19/10/2017 Question Time

Tonight we're in Dunstable and welcome to Question Time.

And with us here tonight, the Conservative Transport

Secretary, the man who ran Theresa May's campaign to become

Tory leader, Chris Grayling.

The Labour MP, Lisa Nandy.

The President of the Liberal Democrats, Sal Brinton,

the Chief Executive of the high street shop Next, Simon Wolfson,

and probably the only vicar to have had a number one single and was last

seen doing the paso doble on Strictly Come

Dancing, Richard Coles.

APPLAUSE.

If you want to engage in the debate that goes on,

our hashtag is BBCQT.

We are on Twitter and Facebook, or you can text 83981 and push

the red button if you want to see what others are saying.

And only civilised debate, please, not just raw insult,

which seems to be the current mode.

Our first question is from Susan Clark, please,

let's have her question?

In the light of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, is sexism just as prevalent

as it was in the 60s and 70s?

Is sexism just as prevalent today as it was in the 60s and 70s?

Sal Brinton?

Yes, I think it is and I'm not surprised by the revelations.

I think many women from my generation in the 70s right the way

through had to learn to put up with it because that is what we were

told to do and we were ignored if we made complaints.

The really positive thing to come out of the dreadful revelations

about Harvey Weinstein has been the #MeToo, me too because now

we all know that it's everywhere and it's not just the occasional

woman's fault for being too attractive or somebody just

trying to make a pass.

Just explain MeToo?

The #MeToo started earlier in the week where, I can't remember

the name of the actor in America, said, if you have faced harassment

of any sort or worse, just do #MeToo, I was surprised

to discover my young daughter had done that

hashtag herself on Twitter.

I did not know but in common with many other young women,

she has got on with her life.

The question for us as a society is, is it acceptable?

And the answer is no and I think finally,

the wider community is understanding that we need to call things out

like this when we see them and support women and men,

because it affects men too, when it happens.

APPLAUSE.

Richard Coles?

I thought MeToo was brilliant because it revealed something that

perhaps we didn't fully know yet or not all of us fully know yet,

but the sheer extent of that behaviour of men towards women

which is shocking and deplorable.

I think one of the things that depressed me most

of all about it was just how persistent that behaviour's been

in certain places, particularly places where individuals have

extraordinary degrees of power, like a film producer,

in the music industry too, Tom Jones spoke about it earlier

didn't he, having had a similar experience when he was starting out.

I think what I find depressing about it is just how slow some men

have been to learn the lessons of feminism, decades of feminism

now, how slow men are to respect women properly and also

to respect themselves properly.

One of the things that I find most striking about this is the extent

to which those who perpetrate this kind of behaviour seem

to have so little sense of themselves as full human beings,

so little self-respect and I think that's something that men need to do

is to try to understand better why we behave in that sort of way,

we in the most general sense, and to talk a little bit

about what male identity means.

That's got rather left behind I think.

So much of the running has been made about questions

around womens' identity, so we have got a lot

of catching up to do I think.

What about in your trade, Simon Wolfson?

We talked about show business and theatre and all that,

what about in industry and on the shop floor?

I think what you will find is, the more women there

are in an industry, the less sexism there is.

I'm in an industry that has huge numbers of female employees

and I have never come across anything in the work place,

I've never come across an HR case coming anywhere close

to what Harvey Weinstein's done.

So I think while it is incredibly important, is that we are very

careful about how we behave in the work place and that people

understand how you can abuse power.

One good example of that I think is swearing.

I think particularly using sexual swear words in the work place

is threatening for some people, particularly women, and it's that

sort of behaviour I think that we need to make sure doesn't

creep into our businesses and make sure that we are respectful.

I would like to hear from any members of the audience.

You, there?

As a transgender person, I also say MeToo.

Within a hundred feet of where we are sitting now,

I was physically attacked by a bunch of males.

I've been in a hate crime conference with Bedfordshire Police today

as a guest speaker because of that.

I'll turn that negative into a positive.

Picking up what you were saying about the work place,

on the other hand, I work for Monarch Aircraft Engineering,

part of the former Monarch group, and we'll get to that

in a minute, Chris, I'm sure...

No, no, get to the point.

In my work place, I'm well respected all over the world.

I teach people from all over the world and I'm well respected.

I think I'm with MeToo and I think many people should go with it also.

The question is, is sexism as prevalent

as it was in the 60s or 70s.

You probably weren't around?

I wasn't but I do still think it's still as sexist today.

Even on the way from the car park from here tonight,

we had a man shout out of his car window saying things to us,

and that's literally because my sister was wearing a skirt.

It doesn't go away but I do think that now people in the industries,

like famous people, are speaking out saying these things are happening

to them and people with getting their come-uppance likes

Harvey Weinstein, hopefully it will seep down into general society

and people will learn that it's actually not OK.

I agree with Reverend Richard Coles saying, how can that man who said

that to me and my sister look at us like a human being,

like what is he thinking saying that to a young woman.

We feel scared walking through a park at night,

there's three men sitting on a bench, you don't know

if they are going to say something to you, it's actually very scary.

It's not OK.

Lisa Nandy?

APPLAUSE.

I'm sort of a bit tempted to say what she said actually

and just leave it at that but because I wasn't around

in the 60s or 70s either but I don't know a single woman who hasn't been

sexually harassed at some point in their lifetime or worse,

sexually assaulted.

So I don't know how bad it was before but it's

certainly very, very bad now.

I agree with Sal and with other people on the panel who said that

they've been very inspired by the solidarity shown by women

coming out with the hashtag Me Too and talking about their experiences,

but the truth is, that it's 2017 and we shouldn't

be talking about this, we should be acting on it.

And actually, wherever I go in my day job, in politics,

or in my life generally, what I see in these closed rooms

is men in positions of power and women who don't hold that power

and, until we start to think seriously about how we change that,

more diversity in these organisations, much more

transparency so you don't get these examples like the FA this week,

of institutions investigating themselves behind closed doors

and then publishing the outcome.

Unless we start to take that seriously and act,

instead of just talking about it, I fear that when my son grows up,

we'll still be having this conversation then.

APPLAUSE.

Yes.

But the interesting thing is, has the Harvey Weinstein scandal

actually brought out things and will it change the mood?

I mean, the hashtag MeToo, are people already reconsidering

their attitude, men to women?

Actually, I think one of the most disturbing things about this is that

when there was this outpouring of collective, it felt like therapy

I think for a lot of women just being able to talk about these

things openly, using that hashtag, there was a response

from a significant minority of men, particularly on social media,

that sought to blame the victim.

The response to Emma Thompson for example was, why didn't

you do anything about it, why didn't you speak out earlier.

Until we stop blaming the victims, I think we are going to be

in a very bad place indeed.

The person over there in the checked shirt?

I was around in the 60s and 70s and yes sexism was prevalent

and it is just as prevalent, if not more so now, I believe.

I was sexually harassed, I was groped.

You know, what are we actually meaning here?

We have now got what's come up with what we have heard in the media

this week and the last couple of weeks with a powerful

film producer, you know, Hollywood and everything else,

it's all becoming so big and I'm so pleased it is, it needs to be.

But we do have to be careful that it also does not become a witch-hunt

and people do not just jump on bandwagons for the sake of it.

We had no voice in the 60s and 70s to actually speak out,

we were afraid then as well.

What we have to also be careful of, you know, the hashtag,

that is wonderful, but we also have to be very careful that it

doesn't become much, much, much bigger and people become

victims of that too.

OK.

APPLAUSE.

The man in the spectacles there?

The case of institutional sexism is a strange one.

I think it's still prevalent now.

The question, Simon is probably the best to answer this,

a friend of mine a few years ago was approached by Abercrombie

Fitch or Hollister the brand.

They recruit women to work in their shops Purely based

on their appearance.

They just walked up to her in the street and said,

do you do any modelling, do you want a job.

Regardless of her credentials.

How do you remove that as an embedded policy like that

from a huge company?

Chris I'll come to you, but do you want to briefly

answer that, Simon?

It certainly doesn't exist in my company otherwise

I'm pleased to say.

Yes.

Chris Grayling?

I think the thing that is different today is the horrendous things

we have seen over the last few weeks, the revelations

would not have happened I think 20% 30 years ago.

Our society's a more open place, it's more willing to face up

to these things, it's more willing to condemn.

There is therefore the opportunity to change.

If you go back to the 60s and 70s, and I was a child in the 60s

and a teenager in the 70s, the reality is, as we have so often

heard from the victims, they did not speak out

because nobody would believe them and nobody would have

done anything about it.

It's different today and that has to be the positive.

APPLAUSE.

We'll go on.

We have got a number of questions to Go get

through before we take the next question, as always.

I'm just going to say where we are going to be next week

which is Portsmouth and the week after that in Kilmarnock.

Details on the screen and we'll give them again at the end.

A question from David McNess, please?

How would the panel survive with no income and no

savings and a six-week wait for state support?

A reference to the introduction of the universal credit which has

been very much in the news and been talked about in Parliament.

Simon Wolfson, how would you survive with no income,

no savings and a six-week wait for state support?

I mean I can't imagine how difficult that would be and I think whilst

universal credit in principle is a great idea, the idea you go

to one place that you don't have to fill out millions of forms

in millions of different places, simplifying the process

is completely the right policy.

But this idea that people have got to wait six weeks

to get paid must be wrong.

The reason it's wrong is because what does it cost

the Government to pay people, rather than pay people in arrears,

what would it cost the Government to pay them in advance?

The answer is, they have to borrow a month back of money.

The body that can borrow by far the cheapest in this

country is the Government.

It can borrow at less than a quarter of a percent.

Those people who're in that position, they will have to go

to the very, very most expensive lenders, they'll be borrowing

at rates of 40-50%, so it's insane for the Government not to be

the borrower, rather than the receiver of benefits.

APPLAUSE.

And he's a Conservative supporter and a Conservative funder,

what do you say to him, let alone all the people

who're having difficulty with universal credit?

Let's explain what the universal credit is designed to do.

He's explained that, he said you could borrow the money

and get out of the problem?

Let me explain what it's designed to do.

It's designed to enable people to move into sometimes part-time

work, moving on to full-time work, to have a change of circumstance

where when they're in the system, they don't have to keep logging back

in, logging back on, reclaiming, it's also designed to end

the situation where somebody's working part-time,

16 hours a week...

Sorry, Chris, I'm going to interrupt you.

Everybody knows this, it's been said over and over again.

The question that David McNess asks is about the six-week wait before

money comes through.

OK but...

Don't bother about why it's there, everybody's

agreed, even Labour agrees on the idea.

APPLAUSE.

Just go to the six week point?

The point I was trying to make is it's designed

to replicate your experience in a job, receiving benefits back

in a job so you actually have a steady flow as you move

into benefits and move back into part-time work.

Now, I don't want anyone to have no money for six weeks.

And we have a system in place that money is available for advance

payments for people who need it, immediately if necessary.

That's the right thing to do.

One in four wait longer than six weeks.

It's a huge reform and has so far been applied to 8%

of benefit claimants.

We are rolling it out very gradually.

We are learning lessons, to make sure things work.

When things don't work as well as they should,

we are making changes.

That's the right thing to do.

Let me get a microphone to you.

I am saying to Mr Grayling, the Tory party, the majority of them

yesterday, they abstained in the House on the vote to give

a buffer period to look into what is going wrong with this,

and they abstained.

That has left the people that are suffering disgusted.

Disgusted.

So yesterday's vote was to pause the reform.

But the reform is a positive.

It's having a positive effect.

More people are getting into work from universal credit

than was the case from conventional benefits.

No, no, no, no.

We are making changes as it goes through.

We've improved the situation with advance payments.

So why do you abstain?

Why do you abstain?

Why do you not go to the House like the Speaker has asked

you, and explain this?

I will come back to you.

Lisa Nandy, let's hear from Labour.

It is just not true to say that the government is learning

lessons from the roll-out of this plan.

APPLAUSE

And the reason I know that is because it was

piloted first in Wigan, where I live, in 2013.

And at the end of that pilot, 80% of people were in rent arrears,

three times as much debt as people who hadn't been in this scheme

who were also in arrears.

So it is not true to say that the government is learning

lessons, and it is not true to say that the government isn't aware

of the scale of human misery that the chaotic roll-out of this

programme has already caused.

And yesterday they were given an opportunity to work with us,

to pause this scheme and work with us to fix it, so that it

could benefit people and not cause that real hardship.

And not only did they refuse to do that, but they didn't even bother

to turn up to defend their policy.

If my constituents didn't turn up, they would be sanctioned and go

without money and anything to eat for a significant amount of time.

And yet that is precisely what the Tory party,

who are permitting this policy, did yesterday.

If there was ever a sign that this group of people is not fit to hold

office in this country, this is it.

APPLAUSE

The man there, and Lisa, says you failed to turn up to vote.

And even the Speaker of the House of Commons,

rather extraordinarily, said that the government should show

respect to Parliament and say what it intends to do.

Why did you abstain?

Why were you not there?

The government was there, we had ministers speaking in the debate,

we had backbenchers speaking in the debate.

Simply choosing not to vote against a Labour opposition day

motion, which is not a binding motion, does not mean

we failed to turn up.

Total disrespect for people.

It was worse than that.

There was a three-line whip for you to abstain.

They so didn't want a vote that they told people

they had to abstain.

Three-line whip is a bit of an arcane term that we know,

but I just find that is quite extraordinary and it just

demonstrates that the government do not know what they are doing.

They should have stopped the pilot that came in.

The principles were right, Simon is right, the principles

about simplifying the benefits procedure were spot-on.

But as the pilots came in and it became clear there were problems.

And then worse than that, in 2015 the new Conservative

government then started to make cuts to universal credit that have made

things much, much worse.

Lisa Nandy, what do you make of what Simon Wolfson said,

that the government should borrow the money and simply pay people

to get over this six-week pause?

Is that Labour policy too?

I was saying they should pay it in advance, rather than in arrears.

The government says that...

They borrow to do that?

Yes.

The government says that you can get advance payments,

but I was sitting in my constituency office in Wigan today

discussing this with my staff.

We have had so many of these cases over the last few years,

and they do not tell you about the advance payments.

So nobody knows.

So people aren't getting what they need.

They are being told that they have to wait six weeks for the money,

although one in four are waiting longer because the government can't

get its act together.

But it's worse than that, too.

What we found in the pilot in Wigan is that many people didn't have bank

accounts so they needed time to get up to speed with that.

Many other people weren't online and didn't have

access to the internet, in part because the government has

cut and cut and cut, so they don't have access to those

very basic rights that they need in order to participate in the scheme.

And the government says that people wait six weeks in order to get

a first pay packet in work, but the truth is that for people

who earn the least in this country, usually, a significant minority

of those people are paid weekly, not six-weekly.

So it is just simply not true.

I will come to those of you with your hands

up in just a moment.

Richard Coles.

What's it like to be skint and then to go six weeks

without any benefit at all?

Well, it's grim, and it's also catastrophic.

I think it's grim.

We see this in numbers where I live of people visiting the food bank.

Not just people out of work, but some people actually in work

visiting food banks.

Discuss.

But I think the catastrophic thing is, more and more people

are getting into rent arrears.

And what concerns me is that a six-week gap in income can create

rent arrears to the extent that you face the reality of eviction.

Nothing seems to me to fray the fabric of the community,

or to undermine the cohesiveness of a community than

insecure housing.

And that's something which I think is a major, major problem.

It's harder and harder to access social housing,

because there aren't the resources going into it.

But when you get into rent arrears, then you're

really, really in trouble.

You, sir, in the front.

The government has had four years of trying to get

this problem sorted.

Why hasn't it come up with an answer?

Four years of doing basically nothing.

We've still got major problems.

We've been introducing this very calmly, small, a bit at a time.

8% of people are now claiming the benefit.

You shouldn't have a problem after four years, surely.

So that we learn the lesson and make changes, which we've been doing

with advance payments, for example, making sure people

who really need money can get it on the day.

That's what we've been doing to deal with what is a huge reform and try

and make sure that people don't have to wait six weeks without money.

You shouldn't have a problem, after four years of supposedly

putting it correctly in position.

Simon Wolfson, this talk about advance payments,

does that answer your question?

No, I think benefits should be paid in advance,

rather than in arrears, as I say.

But you say you are already doing that.

Are you?

If you pay a benefit all the time in advance when someone gets

into work and they are paid in arrears, then

they have a huge gap.

You are looking nonplussed.

If someone comes to work for you, Simon, you pay them

at the end of the month.

If we are paying them at the start of the previous month,

they have two months before their pay packet.

No.

They do.

No, the problem, and I'm sure the reason it is paid in arrears,

and the problem is that actually they get paid at the beginning

of the month, and then a week later they get a job.

So actually, they end up being overpaid.

That is the risk of paying in advance.

But you pay people in arrears, don't you?

You pay people in arrears, don't you?

We do, absolutely.

So if the state doesn't do that, it creates a problem with people

moving back into work.

That completely ignores the reality of what is happening to people.

The question was how do you survive for six weeks without any money.

The truth is that you beg and borrow from family and friends

if you are lucky enough to have them.

You are humiliated and you are hungry, and at the end of it

you are tired and you are angry.

And we shouldn't be doing that to people in this country.

APPLAUSE

The person in the pale jacket.

The contempt that the Tories have for the poor is

absolutely disgusting.

People are struggling.

APPLAUSE

People are struggling as it is, with all the cuts,

with the social care, with NHS, with working conditions,

zero-hours contracts.

And again, the fantasy world of the Tories.

"It's OK, we're doing it calmly, we are doing it

la-di-da, it's fine".

Are you in favour of the universal benefit in principle?

In principle, it works.

It is actually better, more cost-effective,

people know what they are getting and it is an introduction

into work, etc.

But for the Tory MPs to blatantly state that this

is an incentive into work, and we are helping you,

and then they can't even do what they are supposed to do

in their job and vote.

This is what is so disgusting and contempt for the poor.

Can I...?

You are a sole voice on this panel on this issue,

so of course you can.

When you talk about people on low income, this is why,

in introducing the national living wage we will,

across the course of this Parliament, have increased income

for those at the lowest level of income by nearly 50%,

because we want those people

to earn a better living.

It's not enough, on the base level that none of the Tory

government seem to be on, the base level of how people

are living, day-to-day, trying to feed their children,

try to clothe them, trying to decide whether to get a school jumper

or actually have a tooth taken out at the dentist.

This is the reality of life.

One more point from the man in front in the red shirt.

The previous speaker has said universal credit has a very

sinister element to it.

The six weeks is not there just by chance.

It's to force people to go to work, on low-paid work, insecure jobs.

So that is the reason why Chris is saying that, "Oh,

"we have a reduction on unemployment", because being

faced with six weeks without money, without income to actually

feed your family or pay for your rent, people will take any

job that is offered to them.

And unless they take it, they lose all their benefit.

Sal Brinton, on that point, you said you were in favour

of universal credit.

You agree with him that the six weeks is designed to

force people into a job?

Or is that not how you see it?

That's not how I see it.

I think the principle about simplifying benefits

is the right idea, because before, we had problems with,

when you were going to the council to get your housing benefit sorted,

or your rent paid, and you were also having to talk to the DWP.

So those are fine.

It's the technical way that these are working.

And you are right, sir, I can remember the Conservatives

talking about, "We need a benefit that will make work pay".

This does not make work pay.

It has become infinitely worse, and a lot of that is

because of the timing issue.

1.5 million people who are with private landlords will not have

housing associations or council landlords who can afford the time

not to do something if people get into rent arrears.

And it is important that we resolve those before there's

any further pilots.

All right.

We must move on.

We've got a number of other questions to come to.

Can we take this question from Chris Evans, please?

Is no deal within Europe really such a big issue?

Is no deal within Europe really such a big issue?

Lisa Nandy, no deal, where do you stand on it?

It would be a catastrophe.

It is a big issue.

It's the biggest issue that this country currently faces.

The reality is that if we end up coming out of the EU

without a deal at all, then we will see flights

grounded, despite what Chris was trying to say this week.

No, no...

We will see flights grounded, lorries backed up at ports,

food prices rising, and we will face the very real prospect of a hard

border with Northern Ireland.

There is no question that no deal would be worse,

the worst possible deal of all.

And increasingly now I think the Cabinet is divided

into two groups of people, the realists, who understand this,

and the fantasists who believe that no deal is a realistic prospect.

The truth is there is no serious, credible Cabinet minister

who currently believes that no deal is an option.

And this week we had the prospect of the Brexit Secretary standing

at the dispatch box in the House of Commons saying,

"No deal is a negotiating tactic".

The trouble is, they can hear him over in Brussels.

They know that we are bluffing.

And it's time we stopped messing around, grandstanding and bluffing,

and got serious about how we are going to get the best

deal out of the EU, so that we can move this country

and this economy forward.

Chris Evans' question, Chris Grayling, is do you think no

deal in Europe is ready such a bad thing?

I am someone who believes in free trade, so I think a free-trade

agreement with the European Union would be a good thing for us

and for the European Union.

Therefore, my colleagues and I will work very

hard to achieve that.

What we will not do is to adopt the Labour policy

which is to say deal at any cost.

What happens if they say give us 100 billion euros or no deal?

That's not our policy.

That's nonsense, Chris.

That's absolute nonsense.

And you know it's nonsense.

So we are going to work hard to deliver a sensible deal.

We're going to work hard to have a proper, neighbourly,

friendly relationship with the European Union.

But we're also going to prepare, so we are ready

if that doesn't happen.

So you would walk away in certain circumstances?

Theresa May was very clear in saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

We will work hard to prepare the way for a good deal

with the European Union.

But you would all expect us to also prepare for the eventuality

that there is none.

And we will do both.

I don't expect that to happen.

I don't want it to happen, but we will make sure we're

ready for it if it does.

APPLAUSE

And we'll all be growing more vegetables.

What we certainly won't have is planes sitting on the ground.

The planes will carry on flying.

The idea that Spain would stop the planes landing

in the summer of 2019...

You need an agreement to do it, Chris.

And leave all their hotels empty, that is just for the birds.

If it's for the birds, why did the Chancellor

of the Exchequer reveal it as a possibility?

He didn't but he actually said, I'm not going to spend lots of money

on it because it's not going to happen.

It is theoretically conceivable that in a no-deal scenario, there

would be no air traffic moving.

Why did the Home Secretary say it would be unthinkable,

no deal would be unthinkable?

Our goal is to secure a deal with the European Union

that's good for all of us.

That's our goal, we are not going to admit defeat,

we are not going to say we are going to fail.

She said it would be unthinkable...

Wasting your energy.

Work together so that we can get out of the EU!

Why can't you work together?

Why are you wasting so much time fighting with each other?

OK, I'll come to you later on.

Richard Coles?

It's a very good question.

I'm having flashbacks to the universal credit thing.

We seem to have a problem with roll outs don't we, a real problem.

It's quite a big roll out.

Exactly.

I think there's a big problem with universal credit,

a big problem with e borders and IT products in the BBC and the NHS,

a huge one with HMRC and changes to freelance status for employees,

moving them to employed status.

The biggest one of all of course is Brexit.

My impression is sometimes that we are approaching a very

uncertain cliff edge actually.

If it is a cliff edge, I want to abseil down,

I don't want to jump down the cliff, and I want to see a plan.

You will still get to the bottom pretty fast.

I want to get to the bottom without splatting.

That would be preferred.

That's what we are aiming to give you.

I would like to see a little bit more detail about this.

The question is, would no deal be a bad thing?

Do you think no deal would be a disaster?

I think I was Amber Rudd on that one and I'm not very often

with Amber Rudd on anything but it seems inconceiveable to me.

I want to Abseil.

Sal Brinton?

The problem with the WTO rules which is what Chris said was the way

out if we have no deal, is that immediately we are legally

required to slap tariffs on anything coming from the EU and vice versa.

Sorry?

Tariffs.

Well, 40% for lamb and beef and the Welsh Farmers' Union.

We are absolutely legally obliged.

Cars 10%, clothes 12%, 20% for beers and spirits,

and that's a problem.

It's certainly a problem for both countries in the EU exporting to us

but it's a major problem for us, particularly in places

like Northern Ireland with the hard soft border and 90% of goods

But the Brexiteer beside you disagrees with all this...

It's not true that we have to have those.

We have to have the same tariffs on everyone but that doesn't

mean it has to be 40%.

We may change and say actually we are going to have 0 tariffs

on all foods from all countries.

What we can't do is say Europe, if we don't have a special agreement

we can't have special arrangements for Europe.

But it's absolutely wrong to say we have for tariffs at any level.

They can set their own tariffs.

The problem is, we have to set the tariffs absolutely identically

across the world which means we also have to undo the deals

that the Government are doing, beginning to talk about

with other countries.

There's one deal for everything.

You can't pick and choose once you do these rules.

I'm sorry it's complicated but you will agree with that.

But that doesn't mean we have to have high tariffs.

A lot of people voted for Brexit because we can actually become more

of a free-trading nation, we don't have to have these tariffs.

A member of the audience?

You, Sir, on the fourth row with black hair and a jacket on?

I just don't really think many people in the Labour Party

or the Liberal Democrats understand the basics of negotiation.

If you go into the negotiation saying you are not prepared for no

deal, you are just signing up for a bad deal.

No you're not.

No you're not.

Lisa Nandy?

No you're not because we know...

If you shout out, we can't hear you properly because we

haven't got microphones.

People in here can hear you but millions of people

listening to you can't hear, which would be a pity,

I'm sure you would agree with that, so wait until we get

a microphone to you.

Lisa?

It's not an open invitation for the EU to tell us what the deal

is, it's the start of getting real about the fact that a no-deal

would be catastrophic for the EU and it would be catastrophic

for us as well.

The reason why it's a completely ineffective negotiating tactic

is because the Government has admitted that it's only that,

it's a negotiating tactic.

The Home Secretary's come out and said, it's

unthinkable to have no deal.

That is one bit of it though isn't it?

The Prime Minister's rowed back on the rhetoric.

She's a Remainer, she was always going to think think a no deal

wasth was no option.

a no deal was no option.

The fact is the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are quite

clearly in my view waking up to the fact that no deal

would be an absolute disaster for this country.

The Brexit secretary's admitted that it is a negotiating tactic.

This is not an effective way to negotiate.

I don't agree.

APPLAUSE.

Simon, the question was, is no deal really such a bad thing?

No deal is definitely worse than having a deal.

As Chris said, a lot of us have voted for Brexit and free trade

and if we don't have free trade with Europe, then that would be

bad for the economy.

To say that it would be a catastrophe is wrong.

I think that's dangerous and it's an exaggeration.

It's very important, in a negotiation, that

people keep a level head.

In my experience of negotiating, there are two golden rules.

One is, you are going to have days where it just looks

like the deal is impossible.

You are going to go to bed and think now there is no way

this is going to happen.

Everyone sleeps on it, they think about it and they are testing each

other's positions and you go back the next day and sure

enough the deal recedes.

I think we have got to be very careful not to have national

meltdown every time we hit an impasse because it's going

to happen, people will sleep on it.

We are not making progress...

Are you confident in the way negotiations have been

handled by the Government?

I think it's very difficult to judge from outside and I think actually

trying to negotiate in public, that makes it harder for both

sides to compromise.

So I think we have got to be careful about making judgments

about conversations that are happening that

we are not party to.

What about the things that are said publicly?

You are a Conservative.

When you look at the way that the Cabinet says different

things, Lisa was referring to, does that disconcert you?

No.

Is that reasonable?

Actually, you know what, having a debate between optimistic

and enthusiastic Boris Johnson and a cautious and Conservative

Philip Hammond, having that debate in public is not a bad thing

and finding the middle ground between them is actually a very

sensible way to proceed.

The idea that we all have to, as a nation, have one idea and not

have any differences means that we won't get the best deal,

we have got to talk about these things.

If we don't have a credible plan to walk away with, then we are not

going into a negotiation, we are going into ask

the price and we can only bluff, plead and beg.

We have to have a plan.

We don't have one.

For a no-deal scenario because if we don't,

we are not going to get the best deal.

APPLAUSE.

The person at the very back there?

Yes?

You, at the back in blue?

Mr Grayling, if you genuinely have a Plan B for how things

would work under WTO rules, why don't you publish it and show

the EU that you are serious and convince us that

you have the detail?

Well, the answer to that is that we are actively

working on that plan.

I'm doing so in my own area.

We'll bring forward details when we need to, but we are not

approaching this on the basis that we are going

to need to do that.

Right now, we are working to try and secure the best deal for Britain.

Yes, of course we are making contingency plans and we'll be very

clear, I'm looking at the whole issue of transportation on ports

to make sure we are ready for that.

I'm an optimist, I expect us to do a deal, I expect this to be

something that works for both sides.

We are the European Union's biggest export market,

it would be hugely damaging to businesses in France,

Germany Belgium and the Netherlands if there wasn't a free trade deal

and that's why I'm absolutely certain there would be.

You would expect us to do the work we are doing now and we'll be

talking about it in due course, to make sure there is

an alternative route in the unlikely event we'll have

to take it.

APPLAUSE.

The woman there?

From what I'm seeing, outside look in, it looks

like the Tories can't even manage their own party,

so how can we possibly trust you to take us into Brexit

with a good deal?

APPLAUSE.

Well, you...

So I think Simon's point is right, we are not a group of clones sitting

around the Cabinet table, we have Discussions, debates,

differences of opinion, we reach a common position,

Theresa May's speech in Florence a couple of weeks ago

was very much a result, a United Cabinet discussion,

she spoke for all of us and she's set out the path we are taking.

Chris, how much time have we got?

One thing that concerns me, we are talking about very detailed

work and we don't have much time to do it.

I was talking to an official the to other day who's been seconded

to the Department for Brexit and she was saying the issue

they are finding is they have ten years' work to do in less

than two years.

And that the kind of things you are talking about sound

like luxuries if you are working to a time scale that's

that ungenerous.

All I can say, within the Department of Transport, we are not trying

to do ten years' work in two years, what we are working to do

is perfectly achievable, I hope...

The man in the brown jacket?

Yes, the speaker on the front row just said she can't trust

the Conservative Party.

I can't trust Lisa and the Labour and Baroness Brinton

in the Liberal Democrats because all they want to do

is connive a situation to create a second referendum.

What you've got to do is...

APPLAUSE.

What you've got to do is what the people have already said.

1.4 million people want the leave the EU, that's what we have got

to get on with and do.

Do you think it's straight forward or do you think it's a difficult

task the Government faces?

Of course it's difficult.

It's a very complicated issue but you can only

negotiate with people if they want to negotiate.

How long do we have to give the EU?

How long do we have to give Mr Juncker to start saying

things that are reasonable?

All I can see is unreasonable comments from the EU,er in not

taking us seriously, if I was the PM, I would give

them a weeks' notice and I would leave the following day.

One more point then we must go on.

The woman in pink?

You?

Ever since the no-deal...

Sorry, we are getting very confused in this studio,

it's too difficult to see people.

Hold on.

The woman up there?

We've had our vote, we've had the referendum,

I don't believe we should have a second referendum,

I think the Labour and the Liberal

Party are pushing and some, dare I say Conservatives,

are pushing for a second referendum.

Let's get on with it, let's get behind it, it's a very,

very difficult thing, probably one of the most

difficult things we've asked a Government to do,

but it could be very exciting.

I believe it could be very exciting for this country and I'm appealing

to the Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

I'm actually a Liberal Democrat at heart and I'm appealing

to you to get behind the Government to work together, to work together

for the good of this country, not to keep bickering.

All right, we have heard your point, madam - stop bickering.

Lisa, just answer that?

I just want to say to you, that if we were trying

to have a second referendum or somehow stop from leaving

the European Union, then we wouldn't have voted to trigger Article 50.

I voted to trigger Article 50 despite the fact that I went out

and campaigned for Remain.

We lost the referendum and now, our job, in my view,

is to get the best deal for this country.

But I will not apologise for saying to people like Chris that still now,

after six months after triggering Article 50 with a clock ticking,

we should not be messing around saying we have got this great

negotiating position, no deal, it's not going to happen,

but don't worry because Brussels hasn't worked it out,

it's just not good enough, we need to get serious.

Hands up.

I can't bring you all in, I'm really sorry, we have this

debate week after week after week where we go around the country

and hear what people think with different views

as the negotiations go on and we'll no doubt come back to it.

But, I want to keep a variety of questions in Question Time.

We have got a question from Linda Forbes that

I would like to take, please?

As an obese taxpayer, should I be less deserving of NHS

treatment than people who take other risks with their health?

A very, very interesting question.

This is in the light of an NHS statement,

an authority just near here, that not only if you

were technically obese but if you were a smoker,

you could be breathalysed to see if you'd stopped smoking before

you got medical treatment.

Richard Coles, what do you make of that?

When I had a medical for Strictly, I discovered I was 0.4 short

of obese myself which came as rather a shock.

I'm happy to say my paso doble saw me lose a stone,

probably through fear more than anything else.

APPLAUSE.

I don't think the NHS should be rolling that one out.

I'm horrified at the thought that people who are classified as obese

might have to be further back in the queue for NHS provision.

I understand of course that provision's always got to be,

you know, they are not limitless.

But I do think it's fundamentally important, it's a fundamental

principle of the NHS and a fundamental principle

of living in a civilised society that we all have an amiable state

as it comes simply from being human beings and that there is no priority

so I would hate to see health care meeted out in that kind of way.

so I would hate to see health care meted out in that kind of way.

Linda Forbes, have you had direct experience of being warned

about this in terms of operations or any medical treatment?

No, but I have lost over six stone in the last year...

APPLAUSE.

Question Time is not a slimmers club.

But we want to know the secret!

I've worked with other people through NHS health unlocked

and realised just how difficult it is to lose weight

and actually for some people who're very overweight,

getting access to operations that will enable them to exercise again

is being restricted which actually ties them into even more ill health.

OK, Sal Brinton?

Well, I think that's the absolute conundrum.

If help was offered at the start, and there was a sort of a line

and you could see very clearly, but I know from other people

who have been told either they've got to stop smoking or they've got

to lose weight before they can even go on to the waiting list,

it really doesn't help and can cause some very serious problems.

Is it moral to do that?

No, I don't believe it is, I think Richard was right.

The NHS is there for everyone.

We pay our taxes.

It's part of the safety net of our society.

It's the one thing that the vast majority of people in this country

feel we should stick with.

I know the Americans don't understand it and often complain

on our behalf about our NHS, but at the end of the

day it's wonderful.

Part of its problem at the moment and one of my worries about some

of these rules that seem to be being created are that the NHS

is really struggling for cash.

So IVF is often being removed, and I know in my hometown of Watford

we have just had a major fight trying to keep a respite centre

for the most severely disabled and ill children open,

because there just aren't the funds to do it.

And my real worry would be, I accept the health principle,

but if it then becomes a delaying tactic to be used to not go

ahead with operations, that's worrying.

We must fund the NHS properly.

This is about particular candidates for treatment.

Chris Grayling, what do you think?

I struggle with the idea that somebody would be denied

treatment, I really do.

To say to somebody who smoked, or somebody who is obese,

"You may not have treatment", I really struggle with that idea.

I think perhaps the only circumstance in which it becomes

more of an issue is if somebody is systematically refusing to do

something the doctors again and again are advising them to do.

But to say to someone who walks through the door,

"Because you smoked, you may not have an operation,

"because you are obese, you may not

have an operation..."

Of course, the challenge that the health service faces

is that demand on it is growing all the time.

We have an ageing population, more and more people seeking treatment,

the number of people going into A departments every year

is rising up and up and up.

But that should not be a reason for us to deny people treatment.

The National Health Service is a national health service.

Is the NHS in Hertfordshire, for instance, which is doing this,

entitled, legally, to say what they've said?

Well, actually the NHS in reality has always operated

to a degree at a local level.

Decisions are taken locally, decisions are taken

by clinicians locally.

And that's probably for the best because circumstances do vary

in different parts of the country.

So even though you don't like it, you can't, as a government,

have any control over it?

We can't step in.

I would hope those people...

The local decisions about commissioning services are now

taken by organisations that are led by clinicians.

I would still hope those people would take a step back and not

actually say to somebody, "You won't get treatment".

I will come to you there, the woman with spectacles,

and then you over there.

Me, thank you.

Chris Grayling, to say that you struggle with somebody

being turned away from the health service, and these are local

decisions to be made, Hertfordshire CCG, which is the one

you are referring to, where I live in Hertfordshire,

are faced with having to make more and more cuts.

So if you are asking them to make ?55 million more of cuts

than they already have, then you are responsible,

not the local clinicians.

You are responsible, as the government, for asking them

to make cuts, and for turning people away for basic treatment now.

But what do you say to the argument that they are entitled to ration,

in effect, their health care, on the grounds of

obesity and smoking?

That's the issue that is raised.

I think I agree with Reverend Richard Coles,

the health service is the jewel of the crown of this country.

It's something that everybody should be proud of and should

have equal access to.

The trouble with the society we are living in at the moment,

it's becoming more and more unequal.

And this is a prime example of that inequality.

APPLAUSE

I mean...

It's actually a really difficult question,

to what extent are we responsible for our own health?

I was thinking about the answer to this as everyone was talking.

What I thought, I put myself in the position of the person

who would have to tell someone that "Actually, I'm really sorry,

"you can't have this treatment because you are overweight".

I thought, "Would I ever want to be in that situation"?

And not in a million years.

Should we put other people in that situation?

Of course we shouldn't.

OK.

The man with spectacles, and then I will come to you, Lisa.

We often talk in terms of substance abuse,

for example like heroin abuse, and addiction, that people

are victims of their own addiction.

And it could be said similarly that smokers are victims

of their own addiction.

And it's only a small step, then, to say that people

who are overweight are victims of their own addiction to food.

But surely it comes down to a certain extent to personal

responsibility, and people surely have to be seen in some ways to be

helping themselves to help the NHS to help them.

APPLAUSE

The woman in pink.

I think it's discrimination.

How can you deny one person one thing in one area and another person

of an equal situation be allowed that same treatment in another area?

But also its double standards.

You're denying somebody treatment for consuming food, or cigarettes

that they are paying taxes on.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Lisa Nandy.

Actually, I agree with what Simon said.

There are a group of people in this country who do face restrictions

on their health care, and that's asylum seekers.

And actually, as well as being very immoral, in my view,

and creating some absolutely terrible results, the impact

of those regulations has been to really damage the relationship

between doctor and patient.

Because if you are the person who is rationing health care,

you cannot then claim to be the person who first does no harm,

and who is primarily responsible for their care.

Before I came into Parliament, I used to work with

homeless young people.

And I absolutely agree with the sentiment that we all

have a responsibility to take personal responsibility

for our own health care and for keeping ourselves well

and fit and healthy.

But many of those young people would end up with drug

and alcohol problems that they were then treated for.

And it would then become very, very apparent that the drug

and alcohol abuse was simply a way of self-medicating because of

underlying mental health problems that hadn't

been previously diagnosed.

And so my worry is that if we even begin to start discussing taking

this approach more generally in the National Health Service,

we will go down a very, very slippery slope that will stop

people getting the help that they need when they need it.

Also, we all have our addictions, don't we?

There are the obvious ones there, but we are all addicted

to driving our cars, aren't we, with the consequences

for health and emissions, and also through people getting

into accidents, something the health service picks up

without question, but we needn't do that.

The man at the back, and then last questions.

There is lots of talk about the morality of

rationing health care, but what about the morality

of taking money out of people's pockets to pay for other people's

poor lifestyle choices that are completely their choice?

APPLAUSE

Since you have a hand up, I will come to you,

sir, in the front row.

As the cigarettes and obesity, why don't the government ban

cigarettes and try to close up fast food stores so that people

don't have the things that make them obese?

OK, well, there is a prescription.

Is it because of the taxes they get off the cigarettes?

Is it because you get too much tax off cigarettes?

Banning things is a big step.

Banning fast food, I think, would be pretty unpopular

in an awful lot of places in this country, actually.

OK.

We've got four or five minutes left.

This question from Patricia Broderick, please.

Are schools overstepping the mark when they send home alarm

clocks with their pupils?

A mysterious question maybe to some of you.

It is just one school, it has to be said, but it

does go to the heart of a particular problem.

A school in Twickenham, London, which decided

to give alarm clocks to its children, allegedly so.

It says instead of using their iPhones to wake

them up in the morning, they have a proper alarm clock

and turn their iPhones off.

And it goes to the heart of this whole business about children,

young people and middle-aged people, and no doubt people around this

table, being addicted to the iPhone.

Richard Coles, are you addicted to your iPhone?

Do you use an alarm clock in the morning?

Maybe you should, if you don't.

Well, I rise with the lark anyway, with a song in my heart!

I would hesitate to say I am addicted to my mobile,

but I do have a very active life on social media, which I have

mixed feelings about.

Partly, I think, I was in a restaurant the other day

and there were two people sitting on the next table who were having

dinner together but spent the whole time on their phones,

which seemed to me to be not the ideal way to

treat your dinner date.

But on the other hand, it is a place where people meet.

One of the things I love about social media, it's a place

where you really can encounter a whole broad range of people,

and some of those encounters are glancing and brief,

but can be extremely rewarding and lead onto other

sorts of exciting things.

And also, if you want to get a kid off an iPhone or an iPad

or whatever it may be, good luck with that.

I'm a school governor and it's a perpetual question that

comes up on our agenda.

It's an extremely difficult thing to do.

Have you thought about issuing alarm clocks to your children at school?

No, I haven't, actually.

Put it on the agenda.

Simon Wolfson.

Funnily enough, I, for religious reasons, I turn my phone off

on Friday night at sundown and I keep it off until

Saturday nightfall.

And I've got to say, that is an incredibly

liberating thing to do.

So I don't know whether schools...

This is for religious reasons?

Yes, it's the Jewish sabbath.

So it's a very liberating thing to do, and what you realise is that

actually it's not a life-support machine and you can live for 24

hours without your phone.

And I think every so often people should...

Somebody is saying they can't.

I would recommend trying it.

One weekend, turn your phone off for 24 hours and see what happens.

You'll have a much nicer weekend.

Lisa Nandy, do you see this as a real, serious problem...

APPLAUSE

Serious problem with...?

With young people?

I was going to say, good luck with getting

politicians off their iPhones.

Maybe if we turned them off for 24 hours we might get together

and solve the problems with Brexit.

I think that there is a danger in this debate that

for all of the many, well versed reasons why it is a good

idea to make sure that young people are out in the real world

and meeting people who think differently from them, and are not

in the bubble of social media, where we tend to seek out people

who have the same opinions as us that are self-reinforcing.

All of those things are well rehearsed and I think they are true,

but we shouldn't forget as well that technology has been

an enormous force for good for children and young people.

The charity ChildLine says that one of the reasons that they have seen

a rise in the number of young people coming to them for help about child

abuse is because when I was growing up you had to pick up a phone,

probably had to find a phone box and ring them.

Now, young people can e-mail, they can contact through Facebook,

they can contact through WhatsApp.

There are so many ways for them to do it that actually for those

young people who need a lifeline, they have found that having

an iPhone, or access to technology has been it.

So I think we should be really, really careful here not to say

that it is just a force for bad, because for many of those

young people it has been an absolute lifeline.

Very briefly, you, sir, on the right.

The man on the gangway.

With technology, it's become an integral part of our lives,

especially as young people.

I'm only 17.

But it's becoming a societal thing, like the invention of the Guttenberg

press and the popularisation of the book, it's helping us

to spread ideas, become more connected with the wider world,

which is what we need in these trying times.

Technological addiction is a very common thing.

In the 1700s there was mass book reading and book

reading was a social thing, and we all move past it

with the next invention.

It's a natural re-occurring cycle within human nature and history.

OK, thank you very much.

Chris Grayling, briefly, if you would, because we need

an alarm clock because we're running out of time.

I suspect in a lot of cases that neither an alarm clock nor a mobile

phone would wake up many a teenager.

But the reality is social media and mobile phones

are a force for good.

They can also be a force for bad.

There are some real issues in social media that I think

as a society we have to address.

Sal Brinton.

And therefore the key is to make sure that families discuss amongst

themselves about how young people use their mobile phones

and when they use them.

And that's the most important thing.

I am co-chair of the all-party group on bullying, and cyber-bullying,

late at night on iPhones in bedrooms, is a real problem.

OK, thank you very much indeed.

APPLAUSE

Our hour is up.

Next Thursday we are going to be in Portsmouth.

We've got Jacob Rees-Mogg, Shami Chakrabarti, Alex Salmond

among those on the panel.

The week after that, Kilmarnock.

The journalist Owen Jones, Kezia Dugdale, who used

to lead Scottish Labour is on the panel there.

If you'd like to come to either Portsmouth or Kilmarnock...

Here, in Dunstable, my thanks to our panellists,

and to all of you who came to take part in this programme.

I hope you enjoyed it.

And for you at home, see you again next Thursday.

Good night.