24/11/2016 Question Time

Welcome to Question Time which tonight comes from south London.

On our panel tonight, the Conservative Chief Secretary to the

Treasury, David Gauke. Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was

to have been here but was taken ill earlier today and his place has been

taken by Chris Leslie, former Shadow Chancellor himself. The leader of

the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron. Professor of economics at Sussex

University, Mariana Mazzucato. And the businessman who backed exit and

runs a family chain of well over 1000 shops, mending shoes, watches,

jewellery, cutting keys, you name it, John Timpson.

Thank you very much. As ever, from home you can join the debate on

Facebook or on Twitter, or by text. Our first question tonight from

Brendan Clarke, please. The IFS say that in real terms wages will be

less at the end of this Parliament than they were in 2008. Is this

acceptable? Tim Farron. No, it isn't. I guess the standout

memorable quote from the referendum campaign was from Michael Gove when

he said, we have had enough of experts. The great danger is that

what we have in this supposedly post-truth environment, people just

shrug and say the figures mean nothing. These are independent

figures from the IFS and the Government's known figures back them

up. It means ordinary families right across the country by 2020, will be

?1250 a year worse off than now. The reason, without a shadow of the

doubt, is Brexit, and us heading for a hard Brexit. The danger is that

people like me who say there is a black hole in the budget because of

Brexit, who point to this loss of wealth and well-being for families

around the country, will be called negative. But I say it is not

negative to say you could make a different choice. It is not negative

to say we don't have to go for a hard Brexit that was not on the

ballot paper. It is positive to say we could remain in the single

market. It is positive to say to the British people, you should have your

say on the terms of the deal and if it does not look good for our

country, our families, our business, we should have the right to remain.

APPLAUSE David Gauke, he attributes it

entirely to the Brexit vote, whereas the IFS says the worst decade for

living standards, long before the vote, since the last war and

probably since the 1920s, in other words in 100 years. The IFS analysis

is for the period from 2008 until 2021. At the beginning of that point

we had a very significant contraction to the UK economy and

that has fed through into living standards. So the big effect over

that period was in fact the recession in 2008. In terms of the

next few years, the Office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday

that they anticipate real household disposable income, a fair judge for

living standards, to be 2.8% higher in 2020-21 than at the moment. So

the words "We cannot stress how dreadful this is, it has been the

worst decade since the last war and probably since the 1920s", that does

not ring any bells with you? That is what the IFS said. You don't agree?

A large part of that is because of the impact of the great recession.

There is now the impact of what will happen over the next few years. The

OBR thinks living standards over that period will rise, but not for

the next couple of years. They have been rising quite strongly in the

last year or two, but 2017 will be difficult because inflation is

higher and that eats into living standards. And Tim is right to the

extent to say that the OBR analysis is because the pound is weaker. Do

you blame Brexit for it? The OBR's analysis is that the weaker pound

comes from the Brexit vote. Do you blame Brexit? In terms of these

forecasts, they are coming from the OBR... You said Brexit would push

the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment. Is that

still your view, as Chief Secretary? Do you stand by it? Well, the

Treasury said that. What is striking is that the UK economy has been more

resilient than was predicted at the start. The Treasury analysis assumed

we would trigger article 50 straightaway and the Bank of England

would not take the action that it did. Those things have been

different than had been assumed. The UK economy has done better than

expected, but it is not surprising there are some uncertainties, and

that does play through into the performance of the economy. That is

the OBR analysis we saw yesterday. The woman at the back. Tim Farron

was talking about a hard Brexit as opposed to a soft Brexit as if it

was our choice. Actually, Europe is so absolutely fed up with us that

they are going to want to give us a hard Brexit because they will not

want everybody is leaving on good terms. Let's come back to the

question about the wages falling lower than in 2008. Mariana

Mazzucato, what did you make of it? Acceptable, inevitable? Absolutely

not inevitable. It is a result of the choices made in both the private

and public sectors. We should ask where productivity comes from.

Productivity is one of the lead potential factors that increase

wages, as long as on the other side you also have Labour being able to

negotiate higher wages. In fact, one of the problems is that even when

productivity has been rising in the last decades, wages have not kept

up. But just focusing for a minute on the issue of inequality, one

issue is that inequality and what has been happening to wages has

characterised the UK economy for ten years. We have to ask why? Will

Brexit help that or hurt it? Why has productivity not been rising? Is it

also a question of corporate governance? So profits, for example,

in this country are at record levels. Investment is not. What is

happening to profits in firms? Are they not being invested back into

production, into the real economy, back into human capital formation,

back into skills, into the workforce that can adapt to technological

change? I would answer that the answer is no. Is it the worst decade

since the 1920s, as the IFS suggests? In terms of stagnating

real wages, yes. John Timpson. I am worried that we are talking about

lots of forecasts. One thing certain about forecasts is that they will be

wrong. And I don't think concentrating on that is

particularly helpful. You mean just ignore them? No. Let me continue.

The day after the Brexit vote, which surprised everybody, I very quickly

got messages from people working in our shops that they were worried

because they were hearing, from a lot of politicians, commentators,

that this is an absolute disaster, things are going wrong, and they

thought it was the end of the world. I sent an e-mail to everybody

straightaway saying, we are still here, still repairing shoes and

cutting keys, and you will still be successful if you continue to do

what you have been doing, by giving great service. What we need is

confidence. We need optimism. And these pessimistic forecasts are not

helping. But we were not forecasting, we were talking about

the last ten years. I'm sorry, I didn't take the point. We were not

forecasting, but talking about the last ten years. We started... The

question was about the IFS and also we talked about the office the

budget responsibility, which are forecasts, making assumptions of

what is going to happen. One of the joys of business is you don't know

what is going to happen. That's what's so interesting, you don't

know what is going to happen next. And individually, it would help us a

lot more to make the most of the Brexit situation if we attack it

with optimism, not pessimism. Because the Government has got a

really serious job to do, to try and help everybody, not just the people

who voted for out, the people who voted for in, but everyone, to come

up with the best answer following the Brexit vote. You, sir, in the

third row. I have an important point to make, which is that whilst

average wages have stagnated over the period specified, pay at the top

end has skyrocketed. In fact, this year, FTSE 100 bosses get paid 200

times the average wage in the UK. That is seriously bad for everyone.

So that is something I think should be addressed.

APPLAUSE I would agree. I think there are

massive inequalities in our society and these are some of the structural

issues that Mariana was alluding to, I think. These figures from the

Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as the ones from the Office for

Budget Responsibility may not be pessimistic. They may actually be

quite optimistic. What we don't know yet about, for instance, the Brexit

negotiation that the Government says we are not allowed to know what its

destination is, for example, will we still be able to have financial

services firms passport services into Europe, or will those products

being illegal to sell into European countries? That could hit massively

the revenues in tax that we get from some big in the street in this

country, and that will, in turn, start that wrecks it austerity even

further on. -- Brexit austerity. To a certain degree, it is partly

self-inflicted. It is what the country have voted for on this

particular route, but I will not give up my right as a member of

Parliament to argue for the best possible form of Brexit, to protect

jobs, to protect income, to stop this wages squeeze, and we will

argue that all the way through. Do you think it can be reversed, in the

way Tim Farron suggested? Personally, I do not think the

Government have a plan. That is not what I asked. Do you think it can be

reversed in the way Tim Farron said? If they don't come out with some

transitional arrangements, so we avoid the cliff edge in 2019 when

suddenly our rights to trade may be disappearing, then I do think we

have to think about delaying even the triggering of article 50, until

we get the negotiations right. This is too important to rush into

something, especially before we have the French, German, the Dutch

elections. We don't even know who we will be negotiating with half the

time in European situation. We have to get this right, do it properly in

the best possible way. So for Labour arguing that a delay

in article 50. The woman in green on the left. I agree with John Timpson,

in terms of I think the IFS are scaremongering. They are looking

back. You should be looking forward. You will have a hard, before it can

get better. But Mariana said they were describing actual reality over

the last ten years when they said this. Tim Farron, you should hold

your head in shame because all you talk about is Brexit and everything

is blamed on Brexit. The people voted. You always say we did not

vote to be in the single market. Everything that was on the ballot

paper, immigration, we would have to leave the single market, taking

control of our laws and Parliamentary sovereignty, have to

leave the single market, taking control of our money, we have to

leave the single market, taking control of immigration, like I said,

you have to leave the single market. So saying that a hard Brexit, we

didn't vote for it, we actually did, because the people who voted to

leave the European Union voted for all of those reasons, and we have to

leave the single market to leave the European Union. There is no doubt

about it, that has to happen. For people like yourself to just walk

across the will of the people, which we voted for by a majority, you have

to accept that will of the people because it's just not... First of

all, that's your opinion and you clearly wanted to leave the single

market. Good for you. I cite David's ex-Conservative MP Stephen Phillips,

who resigned from Parliament because like you, he voted Lever, but he

says he never voted to leave the single market. Millions of people

who voted Leave did not vote to do that. If we want to take back

control, at the end of this process, I don't believe that Parliament

should block leaving the European Union, I think Parliament should

allow the British people a say in the terms of the deal at the end, so

we go into this without eyes wide open. You can't start this process

with democracy in June and end it with a stitch up two years down the

line. It's time to allow the people to decide. If at the end of that

process may decide that what is in front of us is something they do not

want, then we should be allowing the British people to vote to remain.

APPLAUSE. The woman in red there? People know

what they voted for. When people joined in the '70s, they voted for

the EEC, they voted not for a political union.

APPLAUSE. Going back to the forecast and the

question, I completely agree, it's got to get worse before better. The

pound didn't fall and wasn't as bad as what people actually forecast.

Except don't forget that we haven't actually left the European Union. I

know, but there. There is a lot of expectations and I accept your

point, people were fed up with the concept of the bureaucracy in the

European Union. They wanted to leave. That was the result of the

referendum. But don't think that the way your Government treats this will

necessarily mean it's going to be all fantastic or all bad. It does

matter how well they negotiate this. We've got to get them to focus on

it. If you think you have confidence in the way that Theresa May and

Philip Hammond and David are approaching this, well you know far

more than anybody else in the country because so far, their

pretence when they say we are not going to show you our cards is in

reality, obviously they don't know what they are doing. Do you not

think the Government needs to work together and do something. The

people have spoken, you voted in fave of a referendum, now suddenly

you are like, no, I don't want one. What is this about, it's democracy,

you can't go against it. David Gauke? There is a lot in what you

are saying there. I voted Remain. I wanted us to stay in. I was

disappointed with the result. But it was the result and we can't keep

coming back to the British people and saying keep voting until you

make the right decision. That I fear is the position. We've got to make

the best of it. That does mean we want to be in a position to keep

barriers to trade and of goods and services with the European Union to

a minimum. That's got to be a key part of what we seek to do. But we

should also remember the UK's got a lot going for it as a country. We

have got a very strong science base for example, investing more in

research and development to support that. We've got a very strong

financial services sector that actually a lot of European Union

companies want to have access to. We have got an opportunity to make a

success of it. It isn't what I wanted but it's what we've got, we

have to get on, accept it and make the best of it.

APPLAUSE. Is the pain that the IFS are

describing which you say dates back to 2008 in part because of the

Brexit decision, is it because the increased Government borrowing, not

being able to spend as much as perhaps you would like to spend. Is

that why the people that Theresa May talked about when she came into

Downing Street that she wanted to help aren't really getting much SNP

The IFS analysis covers 2008 to the early... I know that, I'm talking

about Brexit though. Is it going to have a dill tierious effect on

people's living standards? The analysis of the OBR, because

inflation is higher than it otherwise would be, that would have

an effect over that period whilst inflation is higher. As one who was

making the arguments that there were economic risks for Brexit, you know,

that information was out there, in the public domain. Those arguments

were put. I regret the fact that 52% didn't... A lot... They did accept

and know the decision. Has Boris Johnson given you an apology for all

the promises he made about the extra money for the NHS? You remember the

big red bus? APPLAUSE.

What we saw in the budget, in the Autumn Statement yesterday and the

IFS and the OBR have confirmed this, is an announcement that we are going

to see ?290 million a week worse off, worse off because of this mess

that we are in. Yes. Why isn't that on the side of a bus? Two can play

at the game because also you said on the other hand in this thing that

came out just before the vote, Brexit Budget ?30 million of tax

rises, fuel and alcohol duties up by 5%, income tax up by 2p, higher rate

by 3p, health spending cut by ?2.5 billion. That was your side of the

argument. They borrowed it instead. ?20 billion. If the UK is... Nobody

can be trusted on what happened before is the answer. If the UK

economy is smaller than otherwise would have been, that is putting a

strain on the balancing of the books. Mariana? I think it's great

that we've actually began with the IFS figures which again look back at

the last ten years because, if Brexit was the solution, and you are

absolutely right, if people voted we must take it seriously, if Brexit

was voted as the solution, what was the problem? Perhaps the problem is

that we didn't have a proper diagnosis of that problem because,

if we look at the prognosis, you know, looking ahead, what we are

going to see a potentially worsening of these problems, lagging

productivity and business investment. John said he invests

when he sees an opportunity and let's make Brexit an opportunity. We

are currently seeing investment leaving precisely because what leads

investment is where future market and technoopportunities are. We have

shrunk our market massively, we are potentially already losing the way

to, for example, collaborate. This was the lack of a positive vision I

think by the way during the whole Brexit campaign to collaborate with

European neighbours in terms of a green transformation of the entire

European region, something that schn is doing, spending #137bed.7

trillion on their economy in a greener direction -- China is doing.

It's very hard to do these thingses just alone as a nation. We could

have seen this as a business opportunity to increase the dynamism

of our country. APPLAUSE.

John Timpson? I'll just explain how it creates an

opportunity. Because business is about people, it's about ideas, it's

not about a process. And you can't invent a process that's going to

create the results, you have got to give people the freedom to be able

to run their business in a way that it will create success. I've seen

this work. I give total authority to the people in my business to do what

they think is right to do their job. It's the way we actually run our

shops and it's been fantastic. That's been the secret of our

success. That's the only way to give people great service. You are in the

retail business, it's not exactly big manufacturing or scientific

enterprise or IT. You have 1400 shops, that's different. You might

say it's difficult to give people freedom. I can see that. To that

number of shops when they are all over the place. It's a question of

whether it touches on what Maria that is saying. It does you see.

Fundamental to a lot of people that voted to leave the EU was the idea

that they wanted to be in charge of their own decisions. They did not

want to be told what to do by Europe. In actual fact, they don't

want the laws to be replicated too much by Westminster either. By

giving that freedom to businesses, if they are then in a position to

create success, create wealth. It doesn't just apply, I have proved,

to a cobbler. Just because we are a family business and we do something

peculiar. I've seen this work in a school. I've seen how giving,

letting teachers do what they actually came into the profession to

do by being free to inspire the children in their class according to

the syllabus that works for them within the National Curriculum but

not specific against every dot and I. There was an investment into the

none, the competence of the school in order to be structured in a

particular way, these things don't come out of thin air, they are

cumulative, they are part of that investment, so we are talking about

investment. They are given the freedom to bring their personality

into the job. All right. APPLAUSE.

You in blue? I don't think it's right. You are claiming there that

everyone that voted for Brexit knew what they were voting for and that

they voted for it anyway. Do you think all 17 million people knew it

would cost Britain ?58.7 million when they voted for it because I

don't? We keep talking about democracy and taking back control. I

don't think a Prime Minister that we haven't voted for who is now taking

us to a model of hard Brexit which 48% of people, that is still

democracy, it's 48% of people still being ignored. She's not even

willing to take it through Parliament, that's not taking back

control. APPLAUSE.

The woman there? I think the fact that you are saying that people

voted for Brexit based on the idea that they wanted power, their

control back in making their own decisions, rather than it being in

the hands of EU officials only gives power to the argument that the

British population should be very much involved in the negotiation and

the way that we make this Brexit decision and what that will mean.

OK. You, Sir? I think the basic principle should have been that

there should have been a plan perhaps of some sort and...

LAUGHTER. That's a thought. You are nodding your head, but the basic

point is... Hold on. None of the other political parties have said

the Conservatives have no plan, this is what we'd do, this is how we'd

negotiate if the public are to say this is our decision, we do not want

to reverse it, yet neither of you have said, this is what we'd do,

this is how we'd negotiate, we'd offer this and therefore get that

back. So all you do is attack. No, no, you are completely right, if you

are going on a journey, it's good to know your destination, and I think

the plan is to know that you want to maximise your access to the single

market. The other 27 countries. If we can't sell and export our goods

to them, we are going to be in an even bigger hole than the IFS have

announced. The man up there? To go back to the point of an un-I elected

Prime Minister, let's go back to the unelected European President. You

are missing the bigger picture, we are not just trying to get Britain

outside the EU, we are trying to collapse the EU itself, we are

trying to get other countries out of the EU. Stop the EU is more like an

USSSR. The reality is, none of you here really understand how the

European Union works. It's not a democracy. The MEPs are just

cosmetic fronts. My solution to our problem now, if I were Prime

Minister, which I'm not, I would give 90 days notice to the European

Union. Unilateral independence, I would declare that. You, Sir? I

don't think anyone can speak for how everybody individually voted. 48% of

the population decided they wanted to remain. Concessions need to be

made. If the vote had gone the other way, we wouldn't be hurtling towards

a closer union. People have some things they are not happy about in

the union so let's move in the opposite direction. The people not

being spoken for are the people that voted to remain. Maybe we should

focus on what they want because it wasn't a landslide victory, it

wasn't a clear mandate. APPLAUSE.

You, Sir? Why don't we try and gauge something... We used to have the

Commonwealth. We are in the Commonwealth, why can't we trade

with the Commonwealth? We do not need a single market. There is no

such thing as a hard or soft Brexit. Out means out and that is it.

OK. This question's come up ever since the vote and I think we may

move on now to another point. Can I just say one last thing on a

positive note. One last thing. I was saying we need a positive discourse

as well. The environmental regulations have brought huge

advance across Europe and they would not have existed without the

European Union. Workers' rights have been fought for, especially by the

European Union, they were not fought for as strongly within the country.

Just in terms of research financing, 8.8 billion is what the UK's gotten

from the European Union in the last five years while they only

contributed 5.4 billion. We have been net beneficiaries of the

European Union and perhaps some of these numbers should have been out

there in terms of the positive story of why to remain not just the threat

of what was going to happen if we left.

APPLAUSE. Let us go on. We are going to be in

Wakefield next week. We are in Maidenhead, the Prime Minister's

constituency the week after that. So Wakefield or Maidenhead, come and

take part in a discussion in the audience. Details at the end. They

are on the screen if you want to note them down. Ryan Russell's

question, please? A very important issue here. Should the Government

put the national interests of our Party Politics and promote Nigel

Farage to British Ambassador to the United States? David Gauke? You know

the tweet from Mr Trump saying he'd be the ideal person? I don't think

we should appoint Nigel Farage. Firstly there isn't a vacancy.

Second, the job of being an ambassador to a country involves

rather more than just being on good terms with the head of state or

future head of state. An advantage though it may be, there are other

qualities that are also needed. For example, you do knead to be a

diplomat. LAUGHTER.

And looking from the outside at the UK Independence Party, it would be

fair to say that just because at one point Nigel Farage is on good terms

with you, it doesn't mean that is going to stay the case, looking at

Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans, Diane Jones, Steven Woolfe. In fact,

pretty well every Ukip politician I can think of. So I think the

national interest is probably in allowing the current ambassador to

continue in his place. If, of course, Nigel Farage wants to be a

sort of back channel, even then I am not sure he is the right person.

Sometimes there are people who work behind-the-scenes unobtrusively,

providing information to the Government, but I don't think you do

that and then take a selfie every time. So I am afraid I think Nigel

Farage's use here would be quite limited. John Timpson. I think

you've got to give it a Nigel Farage, he is entertaining. He's

certainly made a name for himself. I actually quite enjoy the way he

entertains us on the television, the way he puts his own point across.

But we can't really be serious about accepting him, as you say, is he a

diplomat? It is not for Donald Trump to tell us who we should be sending

anyway. When Jack Kennedy was President, he asked for a particular

ambassador, and McMillan did send him, thinking it was the best way of

keeping in with the American President. That is absolutely true

but I still don't think it is for Donald Trump to decide that he

should appoint Nigel Farage. Although I just wonder what would

happen if he did go there. It would be great. But it might make things

even worse. I think the answer is no. To say that Nigel Farage is a

kind of nice, lovable guy is terrible. He has increased racial

tensions in this country. He's ruined this country. Racism has gone

up, there are fights on the street, it is to do with him, and it has

made a fool of Theresa May and there should be a general election, in my

opinion. You asked the question, what is your view? I don't

necessarily think it is a bad thing to have a friend on the other side

of the Atlantic dealing with the Trump team, a friend of the UK,

which Nigel Farage clearly is, regardless of whether you think is

politics is correct or not. What are friends for? You don't just suck up

to them, you learn from them, have a real exchange. That is the question.

What kind of relationship do we want between the UK and the US? Again,

thinking positively, given that both countries are talking about

investment, there is infrastructure talk in the US, a serious industrial

strategy being discussed in the UK, both countries are talking about the

people who have been left behind, it would be very interesting if we had

an ambassador, which we do, there is no vacancy, that could strike an

interesting, progressive conversation with the US, even just

on those issues, inequality, infrastructure and investment. Does

Nigel Farage have the quality to strike that relationship? I don't

think so. If he does, he has not revealed those qualities. I think

that's very important. Ambassadors are not there just to go out and

have a pint, just to be friends. I am sure Trump has other friends.

What we really need between the UK and all sorts of other different

countries, especially because of Brexit, is striking and interesting

opportunity- focused relationship and really changing the vocabulary

through which we can talk to these countries, precisely because... You

don't think that among the 4 million or so people who voted Ukip there

are those very people you are describing, who Nigel Farage could

represent? The people who got left behind, who feel discontented? This

goes back to the previous conversation which is, why have

these people been left behind? If we look at Trump, he has benefited

massively from the dynamics that have caused so many people to be

left behind in the US. Whether it is the tax dodging, the constant

requests for taxes to fall. And by the way, this country has just gone

through another tax decreasing of corporate income tax, even though

the great entrepreneurs say they do not even look at tax, but that

opportunities. These kind of dynamics of tax evasion and

shareholder capitalism which in the US has gone wild, is precisely the

kind of ills that have produced inequality in this country as well.

APPLAUSE I will go to the woman up there. I

think a lot of people are afraid of Trump and Nigel Farage, what they

have done for racial tensions especially. I know a lot of my

friends who are Muslim, and I know that they are scared what will

happen. I think in this country, we have had a true value of tolerance

and understanding from different races. Although I think we should

trade with America, I don't think we should change our values, our

tolerance to other religions and cultures.

APPLAUSE Whilst this is surely a topical

question, I struggle even giving my point across because I don't really

want to give Nigel Farage more political oxygen than he already

has. APPLAUSE

So you don't want to mention his name, even? Unfortunately I had to.

But also to say that surely any endorsement from Donald Trump is an

automatic disqualification. I don't know about you but I still struggle

with the concept that the Donald is President of the United States. I

don't know if you saw Nigel Farage, man of the people, in the Ritz

before being flown over their by Aaron Banks to see Donald Trump in

his golden tower. When I heard that Nigel Farage might not be moving

over to the States, I thought maybe Thanksgiving had come early. But

actually, there is a serious point. We do have to make sure Britain is

not superfine. We are a sovereign country, we can stand up for

ourselves. We can have good alliances, whether with Europe or

America, but we have to make sure we pick our person. That is our job and

that is the important role that a UK ambassador has to have. By the way,

if he is going to send a US ambassador to the UK, maybe he

should consider Hillary Clinton. Tim Farron. I think the possibility of

Nigel Farage being the ambassador to the United States is terrifying. I

think it is extremely unlikely. It terrifies me in particular because

of what it would say about the United Kingdom. The 52% of people

who voted to leave, including loads of people I know. My constituency

voted to remain but I come from somewhere where pretty much every

constituency voted to leave. I reckon I am the only working-class

party leader in this country so I know loads of people who voted to

leave the European Union and they are almost all of them outward

looking, decent, tolerant people who just happened to disagree with me on

June 23. Nigel Farage, Chew Stoke to racism and vision in our country

does not speak for those people. -- the man who stoked racism and vision

in our country does not speak for the overwhelming majority of people

in this country. I want British values projected across the world

for good, as being outward looking, decent, open and tolerant. However

you voted on the 23rd of June, Nigel Farage does not speak of that kind

of Britain, does not speak for the Britain that I know.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE I want to get two more questions.

Meena Agrawal, please. Should the NHS ask for patient ID to reduce the

cost of treatment of patients not entitled to elective NHS treatment?

This was the proposal that you had to show a passport before you were

treated, not if you had an accident but if you came over for special

treatment. Mariana. As an economist, I would say let's look at the costs

and the benefits, in a dynamic sense. I have been in the UK since

1999, working, paying tax. I have had four kids here, four in five

years. I am crazily reproductive, I guess. You don't need to let us into

all your secrets! No one ever asked me for a passport. If they did

today, if I showed them my Italian passport, what would it say? Surely

the current ID I have does not show I have been paying tax here since

1999, so we would need another IDE. Apparently, I hear that the Brits do

not mind having CCTV on every corner of the way walking around in the

street, but they do mind the issue of ID cards. There is the question

of whether there would be consensus about an ID card. But also, what

would the cost be? Currently, the cost, the actual shirkers, in terms

of not paying back into the NHS, apparently the numbers, you probably

know them that than I do, it is between 200, and 250 million, is

that right? If we can properly enforce a regime here, it could be

worth ?500 million to the NHS. That is the key thing. There is a system

in place. Of course, nobody should need to produce ID if they are in a

life-threatening situation. You get on and treat somebody. That is not

what we're talking about. But if someone is getting more routine

treatment, we have a set of rules. The question is can we enforce them?

Would you show your passport when you went to hospital? Is that the

idea? Who would be asked? All we are looking at the moment, a couple of

pilot areas where there have been particular issues of not being able

to enforce these rules terribly well, ways in which people, there is

a question of checking IDs. But hang on, how... Is there a racist

overtones to this? How do you decide who to ask for their passport? You

say you would not ask you. We are looking at ways we can pilot this to

test it. That is a fair question about racial profiling and so on.

But we do have a system where this is a National Health Service, for

people who are resident here, who pay into the system. You do need to

deal with issues of health tourism and make sure that people do pay the

right amount. The question is a practical one, how to enforce that.

That is all this is about. I have a totally selfish reason to be in

favour of this, because part of my business takes passport photos, and

we do... And it would no doubt increased turnover in our shops. But

that's not a good reason to approve this. I do think the NHS needs as

much simplification as possible. The last thing you want to do is to add

more and more systems. Let's just concentrate on getting it better for

the people who look after patients. Keep it simple.

APPLAUSE I am about to finish medical school

and I will never ask a patient for their passport. I think it is

ethically reprehensible. What I really struggle with is the idea of

this ?500 million. You will never be to raise that and convince doctors

to ask the passports. How much are you going to spend refurbishing

Buckingham Palace? ?400 million. This is a disgrace. First of all, we

called for an injection of ?4 billion into the NHS in the Autumn

Statement yesterday. Instead, we got not a penny for the NHS and instead

a ?4 billion giveaway in corporate tax to wealthy people who do not

need it. That is what we should have been doing yesterday in the Autumn

Statement. If there is a case, and there will be, for regrouping from

some people and NHS cost, those who are not entitled to it free at the

point of use, some people from overseas, then the NHS should do

that in a proper way. But this is not the way to do it. I think David

is a decent man, most people's favourite Tory. He is a decent,

moderate individual. You've spoilt it now. The Tory party has been

taken over by, frankly, right-wing English nationalists, in the same

way that Momentum has taken over the Labour Party. This is all about

Theresa May playing to that gallery, the same way that she told

businesses that they need to produce a list of foreign workers. The same

way that as schools asking parents to prove where their children were

born, in this country or otherwise. And the same with this awful

passport rule. I want my teachers to teach, doctors to make people better

and border security people to deal with border security. That is how we

should deal with this. APPLAUSE

First, thank you for your kind words. But more importantly, if you

accept the principle that we have got to re-coop costs that are

incurred when they should be incurred, then you do have to start

wrestling with some of the practicalities as to how you do it.

This has come from comments made by the permanent Secretary for the

Department of Health. Just asking questions about how do you

practically do it. This is about sounding the dog whistle. A foghorn,

not a dog whistle. The reason this story is in the news is because a

question was asked of a civil servant, just dealing with the

practical points of how do you sure that we actually check this. Because

quite rightly the Government and the health service would be criticised

if we had a set of rules were not properly enforced. Because this is

serious money that gets ploughed back into the health service and we

shouldn't be leaking money in this way. We should be reinvesting it in

the health service. They should not do it in this sort of blatant,

sensationalist way. How would you do it? You said you had a better

scheme. Earlier, you said, we have a scheme to do it better. How would

you do it? You said you had a better scheme for getting money back from

people who are not entitled to the service. Other countries in Europe

do it by making sure you have details and you follow them up

afterwards. The reality is most people who use the NHS are living

and working in the UK. People who are migrants to this country are

more likely to be paying tax on average than people born in this

country. Is there is no such thing of health tourism? There will be

some. But this is about sending a dog whistle...

The woman at the back? Hi. I don't agree with the Lib Dem leader. I do

think that although yes, majority of people do live and work here and do

Cameron tribute towards the NHS, I don't think it's fair for people to

come in and use services that they don't contribute towards. I just

don't think it's fair. I think we need to find a happy medium where

people do contribute and can gain from it. I would be happy enough to

pay for someone for them to receive cancer treatment rather than someone

just coming in and taking without putting in in the first place.

APPLAUSE. OK. The woman there?

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a moderate Tory, there's

just a Tory. The last six years, your Government, alongside the

Liberal Democrats have been dismantling the NHS and now this

thing of ID cards is moving us closer to the American system where

our country stands for free health carefree at the point of service,

that's something I'm proud of and both your parties are responsible

for the state the NHS is in today. APPLAUSE.

You, Sir? We all love the NHS. We get incredibly emotional about it.

The short thing is, these things cost money and you need to look

after and manage the service. We wouldn't charge people at the point

of use was the thing that was muted. Why not give people the bill saying

this is what it would cost, not charging them, just making it

transparent so we care more about what these things cost.

Chris Leslie? I think this is a really valuable

discussion because there are two competing issues here. On the one

hand I would agree, I don't want medics turning into sort of

bureaucrats and having to go through some expensive convoluted checking

system for entitlements, but on the other hand, I do believe in the

contributory principle. I do think that if you are going to take

something out of the system, you should put something into the system

too, according to your ability. That I think is a fundamental principle

of the welfare statement and our National Health Service. So, you

know, I personally never really had that much of a problem with the ID

cards suggestion when it came up probably about 20 years ago under

the Labour Government. It didn't go through at the time, people said

maybe you could do voluntary arrangements but that defeated the

purpose. So I'm afraid I'm going to be a politician today that says I

don't know the full solution to this one. I know that probably will kill

my career, but I think we've got to balance these two aspects up. I want

to make sure that the contributory principle is supported but I also

want to make sure that we have that great fantastic cherished principle

of the NHS which is that when the need is there, when people have to

be treated, they can get it and we don't have to think about people's

backgrounds and income. All right.

You, briefly? One question, what's wrong with a bit of common-sense? I

mean, the NHS is free at the point of use, so it's very important that

we make sure that only those entitled to use it freely should be

allowed to do so. It's not racist to ensure that our generosity is not

being abused. APPLAUSE.

I think that this conversation will be very different if for the last

seven or eight years we had been investing in the system and cared

for it and then also wanted to make it more efficient precisely in the

way that you just mentioned which I think is absolutely correct. The

problem is that we are talking about this in a specific situation where

the NHS has not only been cut in terms of the actual health care

services but also... Spending more than we ever have on the NHS. They

didn't mention nit the Autumn Statement. Put ?6 billion in this

year. It needs more money is the fundamental thing. We have to be

honest with the British people some time soon to say that if it involves

paying more taxes, we are going to have to be honest with the British

people, otherwise we'll not give people the dignity of care from

cradle to grave. APPLAUSE.

A lot of hands up. Briefly from you, madam? I was 27 years nursing at the

bedside in NHS hospitals. I've been thinking back and successive

Governments have not invested in the NHS. I think there's more important

things you need to be thinking about than health tourists. You've got to

settle the problem with the junior doctors and I hope they won't go on

strike again. I was being left in Oxford running hospital wards when I

was about 19 or 20. We were working 42 and a half hours then. I think it

was Labour who cut our hours but also our pay went down. So not

wanting to disrupt your story, are you saying this is a trivial issue

compared with what is happening now? There are four hospitals in

south-west London under threat, one of them is under threat. My hospital

was, wait a minute, by Labour, became PFI and I left. We were

talking about that one issue and I think we have got that clear. I want

to take this last question, from Tony Kurzer, please? Tony Blair said

there are millions of effectively politically homeless people in the

UK. Is he right? Politically homeless people. He

appears to be flirting with the idea of getting back in some way into

British politics. Chris Leslie, would you welcome his return and do

you think he... Well, I think Tony Blair served this country as Prime

Minister and he's a figure who I think certainly provokes lot of

reaction. I am very proud of what the Labour Government did in our

time in office when you think of the achievements, especially we were

just talking about the NHS massive increases in the resources, the

cutting of the waiting lists and so I think if he has something to

contribute in terms of how this country should go forward, anybody

would want to... You are dodging the question. He says millions of people

are politically homeless. You are a Labour MP. Do you think there are

millions of people that you are not touching? It's no secret that I

didn't support Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party.

There is a discussion going on within the Labour Party about how we

should position ourselves versus the Conservatives because ultimately

it's a choice between a Conservative and a Labour Government. I want to

make sure that Labour is as fit as possible to win the next general

election and I will continue to fight for what I regard as strong

centre-left values making sure yes, we do believe in tackling the

inequalities and disadvantages in society but also we are capable and

credible to be a Government which cares about economic responsibility

which defends national security and those are the issues going on right

now within the Labour Party. John Timpson, as a non-MP, do you think

people are politically homeless in this country and that Tony Blair

might appeal to them? I'm sure there are plenty of people that feel they

are not properly represented. I'm not suggesting Tony Blair is the

right person to take up their cause. The people I'm thinking about are

people who're not just fixed by money. One problem I've seen quite a

lot as a foster carer and the fact that we employ a lot of people

coming out of prison, I've seen the problems happen by not having a unit

in the family, not having strong societies where people knit together

with neighbours and we've got a massive problem in this country

which is drugs, people lending money, pay-day loans or any other

loans which are ruining people's lives. This is nothing to do with

money. There are a lot of people, a lot of them do finish up in prison

and a lot of the people who actually were looked after as children, they

go through life with attachment problems. We want somebody to look

after them. All right. I'm going to have to

hurry us along. I'm told we have just a couple of minutes left. David

Gauke? There are a lot of people who feel politically homeless,

traditional Labour voters, if you like. What's driving this is what

has happened to the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, clearly the

Labour Party's moved off to the far left that they are not in touch with

the values of the vast majority of people who've traditionally voted

Labour. What I would say to those people is that, if you want a party

that wants to ensure that the country works for everybody, then...

All right... . Tim Farron, as long as you promise not to say exactly

the same thing? I won't be asking people to vote Conservative, no.

LAUGHTER. I am not a massive Blair fan. I

think his leadership of this country into the Iraq war was illegal and a

stain on our country's representation.

APPLAUSE. But, but, he put together a

coalition, let's call it, which ended 18 years of Tory rule and then

he got into power and invested in Health Services, education and

brought in the minimum wage and Tax Credits. That's what happens when

you can build a party that can win elections to defeat the

Conservatives. What I find most appalling now, looking across at the

Labour Leadership that Chris is not a part of is, if you say you are on

the side of the poor and the NHS and the homeless and refugees and those

struggling to get by and you deliberately make yourself the most

unelectable opposition in British history, you let all of those people

down. Thank you, Tim.

Mariana? I almost have to stop us but just very briefly. In 2015 when

Labour lost the election, Tony Blair said we lost because we did not

embrace the wealth creators, that's why the people on the left are

homeless. We need a theory of where wealth comes from. It's collectively

produced from the public sector workers, private actors, of course,

and they really need to be focussing today on these opportunities we have

been talking about which are lacking but we need a new understanding of

wealth creation as opposed to just focussing on the distribution of

wealth through some sort of tax scheme. We have to have a collective

understanding of where wealth comes from and Tony Blair did not provide

that. That's why there's many homeless people.

Thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

I'm really sorry to those who have hands up and want to speak in

particular, it's like this every week, I can't bring 150 people in

and five panelists but I do my best. Time is up. We are in Wakefield next

week. Alan Johnson is going to be with us for Labour, Ruth Davidson,

the Scottish leader of the Tories for the Tory party, the week after

that we are in Maidenhead. So come to Wakefield, come to Maidenhead, go

to the website to apply. There is the number. If you are listening on

Radio 5 Live, this debate carries on on Question Time extra time. Thanks

to the panel and all of you who came to what we are calling South London,

Tooting in fact, thank you all indeed. No, not Tooting you say. We

are in Tooting. What? Earlsfield. Wandsworth. Have your own way! Thank

you all for coming. Until next Thursday from Question Time, good

night.