16/11/2017 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Newcastle,

and welcome to Question Time.

And with us tonight

we have Emily Thornberry,

Shadow Foreign Secretary,

often tipped to be a future leader

of the Labour Party.

The Conservative MP born

to Kurdish parents in Baghdad,

Brexiteer businessman Nadhim Zahawi.

Tim Farron, who resigned as leader

of the Liberal Democrats,

saying he was unable to reconcile

the job with living

as a faithful Christian.

The columnist Rob Liddle,

associate editor of the Spectator,

columnist for the Sun and the Sunday

Times.

And once the captain of a winning

team on University Challenge,

who will have all the answers

tonight, the crime

writer Val McDermid.

Thanks very much.

Apart from our audience here,

arguing with the panel,

from home, of course,

you can argue as well

using our hashtag BBCQT,

on Twitter, Facebook.

Text 83981, and push the red button

to see what others are saying.

Our first question from

Ivor Kavalczyk, please.

Is a minimum price for a unit

of alcohol a sensible idea?

This was the idea that was announced

today, the UK Supreme Court says

the Scottish Parliament can,

and the Scottish Parliament

will do, which is a minimum

price for alcohol.

Emily Thornberry.

Our position is that what we worry

about is the super-strength alcohol,

actually, and the really cheap,

super-strength alcohol, which people

buy, and that is the stuff

which is addictive and leads,

we think, them to do the worst sorts

of anti-social behaviour.

So we think work needs to be done

on that specifically,

and that is what our policy is.

But are you in favour

of what is going to happen

in Scotland, cider going up in price

four, five times?

No, what I'm saying

is that we want to concentrate

on the super-strength stuff,

on cheap, super-strength alcohol.

That's what we would focus on.

Well, what is the cheap,

super-strength?

Well, there are various types

of cider and beers and so on that

are particularly strong,

and as I say, you will find you can

buy them in supermarkets,

in large quantities,

and they are the things

which people buy and drink

in order to get drunk

and get drunk fast.

OK.

Rod Liddle, what do you think?

The news today was that,

for instance, a bottle of cider

from £3.59 would go up to £11.20.

Are you in favour of that?

No, of course not,

because it penalises

the poorest people in society.

And I find that appalling.

Whenever these sort of discussions

take place, it is always

the poor who get hit by it.

So whenever we talk about

what we need to do about obesity,

it's put the price up,

ban people from eating stuff.

It would affect the poor.

You never hear, when politicians

talk about binge drinking,

they don't mean someone having

a nice Sancerre outside one of these

places on your river here.

They mean a poor person buying

a large bunch of cider

because he fancies a drink.

So I'm absolutely opposed to it.

We do have a problem with alcohol

but the problem with alcohol

is something which needs to be

treated with, I think,

as much as anything, education.

And I think it is as prevalent,

and studies suggest this is true,

that it's just as prevalent amongst

the middle classes,

with their bottles of Sancerre,

and who can afford these price

hikes, as it is amongst

the poorest of us.

Don't deprive the poor people

of this country of their pleasure.

No.

APPLAUSE

Val McDermid, what do

you make of it?

This is not about depriving poor

people of their pleasure.

It's about preventing people

from killing themselves

with excessive quantities of alcohol

they can buy incredibly cheaply.

APPLAUSE

16p a unit.

Hundreds of people are dying

in Scotland every year from alcohol.

It is one of our biggest

social problems.

The education side of it is

important, but that hasn't worked.

So let's try something a little bit

different and see if we can

get a different result.

But it does hurt the

poorest, doesn't it?

It is the poorest who get hurt.

You may be right, Val,

but it is the poor that

that is targeted at.

They are also the ones being killed

by the policy of having

really cheap alcohol.

And on this point, actually,

another thing I would really

like to see happen is the monks

of Buckfast putting their products

in plastic bottles.

Because this would ease the burden

on the NHS in Scotland immensely,

from people not being hit over

the head with glass bottles

of Buckfast on a Saturday night.

You're laughing, but it

actually isn't a joke.

This is a major problem.

People get drunk on this stuff,

which is like a version

of vodka and Red Bull,

alcohol and caffeine.

They get into fights,

they become violent,

they hit each other

over the head with it.

Go into a casualty department

in Glasgow on a Saturday night

and it's full of people

being injured by this kind of thing.

And the monks won't put it

in plastic bottles because little

old ladies in the south of England

don't like elastic bottles

on their tonic wine.

OK, you, sir.

I think they price hiked cigarettes,

which are also killing people,

and that hasn't prevented

people from smoking.

But then the price hike

on cigarettes applies to everybody.

This is only certain cheap

liquor that's going to get

the price increase, isn't it?

You buy expensive wine,

it won't go up in price.

That's the point.

They never do this.

They won't attack their own drinks.

You buy a bottle of champagne,

it costs exactly the same.

You know, it's just the stuff

that poor people drink.

You, sir, what do you think?

I think that if we increase

the price of the cheap alcohol,

then people will look

to illegitimate sources of alcohol.

So people will start making it

in their back gardens,

in their streets, and that will be

stronger, less high quality and then

will lead to more deaths.

I can't understand why people

won't just load up vans of alcohol

in England and take them

across the border and sell them

cheap on the black market.

They probably will.

It will be great business

for Newcastle, I'm telling you.

Yes, or Carlisle.

What do you think, Tim Farron?

I think the Scottish Parliament has

used its devolved power to make

a decision based on evidence.

And you may not like the outcome,

but I think they are

entitled to make it.

I think they have attempted to deal

with what is a very real

problem, as Val sets out.

I'd do it a little bit differently.

I think the concern I've got is that

undoubtedly cheap pricing,

a loss leader of particularly very

strong forms of alcohol

from the retailers,

the supermarkets especially,

does do damage.

And then you look at the enormous

tax burden on pubs,

which are at the centre of our

communities and are an absolutely

vital industry to the country

as a whole, and certainly to my part

of the world in Cumbria.

So my view is that you should shift

the balance of taxation away

from the pubs onto cheap supermarket

booze, so you end up dealing

with the real source of the problem

whilst not taxing and hitting those

places where people tend

to drink most responsibly.

APPLAUSE

Nadhim Zahawi.

The Scottish Government is now

using its devolved tax hike.

They've hiked up tax £400 for those

earning 43,000 a year.

I worry about this in

the way Rod Liddle does.

Is it going to make a difference,

or is it just adding to the burden

for those who are just managing?

And the other issue

you are going to create which,

again, you touched on it,

David, is will this mean

lots of people driving from Scotland

to Newcastle to load up on alcohol?

Spending more on fuel...

Ecological matter, you mean?

Ecological matters.

I don't think it's a good

intervention, but let's wait

and see the data beyond it.

Is it popular in Scotland,

Val, as a move?

I think it is, by and large, yes.

What I've been seeing and hearing

on television and on the radio,

people seem generally

to approve of it.

The people who are buying this

really, really cheap lager

and getting completely

off their faces, cider, rather,

they are not the ones

who are going into pubs.

This is not depriving the poor

of the opportunity to go

into the pub and have a pint.

This is people who are specifically

wanting to get off their head

as quickly and as cheaply

as possible, and

that is not healthy.

It is not a tax on the poor.

It is a tax on the poor.

What you say may be correct,

but it's still a tax on the poor.

The person in the third

row from the back.

My problem with it is it does

nothing to address the root cause.

Why are people drinking so much?

There's nothing about that.

Someone up there with their

hand up in the centre.

My concern is for the generation

before myself, older people.

The energy drinks are quite cheap

at the moment, and obviously

if they are going to keep drinking

energy drinks and then

they are going to transfer

themselves onto cheap alcohol.

OK.

This is a measure for Scotland.

Would anybody like to see this

applying to England?

Anybody in our audience

have a strong view about that?

You, sir.

Yes, I disagree with Rod Liddle that

it's a tax on the poor.

I think if it were applied evenly,

not all poor people drink.

And it only applies, as Val says,

to the cheapest strong alcohol.

And I think, therefore,

it would reduce the amount

of drinks that people buy,

and therefore would reduce

how much they drink,

and therefore reduce the medical

and social problems that

alcohol then causes.

Let's go onto another question.

This is from Amy Littler, please.

Regarding the Brexit negotiations,

would it be better to have a no

deal, or a detrimental deal?

Better no deal, rather

than a detrimental deal?

You voted in favour of Brexit.

What's your view?

The no deal option, Amy,

is not a good deal.

I'm on the Foreign Affairs Select

Committee and we looked at this

particular question and asked world

experts to come and tell us.

They told us that it

would be mutually assured

destruction for our economy.

It would drop by about

four percentage points.

Also for the EU, the Netherlands,

Ireland, even parts of Germany,

its motor sector, for example.

So that's not a good place

to be and that's not

what we're negotiating.

At the moment the team,

David Davis, the Prime Minister,

everyone is committed to trying

to get the best deal possible

by effectively dealing

with the issues that the EU 27 wants

to deal with, so our financial

settlement, the issue of Ireland

and Northern Ireland and the border

issue there,

and and, of course of EU

citizens living here...

We know the detail.

What she's saying is,

is it better to walk away

if you don't get the deal you want?

That's the nub of the question.

So if you go into any negotiation,

and before becoming a member

of Parliament I was a businessman,

and I bought businesses

all over the world.

You can't go into negotiations

saying, "I will never walk away,

"I will take any deal you give me",

because you will then

guarantee a bad deal.

APPLAUSE

So you've got to make

preparations that you can walk away.

Our economy, 82% of our

economy is domestic.

So I will be looking forward

to the Chancellor next week saying

lots of good things about how

we really keep this momentum going.

The employment figures

were excellent this week.

The lowest unemployment since 1975.

But you prepare for the worst

outcome, but you absolutely try

and go for as good a deal

as possible, by putting forward

the best possible option,

for the other side to then agree

to a trade deal that allows us full

and unfettered access to the market,

both for manufacturing but also

for things like technology,

which I know a little bit

about, but services.

80% of our economy,

export services to Europe,

but beyond Europe as well.

But the idea behind this question,

as I understand it, Amy,

what you are saying is,

is there a deal so bad

that it would be better

to walk away from it?

Yes.

Emily Thornberry.

You see, I have asked this question.

I've said, "When you

talk about a bad deal,

"what are you talking about?

"What is this bad deal

that we could have"?

Because we need to have

a negotiation here.

The public needs to be informed.

First of all we need to be informed

about what no deal looks like.

And at one stage the Tories weren't

even talking about that.

And then when they're saying a bad

deal is better than whatever it is,

no deal is better than a bad deal,

what do you mean?

What does a bad deal look like?

Because I think that no deal

means that we crash out,

we have no ongoing relationship

with our closest allies,

with whom we have traded,

the large proportion of our trade

has gone with the European Union.

The planes will not

be able to fly...

That's not true, Emily.

They will not.

You know that already.

Willie Walsh, the head

of British Airways has

said that is not true.

ROD LIDDLE:

And bees will attack us!

Well, European regulation...

Be honest with your audience, Emily.

European regulation of aircraft

is one that we are signed up to,

and if we leave the European Union

with no deal at all,

we are not in that deal any more.

It is a serious matter.

There are a number of things.

We will have lorry parks

where we will not be able

to export our goods,

and everything will be gone through.

It will be an absolute

disaster if we have no deal.

And the reason that we are being

softened up to think that no deal

may happen is because this

government is incompetent

and cannot negotiate properly

with the European Union.

And we are being softened up

because they will not be able

to agree amongst themselves

what kind of deal that they want.

And it's getting worse.

Not only can they not

agree what a deal is

supposed to look like.

There are two deals needed.

There is the divorce deal, and then

there is the ongoing relationship

with the European Union.

So let's just talk about

the divorce package.

Now we've got legislation before

Parliament at the moment,

and they want, as a complete

gimmick, to have a solid date put

into legislation whereby we have

to have a deal by that date.

And that makes it impossible,

so that if they come back

with some half baked idea,

and they put it back before

Parliament and they will say to us,

"Take it or leave it.

"If you don't agree to this, we are

going to have no deal at all".

That is no way of proceeding.

We need to be able

to have our say...

Emily, we get the point.

We will have plenty of time to talk

as the argument goes on.

On that particular point, you say,

from Labour's point of view,

you would like the negotiations

to go on not two years,

but three, four, five years,

as long as it takes?

No.

Why are you against having...

OK, let me explain.

No.

Hang on.

Are you in favour of having

the deadline that's going before

Parliament, two years from now it

has to be done?

I think we have to have flexibility.

I think we have to be

realistic and grown-up.

Any relationship, if I am

having a conversation

or row with my other half,

I'm not going in to try to persuade

him I am right about something

by going in and saying,

if you don't agree with me,

I am going to walk out.

This is not the way you do things.

Article 50 says it has to be done

by the end of March 2019.

Are you in favour of

sticking with that?

You voted for it.

So we voted for Article 50 and we're

leaving the European Union.

We have to make sensible decisions,

and we need to be able to negotiate.

If we find ourselves

in a situation whereby

we need another two weeks,

another month, 26 other

countries have agreed to it

and the 27th hasn't...

And another year, another two years?

No.

But what we don't want is to have

on the face of the bill,

to have it in solid legislation that

no matter what happens,

there is no flexibility at all.

This is exactly the sort of attitude

this government has gone into these

negotiations with and that is why

they are selling us short.

Rod Liddle.

I agree with Emily Thornberry

about the utter mind-boggling

incompetence of this government.

Clearly to my mind the worst

government that we have had,

certainly within my living memory.

APPLAUSE

And the problems which have

mounted up have mounted up

because it is ill-disciplined.

They keep opening their fat gobs

when they shouldn't.

They contradict one another

and they grandstand.

And all of that is undermining our

negotiations with Europe.

I just wish you could tell them,

shut up and do as you're told

and put the country first instead

of your own pathetic

political careers.

Because what we are seeing

at the moment is jockeying

for position to replace Theresa May.

If you want rid of her,

get rid of her.

I don't object to that.

I don't think anyone would.

But be clear.

APPLAUSE

All right.

Back to the main issue,

I think you are right.

I don't agree with Emily about this.

I think it is ludicrous to go

into negotiations with one hand

tied behind your back,

because you cannot say

that you will walk away

if you don't get the right deal.

That is common sense.

But your government, Philip Hammond

and then Justine Greening,

both said it was inconceivable

you would not have a deal

and you almost said it yourself.

So I do not know where

you are going with this.

It is an absolute catastrophe.

I know a lot of people

here did not vote to leave.

I did.

It was a close call.

These problems are not

occasioned by Brexit itself,

it is occasioned by a deeply,

deeply incompetent government.

All right.

Tim Farron.

A number of people

with their hands up.

I will come to you in just a moment.

I certainly agree with the last

bit of what Rod said.

I saw a well-respected

older Tory backbencher

who tweeted the other day,

oh, gosh, it feels like 92-97 again

in the Conservative Party.

My response to that is it is

far worse than that.

92-97, the Tories had Major,

Heseltine and Clark.

They had grown-ups running the shop.

And now you have a bunch

of people concerned only

for their own careers,

not for their country and not

for our children's future.

Michel Barnier, once upon a time had

coffee and croissants for breakfast.

Now he has David Davis

every flipping day.

It worries me because these people

are there to negotiate my children's

future, your future.

That really bothers me.

Whether you vote Leave or Remain,

you should be appalled

at the quality of your team

that is out there.

Bad deal, no deal, I do not think

there is a worse deal than no deal

because if you leave

the European Union without a deal,

you have tariffs above 50%

on British food products

going into the single market,

you cut yourself off from 50 trade

deals the EU is part of.

Another 67 that are being

written up at the moment.

You have given me

option one, no deal.

Option two, bad deal.

I will give you option three.

We have got a brilliant

deal at the moment.

Why do we let the British

people have the final

say on the final deal?

If they want to vote

to stay, then they can.

You have heard both sides.

Both of them were claptrap.

Because first of all,

you're going to have

to have a proper debate about this.

I sat in the chamber, Rod,

over the last couple

of days of the debate.

It is very important we hear

from people like Dominic Grieve,

because the detail is important.

And if that sounds to you like

division, it is not,

it is about making sure we get

the legislation right, Rod.

But you cannot say on the one hand

it is vital we go into these

negotiations letting people know

we will walk away if the deal is not

right and then have your Chancellor

and other ministers immediately

undermine that position and say it

does not matter that this

will never happen.

You have to be clear about this.

Let me try to repeat myself.

Do not repeat yourself.

Say something new.

New, but different words.

In any negotiation you have to be

clear and realistic and no deal

is not a good outcome.

You can say that but you have

to prepare for it if that is where

we end up with our interlocutors on

the other side.

You can say that.

The idea you pretend

it is not there.

But to say it is inconceivable...

I did not say that.

You have to prepare for it.

And go for a good deal.

I think that is where

we will end up.

Let's hear from our audience.

You have been sitting patiently

while this has been going on.

Not very patiently.

You have been sitting, anyway.

The woman at the back.

I cannot believe I am agreeing

with a Sun journalist but in terms

of the government being incompetent,

isn't it the case it is also

possibly negligent the government

are continuing with

the negotiations, having not

considered the Brexit impact reports

currently being redacted,

I am sorry, drafted and not waiting

and pausing the whole thing

until we have looked

at what it actually means.

You would put it on

hold for the moment?

I would, yes.

Over there.

Just going back to what Tim Farron

said, do the panel see the irony

that some call a second EU

referendum when we know what this

deal looks like as undemocratic

and against the will of the people?

Val McDermid.

I am not a politician.

Like everybody else in this room,

I do not have access

to the papers that tell me

what deals are available.

I don't know what this government

is negotiating, because, of course,

we have not been able to see

the briefing first.

One thing I know is no deal

will mean the only people

who will benefit are the lawyers

who will spend the next 50

years arguing about this.

I really don't want my taxes

spent on lawyers' bills.

OK.

The woman who had her hand up.

Where was it?

You, sir, then.

Can I just say, it is easy to sit

by the wayside and criticise

when you are not actually

at the table yourself.

And I get a little bit sick

of Labour and the far left just

constantly criticising

what is a really difficult

decision to make.

It is easy to criticise on points,

when you are not under

the pressure at the table.

Can I just say as well,

that you have got to go into any

negotiations with the intention

of coming away, if you can't meet,

mutually, with an agreement.

It is not hard.

It is easy to roll over

and have your belly tickled, but,

at the end of the day,

you have to negotiate hard.

Hold on.

It was addressed

to Emily and Labour.

We have been clear throughout,

we have to leave the European Union

but we have to bear in mind this

is about people's jobs.

It is about jobs.

We have to make sure,

as we leave the European Union,

we look after our economy,

because if this goes badly,

people will lose their jobs.

What we are faced with is

a government that will not put that

at the forefront of their mind.

What they have at the forefront

of their mind is trying to keep

the Tory party together

and their own internal fights.

And they are putting down

all kinds of red lines,

we won't do this, we won't do that,

we insist on our curly bananas.

We insist on leaving

the European Court of Justice.

All of this, no, what we should be

doing is negotiating something that

will look after our economy

and I tell you, sir, if we walk away

from the European Union

and we are not able to trade

with this big bloc any more,

people will lose their jobs

in hundreds of thousands

and they will be the youngsters

more than anyone else.

This is serious.

I do not believe this government

is taking it serious.

170 days to go before...

we triggered Article 50.

And I wrote to the government

and I said answer a question a day.

Focus.

Before you trigger Article 50.

And they wrote back and they said,

no, we are not going

to answer the questions.

But you voted for Article 50.

Why did you vote for it?

Because the public want us

to leave the European Union

and we are democrats first

and foremost and we do

as the public have told us.

You do as the Tory party

tells you in this case.

No.

We do as the public have told us

and we leave the European Union

and it is our job as the opposition

to try to keep this government

honest and try to keep

them focused on looking

after the economy and people's jobs.

The woman on the right.

We keep hearing this thrown

around within Labour,

a jobs first Brexit,

but there is no such thing

as a jobs first Brexit.

Even...

Just in the north-east,

so this is not even nationally.

We are set to lose tens, if not

hundreds of thousands of jobs.

In a five-year period, we got

524.4 million pounds from the EU.

A lot of which was spent

on getting people into work,

getting people fit for work

and training people up.

That is not a jobs first

Brexit, if we leave.

There is no such thing

as a jobs first Brexit.

That is spot-on in my view.

The gentleman at the front

who talked about it

being easy to criticise.

It really is easy to criticise.

The problem is that if I had

voted Leave, I would feel

I had been sold a pup.

I would feel that what had happened

is that a Conservative Party,

to prevent an age-old split in it

over several decades decide to call

for a referendum to deal

with the internal politics,

made no preparations whatsoever

as to how you might deal with it

if you ended up in a Leave situation

and now we are in this mess.

I don't want this continuation of

the battle between Leave and Remain.

The people who voted Leave

and Remain should be united

in thinking this government

has stuffed them.

OK, I will take

a couple more points.

You, sir, there.

Is it not the case Labour's Brexit

policy does not stack up?

They say they want to put

a jobs first Brexit,

they want such a good deal,

they will stay in the single market,

an equivalent to the single market,

and the customs union,

and if they don't get

that they will carry on talking ad

nauseam and if they have talked ad

nauseam and it still does not work

out, they will then move on and say,

well, we might as well just stay.

No, no, no.

Hang on.

The EU wants us to stay in.

If you go in with the position

saying you are not prepared

to leave, the EU will say

we will just give you a bad deal

because that will make you stay.

So Labour's position

is that we have to leave

because that was the result

of the referendum.

What we have to do is...

We have not plumped for.

Let her answer the question.

We are not going to represent

the 48%, or the 52%,

we are trying to represent the whole

country and we are trying to keep

the country together.

The best way of doing

that is we leave, but we do not

need to go very far.

We have to look after people's jobs.

We have to bear in mind that frankly

part of the discussion

during the referendum was about such

things as migration and changing

the rules on migration.

What we should do is go

to our European partners

and our friends and say to them,

look, this is the situation.

Labour did not want to leave,

but the public have decided this

is where we should go.

And what we want to do is to find

the best way through this.

We want to remain close

to you, but, frankly,

there are changes we need to make.

Not go in and say,

we demand this and that.

That is how you negotiate.

You haven't answered the position.

Yes, I have.

I have answered that we're leaving

and we are looking after the economy

and we do not need to go very far.

If they say to you we are not

going to give you a good deal,

at what point are you going to say

we are going to walk away?

If we did not stand on the steps

of number 10 Downing St immediately

before the general election and say

the Europeans are conspiring

against us and therefore we need

a general election,

I mean there have been lies told

by the Tory party and they have

wound the situation up in a way

that is completely irresponsible.

But you are not answering his point.

My point is that the EU

definitively want us to stay.

If Labour is going to say that it

won't leave without a good deal,

the EU position will be,

we will give you a terrible deal,

then you won't leave.

All right.

I'll go to the woman

in the fourth row.

Fifth row, yes.

The woman in white.

This is not going very far

isn't going far enough.

We voted to leave the

European Union and we should be

adhering to the vote.

This no deal, to me is starting

to sound quite appealing

because it is a hard Brexit,

and that is what the

country voted for.

And the man just in front of you.

The EU currently represents just 15%

of the world's economy

and it is forecast to go down

to 12% by 2030.

Are we overvaluing a Brexit deal?

Do you agree with

the woman behind you?

Just cut loose?

Europe's only worth 15% today.

In 2030, it is only

going to be worth 12%.

Do you want a brief last point?

You have to have a strategy,

and the only party at the moment

who has actually got a strategy

with bills coming through Parliament

is the Conservative Party.

Did you say that

with a straight face?

Tim Farron's party put out

a pamphlet, a leaflet that says,

"No ifs, no buts, we'll

trust the British people.

"If they vote to

leave, we'll leave".

Now they want to go back

to the British people to see

if they can change their mind.

Emily Thornberry's had three goes

at trying to explain

the Labour position.

Clearly she can't because

they are flip-flopping

because John McDonnell says,

"I will not countenance ever

"leaving, whatever deal

they give us".

So that's why Emily's

all over the place.

We will leave it there

for this week on Brexit,

with everybody all over the place,

as seems to be

the standard position.

So just before we go

on, about next week,

we are in Colchester next week

and a week after that

in Scarborough.

Colchester, then Scarborough.

There is the address on the screen

if you would like to come.

The next question comes

from Andrew Bryson, please.

Should children be able

to choose their gender?

Should children be able

to choose their agenda?

Tim Farron.

This relates to the Church

of England's documentation

to its schools in the last few days.

I think the first principle,

and this is the reason why

the Church of England sent this

circular out, is to tackle

what is undoubtedly the case,

and that is bullying.

It is about people being treated

in ways which are unequal.

And children, I think,

in most of our experience,

are utterly accepting and capable

of being incredibly cruel.

So to be able to give that sort

of advice through teachers,

that they should ensure that these

issues are properly addressed,

I think that is right.

I think that is good.

And an important principle as well,

though, is to make sure that

you first of all do no harm.

And it's important that when we look

at the reality of the research

around gender dysphoria,

for example, that we follow

the evidence and we don't just make

things up as we go along.

My concern is that there isn't

sufficient evidence out there,

sufficient research,

to be able to tell us

about the impact upon children,

about the age at which these

decisions can be made.

And I am worried, a little bit,

about making things up as we go

along on the basis of evidence

that is not yet there.

What damage do we do,

to tell quite young children that

gender is not about how

you are built but how you feel?

What does that do?

And I don't know the answer to that.

What was it about the Church

of England that caught your

attention and became

an issue for you?

About their edict?

I think the clear motivation

was to try and tackle

bullying, and I think

that is right.

OK.

Val McDermid.

I think that children

and adolescents want

to explore the world.

For too long we have forced people

into hiding about their gender

and their sexuality.

I think it's entirely reasonable

that people should be allowed

to express themselves

as they feel inside themselves.

That's not to say that we

rush to the extremes

of surgery, for example.

And I think that we ought to hold

back with that end of things

until people are at the kind of age

of consent where they get to do

other things that we think

young people shouldn't be

allowed to do.

APPLAUSE

When I was little, I was

a tomboy, I wanted to climb trees.

I wanted to wear jeans.

And I turned out to be a lesbian.

I don't think the two things

are connected because gender isn't

the same thing as sexuality.

But I think if you push people

into the idea that if you feel

like you want to wear trousers

and climb trees for a few years

then you must be a boy,

that's dangerous as well,

and it pushes people who may be gay

into thinking that actually

they are not really gay,

they are the opposite gender.

So I think it's something

where we proceed carefully,

we listen to what the children

themselves have to say,

what young people themselves have

to say, but we don't push

them towards decisions

that are irrevocable.

APPLAUSE

What do you think?

Can I just say, I love the way

you just put that, Val?

So when I was at school,

there was a boy in my class

who clearly got terribly bullied,

who was clearly the wrong

gender, when I reflect

on it and I look back.

And listening, I think

on BBC Radio Four there

was a programme about a family

with a young child who was clearly

going through something very

similar, and it is heartbreaking.

For a father of two older boys

and a little girl now,

this is the toughest thing.

But the way you expressed it, i.e.

we should be able to speak

about this to children.

They should be able to explore

at school so that you cut out

the bullying, but actually be

careful, be very careful

until they reach the age

of consent before you begin

to intervene medically.

So what's your answer

to should children be able

to choose their gender,

which is how Andrew Bryson put it?

I'll come to you,

Andrew, in a moment.

I would say, I think

they should be able to explore,

but I think before you intervene

medically, you need to get

to a place where the parents

and their child are sure that's

what they want.

I think we have to remember

that gender is fluid.

We don't always find

ourselves in the same place

throughout our lives.

So at various points in our life

we may choose to express ourselves

as a different gender,

and I think it's perfectly

reasonable for people to do that.

Andrew Bryson, what's your view?

OK, Rod Liddle.

I tend to agree as well.

This is becoming a non-debate.

Well, it's interesting

that it is a non-debate.

Because without question,

the trend within social services

and within our schools

is to intervene very early on.

And social workers have been brought

in, parents have been told

that they must see social workers.

For example, this happened

with a five or six-year-old boy

who was spotted by his teacher,

I can't remember where,

and liked wearing a dress.

And the parents were contacted

and said, "Right, we have to go

"and see a social worker.

"This child has gender

dysphoria, it's a problem,

"he is identifying as a woman".

This is ludicrous.

And I think everyone on this panel

knows it's ludicrous,

so I would guess most

of the audience does.

But it is going ahead a little bit.

Things are moving apace.

And I think the Church of England's

report was evidence that

things are moving apace.

I would let kids get on with it

and not burden them with this,

up to the age of, certainly up

to the age of 16 and I would argue

18, and certainly no surgery,

because that is storing up enormous

problems for people in the future

who may well come to regret very,

very deeply the fact that

during puberty they went a bit

weird, as they would see it.

APPLAUSE

Emily Thornberry.

I very much fear that I've been

trying to think of how to express

what I think in a way that is better

than Val expresses it, and I can't.

But I do think that kids

should be able to wear

what they like and behave

in whatever way they wish,

in order to be able to grow up

in whatever way they find

and to find their own path.

And I do remember,

I was just thinking,

I don't know if anybody saw

the wonderful news reports of some

boys who weren't allowed to wear

skirts in the summer,

and who ended up all turning up

at school wearing kilts.

They turned up, all of them, wearing

kilts at this primary School,

which I thought was a wonderful way

of, you know, of rebelling,

and good for them.

But I think it's right.

It's very important in this day

and age not to try and constrain

people and to allow kids just

to grow up in whatever way

they want, and to be able

to experiment and to be able

to find their own way.

Rod Liddle, you were implying

there was pressure from social

services and teachers.

But there is also,

isn't there, pressure...

I mean, the Tavistock clinic

in London has a whole large number

of these children who come,

often brought not by the teacher,

not the social worker,

but by the parents.

Yes, think they are

mistaken as well.

Though I would prefer

the parents to be in charge,

rather than the school or a social

worker, nonetheless,

I still think that the children

should be left until they are 16-18,

I would say probably 18.

And if they then decide that they

wish to realign their gender,

do whatever they wish to do...

When you say they should be left,

if a 14-year-old girl says,

"I now wish to identify as a boy

and I want to change my name",

are you saying nothing

should be done about it?

Nothing should be done about it.

I don't see anything wrong

with them doing that.

You are saying they

shouldn't be allowed to.

That's silly.

That's silly.

Why is it silly?

Let kids call themselves

whatever they want, let them

wear whatever they want,

and if they identify as a boy,

then they can identify as a boy.

What's the problem?

And what about a boy

identifying as a girl?

That's fine.

You're happy with that?

Yeah, I am.

Really, I am.

But I do agree about no final

decisions being made.

I'm one with the feminists

on that one, I'm afraid.

So you're running a school

and you have a 14-year-old boy

who says, "I want to identify

as a girl", and the headteacher

of that school would say, "No,

you're a boy, you'll be called

"Paul and that's it".

If he is called Paul and he's a boy

and he's got an XY chromosome,

then he's a boy called Paul.

So you would be ruthless

on that until they're 18.

APPLAUSE

That's science.

Absolutely.

Until they are 18 you would

say that's the rule?

Yes, absolutely.

The man at the back there.

I think there's two points here.

The first one is that there

is a severe lack of leadership

among our politicians today,

especially when we are dealing

with the most vulnerable in society,

which is our children.

Now, a boy is a boy,

and a girl is a girl.

And yet children do have issues

when they are growing up.

I grew up in Newcastle here.

I grew up with a variety

of friends who had different

appetites, let's say.

However, children need to be

protected, not exposed.

There's a difference between

education and exposing children.

And children need leadership.

And it's very sad today,

because the panel right here have

got no common sense.

Children need protection.

And when you look at

the whole subject of gender,

its confusion, that's what it is.

Children, when they are searching,

they need direction.

And unfortunately we are living

in a generation where our leaders

haven't got a clue.

OK, the woman in the third row.

I recently returned from Toronto

on a visit, looking at LGBT health.

And one of the panellists

said about the first

thing is to do no harm.

There is a really huge statistics

about young people who commit

suicide because of not being allowed

to be the gender

that they define as.

And so I think the issue

is about giving people

the opportunity to be

the gender they want to be.

And in a way that is respectful

to them and non-discriminatory

and that supports...

And the age issue which Rod Liddle

was talking about, 18,

is not relevant to that?

At 12, ten, you would

argue the same?

It should be proportionate,

so six-year-olds

shouldn't have surgery.

But there are times when hormone

blockers are entirely appropriate.

We can stop people having to have

physical changes happening,

and that can be proportionate.

And the woman in the second row.

I just want to make the general

point of taking on board everything

about gender identification.

I've got a great niece

who absolutely is a boy.

That's what she wants to be

and that's how she is.

And she's only seven,

and her parents are great

because they encourage her in this,

they don't contradict her.

But from a historical point of view,

we seem to be concentrating not

so much on the identity

of the person but how they express

it as a male or a female.

And it's only really,

really recently that men have

dressed in a certain way and women

have dressed in a certain way.

Historically, in the past,

little boys wore dresses until they

were a certain age anyway.

Men were the peacocks,

men were the ones that wore the most

extraordinary costumes and expressed

themselves if they were wealthy.

I'm not talking about the poor

old working classes.

But what I'm saying is that it's

fluid, how we actually see

or identify people's gender is not

fixed in stone.

And just listening to this,

there is an element of ignorance

as well, because that's fluid,

and I think we are at a point

where we can go back to freedom

of expression in how people dress,

no matter what their gender.

APPLAUSE

What do you say to the woman

in the third row who talked

about the Canadian experience?

I think that's heading in the right

direction but I'm not entirely

convinced about intervention

at those early stages.

I think it's difficult.

We shouldn't be taking

irreversible steps.

I think that's the key.

We shouldn't take irreversible steps

until people are of an age

where they can make an adult,

responsible decision,

where we would let them

make that decision about

other medical matters.

But if it's a reversible choice,

I don't see the problem with that.

Nor should we be dismissive.

The gentleman at the back talks

about lack of leadership.

I promise you, sir,

if you listen to the programme

on Radio 4 of that child,

where they are so close

to committing suicide

because of the way society

effectively dismisses,

as Rod was doing a minute ago,

that it is either X or Y,

it is not that simple, Rod.

I'm sorry, forgive me...

Let me finish.

The science is that simple.

I'm a scientist.

Not a medical scientist.

But all I would say

to you is when you hear a family

and their child being torn apart

and that child is so close

to suicide, I do not think

it is right for any of us

here who have not experienced

that to be so dismissive

about it and to demonstrate,

oh, we know what is

best, and that is it.

That is wrong.

OK.

We will go one.

We will go on.

Let's take a question,

I'm sorry to those of

you who still have your hands up.

We will go on to a question from...

Let's have Joe Williams, please.

Should the Chancellor take

John McDonnell's advice

and borrow billions more

to end austerity?

OK.

The Chancellor has his

budget next Wednesday.

Question Time immediately

follows it on the Thursday,

so we will hear a bit more.

Rod Liddle, should the Chancellor

take John McDonnell's advice

and borrow billions more

to end austerity?

It is an appalling thing,

isn't it, to have to agree

with John McDonnell?

I never thought I would do that.

I do not know about billions

more, I certainly think

that the government has managed

to find money when it

needed to find money.

APPLAUSE

Very happily,

the government shook the magic

the magic money tree

and was able to find itself

a bung to give to the DUP.

So we know that there

is some money there.

What I would like to see

the government doing and I don't

think the government will do

because it's not the kind

of thing Conservatives

governments do very much,

is invest in industry,

in regional infrastructure

and in science research

and development, all things that

worried me, when we left the EU,

we would be remiss about.

I was genuinely worried that

would be one of the things

that we would not spend

our money on.

I think in a sense, McDonnell

is right, I think we do need

the purse strings loosened.

One of the big things we need to do,

we need somehow to raise the average

wages that we have this country.

The big problem at the moment isn't

particularly unemployment,

it's the fact people are being paid

very low wages and therefore cannot

afford to buy stuff.

So both of those, yes,

I think very important.

Nadhim.

When we took office

the deficit was 156 billion.

No, hold on a second.

You are being asked

whether you would take

John McDonnell's advice.

I am about to tell you.

The deficit has been cut by two

thirds, that is why we are able

to have the opportunity to invest

in infrastructure now.

One thing we have done is to launch

a 23 billion pounds productivity

fund to get our productivity

to where it needs to be.

That is what I would

like to see happen.

We have been there before

with Labour when they borrow

and spend and crash the economy.

If you are investing

in infrastructure, I think

that is a good thing.

To crash the economy?

Can you put that more clearly?

We are investing in assets,

we are investing in infrastructure,

digital, transport.

That is what you want to invest in.

Housing.

There is nothing decent or moral

in crashing the economy.

Venezuela has the second largest oil

reserve in the world

after Saudi Arabia.

They followed Jeremy Corbyn

and John McDonnell's model

of economic management.

They have crashed completely.

If you are sick in Venezuela,

you die, because there

is no medicine for you.

Let's not move to Venezuela.

Let's talk about John McDonnell's

advice over these last few days

about this budget that is coming.

I wouldn't take any advice

from John McDonnell where he wants

to borrow 500 billion and crash

the economy again.

I would say because we have cut

the deficit by two thirds

we are able to invest

in infrastructure,

in increasing productivity.

And one other thing,

the gender pay gap, if we can

overcome the gender pay gap so women

are paid the same as men,

you would increase the GDP

of this country four times

what it is today to 8%.

If we can do that that is fantastic.

I would not take any lectures from

John McDonnell about the economy.

Emily Thornberry.

It goes like this.

We have had seven years of austerity

and we were told by the Tories

if we could tighten our belts

for a few years, the economy

would be better and we would have

enough money to invest

in public services.

That just has not happened.

At the moment our public services

are on their knees and we are told

we have to continue like this

because somehow or other it will be

will be fine in the future.

Well, it is not.

We need an entirely different way

of approaching the economy.

This government in the next five

years is going to cut £76 billion

in taxes to the richest

and to corporations.

So don't tell me about austerity.

There is £1 billion to the DUP

but never mind about that.

How much have we lost

from the corporation tax?

28% down to 19%.

We have brought more

money to the Exchequer.

If politicians focus on tax take,

not tax rate, then we will deliver

better public services.

At a time of austerity

they are cutting £76 billion

from the taxes of the richest

and what we would say

is that we are the sixth richest

country in the world.

We have more people

sleeping on the streets now

than we have had for years.

A quarter of our nurses

need a second job.

Many of them have

to go to food banks.

Half a million children last year

went for three days'

emergency food supplies.

It cannot go on this way.

We have to do something about it.

Put numbers...

We will.

Put numbers to it,

because the question was,

John McDonnell asked for billions

to be spent.

How many?

There are two things.

One is day-to-day spending

and at £76 billion, you could spend

you could spend 4 billion,

as the chief executive of the NHS

of the NHS has said,

in order to stop the 5

million people on the

waiting list next year.

Spend 4 billion on that.

You could spend another

4 billion on lifting

the public services wage cap.

That would be another

good use of the money.

And we still have an awful lot left

of the £76 billion that the Tories

are cutting in taxes,

but when it comes to investing

in infrastructure, yes we borrow.

We have talked about £250 billion

over a 10-year period to invest

in things like Crossrail

for the north.

Superfast broadband for everyone,

investing in infrastructure

and getting the economy going,

because the way we are going

we are going downhill and there has

to be an alternative vision

and we have it.

The man with a beard.

I do not agree we should borrow

more, but what they should do

is legislate to close the loopholes

on the tax as described

in the Paradise Papers.

And the person over

there on the left.

It would be nice if instead

of concentrating investment

in the south, in Crossrails,

that we could get more in the north.

APPLAUSE

You were drowned

out by the applause.

You could get more what?

Our Metro trains are 40 years

old and they just do not work

and there is nothing

to replace them.

The man on the far right, you, sir.

My point is this, there is talk

of we need to improve our economy