26/10/2017 Question Time

We are in Portsmouth tonight,

and this is Question Time.

With us tonight, the Conservative

MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Shami Chakrabarti, a member

of Jeremy Corbyn's top team,

as Shadow Attorney General.

The SNP's former First Minister

for Scotland, who led the campaign

for Scottish independence in 2014,

Alex Salmond.

The Political Editor of the Sunday

express, Camilla Tominey.

And the feminist academic

and author, Germaine Greer.

Thanks very much, and remember,

as always, you can join the argument

from home using our hashtag, BBCQT,

on Twitter, Facebook.

Text 83981.

Push the red button and see

what others are saying.

Our first question tonight

comes from Lisa Wheeler.

Following Jared O'Mara's rightful

suspension by the Labour Party,

is a public figure allowed a past?

Is a public figure allowed a past?

Jared O'Mara, of course,

was suspended the day before

yesterday, or yesterday.

Germaine Greer.

Well, it's not just a past,

I think, in his case.

It's creeping up

on him all the time.

The assumption seems to be

that he was dreadful

when he was younger and he's

getting all right now.

In my experience, it's generally

the other way around.

The younger are nicer

than the embittered eld,

like me, whose tongues get

sharper and sharper.

They never get my joke

at the airport when they say,

"Have you got anything sharp

in your luggage", and I say,

"Just my tongue".

They never laugh!

It's really irritating.

I'm confused about

Jared O'Mara altogether.

I'd like to know a bit more

about who else was in the running

to stand as the candidate

in that seat.

It seems to me a kind

of kamikaze operation.

And I guess I hope he can

talk his way out of this.

What, standing against

Nick Clegg was kamikaze?

I used to vote Lib Dem,

in the days when I voted,

and when there was a Lib Dem

to vote for.

So don't be mean about Nick Clegg.

But it was he who he

was standing against.

Yes, I know, but I want to know

who the other people

were who could have been nominated

for that seat.

I mean, it's not as if it hasn't got

a pretty decent Labour history.

I thought you said it was kamikaze.

On the part of the party.

Oh, what, to put him in?

Would you think he would last,

judging from the way he has handled

this little contretemps?

I have no idea.

Me either.

Camilla Tominey.

Well, apparently the party

didn't interview him

for selection, and equally

there was some initial backtracking.

Jeremy Corbyn supported his

continued membership on the Women

and Equalities Committee,

which seemed absolutely nonsensical.

These weren't just remarks that

were misogynistic, but also remarks

that were homophobic.

He's justified them in part

by saying they happened a long time

ago, and his supporters have said,

"Look, he was a young man".

He was in his 20s.

He wasn't a teenager.

Equally, some of the remarks that

have been reported in the blog,

Guido Fawkes has led the way

with this expose, it's been

suggested, and again it's

subject to investigation,

that he made some very disparaging

remarks towards somebody

in a nightclub just

eight months ago.

So, no, I don't think

it is appropriate for him

to remain in the party.

He's been suspended pending

this investigation.

But it does cast a new light

on the influence of people like this

in the Labour Party,

the notion that there are some nasty

elements that need to be rooted out.

APPLAUSE

Shami Chakrabarti.

So Jared O'Mara has clearly done

some very bad things.

He's made some appalling

remarks and there's no

running away from that.

But in relation to the question,

yes, public figures should be

allowed to have a past.

But the question is,

has this public figure changed?

Now, my understanding

of the situation is that initial

revelations were historic.

They went back 15-odd years,

and he apologised fulsomely

to the entire Parliamentary Labour

Party in person.

And on that basis, on that

basis his apology was accepted and,

you know, he was given

a second chance.

Then new revelations

which are more recent

and potentially more serious,

and so then, rightly,

he has been suspended

pending an investigation.

And just one final point, Camilla.

There was no backtracking.

I know it's been reported that

Jeremy Corbyn said he shouldn't

resign from the Women

and Equalities Committee,

but that's not true,

and of course he did,

quite rightly, resign.

Hang on, just clarify one thing.

How long was it between the moment

when you found out about the latest

allegations and the moment

when he was suspended

from the Labour Party?

I believe that was very fast.

It's one thing to say,

"I was a troubled young man.

"It was 15 years ago.

"I'm very, very sorry.

"It was a long time ago".

That's fine.

But have you really changed?

And, of course, subsequent

revelations and allegations

are more recent.

So that's why he's suspended.

Is he now out of the party for good?

No, he is under investigation

in relation to...

And can he work his

way back, or not?

Well, there's got to be due process.

I believe in being firm but I also

think we have to be fair.

He's as out of the party

as Ken Livingstone is at the moment,

which is suspended but not expelled.

No, no, no, that's not true.

I'm sorry but I am the Shadow

Attorney and that's not the same,

because Jared O'Mara is currently

under investigation,

and therefore these charges

have to be investigated.

He's got to be looked at fairly.

That's what we should do.

OK.

You, in the front, sir.

I think the problem is,

with the rise of Momentum,

we're going to get a lot

more of this.

I think the Labour Party as we know

it should be frightened,

because at the next election these

people are going to be dropped

into seats without any selection,

and it could be the end of democracy

as we know it.

You're saying he got in without due

process, wasn't checked?

Yes, yes.

The woman, there.

I was going to say that actually

the point of the question

wasn't about selection,

although that obviously is a point.

It wasn't about Momentum

and the Labour Party generally.

It was a more general question

about whether or not people

in the public figures and the public

face of society, politicians

of all walks of life,

would be entitled to a past.

It's not a singling out

of the Labour Party.

No, fair enough.

What's your view?

Because you asked the question.

My view, I agree with what Shami

says, actually he has a number

of things he's done in the past,

and actually I think that we've

all done things in our past

that we probably regret.

Unless I'm on my own,

which I doubt it.

But the question is, some

of the things he's done recently,

the allegations that have been made

recently, I think I should

be clear about that,

are actually quite worrying.

And I think that that's the thing

that needs to be dealt with.

Alex Salmond.

I agree with the

questioner, absolutely.

Probably the only thing that

George Bush Junior memorably ever

said sensibly was when he was asked

about alcoholism and drugs.

He said, "When I was young and

foolish, I was young and foolish".

And that was a good reply.

If this had just been Mr O'Mara's

past, as 21, online,

I don't think we would be having it

as a question tonight.

The more worrying

things are twofold.

One, that the tweets and texts

are pretty nasty stuff, misogynist,

anti-gay, homophobic.

And they are not in the past.

It's the present which is

catching up with Mr O'Mara.

Another aspect is of course

what the gentleman raised about

was he ever vetted,

because the suggestion seems

that he didn't actually go

before a vetting panel,

perhaps because that wasn't a seat

that Labour expected to win

when they were selecting candidates

in a surprise election.

But nonetheless, it's the sort

of thing you would expect a normal

vetting panel to uncover.

Where I disagree with the gentleman,

if I can, is I don't think this

is about the Labour Party

or Momentum or any party.

One of the most depressing things

about this sort of stuff

is what I call the what-aboutery.

Someone says something wrong

in one party and they say,

"What about so-and-so

who said such and such,

and this one said that..."

Sexism is pretty endemic in society.

We should recognise that.

And once we recognise that

and recognise it's not a particular

problem for a particular group

in a particular party,

then I think it might help the

debate.

But I do agree that Mr O'Mara has

the right to defend himself.

He has the right to go in front

of the party enquiry.

You know, he shouldn't be lynched

by a combination of Guido Fawkes,

the Daily Mail, the Sunday express,

the Daily Express...

APPLAUSE

The Sun is lecturing

people on sexism.

This is a substantial move forward.

Had he been a Tory MP,

he would have been lynched

by the Guardian, the Independent...

APPLAUSE

All right, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

I agree with a lot of

what's been said before.

I think Mr O'Mara is

entitled to due process.

I think that politicians are allowed

to have done things in their youth

that they wouldn't wish

to repeat now.

But there must be limits.

There must be some things

that we feel are so beyond the pale,

and so indicative of a political

belief that they become inexcusable.

And I would go further.

I think we should be really worried,

as a society, with online abuse.

And this is a particular

problem for female MPs.

They get a level of abuse that

as a male MP I don't get,

and I'm not entirely free

from controversy from time to time.

But I simply do not get it.

But people like Jess Phillips,

who is a friend of mine,

is appallingly treated.

She gets death threats,

she gets hate words

addressed at her on Twitter.

And so I think somebody

who is involved with that is doing

something that is very

corrosive to society,

and society needs to look

at itself and think,

"How are we putting up with this

and how are we going to stop it"?

Because if we don't stop

it, it will deter very

good people from taking

up high-profile roles.

APPLAUSE

I will take our second question

from Zahid Khan, please.

As Raqqa is recaptured

and freed from Isis,

people who travelled from the UK

to fight for Isis will

be looking to return.

Should they be allowed back?

All right, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

you start on this because it was

a member of your party who made

remarks about this that

were widely reported.

Indeed, it was Rory Stewart

who made remarks about this.

Again, I think people

are entitled to due process.

I believe that one of

the fundamental freedoms

that we have as Briton's

is that we have a rule

of law and we are innocent

until proved guilty.

And that should always apply.

I think it's wrong to say that

people are guilty before

you've got evidence.

Rory Stewart said, let me just

quote him,

"IS fighters are a

serious danger to us.

"Unfortunately, the only way

of dealing with them will be,

"in almost every

case, to kill them".

I am not in favour of capital

punishment and I am certainly not

in favour of the state taking life

without due process.

APPLAUSE

If you are at war,

people get killed, but we are not

going to be fighting with these

people on a battlefield.

To take them out using special

services, I think, would be illegal

under UK and international law.

But, we must make sure

that they are properly

vetted when they get back.

We must make sure that they have,

if they have committed

crimes, that they are given

very long sentences.

And if necessary, we must hold

them until we've had

a chance to investigate,

which I would not

normally be in favour of.

But I think you can make

a reasonable guess that if you've

gone out to fight for Isis,

you are a fairly undesirable person.

You mean hold them indefinitely?

Not indefinitely.

Hold them for a limited time to try

and gather evidence so you can then

bring them to trial.

I think there's a reasonable

assumption that most people who have

gone out there are likely

to have committed crimes

whilst they are out there.

But a reasonable assumption should

not deprive somebody

of their liberty forever.

OK, you, sir.

Don't hold them anywhere. Don't let

them back in.

Don't let them back in.

And you, sir, in the front here.

The moment they get on that plane

to go wherever they want to go,

that's it, they lose all rights

as a British citizen.

If they are going to kill,

potentially, British

soldiers, then, no...

They've lost their rights?

They've lost it.

Why should they?

Germaine Greer.

That's two people saying

they've lost their rights,

don't let them back.

Which doesn't mean that we can

simply murder them.

Because illegal killing of people

is what's known as murder.

But we don't know that

they did murder us.

What we know is that they went

to fight for Isis.

We don't know why they went

to fight for Isis.

But we seem to believe that

if you go to fight for Isis,

the outcome is that you'll be

loyal to Isis.

This isn't actually

the evidence that we have had.

The situation when they get

there is phantasmagoric.

It's dreadful.

And we need to debrief them.

We need to know what's going on.

They have to talk to us.

APPLAUSE

Shami Chakrabarti.

This is slightly strange for me,

perhaps, because we are now

about ten minutes into

Question Time and we are on to

the second question,

and once more I'm going

to completely agree

with Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Don't worry, don't worry.

I'm not at all worried.

It's no indictment.

On this, Jacob is completely right.

to

We believe in the rule of law.

We believe in fundamental rights

and freedoms and we do not take

people out rather than arrest them

and put them on trial.

So what Rory Stewart said...

Sorry, just to go back

to Rory Stewart, what he said,

you'd take issue with?

You know, I don't know what exactly

he meant and I don't

want to have a go at Rory Stewart,

but the point is -

you can sometimes use lethal force.

As Jacob said, you can use

it on the battlefield.

You can even do it on the street

of your town in the UK,

if it is strictly necessary

to save life.

That is lawful under

English criminal law

and under international law,

but we are not Isis.

We believe in the rule of law and,

do you know what else,

even from a sort of practical

national security and world

security point of view,

Jermaine's point is very important.

We need intelligence.

We want to know why these people

went in the first place.

We want to know what intelligence

they bring back about other people

who are at liberty in the UK.

So there are all sorts of reasons

why you can't just look the other

way and pretend that it's good

riddance to bad rubbish because it

doesn't work like that.

APPLAUSE

We go back to you, sir,

the man up there, at the back,

who said that they should just

simply not be allowed

back into the UK.

It's not very hard

why they went, is it?

It's not what?

They went for one reason.

They went to Syria for one reason,

to murder infidels, you know,

the local population.

There are people who may

have been brainwashed.

There may have been people who may

have gone as romantic Isis brides,

who then very quickly changed.

There are all sorts

of things at play here.

But the point is, the world is

shrinking and it's interconnected.

You know, people are a danger to us

over there as well as over

here and we cannot turn our back

on our responsibilities at law.

Camilla.

I was going to say, isn't one

of the problems and why there's

public frustration that's been

echoed here is that some

of the existing laws just don't seem

to be successful in bringing these

people to justice.

So temporary exclusion orders,

for instance, I think

only one's been used.

Equally, there are arguments that

counteract the efforts that

are being made to bring these

people to task.

There was a suggestion, in a Times

leader earlier in the week,

that we should reinvigorate the law

of treason and we should make

example of these people and say -

look, you've committed a crime

against everything that Britain

stands for, Britishness itself.

APPLAUSE

I don't agree with an eye

for an eye, I equally found

Rory Stewart's comments

uncomfortable because drone

strikes usually involve

some collateral damage.

We look at the recent killing

of the so-called 'White Widow',

Sally Jones, we still don't know

what's happened to

her 12-year-old son.

Quite.

Unfortunately, he may well have

been killed with her.

I'm sorry, but a 12-year-old doesn't

choose to be in that situation.

Of course his mother was culpable,

but I'm not comfortable

with the collateral damage that

could be children's deaths.

What Mr Khan was saying was, should

they be allowed back into the UK?

That was your question, wasn't it?

If they're allowed back, fine,

but let's actually try

them with something -

No, should they be allowed

back is the question?

They should be allowed back -

Under arrest protection.

They should be facing due process.

But what the Government needs

to sort out is, under what basis?

What are they being tried for?

OK, you sir.

They've aligned themselves with

a force that is against the West.

It's declared war on the West,

we are the West.

They've aligned themselves with that

force and I agree with you,

I agree with what you said,

that the laws around treachery

need to be rebooted.

You know, Tony Blair took

those away, they need

to be tried as traitors,

in my book.

A treason law which would mean that

whatever their reasons,

if they'd been shown to have joined

Isis, they would be imprisoned,

is that what you're saying?

Absolutely, yeah.

You would.

Alex Salmond.

It's not - if I can

say to the gentleman -

quite as simple as that.

One of the great mistakes I think

of many, many mistakes that has been

made in our Middle East policy

is that we're not giving sufficient

support to the Kurds,

who have been by far

the most reliable allies.

Who have the best track

record of having...

where they control having a society

which allows people of all religions

to co-exist peacefully.

Now, a Kurdish fighter,

there's volunteers who have gone

to fight for the Kurds,

some have been on television

over the last week.

These people already and,

almost certainly over

the next few months,

will be in conflict

with the UK-backed Iraqi government

because it's almost certain there's

going to be armed conflict

escalated between the Iraqi

government and the Kurds.

If one of the UK volunteers has gone

to fight for the Kurds against Isis

is then drawn into that conflict,

would he then be in the same -

He's not going to come back

and blow us up on a bus.

Well, but you were saying this

because they were taking

arms against our allies,

arms against the West.

This is not as simple.

Interestingly enough, nobody -

I don't know about the audience -

but certainly in the panel,

has agreed with Rory Stewart

they should just be killed.

For the very obvious

point, as Camilla made,

you don't just kill them,

you tend to kill other people

with them, like the 12-year-old

who may or may not be dead.

Which is quite an interesting thing

for us to think about.

We actually don't know

if an American drone,

but still approved by the UK,

killed a 12-year-old

British citizen.

The Prime Minister says -

oh, well, I can't talk about that.

Well, you know, I think

we have to talk about that.

APPLAUSE

If you ask in general,

what I think should happen,

is British citizens should be

brought back, they should be put

on trial and they should go

through due process of law

and we should establish that

so that we can say -

look, we operate under the rule

of law and a judicial system,

we don't just kill people

and we don't really,

Jacob, if I may say so -

and I'm sure you wouldn't if you're

elevated to these positions -

have Government ministers who block

that sort of thing out.

The woman there.

Yes, you say about allowing

them to come back in.

You know, they've been out,

they've been fighting for Isis.

Where are we going to detain these

individuals when they do come back?

We've already got a prison system

that's already overflowing.

We also had our detention centre,

which is locale to here, close.

So where would we put these people

while we wait on trial becase again,

as the panel were saying,

they've got human rights,

but they are coming over and back

here to come back and possibly

blow us up.

The man at the back.

Let's just hear more

members of the audience.

You, sir, with the spectacles

and then you in green.

Yes, the man at the very back there.

We're hearing about this

in the future tense,

but my understandin is that

all these people are already back.

So, where are they?

OK.

And you in green.

I don't understand why people

are making excuses for them.

They've joined a death

cult against us.

You've seen the videos.

Well, hopefully, you haven't seen

the videos when they slaughtered

and beheaded journalists.

They've supported that,

so why would you want people

supporting that group back

in the country?

APPLAUSE

So what would you do?

What would I do?

Yeah, just not let them back in.

They're not coming back,

you've made your decision.

OK.

Are they not dangerous

wherever they are?

Yeah -

Not to us.

They are to us.

Do you want the danger here?

Do you want them far away from us,

which the majority will.

Why would you want them back

when you've seen the atrocities that

have been caused by these people?

Because the world is tiny

and we have to take our

responsibility for our citizens,

however wicked they have

been in the world.

APPLAUSE

Briefly Jacob, just a last point.

Just two thoughts.

One is, that if we lower ourselves

to the level of Isis,

we destroy our own values more

effectively than

they can do it to us.

APPLAUSE

The second is, that we actively want

to get them back and lock them up.

I agree with Baroness Chakrabarti,

that we need to have them in British

prisons so they are out

of the ability to commit any

harm on the rest of us.

They are just as

radicalised in prisons.

At our expense.

They are at our expense

because they're British

to start with and therefore,

to some extent, it's

our responsibility.

But our country will be safer

if these people are in prison

and I want to see them

locked up for the crimes

that they have committed.

Yes, you.

What about the people that

have come back to this

country and have been lost

in the system and re-offended?

OK.

The audience makes

a good point as well

about radicalisation in prisons.

Yeah.

And the danger that that poses.

APPLAUSE

Our current detention system has

been largely criticised for causing

minor offenders to be,

you know, put into more serious

situations of crime.

Isn't that risk going to get higher

if they are mingling with people

who are possibly trained

Isis fighters?

We don't know, we haven't seen

what's happened over there.

You know, religiously radical.

We don't know what they're

saying in the prisons.

They could be radicalising even more

people who already have

criminal backgrounds.

All right, we will go on.

Have you had words with your

Foreign Office Minister

about what he said about killing -

I haven't spoken

to him recently, no.

What would you say to him

if you came across him?

Well, we might talk

about the weather, you never know!

I haven't discussed it with him.

I don't share his view.

I don't think the right approach

is for the British Government

to break our own law.

It's not lawful.

OK, we'll go on to another question.

Just before we do, we're going to be

in Kilmarnock next Thursday

and Croydon the week after that.

On the screen you can see

the details of how to come

and be in the audience.

But I want to go on to a question

from Sheena Brown, please.

Sheena Brown.

Should Mark Carney and the BBC admit

Brexit will happen and get

behind Britain instead

of deprecating our nation

and continually weakening

our bargaining stance?

Here, here.

APPLAUSE

Well, that admonition of course

comes from something that

Jacob Rees-Mogg himself said this

week when he called Mark Carney "one

of the enemies of Brexit.

He's opposed it consistently"

and called the BBC "the Brexit

Bashing Corporation."

Alex Salmond, is that

how you see things?

No.

I disagree with the

question from the lady.

What weakened Britain's negotiating

stance was to invoke Article 50

and to go into a time-limited

negotiation where we couldn't

afford to have no deal.

As soon as we did that,

we placed every single card

in the hand of the other 27

European Union countries,

represented by Michel Barnier.

I don't think...

I mean, I think we could

have the Angel Gabriel negotiating

for us and we wouldn't get

a decent deal.

I actually rate David Davis rather

highly, I think he's able,

but his disagreement

with the Prime Minister this week

exemplified the problem he's got.

On the one hand, he has to say

and pretend that no deal is possible

or even semi attractive and then

he has to say it might go

down to the 59th minute

and second of the 59th hour,

or whatever it is.

And then he has to say,

well, of course we said

there was going to be a vote

in the House of Commons

before that happened,

which technically of course then

wouldn't be possible.

What it exemplifies is this

time-limited negotiation,

which we blundered into,

without securing a positional

deal at the end of it

because all of the time the clock

is working for the other 27.

That's what's weakened the UK's

negotiating position,

not anything that the Government

or the Bank of England has said.

And the BBC?

Well, I mean, of course

I always defend the BBC!

I don't remember that

during the Scottish referendum?

That's the whole point.

Did you defend the BBC

then, I don't think so?

Let me put this way,

if I can give you half a compliment.

I think the BBC were much less bias

during the Brexit referendum

than they were during the Scottish

referendum, there you go.

Right.

Shami Chakrabarti, you go next

and I'll come to you in a moment.

With respect to the questioner,

I do think that on this

one the Bank of England

and the BBC are a distraction

from the real problem here.

They are not responsible

for negotiating Brexit,

it's the Government and it's

the Government that is failing

in that responsibility.

APPLAUSE

Mark Carney...

We know that David Dimbleby

is all powerful, but he is not

negotiating Britain's exit

from the EU.

The Government is divided.

The Government is chaotic.

The Government has no plan,

and we are in jeopardy as a result.

Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Thank you.

Well, first of all, why I have

criticised the governor of the Bank

of England and continue to do so,

is that during the Brexit referendum

he made the Bank's views of Brexit

clear in a way that he never does

in a general election.

He didn't give his view earlier this

year on what Mr Corbyn's

economics plans would do

to the United Kingdom,

but he did express a view on Brexit.

That seemed to me to politicise

the Bank of England

and besmirch its reputation.

We trust the Bank of England to be

apolitical, to be independent,

not to be the creature of whoever

happens to be Chancellor.

What was it he said that

particularly offended you?

I mean, he said the risk to leave

could possibly include a technical

recession, didn't he?

That's right.

He warned that there would be

a technical recession,

but that is a recession.

A technical recession isn't

a recession, is it, actually?

It's a temporary recession,

I think, isn't it?

All recessions have so far been

temporary in the whole of history.

Well, it depends on the timescale.

A technical recession is two

quarters of GDP declining.

He said that, he was

completely wrong.

The Treasury was worse,

it said there would be

between 500,000 and 800,000 jobs

lost purely on a vote to leave,

not actually anything happening.

And the BBC?

Dear Old Auntie.

The BBC, how many times have

we heard "in spite of Brexit?"

In spite of Brexit, a record

three million jobs have

been created since 2010.

In spite of Brexit, unemployment

is at its lowest level since 1975.

What kind of jobs?

In spite of Brexit, England defeated

the West Indies at Lords.

I mean it is...

APPLAUSE

..it is again and again.

Sorry, can you actually specify

an occasion when you've heard that?

You say that, but have

you got a quotation?

I've got some other quotations

which I was going to get on to.

Have you got a quotation saying,

"in spite of Brexit?"

Well, you just have

to listen to the news.

That's a generalisation,

have you got a specific...

Well, no.

I think anyone who has listened

to the news recently

has heard the "in spite

of Brexit" terminology.

Are you sure?

I think the audience knows that.

Yes.

Of course they have.

Yes, the audience seems to agree.

No, they're shaking

their heads there.

You've found one!

The Sun carried out a survey...

Debate's over!

This is quite important

because the Andrew Marr Show has

had 84% of its people

on being anti-Brexit.

129 interviewees

against, 33 in favour.

The balance of the BBC

has been against.

And actually, I disagree

with something Alex Salmond said.

I think during the referendum

campaign the BBC behaved very well

and tried extremely hard

to be independent.

It got such a shock when we voted

to leave that since then I think it

has behaved very badly.

And I think that the situation

in terms of negotiations is exactly

what you would expect.

We have the two-year time limit,

which if we hadn't exercised Article

50, the vote would simply not

have been implemented.

The government had to exercise

Article 50 and is now

getting on with it.

And of course it's an argument.

That's the nature

of the negotiation.

The person there on the left, and

then I will come to you, Germaine.

You say about the Bank of England,

Mark Carney getting involved,

and how he shouldn't be involved.

But actually he wouldn't get

involved in a general election

because if we're not

happy with a government,

five years from now

we can vote them out.

With Brexit, this is

an entire lifetime.

It's going to take a lifetime to fix

this situation, however it goes.

Which makes it even more important

that he should have been impartial.

And the man up there.

With respect, I think the BBC have

been biased against Brexit.

I think that during the referendum

campaign what you often did

was you got someone very intelligent

to speak on behalf of Remain

and you managed to get

someone less intelligent

to speak on behalf of Leave.

I personally believe...

LAUGHTER

Not you, Jacob!

Germaine Greer.

Well, it's a funny old world,

as Mrs Thatcher said.

We don't really like

bankers very much.

They seem to have got us

into a terrible mess,

and by way of getting us out of it,

they got us to pay for it,

and it's going on like this.

We don't seem to have enough

money to do any thing.

But the crowning glory comes

when we can't find a citizen to run

the bloody Bank of England,

we have to go to Canada.

Now, why did we do that?

Why didn't you get the job?

LAUGHTER

As the gentleman at the back said,

I'm not intelligent enough.

LAUGHTER

I said you are intelligent.

Camilla Tominey.

On Mark Carney, I think the main

criticism is he got his economic

forecasting on Brexit wrong.

He talked about the recession,

regardless of whether it was

technical or actual,

and in fact there's been five

consecutive periods of growth.

I think growth is up 1.9%,

which was not what the Project Fear

brigade were predicting.

On Brexit in general, BBC bias,

I think there's two Brexiters

on this panel and three Remainers.

I don't know whether you've had

a panel that's been majority

Brexiters, have you, David?

We have.

How about the average intelligence?

Average intelligence,

I can't comment on at all,

being a lowly journalist,

rather than a lofty politician.

But I would suggest that actually

when we speak to our readers on both

sides of the democratic divide,

mostly people just say,

"Will you get on with it.

"Just get on with Brexit.

"Stop posturing, stop fighting

between yourselves".

APPLAUSE

The notion of it being

a minority as well, overwhelmingly

in Parliament people voted

to have the referendum

in the first place.

Overwhelmingly in Parliament,

people voted to trigger Article 50.

Overwhelmingly.

80% or more of the electorate voted

for parties that supported Brexit.

So just do it.

But the government has to just do

it, not Mark Carney and not the BBC.

It's not just the government,

is it, Shami?

It's also the EU, who,

despite this conciliatory offer

from the Florence speech are digging

in their heels.

Even though a deal for them

is mutually beneficial.

This is what is lost

in a lot of the rhetoric.

Do the German car industry seriously

want to shoot themselves

in their own feet by not having

a free-trade agreement with the UK?

That would cost the German car

industry alone 29,000 jobs.

APPLAUSE

The trouble is, the Remain argument,

I'm afraid, it fails,

because everybody knows deep down

that if we do get this cake

and eat it scenario,

we can have free trade with Europe

and we can have free trade

with the rest of the world.

That is infinitely better.

But it's your Chancellor

of the Exchequer, isn't it,

who says a cloud of uncertainty over

the current negotiations acts

as a dampener on the economy?

This is such an opportunity.

When we leave, we can

set our own tariffs.

Tariffs set at the European

level make food, clothing

and footwear more expensive.

They are the highest

proportion of the poorest

in society's expenditure.

If we can get rid of those tariffs,

we help the worst off in society.

That is a real benefit.

So why does your Chancellor

of the Exchequer not accept this

and sound so gloomy?

Because all the Treasury forecasts

assume that instead of cutting

tariffs on the rest of the world,

we raise tariffs against the EU.

That is completely insane.

The Treasury's forecasts are even

worse than the Bank of England.

Yes, you, sir.

Can I just say to Mr Salmond, you

are being deliberately disingenuous.

You say we should have gone

to the EU and sorted something out

before we activated Article 50.

You know as well as I do

that we weren't in a position

to negotiate until Article

50 was activated.

Yes.

I think at that stage,

this is earlier this year,

the EU were desperate to have

Article 50 invoked.

There's no reason for

the government to do it.

The government should not

have invoked Article 50

until the transitional

period was agreed.

But we couldn't do anything

with Europe until we

activated Article 50.

It's like who blinks first.

And unfortunately it

was the UK Government.

Why did they do it?

They didn't have

to invoke Article 50.

All right.

I voted to trigger Article 50.

They voted precisely

for that reason.

Let's not go back over that ground.

Let's go to another

subject from Alice Moore.

Your question, please.

Who should be held accountable

for low and decreasing numbers

of poor and non-white students

at Oxford and Cambridge?

Who should be held responsible?

We got the figures the other day,

decreasing numbers of poor

and non-white students

at Oxford and Cambridge.

Germaine Greer.

This is a really difficult question.

I mean, the very suggestion

that we've had to heed,

that we could lower the points

required at A level in order

to allow poorer students to attend

the elite universities is insulting

to them, apart from anything else.

That is not the problem there.

Part of the problem is that these

universities are not actually

particularly merciful to people

who come from a different social

class to the middle-class

that they are at ease with.

I mean, we've all heard the stories

of the girl who came to Newnham

who didn't know how to sit

in the bath.

She sat with her back at the tap end

and everybody sneered

at her because she didn't

have a bath at home.

They didn't go skiing

on their holidays, she had never

been abroad, and all that

sort of thing.

They are very snobbish places.

But you can still crack it.

I mean, our real problem here,

I think, is that we don't have

enough scholarships.

For the last 40 years,

when I was still a fellow

at Newnham, I was saying,

"There's only one way we'll get

the right students".

We have to do what we have to do

with everything else.

We have to buy them.

And we have to give them

a deal that is wonderful,

where their fees are paid,

they are well housed,

have travel allowances,

they have books, and we actually get

the best out of them.

Instead, they struggle.

They struggle against trying

to read the encoded social

language of the institution.

And the institution is probably not

the thing you think it is.

You know, Cambridge is,

what, the second research

university in the world?

But that doesn't reflect

the undergraduate body at all.

And it certainly doesn't

reflect the teaching.

One of the things that drives me

crazy is when you go to university,

you don't get taught by the people

you've heard about who teach

at that university.

You get taught by

a graduate student.

This is not the deal.

This doesn't justify the enormous

amount of money that we have

to spend on the Russell Group.

There's one other thing.

Is it the case that some secondary,

state secondary schools

are pessimistic about getting

their pupils into the Russell Group

universities and Oxford

and Cambridge, and don't actually

push them, don't offer them

that as an opportunity,

but say, that's not

for you, for the reasons

you've been describing.

Look, that may be the case.

But I think they're also quite

likely to know that the students

in question would be

happier somewhere else.

There are other universities that

are more encouraging.

Cambridge can be

profoundly dismissive.

If you haven't read the right books,

if your family doesn't have books

in the house and so forth,

you can gradually feel that

you are permanently disadvantaged.

And that is true now,

is it, still true now?

Well, I haven't taught at Cambridge

for a while and I didn't teach

that way when I did.

But I was pretty well aware of it.

What's happening now,

I think if we did have a healthy

scholarship system, where students

could actually correctly

choose the university...

Now, they're not all going to be

happy doing the Tripos.

And the Tripos' usefulness

could be challenged.

There are other things that might

be much more worthy.

Camilla Tominey.

I think, as well, the problem starts

at primary and secondary education.

We are in a two-tier system.

We don't have grammar schools

any more but we have

selective schools where, really,

you can only get your children

in if you tutor them.

And that costs money.

And that then means that poorer

families who have got bright

kids can't get them in,

because they haven't had somebody

who they are paying every Sunday

morning to teach their children

verbal and nonverbal reasoning.

Whether that's a skill that judges

children on their academic ability

or not is up to teachers to decide.

I equally think as well,

when it comes to bursaries,

that a lot of poorer families just

don't think that's for them.

Interestingly, now that the grammar

schools revolution has been

put on the back burner,

free schools are having a lot

of success in deprived areas.

During the Tory party conference

I spoke to Toby Young,

who has obviously been heavily

involved in that movement.

And at the school in Newham,

which was started seven years ago,

so it's now coming to fruition

and some of these children

are making university applications,

15 of these kids have

got into Oxbridge.

That would have been unthinkable

with the previous system

and without this free school.

So clearly, more needs to be done.

You.

I disagree that it's

the secondary school,

because I went to a state secondary

school and they, if anything,

encouraged you to apply to go

to the higher universities.

They pushed you towards that,

and I managed to get good results

at my GCSEs and that's not

putting me off trying to apply

to Oxford or Cambridge.

And you're doing that now, are you?

I will next year be applying

to those universities.

Alex Salmond.

I wish the young lady every success.

But I think the responsibility

does lie with Oxbridge.

If you have it just

on qualifications, most state school

pupils will be at a disadvantage

compared to most private school

pupils, because public schools

in England will teach not just

for the exams, but they will teach

for the entrance requirements.

And therefore, if it's only

grade against grade,

you'll get the situation

of a substantial social disparity.

There's also a responsibility

for the government, in fees

which are totally and utterly

outrageous in England,

being a big disincentive

for lower-income families

than for higher income

families, obviously.

Being 40, 50, £60,000 in debt

is a big disincentive,

and you should do something

about English politicians who try

to retain such an unequal system.

But lastly, because we still

have a problem in Scotland with,

like Saint Andrews, for example,

not on a racial basis

but on a working class basis.

I've come to the conclusion

that the only way you can actually

tackle this and do it

so as people don't say,

"I had so many As and I didn't get

in when someone else got

"in with lower grades",

is to have a system of a certain

number of entries outwith the

examination system.

I think people

should qualify through the Duke

of Edinburgh award scheme,

through voluntary work,

something like that.

They should be taken to these

universities for a summer school,

over a period of perhaps six weeks,

assessed over that period,

and that could be a form of entry,

along with the scholarship system

Germaine said.

And the reason I hope that

such a system might be

introduced in Scotland,

and I would commend such

a system for Oxbridge to try

and have the social diversity

that this nation of England should

demand from its top universities.

APPLAUSE

What do you think?

As a former teacher,

I agree with the young lady that

it's not about poverty

of aspirations at schools at all.

We encourage our students to aim

as highly as they can.

I think what Germaine said

about the social playing field,

it's completely uneven.

If you don't see anyone around you,

if you don't have anyone

in your family that's been to these

kind of places, it's

just such an unfamiliar,

the culture and expectations

so unfamiliar to you and I

think it's off-putting.

So what do you think should be done?

It's not my job to decide.

Shami Chakrabarti, what do

you think should be done?

I think there is a greater

responsibility on the so-called

elite universities to demonstrate

that they are for everyone,

and they need to take

more positive steps.

The sorts of things

you have been mooting.

But they should be

actively recruiting.

They should be actively sending

staff and recruiters and people

to go and speak in state schools,

in poorer parts of the country,

to try and bust this idea that

you're not welcome here.

But I do think that the government

has responsibility, too.

I went to the London School

of Economics in the late 80s

and did a law degree,

without which I wouldn't

be here tonight.

My parents did not have any money,

but I had a full maintenance grant

and zero tuition fees.

That made a world of difference

to me in my life chances.

Would I take on the kind of debt

that would be required for me

to have that same education today,

knowing that my parents

couldn't afford to help?

I'm not convinced that I would.

So I think government has

responsibility, and these so-called

elite universities have a massive

responsibility and

ethical duty as well.

APPLAUSE

Yes, the woman there

in the fourth row from the front.

Four from the front.

I think that equality is such

a complex issue and one of the main

things we need to focus

on is whether we are talking

about equality of outcome

or equality of opportunity.

Because equality of opportunity

won't necessarily produce

equality of outcome.

So for example, if you have,

if you are striving for equality

of outcome, if you have 50% women,

50% men, but equality of opportunity

means everyone gets the same

starting position but it doesn't

mean they'll all reach

the same place.

So it's much more complex

than saying we should

strive for equality.

You need to really think

about what equality means.

APPLAUSE

Yes.

But the question was about

the numbers going of poor

and non-white students.

Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Well, I actually agree

with what the lady has just said.

I think that you want

to have an equality of opportunity,

but that may mean that you need

to help people to get that

opportunity in the first place.

It's worth noting on loans,

student loans, they have actually

led to a very large increase

in the number of people

going to university

from the poorest decile of income.

And that's quite interesting

because it's not necessarily

what you would expect,

but it's encouraged the poorest

to go to university.

I very much agree with

Jermaine Greer that I think having

bursaries and scholarships,

so that people will really

be incentivized to go

through university and I think,

dare I say it, that people who've

had the good fortune that I've had

and go to schools like Eton,

where I was with your son,

as I think many people know.

When you've had that great

advantage, it is not unreasonable

for the people examining

you when you get to Oxford

and Cambridge to recognise that

you have had every possible

advantage and somebody who hasn't

had so many advantages,

but who may have well done less well

in the exam, may

actually be cleverer

and more able and I think it's

perfectly fair to maintain equality

of opportunity by recognising

that there have been inequalities

in the early stages.

But there a distinction, isn't

there, between the number of people,

the percentage of people

from the lowest financial

decile, economic decile,

going to university and the numbers

going to Oxford and Cambridge.

That's absolutely true.

Is it important, in your view,

that the entry to Oxford

and Cambridge should be opening up

in the same way as all

the other universities?

Absolutely.

It's very important that Oxford

and Cambridge maintain their world

beating standard and therefore

they should not take quotas,

but what they should do is make it

as easy as possible for clever

people from disadvantaged

backgrounds to get in

and going out to schools.

It's brilliant to hear that schools

are encouraging people to apply

because certainly anecdotally one's

heard the reverse and that

some pupils are told,

don't try for Oxford and Cambridge,

it won't suit you.

That really shouldn't happen.

That should be strongly discouraged

and schools should work

with the universities to encourage

bright people to go.

Not just because that's the right

thing to do for the individuals,

but it's also very good

for the country.

That if our brightest people

get the best education,

that is going to be very good

for the country over

the next generation.

Be able to have a UK Bank of England

bloke to run the Bank.

I'm just muttering to myself.

You in the black dress there.

Yes you, on the gangway.

The woman on the gangway.

Come on!

There, thank you.

But if we only have a small

tokenistic amount of places opened

up, the culture and the support

that's available to them

when they arrive at Oxford

and and maybe are are mixing

with the elitists from the public

schools, it gives that impression

of them feeling different

and as if they're

being a worthy cause.

We need to really challenge

the culture and the support in these

universities that make it

an accepting and welcoming

place for a more diverse

range of students to go.

OK.

The woman behind you,

in the row behind there.

Yes.

I'd like to suggest

a civilian form of national

service for 18-year-olds.

About a third of the time the work

that they would do would be

some form of education,

they would also do work and sport

and the people in charge of national

service would be able to assess.

I loved what Alex suggested

about other routes besides

educational qualifications.

That would assess character,

leadership and it would also

have people of different

classes mixing together.

So compulsory national service?

Yes.

Can you go along the row

to the second person

from the end there.

You, yes.

I think we need to stop skirting

around the issue, really.

If you're a child and your

in a class of 34 students,

your TA is no longer

there because of budget cuts,

how are you going to have the same

opportunities, the same quality

of teaching as those in private

schools in a class of ten?

Absolutely.

OK.

APPLAUSE

Yes, the woman here.

Actually, I think that already

Oxford is doing a lot of the things

that Alex Salmond mentioned.

There is such a thing called

contextual admissions,

where things are taken into account

such as the sort of school one went