19/05/2016 Question Time

We are in the town Hall of Walsall in the West Midlands tonight, and of

course, this is Question Time. Good evening and welcome to you,

television, radio, everybody in the studio and our panel. The

Conservative Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd. Labour's Yvette Cooper, who

lost out to Jeremy Corbyn in last year's leadership election. Leader

of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron. A pity leader of Ukip, Paul

Nuttall. And the broadcaster who left Channel 4 News to be free to

campaign for radical left policies, Paul Mason.

Thanks very much. Just a reminder before our first question, if you

want to get involved in the debate, Facebook, Twitter and text. Push the

red button if you want to see what others are saying. Daniel Robertson

has the first question. Is it racist to want to leave the European Union?

This is in the light, is it not, of Pat Glass, Labour's shadow Europe

minister who was recorded saying of somebody who wanted Brexit and said

that the Polish were scroungers, that he was a horrible racist. That

happened today. Is it racist to want to leave the EU? Paul Nuttall. Not

at all. This is a window into the heart of the Labour Party, that this

was said. At the general election in 2010, Gordon Brown said something

very similar about Gillian Duffy, when he called her a bigoted woman.

And look, what we are saying, those of us who want to leave the European

Union, is that we want to enter the globe again, because at the moment

we are tied to the slowest growing economic bloc on the planet. It is

not racist to be concerned about immigration because we are talking

about numbers. The figures released today in terms of employment are

frightening. The fact that five out of six new jobs went to people who

were not born here, would seem to be putting British people at the back

of the queue. And we know from the ONS report last week that 800,000

people came from the European Union last year, even though Government

statistics tell us it was only 250 7000. We are basically under a

deluge of people coming to this country and we need to control our

own borders. It is not racist to say you want to control your borders,

but the only way we will do that is by leaving the European Union on

June 23. That figure of five out of six new jobs in fact does include

half of them are people who live here already and they are British

citizens, just happen to be born outside Britain. So why give the

wrong figure? There are 5.2 million foreign workers in Britain, one in

six in the workforce. 2.2 million have come from within the European

Union. The problem with immigration is not just economic. We are finding

wages are being driven down in working-class communities, and the

Bank of England have admitted that is the case. But it is also the

social problem. When we can control immigration and numbers, people can

integrate sensibly. The problem is too many people are coming and

people are not integrating into communities.

APPLAUSE Let's come back to your shadow

Europe minister saying this man was a horrible racist because he said

the Polish were scroungers, a particular family. He has apologised

and it is not racist to want to leave the European Union. It is not

racist to be worried about immigration. Our concern is

particularly about dodgy employers who undercut wages and jobs. I think

something should be done about that. Where it is racist is some of the

things we have seen, for example, in the Conservative campaign against

Sadiq Khan, for being Muslim. I think you should always call out

racism and you can do so at the same time as having a sensible debate

about things like immigration. The trouble with what Paul has said is

that there is actually a bit of a con going on. It is playing on

people's fears and it is a con because what Paul has actually said,

if Britain pulls out of Europe, is that he would want it to be the

Norway model. I have not. Never in my life. You have said that. What

Norway means is that you would have free movement. If you have the Swiss

model you would also have free movement. There is a lot of false

promise that it would change policies of statuary if we pull out.

What I think is a serious problem is that you have had in the last few

days, you have had Nigel Farage talking about there will somehow be

violence on the streets, which is not dissimilar to what Enoch Powell

said years ago. We also had Boris Johnson attacking President Obama

for his half Kenyan heritage. And we have had Michael Gove saying that

somehow the country will be overrun by Albanian criminals. I think that

is playing on division. We know that the Leave campaign want to divide

Britain from Europe. Why, if you say that... Just a minute. We should not

be trying to divide communities from each other. That is wrong. Why did

the Labour campaign, then, in a leaked document, say that if the

question of immigration came up, you should move away from it, if it came

up on the doorstep? I have always done the opposite. You think that is

wrong? I think you may have asked me that before the last election. So

what? You didn't answer it then and you are not answering now. I have

always said you should be prepared to talk about immigration. I don't

think you should switch the subject. I don't think it is wrong to talk

about it. Whether it is about dodgy employers and exploitation, we

should take stronger action on that. That should mean stronger laws in

Britain against exploitation, because some of it, frankly, is

modern slave. It also means we should work with other European

countries to protect the rights of workers, defend them, rather than

getting wood of them and dismissing them as red tape, as some in Ukip

want to do, because that would make things worse. -- getting rid of

them. I want to go back to the point about it not being racist to talk

about immigration. We do need to acknowledge there are right-wing

political parties like Britain first and the BNP that are exploiting this

immigration debate to the point that it is fuelling horrific

Islamophobia, to their benefit, by saying we have so many immigrants

coming here from different countries. It even echoes the Enoch

Powell rivers of blood speech, or Margaret Thatcher talking about

aliens on our own street. It is alienating Muslims and people that

come here from other countries. With a climate where we need to be united

in the face of terror attacks, we are alienating people and making

them feel unwelcome, and the BNP are exploiting this.

APPLAUSE Being against immigration is not

racist at all. The problem is that the immigrants when they come, they

don't go and live in Islington or Morningside in Edinburgh, Saint

Davidsson Wales. They come to Walsall, to Wolverhampton, to

Toxteth. The schools are ready over crowded. You can't get a place at

the doctor. We are too full. Put up the shot signs. Paul Mason. I don't

think it is racist to want to leave Europe, because I want to leave

Europe and I count myself as somebody who has fought against

racism or iLife. The reason I want to leave Europe is because it is

impossible for the European to be a democracy. Simple as that.

APPLAUSE I don't care how much it costs. If

it was doing its job, it would be worth paying. I think we are going

to need more migrants. I also think we have educated take refugees. But

let's put this to one side and think about this European choice. -- we

have a duty to take refugees. I am very unlikely to vote for Brexit on

the day because I do not want to hand power to a bunch of crazed,

right-wing Conservatives. APPLAUSE

I do not include you in this. You are a non-crazed right-wing

Conservative. So this once-in-a-lifetime chance... I think

there will be another chance because the European Union is

disintegrating. Half of the governments of East Europe are

racist. Eastern European governments are coming forward with people who

want coalitions with the far right. How can this persist? For us to go

forward, I do not want Michael Gove and Boris Johnson given the chance

to shape written's Constitution in future with no election, no promise

of election, no further referendum on what deal we do. I will be

looking carefully at what the position is as I go into that ballot

box. So you might vote Remain? I might. There are things that Remain

can do to convince me. One would be to promise a -- an election within

six months of the referendum, so we can all decide on the future

relationship with Europe. That is democracy. The short answer is, no,

I don't think it is racist. I thought the point the lady brought

up is interesting, because she highlighted the real difficulty of

language in this particular debate. Because this is an incredibly

important, historic choice everybody will be making on June 23. So all

sorts of groups are piling in. There are racist groups piling in and

certainly they will vote to leave, and it does destabilise some of the

language taking place. It is important not necessarily to think

about who or which party will be in charge. This is a historic chance to

change or stay in the EU for the UK. It is not about individuals. If we

move away from individuals, perhaps there will be a few less insults

flying around. Would you promise an election within six months of the

vote? It is important to concentrate on the facts. This is another issue

I would take issue with Paul on. When he trots out these facts, I do

not think they are facts. Nine out of ten people employed in the UK are

British-born. His facts are different to mine. One of the things

we must be careful of is tabloid newspapers putting out headlines

that are not facts. I would urge you to check them yourself, particularly

on immigration. What do you say to the man at the top on the left, who

said that people come here, to Toxteth, not to Islington and

Morningside in Edinburgh. In other words, it is here that the schools

are overcrowded, the NHS is under pressure. His concern, I believe, is

that people come here without jobs to come to hand without

contributing, and that is one of the changes the Prime Minister has made,

so we can in courage people to come here only if they have jobs to come

to. They cannot collect benefits for four years. Is that an answer, sir?

It is not enough. According to the latest statistics come immigrants

contributed over 2.5 billion tax for 2013-14. Do you know why there are

so many immigrants and black people in Toxteth, because that is where

they were taken as slaves, when Liverpool was a slave port. No, it

wasn't. You are from Liverpool. Do you object to all the black people?

Many of your supporters do. I don't. They came after 1945 when we had

sensible immigration numbers. Between 45 and 97, up to 50,000

people came every year, a sensible number so that people can

assimilate. You cannot do that with 800,000 people coming. Tim Farron's

turn, I think. Thank you. Daniel, your question, is it racist to want

to leave the European Union and to talk about immigration? No, it

isn't. I disagree with Paul, but I like him. I think he is sincere and

believes what he believes. I believe he is wrong, but not a racist. What

I think that Pat Glass and her remarks betray is that there are too

many folks on the Remain side who are running away from the issue of

immigration and migration. I will not do that. I will absolutely

categorically say that immigration to this country is by far much more

a blessing and a curse. APPLAUSE

-- a blessing than a curse. Figures today say there are 2.1 million

European citizens living and working and paying taxes in the United

Kingdom. A figure of close to 2 million British people living and

working or being retired elsewhere in the European Union. It is pretty

much give-and-take. We have this rhetoric about the damage that

migration has done to our country. Go to any A award and see who

makes you better, who is looking after elderly parents in care homes,

looking after our children. Migration is helpful and it

strengthens this country, and being in the European Union allows us to

move to other countries and others to come here. The fact that there

are so many people in this country working and from other areas

demonstrates the work ethic so many of these folks have and we should be

proud they choose Britain as their home.

I would like to address Paul and the gentleman about Walsall and

immigration and blaming social care. It is a farce. Social care in this

area is struggling because we are one of the biggest hit local

government councils for cuts. Next year, we've got to find ?19 million.

It's atrocious. Metropolitan councils have been kicked a hell of

a lot more than any of the others. Birmingham is the largest authority

in Europe and it has had massive cuts. We can't blame immigration.

We've got to blame the Conservative government and the cuts that are

hitting the most vulnerable and leaving people in crisis. Hold on.

Let's hear some more points. I'd like to completely disagree with the

remarks made by the gentleman at the top left. The US has been described

as a great melting pot where everybody is fused together to make

something better. Shouldn't we encourage immigration from the EU to

evade a demographic crisis? On the top right. Iron I'd like to take

issue with Paul Mason's comments about right wing Conservatives.

Millions of people voted Conservative in the last election.

It was clear there was going to be a referendum on the manifesto. Jo

Brand Conservatives generally, about 10 million people, as crazed

right-wingers is appalling. -- Jo Brand Conservatives. It is

appalling, the things you say. -- to brand. We now know what a ?35,000

per year education at Eton buys you. It's the ability to stand up, to

insult your opponents, if you are not winning the argument to raise

ridiculous point about the EU banning banana bunches more than

three. If that doesn't work, you tussle your hair and green inanely.

If I paid ?35,000 a year and sent somebody to Eton and they came at

doing that, I'd be disgusted. We could do with less personal insults.

I'm talking about Boris Johnson, who has the based... I'm sorry, he is

debasing the rationality of this debate and you should be worried

that this guy could be leading your party if he wins the referendum. I'm

not worried about that. I am worried about the personal insults. A art, a

brilliant man, and you are focusing on somebody's education, rather than

the arguments. John Major was saying that the Tory right was adopting the

Ukip argument. This is what the Tories will become if the right-wing

faction get their way. It is this that frightened me above everything

else, less than Ukip. We don't know what these guys will do if they take

control of your party. It must be appalling for you, Paul. You long

for Brexit and you don't dare vote for it. We will get another chance.

This is the chance. One of the things that Boris Johnson actually

said before of this -- before this all started was that he would like a

referendum on the result of the negotiation. That would be something

that those of us who are worried about an uncontrolled right-wing

Brexit would like to see. You could deliver it, you are in the council

-- you are a Privy Council. People want to know the facts. There is a

reason you are straying away from Boris Johnson as an individual,

because he might be Lorne leader in six weeks' time. -- he might be your

leader. You might be leading a party, within six months' time. I

understand why Amber Rudd is saying she doesn't want it to be personal,

because it does feel it has become personal in the Tory party. I think

too much of this debate has been Tory politicians having a go at each

other. That is probably why we haven't heard enough about things

like workers' right in Europe. That is why, as well, we haven't heard

enough about them is like jobs in manufacturing in our industrial

towns. I have some sympathy with Paul. In the end, I don't really

care if two old Etonians want to have a slug out against the future

of the Tory party but I care if they are putting people's livelihood at

risk over a political game. We've got another EU question which arises

from this. Have you all had this booklet? It comes from this, and the

question is from Dominic. This is the electoral commission voting

guide for the referendum. The Remain campaign says that we... Who is

right? The Remain, every count that we put in, we get ?10 back. Leave,

put ?3 50 in and you only get half back. Somebody isn't telling the

truth. What Remain is doing is focusing on the benefits to the

economy, the fact that we get investment into the UK, because we

are part of the platform access to the EU. It is working out the

benefit, 10-1, of having that investment and access to the single

market. Leave are comparing it to how much it costs because they are

simply looking at the bill for being a member of this club, then netting

off the rebate and any other money that is the cost of what we get

back. They are not looking at the enormous benefits that we get from

the single market. And you think it can be costed ?10 for every pound

you put in? I have put -- spent 20 years covering economics and I have

learned not to take account of these figures. They are pulled out of

abstract thinking, equations that don't add up. In the end, people

have to take this decision on the basis, not of this mirage of facts

that we keep getting the media is bombarding us with facts and, the

more we get, the less we understand. You've got take a decision on the

basis of, do you believe in the institutions? Do you believe it can

be reformed and it can deliver what you want as British people on the

day, and then what the concrete consequences on the day of the

particular political leadership? If it cost us double what it says, if

it worked, it would be worth paying. My concern is... One of the reasons

the Tory right is so annoyed is because they are now getting the

treatment the Scots got during the independence referendum. They are

getting the whole of the official state apparatus, the Bank of

England, the Treasury, pumping out propaganda for Remain that has no

ability to be challenged. Those of us who have would like to see a

different outcome have no ability to challenge what the Bank of England

and the Treasury are modelling. Red everybody keeps asking for the

facts. All mason says that they don't mean anything anyway. -- Paul

Mason. Probably the only thing more depressing than the referendum and

the fistfight between two old schoolmates is the concentrating of

facts and figures. It doesn't mean they are not important. We've got to

make a judgment as to what is in the best interest of our country, as

individuals and families. Some things do stack up. The single

market is worth ?78 billion per year to the UK. We are net contributors

to the EU, to the tune of about 6.5 billion per year. You've got to work

out whether that is a good deal. I think it is. What I am desperate for

is something a bit more uplifting in this debate. The reason I will vote

to remain on June 23 isn't just the economy, it's about a statement of

what kind of country I belong to, what kind of country is Britain. Are

we outward looking? Or do we want to stand on the white cliffs of Dover,

glowering across the English Channel? I want Britain to be the

kind of country that is engaged with the outside world. We have built

piece over the past 75 years ago. There were nuclear weapons on their

soil pointed at the West Midlands and the rest of the UK. Today, we

work together. That is the kind of Europe I want my children to grow

into. A reminder that Dominic's question was about who we believe on

the money. I think we need to get back to the basics of the discussion

and get understanding what this is about. It isn't about personality.

It is about two basic things. Can we manage the country ourselves or will

we continue to be told from a group of 27 other countries what we can do

and can't do and how we should do it, but we've got to foot the bill?

Surely we could take the money back ourselves and make better use of it?

So you don't believe the figures? It's a lot of nonsense. Independent

is a perfectly fair question, but I think ignores the reality of the

modern world. The EU isn't the only way in which we pool our

sovereignty. Nato, the world trade organisation, the most democratic if

the EU. Talking about these leaflets, I am depressed by

politics. The EU referendum has shown how broken the system is.

Within parties, you've got infighting. One set of parties

saying one lot of figures. We are being lied to and there isn't a

genuine debate. The EU referendum has shown the ugliest side of where

politics is. It is the same people on either side of the chamber, to be

honest. To answer the original question... You are good at

answering questions. We are getting all sorts of facts and figures in

the ground. One economist will say one thing and then somebody else

will say the alternative. The ex-head of MI6 said we would be more

secure if we were out, others saying the opposite. This will go on until

the day. It will be up to you guys to make the decision of whether you

want Britain to be stuck within the slowest growing economic bloc on the

planet. He is saying it is a disreputable campaign in which

people are attacking each other in the way you have been describing and

experts saying opposite things. How do you restore confidence? I want to

get away from personalities and campaign on the real facts and

figures. It is costing us ?55 million every single day to be

members of the European Union. That is the gross figure. Hold on. Then

we get the rebate back. And then they give us a portion of money back

and then they tell us how to spend our own money. If you walk round

Wolverhampton or Birmingham, you will see signed up saying, thank the

European Union, this project was built with EU money. There is no

such thing, it's your money, your taxation, and that money should

stayed here to be spent on our schools, hospitals and transport

network. What is the economic cost of a disenfranchised population, as

expressed by the chat at the front? We are losing interest in Europe. We

got no influence over it. That will have an economic cost down the line.

Could you ask your question again, please? What is the economic cost of

having a disenfranchised population. The man at the front expressed it

well. I think people are feeling quite alienated from this whole

debate and everything being thrown around to and fro. If you go through

the facts, Paul did go further than a lot of the Leave campaigners by

conceding that actually they figured they use, this ?350 million, is

wrong. The statistics authority has said it is misleading and dodgy to

use it. Yeah, there is a contribution, and in return what we

get is access to the single market, and that makes it so much easier for

our businesses to trade. What you get on the other side is different

estimates, and they are estimates by economist based on a whole load of

evidence and analysis about what it would cost if we pull out of the

single market and how much trade we would lose. Is this right what it

says on the Remain site, for every ?1 we put in we get ?10 back? It is

an estimate by economists... One of the estimates. You were chief

secretary of the Treasury. Do you think they've got it right? I think

it is as accurate as any other. It is important, because it is

official. No body knows until you know what the trade deal is that is

done. Why put it in? People want facts so we do our best to give them

facts. Ultimately, it is a judgment. You don't say it is a judgment here.

APPLAUSE These are the facts that I believe

to be true but Paul believes different ones. There is one bottom

line. Your question was, what is the economic cost of a disenfranchised

population. We who are involved in public life should take that

seriously. I want to save the steel industry. I drive past Port Talbot

steelworks. It is a brilliant bit of structural asset for this country.

The European Union rules say we can't. That is basically what it

says. In addition, the European Commission itself has refused to

fight for the whole European Union steel industry in the world market.

If I could deselect the European Commission, believe me, I would. If

we could elect it and bring it under democratic control, that would be

good. But the treaty prevents us doing so and it prevents a future

Labour government from saving steel, it prevents them from nationalising

the railways, and this to me is the bread and butter as to why we have

to look critically at the European Union. And you will still vote to

remain? I am saying that the economic case for Brexit is strong,

as is the political, but the Brexit people don't need to be dictated to

by a Tory right about when and under what conditions we do so.

I think there is a lot of nonsense said about how the EU stops us doing

a lot of things. Often, the Tory government will use the EU as an

excuse not to take action on steel when it could have done. We have the

same issue around the coal industry in my constituency when the last pit

closed. EU said they would be able to help and the Tory government

said, we can't. Too often it is used as an excuse not to take action when

we can. When it comes back to the point about the facts, people will

throw different numbers at you but the bottom line in the end is that

the cost of trade will be higher. If we are outside the single market,

the cost of trade will be higher. They will give us a worse steel than

we have now. Why would they let us be in the club and give us a worse

deal? We deal with this subject every week. We have spent half the

programme on it. You can have one sentence, Tim, and then I will move

on. Not a long sentence. What we have seen in the steel industry is

the consequence of Chinese government actions and Indian

business decisions, proving that we are interconnected as a global and

we are far better off together with our neighbours standing up to those

economic threats than on our own. I am going to move on because we have

taken half an hour and I don't think it is fair if every programme is

entirely about the EU because we have a long way to go and a lot of

debate before we reach that date in June when Paul Mason has to decide

how to cast his vote. And millions of other people. We are going to be

in Ipswich next week and Cardiff the week after that. On screen, you can

see how to apply. Let's move on for a question from

Kevin Wilkes. After the junior doctors debacle, isn't it time for

the NHS to be run independently, rather than continually being a

political football? Tim Farron. It is certainly time for it to stop

being used as a political football, to answer your question

specifically. If Beveridge, the Liberal, who wrote the blueprint for

the National Health Service in the 1940s, if in his day we had been

living to the ages we are now, there is no question whatsoever that he

would have included social care in with the National Health Service.

The fact that it is disconnected from the National Health Service has

to be addressed, as does the relegation of mental health services

behind physical health services. We should be massively proud of the

National Health Service but let's not kid ourselves that we are

spending enough on it. We are not. We spend less as a percentage of GDP

on our health service than most other European countries. It is time

for a new Beveridge deal for all parties, to put aside the

politicking over the National Health Service and recognise we need that

new deal to protect it for the future. It is no good putting the

emphasis on junior doctors, as has happened, to try and stretch out the

resource so the government can meet a commitment it could never meet. It

is time for a new resource, a new deal for the National Health

Service, including mental health and social care.

APPLAUSE You are talking about finding more

money for the NHS. In the end, that is necessary. The question is about

whether it can be taken out of politics. Is that what you meant? I

agree with everything said about bringing in social care and mental

health, but for as long as I can a member, Labour have obviously thrown

accusations at the Tories about looking to privatise and cut

everywhere. It has been gone back the other way, Labour being accused

of wasting money and spending on middle management. It is something

both sides of the quite heart always fighting each other over. What

should really be happening is people who know how to run the NHS and how

to run these things should be in place. They should be given whatever

money they need and allowed to run it.

APPLAUSE I work in the NHS. When I joined,

the first thing I was told was that every time a new political party

joins it will change and it will go around in circles and we will waste

a lot of money, and when the Primary Care Trusts went down, the e-mail

address is changed and it was the same people. Incredible waste of

money. Jeremy Hunt should resign for his treatment of junior doctors. It

is appalling. They are hard workers and do not deserve what the

Conservatives have done to them. Shame. He should resign.

APPLAUSE Amber Rudd. Jeremy Hunt should go.

Naturally, I don't agree with that and I would congratulate the

combination of Jeremy Hunt and a junior doctors and the BMA on coming

to an agreement today. The lies, the lies. Don't you welcome the fact

that the dispute is now, we have, over. The fact is, we made a

manifesto commitment to deliver a seven-day NHS. Through lies, misuse

of statistics. An agreement has been reached and it is a relief. Why has

he waited so many months to do it? APPLAUSE

There is a Chief Executive of the NHS and he was put in place in order

to take it out of being a political football so he could put together

the plan, which he did, under the last Government, to say how much

money was needed. He said how much was needed and that is why we have

put it up so it can be done. Can I say, the real difference between a

Conservative government and a Labour government is that we have a strong

economy that is enabling us to put in that 10 billion. The finances we

inherited from you in 2010 were such a disaster there would have been no

chance to be able to deliver on the strong NHS that we are now able to

finance because we have a stronger economy. Let's deal with the

original question which was, OK, you obviously need wealth to fund the

NHS, whichever party is in power. The question was why can it not be

run independently, in other words, give money to it independently? That

is why we put in place a Chief Executive. What happened when you

were in government, your party did this, the NHS act 2010, it made the

NHS into an independent body, so the idea was the Secretary of State

would have nothing to do with it. Jeremy Hunt spends every morning

biting his fingernails over the next A closure. He is micromanaging the

NHS from his own department because the act that you and the Tories put

into place did not work. What it did was shovel large parts of the NHS

into the hands of private companies, many of whom just happen to have

directors and owners who are in the Tory party. That is what has

happened. Which act are you talking about? I hope the junior doctors

throw that deal back in their face. I hope they do. What about the

patients. The patients support the junior doctors. Go and meet them. Go

to Walsall. First, I rebelled on the NHS bill. Secondly, the key point in

all of this, on the junior doctors debate, it is a reminder that

resource is the issue. If you keep pushing the ball down the road it

will never be solved. It does need to be an all-party thing. If we are

going to bring in social care, advance mental health, it will cost

more. It will never happen if one party is scoring points of the

other, only if there is a new Beveridge- style consensus. But how

do you achieve that? Is it achievable? I hope so, because it is

the thing that people believe in, probably the most treasured national

institution, with the second being the BBC which has also seen a lot of

attacks recently. Who was bullying? Booing? Amber did not answer my

question of why were these concessions not made months ago? Why

have we had people have appointments cancelled, stress on hospitals,

really undermining the morale of some of the most important assets to

the National Health Service, the people who work in it? That is what

he has put at risk. Would it be possible, together to the question,

to have some kind of institution, we have had this, therefore, some kind

of institution which was agreed between all parties should run the

National health? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the money,

but the detail would not be in the hands of party politicians, not the

hands of Jeremy Hunt or a Labour minister. I think you want as much

decision-making as possible taken by medical professionals, the experts

who should be running hospitals, primary care and running care in the

community as well. The only thing I would caution is that if what you

simply do is to say we are going to pass all the responsibility but it

is still going to be the government writing the check, and not writing a

big enough cheque and doing the things it needs to do, then you have

a problem. The second thing is, I think they should be accountable to

local communities. We would be better having more accountability

for the National Health Service and social care together in local

communities, rather than it be simply something that a Health

Secretary can way into whenever he wants to make a political point and

pick a fight. I am so glad we're having this discussion. I think it

should be taken out of the hands of politicians. I am on the board of

one of the local NHS Trusts and every five or six years you see this

pattern of change when the political cycle changes. You need it to be

taken out of the influence of political environments. The one

thing everyone needs to do is to level with the population in terms

of what is really going on. There is a humongous demand in the NHS and it

is nothing to do with immigrants. It is absolutely everything to do with

ageing demographics, the diseases we can cure now, which we could not

before, and the demands placed on resources available. You have to

level with the population. Does tax go up, does the service go down?

What are you promising? At the moment, you are trying to make

things add up and they will not. APPLAUSE

I think we already lies we are heading towards all of us have it

have a debate about the NHS. -- we all realise. We have an ageing

population, a growing population, drugs are becoming more expensive.

It is a debate we will have to have as grown-ups as we move into the

21st-century. What is your answer? My answer is that we will have to

spend more money in future and that will have to go to a general

election and a political party will have to put it to the electorate to

see whether they are willing to plough more into the NHS. So

taxation is your route? I thought your route was to get people to pay

individually? Our manifesto at the last general election shed -- said

we would plough an extra 3 billion each year into the NHS. The biggest

immediate threat to the NHS comes from the transatlantic trade

investment partnership, which the European Union is negotiating now

with the United States. There is an article in that called the investor

state dispute settlement which will allow American corporations to sue

the National Health Service if they do not get what they want. Example,

at the moment you have Philip Morris suing the Australian government

because the Australian government have harmed their profits by

bringing in plain packaging. That could happen in the NHS and the only

way we can protect the NHS is by voting to leave on June the 23rd.

That is rubbish. Amber Rudd, you clear this up. This was in the

Queens speech and I thought there was an amendment to exclude the NHS

from this agreement. That is correct. The government already

takes the view that... Not takes the view, legislates. The first position

is that we take the view that the NHS is excluded. And you are right,

Mr Chairman, we have agreed that additional legislation will be in

place to reassure everybody so they can be absolutely clear the NHS will

not be included. While I have the floor, may I say that I think you

are absolutely right on your point that there are expectations that we

have to manage. We have to decide whether we are going to carry on

with what we believe and hope can be a first-class service, with

additional problems, and if we are going to pay for them. That debate

has to take place. In terms of the independence of the NHS, part of

that has been given to the new Chief Executive. He puts together the plan

and it goes to the Chancellor and he says, this is what we need to

deliver on it. So maybe that system needs to be beefed up, but the

principles of doing that, we have put in place.

The funds he asked for were taken down a bit. That's correct, but the

junior doctors issue, did go back to that, in any organisation,

leadership is so immensely important, and Jeremy Hunt, whether

right or not, have a leadership important in this, and how we have

managed this dispute... He took a leaf out of how Michael Gove managed

teachers. If you have a group of people to move towards a certain

end, the last thing you do is demoralise them. I am concerned

about all those young people out there who might become doctors and

medics in the future and think, that isn't for me. He has turned off a

generation of people who might otherwise have gone into the health

service. Hold on. Just for the people who are never quite sure what

TTIP is, what exactly is the implication, as an economist, of

TTIP on the NHS? In layman's language? It is a binding treaty

that says, look, we, Britain, and Europe, have to open up our markets

to American companies and that, if they are unfairly discriminated

against, so you can't own the NHS, they can sue us in a court. You have

to exempt the NHS. I would exempt a lot of other things. I would say

that we should veto TTIP in Europe. It is likely to happen. I wouldn't

see this as a leading or staying in issue for Europe. While I've got the

floor, I will do what you lot haven't done. There is a $28 billion

pounds tax cap in this country. It could be 128. That money should be

collected from the tax dodging rich and used to pay for the NHS. You

have made your point. Somebody mentioned Michael Gove on the other

side of the table, let's have a question that might touch on him.

Conrad, please. Prison reform includes suggestions that some

prisoners will only go to prison at weekends and be given iPads. Are we

being soft on crime? These are the suggestions from Michael Gove for

reforms, and you may have seen the pictures of the chaos in Wandsworth

prison and others, drugs being brought in by drones. Probably

arranged by the department so that their position should be understood.

The suggestion is, work at home during the week and more weekends,

in prison. Are we being soft? Yvette Cooper. It depends what the crime is

that has been committed. If people have committed violent, serious

crimes, abuse, there has to be a proper sentence and the public has

to be protected, but also vegans need to feel that actually justice

is being done. -- victims. But with other crimes you could have very

different sentencing where you don't end up having to have overcrowded

prisons. It's sensible to look at that kind of reform, educational

reform and rehabilitation, but a real problem I have with what they

have announced this week is actually what they were really talking about

was just six prisons out of 130 would get some flexibility to do

other things but nothing to tackle the major overcrowding problems, you

really shocking images that we saw on the news last night of some of

the things going on in Wandsworth, an increase of about a third in riot

attacks on staff, an increase of about a quarter in a tax on

prisoners, suicide rates are up, and it is a consequence of having cut

staff numbers by a third. You've got prisoners locked in their cells for

23 hours at a time because there are not enough staff to supervise them.

Unless this is sorted out, all of the reforms will just be a con.

Conrad, you were a police officer, I think? Do you think we are being

soft on crime? I think if you do the crime, you should do the time.

APPLAUSE I don't believe that sending

prisoners at weekends only and having the week off to work, I don't

think it will work. They have enough cushy time in prison. Giving them

iPads, I think, well... How much is an iPad? Paul Nuttall. The cynic in

me thought that this announcement by Michael Gove was a publicity stunt

but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt because, if you

look at the statistics, only one in four prisoners who are released go

on and find employment, so if you keep them in employment, you will

integrate them into back into society. When they do come out, 46%

of them go on to commit crime within a year. Those on shorter sentences,

that jumps up to 60%, so there is a correlation between how long you

spend in prison and the likelihood of you coming out and reoffending. I

want sentences to mean what you say. I don't want you to go down for six

years and come out in three. If you go down for six, you should stay in

the six years. In the end, we can have rehabilitation but I think

deterrence are as important. Do you believe in the death penalty? Yes,

like the majority of people in this country, I believed in the death

penalties for people who go out and kill harmless children, and I make

no apologies. One other point, the real issue we have got with prisons

is that the budgets have been cut massively. In 2000, for everyone

prison officer, there were three prisoners. Now, in 2015, there are

six reserve officers -- six prisoners for every officer. My

cousin is a prison officer and he tells me all of the time that they

have lost control. Between now and 2020, there will be another 15% cut

on the Ministry of Justice budget. We need to spend money on our

prisons, we need people to come out educated, rehabilitated and then

integrated back into society. The man in the striped T-shirt. I think

that rehabilitation is really important, but where does the

deterrent start? If these people are out in general society midweek, we

are acting as the prison officers, almost, in the fact that we are the

people in front of these prisoners. They should be behind bars if they

have done something wrong for a certain amount of time, where proper

rehabilitation and take effect. So it should be done inside rather than

out. Paul Mason. I am in favour of enforcing the criminal justice

system fairly. How many constituencies are being

investigated at the moment for Conservative election fraud?

Innocent until proven guilty, of course. It is 29. As a Conservative

minister and Privy Council, you will be the first to say that, if anybody

worked out to have conspired to link those constituencies together so

that somebody knew that the Conservative Party was overspending

at local level, that person should be prosecuted, shouldn't they? What

does this have to do with the question? A lot of young

working-class men get criminalised by poverty and living a terrible

life that we should rehabilitate them, but we should be investigating

the crimes of the rich and privileged with just the same amount

of vigour. Starting with the people who keep their money in Panama.

People are in prison for a reason. I go to school in Walsall and we can't

even afford iPads. Working-class girls like me and my friends can't

learn of iPads at school. Our school can't afford it. Why do prisoners

deserve iPads but hard-working girls like me and Ellie don't? The purpose

of this reform is a centrepiece of the Prime Minister's desire to give

people life chances. What we are doing is investing money and totally

reforming the prison service and the prisons themselves, the biggest

reform since the Victorian age, to make them fit for purpose so we

don't have the sort of numbers Paul quoted, about recidivism, people

coming out of jail and committing crimes. We want to make sure people

get a second chance. It isn't just that. Is she going to get an iPad?

How am I supposed to learn at school without technology? We don't have

the funding for computers at work. Hard-working pupils deserve that

funding, not prisoners. I have to say, maybe your school... There has

to be a quality in the system. A lot of schools now provide iPads for

their children as they go through. I hope the education system can help

people access iPads. If they can't get their own once, to have good

access to shared ones. There is no question of all prisoners of iPads.

Some of the elements have been highlighted as if the government is

going to be soft on crime, we are not. We want to make sure people

come out educated, they can get jobs and make a useful contribution and

not go back to crime. We have to remember that not all crimes are

violent crimes. You talk about these people being a risk to us. Not

everyone is in prison is a risk to the population. And violent crimes,

of course, should be treated inside. In terms of rehabilitation and

allowing people to become a functioning part of society, it

simply can't be done when they are being locked away for 23 hours per

day in a cell. Are we being soft on crime? I don't think so. We are

being very ineffective on crime, though. Let's look at what prison is

for. Three things, to punish people who have done wrong, to make sure

there is justice and the victim gets some reparation. Second, to protect

society from people who will be endangered to it. Third, it's about

rehabilitation, so that those people come out improved and able to

function. Just about half of the 85,000 people who are currently in

prison will reoffend within 12 months, so many of them are not

violent crimes at all. What do we do to make sure we make our country

safer? Revalidation is right and just, morally correct to give people

a second chance. -- rehabilitation. We as a country will be safer as a

result. You, sir, quickly. I am reserving prison officer. I am all

for rehabilitation but the things you are asking for cannot be done in

custody. They need to be done outside, before release. By the time

people get into custody and they are on to the longer sentences, you just

need staff. What did you think of the suggestions put forward by the

government for people spending five days at home and spending two days

in prison? It won't work because you are incentivising people not to come

to Britain at weekends. It's a punishment system. One more. Isn't

this just a publicity stunt? It is one of the few occupations that

doesn't get filled in post. Isn't it politicians looking for the general

public to do their job? She can't answer because our time is up. We'll

have to try again later. I'm sorry. It really is. Our power has

finished. Nick Clegg, we will be in Ipswich. -- next week, we will be in

Ipswich. Ed Miliband will be back for the first time since he stopped

being leader of the Labour Party. Caroline Lucas for the Greens, David

Davis for the Conservatives, and Steve Hilton will be on the panel.

You do look surprised. The 17 years, he was David Cameron's strategy

adviser. We will be in Cardiff the week after that. An exciting

programme in Ipswich and another in Cardiff. Go to the website if you

would like to come. If you are listening on five live, don't go

away. Here, my thanks to our panel, to all of you who came to Walsall to

take part. Until next Thursday, good night.