01/06/2017 Question Time

It's one week until the election now and we are in Barnet.

Welcome to Question Time.

And on our panel here,

the Conservative Brexit Secretary, David Davis,

Labour's Shadow International Trade Secretary, Barry Gardiner,

the former Deputy Prime Minister

and former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg,

Ukip's Deputy Chair, Suzanne Evans,

and the Leader of the SNP in the House of Commons, Angus Robertson.

APPLAUSE

Thank you very much.

Remember at home, in this febrile atmosphere

of the last few days before the election,

you can join in the debate.

You've got Twitter, Facebook all at your disposal

or you can text.

If you push the red button,

you can see what other people are saying on the screen.

Our first question from Alla Hayes, please, Alla Hayes.

If Theresa May can't debate, can she negotiate?

CHUCKLING

Nick Clegg.

I think it was a great shame that she didn't participate

in those debates.

Having been a participant in a few of them in the past,

I think they're something that people have got used to

because they allow you, from the comfort of your living room,

to look at the way in which

different leaders of different parties measure up to each other

and this sort of tendency to take a stand-offish,

slightly haughty approach to these things is not the kind of demeanour

you'd want when you're having to cajole and charm

and persuade 27 other countries to see our point of view,

which of course is the main and very difficult task facing

whoever's in Number Ten from June 9th onwards.

So I think it was a disservice to this election.

I also don't think it's a great advertisement

for the kind of skills needed for a complex negotiation.

She is facing a Question Time audience tomorrow

like this audience, which is never an easy ride.

He's got his plug in, he's got his advertisement in.

No, no, it's just she chose to do that.

You can't force people to debate.

No, no, you can't,

but of course being questioned by you and by audiences like this

of course is an absolutely integral part of our political culture,

but debating between political leaders is also...

And to say that she does it every Wednesday is a nonsense.

I've sat through these appallingly pre-orchestrated lines

that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition

trade across the dispatch box for half an hour at midday on Wednesday.

It's nothing like the spontaneous debate

that I think people deserve at election time.

-OK. Barry Gardiner?

-She called the election.

I think she should have done the British people the courtesy

of turning up and arguing for her policies.

APPLAUSE

The point is that you can say, well, was it arrogance?

Was it fear of being confronted in the way

that she had been on Monday night and laughed at?

I think that if you are the Prime Minister of this country

and you have called an election, ostensibly, as you say,

on the basis of Brexit because it's so important,

despite the fact that seven times you've said you're not going

to call it because Brexit is so important

that you have to get on with the negotiations,

then I do think that you have to show real mettle, turn up,

take the flak and show that you're the person who can do that.

But your leader...

APPLAUSE

Your leader didn't hotfoot it to the studio until the day before, did he?

-There was no notice he was coming.

-The same day!

Absolutely, David, and the interesting thing is...

So he was reluctant, too.

In politics and in campaigns, there's policy, there's strategy...

And there's mischief.

And there's tactics and it was very clear

that we put pressure on the Prime Minister to turn up

and be prime ministerial.

-She refused to do it.

-Angus Robertson.

Well, I was part of the debate last night and...

APPLAUSE

I turned up and I'm sorry the Prime Minister didn't

and I think the first thing I'd like to say about it

is we are living in the 21st century

and a really big part of our politics

and our national debate takes place through television

and I agree with Nick.

There are different formats in elections

and it's good that there are programmes

and they involve us

and they involve other colleagues as well and that's fine,

but what is absolutely normal in pretty much every democracy

is that you see the party leaders debate one another

and so far the only debate I've seen the Prime Minister involved in

was sitting on a couch with her husband on The One Show.

I mean, it's just... That is not serious.

The Prime Minister should be tested by colleagues,

she should have the confidence in her arguments

and it leaves you with the thought,

and that's perhaps what the question comes back to,

what faith can we have, what trust can we have

in her abilities to negotiate on our behalf,

regardless of whether we voted Leave or Remain?

This is going to be a huge challenge for whoever the Prime Minister is

and they're not even prepared to turn up for a television debate.

Whatever happened to "strong and stable"? Where did that go?

Nicola Sturgeon, I didn't see her there, so you were sent instead.

No, I'm the Westminster Leader of the SNP and I have the good fortune

to ask the Prime Minister two questions every week.

The Leader of the Labour Party has six questions and the idea

that you go from having to face tough questions

from your opponents in Parliament to an election campaign

and suddenly you stop, I just think, "Come on, that's not serious."

OK, the woman here in the front.

The question being about whether she can negotiate

as well as debating, yes.

But the problem is we're now just in a debacle

talking about why she wasn't there.

We're not talking about politics any more

and yesterday it was just an embarrassment

to watch politicians talk as they did

cos it wasn't so much a debate,

it was how you can put each other down and shout over each other

and it's just not helpful.

And the woman behind you, yes.

I want to see a woman of substance running this country.

I don't want to see a soap star

and how many brownie points they can score.

I thought not being there didn't make that much of a difference.

-Didn't make that much difference. You're for her?

-I am.

-Suzanne Evans.

Well, "strong and stable" went all weak and wobbly, didn't it?

She called this election, as Barry said.

It's a failure of leadership for her not to show up.

I think the problem is the Conservatives expected

to breeze through this election.

They expected to get a 200-seat majority.

They put forward an ill-conceived, un-costed manifesto

and then, suddenly, they made it all about Theresa May

and then suddenly Theresa May starts to fall apart.

And it was interesting watching her interview on Monday night,

the debate that she did

and the interview she did with Jeremy Paxman,

and I think then we saw actually why she was going to pull out

of this debate because it's clearly not her forte at all.

But that said, I have to say, talking about negotiation,

I think she also didn't...

She wouldn't state in that interview with Jeremy Paxman

that she believed in Brexit.

She couldn't say,

she was really pushed to have to say she'd walk away from a bad deal

and she admitted straight up

that we'd have to pay the EU something to leave.

All of those things, I think, are completely wrong.

-All right. You, sir.

-I'd agree with a lot of what was just said.

I think it's completely stupid tactics.

It's shooting yourself in the foot for Amber Rudd

to have come on the debate yesterday

and then to have started her opening statement

by saying, "The election's all about leadership,"

and, "Do you want Theresa May or do you want Jeremy Corbyn,"

when Theresa May wasn't even in the debate! I think it's completely...

It's the wrong tactics for the Conservatives to employ -

to make the election about leadership

when your leader isn't even at the debate!

Well, David Davis... APPLAUSE

David Davis is the Secretary of State for Brexit

so he can answer both parts of the question.

If Theresa May can't debate, can she negotiate?

Well, let's start with the "can't debate" bit first.

Nick dismisses the Wednesday exchange that takes place

between her and all the Leaders of the Opposition

in which basically - forgive me, Angus -

she wipes the floor with all of them and has done

for nine or ten months so I don't think, really,

being afraid of them is the issue.

And it wasn't just in that.

Even the very first week she was Prime Minister,

she took the Trident debate and was formidable in that.

So look back, if you're interested in her debating skills,

but general elections are more than just about television

and of course television gets very obsessed about TV debates.

I did a programme with Corbyn on Monday and she's doing one

with you tomorrow and she will be challenged in those,

I'm sure, but it's also about other things.

She's done about 5,500 miles around the country, 59 meetings,

four times as many questions from journalists as Mr Corbyn has faced

so it's hardly walking away from that.

And as for the debating...

Sorry, as for the negotiating,

I've seen her at work with the European Union leaders,

the European Commission, in particular, and she is formidable.

When we negotiated the outcome

of what's called the Justice and Home Affairs...

When she was Home Secretary,

she had to deal with the Justice and Home Affairs brief in Europe -

she negotiated us out of 100 out of 135 aspects of the treaty

because that was important to the British interest

and she did it very effectively so the answer to the question

is she can both debate and she can negotiate, as you're going to see,

assuming we get the result we want next week, in the next two years.

I'm going to keep moving cos we've got a lot of questions.

We're talking about Brexit so let's go to Brexit straight away

and remember what Theresa May has been saying through this,

it's better no deal than a bad deal.

Margaret Miller, your question, please.

What does a bad Brexit deal for the UK look like to you?

This goes to the heart of the thing.

What would a bad Brexit deal for the UK look like? To you, Suzanne Evans?

Well, in our manifesto, which I have here,

Ukip set out six Brexit tests which we say have to be met

in order to get the Brexit that the people of Great Britain voted for.

And, first of all, that's the legal test.

It means that Parliament's got to resume its supremacy of law-making.

It means we're completely free of the European courts.

The migration test - we've got to have full control

of our borders back and control of immigration and asylum.

The maritime test - we've got to take back full control

of our fishing waters and the rights that our fishermen have

under international law.

Trade - we need to have our seat back

on the World Trade Organisation.

We've got to be out of the single market,

out of the customs union and critically, also, I don't think

we should be paying any money to the European Union to leave.

We've got about £9 billion vested in the European Investment Bank.

We have contributed for decades to this organisation

and they have the cheek to say that they want money back?

We put in a lot more than many, many other countries.

And the other thing,

that we think it should all be done and dusted by the end of 2019,

although I have to say if it went to the 1st of January 2020,

I wouldn't be too upset.

OK, so that's your shopping list. Nick Clegg.

APPLAUSE

I think the...

What would a deal, in Theresa May's words,

that would be better not to have one at all? What would a bad deal be?

I'm not entirely clear,

nor I think is the Government because an absence of a deal

is a very bad outcome itself because it consigns us

to a sort of legal and economic vacuum, really,

where all the relationships we've built up

over 40 years collapse overnight.

I think it'd be a very bad outcome indeed

and it should be avoided at all costs.

But I think, for me, the acid test is what kind of deal

serves our economy the most - jobs, money in people's pockets,

the economic opportunities for our kids and our grandchildren.

Here is the fundamental dilemma.

It is this - there is no deal I can conceive of

which gives us as much economic benefit

as the one in which we are now presently located,

in the heart of the single market created by Margaret Thatcher

and others many years ago.

It's the most sophisticated open market of its kind,

not just tariff-free, but also rule-free.

Everyone abides by the same kind of rule book

so we're in this extraordinary situation where almost any outcome

that David Davis and Theresa May come up with

will involve less trade and therefore less wealth

and less prosperity than that we have at the moment.

That is beyond dispute.

There is no version,

no deal at all which leads to more trade

and this idea that you can replace the trade you lose

on your own doorstep with trade deals

with countries in far-flung locations is a complete illusion.

-Why?

-Because they're far away and geography counts.

"They're far away", "geography counts" - my goodness!

Are we not trading with America, with China, with India?

We are, but much less so.

We can do more with that with a free trade deal.

Hang on, there's a reason why we trade with Ireland

more than we do with China,

twice as much with Belgium than we do with India,

three times as much with Sweden than we do with Brazil. Why?

Because we're close to our closest economic export markets.

So my great worry is we're going to have months and months

and months of arguments about this.

The thing you need to look out for -

is any deal giving us as much trade to our largest export markets

as we have at the moment?

And I simply don't see any way in which any deal can provide us

with as much economic benefit as the trading relationships

we have at the moment in the single market.

But you...

APPLAUSE

So any deal is a bad deal,

but you know that the vote went in favour of leaving

so you're on the horns of a dilemma.

No, absolutely, absolutely. So it is minimising the damage.

People from my point of view - and, by the way,

this is the way it's widely seen in other European capitals,

I speak to many politicians in other European capitals -

they see it much more realistically than many Brexiteers do.

They say, "This is bad for us, it's bad for you.

"We will try and minimise the damage,"

but that, bluntly, is what this exercise is now about.

-David Davis.

-Can I start... I want to answer the question,

but can I just start by dealing with the point Nick has made?

Cos it's just fundamentally wrong.

In 1999, 60% of our trade was with Europe

and 40% with the rest of the world.

Now, it's roughly 42% with Europe and 58% with the rest of the world

so, A - its bigger in total,

B - it's growing a devil of a lot faster

so the idea that enabling more access

to that market, no matter how distant it is

because "the death of distance" is the phrase used

about the way trade is developing now,

means that there is a huge prize to be won,

a huge prize to be won in enhancing our trade

with the rest of the world whilst, as far as we can,

continuing frictionless free trade with Europe

and that is what we all say we are trying

on both sides of the negotiating table there.

But to do that, to achieve that,

to deliver a good deal for Britain, you've got to believe in Britain.

You've got to believe that we can actually do this,

that the English language, our institutions,

our commercial skills and so on are up to it

and we do believe that

and that's something Theresa May does believe.

Now, what's a bad deal?

Well, the first thing to say is that we had

a referendum last year and a bad deal is what doesn't deliver

on what the referendum asked for and, broadly speaking,

if you talk to people who voted to leave in the referendum,

what they say is they voted to get back control of borders,

laws and money and that's the fundamentals

so if you don't achieve that, first off, that's a bad deal.

If you want another measure of a bad deal,

look at the sorts of things that have come out

of the European Commission in the last month or so

in terms of their ever-growing bid, you know, £100 billion here,

ECJ control over European citizens within the UK, not elsewhere,

a refusal to accept our control of our borders,

being inside the customs union still

and unable to do the deal with the rest of the world.

Having oversight of our tax is one of the things they have asked for,

oversight of our labour laws and so on -

these together would all add up to a bad deal

and the problem that the Labour Party has with this

is that if it's not willing to walk away,

that is precisely what it will get -

a very bad deal indeed.

APPLAUSE

I'll come to you all in a moment.

Let's just hear Barry Gardiner on that. Keep your hands up.

David is absolutely wrong because you do not pursue free trade

in the world by leaving the largest free trade bloc in the world,

which is the European Union.

That is a nonsense and if you look at what's happening here,

this is the first time that any group of countries

have actually been negotiating not to reduce the barriers to trade

between themselves, but to increase those barriers.

Now, we've chosen to do that and I respect the decision to do that

and the Labour Party will leave the European Union.

That is clear because we respect the democratic mandate of the people.

But be clear equally that when we do,

what we will be doing is doing it for political reasons,

not for economic reasons,

and therefore all the things that David talked about

that are really precious to him

and many people in the Conservative Party

about getting rid of the controls of Europe,

getting ride of the European courts being able to rule in our country -

let's take some good examples.

Just a week or so ago,

the Government was taken to the Supreme Court,

actually the High Court, a few weeks ago.

Before that, it was the Supreme Court

because this Government refuses

to obey the directive on air pollution

to eliminate air pollution in this country and time and time again,

it's been taken to the Supreme Court

in this country, the UK Supreme Court, and it's been found wanting.

Now, under Europe, we have some protections there.

There can be infraction proceedings brought against the country.

But there are not those protections

once David has got his way and therefore we have to understand...

Sorry, I don't want to stop you in full flow on that,

but I want to go back to something you said just a moment ago.

You said, "Therefore we're negotiating for political reasons,"

the implication being that you think that economically, for the welfare,

for the wellbeing, prosperity, jobs in UK, leaving will be bad.

That's your starting position?

Exactly what Nick said earlier

is that there will be less trade with Europe.

There will be more barriers to trade with Europe.

Will we be a poorer country? Is your position we'll be poorer?

Absolutely. 44% of our exports at the moment go to the European Union

and they go tariff-free. Ask our farmers. They would have to...

If we go on to WTO rules, which is the "no deal" scenario, it's a deal.

It's just a different situation.

But if we go to WTO rules,

our sheep farmers will pay 44% tariffs to export into Europe,

but they're paying 10% tariffs for wheat products into Europe.

How are you going to negotiate it?

If you're a negotiator and you start out assuming failure,

-how much success...?

-It's not about... No, no, no.

APPLAUSE

Absolutely not. It's...

And you know this. It's not assuming failure.

Failure is to go on to WTO rules, and that is

the trick that you are playing on the British public.

The confidence trick the Tories are playing is that they are

saying that no deal is actually quite a good deal. It's not.

It's the worst.

APPLAUSE

Angus Robertson.

Well, the first thing I'd like to say is I totally respect and

understand that south of the border,

people voted to leave the European union, I respect that.

And I hope that people respect that we in Scotland voted to stay...

-AUDIENCE MEMBER:

-And London.

-..and the people... I hear...

There's some heckling, some friendly heckling,

people reminding me that the good people of London voted to stay.

Thank you. Thank you for that helpful intervention.

The people of London,

the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland

voted to stay.

So my starting point in this is that I think

a bad Brexit deal is one where the UK Government doesn't try at

least to take account of the different views,

the different hopes and aspirations and the different parts of the UK.

And the Scottish Government has worked very hard,

put a compromise deal on the table.

There was a promise, of course, from the UK Government that

Article 50 would not be triggered without an agreement,

an agreement involving the devolved administrations,

which was then totally ignored. So there's no agreement.

So what is a bad deal?

Right, let's not talk about Scotland for a second,

let's talk about Ireland.

Having no deal means a hard border between the United Kingdom

and the Irish Republic.

Now, there are some people in this audience who are too young to

remember what having border posts meant in Ireland.

That is something that everybody, no matter where we come from,

should be very, very concerned about.

Now, already, we have political parties in Northern Ireland

saying they want a border poll. In Scotland,

the Scottish Government was elected last year with a mandate that

there should be a referendum at the end of the Brexit negotiations

and we should have a choice on our future, not have it imposed on us.

So my point is a really simple one. To David and his colleagues,

if he is serious about wanting to say that they care about the

views of the different nations and regions in the UK,

they better start acting on it,

because otherwise it will be seen for what it is,

a total hollow promise, and the consequences of it,

as we head towards a hard Brexit,

is, frankly, that Scotland and Northern Ireland will be

making decisions about how can we protect our place in the

single European market, because it really, really

matters to industry and jobs.

Just briefly, what's to be done if...

APPLAUSE

If the rest of the EU is hostile, as one does hear, they may well be,

to the idea of Britain leaving, you accept the referendum.

What advice are you giving David Davis, I don't understand?

This is the real mystery to me.

I cannot understand why a Unionist government, a Unionist government

wouldn't say, "We have real problems with the SNP and your vision

"of independence, we don't support all of that,

"but do you know what, we are going to go into these negotiations

"and we'll try, because we think having a good relationship

"with Scotland, with Northern Ireland really matters.

"Now, we can't guarantee success,

"we're not sure we can secure a place in the single market,

"but we'll try."

The problem is, you don't care enough to even try, David.

You're not bothered. You're not bothered.

OK, just briefly, do we know what you're going to do?

We want to go to the audience, because there's a lot of hands up.

-Well, let me just...

-Are you not bothered about..?

-Yes, of course we are.

-What are you going to do?

Well, the first thing we're going to do is...

I'm going to say, the audience recognise something which is

this, that the Scottish National Party, throughout this entire

process, has had one thing at the front of its mind.

Trying to get another referendum on independence. Full stop.

APPLAUSE

And that's driven everything.

I have chaired a number of meetings,

the Prime Minister chaired others, which were attended by

the members of the Scottish Government, members of the

Northern Ireland Executive, when it existed,

and then delegates after that,

and members of the Welsh government.

And I have to say, the one group that was most at odds with

the entire process was the Scottish Nationalist Party. Now, we'd...

Sorry. David, you're getting into tit for tat stuff.

What he asked was what you're going to do to protect Scottish interests.

-Can you answer that?

-We did 50, 60, I think,

sectoral analyses of every single industry in

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England,

and looked at the best way of protecting them.

Now, we have to deliver on the requirement of the referendum,

which is control of our borders, control of our laws,

control our money. The only way we can do that...

We can't do that inside the single market,

that will not be acceptable to the European Union.

So we looked for the alternative to protect, as far as is possible,

indeed 100% protection if we could manage it,

and that is a free-trade area with a customs agreement.

That is designed to get the most frictionless free trade,

tariff-free trade between ourselves and the European Union.

And that, if it works, would deliver both the benefits of being in

-and the benefits of being out.

-OK.

APPLAUSE

I want to go to members of the audience. You, madam, here.

I voted in the... Whether we should join the common market,

and what I voted for was a common market.

I did not vote to be ruled by Europe or to have

a court in Europe that could overrule the British court.

APPLAUSE

For you, what would a bad deal...?

Are you worried about the deal for the UK? What would a bad deal be?

No, I'm not.

I think that Theresa May will take us to a deal that is fair.

You've got... If you go into any clothing shop,

any woman's clothing shop,

you've got goods from all over the world.

If you travel and you go to China,

you will find Marks & Spencer and other places from Great Britain.

-And I don't think that's going to change at all.

-OK.

You, sir, in the fourth row.

Now you realise that immigration has destroyed the country,

why don't you look back ten, 15 years ago,

those applicants that came from India, Pakistan, all Asian

states, re-interview them, give them literacy or numeracy tests?

Clearly to me, they went to a bogus college,

that's why the whole north of the UK is full of my community,

everywhere, migration has messed up your country because they've

got that indefinite stay. This is not England any more.

What country are we in? There's hardly any your colour faces

any more in this country.

Especially, crime has really upset you, blame them in power,

now you realised it.

So why don't you once again re-interview these students,

give them literacy or numeracy tests to resit.

If they fail a test, it will clearly mean they went to

a bogus college yesterday and those colleges lie on their behalf.

So you want actually to start expelling people from the UK?

Well, that's it, it is going to have to.

Because accidentally you've let in these people

coming in from the non-EU, now they've got...

GROANS FROM AUDIENCE

Suzanne Evans, do you want to answer his point? Do you agree with him?

Well, I mean, let's be clear,

migration brings a lot of good to this country.

-Hear, hear.

-But the thing is...

APPLAUSE

And I'm certainly not going to start wanting to kick anybody out

of the country, I think that's grossly unfair.

Particularly not EU nationals, and in fact,

Ukip made it clear back in our 2015 general election manifesto

that if we got an EU referendum, we would certainly give EU nationals

who are already here the right to remain.

And we stand by that.

But, you know, there is a question, I think, for new migrants,

once we've left the European Union.

I think we do need to exercise much more control over who we come.

And yes, I agree certainly that one of those things might well be

people who can speak English.

All right. The woman there in the back row.

-Yes.

-It's a bad deal.

A bad deal is the Tory party boasting that people voted to

leave when it was by 4%.

Cameron should have made a deal that there had to be at

least 10% before we left, because people didn't know

what they were voting for, and now we are in this...

APPLAUSE

Of course, it is now said that people who voted to remain

have accepted the result,

and only a small proportion stick with the idea.

-69% of people now want to leave...

-OK, Barry Gardiner.

Want to leave.

I wanted to come back to Margaret's question, because she asked,

"What does a bad deal look like?" And I think a bad deal

is one where we have an increase in the tariff and nontariff barriers.

That means the costs of our exports and imports are going to go up.

But it could also be if we then

shackle ourselves by not

being able to expand into the rest of the world as well.

And therefore, what David was saying,

there is a grain of truth in what he was saying about the way in

which world trade, and it is only a grain...

..the way in which the rest of the world and our trade with the

rest of the world needs to grow, and is growing.

But actually, if you look at the top ten Commonwealth countries put

together, that's including India, including Pakistan,

including Australia, including Canada,

the top ten make up simply 8% of our exports.

Not the 44% that the European Union does.

And if you take all 52 or 54 Commonwealth countries,

they make up just 9% of all our exports.

So, you have to balance what we may lose from the 44% that

goes to Europe to how quickly we think we could make up the

-rest with the rest of the world.

-OK. I keep missing hands up there.

I just want to ask, from what the gentleman said up there,

David Davis - you've got this target back in of

100,000 net migration by the

end of the Parliament, the new Parliament, if you're there.

Is that a figure you recognise, is that going to happen?

Is that actually the policy?

Yes, tens of thousands. Just to remind people...

What it is at the moment, yes. 248,000. You promised three times.

Wait a minute. Let me answer the question.

-I might even have a smidgen of a point, you never know.

-A grain.

A grain of a point. I'll get the language right.

The thing to say is, look,

people want migration to be brought under control.

As Suzanne said, this does not mean we do not want to be generous

to migrants, it doesn't mean we don't value migrants.

But it's a question of numbers.

And it will be a question of bringing it down gradually, because

we don't want to cause shortages, labour shortages, we don't...

We want to continue to compete in the battle for talent worldwide.

So much of our business is knowledge-based.

Within the Parliament, within five years?

That wasn't actually the manifesto. It was "we will bring it down".

We didn't say...

We would like to do it in the Parliament,

but I think it will be dictated by a number of things.

The economy, the speed with which we can get our own people

trained up to take the jobs, the changes in the welfare,

to encourage people to work, to take jobs as well.

A whole series of things which were designed to ensure this is an

-economically successful process.

-But the aim is... Hang on.

You've had the target for seven years.

You're now saying it's not going to be fulfilled for the next

-five years.

-Hang on a second.

-When will it be fulfilled?

APPLAUSE

You're keen for it to be fulfilled?

-We have...

-You think it should be reached?

We have been a member of the European Union for that time.

-Which means we don't control half of it.

-David, David.

-Let me finish.

You knew that when you set the target.

-NICK CLEGG:

-David, you know as well as I do, since the turn...

-Let me finish.

-Hold on, Nick, I'll come to you.

Non-European migration peaked at about 265,000,

it's now about 175,000. It's coming down.

But slowly, but it's got to be managed...

Sorry, I just want to clarify this.

Are you saying that it is Tory party policy,

if you're re-elected as the Government next Thursday,

to get it down to 100,000 within the five years of Parliament?

-Is that your aim?

-To get it down. The aim, yes.

We can't promise within five years, that's the point.

I mean, this constant refrain you get from the Conservatives

that they're being held back from dealing with immigration

because of the European Union. Here is a fact.

In terms of total net immigration into our country since the

turn of the century,

only a quarter of that total has come from within the European Union.

If we had wanted to, as a country...

It is ludicrous to start penalising Danish engineers,

German doctors, Portuguese nurses because of

a systemic failure of government after government, of various

persuasions, to deal with immigration...

Can I just make a wider point?

We know, because we've heard this from Whitehall, we know what

no deal looks like.

The Treasury published official statistics last year which

said that if we have a so-called free trade agreement,

the one I think you preferred, the sort of Canada one,

that would cost this country,

according to our own Treasury in Whitehall, £36 billion per year.

If we have no deal, according to official government statistics,

it would cost us £45 billion a year.

The government, your government, has never denied that.

-Do you deny those statistics?

-I'll point something out to you.

-No, no.

Answer the question, David. Answer the question.

I am going to point something out to you.

THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE

This is no good, barracking.

Just let David Davis answer. Just answer briefly.

There were forecasts that said immediately after the vote to

leave in the referendum, there will be a minus,

there will be a reduction in the size of the British economy.

And then in the last quarter and the current quarter, what happened?

We were one of the fastest-growing nations...

David, you just plummeted this week to the...

The answer is,

these forecasts are not worth the paper they're written on.

Just this week, it's been revealed that we have plummeted,

as a country, from the fastest-growing economy

amongst developed economies to the slowest.

In a three-month period.

OK, if you don't agree with those statistics, what alternative

statistics would you put to estimate the effect of no deal?

-You must have some idea...

-Yeah.

-..about how much it'd

-cost the British economy.

-Yes, and I started out by telling

-you what the basis was.

-No, what's the figure?

We're already at 58% of our trade is with the rest of the globe.

-David...

-And that will grow faster...

-This is beneath you.

You know as well as I do, if you double the trade

with the so-called Anglosphere, with America, with India,

with New Zealand, with Canada and Australia,

you double trade - double - with all of those great economies,

it still wouldn't be as much

as we trade with our nearest neighbours.

Nick, the problem with what you're saying is that we know and it's

accepted, and I think, even your party accepts, though you say you

want another referendum, that the British electorate voted to leave.

So the objective should be to minimise the damage.

You minimise the damage in a way that neither David...

-Are you saying that he doesn't want to minimise the damage?

-No.

-I'll tell you what I think they...

-Hang on. No, are you saying that?

I think they've made a catastrophic error by announcing, they didn't

need to do this, with the support of the Labour Party, I should add,

that we are going to not only leave the political institutions of the

European Union but we're also going to leave

Margaret Thatcher's single market. They didn't need to do that.

There are plenty of countries...

-Angus Robertson...

-..not in the EU but are in the single market.

Can I just finish with something that I hope we all agree on?

APPLAUSE

A statement was made from the audience,

and I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree with it, and the

statement was that immigration has destroyed this country.

And I'm sorry, that's just wrong.

It's just wrong.

APPLAUSE

-OK.

-And whether you live in Barnet or whether you live in the north

of Scotland, there are people from across Europe and the rest of

the world. They work in our health service, they work in our public

services, they work in our economy, and without them,

things would be a lot worse and we should remember that and we should

not allow statements like that to be made and allowed to stand.

Let's go on.

APPLAUSE I know a lot of you want to speak.

We'll stick with money and the economy and take

a question from Paul Berry, please.

Are Jeremy Corbyn's new tax proposals going to scare away

wealth and talent from this country?

The proposals for increasing tax and increasing Government spending,

are they going to scare away wealth and talent from this country?

David Davis, you start on this.

Well, the short answer is yes. I mean, the...

One of the major areas he's looking about raising tax is on

corporation tax.

Now, corporation tax has come down over the years in rate terms,

in terms of the actual rate,

and as it's come down what's happened is the amount collected

has gone up. It's now £56 billion, this is its highest level ever.

And the effect of that...

I mean, the effect of bringing the tax rate down is that

businesses come here, whether it's Microsoft or whether it's Apple

or whether it's McDonald's or whether it's...

-They don't pay tax anyway!

-Well, they do.

-LAUGHTER

-They do now. Well, let's take

that point. It's a fair...

And I think actually it's a fair point because, you know,

one of the problems we have is actually collecting tax from

internationally mobile countries and there's

a thing called the tax shortfall, which is the lowest in this

country of any country in the Western world - 6%.

We collect more tax than anybody else.

We have a diverted profits tax which we collect on,

the first in the world.

So the answer is yes, I'm afraid it will,

it will drive business away. That will cut jobs,

it'll cut wealth creation, it'll cut the tax base,

it'll end up not delivering, and one of the things the IFS said

was he would not be able to deliver on the basis of that tax policy.

APPLAUSE Barry Gardiner.

Under Margaret Thatcher,

corporation tax in this country was 52% and the lowest she ever

got it to, in the last years of her reign as Prime Minister, was 34%.

This Government, in 2010, has taken it from 28% to 19%

and says that it will go down to 17%.

Our proposal is to take it back up to 26%,

half of where it was under Margaret Thatcher,

and still two points lower than it was in 2010,

when this Government came into office,

and what we've seen in the past seven years is, as corporation

tax has gone down, instead of those companies using the money that

they've gained to invest in research and development as they ought

to have done, in creating new jobs, in growing our economy,

what they've actually done is they've stuck on piles of cash

in their reserves and given more money to their shareholders.

That's not...

-CHEERING

-That's not what that money

-should be used for.

-But...

I know we're not allowed to believe in experts any more,

but when the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that these tax

increases, it's possible that they would raise nothing because

-of people's changed behaviour.

-Exactly.

-And when David Davis

talks about the record high from corporation tax,

how do you know this is going to work?

Look, let's be clear about what the Institute for Fiscal Studies

did actually say, they looked at the 48.6 billion of our costed

manifesto, and let's face it, we actually took the trouble to

cost our manifesto, which the Conservatives didn't...

-APPLAUSE

-Erm...

The 48.6 billion that all the things that, actually, I think

probably people in this audience quite think are good policies,

-like restoring...

-Hang on...

-..the funding cuts to our schools.

..you're talking about spending,

-we were talking about getting the money.

-And...

-Not about spending.

-The Institute for Fiscal Studies said it might raise nothing.

-No.

That's what they said.

-What they said is...

-DAVID DAVIS:

-Yes, they did.

They said in the long term, companies always find ways to avoid

paying tax and that's why, in the long term, that might happen,

-but what they also said...

-Then you'd be up the creek without

-a paddle...

-What they said...

-..if that happened.

Well, yes, and so would the Government now

if they were doing it even on the 19% and the 17%,

which was the point of my interjection on David earlier.

But the stark numbers are... The stark numbers are the take

-has virtually doubled at this rate.

-The stark numbers are that the

Institute for Fiscal Studies said that actually our programme balanced

in current spending, and you know they did,

they said that our current spending balanced and they said that

they thought our estimates of tax revenues at 48.6 might be too

high by a maximum of 8.6 billion, they said,

because they said it would at least raise the 40 billion.

But let's be clear about what the Institute for Fiscal Studies

said and let's be clear that what this Government

has done is given tax giveaways to the corporations and the very

wealthiest in our society and yet they have cut the benefits,

they have cut the funding to our schools, they are not prepared...

They have introduced the bedroom tax.

-All right.

-They're not prepared to give pensioners the triple lock on

their pensions and dignity in old-age and now they're

proposing to take their homes away from them with the dementia tax.

APPLAUSE DROWNS SPEECH

The man there in the second row. I'll come to you in front before.

-Er, afterwards.

-Barry, I've been through your costings in

quite a lot of detail.

£48 billion extra tax, you say you'll raise,

that matches the 48 billion extra that you say you'll spend

and from an Excel spreadsheet point of view I agree it balances and

-it adds up, but...

-And so does the IFS.

-Hang on, let him speak.

The assumptions that underlie it are thoroughly flawed.

You say in your manifesto that you will raise 19.4 billion from

corporation tax and an additional 3.8 billion from reviewing

corporation tax reliefs.

That, to my mind, does not add up, given that the current amount

of tax raised in 2013 was 48 billion when the corporation tax rate was

-at 26% and it is still the same now that corporation tax is at 19%.

-OK.

I want to hear from some more members

of the audience before you reply. Yes, you.

So, shall we start to talk about the 350 billion that we were going

to get back, those figures didn't add up.

APPLAUSE

Point - the figures didn't add up, so...

-You mean the 350 million?

-Yeah. Those figures didn't add up.

So we can't base arguments on that.

Everybody here knows that there's going to be an issue when it

comes to the process and the negotiation and the deal for Brexit.

What is the backup plan?

What's the strategy in place to support our economy,

our education, our NHS and our citizens?

We are sitting here very, very concerned and we're sitting here,

if it goes through... We've got the confidence,

we have the confidence and we want this to work well, but you have

to give us back some confidence as well and we need to see our leader.

APPLAUSE The woman there in the second row

from the back. Yes. You, yes.

I think there's a problem in general with, like,

the British people's attitudes toward taxes in the first place.

We say we're proud of institutions like our NHS

and then we say we don't want to pay any taxes.

And you can't have it both ways.

You need to pay if you want the services and I think the

services are worth it.

There's a major confusion between tax rate and tax collection

-going on here.

-Yes.

What you end up doing by making the tax rates higher is driving

the economy downwards and end up collecting less tax overall.

By having an economy that's working well for everybody...

-Would you cut taxation?

-I would keep the tax at the current level.

Oh, I see. You, sir, in the middle, in the second row from the back,

with the spectacles. Yes, you.

We have to correlate 2010 tax, corporation tax,

with 2010 employment rate, now.

Corporation tax has come down,

employment has gone up quite a lot.

Unemployment has reduced quite a lot.

By reducing the corporation tax, employment will increase,

so Labour policies are pushing us towards again welfare state.

OK, and the woman over there on the far side. You, madam.

David seems very worried about large companies leaving this country

in droves if we put the tax levels to 2012 levels.

What's actually making the City leave and go to the continent

-is his favourite thing, Brexit.

-Yup.

APPLAUSE Angus Robertson.

I'll come to you.

So, the first question is what is going to scare away business?

And the questioner just a moment ago put her finger on the pulse

because it's not really about what proposals are coming from

any of the political parties in the panel, businesses are leaving now.

They are leaving the City of London now, they're moving to Dublin,

they're moving to Frankfurt, they're moving to Paris.

It's happening already,

which is why you should be very, very, very cautious when you

hear things like, "No deal is acceptable," from the Government.

But there is a wider issue that we haven't got onto,

and I'm not sure what the next questions are, but there is...

I think there's an elephant in the middle of the room here and

it's a choice about what kind of society we want to live in

and are we prepared to pay for it?

And the current Government wants to carry on with its austerity agenda,

making the poorest in society have to pay disproportionately...

-APPLAUSE

-..and I think...

I think that has gone on for too long, I think politics is

about choices and we should be prepared to pay for our NHS, pay

for our welfare state and have an honest debate about how we do that.

We've made proposals about how to do that,

other parties have their plans, too.

But we cannot live in a society, surely,

where it is our disabled, our ill,

the poorest in our society who are having to pay the price.

-All right.

-That has to end, it has to end.

-Suzanne Evans.

-Yeah. Well, I absolutely agree,

but do you know what, Angus? The thing is, the money is there,

it's just we have got our priorities wrong.

And Ukip is the one party going into this election

that's saying it will not raise any taxes whatsoever,

because we can give the NHS and social care

-an extra £11 billion a year...

-This is crap. This is...

..by reappropriating money from elsewhere,

-and starting, yes, with Scotland, Angus.

-Ah!

Because the Barnett formula is completely flawed

and you get too much in Scotland, so we'd take some of that back.

SCATTERED APPLAUSE

I wonder how well Ukip are going to do in Scotland after that statement.

-Yes.

-I would like to say,

everybody's always sort of skirting around the subject

about finances and economy.

Nobody has yet actually defined what we are going to be getting.

Because currently, our schools are in crisis,

mental health is in crisis,

our disabled children are in crisis,

my son is in crisis,

and 1.3 million children are currently stuck in a system

where there is apparently no funding,

but the funding is there to take the parents to court

at whatever cost.

-ALL TALK AT ONCE

-At whatever cost!

And what about...

Angus, I'm going to stop you, please. David Davis. Fair's fair.

The first thing, the first thing... A number of questions have come up,

all of which are absolutely on the point.

The... You've got to have the money to spend in the first place.

Now, we've been hearing an argument around this panel which

seems to assume that everybody's looking for a bad outcome

or looking for a no outcome.

The Prime Minister this afternoon

made a speech which has made it as plain as can be

that what we're seeking is the best possible Brexit,

which will underpin the best possible economic strategy.

What we've had for the last seven years -

Nick was involved in part of it -

is a circumstance in which we took an economy

in which we had the most spectacular deficit,

£151, £152 billion a year,

the most spectacular debt,

the longest, er, the longest depression or recession

for a century, virtually,

and out of that you've had a period in which there's been

2.9 million extra jobs.

The highest number of jobs in history.

-The lowest unemployment since records began.

-Sorry, can I just...?

Come to her question.

And out of that, the money to start to do...

Well, to more than start to do something about this.

I'm sorry, you say that, and we all understand that,

-but under the current government...

-But it's not a given.

-It's not a given.

-Because why then, have children,

according to the Kid's Index,

the UN, the United Nations Child Rights Convention,

the UK has slid from 11th position to 156th out of 165.

Under your government.

How is that possible when you say we are doing so well?

Just explain what the index is?

The Kid's Index is part of a survey that is done on a yearly basis

to ascertain how children are doing in our country.

-All right. Nick Clegg.

-And currently,

we have slid to 156th position.

I think the fundamental point you're making, which I'm sure

everyone will agree with, is if we want to provide for our NHS,

for mental health services, for our schools, for social care,

the money needs to come from somewhere.

-There's no such thing as sort of free stuff.

-Correct.

Money doesn't just appear out of thin air.

So the question is, how do you raise the taxes for that?

Now, I think the fundamental fallacy,

which is back to Paul's original question,

about the Labour Party's proposals,

is they're saying you can all have lots and lots of free stuff,

and only 5% of the taxpaying population is going to pay for it.

I can tell you, having spent five years

poring over the tax system in our country,

the most difficult bit of the British economy to tax effectively

is the top 5%, whether you like it or not.

They move. This is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies...

They change their behaviour. They relocate.

I think the more honest thing to do...

Which is why the Liberal Democrats have said,

if you want to provide for the NHS and social care,

this isn't going to be universally popular,

but let's just be open about it.

Everybody's going to have to chip in.

We're saying a penny on the pound of income tax

to raise billions and billions of pounds for the NHS and social care.

-That is a tried and tested way...

-But it...

That is a tried and tested way of raising money. What you can't do

is what Suzanne says, just do lots of stuff for nothing.

-Just go into the Treasury...

-And you can't just raise the money

from the top 2, 3, 4 or 5%. It doesn't work.

OK. Barry, I'll come to you.

The man in the... You in the one, two, three...yes.

There was a report out today

which said that the top 1% of people

earn 12% of income

but already are paying close to 28% of income tax.

What proportion do you think would be fair for people to be paying?

Barry Gardiner.

-Let me...

-Answer him first.

Well, I want to... The original question was not about Brexit,

-as David made it.

-Answer that question.

5% are already paying 50% of taxes.

-How are you going to...?

-1%.

-1%, is it?

The additional that we would be putting on income tax for the top 5%

comes to 6.4 billion

of the 48.6 billion extra revenue that we would be raising, OK?

So it's actually a small proportion of that 48.6%...billion.

But what I wanted to answer

was that the gentleman who asked the original question,

Paul said, would these tax proposals drive people,

drive companies to leave the UK?

Well, look.

26%, which is what we are proposing,

would still be the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7.

It would still be well below the average corporation tax rate

in the whole of the G20.

So the idea that companies are going to up sticks

and go to one of those other countries

actually is fanciful.

And, you know what? They didn't.

In 2010, they were paying 28% corporation tax.

Now, the real problem, the real problem is,

as some people have said,

how do you get the very wealthy to pay the tax they ought to?

Because they're very good at secreting it away

-and using offshore funds...

-Well, do you have any answer to that?

-Well...

-Very briefly, because you've talked for some time.

I want to get back to our audience.

Not that I could do briefly.

Well, then, that may be an answer.

That may be an answer in itself.

I'm going to take a question...

I'm going to take, because we're coming towards the end here,

Harvey Sobott, please, I'll just have your question

and they can answer it as they choose. Harvey.

Why is it that I don't believe anything

that any politician tells me, even though I am a natural optimist?

LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE

Well, we have five politicians here. Very briefly -

Angus Robertson, you go first.

Er, I'm sorry that that's the experience that you've got.

I have to say, I've now...

Well, none of us are MPs at the moment,

but I've served in Parliament for 16 years

and I have to say, in fairness,

I know good people across all of the parties.

I think part of people's cynicism

is what political parties promise before elections

and then what they deliver afterwards, and, you know,

all of our mainstream parties here

have experience of government,

and it is tough,

so you aren't always able to do everything that you want to do

in the timescale... So I understand why people have a cynicism.

My takeaway from that is we just have to try harder,

and if you don't like what we say and what we do,

-don't vote for us.

-OK. Nick Clegg.

Vote for somebody else. Stand yourself!

Nick Clegg.

Well, Harvey, the truth is politicians are flawed,

they are failed human beings - we all are.

-They make mistakes - boy, have I made a lot in my time.

-Yes.

-Yes, we agree!

-Yeah, yeah.

But here is the thing... Here's the thing,

and I say this, by the way, for a lot of politicians I know

across all political parties.

Most politicians I know are not sort of evil people,

they're not sort of amoral beings,

and I think sometimes the way in which politics is conducted -

this is principally our fault, look at the sort of bear-pit way

in which Prime Minister's Questions is conducted -

is this brutal sort of winner-takes-all

where you demonise and vilify your opponent.

You never accept they ever have a good point.

So maybe one of the things we need to be more open about as politicians

is that we don't always have all the answers,

of course we make mistakes,

and maybe a bit of give and take in politics,

which is what we do in our daily lives all the time,

-might not go amiss.

-OK.

APPLAUSE

And...and brevity won't go amiss

at this stage in the programme. Barry Gardiner.

I think we often don't like to get caught out,

and therefore what we do is when we're asked a question,

we then hedge away and try

and answer a slightly different question...

-APPLAUSE

-..because we know

that we can answer that one truthfully.

Is that what you've been doing this evening?

LAUGHTER

But I too am an optimist,

and that's why I'm looking forward to next Thursday

and a Labour government.

Suzanne...

Suzanne Evans, briefly, if you would.

I too am an optimist, Harvey.

I fell into politics quite by accident,

and I have to say, sometimes I've found it incredibly demoralising.

But you do have to just keep going, you know.

It's very important.

One reason why I hope Theresa May doesn't have a huge majority

is because we need a decent opposition.

The problem is I don't think I see that in the Labour Party.

And going back to the economy question,

the thought of Jeremy Corbyn being in charge of our Treasury next week

absolutely terrifies me.

You're veering away from the question there.

-No, no.

-David Davis.

David Davis. 20 seconds left, I'm told.

When Nick Clegg was Deputy Prime Minister,

he was at the dispatch box one day

and he turned up, I can't remember what the question was,

but he said, in answer, he said, "Don't trust any government -

"even this one."

-Did I say that?

-You did.

You did. But he was right.

-Because...

-Maybe that's why it went pear-shaped.

The process of democracy

is what allows you to winnow out what is the truth

and it forces us to tell the truth and deliver on the truth.

And long may it last, particularly next Thursday.

Right.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Our time's up now.

Not next Thursday but tomorrow

there's a special Question Time

with Theresa May, the Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn.

We're live on BBC One at 8:30.

On Sunday, we've got Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron in Edinburgh,

that's at five to six, if you can remember all this.

And next Friday, that's the night after the general election results,

we're going to be back with a special programme -

Armando Iannucci, Alistair Campbell and others are going to be on it

looking at the entrails of the vote,

so if you'd like to come to any of those programmes,

there's this address to go to

or you can ring 0330 123 99 88.

5 Live listeners, as you know,

Question Time Extra Time goes on now,

but my thanks to all our panellists

who came here and to all of you from Barnet

who came to this edition of Question Time.

Until tomorrow night at 8:30, goodnight.

APPLAUSE