02/03/2017 Question Time

Our panel tonight, the first female Lord Chancellor

in its 1000 year history, and Justice Secretary, Liz Truss.

The Labour MP who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet,

refusing to vote for Article 50, Dawn Butler.

The former Liberal Democrat leader, once the holder of the British 100

metre record, now in the House of Lords, Menzies Campbell.

The Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens.

And the guitarist from Bombay Bicycle Club,

whose campaign for young people to get a Brexit to suit

them has over 250,000 supporters, Jamie MacColl.

As ever, you can join the debate on Facebook,

We've reached 8 million young people. 8 million! Your researchers

haven't done the job. We can't have gone from quarter of a million to 8

million. We will talk about it afterwards outside. Price Waterhouse

are needed. Just a reminder you can join the debate on Facebook and

Twitter or you can text with your questions. Our first question from

Nicholas Smith. Is it acceptable for people to view indecent images of

children without the threat of being prosecuted? The key being without

the threat of being prosecuted. The leader of the National police chief

counsel for child protection said only paedophiles who pose a really

significant threat should face jail sentences because the police cannot

cope with the increase in reports of child abuse, up 80% in three years.

So only those who pose a really significant threat. Dawn Butler. No

is the simple answer to that. We see now the consequences of the historic

child abuse cases, and we don't know how it all started. And to even

suggest that some paedophiles are not as dangerous as others is a

serious dangerous road to go down. And actually, it makes me feel so

angry and annoyed and physically sick. I'm so angry.

APPLAUSE I'm so angry about that suggestion.

So you don't think there is such a thing as a really significant

threat, as he said? Every threat is a threat. If someone is viewing

indecent images of a child, that means the child is at risk and has

been at risk because the images have been taken. To think that you can

even discuss that it is not a serious issue or they should be

treated leniently is absolutely wrong and it should not even enter

into the debate. Yes, I know there is a crisis in the police force but

this is not the way to deal with it. APPLAUSE

Well, there is most certainly a crisis in police forces.

Hearts we might come to talk about that later. But it seems to me at

the heart of this is the question of how USS risk, and the extent. If it

is a risk, that means your assessment could be wrong. It seems

against the background of a week in which the long-awaited enquiry into

paedophilia actually began taking public evidence, that a suggestion

of this kind is unacceptable. It is ill timed. It may reflect the fact

that the police are overworked, but there is a way of dealing with that,

and that is by giving them more resources.

APPLAUSE Liz Truss, we will talk about police

numbers in a moment but just stick with the point of the question.

Is it acceptable, and is it right for Simon Bailey to have said only

paedophiles who pose a really significant threat should get jail

sentences? Well, I don't agree with him. We need to prosecute these

people who commit these crimes. Dawn is absolutely right. There are real

children being abused at the other end of the video link, or have had

photographs taken of them. This is a very serious issue we face as a

country. Some of our Crown Court is, almost 50% of the cases. We are

prosecuting a record number of people for those crimes. We've seen

a 140% increase in the number of people jailed for those crimes. What

I would say is that the way we prevent these crimes taking place is

first of all working with the internet providers, which we are

doing, to prevent these images getting there in the first place.

And secondly, making sure our children are properly educated so

they understand the danger of putting about photographs of

themselves, understand the danger of internet pornography, and they can

actually be protected and understand the risks they face. So it is not a

matter of the police... We need to prevent it to not by saying the

people who commit crimes should go free. Instead, we need to make sure

children are better protected. But he says the police can't cope and

that is why they had to take a different attitude. He is the Chief

Constable of Norfolk. I am a Norfolk MP and I have met him and discuss

this with him. The police are doing a good job of bringing more people

to justice. That is why we are seeing so many cases in our courts.

But the long-term solution is to better protect children, to make

sure they understand the risks and are less in danger. That is the way

to reduce this he knows crime, not by saying that people should not be

prosecuted for it. Let's stick with the suggestion that only those who

pose a really significant threat should get jail sentences. My own

personal response has to be that I do not know because I do not know

enough about it. But I think we do need to be careful about rushing

into unanimity and saying just because everybody in this room and

on this panel regards the sexual abuse of children with a unique

horror, that we can't even consider something being put forward by an

expert in this matter, who is saying, we don't have the resources

to do this. It is all very well to sit here and say, yes, let's carry

on doing what we have been doing until now, and ignore him. But in

truth, you may find that those who have sat here and said this will, in

years to come, because the resources are not there, will fail to do that.

But it is child abuse. I know it is and that is the point I have just

made. It is something we all began with horror. There are lots of

things we regard with horror which are also not being adequately

prosecuted or pursued by the law enforcement systems of this country.

The point is, if you are going to say loudly, we mustn't do anything,

I think you should be careful that people in four or five years' time,

when they look at your performance in government, don't find that you

have, in fact, done precisely what this Chief Constable is

recommending. It is all very well being publicly fashionably militant

about a subject but it does not necessarily solve the problem of

whether you have enough resources to do it. In all honesty, I have to say

that because I am sick of hearing people piling in and saying what

they hope everyone will approve of them saying. Well, I'm going to

agree with Peter, which I didn't think I would do very often to

might. And I agree, it is a question of resources. According to the

National Crime Agency, one in 35 British men have a sexual interest

in children. Let's say even one tenth of that number look at

indecent images online, that is 75,000 people. There simply is not

enough space in prisons to lock that many people up. So I think you need

to look at alternative methods, whether counselling, or in voluntary

chemical castration, or medication. The woman in yellow. I agree with

what Jamie just said, and also that you need to look at the root of the

issue, of why this is happening. As Liz Truss said, it is 50% of the

cases which are sex cases, so why aren't these people getting the help

they need. Obviously, some people are just evil. But they obviously

need counselling, like Jamie said. Let's move swiftly to the second

question, which is the cause for the comments that were made. He said the

police can't cope with the increase in reports. We have a question from

Siobhan Holland. Can we have that? Are the cuts in police funding

putting public safety at risk? This is one area of public safety. Peter

Hitchens. Not in themselves, no. We should be careful not to allow

ourselves to be diverted into campaigns for extra funding. The

problem with the police and the courts and the entire criminal

justice system is that for 50 years they have been doing the wrong

thing. However hard you work at doing the wrong thing, however

vigorously you pursue it, however much money you pour into it, it

won't work. The police force was set up by Robert Peel with the simple

purpose, to prevent crime. Since it abandoned that function in the

1960s, by preventing patrolling, it has become a reactive fire brigade

force, which waits for things to happen and reacts to them. The

courts are the same. They wait for things to happen. They ceased to

determine that macro to stop them happening by a visible presence of

policing. Once you stop deterring them, they become much more common.

This is also one of the reasons why prisons are incredibly overfull.

They have ceased to deter them. People do not go until they have

already become habitual criminals and they are impossible to empty and

also impossible to build fast enough. You have a complete

breakdown... It would be strange to put them in prison before they

become criminals. Before the police reforms instituted by Roy Jenkins,

we had fewer police than we have now, by a long way, per head of the

country, or as a total. Those of us who remember those times, and I am

old enough to do so, can tell you this country was policed far more

effectively on a far smaller budget in that time than it is now. The

woman in White. Bedfordshire Police came out today as being one of the

most underperforming. The only force rated inadequate in the country. So

my question is, it is fine to say, yes, we need police on the streets,

and we would all agree. However, if the funding is not in place, how are

these police going to get onto the streets? Liz Truss.

APPLAUSE You pointed out that Bedfordshire

was rated inadequate. Two thirds of police forces were

rated good and outstanding. The reason the Inspectorate gave for the

good and outstanding police forces was that they focused more on

neighbourhood policing. It is a question of how police forces use

resources. Do you agree with Peter Hitchens that before Roy Jenkins it

was all right. I am going to agree with Peter because he is right that

we should be intervening earlier, preventing crime from taking place.

I talked about educating children about sex and relationships to make

sure they understand potential dangers of online pornography. We

also have the family drug and alcohol Court, which actually works

with people with drug addictions or alcohol addictions, helping them get

off those addictions so they don't end up in prison and don't end up

with their children being taken away. The criminal justice system is

moving in that direction, and that is the whole point of today's

report. They are saying, let's have more focus on neighbourhood

policing, patrolling, to prevent those crimes taking place. But this

community here in Bedford, their police force has been rated

inadequate. The number of police forces has dropped by 20,000 since

2010. You mean the number of constables. Yes, it has fallen. Can

you say that it doesn't matter because we just have to do a

different kind of policing? The reason we know that is the

performance of the Bedfordshire force versus the others, is because

Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary, created the rating

system, so the public have that transparency, so that people in

Bedfordshire can say, and they can vote for their PCC, who is

accountable for police in the area, and they can say, this isn't good

enough, and other police forces are doing better, so can we look at what

they are doing? We have 43 forces across the country, and places like

Bedfordshire need to look at what is going on elsewhere. You, in the

third row. Do we need 43 forces? Bedfordshire is a small county,

close to London. Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire are close by.

Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if they were amalgamated?

In response to that, Norfolk and Suffolk are working much more

closely together, for example. They integrated their back office, so

they can spend more on front line policing. That is an excellent idea.

Can we tie together the first question about police not being able

to cope with the second question, which is whether there are not

enough police, and cuts are putting public safety at risk?

I would like to pick up on Peter's point. Does anyone remember Roy

Jenkins? I certainly do. I'll never forget him. But you have to remember

that crime's changed. There is no trafficking of human beings, there

was no incredible use of drugs for raising money. There was no

organised crime. So the task twig police face is very very much

different in the days to when it was in the days of Dickson and Dock

Green. It's very significant that no-one's explored this. If you think

you have got a reasonable prospect of being arrested and ultimately

convicted, that acts as a deterrent, so the police are on the frontline

of that sequence, then the more resources you can give to the

police, the more effective the system will be. I think it's quite

wrong to to mention the courts, they can't instigate proceedings, cases

are brought to the courts and the courts have to determine sentences

against the background of the nature of the crime, the issue of

deterrents, the availability of alternatives. It's a very

complicated thing and it's infinitely more complicated than it

was suggested. I want to hear from some more people then go around the

panel. Yes? I would like to ask Liz Truss, I think part of the problem

is that it's not just about policing but it's about caring about the

victims. I mean we don't even care about historic child abuse - is it

safe - what's the name of the word - I think that should be abolished

because you are undermining the suffering that an awful lot of

adults now that have gone through childhood and abuse that it's only

recognised after 79 but not before 1979. You at the back? I want to

raise two points. I work for Bedfordshire Police and to say that

the cuts over the last six years have not influenced policing in

Bedfordshire is ridiculous because it has. Good people have walked out

that door because they've been made redundant. There's been mergers in

Hertfordshire and collaborations. It's a farce to say that it hasn't

affected policing in Bedfordshire because it certainly has. I want to

raise one more point in that, as far as the funding is concerned, it's

not easy to say because we are funded as a rural force, we have

Luton, which is the fifth largest policing area in the UK, outside of

the Met, and we are not funded to handle those kinds of pressures.

OK. APPLAUSE.

Dawn Butler? So the last lady just hit the nail on the head, if you

like. If you make cuts to a service, it will affect the service, it will

affect what happens in that service. The Labour Party bought in the safer

neighbourhood teams and in my constituency in Brent and

Stonebridge, we had the first set of neighbourhood teams and they would

be the same three officers who'll always patrol the area. They got to

know the area, it was back to community policing as it was and it

worked really well. Then the cuts came in and we saw that change in

terms of the community's relationship with the police and the

police ability to do the jobs. Peter talked about prisons being

overfilled. I agree, but then we have look at rehabilitation and the

courts, the Probation Service. All these pillars of our justice system

are being cut and it affects the system and it affects people. It

makes people less safe. I got burglared, I was told I had to wait

six hours for the police, I sat in the cold for six hours for the

police to come with the door and window smashed in. You can't say you

will cut services and it will remain the same. Ming says crime's changed,

it has, but you still need police officers. Oh, yes, I don't dispute

that. We are on the same page. We are on the same page.

APPLAUSE. Jamie MacColl? I had a run-in with

Bedfordshire Police on the way here. We shouldn't laugh because they did

a very good job from what I could see. You must give us the detail -

what do you mean they had a very good job? I was having a coffee in a

local hotel and there was a drunk man harassing a member of staff and

they came very quickly. You didn't have a run-in with them? No, no... I

thought this was going to be an exciting moment of a revelation. I

was about to offer you legal representation. I agree, it's a

question of resources I think. Bedfordshire's police only spends ?7

per head comment paired to ?25 a head for the rest of the country and

I just think it's another canary in the mind that the public sector cuts

are making us less safe and cared for.

APPLAUSE. There are a number of people with

their hands up. Liz Truss has heard from the woman at the back about the

effects of the cuts. There's been a lot of points raised but can you

answer that point? Of course it's about the money we spend on the

system and the police budget has been protected, but it's also about

the way we deploy resources and use them better and this is the point

about having more resources deployed in neighbourhood policing. That is a

decision for the local Chief Constable and we do have very

varying performance of police forces right across the country. I just

also wanted to agree with the lady in the front who raised the issue of

the victims of sexual crime. I think there's more we can do to help

victims of sexual crime. One of the things I'm dog with the court

service is making sure that child victims are able to be

cross-examined pretrial, not have to give evidence in open court -- I'm

doing. It can be very intimidating. I don't understand how a day before

October 1st you weren't abused even if you went through ten years of

your childhood in abuse but you are abused if you are so much accosted

by a postman. Abuse is abuse on any level, I'm saying please acknowledge

the suffering, that not just myself, but a lot of people in this country

- if that safe rule isn't abolished, it doesn't acknowledge us, it's not

about the money, it's acknowledging, we don't want another slap on the

face that what happened to us didn't matter.

APPLAUSE. As Justice Secretary, you heard what

the woman at the back said about Bedfordshire and the police and the

changes. What is the one thing you would do positively to improve

policing, you have a chance just to say in this country - is it more

money, more police? What would you actually want to do? Of course I'm

responsible for the courts and prisons and the Home Secretary is

responsible for the police forces, but we work very closely together.

One of the things that I think is important is a criminal justice

system works as a whole and we work as much as possible to make sure we

do things early. So one of the things we are working on is the

police having more powers to intervene to take steps before

somebody's committed a serious crime. Likewise with the court which

is what I was saying to Ming is actually, when a judge sees a less

serious offence coming them, I want to see more review prosecutions so

that somebody can come back again and again and actually see the same

judge and the judge's authority can help prevent further crimes being

committed. So I think having people at the frontline, whether those are

police officers or judges or magistrates, can help people before

they commit crimes that end up leaving prison. I think that is very

important. Quantity isn't everything as I can tell you from very painful

experience. If they give you the wrong antibiotic for a disease, it

doesn't matter how much they give to you, it still won't make it better

until they change the drug. We are doing the wrong thing. What people

want in this country is a presence of authority on the streets

preventing disorder and preventing crime. There isn't actually all that

much, as I think Dawn probably knows, that a police officer can do

for you after a crime has been committed. He can't put your home

back together after it's been burglared. What we want is for

police to prevent a burglary in the first place. I've got to chair that

and we have a lot of questions. Very quick point. Don't think

amalgamations always produce success. Local influence which

previously was very important has literally been put to one side.

There is an important relationship between the local community and

those who police it. Don't believe that a large scale amalgamation will

make a difference. APPLAUSE.

. Sorry, if we went on for two hours I would take all the points but we

only have an hour. We are going to be in Sunderland next week and

Bognor Regis the week after. If you would like to come, the address is

on the screen. We have had lots of questions on our next topic as well.

Heather Jones, you have the question? Should EU citizens it'

right to live here be a bargaining chip -- EU citizens' rights. Liz

Truss? We are absolutely clear that we want EU citizens to have the

right to live here. But that has to be part of our negotiations with the

European Union. It's going to be an early priority in the negotiations

once we have triggered Article 50, but the issue is, at the moment,

that we have UK citizens living in Europe. We want to protect their

interests as well. So they are a bargaining chip? Well, it is part of

the discussion that we are having with the European Union absolutely

and that's what other countries in Europe want to discuss with us. It

has to be a resick Rickle arrangement. Whether it's about

trade or criminal justice, we have to find an agreement -- reciprocal.

Let me clarify this. You are saying three million EU nationals who live

here in the UK are a bargaining chip with the E Snitch What I am saying

is, the status of EU nationals is of course part of the discussion, part

of the reciprocal arrangements for when we leave the EU, as are our

discussions about criminal justice, one of the things I'm involved in is

discussions about family justice. Fine... Custody arrangements. My

point is... Answer the question Heather Jones asked. We need to

ensure that citizens are also protected. We are confident we can

achieve a deal. Would you agree with Liam Fox that their status is one of

the main cards in the negotiations, are those words you would endorse?

What I would say in my own words... So you wouldn't endorse it?

Important parts of the discussion. Peter Hitchens? The European Union

regards British citizens on its territory as a bargaining chip so I

really don't see why we should be at all hesitant about returning the

favour so why not just say yes of course, everything's going to be a

bargaining chip from now on, it's not particularly distressing to have

to admit these things are going on. We face a long period of extremely

hard bargaining and if we bargain soft, we'll lose, as you always do.

I don't see why people are being so coy and I don't see why Liz Truss is

being so coy about simply saying yes. The thing which annoys me about

this is that the behaviour of the House of Lords.

APPLAUSE. I can't... It's a very simple point.

I mean, I'm not actually in favour of a referendum, they are horrible,

but there's been one. If the Government came to the House of

Lords and say, we would like to bring back, as they should, a

selective state grammar schools and legislate to make that legal again

which it isn't currently, the House of Lords would turn round and say,

you can't do that, you haven't got a mandate. The same people who last

night voted against the mandate of the referendum would refuse to

legislate in favour of gram mar schools because they would say there

was no mandate. They are unprincipled and their behaviour

last night was totally principled. APPLAUSE.

Sir Menzies Campbell, you are a member of the House of Lords and you

have spoken in this debate, you voted in this debate. Indeed. Go on

then? I'm entirely unprincipled about these matters. It seems to me,

you have got to look at the circumstances here. It's quite right

to mention what Liam Fox said and, if I may say so, this is a very

elegant way of trying to get around that. The fact of the matter is,

that's what he said, and there are people in Government, supported by

people in Government, who believe that's the right way to go. There

are about three million people living in the UK who're EU nationals

but not from the United Kingdom. Some are mothers and fathers of

British citizens because their children were born in Britain. Their

husbands -- they're husbands and wives of British citizens. Are we

seriously suggesting that we'd tell these mothers, fathers, husbands and

wives, that they must be expelled from the United Kingdom? Are we

really seriously joops No-one's saying that. If you don't have a...

You said that. Nobody's said that. Nobody's said that. Misses May said

she would make sure that British and EU citizens would be protected.

Months ago! Well, the way to protect them...

APPLAUSE. The way to protect them is by a

statutory protection. If it was you or me engaged in this... You want to

listen to what Mr Tebbit said yesterday. Yes. What did he say? He

called them foreigners. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with

it? ! AUDIENCE: Boo. He called them

foreigners. What's wrong with it? These are people who've made their

lives in the United Kingdom, they have children here.

Fair play. Make your point, if you would. The point is this. Mr Tebbit

said you are arguing about this and that. The people have made this

choice. We have voted to get out of the EU. Did you vote that people who

were EU citizens but not UK citizens should be made to leave the UK?

Nobody has. You are protecting people who are not British. Mrs May

has said that no deal is better than a poor deal. If there is no deal,

what is the position going to be of those citizens of EU countries who

are not citizens of the United Kingdom? Very briefly, Liz Truss.

The vote was all about triggering Article 50, not about the deal with

the EU. We have the great repeal bill going through later which will

be about the deal with the EU. The House of Lords are trying to

hijack... No, we are not. The vote on Article 50. It was simply a

question of, do you endure the British people's decision to leave

the EU? You will have the opportunity to fully express your

views on all of this at that point, which is the proper time, not for

the Article 50, which is a simple question of, do you support the will

of the British people as they voted in the referendum?

APPLAUSE Very quickly.

I am accused of hijacking. I accept that the House of Commons has

superiority over the House of Lords when it comes to legislation. The

House of Lords has passed an amendment which is going back to the

House of Commons. If the House of Commons rejects it, then the House

of Commons is sovereign. I accept that and am not trying to hijack

anything. But I am trying to reflect and represent the interests of the 3

million people who work in the National Health Service, in our

universities... APPLAUSE

The woman in Orange. I think it's appalling that people

could even consider making people who lived in this country, who have

made it their home, to send them back. As you say, we have parents.

What about the teachers? If we are going to have teachers to teach

French and Spanish to our kids, I would rather they were French and

Spanish than English people. But Liz Truss says they will be allowed to

stay. You don't know that. Who would we get to work, for anybody who

works in London, who would be serving our coffee, selling

sandwiches? You are not going to get English people to take those jobs.

Your point is there is no guarantee and Liz Truss is refusing to give

one. What we have said is that this is a very high priority in

negotiations. We are confident we will secure a deal with other EU

countries. We need to protect the interests of UK citizens living

elsewhere in Europe. They are also extremely important and we must not

forget about them. But that was not what this week's debate in the House

of Lords was about. It was about do we trigger Article 50, do we follow

through on the vote of the British people in the referendum. And I

think it is bad faith... Come on! Bad faith of the House of Lords not

to follow through on that. Dawn Butler. So, wherever we go from here

has to be for the 100%. Not the 51.8%, or the 48%, but for everyone.

What is the best deal for everyone? That is what we have to look at.

APPLAUSE There are 1.8 million people that

work in London. The job of the Lords is to look at a

bill, scrutinise it and then make the bill better. That is what they

do in the Lords. That is what they have always done and that is their

job, and that is what they have done here. They have looked up the bill.

No, the vote was about leaving the EU, so we are leaving the U. Now

what we talk about is how do we leave the EU and what terms and what

is the plan. Hold on. Let her have her say. If it is a priority to

protect the status of EU citizens, put it on the face of the bill. You

shouldn't be worried about that. You shouldn't be concerned about that.

APPLAUSE Menzies Campbell can make the moral

case better than I can. If we are told the country is open

for business, and we need to remain attractive to potential migrants. If

I was highly skilled and looking at the UK and considering working here,

if I did not think my future would be secure, why would I come in the

first place? APPLAUSE

Also, any sort of leveraged that we would get using EU citizens, which I

don't think we should do, would be less valuable than the goodwill that

a guarantee of their status would secure.

We are about to enter years of negotiations with the EU and need to

be able to show that we can give as well as take. Third row from the

back. I am sick and tired of hearing politicians and everybody say that

British people don't know what we voted for. We voted to get out of

the single market. We voted to get out of the EU and we voted to become

Great Britain again and not part of Europe. I'm sick of people saying we

can't use the word foreigner about people that have come here. My wife

is Russian. She is a foreigner, but she's my wife and I'm proud of her.

I think we ought to stop messing around and allow Brexit to get on.

Get out and stay out. Your wife is your wife, but she is not an EU

citizen, not one of the 3 million EU citizens. What do you say about

them? I live in a block of ten places. Eight of them are foreigners

but they are still my friends. So you would like a guarantee? No. I

want England to look after its own first. And you, sir. I speak on the

half of my wife who has been hit since 1972, worked here, has no

criminal record, has not been on benefits, has retired here, we

bought our house here and now she has a threat of being moved. She

knows this country more than her own country because she has spent most

of her life here. Do you think that is fair? Liz Truss. I want to be

able to guarantee your wife the ability to stay here, along with the

other a use of the sons who currently work in our country. But

we have to do these things in the right order. The first thing is that

we need to trigger Article 50 to get the negotiations started. That is

absolutely what the Prime Minister is focused on, what this debate is

about. Then we have a great repeal Bill, where we discuss the details

and terms of the deal. I am sorry, we are going back to a fascist state

here. You can't take people out after so many years living here in

contributing. Hang on, nobody has talked about chucking anybody out at

all. Nobody has advocated it, suggested it, it is not under

discussion. We need to be aware that when these negotiations get going

there are many very hard points, from fisheries to the right to live

in places, which are going to have to be dealt with by us with European

Union negotiators. If we give away a profoundly important negotiating

point before we even go into the chamber, we are simply cutting our

hands. What is the point of doing that? You just don't do it. I am no

friend of this Government, I think it is ridiculous, but I really think

it is absurd to suggest that Government should give up a key

negotiating position just before it goes into negotiations. Do you

equate fishing rights with his wife's and people like that? Those

whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the theft of fishing

grounds in the European Union might well take way to them. How can they

be negotiating point when the Government keeps repeating that we

will let them stay anyway. Briefing is not negotiable, as anyone who has

been briefed by a politician knows. The woman in the third row. I am a

migrant and a foreigner. I have been here over 20 years. The real issue

we are not talking about is what the Home Office is doing at the minute.

We have in Bedford many cases of people who have applied to have

residency. They have an 85 page document to fill-in. I have friends

who have been living in 40 years, married with children, and they have

been refused to have a British passport. So actually, it is already

happening now. We are saying the government is promising it, but

actually the Home Office is making it very, very difficult. If you want

to apply, you either have to be a lawyer, or somebody who is going to

spend a huge amount of time to read all those documents. So I think we

need to be careful, and I think Mr Campbell has done a great job. Thank

you very much. The woman in the second row from the back. I think

what Jamie said hit it on the head. It is about goodwill. And you are

saying about, we go into negotiations and we cut off our

hands if we say they can stay and we give them some immunity. No,

actually we are doing something of goodwill, something we believe in.

How can you expect the House of Lords to vote to enact article 50th

they fundamentally believe that we should safeguard those people's

writes to stay in the UK? APPLAUSE

Liz Truss, before we go on, can you answer the point the woman made

about the 85 page document that even now have to be filled in by those

trying to establish residency? Are you in favour of that? Yes,

because it is important that we have proper checks on people who are

seeking residency in this country. And we have had, ever since I have

been involved in politics, issues with things not being processed

properly. It is important that the Home Office has control of our

borders and has proper checks on people, so that we know that they

are legitimately here in this country. That is right for everybody

who is a legitimate individual, who achieves residency, or succeeds in

getting into this country. People do not like unfairness in the system.

In fact, it was one of the reasons why people voted to leave the

European Union, so we could gain full control of our borders. There

are still hands are up. We can't solve all these problems so I'm

going onto another question. Brenda Evans. Does the Copeland by-election

result proved Labour is slipping into obscurity under Corbyn's

leadership? The Tories took a by-election from Labour which has

not happened for 30 years. Jamie MacColl, what is your view of Corbyn

and Labour? I think the Labour Party is in crisis at the moment and it is

not all Corbyn's fault. He definitely inherited a tainted

brand, but he has made it far worse. You just need to hear reports of how

he goes down on the doorstep to realise that. Are you a member? I

am, but I have certainly considered getting rid of it for the last

couple of years. The Labour Party! Getting rid of my membership card.

He does not just play badly in Stoke and Copeland and in the North, but

where I am from in Hornsey and Wood Green, which you would expect to be

classic Corbyn territory, the Islington elite, basically. But his

strategy for Brexit is clearly alienating swathes of the party.

Which bit of his tactic on Brexit, voting for it? Yes. As John Curtice

has pointed out last week, although most Labour constituencies voted for

Brexit, the majority of Labour voters in those constituencies were

Remain supporters. So not backing a second referendum, like the Lib Dems

are doing, appealing to stay in the single market would be more in June

with the voters. What is your prediction of their future, if you

think they are slipping into obscurity? I have is hot -- I have

hope for the Labour Party but they need to start focusing on the one

thing that both the members, the voters and the MPs can agree on,

which is that the British economy has failed large parts of the

country for the last few decades. Inequalities between the regions,

zero-hours contracts, the dominance of the City, the future of work. I

want a Labour Party that will talk about the fact that 47% of jobs are

in danger of being automated in the next couple of decades. Labour needs

to be offering a new deal, not sticking to the same line, that they

are the only party that can protect us from public service cuts. It did

not work before and it is clearly not working now, if the Copeland

by-election is anything to go by. Dawn Butler, you nominated but did

not vote for Jeremy Corbyn, is that right? I did vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

Not first, but I did vote for him. What do you mean? You vote for

first, second, third. Your first choice? Andy Burnham. So you didn't

vote for Jeremy Corbyn until Andy Burnham had fallen out. I did vote

for him, though. It is unfair to say that I didn't if I did. For him and

Andy Burnham. Which do you prefer? Well... It is not about which I

prefer, actually, because we are all members of the Labour Party and they

both stood for the leadership. The thing is this, that at that time I

think Labour kind of lost its identity. Jamie is right, where was

Labour's identity? We were fighting whether we were going to support the

Conservative Party welfare for Bill. I could not believe I was having

this debate in my own party, because obviously it was a bad bill, bad for

the people we cared about. This was why it was important to have Jeremy

as part of that mix. So at that point, when Jeremy was the only

person who voted against it, along with me. I voted against the welfare

for Bill. I knew that was the direction the party should be going

in. Come to Copeland and last week's by-election, and the public opinion

surveys which show more Labour supporters are dissatisfied with

Jeremy Corbyn than are satisfied. We won one and I want to

congratulate Gareth Snell because he gets forgotten in all of this. It

was disappointing to have lost Copeland. I didn't go because I

suffer from car sickness and I heard the roads are really bad. That

doesn't sound like a warrior? I did a lot of telephone... Well, you need

the fix the train system as well in Copeland but that's another issue.

By Kells are S good. I got the train to Copeland. The most ingenius

explanation I've had. I did a lot of telephone canvassing both in

Copeland and Stoke. What went wrong in Copeland? There was lots of

dissatisfaction, a lot of stuff around nuclear and they didn't

believe it was wanted. Why was that? It's true because of what Jeremy's

position used to be. They made sure the Tory party put leaflets out

saying this is Jeremy's position even though it wasn't. It was

disappointing and we lost. The Labour Party has to do better,

absolutely. When your Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell says a

soft coup is under way, planned coordinated fully resourced

perpetrated by an alliance between the Murdoch media, do you believe

that? I'm not sure what a soft coup is, to be honest. A rough coup then.

John McDonnell explained that saying basically it was right grumpy and

then now, the Labour Party - we have to talk about where the Labour Party

is today - what is the language of the Labour Party today? I'm asking

whether there is a coup in progress to try to get rid of him? The

language of the Labour Party today is talking about unity, talking

about where we are with our policies and what we can talk to people about

and we need to make sure that - at the moment there's a 10-point policy

plan - that needs to be whittled down to at least five because I

can't remember all ten of them and we need to be all-singing... I know

it's bad but I can read them to you because I have them written down.

Spare us. We all need to sing from the same Hymnsheet. Sir Menzies

Campbell? I hesitate to intrude on private grief because the discussion

we have just had between the two Labour Party members... It's not

private grief. I actually agree... All right, public grief. I agree we

need to identify Labour's policies. I think you said that. We need to

sell it clearly. I know a bit about leadership. Slipping into obscurity?

Well... I'm on Question Time. That's not

obscurity! I think Jeremy Corbyn ought to look

in the mirror and ask himself if if he's the right person to be leader.

I did that. If your leadership is stopping the progress of the party,

you've no obligation or entitlement, other than to say, look, I'm going

to go, and let someone else take over. Now, I'm by no means convinced

that someone else would necessarily be able to knit together the

different elements of the Labour Party because you still have what's

rather loosely called the Blairite stream and that's still fairly

strong. On the other hand, you have a lot of MPs who are supportive of

Corbyn and of course you have a party in the country that supports

Corbyn. That's one great success he's achieved. Signed up party,

people who pay... That's been a huge success. The rest of us are envious,

to put it mildly. The fact of the matter is, that if you are steering

the ship and you can't steer it in a way that's going to help us,

metaphors are greating strained, you have a duty to say to yourself,

look, I should step down and let someone else do it.

OK. Liz Truss? I went canvassing in both Stoke and

Copeland. What I noticed for the first time, and I was brought up in

Leeds in the 80s and I can tell you the Conservatives were not very

popular there at that time, is a huge change in attitude. I had

people coming up to me saying, I've been a life-long supporter of the

Labour Party but I like Theresa May, I like what she's doing, she's a

serious woman, she's got a plan for this country. We are not talking

about her, we are talking about whether... Hang on, the point I'm

making... No, Liz... Let me finish my point. Your point, is Labour

slipping into obscurity? My point is that people who're life long Labour

voters, they are now saying, we back the Conservative Party, the

Conservative Party is the party that understands working people,

understands... It's the most... Enough, enough, enough! No, this is

enough! The most insulting group. You're saying you're the voice of

the working class people. Don't insult people, it's just outrageous.

Hang on, ladies, to be fair, you turned the question into praise for

the PM. Peter Hitchens? On the question of Jeremy Corbyn, people

repeatedly say it, I hear it about nine times a week, the Labour Party

can't win a general election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader. This is

perfectly true. It's not very important because the Labour Party

can't win a general election with anybody as leader.

APPLAUSE. It is a dead party. The man who

killed it was not Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn just sits on the

coffin and moans. The man who killed it was one Anthony Charles Linton

Blair. He killed it fundamentally with the Iraq war which destroyed it

and left it completely demoralised. He then killed it by persuading or

by allowing the huge amounts of money which he used to raise from

billionaire donors to shift to the Conservative Party. The reason they

shifted to the Conservative Party was because the billionaire donors

realised that the New Labour project was now safe in the hands of people

like Liz Truss who's actually Liberal Democrat as far as I know.

And so we have a bizarre situation in British politics where the

Conservative Party has become the Labour Party, the Labour Party has

died and been replaced by the Scottish Nationalists in Scotland

and almost - I admit it's nearly as bad as algebra - but what I'm saying

is... You, Sir? We only have a couple of minutes, come on? Speak

your mind? Clearly the biggest thing in politics at the moment is Brexit.

You know where you stand with the Conservatives, they're request going

to deliver on it and they've said that. The Liberal Democrats want to

block and overturn it, we know that. But you don't know where you stand

with Labour. You have mixed messages. That's the problem with

Labour. You in the fourth row? I want to go back to Ming's comment

that he made, that the huge swell of members that joined the Labour Party

after Jeremy Corbyn came in, I for one joined the Labour Party after

Jeremy Corbyn and having had the previous coup in the Labour Party,

he once again won for the leadership of the Labour Party and I think that

it's really easy to talk about the sort of fractions in the Labour

Party and use them against the Labour Party. I think there's quite

a lot of good things that are going on in the Labour Party. OK, the

woman on the gangway there? I don't particularly want to be a member or

support a party that has a singular direction that I have to adhere to.

I feel that I'm quite a complex being that I have a number of

different opinions on a number of different things and I want to

belong to a party that is going to represent all of these diversities,

all of these diversities that so many of our wonderful nation

comprises. So for me that doesn't seem like a weakness in the Labour

Party. Thank you. I'm told we have time for one quick question from

Nino Ssive lvestre. Has Sir Phillip Green done enough to redeem himself

or should we take away his Knighthood? Yes or no answers? I'm

not... Yes or no? It's a double headed question. I'm not interested

in his Knighthood. I'm interested in the fact that he's done the proper

thing by those who were beneficiaries of the pension scheme

who would have otherwise been... Sorry, we are really running out of

time. Jamie, yes or no? No, he may have done it but in the words of one

BHS employer, it was at the very least the least he could have done.

Better late than never. Should he keep the Knighthood which Parliament

voted he shouldn't? It's a matter for the independent committee. And

your opinion? It's a matter for the independent committee. I'm a

government minister, it would be completely wrong for me to comment.

Dawn Butler? I understand he's ?200 million short. Knighthood if he

gives another ?200 million? I'll reconsider it if he come makes up

the deficit. 88% is not enough. As for the Knighthood, who wants one

anyway, I don't think even Nigel Farage wants one. I think he does

actually! That was the other question we had, whether Nigel

Farage should get a Knighthood or not. Ask Douglas Carswell? He was

here last week and we were told he'd stopped him getting a Knighthood. I

don't know whether it's true or not. Our time is up. We must go. We are

in Sunderland next Thursday and we have the Shadow Chancellor John

McDonnell among our panelists there, and the week after that We are in

Bognor Regis. On the screen is the address you can go to if you want to

come to Bognor Regis or Sunderland. There is the website address and the

telephone number. The debate on Five Live goes on until 1am on Question

Time extra time. My thanks to the panel and all of you who came to

take part. Until next Thursday, from Question Time, good night.

Good morning, this is BBC Breakfast. Morning, Dan.

In the sports news, we have the latest on the Welsh rugby team,

Poppy's sports day, and news on Andy Murray.

The headlines coming up, but our next guest is really quite special.

Jack, the toast's burning. Welcome, Daniel Radcliffe.