27/10/2016 Question Time

Welcome to Question Time. Tonight, we're in Gloucester.

And with us tonight,

the Conservative Business Secretary, in Japan recently for talks

with the carmaker Nissan to reassure them about Brexit,

Greg Clark.

Labour's Shadow Secretary for Brexit,

the former director of public prosecutions,

promoted to the Shadow Cabinet one year after becoming an MP,

Keir Starmer.

The president of the Liberal Democrats, Sal Brinton.

Dia Chakravarty, the political director of the Taxpayers' Alliance,

which campaigns for lower taxes and spending.

And Ken Loach, whose film I, Daniel Blake,

about the hardship of living on benefits,

has just won him the Palm d'Or at Cannes.

And, as always, remember, you can join in the debate,

everything that's said here,

either on Facebook or through Twitter, or text us on 83981.

That said, let's have our first question from Clare...

Sorry, Ellie Mads... Mads...

I don't know whether you'd like to call it

Mat-SA-nova or Matsa-NO-va.

-Either way.

-Or either.

-Either.

-Either. OK. Ellie, anyway.

In light of today's positive economic news,

is the UK's post-Brexit economy in rude health?

So, the positive economic news being Nissan's investment, of course.

And growth rate being slightly more than was forecast.

So, are things looking better? Keir Starmer.

Well, the first thing I want to say is that it's fantastic news

for Sunderland and the Northeast that Nissan have agreed

to invest for as long as they have.

I think for everyone who works at Nissan,

for their families and their communities, this is really

good news and we shouldn't make party political points about this.

This is good news for those communities.

What persuaded them, do you think?

Well, this is the really significant question.

This is, I think, where the debate needs to go, because only

a few weeks ago, those leading Nissan were saying that they

were very concerned about Brexit, and they would be...

they should be able to trade on the same terms, the same fluidity,

the way they put it.

Of course, the terms at the moment are the single market.

Today they said they've had assurances from the Government.

And that's helped them make their decision.

And I think we need to know, what are those assurances?

Was the assurance that public money would be used if tariffs come in?

If not that, was there an assurance that they, at least,

will stay in the single market in some way?

And then, there's a whole series of other questions, which is,

what about other manufacturers, other car businesses,

other businesses up and down the country who are concerned?

Now, I'm not against Nissan having an assurance.

Of course, I think this is really good.

But other businesses,

other manufacturers need an assurance as well.

And the Government needs to answer the question, what was said

to Nissan, and will it be said to others?

And how long is the queue of manufacturers and other businesses

that are going to get assurances?

Because we haven't had any transparency.

And this has been the problem.

And we have to accept the outcome of the referendum,

and respect the vote. We have to do that. That means we're exiting.

The real question now is on what terms? What's the basic deal?

And this is where the Government absolutely refuses

-to be pinned down.

-Well, you don't know. He's sitting here.

He's the man that went to Japan. He may fill you in.

What was said to Nissan to persuade them?

Because they said they wanted the same terms.

Well, let's hear from him.

Well, thanks. The first thing to say is that this is fantastic news.

And, actually,

the big backing that was given was to the workforce in that plant.

It is one of the most efficient car plants in the world.

It is a fantastic workforce,

and they deserve the backing that they've got. It is...

It's also obviously good for the whole country,

it's good for the car manufacturing sector.

I'll tell you, the discussions that we had with Nissan,

I had last week in Japan, and earlier in the summer as well,

were about what the Government's intentions were

for the automotive sector. One of our most important in the country.

And what we were able to have was a recognition,

an endorsement on the part of Nissan, that this,

the industrial strategy that we are developing,

which is something that, of course, in Japan is how they've

proceeded for some time, now that we are pursuing one,

that they can have the long-term confidence that we're going to

invest in the innovation, in skills, in research, to make sure that

the whole sector is going to prosper in the future, as it has done now.

So, no assurances on the money side?

No assurances about public money if things go wrong?

No assurances about

-the single market, none of that?

-They set the same terms.

We had a very constructive engagement.

And what they said,

and they've been very clear today and the Nissan executives

have said that they have confidence in the direction of

the Government in using its industrial strategy to commit to

the competitiveness of this very important sector.

-And it's a fantastic endorsement.

-It is...

-Keir mentioned other sectors.

The great advantage, it seems to me, of having an industrial strategy

that causes you to think ahead is for the long-term.

You can't have a short-term strategy,

it's a contradiction in terms.

-Hang on, what's an industrial strategy?

-An industrial strategy is...

-Just briefly.

-I mean, does it apply to everybody with a business here?

-Sure, it...

-Do they all have an industrial strategy?

-So the industrial strategy sets out

the Government's policies for the long term, to give certainty and stability to investors

as to how we are going to have a business environment that is

supportive, how we are going to build on our strengths,

such as in innovation, which has been particularly important for Nissan.

They've expressed enthusiasm.

The other companies that I met in Japan and the companies that

I speak to all the time here, they are incredibly enthusiastic

about working with us to develop the confidence

over the long term that they will operate in a stable framework...

All right. Keir... OK, I'll come to you. Keir, does that answer your question?

You can't get away with this.

They were absolutely clear we want to trade on the same terms, the same fluidity.

They now say they're assured, they've got an assurance.

What have they been told?

If you're investing in that way, they've been told something.

It's not just a chat about an industrial strategy,

they want to know, was it the same terms, or not? If it is, we're in, if not, we're out.

Something's been said, they're in. That's good.

But you can't hide it from us and from the audience.

You've got to tell us.

Keir, I was up those discussions, I led those discussions and

I can tell you, that actually, when you have

a relationship with an important employer, like Nissan, over 30 years,

actually, they do want to know that you are committed for the long-term,

and if you look at what everyone in Nissan has said,

from the president down, what they wanted to hear was two things.

One was that in our negotiations with the European Union,

we were going to take a constructive approach, recognising that in

the motor industry especially, there's a strong, common interest.

We do a lot of trade with the continent, in components, for example,

and vice versa, that we would look to, to find the common ground there

-and that we would look to have a good deal.

-Right.

They were assured of that.

But secondly, that we would give a long-term commitment to the

competitiveness of the automotive sector. We were able to do that.

And not only did they announce that the Qashqai is going to be

built in Sunderland, but they announced that the X-Trail

is going to be built there as well.

OK, OK, well, you've said what you were going to say.

The woman there with the spectacles on, in the second row from the back.

-Yes, you.

-The question was, are we in rude health?

And obviously, the news about Nissan is great.

But that aside, the real world, for the likes of me,

running a company, is that we've had to absorb, since July,

a 50% increase on all our imports, having bought in dollars,

which we haven't been able to pass on to our customers,

which will ultimately be passed on, so inflation is going to happen.

The figures that have come out today are retrospective and they

don't tell us what's going to happen in the future. So it isn't all rosy.

And I agree that what has happened at Nissan is good news,

-but it is actually... It's not a level playing field.

-Yeah.

-Do you think a special deal was done?

-Oh, most definitely.

-Most definitely.

-Most definitely?

-I'm an exporter.

In fact, it falls into my question. You know? Will I get the same deal?

-Yeah, exactly.

-All right. Ken Loach.

I think we are none the wiser.

We've heard political jargon and no substance.

I think it's very interesting,

-there's clearly a subsidy being promised...

-No.

Assurances are nothing without money on the table.

If there's an assurance, they'll have some money attached.

How strange, then, that we have no money

to rescue social care for people who need help.

We have no money for the cash-strapped NHS,

so the doctors have to work even harder for the same amount of money,

plainly that won't happen, plainly the NHS is being driven

towards privatisation, so that part of it is not in good health.

But how about if we look at the economy from the other end up?

How about the economy for the people who are on zero-hours contracts?

How about the economy for people who work for agencies and they

are rung up one day and they say, "Yes, you've got work today," and

they ring up the next day and say, "Sorry, no work today for you," and they can't

plan their lives, they can't start a family, they can't buy a house?

Their lives are in chaos. What's the economy like for them?

I'll tell you someone who it is good for.

There's one CEO working for a big multinational company.

He earns in 45 minutes what the average worker will earn in a year.

-What the average worker will earn in a year, he earns in 45 minutes.

-Right, right.

The economy's very good for him. It's not so good for everybody else.

-Can I just...

-No, in a second.

I'll come back to you.

Dia Chakravarty.

Well, I think Greg's task would be a lot easier if the Government

was telling us a little bit about its plan to do with Brexit.

Nobody's asking for a running commentary,

but I think it is entirely possible and it is necessary for

the Government to share a little bit of the "blue-sky thinking",

if you forgive that jargon, with the rest of us,

so we actually know what is going on.

It would help companies, like the lady over there, just to plan.

It would certainly inject a little bit of much-needed certainty

that the city badly requires to build on and I just don't

understand why the Government is not doing it.

My suspicion is that the Government doesn't know yet.

And I think part of the reason for that, is the fault of the previous

administration as well, which made absolutely

no plan for a Brexit vote, because it was unbelievably arrogant

in thinking that was never going to happen.

And I think that's what we're seeing here.

I understand the arguments around commercial sensitivities and all that,

so, as I say, not a running commentary,

but please tell us what the big plan is.

Well, what kind of thing would you like to know,

that he hasn't told you already about giving assurances to Nissan?

-What sort of...

-Do you want to know, like Ken says,

where the money was promised? Do you want to know that?

-I wants to know...

-How much was promised?

I want to know what sort of Brexit we are looking at.

Not a hard or soft or devilled,

but is it going to be a clean Brexit, is what we want to know.

-I think people want to know that.

-This is critically important.

The future of everybody in this room and the whole country is at stake,

because the terms we come out on could be radically different.

They'll affect everybody who works, every business.

You're entitled to know,

are we heading in this direction or that direction?

-Of course, not a running commentary, you know, not...

-Sal Brinton.

-But some clarity.

-Sal Brinton.

-I mean, that's absolutely right and it's extremely worrying that...

I mean, well done to Greg and the Government in protecting the jobs

in Sunderland with Nissan, absolutely no doubt about that.

But what's going to happen next is that the 4,000 workers at

Airbus at Filton who were warned that their jobs might be at

risk with an Exit vote, and down the M5 in Yeovil,

there's a real risk to Westland Helicopter jobs.

Are there going to be special arrangements for all of them?

And then the key issue is, how does that affect negotiations with

Europe on the single market and the issue about, you know,

should there be tariffs or not tariffs?

We do need to know these things, because it's absolutely at

the heart of hard Brexit and soft Brexit.

Let's ask the members of the audience what they want.

-What kind Brexit do you want, sir?

-What sort of Brexit?

That wasn't the question I was going to ask. But, er...

-Well, you ask the question you were going to ask.

-Thank you.

What I wanted to say is, that whether Nissan were told anything

that the rest of us haven't been told or not,

the Government needs to hear that they are acting in

a very secretive way, that's the way it comes across.

As most of the panel is saying, we all need to know what is going on.

We all have businesses that we need to plan for and the Government

seems to be being dragged kicking and screaming and they've changed their position.

I'm a solicitor, I thought I understood the constitution,

and only when the matter came before the courts did the Government

change its position, it certainly appeared to,

in terms of whether Parliament would actually get a say in these

incredibly important decisions that they seem to be making.

But what kind of thing do you want to know?

Well, we want to know what the future holds for us,

because we want to know whether we should be planning to be able

to do business with Europe in the future or whether we really have

to look abroad, because the playing field is going to be changed.

So you think the Government should set out their stall and say,

"This is what we're going for"?

These are important matters and, yes, we need to know what is going on.

All right. The woman up there at the very back.

Yes, you.

-Um...

-Oh, man, sorry.

-Oh, dear.

-It's the hairstyle, you see.

Well, um, I'm not old enough to vote, and if I would,

I'd have certainly have voted Leave.

But I really do think that this Government does need, just

for the people in this country that want to know what's going on,

it does need a Brexit manifesto of some kind.

OK, and you, sir, up there, with the...

Um, it seems to me that

you've all been talking about large multinational companies.

And none of you have addressed the issues of the smaller companies

and the smaller exporters.

And if anyone was to ask me the one thing I would like to know -

and someone down there used the word "fluidity" about trade earlier on -

when Brexit happens, one of the things that will

certainly occur is that VAT will be re-imposed on entry and exit.

And the large companies can afford VAT deferment.

A lot of my clients, who are small companies,

don't have VAT deferment.

It means that when I sell to them,

the first thing they have to do is to reach in their pocket and pay

-the VAT, even if I give them credit on the goods I sell them.

-OK.

-Automatically, I am disadvantaged.

-OK. Sal Brinton.

You're absolutely right.

And I think one of the big things, it's very unusual for even

the smallest of firms not to be affected by the actions of the very large ones

and people talking earlier about Nissan and the other firms involved,

the supply chain. Of course there's going to be an impact.

And I think the problem that we're facing at the moment is that

one day there may be a bit of good news, another day, there's a bit of bad news.

And it is good if you're exporting at the moment with the low rate

of the pound, but a lot of firms who would normally recruit

technology experts are finding they can't recruit them because they

just will not come from abroad until we know exactly what's happening with Brexit.

And that's causing chaos in businesses across the country.

That's the real problem.

So, Greg Clark, you've heard what Sal's said,

you've heard what members of the audience have said about just

wanting to know the direction of travel, even, which they don't know.

Why can't the Government explain what it's up to?

-Let me just make a comment on something Ken said...

-Can you answer my...

-Yes, I certainly will.

And then answer my question.

Ken was talking about money, and has money been diverted from public services?

Quite the opposite.

This was not a haggle over money,

this was a vote of confidence in the future of the automotive sector.

And what this means is that for around 35,000 people

in the Northeast of England, and many small businesses that supply them,

this is... Their future is mapped out for the next 20 years.

What is an assurance for if there's no incentive for them to stay?

-They're going to have to pay...

-The assurance is that the Government

is going to be vigorous in supporting the automotive sector through research and development...

What does that mean? "Vigorous in supporting"? I don't know what you mean.

-Be precise.

-I'm explaining.

So, one of the big opportunities for Nissan and for other auto companies

is to increase the take-up and the development

of electric vehicles. Right across the world,

this is going to be one of the biggest technologies.

One of the things that we have committed to do, as part of

our industrial strategy, is to build on our strengths, to make sure

our universities and research institutions work with the businesses

-in the sector...

-Hang on, are you... Sorry, I must interrupt you.

Are you saying that you said to Nissan in Japan,

"Oh, we're going to help you, we're going to do develop the work on electric cars,

"and therefore you can do two new models here and save..."

whatever... "7,000 jobs"?

-It's a big part of it. They referred to it in what they said...

-Is that all you said?

-No cheque-book?

-No cheque-book.

-No cheque-book?

No promise of a cheque-book? Nothing Like that? No?

-The important thing for...

-No cheque-book?

No, no. There was no cheque-book. I don't have a cheque-book!

The important thing is that they know that this is

a country in which they can have confidence that they can invest.

That was the assurance and the understanding that they had

-and they have invested their money on the basis of that.

-All right.

The woman there in the striped T-shirt.

I just want to say, I think the Government is at huge risk,

actually, of not giving the people certainty.

I think we saw at the Witney by-election result

the huge resurgence of the Liberal Democrats, that actually,

people want to know what is going on with Brexit and maybe this

will be repeated at Richmond Park.

They've got a very small majority and if they keep coming on

with these lies or not telling us exactly what Brexit means,

I think they're on very risky ground.

We'll come back to Richmond Park maybe in a minute. And you, sir, at the front here.

Then I'll come to you. Yes, sir, you, sir.

I work for the NHS, and the NHS is heavily reliant on staff from

Europe as well, as the rest of the world.

And the amount of stress that they're under,

not knowing what their future actually holds, it's incredible.

Can't the Government even give them assurance as to what it's

planning for people who are working here from Europe?

OK. And Keir, you wanted to pick up something as well?

Well, I want is to pick up on all of those comments, because...

Well, you can't pick up on all of them,

because we will be here until the end of the programme.

What's coming across is a real anxiety about the future.

Understandable for any business of any size.

And the future of us and of our children,

and people are really concerned about this.

At the moment, the Government is not saying what its approach is,

and if they are asked,

they'll say you're just trying to frustrate the process.

We've said loud and clear, we accept the outcome.

This is not whether we're in, we're out.

But we all have a vested interest in knowing what the terms are.

This is the biggest set of arrangements that have to be

put in place since the Second World War.

And we've got to know where we're heading.

We've also got to bring the country together,

we've got to stop talking about the 52% and the 48%,

we've got to talk about the 100%, everybody, and the national

interest, and it's in the national interest to know what we're doing.

APPLAUSE All right, you there.

Yes.

This uncertainty is affecting all sectors and areas.

I work in education and we've seen today that EU applications are

down by 9%, and that is a huge...

when it's been growing in previous years.

We need to get back some confidence in our economy and where

we're going and that we welcome people from abroad.

OK, and the woman up there, in the...one, two, three...

fourth row down there, yes.

If Brexit was the right decision for this country,

why are we having to do deals? That's what I don't understand.

Surely people want to stay here if Brexit was the right decision.

Why do you have to...? Dia.

Erm, I think I'll just quickly say one thing to this lady here.

There was a survey that came out earlier this week,

Deloitte put that together,

and it seems like consumer confidence is coming back,

so that's another bit of good news, perhaps we need to build on that.

I was really heartened to hear, just coming back to that point, I was

really heartened to hear Keir saying

that Parliament understands that Brexit has to happen,

because that is what people voted for on 23rd June, let's face it.

But when you look at the composition of our House of Commons,

it really doesn't fill someone like me, a Brexit voter -

I think I'm the only person on this panel

who was a Brexit voter, actually - with a whole lot of confidence.

Because we hear a lot about ethnic minorities or women not being

represented, or being underrepresented, in Parliament.

Well, let's look at the composition of Parliament at the moment.

Over 50% of the population voted out.

Nearly 80% of our MPs voted to remain.

Gloucester, this very constituency,

I think it was about 60% of this constituency voted out.

Your MP voted to remain in.

So while I'm all for Parliament scrutinising the deal

that is put in front of us by the Government,

because let's not forget, a Prime Minister not so long ago put

a shoddy deal in front of us and pretended it was a stunning victory.

I want Parliament to scrutinise the deal, but I would be very,

very wary of our politicians playing clever games and coming out

of Brexit in some way and not delivering Brexit.

-That's not going to be right.

-We have to go on. OK.

We must go on, you can come back to this.

We'll come back to the Government in a moment.

We're in Watford next week, I should say,

we're in Southend-on-Sea the week after that,

so if you want to come and get involved in these debates,

Watford next week, Southend-on-Sea, that's your chance.

I'll give the details at the end,

but they're there briefly on the screen, but I want to go on to

another question that's also about the economy.

Sophie Wand, please, Sophie Wand.

Does the economic benefit of the new runway at Heathrow justify

the environmental damage it will cause?

-Sal Brinton.

-The very simple answer is no,

and actually, the economic argument itself

has been debunked today in the Times by their business editor,

whose headline said, "The sums just don't add up."

And it is interesting that the benefits have reduced by more

than half from the Davies report to what Chris Grayling said this week.

But the environmental ones are absolutely essential as well,

both the noise pollution and the ozone pollution.

No need for runways at all? No more runways?

No, no, it's about where you put them and where capacity is,

that's the big issue, and also, frankly,

about what you're doing at each airport.

If we want Heathrow to be a traveller hub,

then why have we got 40% of freight coming in and out of Heathrow

when there is space elsewhere?

It doesn't all need to come into Heathrow.

And certainly there is a very, very serious problem about pollution.

The main one, there was a paper earlier this week talking

about reduction in air pollution.

That's not the key problem.

The problem is car and vehicle pollution

in and around Heathrow, trying to get to it.

Why is one of your own candidates focusing on Brexit to become

an MP, rather than the issue which you are just talking about,

which is obviously a very important one,

and one which the outgoing MP left in dispute about?

Actually, Sarah Olney, who you are talking about, made it very,

very clear that along with the Liberal Democrats in

Richmond Park, she has always been against an extra runway.

The issue about Brexit, which somebody else referred to as

coming up in Witney,

is certainly very live in Richmond Park as well, and there is

no doubt at all that Zac Goldsmith is the hardest Brexit voter

in Parliament at the moment, he's voted for and against.

-The key thing...

-Is it going to be Olney and not Cable, then?

Er, I understand that Vince has ruled himself out.

-So she's going to be your candidate?

-Well, we will see.

-We've got a final process to go through on Sunday.

-Oh, my goodness.

But she is the one who you are referring to.

So why are you allowing her to be focused so harshly upon Brexit,

when the points that you have just made yourself, she seemed...

I have to tell you, as somebody who has been in Richmond already,

there is no doubt that we have been talking about the proposed

third runway, and she has as well, and she will go on doing it.

The parliamentary by-election's about more than just one thing,

whatever Zac wants to do.

Leave the Liberal Democrats for a moment,

come back to the issue about Heathrow. Keir Starmer.

Well, the Heathrow decision is a difficult decision and as you can

see, it's split political parties, MPs within all political parties.

Undoubtedly, we've got to support our economy,

we've got to support all parts of the country.

This shouldn't be a London and the South East issue, it's got to

be beneficial for everyone, and we do need more capacity.

And therefore it went out to an independent commission.

I'm in favour of that.

I think one of the problems with politics is that long-term projects

are done on short-term political deals and we need

long-term independent thinking.

Why did your Shadow Chancellor call it a disaster?

I can see why the Government has gone for...

-Then why did the Opposition call it a disaster?

-..has gone for Heathrow.

I think what Labour... Labour has been clear on this,

which is that we will give conditional support, and one of the

conditions is about environmental standards and air quality.

And in London, this is a really serious issue.

Many in the audience will have probably seen or heard

that 9,000 Londoners die from air quality problems a year.

If this was anything else, people would be up in arms.

And the problem with Heathrow is that the Government says

it can be delivered within current standards.

That remains to be seen and I remain to be persuaded.

But the bigger problem, as Sal says, it's not just the airport,

it's the traffic around the airport...

You said that Greg Clark didn't answer the question.

Can you answer the question why your Shadow Chancellor called it

a disaster, and whether you agree that the decision was a disaster?

Well, the Shadow Chancellor obviously represents an area

that is heavily affected by the airport and all MPs are

concerned about representing their constituencies.

-What's the Labour Party position on it?

-The Labour Party position is,

conditional support for an additional runway in

the South East, the conditions being about serving the whole of

the country, not just the South East,

that the capacity is dealt with, but, most importantly -

for me, the most important -

that we must come in, in relation to the environmental concerns

and within the limit, and that's an issue not just for Heathrow,

but for every infrastructure project.

We've got to get used to this.

This will be an issue for every infrastructure project

-from now on in, and rightly so.

-You, sir. Yep.

LAUGHTER The microphone is there.

I want to take issue with Keir, there.

It's not all parties that are thinking it's fine and dandy.

The Green Party are unequivocally opposed to this airport expansion,

not just for the localised pollution,

which is obviously devastating, the number of bronchial illnesses

and the rest of it, but also - the small elephant in the room -

climate change. We've got to stop emissions now.

We cannot just carry on living like the planet

will last for ever, right?

-What do the panel think about that, climate change?

-Ken Loach.

APPLAUSE

I think you're absolutely right.

It is inconceivable that we shall meet our climate change targets

if we build another runway. It's absolutely...

Do people not realise that there will be no planet to leave to

their great-grandchildren and the people that follow afterwards?

I read one statistic - there are 100 harvests left in this country.

Think about it - 100 harvests and then there won't be any.

We've got to act, and the idea that we're going to burn more

fossil fuel is absolutely crazy.

I'll just remind you, who said, "No ifs, no buts, no third runway"?

-Who was it?

-David Cameron!

-Cameron! And who agreed with him?

-Theresa...

-AUDIENCE:

-May.

Indeed she did, but we're used to her changing her mind, aren't we?

LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE

It's really... It's the most stupid decision we could imagine.

There will be endless legal wrangles, it will go on and on.

The poor people who are there are in a nightmare now for decades

and it is an absolutely stupid decision.

It's unrealistic and it's disastrous and I do wish that, for once,

the Labour MPs would follow the wisdom of their leaders,

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, and stick with what they say.

They're good leaders. Follow what they say.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

You, sir.

You, sir, then I'll come to you.

Ken Loach is against air travel,

so are you going to cycle to New York next time you pick up your award?

-Are you going to cycle?

-APPLAUSE

And also, all the people that have got no money, are you going

to give the large amount of money you've made to these people?

No, you're talking from a position of strength to a position of weakness.

No, I'm not saying stop all air travel,

I'm saying we can't build another runway, that's all.

I'm saying don't increase it, I'm not saying stop it.

No, I'm saying don't increase it.

-This is about increasing it.

-Greg Clark.

-David, for 70 years,

the argument's been going backwards and forwards here.

That was the last time we built a new, full-length runway

in the South East of England.

Meanwhile, more people travel and if we really want to say that

we're going to be open for business, then for heaven's sake,

people need to be here to do business with us, it seems to me.

And, I'm, er...

I'm depressed by what Keir said, the kind of, you know,

"Shall we, shan't we?" approach.

We need to make a decision in the national interest,

and it's not just that we need to trade and to prosper.

If you think, we've been talking about the car industry.

Let's talk about another successful industry in this country -

the aerospace industry.

Many members of this audience will know that the Airbus landing gear

is made next to Gloucestershire Airport.

They require a thriving aviation industry in this country,

so we are backing another sector by getting on and taking

a decision in the national interest.

Of course there's going to be controversy,

of course people are going to have individual objections,

but the responsible role for a national government

is to take a decision in the national interest.

-Exactly, exactly, exactly.

-The woman there. I'll go round.

There are a number of people with their hands up, then I'll come to you.

There has to be a balance between, like, economy and people, though,

cos it's the same with the fracking issue.

It's like, you can't put people's lives at risk

just for economic benefit.

You have to think about the people that live there, and it's fine

to say, "Oh, we're going to pollute all these people," but, actually,

that's people's lives and you're affecting them

just for the economic gain.

There has to be a balance between the lives lived in that area,

you can't just poison people and be, like,

"Oh, well, that's fine, because we've got another runway."

APPLAUSE

You're absolutely right, and that's why there was an independent review

taken, and the Committee on Climate Change - the body that advises,

independently, the Government on whether it's meeting its

climate change commitments - said that this can be done within

the carbon emission standards that we set.

Have you asked the people that live there, though?

Have you said to them,

"Actually, you people live here, you're in that area"?

It has to be right for them, too.

Let me go to the very back of our audience here.

The man in blue, there, on the right. Yes.

It's all well and good, the Government asking Nissan to stay

in the UK and investing in Airbus,

but I read a report the other day that said the UK has dropped to 14th

in the world table for investment in renewable energy,

and in Gloucester, we've got Horizon Nuclear, EDF,

Ecotricity and... I think it's Tidal Bay.

What is the Government going to do to put us back up

the renewable energy table and make us a world leader

-in carbon neutral energy?

-That's not about the airport.

-What about the airport? Are you in favour or not?

-I'm in favour.

I'm in favour, because there is 1 billion Chinese out there

who are starting to get middle incomes,

and they're going to come to the UK.

They want to come and see Buckingham Palace,

they want to visit the Olympic Park, and they want to visit Gloucester!

They want to come and see Harry Potter and they want to come

to Gloucester Cathedral, they want to see where Star Wars was made.

The person in spectacles on the gangway,

then I'll come to you, dear. Yes.

Why does it always have to be London that gets the infrastructure?

-Exactly.

-Why isn't it Birmingham?

It's the only airport that's actually on HS2.

Why not integrate the transport system of this country?

-Absolutely right.

-Dia Chakravarty.

I think the gentleman's absolutely right,

it should have been Birmingham as well,

and I think it definitely should have been Gatwick as well.

-Lots of runways.

-Lots of runways!

-LAUGHTER

If we are constantly telling the world we're open for business,

we need to back it up with a little bit of action,

and this goes some way towards doing it.

Let's not forget, in 2009, it was a Labour policy that was put

forward and we nearly had a green light, then.

It's 2016 now, it still hasn't happened,

so I'm not holding my breath,

but it's definitely the right way to go, and I'll tell you why.

Man-made climate change is something that I believe in.

I come from Bangladesh.

When things go bad, that country is just going to go underwater,

so I don't think it's a joke,

but the way to deal with it is not by not being realistic.

We, as a country, are responsible

for less than 2% of global emissions.

If we don't turn our part of the world into a business hub,

by the time we've taken to decide on Heathrow, China's built,

I think, about 30 airports, and we know that when China does it,

it does not do it to the same level when it comes to CO2 emissions

that we do in this country, so we've got to be realistic about it.

Dubai has already taken over Heathrow. I think, very recently,

it took over Heathrow in terms of how much of

a hub airport it has become, and there are differences between

Heathrow and Gatwick as airports.

Heathrow is a hub airport, I think as Sal said,

and Gatwick is a point-to-point airport. Why aren't we having both?

We can do it responsibly.

This is why we have a responsibility to do it, so that other people

who don't do it quite so responsibly don't mess it up even more.

The problem is that the third runway...

APPLAUSE

The third runway is not responsible. That's the issue.

-APPLAUSE

-But it is, according to an independent commission.

-Very brief, Keir, very briefly.

-Very briefly, I just wanted to come in and correct Greg.

Labour is supportive of expansion and that's

been absolutely clear,

but we are putting conditions on environmental standards.

That is the right way to approach it.

That's actually what the Government says.

I'm sure you've read the independent report that has said,

independently, that those environmental conditions

have been satisfied.

It was part of the requirement to go ahead.

But this is Sal's point,

is whether there are environmental issues

in the building and running of the airport

and there are environmental issues in the traffic and everything...

THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER

All right, back to the House of Commons floor for that argument!

LAUGHTER

It's getting slightly on the dull side.

LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE

We'll take a rather wider question from Judy, please.

-Judy.

-Has the British public become less compassionate since

Ken Loach's 1966 film, Cathy Come Home?

APPLAUSE

Which was...a film that was made 50 years ago and, I suppose, behind it,

has the British public become just less compassionate over

the last 50 years? Dia Chakravarty.

I don't think so at all.

I am a fairly new arrival to this country and I do find it one

of the most welcoming, one of the most hospitable countries in

the world, which is why a lot of people want to come here,

so, no, I wouldn't say that it's become less passionate at all.

-Compassionate.

-Less compassionate - or less passionate - at all.

Certainly not less passionate!

LAUGHTER

Certainly not that!

So, no, that is certainly not my experience,

-but are we actually going on to talk about Ken's film?

-Fire away.

Well, absolutely. Well, first of all, congratulations,

Ken, for the Cannes accolade. That's excellent news.

What struck me about this film, really,

is how, in a very gritty, very grim film,

the one thing that works are the social support networks.

So the protagonists get let down by the state machine

over and over again.

Who stands by them? The society, the community.

-I think that's a wonderful thing that came out of that.

-Oh, come on.

-I can't wait any longer.

-That definitely came out.

-This is so wrong.

-That definitely came out of the film.

-All right, Ken Loach.

-It was meant as a compliment, Ken.

Is the country less compassionate? Yes, I believe it is.

-When we...

-APPLAUSE

60 years ago...

60 years ago, after...the post-war settlement was still in place,

where what we believed in was the common good,

and people worked together for the common good.

And then there was a change, a political change,

and it marked a social change as well.

And the common good went out of the window

and it was about private greed, private...private...projects,

and the common good went out of the window.

And it's crystallised

in the way we treat the most vulnerable people,

and it's crystallised

in the way we tell people who are desperately sick

that, actually, they won't get any financial support

unless the state assesses them and tells them they are fit to work.

And it's in the sanctions.

We came across one man who took his pregnant wife to hospital.

She was in premature labour.

He missed his appointment at the Jobcentre and his money stopped.

His money stopped.

And that was one of hundreds and hundreds of stories we heard.

And people live in fear.

A man was ill, he fell down, he injured himself badly.

They called the ambulance.

He was afraid to get in

because they were afraid they would keep him in hospital overnight

and he'd miss his appointment at the Jobcentre.

People are living in fear,

and it's absolutely an intolerable way to live.

There's a conscious cruelty in the way the system is being imposed,

because the state knows what it's doing.

The Tory government knows exactly what it's doing.

-So why isn't Labour more popular? WOMAN:

-Exactly.

APPLAUSE

Why Labour isn't more popular

is because the Parliamentary Labour Party

has done its best to undermine its leader,

that's why it's not more popular,

and people won't vote for a divided party.

It's quite clear.

But if you look at the policies,

the Labour Party would abolish assessments,

which of course it should do.

And we know that the Government knows it's wrong

because if you appeal against the assessment,

you will almost certainly win.

So they know they're teasing people in a very cruel way.

And what happens when you're sanctioned,

you're forced into... your life is forced into chaos

and people are going to food banks,

and there were 1,100,000 food parcels given.

-1,100,000 people who would starve otherwise.

-Ken, let me just ask...

And over 400,000 of those went to children.

How can we live in a society

-in which hunger is used as a weapon?

-Ken, can I just...?

It's an absolutely intolerable situation.

APPLAUSE All right... Yes. Briefly.

Can I just ask...?

I completely agree with you that the system does not work,

and I'll tell you what.

The specific sort of benefit that is discussed in your film,

which affects the protagonists,

the manual for that is three times the size of War And Peace.

It is a defunct system, it does not work,

it treats people as numbers, that's absolutely right.

It has an ideological reason,

to tell people that their poverty is their own fault.

-All right.

-That's the point of it.

Why is that...? Why is that the society's fault?

Who are these people who are going out and arranging these food banks?

Why do you call those people not compassionate?

-Let's hear...

-Surely it shows that people work together.

Society does work.

Let's hear from the Government Minister who's here, Greg Clark.

I think there is a strong,

and I'm proud of the fact there is a strong political consensus in the UK

across parties and across the country

that we should have an effective system of help

to people that fall into difficulties.

Is that perfect at every stage?

Frankly, it wasn't during all of the time past.

As a constituency MP, and those of us that are

will know that every week in our surgeries,

we have people that come to see us

who have fallen... fallen outside the bureaucracy.

There are so many challenges

of being kept on waiting phone lines and all the rest of it,

and so you need to constantly reform the system

so that it can be there to help people.

And that is what we've been progressively doing.

What do you make of what...?

What do you make of what Iain Duncan Smith said when he resigned,

which was that...it looks to me as though it doesn't matter

cos these people don't vote for us?

I don't agree with that at all,

and I think any Member of Parliament, I think, would say

that the work that they do

to help the most vulnerable people in society, in their constituency,

is one of their most important tasks.

And if I take one example.

One of the things that I've had over the years

from people in my constituency

is that the bureaucracy and the administration

has meant that if they get a job, for example,

they've been very concerned that if that doesn't work out,

they will go back to square one with the benefits system,

and it's such a risk

that it puts them in a quandary and a real dilemma as to what to do.

To sort that out, to simplify it,

as Iain Duncan Smith actually helped to through the universal credit,

was a big step forward,

and they are the kinds of improvements that we should take.

-All right.

-But we are a society that believes in helping...

Compassion. You, sir, in the spectacles there.

Does a compassionate society use its foreign aid budget

to force through trade deals with Third World countries?

APPLAUSE

That is a very, very apt point, particularly at the moment

with many of the other things that are going on.

In my view, absolutely not.

One of the proudest things that the Lib Dems did in coalition

was to enshrine the 0.7% into law to make sure...

-The Government did that collectively.

-All right...

-That was a joint...

-No, I agree that was joint.

What is different is that the moment you start to ally it to trade,

it ceases to be aid for aid's absolute most important thing,

-which is support and compassion.

-Aid is aid. It's not anything else.

But can I come back to the question as well?

Are we less compassionate?

I'll come to you, Judy, if I may, and see what you think in a moment.

The work capability assessment,

which is absolutely the core of the point of Ken's film...

Which is excellent. If you haven't seen it, it really is worth seeing,

is not fit for purpose.

But it wouldn't be where it is

seven years after Labour introduced it in 2009

if there wasn't an acquiescence in the wider public.

And I'm sorry to say

that things like disability hate crime and other things

are just showing that there is less compassion than there has been.

There are extraordinary people who are very compassionate,

but this process absolutely fails.

We tried to change it.

For example, when it first came in, it was only the assessors,

no relevance back to the original doctor

on whether the person should or shouldn't actually be seen,

which is the whole pivot of Ken's film.

It clearly doesn't work, even with the doctors having

some input these days. It absolutely does not work.

Surely you don't need an assessor, you take the word of the doctor

and the consultant.

You don't need an assessor to do what the doctor

and the consultant will tell you.

You are absolutely right...

So why did it continue while you were in Government?

Because we were trying these revisions to see if it would work.

It's clearly not working and it has got to stop.

Falling outside the bureaucracy is an easy way of putting it.

The bureaucracy itself

is a substantial part of the problem.

What do you think? Let me just go to the questioner.

I think we are becoming less compassionate, and the Government

and media are encouraging us to become less compassionate.

We've got these TV shows where we are encouraged

to ridicule benefit claimants.

And we've got headlines in the newspapers saying,

"Oh, this family gets this much in benefit."

We don't see the underlying things,

we don't see that, actually, the housing benefit

doesn't go into the pockets of the claimants,

it goes to the landlords, who probably don't need benefits.

-They are probably quite rich already.

-Keir?

I'm very glad this issue has come up.

I think it's really important about compassion.

The DWP assessments

should get more attention

about fitness for work.

At the heart of them,

there ought to be dignity and respect for the individual.

They ought to be the core characteristics, and they aren't,

and it's getting worse.

There are terrible consequences.

The father of one of my constituents that I have been helping,

her father, Michael O'Sullivan,

was assessed as fit for work, when, for many years,

he had obviously not been fit for work,

had mental health issues, and he tragically took his own life

and the coroner said there was a causal link

between his intense anxiety

and the assessment and the consequences.

His daughter has been asking for answers to how that happened,

what went wrong, why there wasn't the compassion and the respect,

and she hasn't got answers for three years.

Should there be an assessment process

or do you think that in itself is misguided?

I don't think you can do away with any assessment,

but it is time for a real review of how these assessments are working.

There's been growing concern.

I think all MPs have had this.

I've had this tragic case in my constituency

and it really deserves to be looked at.

Kier, Debbie Abrahams has said that she will abolish the assessments.

Thank God she has said it,

because it is bringing misery and chaos to people's lives.

I think it should be fundamentally reviewed.

The woman there, and then I'll come to you, sir. Yes?

No, the woman with spectacles in the middle there.

I think the problem with the system is that it is viewed differently

from either side, so those that create the assessments,

they demonise everybody that is part of that system.

Everyone that needs that system

is painted with a general brush

and they are just there to get money.

Whereas everyone on the other side, they want compassion,

they want them to understand that they're going through hardships

and all they want is to live

and all they want is for other people to understand that.

And you, sir?

I am chief exec of a charity and the question was put

about whether compassion is something about society.

Now, we've got politicians arguing about political points,

but I see every day the compassion that the British public pour out

in the giving to charity,

the generosity and the kindness of people in this country.

We must never forget that.

-Can I say something on that?

-Yes.

Compassion, absolutely, of course you will find people

very compassionate, but it's not reflected in our politics.

That's the problem. It's not reflected in what they're doing.

-Greg Clark?

-Can I say also...

Can I make a couple of brief points?

One is we that we are, as a nation,

extraordinarily generous in our giving to charities

and we should be proud of that,

but I wanted to make a point

about what Ken was saying,

about the people that work in the system,

the people that are employed in Jobcentres

-and in the benefit system.

-I didn't speak about them.

You talk about the administration...

They are under incredible pressure

-and they have targets and expectations...

-Let me finish.

They're in this in order to do the best for the people they serve.

-I didn't talk about the staff.

-Wait a minute.

Greg, you may be dissimulating.

What was the point you were making, Ken?

And then let Greg answer.

-I didn't mention...

-Which was the point you were mentioning?

I mentioned the point about

there is compassion, of course, with people,

but it's not reflected in the Government's actions.

The DWP staff are under incredible pressure, and we know

there are targets and expectations,

and if people don't sanction

the number of people they're meant to sanction,

they go on a personal improvement plan,

and we talked to hundreds of people who work at the DWP,

under your guidance and instructions,

and they are told to sanction people.

-If they don't sanction them, then they're in trouble.

-Greg?

-I think that's unfair...

-It's true.

It's unfair to the people who work in the system.

It's a difficult job, administering a benefits system,

whatever your professional role.

You have got to be fair to the people, quite rightly,

who are claiming benefits and you need to be fair to those

who pay for them,

and they have to make incredibly difficult decisions

and I think they should have our support in making those decisions

and it is worth saying that...

It's your instructions, that's your problem.

It's the instructions from the Government that's the problem.

It is a fictional film and people seeing that should not think

that's the way people are behaving in Jobcentres.

OK.

You sir?

The emphasis has been put on the work capability assessment.

I think, for starters, that our benefit system

is probably the most generous system in the Western world.

And...

APPLAUSE

You are talking about people who are incapable of working.

If we look at other parts of the benefit system,

like housing benefit, and in-work benefits, like tax credits,

that's where we want to make the changes

and not on the very small part of the budget,

which is workability, unemployed people.

And you, sir, here?

We shouldn't have these assessors.

We have qualified doctors, consultants.

They decide if a person is disabled or not, and not an assessor

who is not professionally trained.

And they only cost us money as well!

All right. We have only five minutes left.

I want to take one last question.

Ashley Cobb, you have it. Ashley Cobb.

Is Putin flexing his muscles for another Cold War with the West?

It's a big question to answer in five minutes.

Is Putin flexing his muscles for another Cold War with the West?

Sal Brinton?

Um, I think he certainly is

and it's for internal reasons as well as external.

But I think the news today is showing that Nato and its partners

are not going to let him flex his muscles alone and we will

remind him that we are there. I think I'm extremely concerned

about what Putin and Russia are doing in Syria at the moment,

which is a form of that flexing of the muscles.

I'm a trustee of Unicef and I'm horrified by the bombing

of the schools in Idlib today.

Which, if it was deliberate, is a war crime.

There is no other word for it.

APPLAUSE

Keir Starmer.

I agree, he is flexing his muscles and we must absolutely

shine a torch on it everywhere that it's happening.

And I echo what was said a moment ago about Aleppo.

The number and the extent of civilian casualties in schools

and hospitals in the war-torn area,

with the growing evidence that this could be deliberate acts by

the Russians and Syrians,

absolutely needs to be fully investigated, fully looked into,

and we have to stand up and call it out every single time,

in terms of humanitarian law, human rights law and war crimes.

Got to be really strong on this issue and stand up for the standards

-that we believe in.

-What do you understand about cold war?

If that's what you say, he's flexing his muscles for.

I say he's flexing his muscles, I hope we're not going to a cold war.

But I think, at the moment,

the real concern is about what's happening in places like Syria.

But there have been land grabs elsewhere in the world,

but Syria is the focus and we must be clear about what's happening

there and be very loud about the standards we believe in.

The woman at the back there.

I'm pretty sick and tired of Russia being put into a position of

the enemy, as if we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

Let's not forget,

what started all this shit in the world was the Iraq War.

OK?

That started...power vacuums.

We had to go into Libya, dethrone Saddam Hussein, dethrone Gaddafi.

What happened there? We've got Isis now. We've got IS.

Where there's evidence from independent bodies, including

well-renowned charities on the ground, about deliberately

targeting civilians and children in schools and hospitals,

we can't put the blame anywhere else

-than on those that are carrying it out now.

-What did you do in Iraq?

It is a terrible situation

and I do agree with everything that Keir just said.

It is a terrible situation.

I understand the need that some of our politicians feel to actually

go and do something about it, but our reaction to it

and our actions should be very, very carefully thought out,

because we have a track record of going into terrible situations

and making them even worse. And while there is...

APPLAUSE

I do not doubt the intentions or our politicians,

I give them the benefit of the doubt,

but we have to think very carefully about how we act

so that we don't make it worse for the people living there.

Ashley Cobb, what's your view?

I think he's trying to capitalise on the inadequacy of the West,

-for his own gain.

-Ken Loach?

I hold no brief for Putin at all,

he's running a country that's based on gangster capitalism and clearly

what he's done in Syria is a terrible crime and

he needs to be excoriated for it.

But I want to make three points.

First of all, it's a very complex problem, that region,

and Russia sees Syria as its only ally,

and it sees the West making allies all the way round...

and so feels isolated,

and so it's not surprising that Russia wants to get involved.

I'm not defending it, I'm saying that's the realpolitik of it.

Secondly, there is no moral high ground.

What we did in Iraq - we used chemicals weapons to the kids

in Fallujah and there are now deformed babies being born

because of what we and the US did.

So we have no moral high ground to point the finger.

And if we speak of war crimes, what went on in Gaza?

There were war crimes across that region,

and we can't be partial and just say this is the war crime.

There were war crimes committed by the West and by the West's allies.

So we have no moral high ground.

-Finally - can I say quickly?

-Well, you made two points.

Very quickly. The United Nations is the only body that can act.

We have to live by the rule of law. We can't be vigilantes any more.

It has to be by the rule of law and if the Security Council

gets blocked, I suggest we should go to the General Assembly

and build a coalition there,

maybe of countries from the South - certainly not led by the US.

-Greg Clark.

-Cos they're not trusted.

We do need to act through the UN but we have other vehicles as well.

The EU, for example, can impose sanctions on Russia.

We have been one of the leading voices in demanding that

and pressing that. That is where we can use our influence.

We're still a member of the EU and as long as we're a member

we should be using our voice to take some practical effects,

rather than simply condemn it...

Ashley's question, if we can just go to it, was do you think Putin is

flexing his muscles - as he put it - for another cold war?

IE, deliberately trying to set up a cold war.

I don't know but it's...

I desperately hope that's not the case because it's in no-one's

interest to go back to those terrible times, and we need to do

everything that we can, collectively in the UN, across Europe,

to make sure there are consequences for going against the behaviour

-that everyone would want you see.

-All right.

I'm sorry, we have to stop there cos our time's up.

Apologies to those of you who still had your hands up

but we only have the hour, as ever.

So, next week Question Time is going to be in Watford.

We have Lisa Nandy for Labour,

the businessman, Donald Trump supporter and Ukip donor,

Arron Banks.

And the American musician and radio presenter Huey Morgan,

who you will know, is of the Fun Lovin' Criminals...department.

The following week we're going to be in Southend-on-Sea,

so come into our audience and come and take part in the programme,

either in Watford or Southend. And if you want to go to our website,

the address is on the screen there, or call:

If you're listening on Radio 5 Live,

the debate will continue on Question Time Extra Time.

My thanks to all our panellists here

and to all of you who came to Gloucester to take part.

From Question time, until next Thursday, goodnight.