30/03/2017 Question Time


David Dimbleby chairs topical debate from Carlisle. On the panel are Ruth Davidson, Lisa Nandy, Paul Nuttall, Len McCluskey and the news editor of the IEA, Kate Andrews.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to Question Time which tonight comes from Carlisle.


Sitting round the table with me tonight, the leader


of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson.


The general secretary of Britain's biggest union,


And from the free market think-tank, the Institute


of Economic Affairs, Kate Andrews.


As always, watching from home, you can make comments


about what you hear on our Facebook site, on Twitter or text 83981,


press the Red Button to see what others are saying.


I always thought this Red Button was on the television set,


I expect you know that, but I've never tried to do that,


This is a question from somebody we haven't seen


Well, hopefully not, especially if the Prime Minister


I mean I think, first of all, we need to make certain


that we don't get into a project fear about Brexit.


That was the mistake that the remain campaign made last time.


Brexit is with us, we are leaving the European Union,


but the important thing, as far as I'm concerned,


is to make certain that it's a Brexit that works


It's a Brexit that defends jobs, investment, defends our communities


and, most importantly of course, defends workers' rights.


That's something that at the moment the Government's approach,


the Prime Minister's approach, being a so-called hard Brexit,


appears to be not listening - not listening to employers,


I understand the Prime Minister would not want to show her hand.


I'm a negotiator, you need to keep things close to your chest,


but there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny at different stages


and it's vitally important that the voice of working people


Wherever I go in manufacturing at the moment, companies are saying


that they are concerned about the future,


the uncertainty, the lack of investment that might come.


I'll give you a very quick example, David.


I met with the president of Ford Europe, just before


Christmas, he tells me that Ford have just made a decision to invest


I asked him were we going to get a chunk of that.


He said, at the moment, the word from Detroit is, no,


we can't invest in Britain because we are concerned


I met 200 of my senior shop stewards and conveners last Saturday


from the automotive sector, a jewel in the manufacturing crown


at the moment, and already we've got BMW talking about the new electric


We've even got Nissan, the company that we thought,


and we were delighted that they'd reached an agreement


with the Government, now saying that, depending


on what Brexit is, they will review their position.


So you don't sound very optimistic, but we'll come back


But, Ruth Davidson, a divorce turning messy?


I mean, what's been really strange about the Brexit debate...


Well, I think that you saw from the tone


of the Prime Minister yesterday, it was a conciliatory tone.


You saw from Donald Tusk, when he accepted the letter,


he said that his overwhelming feeling was sadness.


I think we have to recognise that this isn't a zero-sum game.


This isn't if somebody wins, somebody else loses.


In fact, if it turns into a point scoring fight,


I think what's really interesting in this is,


it has united people across a whole different spectrum.


So I'm the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party,


I stood on a platform last year with Sadiq Khan, the Mayor


of London, I'm sitting next to Len McCloskey here today,


three very different sets of politics across the spectrum,


but three things we all have in common.


We were all remainers, we all recognise that Brexit


is happening and the UK will leave the European Union and we all


believe that there is a positive outcome that can happen if we go


about these negotiations in the right way.


That's nothing to do with our politics, but that's


Now, it will be difficult, it will be complex, but I think


that we have to support and input to the Prime Minister to make sure


that she's got the best negotiating hand and,


no matter where you are, we can help with that.


But it also means - and Len's quite right -


it means we should be making sure that we're looking at this


But Len was saying he knows how to negotiate, of course he does,


Was the Prime Minister right to raise security?


We've had a number of questions on that, as one of the things that


might be withdrawn if the Government didn't get what it wanted?


I think that's a misrepresentation of what was said.


What the Prime Minister was saying - "In security terms,


a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation


in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened."


What it means is we need to make sure that we get an agreement.


This something the Prime Minister put out in her Lancaster House


She put the 12 points that were so important for us.


Now, we know that we're - and this is again where it comes


back to the zero-sum game - we know that we're all safer


if we do get a deal and we work together.


We know that we all lose out if we start trying to score points


So that's why making sure that it's not -


whatever Mr Brown said - a messy divorce, that we don't


I'll come to members of the audience in just a moment.


Well, I agree with Ruth, but that is exactly


what the Government is doing and I think - What is exactly


I think they've played a very dangerous game


Well, scoring points, trying to turn this into a zero-sum gain.


When they were asked to clarify what that line meant in the letter,


the Home Secretary said, "we are the largest contributor


to Europol, so if we left, then we'd take our information with us."


That is quite clearly a Government that seems to be threatening


that we would remove our co-operation on security matters


from the EU if we don't get the free trade agreement that we want.


Now, that is - if you think about that for a moment,


That is a Prime Minister who appears to be suggesting


that we would side with terrorists and that we would prevent other


European countries from getting information that may


keep their citizens safe, knowing full well that in return


that would prevent us from getting access that would keep our


The Prime Minister has had 24-hours to clarify that


that's not what she meant, she hasn't done it,


If she didn't mean that, she needs to explain why


she included this astonishing phrase in her letter yesterday and chose


to make empty threats to the 27 countries that we are currently


seeking to reach a trade agreement with.


Which ever way you look at this - Lisa, that's nonsense,


- which ever way you look at this, it's an act


of serious self-harm to the United Kingdom.


It is absolute nonsense, it's the worst type of scaremongering.


The only British politicians that are siding with terrorists,


as you put it, are your leader and your Shadow Chancellor -


Not a single member - Are the only British politicians


that side with terrorists in this country.


Incredibly cheap, and not a single member of your party has been


out on the airwaves, in the last 24-hours,


denying that the Prime Minister is threatening to withdraw


co-operation from our European neighbours unless we


What they have said is that we need to ensure that we get co-operation


Just to clarify, in what respect are you saying that


Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell side with terrorists?


They walked the past the people that wore the British Army uniforms


and they walked up to the bombers with the balaclavas


I think you should do well to defend your own party at the moment.


The woman in the centre, at the back there.


Given that Theresa May has said this, is it wise to go ahead


with the plan for more than doubling the size of the Sellafield site


with three new nuclear reactors that are now,


we're told, to be built by the South Koreans?


The woman in red there, on the right.


Is not one of the problems that this divorce is going to be based


It's going to take at least two years negotiation


Yeah, of course, it will take two years because that's


part of the process, part of Article 50.


The original question was - is this divorce going to get messy?


Well, there are certain people and certain parties


within our own House of Commons who want it to be as messy


as possible in an attempt to ensure that we actually never leave


the European Union and they really want to keep us in.


I think what's happening here at the moment is posturing,


it's the phoney war, people are setting out


But, in the end, money always talks and I think we will come to a good


We have a huge trading deficit with the EU,


We're its biggest marketplace and, indeed, there are four


to six million jobs on the continent which are dependent on our trade.


And if we do sign that deal, it will be mutually beneficial,


not just for the EU, but for us as well.


But the great thing is, after that, we can then go on and sign trade


We can reconnect with the rest of the world -


with India, with China, with the United States.


We've got a great future as a result are of Brexit,


but it has to be the Brexit that people voted for on June 23rd.


That is a Brexit whereby we get full control of our borders,


a real return to our democracy, full control of our waters,


once again and, as I say, take our seat back on the world


trade organisation and sign trade deals all over the globe.


Gordon Brown, you asked the question, what do you think?


I think sometimes there can be a very big difference


between economic theory and practical politics


and we've already just heard, just going round the panel,


it's getting a bit messy amongst the panel, never mind


when the actual real players get down to lock horns.


What do you fear when you say "messy"?


That the United Kingdom could be a much poorer,


In theory, it could work well, but in practice I fear it might not.


I'm cautiously optimistic, certainly more optimistic than Len.


And, hopefully, to cheer your spirits a bit, more investment has


been coming to the UK since the referendum,


?16 billion extra in foreign investment has come here.


London was, once again, named the financial capital


and centre of the world just this week.


So I'm cautiously optimistic, but you're completely


We haven't left yet, it's going to be a two year process.


Divorces can get very messy when personalities get involved,


but if the politicians think of the children or us, so to speak,


The UK Government could do something tomorrow,


now that we triggered Article 50, to make it very clear that they want


a good Brexit on good terms and they should immediately give EU


nationals right to remain in this country regardless


Some will argue that this is ceding ground, that she must wait


until the European Union agrees to do it for UK citizens,


but I have to say, if Theresa May were to do that tomorrow


and her Government were to do that tomorrow and the EU


were to refuse UK nationals, I think even the likes


of Nick Clegg and Tim Farron would change their minds


about the referendum result because that would not want to be


a club that we would want to be a part of.


I read today in the papers that Francois Hollande stated


that he has his own agenda within his own country


Of course, there's a general election next month and I know that


Germany has a general election in September, Italy next February.


Do you think the changing of guard is going to change the dynamics


of the actual negotiations because people are going to say


different things, maybe a new party will come in and maybe push the,


sort of, agenda to a different, sort of, different way, really?


Yeah, it's a very fluent situation within the political arena,


right throughout Europe at the moment.


Kate's just said the Government could do something tomorrow.


I tell you what else the Government could do tomorrow.


They could make it clear that workers' rights


I'm going to come to that question, so I'm going to actually


We'll come to it, it's the next question we've got here.


Ruth Davidson, do you just want to comment on this business


that the Prime Minister could now, immediately today, say that EU


nationals could stay here, the point that she made?


I think, if it were up to me, you know, I would have liked


to have seen it done, but I'm not the Prime Minister


of the country and I don't also have responsibility for the hundreds


of thousands of Brits that live abroad.


She's got to balance the responsibilities she has


for people currently living in Britain as well as people who are


You would liked to have seen her do that?


Like I say, if it were down to me, but then I'm not carrying


the responsibility that she has and I don't have to, in my sense,


I don't have to balance the same responsibilities that she does.


She might find a lot more goodwill overseas if she was prepared


How much danger will there be to workers' rights


Len, I will come to you because you've raised it twice already.


Kate Andrews, the danger to workers' right after the Great Repeal Bill.


How much danger do you think there'll be because the British


parliament will be able to change anything and everything


But also, very importantly, you will be able to vote


for new politicians, for a new parliament if you don't


I think it's incredibly unlikely that the regulations


we're bringing over, especially when it's


related to workers' rights, are going to be dramatically rolled


back or repealed in the United Kingdom.


I think this is a country that very much upholds workers' rights


The idea, simply because it's coming to the United Kingdom ,they're


going to be thrown out, I just don't fully buy that.


I really do think that we need to be implementing sunset clauses


into this Great Repeal Bill which means that bureaucrats can't


sit around and take a long time to decide which workers' rights


are good for the UK and which ones need to be expanded and which ones


If we implement these sunset clauses, it can get bureaucrats


to make these decisions sooner rather than later and then you,


the British people, will get to know what deal you're getting and bring


in new representation if that's what you want.


Paul Nuttall, Theresa May has talked about if things go badly we'd


have the freedom to set competitive tax and embrace policies that


Would they include changes to workers' rights, the number


of hours people could work, that kind of thing in


I don't think they do, beyond that, calling it the great repeal Bill is


wrong, it should be called the great incorporation bill because we are


incorporating EU law into British law, we are not really repealing


anything. It's a huge job. Please don't underestimate how big this is.


There's been 52,000 pieces of EU legislation which have affected this


country since 19906 alone. The majority of this, of the work on


this will be mainly technical. It's taken out mentions of EU


institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Council and


commission which are incorporated into these pieces of law which will


no longer be relevant once we have left the European Union. But, also


remember when it comes to workers' rights, a lot of workers' rights


were put in place before we were members of the European economic,


such as workers' rights, equal pay. I encourage the Government, don't


mess around with workers' rights during this debate or this work on


the great repeal bill. If you do want to change workers' rights, take


it to Parliament after we've left the European, let's then have a


debate and we can go forward then into the 2020 general election on


that platform and see how they get on. But that is a good thing, David


because... All right. We can have an election on it because at least it's


democratic, unlike the European Commission, which meets in secret


and initiates its own laws. We have your point.


APPLAUSE. Anyone who believes that this is not


going to be used to attack workers' rights is not living in the real


world. Leading members of the Conservative Party have already


indicated that they're looking forward to reducing the frightening


thing is... Who's said what? A number of leading members, Liam Fox


for one, a number of leading members have said that a lot of workers'


rights are nothing more than regulations that restrict business


and the reality is that if we don't make it clear that we are going to


defend the rites of British people, Kate says that we are well known for


workers' rights, we have the worst protected workforce in the whole of


Europe, despite the fact that we are the nation that, having defeated


fascism at the end of the Second World War, gave Europe all of the


freedoms they currently have. Yet German workers, Italian workers,


French and all the rest of them, have got better protections than


British workers. So my challenge to the Prime Minister, and I'm hoping


Ruth and others will agree with me, is to put people's mind at rest by


making it clear that all workers' rights that are going to be


transferred indomestic rights will have the same protections as the


fixed term Parliament act which means that 66% of Parliament would


be needed to change those current rights. If she did that tomorrow,


that would go a long way to ease people's concerns. My fear is she


may not do it. All right. So you want to see laws passed by


Westminster, abandoning the normal 50% plus 1 and going to this 60%, so


it's two thirds for particular laws? There is a precedent within... All


right. Legislation to do that. Ruth Davidson? The great repeals act will


give ministers an opportunity and they have already said they are


going to modify some of the laws. Ministers can do that and courts


can, without any reference to parent. That's the fear. That's what


we have got to defend. APPLAUSE.


Ruth Davidson? I know that Len's in the mid offal an election right now


but let's bring this back down-to-earth for a second. He talks


about leading members of the Conservative Party and what they've


said. Let's look at the leading member of the Conservative Party


which is the Prime Minister and exactly what she's said. She's said


that workers' rites currently inshrined under EU law will be


coming imported wholesale to the United Kingdom. With modifications.


They'll be maintain and protected. She's said they can be built upon


and extended. Let's not fear monger. She's been absolutely categorically


clear. Let's not try and win votes off the back of this, Len, yes? It's


about protecting workers, it's about protecting workers' rites. She's


quiveren that assurance. I'll fight for my members and workers' rights.


She's talked about modifications. Let's clarify


ALL SPEAK AT ONCE. Hang on. What is modifications? You


are the one that's making the... She said. She said it. You can't give us


any examples. The Prime Minister initially said she was going to lift


employment law out of Europe and put it in to domestic legislation. Music


to my ears. She then said, we lift the laws, put them into domestic


legislation with some modifications. Can I read this out to you? Len,


you've had your turn. A as we translate the body of European law


into domestic ing arelayingses, we'll ensure workers' rights are


fully protected and maintained. Stop scaremongering. It's not


scaremongering. APPLAUSE.


Len, you've had your say. You, mam? Len says that our workers' rights


aren't the best in the world. However, everybody from all over the


world wants to come and work in the UK so they must be good. I'll read a


quote back to Ruth. We are clear about what we want from Europe. We


say yes to the single market. That was the manifesto that your Prime


Minister and you stood on in the last election. That is the manifesto


that the Prime Minister is busy ripping up without having been


elected herself as she goes about these negotiations about Brexit.


There is a whole host of issues from the single market to raising


national insurance contributions. She's already in the very short time


she's been in office gone back on her word. I think there is another


reason nobody on this panel has raised yet, why we should be


seriously concerned about the profoundly undemocratic nature of


the great repeal Bill. Yes it's true that the Prime Minister is planning


to take 40 years of laws that we've negotiated with our European union


counterparts and transcribed them into this bill but she's also giving


herself as part of this process huge sweeping powers to make


retrospective changes to that legislation with virtually no


scrutiny. The upshot of this is that when she and her Tory ministers go


off to negotiate trade deals with people like China and the United


States, all it will take is for those Governments to say to her,


scrap those rights and we'll give you your trade deal and she will


have given herself the power to do it. I say this - she's got a mandate


to leave the EU and it's right now that we respect that and that we


move on and work out how to get the best teal for Britain. This


unelected Prime Minister has absolutely no mandate to drive down


the living standards, jobs and living conditions. Do you want to


answer? The Prime Minister has laid out what it is she wants to achieve.


She's said in the first instance she'll take all of the European law


that does exist and create it into UK law so there is no holes in


our... Sorry, I was thinking of the single market. Lisa said she was on


record as saying... It's in the Tory party manifesto. Gave her her


mandate to govern. 17 .5 million people voted to leave the European


Union OK. Now, in large part, not everybody, but in large part, much


of that was based on changes to immigration. The other 27 nations


have said that to stay part of the single market, the four freedoms,


which includes free movement of people are indiv Isible. The Prime


Minister said she'll seek a free trade agreement with the European


Union so we are able to export and trade with the other member states.


Why should we believe that? You, there? It said in the papers today


they are going to push up to 1,000 pieces of legislation through


without scrutiny. I'm concerned the Conservatives will have sole


authority to push the pieces of legislation through.


APPLAUSE. Paul Nuttall, are you in favour of


the repatriation and the legislation without scrutiny? Well, obviously


without democratic scrutiny, it causes concern. However, David Davis


has made it perfectly clear that those pieces of legislation, they'll


just be technical changes in terms of taking European Union terms out


of, for example, European Parliament, European Council and


what not. How do you know they'll be technical and won't slip in other


things? I'm going on the word of David Davis on this, but the point


Lisa made before about the Conservatives breaking a manifesto


pledge in 2015 of keeping us in the single market, I just don't buy it


because the world is a very different place now, people voted to


leave the European Union, they knew they were voting to leave the single


market. David Cameron said voting to leave the EU means leaving the


single market. Osborne said the same. Michael Gove said the same.


Boris Johnson said the same. Total rewriting of history. It's not. Even


in the leaflet the Government sent to every single household at the


cost of ?9 million to the taxpayer, it said quite clearly, leaving the


European Union means leaving the single market.


APPLAUSE. Kate? Look, these Henry VIII laws


which is what they are being called where the Government is bringing


over legislation but change it slightly because we may not have a


law with the same name, there is no functioning opposition and nobody


will be held to account. APPLAUSE.


Unless you want to abandon every piece of EU legislation and start


from scratch it would be incredibly dangerous to the workers' rights,


you have to bring them over and change them. The big point is that


you will now have the ability, if you don't like the way they are


being changed or if you think the Government is making too many


liberties, you get to vote and change it. How? In the general


election. There is no general election. There is no functioning


opposition. Len McCluskey, do you have a functioning opposition? You


have given 15 months to jeer bin to change his ways -- Jeremy Corbyn 15


months to change his ways? I said baize Jeremy Corbyn is the only


political litre I've ever met, including unfortunately people on


this platform who don't have an ego, I've indicated that Jeremy himself


would be someone who'd want to look at the situation in say 15 months'


time. Hang on, before you leave that, why do you want to wait 15


months? Because we are talking about Jeremy Corbyn being elected by


landslide victory on two occasions now. My union, my executive


supporters, the policy conference with over 1,000 delegates


overwhelmingly supported him a second time. Why? Because what his


views and policies are coincide with what Unite wants. He's


anti-austerity, so are my members. He's in favour of an industrial


strategy. What is with this 15 months business? He wants to save


the National Health Service. So do my members. But what happens 15


months from now? I'll tell you what. He has been unmercifully attacked


day in day out by the right-wing media since he was elected. But I


want to remind everyone, your audience and viewers at home, first


of all, the problems in the Labour Party didn't start with Jeremy


Corbyn being elected, they started 20 years ago when we started to lose


the support of ordinary working people. I would make this point.


Before the disastrous coup that happened last summer, the opinion


polls, Labour were neck and neck. One thing is clear. The Britishlike


rat will not vote for a party that is divided and so the message within


the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the rest of the


party is that we have to unite, unite behind policies. I think you


have made the point. Sorry to stop you. See if a decent honest man can


break through this horrible media barrier to put those points.


APPLAUSE. All right. This horrible, horrible


media barrier, as you put it, also included Lisa Nandy leaving the


Shadow Cabinet and supporting somebody else for the leadership. So


what do you say? Tubb obvious that I don't agree with Len. We have had


the leadership contest -- it's obvious. We were on different sides


in the debate and I certainly don't agree that we were doing well in the


opinion polls before I left the Shadow Cabinet. I think there is a


responsibility on us all to do better, to be really honest with


you, not without being an opposition to the Government but providing a


clear alternative. What I would like to say to you is this, there is


quite a narrative developing in British politics at the moment which


I think is quite lazy and I think is quite dangerous, that there is no


real opposition to this Government at the moment. I have to say this,


that that is not what I see when I go down to Parliament on a weekly


basis because in the last few weeks, I've seen Labour MPs working with


MPs from all of the different political parties, dragging the


Government against their will into Parliament to hold them to account


on issues on everything from Brexit to the National Health Service. We


have worked with SNP MPs, we have worked with liberal MPs, we have


worked with backbench Tory MPs, a small handful of whom occasionally


find a conscience, and we have worked with much bigger groups of


people outside including Len's Trade Union. That is how we win.


I'm interested in Len who is a believer in Jeremy Corbyn talking


about opinion polls. Today, Jeremy Corbyn's been in office abouts 18


months. 18 months into Ed Miliband's leadership the Labour Party was


polling 44% and it was 10% ahead of the Tories it went on to lose the


next election. Today the Labour Party is polling at 26% and it is 18


points behind the Tory party. So that's the size of the drop off that


there has been in Labour. You might think Because of divisions. It's


because of lack of leadership. You might think I love this. I don't.


Yes, I'm a Tory but a democrat. The Labour Party is having a disservice


to itself by keeping Jeremy Corbyn in place a disservice to our country


and democracy. It relies upon the idea if the Government falls there


is a Government in waiting ready to go. It relies on that tension


between Government and Opposition to walk a line. I hear a new coming


person in the Labour Party that will be the next leader. Whether it's


Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy. Do something about it and get in there.


If it's not going to be you, back someone else. This country needs a


new Labour Party leader. APPLAUS That is the I think ringing


endorsement I need like a hole in the head, to be honest. I just


spoiled it for you. The woman in the second row from the back. I have the


greatest sympathy for Lisa I think you're in a Government you dwoont to


be part of it. For Len saying Jeremy Corbyn not having an ego. The Labour


Party is an absolute disgrace it's fine standing by policies wanting to


support our NHS if you are never going to get elected it's pointless.


I'm a paid up Labour Party he member and it's absolute disgrace to see


the state of Labour at the moment. The man in blue. The Labour Party is


a total disgrace. It's not doing the job it is being paid for nor is


Jeremy Corbyn. Len say it is will take 15 months to sort him out. Will


it be 15 months to have a Brexit to remove Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour


Party? The woman there. Is it time that David Miliband came back? Is


that what you would like to see? Not personally, no. Why do you suggest


it then? Spicing things up. Destroy Labour or help them? I think they


are doing a good enough job of destroying themselves at the moment?


Domestic politics, another question. Before we go to this question.


Question Time will be in Gillingham next week. We were going to be in


Maidstone. If you were thinking of coming to Maidstone think again, go


over the motorway and come to Gillingham. That is next week. There


is a pause for Easter. We will be in Oxford on the 27th April. The


details on the screen. I will give them at the end. If you are in


Gillingham or in that area and want to come, this is your chance. Let us


have a question from Hani Cox. With no MPs and Brexit achieved, is Ukip


finished? Your turn, Paul, to take the rap.


APPLAUSE. He lost Douglas Carswell, he has nos MPs. Leader of a party


that has no MPs in the House of Commons even though he is an MP? All


right, you don't have to repeat it! At least my own parliamentary party


is united! Look, Ukip doesn't need an MP to be influential. OK. Let's


not forget back in January 2013 Ukip forced the then British Prime


Minister, David Cameron, into giving a referendum he never wanted to give


it. He only gave that referendum because Ukip was chomping at the


heels of the Conservative Party going up in the polls doing well in


local elections and we forced that issue without having Ukip back sides


in the House of Commons. We will continue to influence politics. We


will continue to be the guard dogs of Brexit in an attempt to ensure we


get the Brexit people voted for on June 23rd. We believe we have great


opportunities going forward, moving into Labour working-class areas. We


are speaking before about Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party. We feel


they don't represent working people any more. There is a huge bank of


patriotic working people who feel, no affinity, with a guy who says


nice things about the ire ya or a Shadow Home Secretary who thinks


anyone who voted Brexit is a racist. We have great opportunities. We are


a 12% in the opinion polls. Membership continues - 10%. No, 12%


yesterday. 10% this week. One point behind the Liberal Democrats. Whose


poll? I think it was YouGov yesterday. It was 10%? A different


one then polls, if you believe them. You live and die by the polls. We


have big elections coming up in May. I really do believe that you haven't


seen the end of Ukip. I have read our awe bit are you so many times we


always come back and we always come back stronger. What is your view? I


think they are finished. Paul Nuttall you said yes I agree with


everything Theresa May said. What is the point of Ukip? He said that


today actually. I have to come back on that. This is really important.


Is it? Yes, I do agree with everything Theresa May said. What we


know about Theresa May is she is always very good at talking the


talk, when it comes to walking the walk she always fails. Look at her


record as Home Secretary. Ruth Davidson, thank you. I hope it's the


end of Ukip, I really do. I'm listening to Paul here talking about


we are the guard dogs of Brexit we come back and we come back stronger.


You have lost your only MP. You lost a by-election in what you said was


the Brexit capital of Britain. It's time to put it to bed. You have a


honeymoon at the moment. It's the longest honeymoon in the history of


politics, actually. That honeymoon won't last. Politics will come back


- I'm not waking up next to you in the morning, Paul, I'll tell you


that. As soon as she back slides on Brexit I believe she will barter


things away. What is the backbone of Ukip? When I think of a divided


Labour Party I can make guesses to what they will agree upon.


Redistribution, to some extent, for the Tories it's similar. Low-taxes,


business freedoms, to some extent. We Ukip, post-Brexit it's hard to


know what that is unless they are going to become the anti-immigration


party. That platform alone will not do well in the UK. It's ridiculous


to think that Ukip is the party of workers' rights. The SNP get caught


up in these grand speeches about independence they forget about


policies that govern on a day-to-day basis. Fundamentally, I don't see


them sticking around. All right. Ukip seems to be getting into


trouble until a lot of different ways. Yesterday Neil Hamilton said


the... Suicide if they suffered as a result of Brexit. You, sir. Paul,


you have lost your only MP. You have lost your cloth cap. There is no


future in it for you. Len. I agree with the young man at the back. I


think Ukip is finished. Ukip is a pressure group. The only two things


that you can think of it is they wanted out of Europe. We are out of


of Europe and foreigners are at fault for everything. Kate is


right,let idea that Ukip represent the working-class people of this


nation is an absolute joke. It's unions who represent workers. It's


Ukip who use workers. I'm going to put a challenge to you Paul. Go on.


I wouldn't like the audience or viewers at home to believe that Paul


Nuttall represents my great city of Liverpool. A city that has for


decades and decades welcomed people from all over the world. So I


challenge be you to stand in Liverpool at the next election. Not


only will you not win, you will lose (inaudible) # A rhetorical


challenge. I stood in limp time and time, I live in Liverpool. They


always rejected you. Liverpool is a safe Labour city. Ukip have a big


future going forward. We are the only party who stand up - Sorry.


Nobody is the party of working people right now. I mean, it's


certainly not Labour. They talk about the cost of living, but all


the policies that they want to bring in will probably up your cost of


living. The Tories are - Scrapping zero-hours. ?10 minimum wage. You


want to get rid of jobs. Through zero-hours. Coming from a right-wing


think-tank like yours... Looking at the number of people signing up to


unions between 16 and 35 it's tiny 17%, 25-34, 5%, 16-25. Let us move


on. Lisa nannedy has not had a word to say about Ukip. I haven't got a


good word to say. I think there is a real problem for Ukip because they


were a party that was very clearly held together by this real anger and


opposition to the European Union. I've sat on platforms with Paul and


many of his colleagues over the years and I've heard every single


question they have been asked - how would you protect Sure Start and


rebuilding the NHS. Their mantra, we will leave the European Union. They


have little to say. . That is what we have seen. Over the last few


months we have seen that not only do they have little to say about not


protecting our public services they have little tole say about how we


build a Britain post-Brexit that is an absolute disgrace, Paul. Are they


finished in your view? If we drive this country's economy off a cliff


and crash out of the EU in two years' time with no deal, this is


working people's jobs. It's their lives. It's their families and


public services. You have been one of the leading voices driving us


into this position o. You at least have a responsibility to have


something to say to help put it right. We are going on. Sorry.


Michael Johnson, please. Yes. Sergeant Blackman, Marine A, is


about to be released. Does the country really understand the nasty,


harsh reality of modern war? Are you in favour of his being released?


Absolutely. I think he was stitched up. I think it's justice being done


right now. Ruth Davidson. Honestly I don't believe if you haven't been in


conflict you can't understand the nature of conflict. We are so far


now from the society that was of my generation where there was a number


of people who had been in conflict and who understood it and were able


to have those conversations, that golden thread of ex-service


personnel that we often seek to misunderstand. I can't comment


knowledgeably on that case. I don't think anyone that wasn't in the


court room can comment knowledgeably on it or anyone not in his platoon


too can comment on it. Can see. When we look at some of the stuff that sl


happening in Northern Ireland and other cases with Iraq and others, we


need to if we are asking our young men and women to do desperate things


in unbelievable circumstances and make life-and-death decisions, yes


they are trained for, they weigh heavily on them, they need to know


they have protections when they come and won't be chased 10, 20 years


after the fact. That's away from Marine A and whether that was a


stitch-up. Len. The Geneva Convention is extremely important.


It's there to make certain that during conflict and war any criminal


behaviour will be dealt with. But it is the truth, I don't think anybody


is going to be unhappy about Marine A. His wife who has exposed the


trauma and, it must be unimaginable, the type of trauma that our


soldiers, our armed forces are exposed to and what they see. I


think raises a serious issue about mental health. Ruth, you have done


work on this yourself. I'm hoping that this will lead to the


Government looking at the whole question of mental health, which is


becoming more and more an issue. I want to make this point as well.


Most wars are wrong, but it's the politicians who are to blame for


wars, not our armed forces. The reality here is that we should make


certain that many of the cases we hear about of ex-soldiers, living on


the streets now, unable to cope because of mental stress, is


something we need to start to take seriously. In my own union we've


currently embarked upon a number of projects. I met with 20 companies


and our shop stewards because of mental health stress developing. Out


of this I hope will come some good. I hope politicians won't be so quick


to jump to war and send our young men and women into conflicts that,


as you rightly say, are now unimaginable the traumas they have


to go through. All right. Marine A had a murder conviction reduced to


manslaughter. He was used as a political pawn. If the circumstances


had been different he actually saved those 24 people who would have been


called out to rescue the Taliban fighter. I think it was a mercy


killing by shooting that man on the ground. He would have died anyway.


The problem is, what would Kate Andrews? I don't believe in


trial by media. None of us were part of the jury or the judge. So if this


new evidence came forward that Marine A was very sick and they've


decided to downgrade his sentence to manslaughter, then that is it, we


have to believe that is the right thing to do, we have to support the


justice system in that way. To the larger question about whether or not


we should reduce our expectations for soldiers or keep them incredibly


high, I mean obviously it's the latter. What happened in Westminster


last week was such a testament to the British people that medics were


taking care of the attacker and the terrorist next to his victims


because of the standards of this country. We don't leave people


behind. In the case of Marine A, it's the biggest disappointment that


we let him down in his sickness and weren't there for him to the wider


point of lowering our standards, never, that's not what Britain's


about. APPLAUSE.


I believe that if he was in that environment and under the stresses


and the illness that he had, I think once you've been shot at, he was


quite within his right to shoot back, maybe not how he did it but of


course shoot back. All right, the man behind you? I mean it comes down


to the events in Westminster last week, does the media not have a


bigger responsibility, you know, we are exposing people's lives and


national security is at risk based on some of the coverage, I thought


it was disgusting, based on how much we need to know about how Theresa


May was led out of Parliament, do we really need to know that. We made


this guy a martyr last week. The woman up there? Or a man, I can't


quite see. Surely the Government should be looking after our


soldiers, they are going to war for us, we have had people in Northern


Ireland currently under investigation, it's terrible. The


Geneva convention? We should apply it but Blackman should have been


looked after. Lisa Nandy? Just on the latest point there, that that


gentleman made over there, one of the things I found most troubling


about the aftermath of the Westminster attacks was the images


circulated, not just on social media but amongst mainstream media as well


about which clearly identified victims. If you'd known known some


of the people, you would recognise the clothing. The idea that we'd do


that to families is horrendous. On the question about Marine A, I think


this case raises troubling questions about how we treat our Armed Forces


because the picture that emerged from the court case, and I agree


with Kate and Ruth that we can't know the full details about having


been privy to that information. The picture that emerged was of a man


who had a recognisable treatable condition who'd been left on the


frontline in a situation of serious, extreme stress, with what appears to


be very little oversight or support either. If that is true, then that


is an absolute disgrace, not just for that man and his family, but


also for all of the members of the armed force who is Len rightly says


rely on the Geneva convention for their protection, to protect them


from retaliation attacks and to protect them when they are held


prisoner and to uphold the good name of our Armed Forces. It's right that


the process around the court case couldn't do anything to address


that, but our Government can. Now that this case is over, we have to


make sure that something positive comes out of what has been a


terrible, terrible case for everybody concerned and that we


support our troops better and uphold the reputation of our Armed Forces.


APPLAUSE. Paul, briefly? I I pretty much agree


with everything that has been said around this I believe that. There


was a clear lack of leadership out in Afghanistan. I feel very sorry


for Marine A. He obviously had psychological issues as a result of


what he seen but it does paint the bigger picture which is we don't


look after our boys and girls when they return home. 7,000 veterans


slept rough last night. It's a disgrace, it needs to be sorted and


I call on the Government to do something about it.


APPLAUSE. We have got time to get this


question in from Christine Kay, please?


Is the recent health England decision to charge for glue tonne


free foods and other products the beginnings of pay-as-you-go NHS?


That is right, that is Simon Stevens saying GPs won't prescribe certain


medicines that you can get cheaply in supermarkets. Is this the


beginning of pay-as-you-go NHS? We have five minutes to talk about


this, we talk about the NHS quite a lot but let's go around the table,


first? You? The review has identified a real problem which is


that it appears that we are spending more on prescribing drugs than we


would spend if we just simply got people to buy them over-the-counter.


But identifying the problem doesn't mean that we then leap to the right


solution and it seems to me there is a real problem with the solution in


this case which is that we are then asking people essentially to pay for


prescriptions, many of whom would have been entitled to them for free


as prescriptions. Some of these things sound very frivolous, but


medical hand creams for example, if you've got a skin condition, can be


incredibly important. I'm worried this represents the thin end of the


wedge. The truth is that we are not funding our National Health Service


properly, whatever the Government says, and we mustn't introduce


rationing by the back door. APPLAUSE.


Kate Andrews? I don't think that sunscreen and fish oils are a


legitimate prescription on the NHS when people are being denied cancer


treatment because they're too expensive.


APPLAUSE. There is a very serious problem here


in Britain with the National Health Service. It's crumbling around us


all and stories like this and the head of the NHS coming out saying


crackdowns on band-aids and indigestion tablets is going to save


the NHS is borderline satire. The UK is not unique in its universal


delivery of health carefree at the point of access, you do not pay if


you can't afford it, it's not unique in that sense at all but it is


unique in the sense that nobody else has adopted it. The UK needs to not


look to America but to France, Europe, Belgium and Switzerland and


Germany where cancer patients are significantly more likely to survive


where your likeliness to be able to see a doctor in a good amount of


time is through the roof. It's time for a real conversation about


reform. If that includes spending more money fine but not on a broken


system. I speak to the politicians on the stage tonight that this


conversation has not had enough and I believe it's finally time because


the system is crumbling around us and something needs to change.


APPLAUSE. You, there? I think the erosion of


the NHS in the UK in particular the north of England has already long


ago begun. I mean, for instance, in Whitehaven, which is 40 miles from


here, anyone in emergency situations or a mother in a desperate situation


having a baby in an ambulance faces a 40-mile journey of an hour to


Carlisle to have that baby in a consultant-led maternity department.


Now, that is not carefree at the point of need for people in Cumbria.


We need to protect our NHS and I'm sorry but that's not going to come


from vale vatisation, it's going to come from investment --


privatisation, it's going to come from investment.


APPLAUSE. Paul? Yes, I mean obviously there is


a worry that it's the beginning of pay-as-you-go for the NHS. If you


talk about glue tonne free foods, they're quite expensive, although I


do tend to agree that you shouldn't get sunscreen or cod liver oil on


the NHS or anything like that. The problem we have got with the NHS is


that it needs investment and the other problem is that Labour signed


us up to the crazy PFI deals. Every pound out of every ten is going to


pay off the debt... Its very existence... I won't take lectures


from someone who has spent their career trying to... Hold on. Ruth


Davidson? I think I take the point up there from the woman talking


about a 40-mile round trip, in Scotland, with Caithness, it's over


100 miles. Let's talk about the issue Christine raised? The issue is


to take a lot of the decisions out of the hands of politicians so you


don't have hysterical he shade she said which is what this is beginning


to turn into on this bloody panel. That is why you have ideas that


National Institute for Clinical Excellence making decisions about


what is the best course of treatment for people to be made available free


at the point of delivery. That is why actually I'm not a clinician,


these sorts of decisions should be taken out of the hands of elected


politicians and put in the hands of people with the qualifications in


order to make the decisions to keep the NHS best. Is it the beginning of


pay-as-you-go? At the moment you are already paying for prescriptions in


England an Wales at a level that is different to... Different across the


country. If for example you are prescribed something that costs less


than a prescription, you pay the prescription cost for it because


somebody else is getting a medicine that costs more than the price of a


prescription. At the moment, there are already people who're, you know,


it's not the cost of the medicine but the cost of the prescription.


The young woman at the back is right. Privatisation is well down


the road in our National Health Service and what we should be


campaigning for is the renalisation of our Public Services, our NHS,


with more money. I'll tell you where the money should come from, the


money should come from tax avoidance and tax evasion. The super rich and


the corporate elite who rob from the Treasury ?40 billion a year.


APPLAUSE. Let that... If the Government could


only spend half its energy on that instead of attacking ordinary


working people 1% pay rise for our NHS people, the very he rose that


raced out of -- heroes that raced out of St Thomas' Hospital last week


disregarding their own safety to help people told this week that


they've got to cut their standard of living. Attack the rich, make them


pay their taxes and invest in our National Health Service.


APPLAUSE. Ruth, just before we end, a quick


answer, is there ?40 billion a year to come from the rich who aren't


paying taxes? We are cracking down. Is there ?40 billion 20 today be got


out? There's a lot more to be done. How much? I cannot tell you the


figure. We have to thenned, sorry, our time is up. -- we have to end


there. Sorry, our time is up. That answer. Hangs in the balance.


Independent fiscal bodies tell us that. We are not allowed to trust


them because they are experts. Not any more. We couldn't trust the


experts. We have to stop. Our time is up, sorry. We are in Gillingham


next Thursday, not Maidstone but Gillingham. We have the leader of


the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron on the panel, among others. After that,


the next programme is in Oxford on April 27th. I hope you can come to


Gillingham next week or three weeks later to Oxford. Go to the website,


the address is there: Radio 5-5 Lynners, the debate goes on until


1am. My thanks to all of you on this panel, to all who came to Carlisle,


still here in England and until next Thursday, from Question Time, good


night. Marine Le Pen has her eyes


on the French presidency. As she tries to distance herself


from her party's controversial past,


David Dimbleby chairs topical debate from Carlisle.

On the panel are Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson, Labour MP Lisa Nandy, Ukip leader Paul Nuttall, Unite general secretary Len McCluskey and the news editor of the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, Kate Andrews.

Download Subtitles