08/02/2018 Question Time

Tonight, we're in Darlington

and welcome to Question Time.

And with us here tonight,

a former banker and advisor

to George Osborne, now

the Government's Energy

Minister - Claire Perry.

A human rights lawyer before

going into politics,

and Jeremy Corbyn's occasional

stand-in at Prime

Minister's Questions -

the Shadow Foreign Secretary,

Emily Thornberry.

Property developer, champion

of academy schools and co-chair

of the pro-Brexit pressure group

Leave Means Leave, Richard Tice.

Rachel Sylvester, political

columnist on The Times.

And a long-standing supporter

of Manchester music

and Manchester United,

the broadcaster,

Terry Christian.

APPLAUSE.

And do remember, as ever, watching

at home, of course, using Twitter.

Our hashtag is bbcqt.

Twitter and Facebook

to carry on the arguments

that are happening here.

Our first question comes tonight

from Katie Woolsey, please.

Should female Tesco check-out staff,

who want to be paid the same

as male warehouse staff,

apply for a transfer

into the warehouse?

Right.

Tesco, of course, who face,

it is said, something

like a £4 billion bill for having

paid women in one area less

than men in another.

Richard Tice, you are a businessman.

What do you think?

Well look, we had the

Equal Pay Act in 1970.

So we've got a fantastic start.

But the reality is we've got to have

equal pay for equal jobs.

I mean, that has to be

the basic understanding.

If you start to try to compare

different, the value of different

jobs within the same organisation,

then I think it becomes

much more difficult.

But it's always up for debate.

We must always do better

than we are currently doing.

It's a scandal that having had that

Equal Pay Act for over 40 years,

these issues are still around,

whether it is in the BBC,

Tesco's or other major

multinational corporations.

But are you saying it's not possible

to decide whether there is equal

work to match equal pay?

It's clearly much easier to work

out, if you've got the same job,

and you've got a woman and a man,

that's very easy.

If you are trying to value

a warehouse job compared to someone

working on the shop floor

the checkout, that

actually is much harder.

How do you value what it's

worth to the business?

Everybody is worth

something to the business.

But that is much harder.

Emily Thornberry?

I think the time and time again

when you look at these jobs,

the ones that are low paid

are always the women's jobs.

That's how it is.

And it drives me crazy, you know.

Barbara Castle introduced

the Equal Pay Act in 1970.

I bet she'd be turning

in her grave to see that it's

still going on and that women

are still systematically

paid less than men.

The women who are working

on the checkout Tesco's

are working just as long hours.

They're just as important to Tesco's

as those who work in the warehouse.

It's just that they're the blokes.

And the ones that are paid less,

yet again, are the women.

And you know many of the jobs that

are largely women's jobs

are the most valuable.

So looking after your mum,

give it to social care workers

and they are usually women.

And guess what?

We pay them as little amount

of money as we possibly

can within the law.

Or our precious four-year-olds.

They are looked after again largely

by women and largely

paid the least amount.

I do not believe...

What about Tesco, which

the question was about?

I'm just saying that it's

a coincidence, isn't it,

it's more than a coincidence that

it's the blokes in the warehouse

getting paid more than the women

in the checkout and it is

because certain things

are seen as women's work.

And therefore, almost by definition,

they're not seen as valuable.

And yet many of the bits of work,

many of the work that women do

are actually really valuable.

Looking after a four-year-old,

why is that less valuable

than being a banker,

or anything else?

This is the way that our

society is structured.

Sorry, are you arguing for equal pay

for bankers and mothers

of four-year-old children?

I'm not following your argument.

There are largely 12 jobs,

different workforces

in which women go into.

They're very similar to the sort

of work that women do at home.

And time and time again

it is undervalued.

Whether it is secretarial work,

nursing, caring, teaching.

All of these things

tend to be women's work

and they tend to be overpaid.

We have to think about that.

You sir, up there?

The man with the spectacles.

Having worked in one

of the top supermarket chains,

I've seen both the shop floor type

of work and the warehouse

type of work.

I can say for a fact,

working on the shop floor

you are speaking to the customers.

In the warehouse it is noisy,

it is loud, it is cold.

It is hard, hard graft.

So I think trying to compare shop

floor work with warehouse work,

I think it's not the same.

I'm not saying it's the same.

I'm not saying it's the same.

It's different work

but it's just as valuable.

The woman there in the centre?

OK, I've got your point.

You, madam?

I can see what Emily is saying,

but you have got two jobs

in Tesco's, so it should be two

separate job scales.

My take on the equality pay is more

based on what has happened

recently at the BBC.

Why did the men feel that the only

way they could step up

for their women's colleagues

was to take a pay cut?

Why did they not actually

challenge their bosses to bring

the women's pay in line

with theirs for the same job role?

It's two different job roles

at Tesco's, it's not at the BBC.

Go on then.

Terry Christian?

I was going to say it's a lot

trickier at Tesco's -

and it's one for lawyers -

than it is at the BBC.

If you think about John Humphrys,

God bless him, harrumphing about art

and new technology while reading

the editorial from the Daily Mail,

then you've got to wonder

is he really worth four times

what a female broadcaster does

when she is doing exactly

the same job as him?

It is one for the lawyers at Tesco.

Even when women and men do any good

job there is still a gender pay gap.

Iceland made it illegal to pay a man

more than a woman. Does the UK need

to follow that example?

Claire

Perry?

Look, it's 100 years

since some women got the vote.

And I still find it incredible

that there are jobs out there,

including at the BBC,

where women are systematically paid

less for doing exactly

the same job as a man.

And it's really good the gender pay

gap is at its lowest level.

We've brought forward

lots of proposals, so companies have

to disclose what they are paying,

so does the public sector,

so does government.

I think this is a complicated case,

as the gentleman said,

because there is nothing to stop

women taking on those jobs.

But we have seen time and time

again, we had the big cases in local

government and few years ago

where women had to fight

through the courts to get equal

pay for the same jobs.

It's got to stop.

We have half the workforce

now as women.

We know we are going to be wanting

to work for longer and we have

to make sure that we are giving

women exactly the same

pay and rights as we,

as some of us got with the vote

100 years ago.

Certainly in supermarkets as well,

the women are not unionised.

Now maybe if they were in a trade

union, they could collectively

bargain and they wouldn't get that.

And one of the problems,

my mum used to always say this,

one of the reasons women are often

paid less than men is they seemed

very reluctant to join

trade unions in the past.

And even now, women are often,

in jobs, decent jobs,

will often do unpaid overtime

because they may be a bit more

conscientious than the blokes.

But they shouldn't be doing it

really because they are driving

their own wages down

and everybody else's.

Let me go back to Katie Woolsey,

who asked the question.

What is your view?

I agree with the man over there.

I think that if people,

if women want to go and work

in the warehouse, go and apply

for the job.

Why should they get paid more?

I wouldn't mind sitting on my behind

all day scanning stuff

and chatting to people.

I know about working in a warehouse

- because I actually

do work in a warehouse,

by the way I run my own business

and I have a warehouse,

and I was there today.

It was freezing cold.

It is dirty and it is dusty.

I'd like to see the women

apply for those jobs

if they want to be paid the same

as the men.

Rachel Sylvester?

APPLAUSE.

I think there is still a huge issue.

There is an 18% gap on average

between what men and women earn,

and there are all kinds

of reasons for that.

For the same jobs.

Not for the same jobs.

But the problem with this is it

about what society values.

So society values less the caring

roles, whether it is being a carer,

a cleaner, a dinner lady,

compared to what is seen

as the strength and muscular roles.

And I think that's a big problem.

You can't get around that.

That is about social values as much

as about employment law.

I will come to you.

What's particularly disappointing,

we are one of the worst

in Europe at this.

It's always only Germany

that is worse than us.

I think one of the ways,

the government has to be much more

ambitious with its targets.

I think we need many more

great women in senior

roles in corporations,

and then it's much

less likely to happen.

So that really has

to be an objective.

Emily?

I was just going to say,

we need a new Equal Pay Act.

We need an updated Equal Pay Act

that really addresses this issue.

And I think one of the other

issues that we need to put

into the melting spot,

if we are talking about the subject

more generally, is when women start

working part time after they've had

kids or when they have

caring responsibilities

for elderly relatives.

And then they are vulnerable.

Then they are more likely to take

more lower paid jobs.

And they don't apply

for a promotion because there

are so grateful to be able to work

whether part-time are flexibly.

And we have to start

thinking about that as well,

because we are losing a very large

part of the workforce and we are not

valuing them properly.

What do you say to Katie Woolsey's

point though about warehouse

and working indoors?

That they are not equal?

I'm not saying they are the same

job, they are different jobs.

But for Tesco's to have people

working on the cashpoints and to be

talking to customers and to be

the face of Tesco's is a very

important job as well.

It ought to be valued

in the same way, in my view,

as people working in the warehouse.

Yes of course it's a different job.

But why is it that we are valuing

blokes' jobs more than we are

valuing women's jobs?

But nobody stopping the women

from applying for those jobs.

That is what I'm saying.

Nobody is stopping a woman

from going to work

on a construction site.

APPLAUSE.

The truth is the women don't

want to do them dirty jobs.

They really don't want to do them.

And if there were more men,

for example, doing childcare,

or caring for the elderly,

I bet those salaries would go up.

I bet they would.

I'm sorry, but what about people

who can't physically

work in warehouses?

Why should they settle

for a lower wage?

It is an equal job,

they are working the same hours,

people that have disabilities

and so forth cannot

apply for that job.

Why is that seen as a dirty job

when things like nursing,

looking after people in all sorts

of conditions, they are working

all sorts of hours and they don't

have the same equal pay and the same

sort of recognition amongst society?

All right.

And the woman at

the very back there.

Can I just say, I worked

for Asda for two years,

just about eight months ago.

And I'm sorry, but what the lady

over there about the warehouse,

it's nothing but insulting coming

from one woman to another woman.

APPLAUSE.

The people in Asda...

I'm not quite sure how Tesco works.

I worked in Asda, I worked

on the shop floor lugging things

around, pulling things.

I worked with customers.

I was a customer...

I was - I went on checkouts,

in emergencies.

I also worked in the warehouse.

I pulled orders.

If need be, we split orders down.

Were you on equal pay to the men?

We were on equal pay

but not to the people

in the central warehouses,

which I think is what

is being discussed.

Right, OK.

But that's the case.

Those people had an easier job.

They just literally

loaded everything on.

It was when it got to the stars

that we had the hard work.

They should be paid

less, you are saying?

They should be paid

the same as us, not more.

And the man up there

and then we must move on.

The man at the very back

with his spectacles on,

on the right there.

Yes?

When people went for a job

they applied, they were interviewed,

they knew what the job

was about and they knew

what the pay was.

So you are at liberty

not to accept it.

Where is the problem?

APPLAUSE.

I think we'd better go on.

We've raised a lot

of questions there.

Just before we go on, where question

Time is going to be next.

Yeovil next week.

And Uttoxeter the week after that.

On the screen are the details of how

to apply, and I will, as always,

give them at the end if you don't

have a chance to make

a note of them now.

Right, let's have a question

from Natasha Telford, please.

Is it fair that local authorities

have to take the blame for having

to increase council tax?

Is it fair that local authorities

have to take the blame for having

to increase council tax?

We heard that council tax,

on average, is going up in almost

every council in England -

Scotland is different, of course -

by 6%, or just under the 6% limit

that they have to go to.

Is it fair that councils

should have to do this,

because they are not getting

money from government?

Claire Perry.

I think one of the things

I find is that people,

the closer they see money

being spent to them,

the more they feel they are involved

in those decisions.

One of the terrible things a few

years ago when I first came

into politics, only 30% of people

thought they had any

influence over the way any

of the money was spent locally.

So, actually, we know the incredible

role that councils play in providing

social care services,

children's services,

picking up the rubbish,

putting in the recycling

bins, or not.

I think the more that money

is spent closer to us,

the more we feel it's delivering

value, or we have a

chance to change it.

We all know we're going

to have to change the way

we fund social care.

I know in Wiltshire,

where the council taxes

are going up, people

feel it is reasonable.

In general, people are happier now

with public services than they have

been in many a year.

Hang on, hang on...

They are!

People are happier...

Well, people say they are happier

with the public services

than they have been in a long time.

The point of the question,

why have you deliberately cut money

from taxpayers to the councils

by 40% since 2010, and put

all of that on the councils?

That was the point of the question.

I was out today with your fantastic

combined local authority...

Yeah, are you going to

answer that question?

Who are working collectively

on the Teesside SSI site,

which is going to be absolutely

amazing.

And there is a huge

devolution deal behind that.

Almost half a billion

over the next 30 years.

I think that money, coming out

to local government,

being spent locally,

is the right thing to do.

But, hang on, the question Natasha

asked, is it fair local authorities

have to take the blame.

You know perfectly well

what the issue is.

Local councils have

lost 40% of their money

from central government.

And they are lumbered with having

to raise it from house owners.

There are a whole series

of settlements, we wanted to make

sure that the business rates,

which are raised locally,

and historically went whistling

back to Westminster,

that they are actually

kept and spent locally.

To me, this is about changing

the funding base so that more money

is raised locally and spent locally.

Do you think it is fair, Rachel?

No, I think the Government

is passing the buck to local

councils, particularly

on social care.

APPLAUSE.

There has been something

like £6 billion cut from the social

care budgets alone.

That is the reason for our NHS

crisis now this winter.

There are something like one in ten

beds in the NHS are now filled

with people who are well to go home,

but can't do that,

because there is nowhere to look

after them in the community.

Care homes are closing, domiciliary

care services can't cope.

Councils have had to cut the amount

of money they are paying to care

homes, so the whole system

is absolutely creaking.

I think there is a failure

of leadership from Theresa May

and the Government not to take

a national decision

about a national crisis.

So you think taxes should go up

to pay for these things?

I think there should be some kind

of hypothecated health

and social care tax.

This isn't a situation...

Hypothecated being money

that is raised just for the NHS?

Not just for the NHS,

but also for social care.

This isn't something that's to do

with NHS efficiencies.

Why do you think they won't do this?

It's to do with the

ageing population.

Why won't the Government

act on this?

Well, I think Jeremy Hunt

would quite like to do it, actually.

There's cross-party support.

I've talked to Labour MPs, Tory MPs

and Liberal Democrat MPs, all think

this is a really good idea.

All acknowledge there

is a huge crisis.

All acknowledge that, actually,

you can't put this on to local

councils alone any more,

as Natasha said.

And I think it's time now

for the Government to act.

A lot of it goes back to Thatcher,

because she was the first one,

funnily enough, to start bringing

the money back in from

the local councils and then

rate-capping those councils.

Now, the Tories have always been

the party of indirect taxation.

So they would always tax

in a way that you couldn't

blame them directly.

You know, back in the old days,

when we had nationalised

gas and electricity,

and water, and stuff like that,

if your water or your gas bill went

up, you'd blame the Government.

Or you'd blame your

local council directly.

Once you privatise it,

you take that away.

And so it's like, ooh,

it's nothing to do with us.

And this is the problem.

Now, with libraries shutting down,

everywhere is creaking

because the whole country

is in a mess.

And to use...

APPLAUSE.

To use a quite vacuous statement,

which is used a lot nowadays,

I think, what do they say,

no deal is better than a bad deal?

I'd say no leader is

better than a bad leader.

What are you talking about?

At the moment we have no

leadership in this country.

Honestly!

We've got no government.

Richard Tice?

Let's stick to the question.

I've just stuck to the question.

We are taxpayers, we all want our

taxes to be spent well,

whether it is at central government

or local authority.

Coming back to Natasha's question,

clearly, local authorities can't

absolve themselves to spending

that money wisely.

We want it to be spent well,

efficiently and smartly.

So, there is, of course,

there is always pressure on budgets.

There always will be.

But they can't absolve

themselves of that blame.

They've got responsibilities

at the local level, they need

to spend the money well.

When it comes to caring

for people, that's expensive.

And that's got to be

taken into account.

So local budgets...

Of course, it's going up,

and it's all coming down the NHS.

I'll come to Emily

Thornberry in a moment.

I'll go to the man

there in spectacles.

Let's hear from one or two people

who have to foot these bill.

Yes?

The woman there, yes?

You.

In addition to adult social care,

there is also a massive problem

in children's social care

that we don't talk

about nearly enough.

The most vulnerable

children in our society.

The Local Government Association

says that by 2020 I believe

there is going to be a £2 billion

national deficit in this area.

And we are seeing such an increase

in demand in the north-east

because children and young people

are being brought into care through

neglect in this age of austerity.

And is it your view that...

APPLAUSE

As Terry was saying,

is it your view this as deliberate

action by the Government to put

the burden local councils?

I do.

And I think it's particularly

targeted at Labour authorities

in the north-east.

We've had the worst cuts,

and we are the ones that

have the biggest...

We are the ones that

have the biggest...

Not quite burdens, but we have a lot

more demand in terms of social care.

And fewer people who can

foot their own bills.

I'll give Claire a chance

to answer in a moment.

Emily Thornberry?

Do you want me to speak?

Yes.

If you want to speak!

I would love to speak.

I have a lot to say.

I've never known you

not want to speak.

I have a lot to say on this.

You're right.

Stick to the question that was put.

In the end, local authorities'

major income comes

from central government.

That's the truth.

To put up council tax will never

make up for the amount

that councils are losing

centrally from government.

On average, it is 40% cuts,

but you're absolutely right,

guess what, the poorest areas

are the ones that are

getting the biggest cuts.

So, you are not alone

in the north east.

Deprived inner-city boroughs

like mine, we have got

60% cuts in my area,

where I have some of the worst child

poverty in the country.

So, what they are doing

as they are cutting back

the funds centrally.

Then what they do is

they decentralise the blame.

So, they cut the money

from central government

and then local people say,

what has happened

to our bin service?

Why are our streets so dirty?

What is going on?

And they blame the councillors.

But, actually, it's central

government and it is

being done deliberately.

And the chickens are

coming home to roost.

That is what's happening.

And we know that the people

who really suffer are those

who are the most vulnerable,

because councils absolutely have

to look after children

who are on the verge

of going into care.

And they don't have enough money.

And councils have been

telling this government,

pleading with this government,

councils of every stripe,

and they just have cloth ears

on this and will not listen.

And as for social care...

It's a pretty severe indictment,

Claire Perry, what do you say?

I admire her passion,

but she is just wrong.

And here's why.

We talk about wanting to fund

better our NHS, our social care,

our vulnerable children services.

And there are two ways, as you know,

madam, because it sounds

like you are a local government

expert, to fund this.

We can either increase borrowing

or we can put up taxes,

or we can cut costs.

And I think councils have cut costs

very effectively across the country

over the last years.

People have done an amazing job,

we found lots of efficiencies.

Yeah, tell Northampton!

Do we put up taxes...

Yes, round of applause

for you, I think?

That's very patronising.

Do we put up taxes nationally,

and put it all into the mix?

An interesting question,

do you ringfence it,

which of course is what national

insurance was originally

supposed to be?

Or do you raise taxes locally

where people can see

what they are being spent on?

And when I talk to my constituents,

delivering better social care is not

some amorphous pot coming out

of central government,

it is joining up the GP surgeries,

so that the frail elderly get home

visits, they get kept

out of hospital.

It is working with

the local hospital.

I think so much of the solution

for social care is better

integration of health

and social care...

And money, Claire!

You can't keep doing it on no money!

And that's why...

Claire, just answer this question,

isn't it true, though, you say

the local authorities should...

It's better if they get the money

locally, you stop them raising

the money they get by limiting

it at 6%.

You don't let them raise the money

that they might need to do this.

Why do you do that?

When there is an increase and people

say I would be happy to pay a bit

more for the NHS and for social

care, and this is a contribution

that we are making locally,

what we know from Emily's team,

and I don't like to get partisan,

but sometimes the "cloth

ears" is a little nasty,

one of Emily's front bench spokesmen

had to resign after exposing

the plan to jack up council taxes,

to jack up national income tax,

and just spend more on everything.

We have to make these choices.

I think putting money into social

care and vulnerable children

is a really good justification

for raising taxes.

It's a cynical exercise

in blame pushing.

You know it is.

You don't believe a word

of what you are saying.

APPLAUSE.

OK, whether she believes

what she is saying or not,

let's go to members of our audience

and just hear what they

think of what she said.

The woman in the...

One, two, three...

Yes, you, in the grey?

So, you talk about integration

being the solution.

Privatisation of the NHS is such

a cause of disintegration

of services, services can't work

with one another.

It's becoming so much...

It's much more poorly

executed than it ever was.

That's just not true, Madam.

I'm really sorry

to come back on this.

So, when we talk about

privatisation, we think

about somehow charging people

to visit local hospitals.

For decades...

No we don't!

When we talk about privatisation,

we think about public money...

One at a time.

Don't try and shout down on me.

People hate to see

politicians doing that.

You're talking rubbish.

In this area, in my area...

APPLAUSE.

We can exchange insults or we can

talk about the facts.

The facts are in my constituency

and in this one, there

are independent providers

of services, providing

services free for the NHS.

Things run by Care International,

Macmillan Nurses as an independent

provider, that started under Tony

Blair.

It's continued because, actually,

we shouldn't have ideology

in the Health Service.

We should protect it and make it

free at the point of demand

for everybody who needs it.

The question...

Stop the ideology and

focus on the facts.

Claire, the question

is not about that.

It's about local authorities,

about the increase in rates.

I was responding to the point

about privatisation.

The man there, in the third row?

Yes, how about instead of cutting

budgets and forcing local councils

all over the country

to put their taxes up,

how about you cut the foreign aid

budget and then that money could go

towards other things that

are needed in this country?

I don't agree.

Don't sit there shaking your head!

It is sensible solution.

Let's hear from the man

at the back, there.

I think we just need to look at,

rather than what is coming

in, what is going out.

When you look at this

local authority here,

generally the net spend has been

pretty consistent during this

period of austerity.

If you look at it also,

it's the fact that councils

have an obligation to carry out

or provide a statutory service.

This council here, again,

spends on non-statutory services,

and that's fine, as long

as they are breaking even.

But when it's costing a lot, we need

to look at what we are actually

spending our money on,

not what is coming in.

Are you saying that

they are spending money

they didn't need to spend?

They are spending money

on non-statutory services,

which are making a loss.

Like what?

The Dolphin Centre.

But it's great!

It would be peanuts.

Where we are sitting?

Yes.

Absolutely peanuts.

Well, no, this is

actually Central Hall.

The Dolphin Centre is next door.

But the swimming pool, and all that,

where we have been all day?

Not swimming, but getting

ready for this programme.

You think that shouldn't be

funded by the council?

Also, coming back to what is coming

in, the Labour government, over

the period of the Labour Government,

council tax increased by 100%.

Now, during this period

of austerity, council tax

is generally only increased

by about 15%.

So, you've got a significant

imbalance there.

Who would you like to have pay

for the swimming pool?

I think it should be private.

Somebody basically makes a profit.

OK.

And you, in the second row?

I work in health care,

in a senior role.

There is a reality about we do need

to do more, we do need

to integrate services,

we are working very closely

with our GP, primary care service,

we are doing everything

we can in that.

But the absolute reality

is there isn't enough

funding to go around.

And non-statutory services

include services for very

old, very frail people.

How would you feel if your very old,

very frail elderly mum

was actually in need and wasn't able

to access the services

that were required?

And then, despite all

of the workaround integration,

because they don't get the care

that they need, they end up

in hospital and stuck there?

APPLAUSE.

The man there?

The woman, there, sorry.

The fact is that the National Audit

Office have produced a report to say

that private finance,

supporting strategy

and non-statutory services,

is an inefficient way to support

what we really need in this country.

So, I don't agree with that

gentleman up there that said

we should privatise places such

as this Dolphin Centre.

I think it's a totally

ridiculous statement.

Rachel?

I just wanted to go back

to the original question

and question what Claire was saying.

Actually, councils -

it is the least fair way

of raising money for social care.

The richest councils by definition

can raise the most from council tax.

And it's the poorest councils, it's

the poorest councils that have to

pay the most for social care because

they have the fewest people who can

afford to pay for their own care.

So it's the imbalance.

That's why it has to

be a national system.

Do you want to come in on this?

The point is it is

all about choices.

And the gentleman raised

the question of the

foreign aid budget.

We know we have a huge

crisis in social care.

And as a nation we have

to make that choice

because money doesn't grow on trees.

We've got to make public services

well funded but they've got to be

efficiently run.

The government has to

have the courage to make

that choice.

You can't just print money.

You've got no choice

if you need social care.

Correct.

If you are homeless,

you've got no choice.

If you are terminally

ill, and you need

a carer, you've got no choice.

If you are disabled,

you have no choice.

So all of this nonsense about you've

got a choice, of course

you haven't.

Get into the real world.

All right.

The government has

got to make a choice.

Where does it invest the money?

What you save in the short

term ends up costing you

more in the long-term.

We've got many more questions

that the audience in Darlington

wants to ask, so I'm

going to move on.

I've got two or three

more I'd like to

get through.

Let's have this one

from Helene Lawson, please.

Should Jon Venables continue to have

anonymity at the taxpayers' expense?

Jon Venables, who was this

week found guilty of

possessing child abuse

images for the second time,

jailed for three years.

There was a question raised

about whether he was

entitled to be given anonymity.

Rachel Sylvester, what do you think?

This is just an awful,

sickening case.

But I worry about removing anonymity

from him, because I think

there could be a real kind of mob

mentality about him.

And I'm not sure it would

actually help society

in the end or protect anyone.

And I think the criminal

justice system,

however evil people are, or vile,

the criminal has to be fair and

evenhanded and dispassionate.

-- the criminal justice system.

And there are people

who aren't going to

agree with that.

I totally understand why

James Bulger's family

feel very passionately about this.

But I think you can't

have a criminal justice system that

really made for victims.

It has to be at a higher level.

And it has to be evenhanded

and fair, rather than

vindictive or revengeful.

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I do.

You do agree with that?

Terry Christian?

Again, I agree really

with what Rachel said.

I mean, the whole thing is very sad

and sickening especially when you

think they were so young

when they committed

that atrocious crime.

But it's like, where do we go?

I think it was in 1842

when we decided we'd

no longer hang kids under the age

of seven, or something like that.

How much punishment

can you give them?

You've got to wonder

what sort of upbringing

out the way they did.

It's scary.

Clearly you have to treat

people equally and fairly.

You can't make special,

separate cases for people just

because you think it's

ever more desperate.

You know, we've got such a great

legal system, you have to

treat people fairly

and you can't differentiate.

What, his anonymity,

which was imposed after the

case because he was a child

at the time, should remain

all his life?

It should just be applied

the same for everybody,

whoever you are.

How do you you are?

Well, I mean, we can't make

different rules for different

individuals going

through the system.

The woman at the back,

what do you think?

What I would say is I think

anonymity is really

important.

Social media - when Shannon

Matthews' mother came out

all over the papers,

all of Facebook, social

media, of her face.

I just think it would promote

vigilantes groups, going around

following them, it could encourage

violent attacks and things

like that.

What he did was disgusting

and you can't -

but now continually doing

disgusting things.

But if you remove the anonymity

you are just going to

encourage vigilantes attacks.

Does anybody disagree

with the points

that are being made?

Who wants to speak?

You do?

This guy has done a terrible

crime when he was young.

And he paid for it.

He came out and he did

the same thing again.

Not quite.

Well, he did bad things

on the Internet.

So how do we protect ourselves

from this individual?

We are not putting him

in prison long enough.

People don't know where he is.

He could be doing it again.

I don't think we are

safe without knowing

exactly where he is.

Emily Thornberry?

I agree with you to a certain extent

when you talk about us

having a great legal system.

But we don't have a great

justice system asa whole.

And I think there's a lot of work

that we are letting go, and

a lot of the things that we used

to do better and we're

not doing well now.

In order to keep us safe, sir,

we need to not only punish people

and keep them out of the public

sphere, but we also asked to do some

work on rehabilitation.

And we have to have a

decent system that when

people leave prison,

that there is some attempt,

a probation service that is there,

that is a safety net,

and will ensure people are doing

the best they can to get back into

society and to keep

the right side of law.

We have done that.

We have given him

the chance but he has

blown it again.

I understand that.

But there is a real problem

in terms of protecting our

society, about making sure that

people are rehabilitated.

If someone commits a crime,

you can't just like everybody

up forever.

I'm sorry, let's get this clear.

This is the second time he has been

arrested and imprisoned

for these offences.

What he is saying is,

is that allowed to go on

all his life?

That it will never be

revealed who he is?

That it will be

a condition he will remain

anonymous?

I think, as people know,

the crimes he has committed now a

serious, but nothing is as serious

as the original crime he committed

as a child.

And the difficulty is that

if his anonymity is got rid of,

he will be at risk

of losing his life.

OK.

Does anybody else want to disagree

with the points that have

been made on the panel?

You at the very back, yes?

I personally believe,

obviously the initial

crime was horrendous.

I still remember watching the news.

You can imagine somebody that young

actually doing something like that.

Now you both mentioned we've got

a great justice system.

How about we set a precedent

and say, right, you

do it again, you're losing your

anonymity, simple as that.

Put the ball in his court.

Let's see if he can

actually be rehabilitated.

I think those images

are seared in everybody's

memory, that little lad

going off in Bootle.

For me, the only positive thing,

if you like, that came out of

that was that it appeared these

young men, who must of had the most

unbearable upbringings to do

those sorts of crimes,

appear to have gone

through the system and it worked.

They had achieved a level

of competence, they were able

to function.

And the only thing I would say

is the system is actually

working, so he is he is coming out,

they obviously know where

he is and what he is doing.

They're finding the fact

that he is consuming

imagery and is breaching the terms

of his licence

and going back to jail.

I'm not suggesting that

isn't a cycle that

should continue forever.

But I don't think

revealing his name does

anything to make the chances of him

doing that any less.

The bigger problem,

actually Sir, the other

problem is how easy

it is to access that

stuff on the Internet.

And the work that we have done over

the years cross-party to

try and tighten up this

system so you can't

of stuff is hugely helpful.

Where is the fairness for the Bulger

family that are forced to relive

this every time this happens?

APPLAUSE.

So what's your answer to that?

I don't think we

should be forced to.

I think there should

be a lot more research

while they are serving inside,

to find out

whether they are safe to be

released.

OK.

Yes, the woman in the middle?

It was two children

involved in that crime.

Robert Thompson served his time.

Robert Thompson came out,

Robert Thompson was given anonymity.

Nobody knows where he is.

What he is doing.

The same with Mary Bell.

They were given their opportunity.

They rehabilitated

and they came out.

This other gentleman hasn't.

And where do you draw the line

in allowing him to repeated and

repeated and repeated?

I totally agree with

the fellow at the back.

One more chance, you've blown it,

your anonymity is gone.

Where is the protection my children

or my grandchildren?

And as that lady says,

where's the justice for the

Bulger family?

APPLAUSE.

Right, we're moving

on to another subject.

I have just to say to people

watching this problem that

I asked this audience

whether they wanted

discussed this week.

And I have to say, 75% of them said

they didn't want to discussed.

And yet the biggest pile

of questions we had was on this

very subject.

So I don't know where

you are coming from.

And I hope people at home

will forgive us because this

story moves on week by week.

Let's have this one.

It comes from Stuart Armstrong.

It's very pertinent to where

we are sitting here in Darlington.

Would 16% lower economic growth

in the north-east be a price

worth paying for a hard Brexit?

So, Richard Tice

wants a hard Brexit.

Hang on, David.

I want a clean, proper Brexit.

Let's be very clear.

Whatever you want to call it.

I don't know that a hard

one or a soft one.

You will explain.

A report came out this week

saying that growth in the

north-east would fall

by 16% if there was a hard Brexit.

Look, the reality

is about this, and of

economic forecasts, particularly

forecasts for 15 years out, you

know, garbage in equals garbage out

with these economic models.

APPLAUSE.

These models were produced

by the same people who during the

referendum campaign of the Treasury

under the civil service, they said

that within a year we would be

in deep recession, we would lose

500,000 jobs, the tech firms

would leave, the banks would leave.

What's...

APPLAUSE.

What a load of absolute rubbish.

We've got 400,000 more people

employed in this country.

We've got record low

levels of unemployment.

We've got so much to celebrate.

And the great thing is

the opportunity is just beginning.

And here locally, here locally

near to Darlington, down

at Teesport, there is a wonderful

opportunity as long

as we leave the Customs Union,

because that is crucial.

We can then have a free port.

And free ports generate

thousands and thousands of

manufacturing jobs.

As your local Richmond

MP recently proved.

And that is a wonderful opportunity.

We need to rebalance the economy

towards more money for actual jobs

in less well-off areas.

APPLAUSE.

So you dispute the facts,

but it did lead to a 16% drop

in the growth in this part

of the country,

would it be worth it?

-- if it led to a 16% drop, would it

be worth it?

That was the question.

That was the question.

You are a great believer in leaving.

It is completely hypothetical.

We all know...

These people, they can't even

forecast one year in advance,

let alone 15.

To be honest with you,

the minute you say anything is gone

to be bad, Brexiteers always

say, that's rubbish!

Look, you've exaggerated how

bad it is going to be.

The reality is...

We've been proved right.

Listen, I saw you in 2015 say,

Brexit, leaving the EU is simple.

Everything is simple

when you are a bit simple.

The reality is a 16% drop over

here is gone to cost

you something ridiculous

like one in six jobs.

The actual great recession

of the 1930s was a 15% drop.

AUDIENCE: Rubbish!

You are saying rubbish.

Good luck with that one.

Come and tell me how

you are getting on in a

few years' time, or 16 months' time.

Because you seem to be

very, very hopeful.

I don't see any upside to it.

So far the pound has tanked by 15%.

Is that a good sign that

things are getting better?

We've got the lowest

growth in the EU.

You come and join the

celebration when we have got

more manufacturing jobs

in the north-east, we've got

a free ports, we have

rebalanced the economy.

Based on what?

Based on what findings?

Is that based on the Economist?

The one who said there

was a minimum wage.

It's getting boring!

Boring!

Boring!

I can see why people...

If we are going to have arguments

conducted like this,

I can see why people get

bored with the argument.

He needs to give his head a wobble.

Claire Perry?

You famously said

that some of your MPs

were representing...

No.

I did not.

What did you not say?

I do hate the way BBC

likes to do this.

By the way, these

men shouting at each

other, it is a bit like Parliament.

Tell me what you did not say.

Let's answer the question.

Can I answer the question?

Tell me what you didn't say.

What I said, what I didn't say

was that anyone who voted

Brexit was in any way

to have their views discounted,

because we went through the biggest

democratic exercise this

country has ever seen.

Emily and I were on one side

of the debate, probably with you,

Terry, Richard was on the other.

And you know what?

We said we'd respect

the result of the referendum.

We said we would deliver

what the people wanted

and the people voted for Brexit.

Hang on, but on my ballot paper...

Shut up, Terry!

Shut up, Terry.

On my ballot paper it didn't say

anything about leaving the single

market.

It's just like Parliament, ladies.

The blokes trying to

shout the ladies down.

No, I'm telling you what wasn't

on my ballot paper.

My ballot paper was Leave or Remain.

Terry, Terry, please.

Wait a second, Claire.

Terry, please.

Let Claire speak, will you?

Thank you.

So, to go to the question,

this question of is it worth it?

I don't recognise those numbers

because they related to the sort

of off-the-shelf deals that

are out there.

Please, Terry!

Please don't interrupt her.

Let her have her say.

It's like my 15-year-old, Terry.

I'm just helping her.

No, you're not helping at all.

You're being really rude, actually.

I have to say.

No, I'm just helping her.

APPLAUSE.

OK.

Whenever you go through a divorce,

you set off with a set

of negotiation objectives.

And then you negotiate.

I think it's right, actually,

we have the best civil service

in the world I think it's right

we look at the numbers,

we understand where we don't

want to go, which is to reduce

the growth in the economy.

Can I just say, for the north-east,

those numbers don't include

a couple of things.

They don't include the Sirius

project that will add 20%

to the Teesside economy.

They don't include the regeneration

potential from that amazing SSI site

that companies are queueing up

to invest in.

So, this is a worst-case scenario.

Frankly, and I say this

as a Remainer, because we have

to accept the result,

we can work together.

It's the time for the country to put

aside all this shouting over

the referendum and work together

on this historic task,

which we know we can do and we can

deliver a better place and better

growth and a global Brexit.

Why, in that case, do you accuse...

APPLAUSE.

Why, in that case, do you accuse

some of your colleagues

on the backbenches...

I did not do this.

I haven't said it yet!

I know what your going to say.

What?

You're going to say...

Swivel-eyed?

No.

They are representing swivel-eyed

constituents, you said.

No, I said in a private group,

one of the problems with social

media is that things leak,

that's a lesson for all of us,

what I said is I hate

extremism in any form.

And people who are shouting

about my colleagues,

all of whom swear an oath

of allegiance to the Queen

and calling them quislings

and traitors for expressing

their views in Parliament, I think

that language is disgraceful.

And I think the people that say

that, and they are not people

who chose to vote to leave the EU

these are extremist voices,

and there are too many

extremist voices, frankly,

on both sides of the debate.

Frankly, often, gentlemen,

shouting really loudly.

I'm not being extremist!

Rachel, hang on...

Can I just say something?

No, you can't.

Rachel first.

Sit quiet and wait.

Rachel is first.

I'll come back to you.

The new model that is going

to be manufactured...

And women can sometimes

talk over, too.

Rachel Sylvester, please.

I think this question goes

to the heart of why the Government

is in such a bind over Brexit.

I spoke to a minister recently

who said I've got to choose

between what I think

is in the national interest

and the party interest.

That's not true.

And I think Theresa May,

in her heart of hearts,

is unsure whether she is doing

the right thing in pursuing is quite

hard version of Brexit that

some in the Tory party

are encouraging her to.

And I think this goes to a wider

problem that this has got some stuff

And I think this goes

to a wider problem that this

has got so messed up

with party politics,

the politicians are putting