18/01/2018 Question Time

We're in Hereford tonight,

and welcome to Question Time.

With us here, the Government's

new Culture Minister,

who has an economics degree,

founded her own business before

becoming an MP, Margot James.

The former Labour Health Secretary,

who left Parliament in 2016

to run and become Mayor

of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.

A government advisor and deputy

governor of the Bank

of England formally,

now chairman of the Royal Bank

of Scotland, Howard Davies.

The arts and culture

advisor, Munira Mirza,

who's worked for the Tate,

the Royal Opera House

and for Boris Johnson as one

of his deputy mayors.

And the screenwriter

and film director who won

an Oscar for the film Milk,

Dustin Lance Black.

APPLAUSE

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much and, as you well

know, if you want to take issue,

which I'm sure you do watching this

programme, because it

drives people crazy,

you can do it at home

using our hashtag bbcqt on either

Twitter or on Facebook.

Let's have our first question,

it comes from James Burke, please.

James Burke.

Who should be held accountable

for the collapse of Carillion

and what action should they face?

Right.

We've had more questions on this

than anything tonight.

So who should be held

accountable for the collapse

and what action should they face,

Margot James.

I think that you have to hold

the directors accountable.

You have to hold the senior

management accountable,

and I think that they will face

a great deal of approbrium and if -

as the Government has set in place

an inquiry through the insolvency

service - if they have found to be

negligent or worse they will,

I hope, receive the very

heaviest punishment possible.

What did you think they did wrong?

Well, I think they...

I mean, I may be able to just say

that we don't know yet exactly

what went wrong and perhaps my words

are assuming wrong-doing.

Perhaps, you know...

They've got to be given a fair

hearing and I did make the point

that there has to be

an investigation, and the insolvency

service will do that.

But I think that certainly,

over the last 18 months or so,

large dividends and large bonuses

were paid at a time when surely

the Board must have been aware

that they were having difficulties

getting paid on time.

They had a great deal of mounting

debt and, obviously,

they thought they could steer

themselves out of it.

In fact, the week before everything

went wrong being finally,

the share price was recovering.

So even the market obviously thought

they were going to survive.

But it wasn't an environment

in which they should be paying

the bonuses they were paying

and I think that they are culpable

of that at the very least.

All right.

Howard Davies, this is a tricky one

for you because you chair RBS

and you were very much involved

in this and stopped loaning them

money at some point.

But what's your answer

to the question, which was -

who should be held accountable

and what action should

should they face?

Well, Margot's right

that it is the directors who must be

ultimately responsible.

But she's also right

to say that we shouldn't

jump to the conclusions

about whether they are guilty

of some kind of criminal offence

or fraud or anything.

What you have to look

at is whether they were properly

representing the financial position

of the company, and the

Financial Conduct Authority

is investigating that.

In other words, when they made

their profits warnings etc,

did they properly describe

the position of the company in a way

that market investors

and borrowers and others

could properly understand.

You mean they could be

pulling the wool over

the Government's eyes all the time?

Both governments?

...not necessarily the Government,

but it could have been

the Government, but it would also

have included shareholders.

I mean, were they accurate

in describing the financial

position of the company?

That is the main question

that needs to be asked.

OK.

There's a lot of questions on this.

The woman there in the middle, yes.

We're looking at what went

wrong with the company,

but my question is more -

why did Chris Grayling award

them billion pound contracts

after there had been a profits

warning and a drop in share price.

OK.

That's the question

that we want to know.

OK.

Andy Burnham.

Well I think absolutely that's

the question, isn't it?

The question the Government has

to answer - why they gave

the company, not just that contract,

I think three other major

contracts after profits

warnings had been issued.

So there are big questions

for the Government to answer.

Margot and Howard are right,

of course the directors,

the senior management.

When did it become acceptable

for people to pay themselves sky

high salaries while pushing

companies to the brink and putting

thousands of people's jobs at risk?

When did that become acceptable?

APPLAUSE

So I would say the company needs

to be held accountable

to answer the question,

the Government does too,

but actually, let's be honest,

all politicians too because we've

allowed a situation to develop here

where people can behave in this way.

Where they can pay themselves these

performance related exorbitant

salaries and bonuses while basically

stripping away the security

of people working in those

companies day-to-day.

The whole culture is wrong.

We've all allowed it to grow

over the years and it

now needs to change.

APPLAUSE

The woman there.

Yes, you.

We're asking why the Government

carried on supporting Carillion

and giving them contracts,

could it possibly be

that our government and our civil

servants are so distracted by Brexit

that they weren't actually

keeping their eye on the ball?

Right.

Dustin, what do you think?

Well, that's a big question

I have on a lot of issues.

Let me be clear, I'm here

from the United States of America,

I didn't get to vote on Brexit.

I'm here in this country

because I fell in love

and because I call it home,

and I hope to raise a family here.

So I really do give a damn about how

this country does and time and again

it seems like no-one's got their eye

on the ball.

Who's at the wheel of the ship?

Who is - and I love

the audience member who used

the word "accountability."

I think, at the point

at which government says -

we are going to take these

programmes private, you can't keep

blaming the private company.

Private companies

are built on profit.

That's what they're supposed to do.

They're supposed to make a profit.

Well, that's not what the state

is supposed to do.

That's not what the Government

is supposed to do.

The Government is supposed to be

looking out for the people, for you.

APPLAUSE

OK.

So when I hear accountability I say

- go to the Government who gave

this company these jobs.

Make sure they knew how many jobs

they were giving this company.

How many eggs did they

put in that basket?

Were they keeping a close enough

eye, with so much going on,

to make sure they didn't do

something that was going to help

the fortunes of a few

and hurt your family.

The Government is accountable.

Munira, I'll come to you.

But do you want to just

answer him, just briefly?

Yes.

I mean, I think what I would say

to that is that government does not

have a monopoly on the skills it

takes to deliver complex public

services well at all.

The voluntary sector has a role,

the private-sector has a role and,

yes, the Government has a role

and we want the best of British

talent engaged in this pursuit

and you don't get that by being too

dictatorial about whether we should

all be private or it

should all be public.

It should be a mix.

Carillion has shed loads

of stuff given to it,

not just by your government,

by the Labour government as well.

That is true.

There are several large companies

that are capable of taking on big

contracts and Carillion

was one of them.

But I would take issue with people

who feel that somehow the Government

is at fault for giving

them the business.

I mean, the Government has been

aware of issues at Carillion and has

taken a very close view

on all of these big companies

and has been engaged in contingency

planning for quite some time.

What do you mean "contingency

planning", by giving them contracts,

like Grayling was mentioned,

giving them the contract...

What contingency planning was there?

I will answer your question.

Make the point again.

You know, where's the due diligence?

I have to question whether Chris

Grayling was actually acting

on behalf of the taxpayers

or the shareholders.

That's what you're left questioning.

I can answer that.

Let Margot just briefly

finish her answer.

What I would answer is,

Chris Grayling is absolutely acting

in the interests of taxpayers.

And what I was about to say was,

the due diligence was really

carefully controlled

when the Government identified

the need to have joint ventures

bidding for these contracts.

So that if there was a failure,

at least there's another

company of sufficient size.

And all those contracts that

you're talking about,

certainly in the last year,

the big ones have all been

with other companies involved

as well, who are now going to take

up the responsibility of delivering.

So you're not saying nobody

is going to lose their job.

No apprentice is going

to be out of work.

Nobody is going to be

hurt by this collapse?

I mean, I think the biggest

detriment actually is going to be

the SMEs, the small businesses

in the supply chain

of those big companies.

Those are the people I think that,

you know, if they had too much

business with Carillion,

I really do feel for them

because it will be very,

very difficult for them.

Look, the jobs will be there to be

done, they'll just be done

for another company.

Munira.

I think the original question,

which is, who should

be held to account?

Really, who is to blame

for this happening?

Clearly, the managers at Carillion

messed up and there were decisions

made in government which I think

should be investigated

and questioned.

But there is a bigger problem

that's been revealed

by the collapse of Carillion,

which is about how government

procurement has been working

for the past 20 years,

and the fact that the public

finance initiatives,

public-private parnerships have been

dysfunctional for a long time.

The companies like Carillion,

Carillion is not the only one

which have been limping along,

with very poor management,

that have been effectively

propped up by the state.

They have been given contracts

which really they were not

equipped to deliver,

they weren't delivering

quality services.

And this isn't an argument

against privatisation, I'm not

dogmattic about whether we use

private companies, I've been

involved in public procurement

and very often private companies

bring specialist expertise,

they're are very efficient,

they can be cheaper to use

than doing things inhouse.

So I don't have sa kind

of ideological opposition to using

private companies.

But I think that government has

allowed this very mediocre sector

of companies to grow up around it

and what we really need

is for government to

have a completely different

mind-set, a much more robust,

much more insistent

on innovation, on efficiency.

In fact that's what

happened with Carillion.

In the last year, because government

got better at negotiating

its contracts, Carillion stopped

making as much profit

as it was used to and, in a way,

something went right.

A company was finally exposed

for being very weak.

It's no comfort to the people

who work for Carillion or the small

businesses that have relied on it,

but it does show that it's important

to put these companies

under greater scrutiny.

OK, the man with the beard

in the middle there.

You, sir.

Hasn't Carillion given a lot

of money to the Conservative Party?

I don't know what the exact amount

is, but I think that's why Carillion

wasn't allowed to fail,

was it, because it been giving

a bung to the Tory party,

that's why it's not been

allowed to fail.

Is that so Andy Burnham,

have you heard that?

Well, there are connections

between the two.

I'm not coming on to try and score

points and say that -

oh, this means that they must have

done special favours for Carillion.

All I would say is I think -

Munira said it - I think there must

be a full investigation and those

questions have to be asked.

I was going to come back

to the question from the woman

over there who said,

you know why was the

due diligence done.

The question I would ask was,

were they actually trying to prop

this company up by giving

these extra contracts?

It looked a little like that to me.

So I think we have to have a full

process here where we turn

over all of the stones.

We look at all of the contact

between ministers and the company

so that we can get to the bottom

of this because we are going to need

to learn to put changes in place

and move forward in a different

way after this.

So how Howard Davies

the allegation that Andy is making

is that the Government deliberately

propped up Carillion even though

they knew it was in difficulties

to see if they could keep it going.

Do you think there's

any truth in that?

Is that how government works?

I find that difficult.

I would be surprised slightly

if that was the case.

I can't answer that.

What I can say is that it seems

fairly clear that the problems

that the company had arose primarily

from the big construction contracts,

not from the normal provision

of sort of subcontracted services,

where we get people to go

and deliver our catering for us.

You know, it wasn't that,

it was that they took on contracts

under the Private Finance

Initiative, and here I think Munira

is right on the button.

I think the Private Finance

Initiative has been a fraud

on the people because essentially

the Government is always

the cheapest borrower.

The Government can borrow money more

cheaply than anybody else.

And therefore if you are going

to hand over the total provision

of a big hospital to somebody who's

borrowing costs are going

to be higher than yours,

what is the advantage of doing that?

Unless you are absolutely certain

they are going to be more efficient.

If you think they are going to be

efficient why not give them

a fixed price contract?

Why hand over the whole thing?

I think PFI has been a fraud

and there is an interesting report

by the National Audit Office today

which shows just how much we have

paid for the privilege of getting

a Private Finance Initiative,

which was designed to take stuff off

the government's balance sheet

so the government could pretend

it was doing more in the way of

public services than it really was.

This was John Major.

But, Howard, if you are right,

John Major began this,

Gordon Brown did it,

supercharged it, and it's

been going ever since.

Why did nobody say what you're

saying at the time?

People have for a long

time complain...

You did some, didn't you?

People were saying things.

Howard is right.

Let's go back to how this began.

The old ways of building public

infrastructure had not worked

so by the early 90s the country

had crumbling infrastructure.

So Howard is right,

the Treasury wanted a way

of building a lot without it

being on the balance sheet.

Why didn't they want it...

People say this,

on the balance sheet.

You didn't want to look

as though you are borrowing?

If the government was borrowing too

much and they feared...

Yes.

It began under Major but continued

under the Labour government

and I can remember

being the minister,

where there is a need to rebuild

hospitals and for us it was not

a choice of a PFI hospital

or a public hospital, it was a PFI

hospital or no hospital.

In those circumstances obviously

we had hospitals that

were not up to standard.

Schools with leaking roofs.

As ministers we were

working in that climate.

I look at it now and they were not

all bad deals, by the way.

Some of them produced facilities

that have provided better services

for the public in those communities

since they were built.

Many of them were poor value

for money and that is why I say

the time has come to draw a line

and move forward.

Can I just answer that?

You were in government

all that time.

There was nobody decreeing

you could not build

hospitals in the traditional

Treasury financed way.

That was a decision

your Chancellor took.

When Gordon Brown got his hands

on this PFI initiative,

which was judiciously used under

the Major government, I might say.

And then ran riot with it.

You never objected to it.

Nobody ever objected to it.

Well, we changed it.

You didn't object to it.

I've got figures there.

You can see the graph.

The dramatic decline.

Both parties are to blame

because we came into a position

in 1997, more than half of the NHS

predated the NHS itself.

It was so old, it was crumbling,

so it had to be rebuilt.

The question that Howard Davies has

put - he said why couldn't

you have borrowed the money?

Gordon Brown was very proud

about his record on borrowing

and that was an obsession.

It was about getting rid

of the old way where people

were waiting for hospitals to be

delivered, there was a long queue

and a history of projects

overrunning and costing

more than they said

they were going to cost.

That's where it grew from.

That was the time we were living

through and it's right to learn

lessons from that, surely.

After how many years?

The woman in white.

I'm a bit concerned you're talking

about all these big governments.

What about the people

at the bottom of the pile?

The people doing the cleaning

in the hospitals, people

providing the food?

They have lost their

jobs, some of them.

And it is hard to get another job.

How are you going to address

all of those people who have

lost their jobs when they could go

back to the NHS and the NHS

could take over quite

successfully as they did before?

We often find private

companies do not give us

the service that the NHS did.

We don't get food

at night, as nurses.

There is no canteen.

The cleaning.

They have different people.

Whereas in the old NHS,

they did have people proud

of their job and they did it well.

I feel concerned we are

talking about the higher

level and forgetting

the common people.

APPLAUSE

Can you briefly explain

your experience of this.

You work in the NHS?

Yes.

I mean, years ago there

was food 24 hours a day.

There isn't now.

You talk about obese nurses.

The government are

clamping down on this.

40% of obese nurses.

Actually we cannot get hold

of decent food because there isn't

any when we are on shift.

Because the service...

There is no service.

OK, the man there.

You, sir.

I think it is disgusting to hear

party politics blaming each other.

The whole thing about Carillion was,

a few years back, governments used

to put out contracts

to lots of little people,

organisations, and then they made

a decision to make it more effective

to just put out a contract to one

body or a few bodies.

That is what has happened.

Carillion is made up of a lot

of individual small companies that

were brought together

and it was the company,

it was Andy Burnham and you, madam,

that together you are equally

to blame and I think

it is disgusting to hear you arguing

when you should get together

and really look at your policies

and do something about it.

APPLAUSE.

I think you have

made a spot-on point

because what has happened,

the PFI, the privatisation mantra

was about trying to introduce more

entrepreneurial thinking,

more innovation, more competition,

so you would not have the statement

- state monopolies

that were inefficient.

What has happened over the past 20

years, is that the state has

simply recreated its image

in the private sector.

You have companies, large

companies, that always bid

for contracts, always win.

The regulation they lobby

for crowds out smaller

businesses, new businesses.

And you have not got the dynamic,

competitive, innovative kind

of services that you would hope for.

I think that is the racket that

needs to be revealed.

Do you think that

Carillion wins on price,

or on efficiency, or on quality?

What does it win on?

I think you can have large companies

that offer economies of scale.

But, too often, they are given

the deal because they are the lowest

bid and I do not think the public

sector should always give

the contract to the cheapest bid.

Think about value for

money, for quality.

They should think about how

it treats its workers.

It should think about

how innovative, how

productive a service is.

And for too long

Carillion had survived...

Corruption at our highest

level in government.

The government should look at itself

and get rid of that image.

All right, the man here.

As a start, I think the process

of PFI is deceitful because in many

ways it is simply concealing

the amount the government

is borrowing and putting up

with a huge additional cost,

because there are a lot of people

in the chain of events,

not just from the point of view

of building, but once it is built

you have then got to run the place

and there are fixed costs

for so many of these items,

which leaves for instance the NHS

in Hereford short of money,

which it could and should

be spending on nurses

and their food and their wages.

What are they spending

it on instead?

They are spending it on the PFI

contract which is so generous.

Andy said earlier there was a choice

of a PFI hospital or no hospital.

I think that is ridiculous

because if they can afford to rent

a hospital for the next 30 years

on a fixed price, inflation linked

contract, it would have been so much

cheaper for the government to simply

borrow the money at, as Howard said,

a much lower rate and then it

would have been able to afford

the other things we

presently cannot afford.

I agree with you and I was saying

the choice we were given

was the wrong choice.

We should not have been

told PFI or no hospital.

Who told you that?

That was the Treasury.

Treasury officials

have never liked PFI.

I was a Treasury official myself.

They never liked PFI.

There would have been many

instances where there

was no other alternative.

I am just telling you,

that was my experience

of being in government

at that particular time.

Howard Davies says he had never

heard, and he was deputy governor

of the Bank of England.

There wasn't the capital

budget enough to go around

and build every hospital.

Who told you you had to do it that

way, was it your Chancellor

of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown,

or was it the Treasury?

It was both.

It was Gordon Brown

and the Treasury policy.

That was the world we were living...

To come back to the gentleman's

point, you are right.

Both parties are to blame here.

The lady was right.

The idea that cleaners

and porters...

Everybody is right now!

I am just going to explain

were then separated away

from the team on the ward.

I want to make a point I did

as Health Secretary.

I changed Labour policy

on outsourcing in 2009 to make

the public NHS the preferred

provider, because I had lived

through those years, Howard,

I had been through those years

and I myself couldn't

support it any more.

So when I had the chance,

I said the public NHS should be

the provider of services and I got

cold shouldered by many people

in government at that time

because that is what I believed

and I still believe it and I think

Jeremy Corbyn is right today to say

the public sector should now be

the default provider

of public services.

APPLAUSE

My concern lies

with the tens of thousands

of small businesses

that have been affected by this.

As a small-business owner myself,

albeit not affected by the Carillion

liquidation, I know how hard it is.

These small businesses

employ people, these

people have mortgages,

they have families.

I heard the other day some of these

businesses are going to have to wait

years before they find out before

they've got recourse or compensation

and that is disgusting.

Why can we not have an instant

decision, or at least not leave it

years before businesses

get their money?

The banks have tried

to do something.

I don't want to just

blow my own bank's trumpet,

because the others have done

the same, today, have announced

a sizeable amount of money.

In our case, 75 million.

Santander have done

about the same, I think.

Of money that is available

to support small businesses

through a period when they are not

going to get paid by Carillion.

I think that is the least we can do

in the circumstances

and I hope that helps.

That is good, that is really good.

There is a point I want to make...

How do you do that?

You're lenders anyway.

We will give people, we will

increase people's overdrafts.

We will lengthen the terms

of their loans, we will allow them

to invoice, factoring a whole

variety of things, we will do,

which will allow them to keep

in business and not to have to go

under because Carillion

are not paying.

It is a change of policy

for the Royal Bank of Scotland,

because they used to

love basket cases.

LAUGHTER.

They used to say you can

make money out of people

who are in real trouble.

You cannot resist a cheap

shot, David, can you?

APPLAUSE

I'm quoting a Treasury

Select Committee, I am

not using a cheap shot.

It was before you were chairman.

But - rope, sometimes you need

to let customers hang

themselves, the Royal Bank

of Scotland said.

JEERING.

That is extremely,

extremely embarrassing.

I mean it seriously.

It is humiliating when I discovered

that had been said in 2009.

You wonder where to put yourself.

I hope we have changed

the culture now.

Now you're lending how many million?

75?

75.

This is a specific pot for small

businesses who are in trouble.

Howard Davies, RBS, you have said it

here on Question Time.

Queue up afterwards.

Yes?

Briefly, yes.

I wanted to ask Howard,

one of the tragedies of this

is the smaller building companies,

even those with good long track

records, cannot get normal finance.

And the government have made some

steps in order to guarantee loan

facility and that sort of thing,

but what can we do with banks to get

building companies of a smaller size

to be able to get the credit

in order to compete more

effectively in this market?

Goodness me, Carillion had

the credit but the smaller SMEs

in that sector fight like hell

to get credit and

they cannot get it.

OK.

We will leave that hanging because

we must go on because we have got

many other questions.

Just before we take another one,

we are going to be in Dumfries next

week and the week after that,

we are going to be in Grantham.

week and the week after that,

we are going to be in Grantham.

If you want to make a note of how

to get to the programme,

there is a telephone number

and the e-mail address

of how to get to us.

Let's take this question

from Antonia Hastings.

I wonder if you have

changed your name by deed poll

to ask this question,

Antonia.

I deny that, David.

OK, let's hear the question

and I will leave it

to the audience to decide.

Is £44 million good value

for the loan of the Bayeux tapestry,

or is it the stitch-up?

APPLAUSE

Very good.

Munira.

I am pleased that the Bayeux

tapestry is coming and it is

exciting and wonderful.

And clearly Macron is very pleased

about his grand Napoleonic gesture,

which he likes to do.

In terms of the serious business

of paying towards the border

security at Calais, it is right

the UK contributes.

It clearly is an issue

for us as well as France.

Like many of these things

it is about cooperation.

What is interesting about today

is it shows we can have

cooperation and friendship

with our allies in Europe.

We don't have to be a member

of the European Union.

I did support Brexit

and I would like us to continue

with that relationship,

and I think £44 million

is a reasonable amount.

It's not the first time we've paid

towards security at Calais.

I think we spent about £100 million

in the last three years.

So I think it's right

that we do that.

OK.

Dustin?

Well, I think it's wonderful that

we're going to be able to share art.

I'm an artist, I can't

wait to see it.

But I also think that folks in this

country need to get used to paying

these sorts of amounts and more.

I didn't have an opportunity to vote

on Brexit, but clearly now

there are going to have to be these

unilateral relationships

between different countries that

you didn't used to have

to do that with.

We're going to have to see this

country reach out and create these

relationships and these friendships

with other countries and the price

tag is likely going to be very high.

I don't know if we've answered

the question yet in the negotiations

of whether these new price tags

are going to be worth it.

I'm very curious to see

what this deal is going

to look like with Brexit.

I hope, as someone who is

going to call this home,

that it's a very good deal.

But I'm going to be equally shocked

if it is, I have to say,

the way things are going.

APPLAUSE

Yes.

I'll leave it here and get very

controversial for just a second.

I hope that once this deal is done,

and I say go and make a deal.

I want there to be a good deal

if we have to do this,

but if the deal is a stinker,

let the people have a voice.

APPLAUSE

OK.

Back to the Bayeux Tapestry

and £44 million.

You.

I'm just wondering what we should

lend to France in exchange,

perhaps a DVD of The Darkest Hour.

My answer is we should

give them Arsene Wenger,

it would be very

popular are referees.

Howard Davies.

Well, I think that we have to make

a contribution in Calais.

I think probably, perhaps

because I sort of read the French

press from time to time,

I think people in this country don't

quite understand how serious

an issue the problem in Calais has

been for the French and that area,

around Calais, has been a very

strong National Front

area and that's partly

because of the existence

of the camps.

It was called The Jungle.

We can say, you know,

that's not our fault,

but actually the UK has been

the magnet and that's what's been

pulling people there.

So I do think that if we want

the French to keep the border

on the other side, I think it's

reasonable for them

to expect us to make a contribution.

The one thing I would add however

is that it does seem to me

that the whole problem of migration

must be dealt with

at European level.

These are people who come in to one

European country, often Italy,

they get through to France

and they want to come here.

The ideaed that we can kind

of deal with this just

on our own seems implausible to me.

I think there has to be a collective

approach to the problem of economic

migration into Europe.

Do you think he played a blinder

with the Bayeux Tapestry?

Do you think that was expected?

I think he is a very

cute character, Macron.

A cute character or acute?

I think he's a great showman.

Cute in the sense of, you know,

thinking of smart little ideas.

Many people say it's his wife

actually who thinks up these ideas,

but I wouldn't like to be

certain about that.

I think it's a good gesture and I

think people feel good about it.

OK.

The woman down there.

I think it's an absolute

bargain, but I also think

that Britain is feeling

very small and very lonely

and a little tiny island.

We need all the friends

we can possibly get.

So, bring over the tapestry.

We can send the Crown

jewels back to Paris!

I don't think the person

who was seen on television holding

them so tenderly would be very

pleased about that.

The man in pale blue there.

Isn'tSeasoned the delivery

of the tapestry really just a poke

in the eye by Macron

in advance of the negotiations

in Brexit, in relation

to the forthcoming

trade negotiations?

It's a poke in the eye?

OK.

Margot James.

Oh, I think it's a wonderful gesture

actually, I really look

forward to seeing it.

I mean, it is said to have been

embroidered in Canterbury,

so it's a moot point

as to where its origins lie.

I think it's a wonderful

gesture anyway.

I think the money is

a necessary investment.

I agree with Howard

about the pressures on that part

of northern France have been intense

and we do need to

make a contribution.

The money will be spent,

you know, on new technology,

on state-of-the-art fencing.

It's a sad situation.

You're talking about a lot

of human misery that has

caused this whole issue,

but I think British people

are quite clear, we do need

to control our borders and this

is a very necessary

investment in that process.

Andy Burnham.

If it was £44 million

just for a tapestry,

that clearly wouldn't

be good value-for-money.

I don't know whether 44 is the right

figure, clearly the money,

as Margot just said,

does address a shared problem

and the border in a Calais

is a shared problem,

as other panellists have said,

and it's right to work with them.

Maybe the £44 million therefore buys

a better relationship,

a thawing of relations,

and I think we need a little

bit of that, don't we?

A bit less of the Johnson and Gove

rhetoric and a bit more

reaching out across the Channel

and building those relationships.

Maybe therefore that will get us,

the 44, might help us

get a more balanced,

sensible Brexit where, yes,

we must deal with the concerns

the public expressed around free

movement, but by doing that then

maximise our access to the single

market and to the customs union.

One thing that worried me

was to hear the former

French Finance Minister on the radio

this morning saying they may not now

be so predatory about

the City of London.

What worries me about

that is the whole thing

is going to come to be

about the City of London

if we're not careful.

We live in a London centric country.

My great worry, as Mayor

of Greater Manchester, is that we're

going to end up with a London

centric Brexit where it's

all about protecting the City

of London and other industries

in the regions, well,

they can pay the price.

I can tell you now, that will not be

acceptable to me and many other

people in the north of England.

We need to see a fair deal

of all of our industries

all over the country.

As to what we might

send back in return.

I was just thinking about something

that would fit in there,

something that maybe likes a drink,

the sound of his own voice,

someone who's name my suggest French

ancestry, let's send

Nigel Farage back to France.

APPLAUSE.

Can I make a point as we're talking

about this money to be

spent on this border.

Just as someone who isn't from here.

I know this great country has some

issues, who doesn't.

You've got some

things to figure out.

Who doesn't.

This country is a shining example

of what is so good in so many ways.

I want to applaud both parties.

I'm not from either party,

on the work you've done along wait

for inclusion for acceptance

of difference to make sure that

some of the things I'm

hearing my President back home say

would not be acceptable.

But understand that some of these

people who are in Calais,

trying to get here, they're not

coming to try to steal

from you or to ruin your culture,

they're coming here because you are

a giant, beautiful,

beacon of hope for them.

I hope that the Government finds it

in their heart to spend some

of that money to make sure

that their conditions are liveable

there and to let some of them

in to share their goodness

with your greatness.

APPLAUSE

Yeah, well said.

Well said.

Just before we leave this.

Howard Davies, what do you think

the threat to the financial industry

in Britain is and what do you think

about the way that the Brexit talks

are going, from your standpoint

as the Chairman of one

of the big banks?

The position is not particularly

good because where we've got

to is a notion that we should build

on the Canada relationship

there was Norway or whatever.

Canada, the Canada deal

with the European Union

is basically about goods.

It doesn't have any financial

services or services components.

So we would not get free trade

in financial services

out of a Canada deal.

That's the proposition that's

currently on the table.

So I'm rather anxious

about it and I hope

that we can, over the next

few

months, that the Government

will focus on building up

from a Canada deal

to include services.

That's not just about financial

services, but London's exports

of cultural services,

media, law etc are very, very

important to the country as a whole.

I'm more of a Mancunian

than Andy Burnham is,

who's a Scouser, really and so I'm

not having someone being more

Mancunian than me on this panel.

This is not about London,

this is about the fact that Britain

is a big service exporting country,

not just from London,

and we've got to get a services deal

as part of our negotiation.

But we know that Macron

wants to get as much

of the banking as he can to Paris.

We know the Germans would

like to have it in Frankfurt.

Do you think London will be able

to defend its corner?

The City, let me call that.

I think London will remain

the biggest financial centre,

but I think that there will be some

rebalancing within Europe.

I think that's an inevitable

consequence of Brexit,

which I regret.

But I think the task

is to minimise that.

The French Finance Chief

was on the radio this morning saying

that Brexit is not going to be

the catastrophe that a lot of people

predicted it would be for the City.

I think what you're seeing

in Macron is a President

who knows how to negotiate.

He's been very bullish.

He's saying things like,

we will steal your finance sector.

Of course he is.

That is exactly what you do

when you represent your

country in an negotiation.

I would like the leaders of this

country to also be confident,

to also make clear that there

are certain things we would

like to see happen.

If we are talking about

what we would want to send back

in return for the Bayeux Tapestry.

I suggest we set back the Magna

Carta which is about democracy.

It's an artefact of historic

importance to the world and it

will remind the EU that the reason

we're making this decision,

that we're entering into these

negotiations, is

because a democratic

vote was taken this country.

APPLAUSE.

The woman there, yes.

I will then come to you.

Yes.

I'm wondering, we're talking

about this £44 million bill

for the tapestry and we're talking

about it in terms of really smoozing

up towards the trade

negotiations for Brexit.

So is it...

Are you going to add that

on to the price tag of Brexit, OK.

Evidently it is related to it.

You think that's the

motive of it, do you?

These people have already suggested

that is part of the -

No, let Margot answer it.

..If you're not prepared to do that

then can we know how many

other little secret deals

are going on that are called

something else, but are actually -

this is the price of Brexit.

Margot, just briefly on that.

Well, it isn't directly

to do with Brexit.

It's not just to do

with the security at Calais either.

There are other aspects of our mutal

relationship with France.

Obviously, but partly

it's to do with that.

Security.

We interact with the French

on so many levels, defence

and security are key.

Both countries are the predominant

defence countries in terms of

investment and spend across Europe.

So we're working with the French

with this money in northern

Africa where there's a huge amount

of terrorist threat.

So it isn't just about

security at Calais.

It's also about trafficking,

trying to prevent trafficking.

So it's not really

to do with Brexit.

I don't think it's a back door deal,

just to add very quickly.

The British border has been

in Calais for a number of years now.

So we've actually had our

border post in Calais.

So the money is going to protect

the British border.

But I might just say,

we should challenge the French back.

I think they allow a fairly chaotic

and unmanageable scene to develop

in Calais where people are just left

there trying to jump on transport.

That isn't acceptable to me.

They need to put things

in place in Calais too.

It shouldn't just be

asking us to fund it.

We need clearer commitments

from the French to look after people

properly on their side

of the Channel.

At the moment, I don't

think they do that.

Can I just clarify.

I don't think that we should

not be spending this,

but I should think it should be

called what it's called.

You just want the sum to be added

up really and be open.

Yes.

We must go on.

We have 20 minutes left.

We've got many other questions.

We won't get through them all.

But we have other

questions to go through.

Let's have a question

from Wendy, please.

What should the Government do

about the haemorrhaging

of nurses from the NHS.

This is this week the head

of the Royal College of Nursing said

that the NHS is haemorrhaging

nurses, one in ten left

the profession in England in each

of the last three years.

Half of them are

under the age of 40.

Howard Davies.

If you look at the numbers,

it would appear that the big change

over the last couple of years has

been that we've now got

European Union nurses going home

rather than coming here.

So it's been the change in the net

number of European Union nurses has

been more than all of the change

in the net number of nurses

coming into the NHS.

It would seem that part

of that apparently,

I can't quite believe this,

was some new language test

was introduced which actually did

mean that some people

who would otherwise have got

in couldn't get in.

Including, as I read,

an Australian nurse

who failed the English test.

That doesn't surprise me

knowing a few Australians!

I think we do have to -

apparently, that's now been changed

so maybe that will have an effect.

But I do think that it's very

important that we do convey

the right message to people coming

into this country.

We do need these nurses.

We have been reliant on quite a few

EU nurses and we ought to be clear,

not that we have been dragged kick

and screaming to an agreement

on migration as part of Brexit,

but that we actually want talented

people to come here

and work in our system.

In what sense is the signal

not being sent out?

I think the way in which we

approached the issue

of what the rights of EU citizens

were going to be here

was very grudging.

It took about a year to get

to the point where we accepted

the ones who were here

and legitimately here

and with a proper job

and everything would be welcome.

That was the wrong messaging

and I think we are seeing

the price of that in the NHS.

You are nodding vigorously.

The dialogue around Brexit,

even though it might not have

represented what Brexit was about,

the dialogue I was hearing

in the street was so hateful

towards people from other places.

That could not be helpful.

I want to ask the question.

We have a nurse in the audience.

We asked the question earlier.

What it like to be

a nurse right now?

It's hard, the basic wage

for a staff nurse is very difficult.

If you are a young nurse,

that's all right.

People coming from abroad,

they don't complain about that,

because they are young nurses,

but once you have got

a family and you have been

in nursing 20 years,

would any of you like to be

earning 28,000 a year,

because the mortgage rates have gone

up, the gas, electric, food...

Have you had people

in Hereford leaving?

A lot of them have gone

to agency and to the private

hospital up the road,

because it is better.

Pay and conditions.

Hang on a second, I will come back.

I am an NHS nurse and I do not

entirely recognise what you are

saying because I know why

nurses are leaving.

Nurses are leaving

the profession for exactly

what that lady is saying.

Nurses are leaving to go back abroad

because they can't believe

the conditions they are working

under in our wonderful NHS.

I am so proud of my profession.

We work with our hearts

and our hands and our heads.

We are not valued.

We are losing money.

APPLAUSE

I think that is the answer.

As someone who grew up in a home

where my mom was in medicine,

and I know how she was valued.

Here, everywhere I go

I hear the same story.

I like to talk to people

in the airports and train

stations and going around.

The nurses and doctors

are saying it is so incredibly

difficult and unbearable.

The conditions they have

been put under here.

Let me tell you, you don't want

private medicine either.

You don't.

APPLAUSE

What you need is

an investment in the infrastructure

and investment in the NHS,

so you have enough people you can

handle the workload,

so you can have liveable hours.

So this looks like a job

people would want to have

and they can raise a family

and that is going to cost money

and it is going to take you guys

making tough decisions

about where that money comes from.

I will say, as an American,

I look at this country and say

who is benefiting from this very

healthy population, this beautiful

thing that could be the NHS?

It is corporations.

It is businesses coming

here and reaping the rewards of all

you few beautiful, healthy people.

I want to make sure...

I would want to do an in-depth

examination to make sure

they are paying their fair share

for the rewards they are reaping.

So that you can have a better life.

The woman in pink.

Thank you, I am really saddened

to hear that the cause of this

haemorrhaging of nurses is put

down to Brexit.

I think that is a copout,

quite honestly.

APPLAUSE

It is due to a chronic lack

of planning and foresight

for our workforce for this country.

We have no nurses because we have

taken away the bursary,

we are not supporting people

going into education,

we are not planning for the future.

Making sure we have GPs,

doctors, nurses, physios.

We are disregarding the NHS

and I agree with you Dustin

about the private enterprises coming

in and reaping the rewards

of the NHS, Virgin being an example.

All right.

There are a lot of points there,

Margot James, do you want to answer?

The lady in blue spoke very

passionately from your

personal experience.

I spend a lot of time with the local

health service in my constituency

in the borough of Dudley

and I would concede morale is very

low in parts of the NHS

and I understand what you have been

saying and the other lady about pay,

although there is progression pay,

once you get to a certain level,

the pay advance is low.

I was pleased the Chancellor did

at least relieve the public sector

pay cap in the last Budget,

so there is a sign

of hope on that front.

The issue of not enough

places and poor planning,

this is an old issue and certainly

I think it transcends party lines.

When I was in the NHS as a director

of a trust nearly 20 years ago,

we were so desperate for nurses

we were sending recruitment

people to the Philippines

to attract people.

It is not just nurses

from the European Union.

This has been an issue

for a long time.

At least recently there has been now

funded places for 5000

new training places,

which is a 25%

increase on last year.

This one in ten leaving over three

years, what about that?

Is that going to make up for that?

As Howard said, whatever the cause

of it, the number of foreign nurses

coming to the NHS that have been

keeping the numbers going has halved

in the last few years and that has

been more of an effect than people

leaving in terms of total numbers.

There is one more point.

That is I am keen on the new nurse

apprenticeship programme.

It will give nurses a chance

to train and work and learn and earn

whilst they are going

through their studies.

Do come back if you have

got a different view,

but I think that is another route

into nursing that should encourage

people, because there is not

going to be any debt involved.

They are going to be

earning, learning...

It is true what you are saying

but you have got to have

nurses there to teach them

and they are going.

Let me give you an example.

I know a nurse who has left recently

because she is earning a month £100

less than her 17-year-old son,

who has no qualifications

and is an apprentice.

Isn't that a disgrace?

Let me bring in some others.

There are many people here.

Munira.

It is clear the NHS is struggling

and it is struggling under

the weight of the demand that has

been placed on it.

I do not think it is

just about money.

The NHS needs more money,

but there are other health systems

around the world that spend similar

amounts of money.

When you say it's not about money,

are you saying it is not

about the salary that nurses get?

I do think the NHS should get more

money but I think the way the NHS

is managed and the way

it was designed originally was not

to cope with the level

of demand we place on it now.

The population has grown in the UK

by about 5% over the past decade.

That is placing significant demand

in a way that was not

originally imagined.

It does not answer the pay question.

I do think nurses

should get paid more.

I do think we should value them.

I'm sorry, it is about gender.

If the majority of people working

in the nurses profession were males,

then the salaries would not be

capped at 28,000.

You would not have people

like my sister looking to return

to work from maternity leave

thinking, I am not going

to be any better off.

If the majority of nurses

were men, then 28,000

would not be the top salary.

APPLAUSE

I think it is about class.

There are many men in this country

that are on low wages, as well.

It is an interesting argument.

There are many males working

in the NHS, hospital porters,

for example, who are paid badly.

To finish my point, often

in the discussion about the NHS it

ends up being a political battle,

a football between the political

parties and each has

to declare its love for the NHS

and how much money it

is giving to the NHS.

What we don't have is

an intelligent, grown-up

conversation about the kind

of health service we need

for the 21st century.

The fact the demands

placed on it are greater,

the fact we are getting older,

the relationship to social care.

We need to be prepared to have fresh

ideas and not accuse people.