done that all his political life, if you look at his


record. So the party has to get better. I don't think it has been


good enough. Why has he been so slow? I don't know, it should be


quicker. I would like to see quicker and more decisive action taken. He


has taken action but it could be quicker. I just want to be


absolutely clear about this. I would resign tomorrow if I thought I was


in a party that was promoting anti-Semitism. I thought the point


was made very well, there is a world of difference between criticising


the actions of the Israeli government and questioning whether


Israel should exist. It is when people got over that line that they


veer into the realm of anti-Semitism, and at that point you


have to take a very different approach. But you have to be careful


before you label somebody anti-Semitic racist. -- anti-Semitic


or racist. I want to go onto the next question from James Blake


please. Who else should be held to account over Hillsborough and the


ensuing cover-up? Greg Clarke. Well, I think all of us were appalled at


what we saw in terms of the stories that are coming out of that inquest,


and the incalculable injustice, the decades and decades for which people


have not known the truth about what happened to their nearest and


dearest. But when it comes to accountability, and the first thing


I want to say is to praise Andy Burnham.


APPLAUSE Andy had a difficult time some years


ago and used that experience, when he was meeting the relatives, to


have an absolute determination to get justice. For those of you that


saw the scenes in the House of Commons couple of days ago, it was


incredibly impressive, and Alex spoke as well. The unity of purpose,


in making sure that the lessons can never be forgotten and justice is


done. The question is, who should be held to account? I think we now have


the truth through these verdicts. What we now need to see is justice.


And that requires the criminal investigations that are now going on


to continue. Obviously, it is a matter for the prosecutors. But I


think everyone would accept that there needs to be consequences, and


that a criminal case is proved from what has been a very clear verdict.


I think if you are holding people to account, the Sun newspaper, to not


even print it on their front-page, I honestly ask how Rupert Murdoch can


sleep at night. It's utterly, utterly inhuman. You, Sir, in the


second or third row there? Kelvin McCain still to say he's a victim of


the police is something else. I was at Hillsborough, survived the


crush and climbed over the fences on to the pitch. I feel a victim of


South Yorkshire Police. Who other than South Yorkshire Police? They


have not yet been held accountable. They have had an inquest where a


decision's been made but there hasn't been accountability through


the criminal courts and it's only when criminal accountability arises


and senior officers who're in charge on the day and successive senior


officers who've been involved with South Yorkshire Police since 1989 up


until today's date, until they are held accountable in the criminal


courts, there is no accountability and that has to happen for justice


to happen. APPLAUSE.


As everyone knows, Andy Burnham, you were very close to this, in pursuing


the demand for a proper inquiry. What is your answer to the question


of who should be held to account? Well, nobody has yet, so there's a


lot of people now who need to be held to account and accountability,


in my view means, prosecutions. That's what needs to follow. Because


think about it, how on earth did this country get to a situation


where people, ordinary people who did nothing more than wave their


loved ones off to a match, how did we have a situation yes they ended


up in a courtroom 27 years later begging for justice and pleading for


the reputations of their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters? How


on earth did that happen? You have to hold the whole establishment to


account, in my view. APPLAUSE.


You have to hold politicians to account on all sides. No politician,


many my view, did the right thing in the early days, no-one comes out of


this with any credit credit but it's the South Yorkshire Police that has


to be held to account. This police force has consistently put


protecting itself before those who suffered harm an horror at


Hillsborough. They have perpetrated a 27-year cover-up that was advanced


in the committee rooms of the House of Commons and in the press rooms of


Downing Street. Shamefully, they carried on that cover-up in the


courtrooms in Warrington, spending millions of pounds of public money


rerunning discredited lies. That is the level of change that we need to


see here, we need to see real change and accountability at South


Yorkshire Police. I don't blame the ordinary men and women who tried to


help on the day, the policemen and women, or indeed those on the


streets trying to keep South Yorkshire safe today but by God they


have been let down by the leadership of that force over the many years.


APPLAUSE. Real change there. As the gentleman


said, the media has to be held to account too. Because that


front-page, those lies were told at Liverpool's moment of greatest


grief. My constituent who came home after his friend had died at


Hillsborough picked up that newspaper and was told he was to


blame. That is why Liverpool has felt this so deeply for all of these


years. We need to see people held to account. We need Leveson too so we


have a proper framework for accountability in terms of police


and press relations. If I could say one last thing as a positive, I hope


Hillsborough will change the country. I want to change the law so


that police officers can't retire to escape misconduct proceedings and


keep their pensions. APPLAUSE.


But I also want - last point, David - I also hope that the country will


look differently at Liverpool now. The fight that has been mounted. For


years, they were looked down upon by many people, called self-pity City


by Boris Johnson, but do you know what they really are, solidarity


city, red and blue together! And, in the end, those values of Liverpool


have shone through. Liverpool has prevailed, the families have


prevailed in all adversity and that's the final thing I would say.


When I used to go round the country, people would say why can't they move


on, they are whinging Scousers. The story at the end of the day is, do


you know what, those whinging Scousers just happened to be right.


Hear, hear. APPLAUSE.


You, Sir? I would just like to correct Mr Clark, I don't think the


Hillsborough families have waited for decades and decades to learn the


truth. I think they knew the truth all the time. They did. What they


have had to wait for is for the establishment to be forced to face


up to the truth and I would say thank goodness for the families of


the Hillsborough disaster and thank God for the Liverpudlians.


APPLAUSE. God for the Liverpudlians.


Let's say thank God to the jury system in this country too.


Let's say thank God to the jury were the people who, in the end,


were able to give a clear decision and it's not a system


were able to give a clear decision any further in Europe I think than


in the UK. It's a very important system of arriving at justice. I


think all credit to that jury too. Of course, you can see how this


began partly because people on the whole want to trust the police, we


wanted to trust the police, we still want to trust the police because


they carry our lives in their hands. It was difficult to begin with


probably for many people to accept that the police could have acted in


this way. But of course, we see also from an initial attempt at cover-up


how it ballooned and how one lie developed and developed rather than


admitting quickly I made a terrible mistake, someone said I didn't do it


or I did something different and mistake, someone said I didn't do it


tried to pass the blame on and so deceit swells into this huge thing


20 years on which is still being unravelled. That is a terrible


thing. Thank unravelled. That is a terrible


arrived at the truth in the end. Thank you.


APPLAUSE. Thank you.


Had the police not acted, we might have found out a bit sooner, all the


other people implicated like the sellers of tickets for that ground


that knew these people couldn't have been accommodated, the health and


safety issues, so many things that eventuallily been corrected but


because the police didn't act as they should have done at the start,


these things happened. The woman there? Would the panel


agree that for Bernard Ingham, who had so much to say at the time, the


fact he's refused to apologise since, that he should have his


Knighthood stripped? APPLAUSE.


Mrs Thatcher's press secretary, Bernard Ingham? I can't speak to the


Bernard Ingham situation but looking at it first of all, I want to pay


tribute to Andy as well because, as the outsider on the panel, I'm not a


politician, everybody likes to knock politicians, this is one of the


great examples of a politician really doing great work and fighting


for justice and I pay tribute to him.


APPLAUSE. Looking at it today, it's a massive


injustice that's been done and it's blighted the families for their


whole lives. Looking at it now though, there's a danger that we go


from one massive blame on the Liverpool families and fans to


massive blame on South Yorkshire Police. There are new young recruits


in South Yorkshire Police that are coming in, they are idealistic, they


want to serve their country and do public service, so the issue is, as


you said, who is to, it's the leadership of South Yorkshire Police


through several generations and, for me, as a person looking at it, the


real rottenness at the core of it is determination to distort the truth,


to mislead on all levels. Looking at the TV footage, John Motson, five or


ten minutes after the crushing started, was saying that the fans


had broken the gates down. So he'd been fed that. He was fed a lie and


it started five minutes in. Then the Sun newspaper, they were fed lies


about pick-pocketing and so on and so forth. So there was a systematic


way and of trying to manipulate the press. You saw a similar thing with


Cliff Richard which was a very shocking thing. It was through a


media exercise, bringing the media in to make themselves look good


before a man had been actually found guilty or charged with anything.


That for me, it's the top of the South Yorkshire Police where there's


been rottenness to the core for many years. Alex Salmond? Paul's


obviously right. No-one blames the young officers going into the South


Yorkshire Police or for that matter the young officers who were at


Hillsborough, many of whom were trying to do their best to save the


fans on the day. What happened on the day caused 96 lives,


bereavements for 96 families, but what happened on the day wasn't


intended. The police made bad decisions, they were culpable,


according to the jury, a jury who were allowed to hear the truth,


unlike the first jury. It was unlawful and therefore probably


criminal. But it was tragic and unintended. The real point is what's


happened over the last 27 years, wasn't unintended, it was a


conspiracy, it was deliberate manipulation and lies and deception


that have kept these 96 families over the last 27 years fighting this


agony supported ably by politicians like Andy.


Now, the point about Andy and Theresa May, the current Home


Secretary, is that they are the first people in responsibility to


answer the family's call and shame on the predecessors of handy and


Theresa May who, despite, as the gentleman said, overwhelming


evidence, the initial report put responsibility with responsibility


and despite that, the families were unable to get justice. So what


should be done? Well, what should be done is, the people who were part of


the conspiracy should be tried. They should be tried for purgery, they


should be tried for perverting the course of justice.


APPLAUSE. They should be tried for conspiracy


to pervert the course of justice with exemplary penalties that these


offences carry. Secondly, and equally as important, what happened,


why it took so long, was that these families had to go into hearing


after hearing, court after court, and they were not badly represented,


but there was a huge inequality between the representation available


to these families and the institutional representation paid


for by public money which was available to South Yorkshire Police.


That's the imbalance, that's the injustice, that's the unfairness


that has to be rectified if what comes out of Hillsborough is this


never happens again. The woman there, then you and then you Andy?


You talk about accountability, Andy, what about the accountability of the


people that decided to put those fences up, to put them like cattle,


for want of a better word, and if them fences hadn't have been up,


there wouldn't have been as many people that died? There had been a


warning in the north, particularly with South Yorkshire Police. The


miners can tell you straightaway. That goes right to the heart of


Government. It really is time that now we go backwards again and look


at the mistakes that were made there because again, there was a


conspiracy made and actually, there's a real class issue here that


needs to be addressed. APPLAUSE.


To you briefly? One of the impressive things that's come out


this week is the agreements between Andy and the Home Secretary that all


of these abuses need to be looked into and Theresa May made a


commitment to Andy Burnham across the floor of the House of Commons


that, not just orgrieve but the other scandals that have affected


the North Yorkshire police force, the Rotherham child abuse scandal


for example, these all need to be looked at very seriously. For a Home


Secretary to be unflinching in being willing to confront these shocking


questions that have been unresolved, I think it's a step forward for the


way that we run our country. You wanted to say a brief word? I do, in


agreeing with everybody on the panel. Why have we now got this


verdict, 96 unlawful deaths? It's because what the lady said, there


was a complete disregard for football supporters' safety in that


period. Let's remember, this was four years after the Bradford fire,


four years after the Bradford fire and yet we had those pens and


fences. I was an Everton supporter at Hillsborough the year before and


it was the worst afternoon I'd ever had at a football match in the


central pens. I looked at my brother's head for the whole game


because I didn't want to lose him, that's how bad it was. It is class,


just to finish, an us and them. It needs to go wider now. It's about


power. The lady mentioned Bernard Ingham, yes, he called the Liverpool


supporters a tanked up mob straight after as part of the cover-up. There


is an elite in politics, in the police, in the legal system, in the


media too, that collude together to exorcise power over ordinary people.


That's the story of Hillsborough, but you have to have the other story


as well, if you are going to know the full truth about Hillsborough.


If we are never going to let this happen again, you have to


fundamentally rebalance the system in the way Alex Salmond is saying


and give ordinary people the ability to get truth and justice when they


need it. APPLAUSE.


We are in Manchester next week and Aberdeen the week after that.


Details of how to apply are on screen. You can apply on the


website, or give us a call. Let's go onto Linda Robinson. If we stay in


the EU, how can immigration be controlled, to ensure jobs and


services are not stretched to collapse? Paul Marshall. It can't.


APPLAUSE The EU has a unique approach to


movement of peoples. Every other free trade zone in the world has no


requirement about free movement of peoples. And the EU has an


ideological commitment to free movement of people, which means we


get at the moment about 250 up to 300,000 immigrants a year from the


EU, which we can't do anything about. That means that Theresa May


is having to restrict other kinds of immigrants from other places that we


actually need. In Hull, the immigrant population has tripled in


the last 10-15 years, mostly from the EU. That existing situation is


now being compounded on a massive scale by a second mistake by Angela


Merkel, which is to invite a huge number of migrants from the Middle


East and Africa, which has created a very large historic waves of


immigration. If you think about the population forecast for the world in


the next 20-30 years is to go from 7 billion up to 10 billion. Most of


those extra people will be in Africa, will have mobile phones, and


we'll be hearing Africa, will have mobile phones, and


the EU. So we have a Africa, will have mobile phones, and


in the whole debate about migration. Africa, will have mobile phones, and


As you say, that is already putting Africa, will have mobile phones, and


within the EU, Africa, will have mobile phones, and


of policies, you can't do anything Africa, will have mobile phones, and


about it. I take it you are voting Brexit. You got it.


APPLAUSE I can't believe what I've just


heard, in all honesty. Everybody in I can't believe what I've just


Africa will have a mobile phone and will be able to tell each other how


amazing it is in Europe! What a ridiculous statement.


amazing it is in Europe! What a lot of places, coming through


amazing it is in Europe! What a to our country, are doing it because


they are desperate? They are not doing it because they are having a


little chat on Facebook about how amazing this


little chat on Facebook about how ridiculous thing to say.


little chat on Facebook about how doing it because they are desperate.


A large number of the migrants into Europe are actually the wealthier


group of migrants, whether from Syria or from Africa. And a lot of


them do have access to mobile phones. Syria is a war zone. Yes. So


you are telling me the majority of people coming from Syria are doing


so because they are wealthy? The majority of people coming from Syria


are in fear of their lives. The majority coming from Syria to Europe


are the ones who can afford to pay the fees to get in. The ones who are


poor... What about the 3000 children that are coming alone from Syria?


Are they wealthy? The ones who are poor are the 2 million refugees are


sitting in Lebanon, the 1.5 million sitting in Jordan and the 2 million


on the Turkish border. They can't afford to come to Europe. Let's go


back to Linda's question, which was if we stay in the EU how can


immigration be controlled to ensure jobs and services are not stretched


to collapse? It can't, in an absolute sense, of course. This


debate between the lady and Paul is the very nub of the argument. Other


people who have been responding in this huge migrant crisis, are they


people who have been pulled in by information about the wonderful life


they have had in Europe, or are they people rushed out by civil war and


desperation? I agree with the lady, they have been pushed out and are


fleeing for their lives, and that is why so many have died. In a week


when the House of Commons, to its shame, refused what the House of


Lords suggested, to take in 3000 unaccompanied children, in an


atmosphere where 10,000 children have already gone missing, in terms


of we don't know where they are, who are clearly in danger... I am sorry,


but the sort of logic and argument you have put forward is the excuse


for why so many of these members of Parliament went through the lobbies


and denied the right of even 3000 children to come to this country for


safety and security. The question, Linda's question is about long-term


immigration. As you know, the official figures estimate 3 million


more EU migrants up to 2030. I think that is the question you were


asking. She is nodding. Not the specific interest of refugees from


Syria. With respect, Paul took us very much onto that subject. I would


argue a different position in terms of people. We were talking earlier


about the Jewish community. And I mentioned I was on the Holocaust


Memorial Day trust. One of the things that trust and foundation is


doing is not just having a memorial so that people remember the


Holocaust, but celebrating the achievements of the people who came


to this country, fleeing the terror of Nazi Germany, and the


achievements of their descendants. I come from a country which has not


suffered from immigration, but has suffered over the last century and a


half from immigration. And all of the Scots who have left have made


profound differences to the countries they have gone to,


achieved great things. So I don't like or accept the argument that


immigration is a bad thing. I think immigration is a good thing, and I


think strong societies have the ability to take the talents and


abilities of people and make our country better, so I don't accept


the premise. You are talking about a different question. Do you think the


3 million people who would come from Europe into this country over the


next ten years are people bringing talents we cannot supply in this


country? Aren't they people who would come because obviously if we


have a living wage which is more than double what they can earn in


Romanian and Bulgarian, of course they will come if they get the


chance? They are not coming for the benefits, then? Because that was the


previous argument, they were coming for the benefits. Iden thing they


are. I don't understand a Government that on the one hand is introducing


a living wage to beat all those wages... I don't understand the


government at all! The government can't sustain that. Are they


answering the question you asked? No. My question is that I have no


problem with the lady here about political or any other asylum. That


is our heritage and we should continue doing that. I have worked


in industries, HR and training, where I have worked with a


production line that has been put up the -- predominantly Eastern


European, to the extent that one of our employees who was British went


off with to trash -- depression because nobody spoke to him in his


own language for a ten hour shift. He was totally and utterly isolated.


These people are great, they work hard. You cannot say they are coming


for benefits because they are not. They are coming because they want to


work. The trouble is that we do not have an infinite amount of jobs. We


do not have an infinite amount of NHS or housing. We are a small


country. Something has to give. APPLAUSE


We are sitting here in the city of Hull, one of the cities of the


nation that has always been connected with the world. Its


prosperity, magnificent buildings like that, were based on being open


to the world and trading with the world. Very recently in this city we


had major investment. Everyone knows that Siemens are investing ?1


billion in this city. That will involve some people from Germany


coming to work here, just as people from Hull will go and work in


Germany. That has been part of the way, through generations, that we


have succeeded as a trading city. I think it would be a big mistake for


the United Kingdom, as Siemens have said, as well as for them is a firm,


if we turn our back on that tradition. We are about to have a


referendum. They are investing in the full knowledge that there is a


risk of this country deciding to leave Europe. Siemens is not going


away. Siemens has come knowing that that is a possibility. This is


nonsense to suggest that these things won't happen if we leave the


EU. The figure of 3 million new immigrants by 2030, are you happy


with that? That was a figure the office for National Statistics have


published before. The Government, rather than to use a different


figure that they had estimated for the purpose, they said, we want to


reduce immigration, but we will use the figure that is out there. You


are happy with that? That would be all right? You answer her question


about schools and the National Health Service. Theresa May has been


clear that we want to bring down the levels of immigration, but in terms


of putting that model out, responsibly, we have reviewed the


figures... Because she knows she can't. She herself has said it is


harder to control immigration being in the EU. Very honestly, Theresa


May made clear that with the EU policy she cannot control


immigration, and she can't control who comes in. The living wage is six


times what it is in Romanian and Bulgarian. It is very attractive to


them. Our immigration quota gets filled up with low skilled workers


and we are not able to filled up with low skilled workers


nurses, teachers, the IT programmers that the economy needs.


APPLAUSE You, sir. 3 million people coming in


from basically Eastern Europe in the next ten years is the equivalent of


building tens cities the size of Nottingham. How can the country cope


with doing that? It is impossible. I will go directly to the Lady's


question, because you need an answer. I think it is in the


interests of the country to stay in Europe.


APPLAUSE However, I do recognise the general


concern about immigration. I hear many of the things you have said in


my constituency. You wanted something practical, didn't you? My


answer would be, look at protecting skilled wages. Why are production


lines the way you have described? Because companies go abroad and


bring people in. If there were European rules that protected the


wages of the skilled workforce, there would not be that incentive


for them to go around and bring people into undercut the skilled


wage level. That is my vision of Europe, a social Europe, a people's


Europe that works for everybody. To put it in context, we have to


remember in this debate some of the points that Alex Wright be made.


Immigration is not a one-way street, as sometimes presented. There are


millions of British people around Europe, working abroad, as my dad


did. Also, they are net contribute is. That is totally dishonest.


People coming in are net contributors. They add to the


British economy. As you rightly said, the refugee situation is


entirely within our control because we are outside Schengen. If we left


the European Union and wanted trade benefits, we would have to accept


free movement. I am fed up with the lines being given by the Government,


and joining in with... Talk about elites. We are being browbeaten into


thinking that life will stop when we leave the EU. It has to be when, not


if, because we cannot control our future, cannot control our borders.


David Cameron wants to pave the way from Ankara in Turkey to Brussels,


so that Turkey can join the EU. 75 million people. Turkey is bordered


by Syria, Iran and Iraq. Do we think that will improve our security


situation? Do we think there is a possibility that we will know who is


at large in an enlarged Europe? This is crazy? But the politicians who


are telling us we can't leave Europe, five minutes ago were saying


they were worried about this. Theresa May is worried about this.


In that case, go with what you believe and leave?


We must have some kind of discipline of question and answer, not


everybody speaking over everybody because then nobody can hear. The


man in the blue shirt, I would like to go back to him and then maybe


Greg Clark could answer it, you put the question? Yes. You are looking


at three million people coming in, so it's the equivalent of building


ten cities the size of Nottingham in that time span and all the drains on


social services, health, schools, that will go with the ten cities.


How are we going to cope with doing that? Basically, they're economic


migrants from Europe and they are going to be a massive drain on


society. You are the communities minister, the Secretary of State, so


what is your answer? Two things; first of all, as part of the


negotiation, we have for the first time the ability to require people


to contribute to the benefits system before they can... That is a very


significant change. The second thing goes to the point that the lady made


earlier about many people working, coming from Eastern Europe to do


jobs that other people from this country haven't been doing. What


we've had is the introduction of the national living wage and the


increased pay can help make those jobs more attractive for people here


that haven't been doing them in the past. There's a question that needs


to be answered by Jill and Paul, if we do leave the European Union, what


are we going to do? Are we going to require visas from people from Spain


and France to come into this country? You know perfectly well, if


we don't choose to... But... There are a good many countries who should


have to do that. Paul, you take this? We can either choose to have


them or not. What is the proposal? There doesn't need to be a proposal.


We need to know what it would be like. Which countries do you want,


within the European Union, to prevent people from coming from,


France, Spain, which ones? It's not a matter of the countries, it's


whether people have the skills that we need, because they'll bring


something to this country we can't provide at home. Other civilised


countries can operate such systems perfectly well, we simply don't have


the choice at the moment and can't get it. I want to go back to our


audience. We have heard from a number of people worried about


immigration and presumably also voting Brexit because of it. I would


like to hear, because I know you are fairly evenly divided, from people


who'd like us to remain. A few hands go down. You, Sir?


The man in the pale blue behind you. I'm undecided on the remain or


leave. I want to refer back to Jill's point about the 75 million


Turks coming into the UK. That's scare morning saying 75 million


people are going to come here. That's not going to happen and for


Turkey to join the EU, they have to fill 20 conditions and the reality


they have only fulfilled three at the moment so that reality is a long


way off. I think if he's got a mobile phone to phone his relatives


here - I think that is a an offensive remark used by the


gentleman there. As a migrant, life is not easy in the UK. The


misconception that we hear all the time when in the streets or when we


talk to people, that we are here for the benefits, we are here for that,


we are all here or we move around the world to better our lives,


that's the bottom line about immigration. Everyone moves where


they can see that they can make a better life for themselves. So the


whole EU referendum for me or for my colleagues, other immigrants, is a


referendum on immigration because, if the numbers were not shown to be


as big as they are, I don't think we'll be having the EU referendum.


What is your own, just if I may, your story, when did you come to


Britain? I think the personal story would be for another day, but I


think... All right. But the issue is, there is a misconception. I


don't know what remark you are referring to, but I presume it's the


remark about the large scale migration. Is it about everybody


having mobile telephones? There is a lot of that goes on.


There are two issues that are being conflated here. One is the large


scale migration that is now starting which is an economic phenomena, and


the other is the refugees' link to Syria and the Middle East and


they're very different issues. In my remarks, I referred to the risk of


large scale economic migration. All migration is economic migration. No,


it's not. Let me explain. Wars disrupt economy and livelihoods so


when that happens, people move to places where they are safe to


continue their lives because, I'm telling you this because I'm an


immigrant so you are not a migrant, you can tell me what life is about.


So at the end of the day, I think there needs to be factual arguments


in regards to these issues. OK. We've only got six or seven


minutes left. Just one point about the economy. Greg Clark, will we be


better off, richer as a society, if we stay?


Yes, we will, and you LAUGHTER. . Just need to look at the


respective commentators from the Bank of England, to the OECD, to the


leaders of our trading partners right across the world, not just in


Europe. Is this your strongest argument for voting? I think it's


very clear from everyone that's... Like Mark Carney got his forecast


right? ! Access to markets and prosperity. If we were to take this


big risk of leaving the EU. And Jill better off or not? The OECD is


funded by the EU. Nobody knows what growth is going to be in the next


quarter, let alone 15 years ahead. Nobody can forecast. Nobody knows? I


think we shall be... Brexit with your fingers crossed? No, I think


we'll be better off because we'll be free to make decisions which are in


our own interests as strong world power. Jill says it as though we'll


go back to... ?350 million million every week. Jill says it as though


we'll go back to what we were. No, we don't want to go back anywhere, I


want to go forward in freedom. Britain's history after the war,


Britain was an outward lacking nation. If we leave, who'll be the


happiest, Russia or America, I can tell you now it will be Russia. The


patriotic case is to stay in to be true to Britain's past.


APPLAUSE. And secondly. No, not secondly. Who


shouted out rub snish you can add to the point? Was it you? No. You? OK.


I'm in. That's a rubbish argument, Andy. It would lead, not just to the


break-up of Europe, it would lead to the break-up of Britain because


there'll be a demand for a second referendum. We have got Alex Salmond


here. We've got a question from David Reid. Will Brexit lead


inevitably to the break-up of the United Kingdom? Your call, Alex


Salmond? We've heard it from Andy, I agree with Andy. If you had a


situation where, and it looks like Scotland are going to vote very


strongly in fave, if you are in a situation where Scotland is dragged


out of Europe against the will of the Scottish people, then that would


be a change in material circumstances that would justify


another referendum. You might say, oh, well, I'm going to campaign to


bring about that situation, well, I'm not. I believe, like Andy, that


these islands' future is, as a European country, and we should do


that because it's the best thing. But if the cards fall, as you


describe, Sir, there would be another Scottish referendum and this


time I think that yes would win it. One last thing, I'm the last person


in the world, having gone through that referendum experience two years


ago, to have any respect for project fear, whether it comes from the Tory


government or project fear, whether it comes from the Brexiters, but


whatever else you do, make up your minds, not on the hideous things,


the plagues of Egypt that will descend on this benighted country if


it does one thing or the other, make up your mind on principle, on who


you believe that we should share things with the other countries of


Europe or whether you believe there are advantages in doing something


else. Don't believe the scare mongers on either side. Paul? I may


not speak for all the people in favour of Brexit, but if Scotland


did leave the United Kingdom, in my regard, that is a win-win. Alex is a


very canny politician and he managed to negotiate an even better subsidy


for Scotland than they previously had. Scottish people get ?1200 per


person more than English people. You don't like refugees or Scots,


anybody else you don't like? I like... Do you like people in Hull?


I like everybody who stand on their own two feet. You used to like


Liberal Democrats, but not any more? ! The Scots need toe stand on their


own two feet, they have a ?15 billion deficit. Alex Salmond, I've


always taken to be a man of his word. During the Scottish referendum


campaign, Alex said as First Minister very clearly that this was


a once in the lifetime referendum in Scotland and that people needed to


bear that in mind. We knew that the Government was committed to having a


referendum on the EU, he didn't mention it at the time, I think that


he should be consistent with the position that he took. All right.


During the general election of last year... We have got to stop, Alex,


we have run out of time. We won 56 out of 59. You said it was a once in


a lifetime. This isn't a once in a lifetime referendum because


everybodith everybody that votes in, they can vote again if it doesn't


work out. If you vote in, you've got another chance? I want to go


straight to the question. I commend Alex on his honesty her, gave a very


honest answer there before. For the people sitting at home watching this


programme tonight, I think in my view, he's just given them the


single biggest reason to go out and vote in because if you love Britain,


if you want it to stay together, vote for it to remain in the


European Union as a partnership and vote for it so that it stays


together as a British partnership. APPLAUSE.


The voice in my head tells me we are overrunning our hour and Andrew Neil


will be very, very cross with us. Good, good. Win-win!


So we have to stop. Sorry to those who couldn't get in. Thank you for


so many hands being up, sorry we can't do more than the hour. Perhaps


you should come to Manchester next week all of you, we'll start all


over again. We have the former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, the boss of


Ryanair making a rare appearance on Question Time, Michael O'Leary, and


that's in Manchester and we are in Aberdeen the week after that. If you


want to go to either of those venues, go to our website, or call


us. If you are listening own Radio 5 Live and you can bear more, the


debate goes on until the early hours, but here it comes to a halt,


well in the studio it does, no doubt it will go on outside. My thanks to


the panel and to all of you who came to Hull. Until next week on Question


Time, good night.


David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Hull.

Panellists include Conservative communities secretary Greg Clark, Labour's shadow home secretary Andy Burnham, former leader of the SNP Alex Salmond, former director of the Centre for Policy Studies Jill Kirby and hedge fund manager and chairman of the ARK chain of academies Paul Marshall.

Download Subtitles