08/03/2018 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Westminster,

just by the Houses of Parliament.

And welcome to Question Time.

And on our panel tonight,

the former GP, Defence Secretary,

now Secretary of State

for International Development,

the Brexit-loving Liam Fox,

whose air miles seeking trade deals

would so far have taken him

to the moon, but not back yet.

One of Labour's new MPs,

elected last year but already

into a job as Shadow Minister

for Labour, Laura Pidcock.

Roma Agrawal, a structural engineer

who worked on the Shard

here in London, a campaigner

for getting more women

into engineering.

George Mpanga, who grew up

on a south London estate,

turned from rapping to poetry

when studying at Cambridge

University and now universally

known as George the Poet.

And the chef, restauranter, writer,

businesswoman and judge

on the Great British Bake Off,

Prue Leith, known just for

tonight as Prue the cook.

Thank you very much.

As always, if you want to get

engaged in the argument that's

going on here in this hall,

do so by using #BBCQT

on Twitter or Facebook.

Let's have our first

question, and it comes

from Marcus Gray, please.

Marcus.

If the incident in Salisbury

is proven to have links to Russia,

what action do we need to take?

Liam Fox.

Well, the first thing is

that we mustn't jump to conclusions.

Our thoughts should be

with those who have suffered

in the way that they have.

It's a despicable crime.

It's a ghastly thing

to happen, physically.

It's clearly a very brazen crime

committed in our country.

And it's worth pointing out that

it's not easy to make nerve agents,

so it's unlikely to be someone just

operating as a backroom terrorist,

so it's likely to be a much more

preconceived attack.

But it's impossible

at this point to say.

There is a police investigation.

And in such important issues

where there is so much at stake,

it's all the more important

that we wait until we've got

information before we jump in.

Well, Boris Johnson

didn't wait, did he?

Boris Johnson said we should

cancel the football cup.

No, he said, in fact, that we had

to wait until the end of the police

investigation to see...

But if Russia was involved we'd

have to consider that.

If Russia...

And Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary,

said today if Russia was involved

there's all kinds of things

we should do.

He says, "if".

The question is, what action can

be taken or could be

taken against Russia?

Well, if Russia was involved,

we can look at the sort of things

that we did after the Litvinenko

case, where people were

expelled from the country,

when we stopped our cooperation.

We already have sanctions on Russia

because of their behaviour

elsewhere, because of the illegal

annexation of the Crimea.

We can always look to what is

happening with that.

But I make the point again,

this is a very important issue.

It's important to keep

the temperature down

until we actually know the facts.

There is too much at stake.

I would say that measured tone

is actually quite damaging,

when you look at a system

in which Putin or the Kremlin has

been able to pretty much run amok,

and every time an incident like this

comes up there are these strong

talks about sanctions

and consequences.

And he doesn't seem

to bat an eyelid.

In honesty, if you look at the

Litvinenko situation a while ago,

sanctions only followed...

Sanctions were only imposed

following escalations,

like you said, of their behaviour

elsewhere.

And again, not much seems to happen.

So I think it doesn't create

the greatest impression

when you take a measured tone

and the cynicism that

sits within most of us

is justified at a later stage.

APPLAUSE

Laura Pidcock.

I think that I do want to stay

grounded and not speculate too much,

because yes, a nerve agent has been

found but there isn't a connection

at this point in time.

And I can understand the past that

makes us assume it might be Russia

but I think we mustn't do that.

I'm not going to do a Boris and make

policy on the hoof and say

that we should not go

to the World Cup,

or do this or do that.

Actually, if it is found that

Russia was involved,

there need to be really robust

diplomatic conversations

that take place.

This idea that you kind of bomb

first and talk later,

that is not a strategy

that the Labour Party would employ.

But we have to stay

really, really grounded.

There is something

the government can do.

They could include financial

sanctions in the money-laundering

bill against dirty money,

against those who act

against human rights

violations in other countries,

and they are not doing that now.

You are not willing to do that now.

Part of the issue with that is that

a lot of the time the financial

sanctions that are imposed

are actually imposed on enemies

of the Kremlin who are only

here to wash their money.

That's the first thing.

And then secondly, if you look

at Labour's track record as well,

I remember just after the fiasco

with Georgia we had David Miliband

expressing solidarity in his words

with the Georgian people,

and then later in the year being

in Russia saying that, you know,

that was just a discrepancy.

I think he called it

a respectful disagreement.

This is what I'm saying

about that political speech.

A lot of that flip-flopping doesn't

really bode well in the long term.

APPLAUSE

The woman up there,

third row from the back.

It was stated on the news today

that there are possibly another

14 similar incidents.

Do the panel have any

information on that?

And I'm tending

to agree with George.

Yes, the Home Secretary, I think,

referred to those other allegations

which BuzzFeed have got 14 of them.

Yes.

I don't think you'll

find information from

anyone on this panel.

I don't think anybody

has any information.

Prue Leith, what do you think

about the question that was asked?

The only thing I'd like to add -

I agree with what has been said -

is that it would be a great pity

if we use sport to punish

the Russians in this way,

because sport should be the one area

of human activity, if you like,

that should be not politicised,

because it's about pleasure

and coming together.

And it should be the thing

that makes peace.

So I would not like Boris' solution.

I think we should have

sanctions and fines...

If they are found to be involved.

Would it be any punishment

to withdraw football from,

British football from the World Cup,

really, for the Russians?

No.

It wouldn't be much punishment.

It would be a hollow gesture

and it would be damaging,

because sport should

not be politicised.

APPLAUSE

I would be interested

to understand the panel's views

on the escalation routes.

My perception is that the sanctions

don't appear to be working.

We obviously don't want to go to war

either, and withdrawing

from a football competition may

not be very effective.

But Russia is running amok

with all of the things

that they are doing in Syria,

ignoring UN votes and

the potential issue here.

So there must be something other

than sanctions that we could do.

Roma Agrawal.

I can't really comment in terms

of sanctions and stuff,

not being a politician.

But I think in terms of this

situation in Salisbury

that we are looking at,

I really think we need to let

the police do their job

and conclude their investigation.

And I'm definitely not in favour

of any knee-jerk reactions.

And once we do have the results

of that investigation forward,

we need to allow government to make

the decision of what

the right path is.

I suppose the question is,

is there anything that can be done

that would influence one way

or another Putin's behaviour?

Because we've had sanctions

after Crimea, we had Ukraine,

and it doesn't seem to have had any

effect at all.

I think the only thing that Mr Putin

understands is strength,

which is why I think we've been

right to put our tanks and troops

and Typhoons into Estonia to make

sure that Russia's border

with Nato is secured.

If you go to Estonia

or you go to Poland,

the world looks very different

from how it looks in London.

The threat looks very different.

It's therefore essential

that we maintain the integrity

of Nato, that we maintain

our defence spending.

And it's necessary

for Europe to do more.

If you look inside the total Nato

budget, the US population

as a proportion of Nato is 35%.

The contribution

to the budget is 72%.

The EU countries that

are in Nato make up 52%,

but only 24% of Nato spending.

European countries have to show

commitment to their own defence.

We've made that commitment

in the UK by spending 2%,

but European countries have to do

more about continental

Europe's defence.

Yes, you, sir.

I think the main problem

when you talk about strength

is we only have a 2% defence budget,

and we're now talking

about further cuts.

I mean, surely that's not a show

of strength and we should actually

be doing something more about that.

Strength doesn't always have

to be military force?

APPLAUSE

It doesn't always have

to be about aggression

towards other countries.

I'm a firm believer

in diplomatic solutions to these

very tense situation.

We know.

Of course, Labour would leave us

defenceless when they want to scrap

Trident and things like that.

Hang on!

I think that's just the most

preposterous suggestion

that the Labour Party would leave us

without a British Army.

We are not the ones that

are cutting the British Army.

We are not the ones that

are leaving our soldiers

without the protection they need

when they are overseas.

So that's a complete myth

and rumour that's propagated.

The woman in green.

So a former Foreign Office Minister

said that our position out of the EU

has made us more vulnerable

to attack from the Kremlin

and externally.

How do we know that,

post-Brexit, our safety

is going to be safeguarded?

Outside Europe.

George.

I think the difficult truth is that

as the public we are not operating

with enough information.

For example, going back

to what Liam just said

about maintaining the defence budget

and showing strength.

That would imply that we have some

sort of clout in the face

of whatever Russia has been working

on behind closed doors.

And these are things

that we have no idea about.

So I feel like your feeling

of insecurity is justified.

Frankly, I don't think

Liam's going to give

you a straightforward

answer to that question.

APPLAUSE

Well, hold on.

Give a straightforward

answer in just a moment

but I want to go to the woman there.

Do we have any leadership

that is strong enough

to face off against Putin,

and is it time to bring back

Reagan-esque type leadership?

Go on a bit.

What do you mean by that?

Well, does either side,

Labour or Conservative,

feel that their leaders are strong

enough to face off against Putin?

Liam Fox, last brief word.

The question I go back

to is that it is our

collective strength.

Our strength lies in

acting together as Nato.

We are the world's fourth

biggest defence budget,

the world's fourth biggest defence

force, but we need partners to carry

some of that burden with us.

We have to understand

about Mr Putin.

Mr Putin believes in two things that

make it impossible for him

to be part of the normal

family of nations.

First of all, he believes

in the concept of a "near abroad",

the old Soviet concept that Russia

should have control

over its near neighbours

and their economic and foreign

and security policies.

That's unacceptable to us.

Secondly, he believes

that the defence of Russian citizens

lies in the Kremlin,

not in the legal systems

where they live.

That is also unacceptable because it

makes any country with Russian

citizens in it vulnerable

to Kremlin doctrine.

We have got to understand

that the Russian regime is a very

dark and dangerous regime.

It's very difficult to have the sort

of diplomatic relations

that we would want to have.

Ratchet up the tension.

Dark and dangerous.

Well, it is.

I'm sorry.

You can't just out nice Mr Putin.

I'm not.

There are dangers we have to face up

to and deal with them.

APPLAUSE

And what about the

Saudi Arabian regime?

How would you describe that?

We may come to that,

so let's not go down that road.

But you were saying

he was ratcheting up...

Tensions, essentially.

The question was about

leadership and strength.

I don't think strength

is inextricably linked

with military action.

I think it takes strength to go

in a room and be very strong

about what your red lines are,

whatever they are, without

committing to military action.

We are speculating here.

We still don't know

whether Russia was involved.

We're not speculating

about Mr Litvinenko.

Go and tell him that you can

be nice to Mr Putin.

And that should be condemned,

of course it should.

The man up there and then we'll

move the next question.

Thank you.

If Russia is a dark

and dangerous regime,

will you be going and formulating

a trade deal with them post-Brexit?

All right, we will come to trade.

We'll move on,

because we get to trade.

Before we do, for those of you able

to come to Dover next Thursday,

or Leeds the week after that, that's

where Question Time is going to be,

in Leeds with an audience all under

30 years old.

On screen are the details

of how to apply.

I will give them again at the end.

Let's go to Trump and trade

and Russia and trade.

Warren Wynne, let's

have your question.

In light of Donald Trump's love

of trade wars, will the UK come off

badly in trade deals

with the USA post-Brexit?

Yes, with Donald Trump's love

of trade wars, America first

and the tariffs being imposed

on steel and aluminium,

will we come off badly once

we're outside the EU?

I'm not going to come

to you first, Liam Fox.

I'll come to you, Laura.

I think that there are many things

that worry me about trade agreements

outside of the European Union.

First of all, that we actually don't

know what is up for grabs.

It would worry me immensely

if the NHS or our public services

were up for grabs in trade deals,

like a TTIP situation.

That would be a nightmare

and I think that's one

of the reasons that the Labour Party

has committed to a customs union,

that actually that's

about committing to jobs

and protecting jobs.

I think it's much harder

when Donald Trump is suggesting

25% tariffs on steel, an industry...

I represent a constituency

that had a steelworks.

An industry that had already been

decimated over many years.

To imply that sanctions should be

put on is very, very dangerous.

You know, there's 32,000

people's jobs at risk.

And it's important that we are able

to work collectively in the face

of that kind of protectionism.

But does it suggest we will get good

trade deals outside the EU, to you?

If you take the Labour Party's

position of having a customs union.

I think it's much harder

if you are outside of any agreement

and you're having to work

on your own.

That's just common sense.

Prue Leith?

APPLAUSE.

I think that Trump's little

twitters, tweets, don't matter.

I'm not the person to talk

about tweets, actually.

But I'll risk it.

I mean, he's already

rode back a bit.

He suddenly realised that 6%

of all US steel comes from Canada.

So he thinks, oh, OK,

he tweets again and he says

I'll exempt Canada.

So I don't think we should worry too

much yet, because you never know how

much will change his mind.

But I think there is no reason

at all why we shouldn't

do good trade deals,

in or out of the EU.

In fact, we've always...

Think I'm about the only person

who is old enough here to remember

there was a life before

we were in the EU.

APPLAUSE.

How did you vote

on the Brexit issue?

I ended up voting for Brexit.

But I dithered and dithered,

because I think there are really

good arguments on both sides,

there are really intelligent

people on both sides,

good people on both sides.

Which is such a pity,

that we have everybody

fighting each other.

We should stop refighting

the referendum, get behind

the leader that the Tories,

after all, they voted for Mrs May,

they should show some loyalty,

help the poor woman get

on and do the deal.

I think what we need

is her doing the best we can,

which I think she is a strong woman

and I think she can do it well,

and everybody else pulling with her.

And we're going down the Brexit

road, so could we all just

agree to make it work?

Apparently not.

APPLAUSE.

So, have you been on to the

Americans to ask them what the hell

they are on about with this tariff

they are imposing,

or suggesting imposing?

Literally as you speak

the United States is making

the announcement about

what they intend to do over tariffs.

I've spoken to them several times

over the last few days.

In fact, I'm going to

Washington next week to take

the discussions further.

And what is it they are saying,

literally as we speak?

Well, we don't know, David,

because we are in here,

they are out there.

And you don't know what

they're going to say?

Are you saying you don't know

what they're going to say?

No, I...

You've had no assurances?

I don't know exactly

what they're going to say,

but it is clear there is going to be

some form of tariff

and potentially being introduced.

Now, there is clearly a problem

in steel in the world.

There is an overproduction,

largely coming from China.

There is also what is

called transshipment.

Countries in Central America,

for example, with no steel

industries, are suddenly selling

steel into the United States.

And if we want a rules-based trading

system, we have to make sure

the rules are obeyed.

At the way the United States

is going about this is wrong.

Because they are doing it under

what is called the 232,

an investigation based

on national security.

For the UK, it is doubly absurd,

because we are only responsible

for 1% of American's steel imports.

It is 5% of our tonnage by steel

that we produce here, 15% by value.

The reason though the differences

that we tend to produce

very high value steel,

some of which can't be sourced

in the United States and will simply

push the price of steel there.

We also make steel for the American

military programme.

So it's doubly absurd that we should

be caught on an investigation

on national security.

So our view is, yes,

we can deal multilaterally

with the overproduction of steel,

but this is the wrong

way to go about it.

Protectionism, tariffs

never really work.

If you think about it, there

are 140,000 American steelworkers.

There are 6.5 million

people in America work

in steel related industries.

For the prices to go up of steel,

their input prices, it makes no

sense in the long run.

So, will we be exempt?

Well, we'll have to wait and see

what the announcements are.

We will wait to see if there

is a time for negotiation.

That is why I'm going

to Washington next week.

OK.

George?

I think part of the challenge

with Mr Trump's announcements

is that, like a lot of what he says,

it changes the atmosphere,

it changes the climate

on the global stage.

So when you have that

reaction from Europe,

listing all of the things that

will now have extra duties slapped

on them from the American side,

again, that changes the rhetoric.

Now we are in danger of a trade war.

Perfect timing, with Brexit, we will

be caught in the middle of that.

Again, to speak to the earlier

appoint about political speaking,

downplaying people's concerns,

I think that feeds the disconnect

that there might be

between politicians and many members

of the public who feel

justifiably concerned.

APPLAUSE.

So, I completely agree that

I feel very underinformed

about the situation.

I don't know how easy

it is for Trump just to slap

these percentages on.

Don't think that trade

protectionism works.

I think what the UK actually does

very well, you know,

I use a little steel in my job,

is that we have high-quality

scientists, we have the best

engineering the world.

What we should be doing

is differentiating our product

by using innovation,

by using technology.

Make it the greenest steel,

the strongest steel, the best steel,

so that we are differentiating

ourselves on that basis.

APPLAUSE.

You, sir?

Just on that point, I actually

getting out of the EU obviously

enhances our opportunity.

And when we consider and paint

Donald Trump as some

kind of protectionist,

we have to consider that the EU

is a protectionist block.

It has a common external tariff

around it, in which it imposes

tariff barriers on other nations.

And so, we have enhanced

opportunities outside the EU.

Really, we shouldn't be too

concerned over Donald Trump,

especially as he has reaffirmed

on multiple occasions that he wants

a special trade deal with us.

APPLAUSE.

On that point, it speaks

to what Prue said earlier

about our ability to rally

around one leader.

Currently, again, to another

point that Prue raised,

there was a life before the EU,

but right now there is going to be

a life after the EU,

and that is going to

be very different.

So, if you look at our standing

on the world stage, I think Britain

needs to have a very honest

conversation with itself

about who our friends

are and what authority we will be

able to in a time when we are

literally outside of protectionist

block that we talked about.

George, I don't know

whether you agree, I think it's also

about the political motivations

behind leaving the EU.

I am immensely worried about a life

beyond the EU under the Tories.

I understand why people voted

to leave the European Union,

I represent a Leave constituency.

But you have to understand

that the likes of Liam Fox,

Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

they are hard right conservatives

who do like the idea

that the free market rules,

and actually that workers'

rights will be decimated

if they get their way.

That's why there's a whole set

of pre-negotiations that has to go

on before David Davis can go off

and negotiate with

the European Union.

It's free market ideology

and actually, I think there needs

to be a robust protection

of workers' rights outside

of the European Union,

or everybody's living standards

would be hurt.

Nobody has suggested anything else.

This is nonsense.

APPLAUSE.

Sorry...

No, let him speak, let him answer.

First of all, free trade globally

is the way that we have taken,

in 25 years, 1 billion people out

of abject poverty around the world.

Allowing them to get

access to our markets.

The idea that we, one of the world's

most developed countries,

having had all those benefits,

would pull up the drawbridge

behind us and operate some

protectionist policy...

You're telling half the story.

You're telling half the story.

Free trade goes both ways.

So it's not only...

APPLAUSE.

It's not only the case that poorer

countries are able to involve

themselves in our market and have

access to our technology, there's

also the question of IP rights,

which blocks a lot of what countries

are able to do, and also our

involvement, the involvement

of richer nations in poorer

countries that is able

to siphon off the best

of their resources and talents.

So what you're saying

is half the story.

APPLAUSE.

Hold on, Liam Fox,

you have always been...

Are you still as optimistic

as you were when you said it should

be the simplest deal in history

of mankind, and there would be deals

ready, March next year?

Well, if you look at the EU

negotiation, most negotiations

in the world come from different

positions, where you are

trying to make it closer.

The EU comes from an

identical position.

And what we should be able to do

is come to an agreement

that is mutually beneficial,

to have a zero tariff, open,

liberal relationship

with the European Union.

Just a second.

Some of the things that Laura said

are just plain wrong.

The idea that you can be

in a customs union still have

free trade agreements.

If you're in a customs

union, you are restricted

as to what you can offer

a potential trading partner.

What is even worse,

coming from the left,

this idea that they hate TTIP,

but they want to be

in a customs union.

If you are in a customs union

with the EU, and then they agree

TTIP, you have it imposed on you.

Whether you want it or not.

It is a complete nonsense.

APPLAUSE.

Let me respond.

This is coming from a man who said

it was too difficult to sack people,

who said that employment rights

were a hindrance to the economy.

My deepest fear, post

the European Union, is a hard-right

Conservative government that will be

presiding over worker rights.

Theresa May, hard right

Conservative government?

Really?

Get over the propaganda.

She's not running the Tory party

at the moment, is she?

Is she?

APPLAUSE.

The woman up on the gangway, there.

I have a question for Laura.

That is what exactly do you think,

which employment rights do think

are going to be decimated,

and what evidence do you have?

I just said there, in the past,

Liam Fox has talked about implement

rights being a hindrance

to the economy, that actually

it is too difficult,

there is a lot of bureaucracy

to sack people.

My experience of being a worker,

not that long ago, having many

friends who are workers,

is that it is actually the opposite.

Trade union rights have been

decimated under this government.

The Trade Union Act was a pernicious

piece of legislation that prevents

people from having control

in their workplace to organise

and have their own say.

If we're talking about sovereignty

and we're talking about protections

in the workplace, the greatest

protection you can have

is to be a trade union.

And the Trade Union Act

is a piece of legislation...

Sorry, you're now going

back into the past?

You were talking about what will

happen when we leave the EU?

You think that is going to continue?

Yes.

For you, it is a kind of...

Yes, it is a continuation.

We have to understand that

on Leave and Remain,

hold on a minute, hold on a minute,

there are different

political motivations.

All I am saying is the hard right

of the Conservatives want us to be

out of the European Union

to have a free market

and decimate workers' rights.

We have just been taking

through Parliament

the European Union Withdrawal Bill.

Which, actually, would right

into British law all the rights that

workers currently have under

the European Union.

The Labour Party voted against it.

You voted against it.

And that is historical revisionism

if I've ever heard it.

Putting powers into the hands

of ministers, not the people.

The woman there, on the left?

I think what concerns me more

than anything else is the fact that

both of you have been voted

in to represent us as a country, and

you are both arguing

with each other.

Brexit is not a party ideal.

People who voted for Brexit are not

necessarily conservative,

people who voted for Brexit are not

necessarily Labour supporters.

We are part of a country,

and it amazes me that Labour

and Conservatives cannot come

together and actually agree

what the best solution is for us

as a party and move forward.

Because at the end of the day,

it's our children who are going

to have to deal with this.

You over there?

Question for Liam, I agree

with Prue, I am confident

in our ability to negotiate these

fantastic free trade agreements.

But at what cost?

For example, when Theresa May

visited India they said

they absolutely want to do business

with you, that concession

was that they wanted free

movement of their workers.

Obviously how far would you go,

would that be a red line?

OK, and the person here,

in the third row, yes?

I don't believe we can

trust the Tories.

I think there should be a general

election before a trade deal.

OK.

And in the second row there, you?

I personally am most concerned

of all about the people in abject

poverty that Liam Fox mentioned.

There are people on this planet

who are born into conditions that

none of us will ever have

to experience, far worse

than we can imagine,

and they have no way of getting

themselves out of poverty

themselves, unless our government

and other governments,

obviously, think about those people

in the process of trade

deals and try to fight

against the terrible exploitation

of the people who provide our sugar

and cocoa for making

cakes and suchlike.

I really want our politicians

to think about those people

who don't have a voice

and are really suffering because of

centuries of unfair trade.

APPLAUSE.

Do you think that is better achieved

inside the EU or outside?

I personally really don't know,

which is why I didn't

vote in the referendum.

I want to trust that politicians

care about human beings,

not only British votes.

I'd just like to pick up

what the lady at the back said

about coming together as a country.

I too am completely fed up of just

watching politicians.

We hear hard Brexit, soft Brexit.

We will have sunny-side-up

Brexit next.

I don't know we're going to hear.

What I really want to see

is a vision from both of the big

parties in our country,

telling me why my life

is going to be better

outside the European Union.

And I am absolutely not convinced

at this point in time.

APPLAUSE.

Groskop

And you, sir.

We need to do what's

right for our industries.

We have a fantastic agriculture

industry, a fantastic

automotive industry.

And I think some of the things we're

talking about aren't necessarily

going to secure jobs,

drive the economy in those areas.

All countries always trade most

closely with their neighbours,

and I think we need to think

about what will do that.

The customs union absolutely

guarantees we safeguard those jobs

in those industries

that are closest to us.

We are halfway through our time

so I think we'll move

on to another question.

Diane Pace, your question, please.

Should the government learn

from our European partners and take

back control of the rented

sector in housing?

Should the government learn

from our European partners

and take back control,

take control of the rented sector?

Of course, housing has been

on the agenda this week.

George, what's your view about that?

Well, the renting sector

is an interesting question.

There is the view that the youth

quake in the last election

is actually attributable

to the issue of rent.

And that raises an interesting

quandary in that the number

of people that are really hard done

by by this current housing market

is now at a critical mass,

where it makes a difference

to an election.

But at the same time, is it big

enough for the Tories to care,

like, all the time, and not

just before an election?

I don't think it is.

I do think the housing market,

especially where we are here

in London, is out of control,

the private rental market.

And it would be good

to see some intervention.

What did you make of what the Prime

Minister said this week,

that young people were right to be

angry about housing?

Yeah, it's another one

of her beautiful truisms.

Of course young people are right

to be angry about it,

but the question is actually

going to be done.

And promising planning permissions

is not tantamount actually taking

control of the situation.

Diane Pace, you asked

the question...

APPLAUSE

What's the drift of your thinking?

Well, I was thinking

particularly about what happens

in the rest of Europe.

Even though we may be leaving

the EU, other countries in Europe

don't see housing in

the rented sector or even

owner-occupation as about an asset.

They see housing as about people's

homes, where they can make a life,

bring up their families,

work and enjoy themselves.

In this country, we see

housing as an asset,

which means that everybody

is scrabbling to get

on a housing ladder,

which is only about ownership.

Whereas the private rented sector,

or what I would support much

more is a mass council

house building programme.

But it is not really about tenure.

It's about providing a housing

supply which is fair and regulated.

Having a home, in other words.

Having a home.

And in the rest of Europe,

that isn't contentious.

In the Netherlands,

which I know something about,

it's the government that sets how

high rent can be, or how much rent

can be raised each year.

And I don't think anyone

in the Netherlands, or France,

Germany, they are not rabid

communists or socialists even.

They believe that their housing

sector needs regulation,

and landlords make money and people

live in decent homes.

APPLAUSE

I think that you have made

a really interesting and good point,

because I do think that we've come

to the point when we have

to consider doing something that

makes the rental market work better

than it does.

And until now, in fact,

it's worked very well especially

for the middle classes,

because owning your own house

was a little nest egg and you stayed

in it as long as you needed

to and then when you retired you had

the value of your house

and your children could inherit

and all the rest of it.

We are now living so long

that our children won't inherit

until we've spent all the money

on health care or whatever.

That's your plan, is it?

My plan.

And so the nest egg thing,

we've always been told,

governments have told us,

particularly the Tories have told

us, that owning our own house

is the secret to everything,

it makes you feel secure

and an Englishman's home

is his castle and all that stuff.

But I don't think it will work

any more because prices

are so out of control.

The only problem with the European

thing is that there is a real habit

of saving in Europe.

Everybody saves for their old age.

The pensions are very good,

and the National Insurance,

the equivalent of National

Insurance, is very good.

We don't have any of those

supports in this country,

so we don't have a culture

of saving, except in the nest egg

bit, which was your house.

You put your money into your house.

So you have to change a whole

culture if you want to do that.

And I think you might

in the end have to regulate

the housing, the rental market.

Let's hear from one or two

members of the audience.

In the middle.

I'm a film-maker from Hackney,

and literally I've done

a documentary about gentrification.

And I've seen my area

completely change.

It's not fair.

Communities have been broken up.

And in terms of rental,

it has become the wild wild West.

It's unfair to see how you have

to be affluent to live

in a particular area.

And it has priced people out.

So I really do think it's unfair

and I think there needs to be

something done about it

because we are breaking up

communities and people are moving

out, and it's not fair.

APPLAUSE

I think that the fundamental

underlying problem under all of this

is that we are not building enough

housing in this country.

So what we need to do...

I work in the sector.

We need to get private developers

working with housing associations

that provide affordable housing.

We need to get local

and national government tied up.

We need to pull it out of this

five-year election cycle.

We need to be thinking about homes

in ten, 15 and 30 years' time,

which will cause disruption

with construction in the short-term,

but we have to build enough housing.

So until we don't get that joined up

leadership, we need to...

Also, just to add, with the housing

has to come education,

infrastructure, transport,

health care, arts and culture.

And so to do that,

we have to come together.

And I think the Olympic Park is one

example where, you know,

it worked well for some people.

It might not be absolutely perfect

but it is an area where we did

remediate wasteland.

We brought housing there.

We brought arts, culture, education,

and it could be something we use

as a model to try and move forward.

What do you make of the fundamental

point that the questioner,

Diane Pace, made, that we should

move away, and that Prue Leith made,

that we should move away

from the idea of owning a house?

The idea that houses

are provided and you rent them?

I think it is quite

a cultural thing in the UK.

I've lived most of my life here,

but not all of it, and it's

definitely something that I'd seen

as quite a UK cultural thing.

I think if we do provide enough

housing and people feel secure

in rent so that they are not

going to be kicked out

in a few months' time,

they feel they could live

there long-term and they have that

security, then slowly perhaps that

culture will change.

You're not looking convinced.

We have new developments that

have come in Hackney.

The fact that as a developer

you are meant to have a certain

percentage for social housing,

that is getting less

and less and less.

When you look at those houses,

it's meant to be 20%.

It's less and less and less.

In fact, the gentleman right next

to me is telling me that there

are two different entrances.

There's entrances for social housing

and there's entrances

for people who own private.

I disagree with that.

That shouldn't happen and we need

to make sure that our councils

are providing the mandated

amount of housing.

The problem is at the moment

that the councils, the government

have different ideas.

Any council can make

a decision of what they want.

And then it depends on them.

We have to make sure that that

regulation is robust.

Needs to be regulated.

It's unfair.

Liam Fox.

Roma is exactly right.

It should be up to people themselves

to decide whether they rent or buy.

But that is dependent upon prices

being accessible to far more people.

And the problem is,

if you don't build enough homes

but the demand is still there,

the price will rise.

We've got to build lots

more homes to ensure

that the prices are reasonable.

And the good news is that last year,

2017, we built more homes,

1.1 million, than in all but one

of the last 30 years.

But we are a long way

behind the curve.

We have to build lots more.

Do you believe, as Sajid Javid said,

that 50 billion should be spent

by government and councils should be

free to spend?

Because at the moment,

councils, we are told one

in ten is going broke,

or more, because they

can't raise the money.

Why aren't they free to do it?

Well, we've got one of the big

problems that we face is that

at the moment if you're a house

builder, you can apply

for planning permission and before

you build the houses that

you are contracted to do, you can

get more planning permission.

What we need to have

is something called build-out,

in other words until house-builders

have actually got the houses

they are contracted to build,

they shouldn't be allowed to get

further planning permissions.

That would ensure that

when planning permission is given

by a local authority,

the houses actually get built,

rather than land banks

being built up, or waiting

until house prices rise.

Sorry to labour the point,

but why can't councils be freed

to borrow money at low interest

rates and build council houses?

APPLAUSE

What's the answer?

We've actually seen more

council houses built

in the last seven years...

That's not an answer

to the question.

The question is, yes,

it's all very well local authorities

being able to borrow but they have

to pay the money back,

and that has to ultimately be

guaranteed by central government.

So, yes, let's have more freedom

but let's have it responsibly

so that the taxpayer is not landed

with the more debt.

The man over there in spectacles.

I think it's important to note that

we've stripped away over the past 30

years so much social housing,

which has now been placed

into the private rental market.

It wouldn't be unusual in London

to find, and probably most big

cities across the UK,

to find that people are living

in what used to be socially rented

properties that were bought

by Right to Buy.

They are put onto the private rental

market and you will be paying double

on the private market for the same

property that your neighbour

would be renting from the council.

So we need to stop assuming that

private developers can provide

the housing we need.

It needs to be done on a major

scale, and the model of social

housing has to come back.

Laura, I will come

to you in a moment.

The man there with spectacles on.

Isn't part of the problem here

in London that there are thousands

and thousands of flats lying vacant

which are owned by non-UK investors?

APPLAUSE

Laura.

There were people this winter,

only a few weeks ago,

that died on the streets

because they did not

have a home to call their own,

and I think that is an absolute

condemnation of this nation.

I heard this homeless man saying,

"I just hope I wake up".

That is an absolute shame.

And it's systemic, so in the private

rented sector, rents are too high,

people are getting in debt

because their rent is extortionate,

they don't have security of tenure.

We desperately need council housing.

I just want to make this

point, David, right.

There's a reluctance to talk

about council housing,

to allow councils the freedom

to build council houses.

And there are ideological

motives behind it.

Everything has a political

motivation behind it.

That's what politics is about.

If you are really secure in your

home, if you have really low rent,

if you have security of tenure,

you're much less likely

to take industrial action.

Sorry, you're much more

likely to take industrial

action than if you have, say,

got a mortgage and you are really,

really worried about the security

of your home.

And I think that actually

being secure in a house is a human

right and we have to start looking

at it through a human rights

perspective, rather than just

seeing it as a commodity,

or an asset, or something

that we can float on the stock

market or whatever it is and bank

lots of houses in London.

People deserve homes as a human

right, and you have to start talking

about mass programmes

of council house building.

APPLAUSE

And just to pick you up

on one thing you said.

"Every political decision has

a political motive",

implying there was an ulterior

motive or a different motive.

What is Labour's different motive

when it talks the way you just did?

That housing is a human right,

not like a commodity.

So you don't have

a political motive?

Of course.

Not in the crude, callous

sense, because actually,

contrary to popular belief,

I genuinely do want people

in my constituency not to have

to come to me because they have got

mould in their house,

because they can't get to sleep

and their children's health

is exacerbated by poor

living standards.

I genuinely want people to be taken

off the housing list and I want

council houses to be built,

and I want them to be desirable

and not bargain basement properties

because housing revenue accounts

have been slashed so much

under this government.

APPLAUSE

We all agree with you.

You can stop.

I'm not going to stop while there's

people dying on the streets.

For heaven's sake, Laura.

Stop it.

We saw what deregulation did.

Let me say this as a final point.

No, you have said your final

bit for the moment.

What deregulation did

at Grenfell, though, David.

Look what deregulation did there.

Let Prue Leith speak.

She was just taking you to task.

No, I was just saying,

we've got it and we agree

with you pretty well.

So let's let a few

other people speak.

But all I wanted to say was that

I don't think this is a question

of the rented market

against the private

market, or anything else.

I think it's got to

be a mixed solution.

And everybody has to do their bit.

The only thing I would like to say,

which is a rather obvious thing,

you know, we think that the housing

problem is all because politicians

won't built houses.

We could do three things about that.

I mean, things that stop

the houses being built

is not the lack of money.

It's that the planning procedure

is very slow, and difficult.

And it's basically protectionist.

Most planners don't want to build

houses, they want to stop

houses being built.

So that's one thing.

The planning, I really think

planning, the helpline thing needs

-- The planning, I really think

planning, the whole planning thing

needs to be looked at very carefully

and made much more cooperative

and useful to builders.

I also think that we should

understand that, actually,

even if we could build the houses

that your government have said

we should be building this year,

we'll never build them

because there are not enough

building materials to be

had in this country.

It's too expensive to import it all.

And there isn't enough labour,

so there's not enough

labour to build them,

there's not enough materials

to build them and the planning...

OK, the woman in the front, here.

Let's hear from you.

First of all, Prue, I'm

a planner and I really

want to see houses built,

because I'm also a young person.

Good for you!

Who doesn't benefit from the Bank

of Mum and Dad, so at the moment

I have no chance of buying a house

before I'm about 40.

Secondly, as I say, I'm a planner

and a property developer,

so I know quite a bit

about the planning process.

And my view is that the bureaucracy

of the process is so complicated

now that it takes years to put

through a simple

development of ten houses.

Can we not just simplify the whole

thing and get it so houses

are being built in areas

that we want them to be built?

OK.

The man up there

on the gangway, there?

And then I'll come to you.

Yeah, I'd just like to say

I have a bit of experience in this

because I live in London,

I come from Yorkshire.

I was able, fortunately,

to buy a house with

the support of my family.

When I moved here, we worked

with local projects to be able

to rent the house out to people,

who otherwise wouldn't be able

to get into their own property,

wouldn't be able to afford it.

But, unfortunately,

funding for those kind

of schemes has been cut.

So we're not able

to do that any more.

But I think Laura's point of give

everybody who is homeless a free

house doesn't really work.

I didn't say that.

What happens to everyone

else who has to earn

their way into a house?

What we need to do is take

people on the streets,

to give them a route to being able

to afford their own house,

not give them a freebie.

Yeah, but they are

interconnected, aren't they?

They are interconnected.

The person in the back, row there.

The woman.

Oh, second from the back.

Yes, you.

Yeah, I just wanted to go

back to what George said

about the youthquake.

I really don't think it did enough

to influence the election,

even though I would have

liked it to.

I'm 18 and I have friends

who are paying over 315 a week

in rent to live in London.

You cannot have a

generation of renters.

It's just financial

insecurity for life.

When are the Conservatives

going to take notice

of an entire future generation

who are facing financial insecurity?

APPLAUSE

Briefly, Liam.

Well, that is the whole point

of the Government's housing policy

now, that we want to build more.

For years and years, and years,

including, it has to be said,

during the last Labour government,

I'm interested why this

one would be different,

we did not build enough homes.

The population has increased far

more than the supply of housing.

When that happens, you get a supply

and demand mismatch and then prices

will inevitably rise.

That's what happens when the market

is distorted in the way

that it is at the moment.

What your government still falls

short of doing is compelling

developers to stick to the social

provisions that they are

nominally committed to.

APPLAUSE.

OK, we have under ten minutes left.

One more question

from the woman there.

Just a brief point.

Just very briefly, the whole talk

about building new houses,

that's all well and good,

but the problem is the people

who buy bulk houses

for investment purposes.

I'm 40 years old, I pay more in rent

for one room in a shared house

and my brother does for a three bed

semidetached in Swindon.

It's ridiculous.

People will just buy them

and they tell you, well,

my retirement is sorted because I've

got five properties, I rented them

out, so I'm OK when I grow old.

So, people, whatever

you are building, you've got people

who are investing and just hoarding

all of the properties

for themselves, and not allowing

it, so then that hikes

the prices even more.

OK.

APPLAUSE.

There are a lot of hands up

here about that topic.

But I want to go on,

because we've got another six

or seven minutes to go.

This is an appropriate

question for today, perhaps.

Claire Carter, can we have it?

Do we want women reaching

the top by merit or simply

making up the numbers?

Positive discrimination or merit?

Is that your point?

Making up the numbers?

We are led to believe that we want

more women on boards and directors,

but surely it has to be on merit?

Because otherwise you

discredit men and women?

OK, well, Prue Leith has

sat on many a board.

Is it on merit or because

you were a woman?

Well, to be honest, when I first...

The first public board I ever sat

on was the British Railways Board.

And then I sat on various

other ones, like Safeway,

Whitbread and so on.

And I have to admit,

probably the chairmen who put me

on those boards did it

because they were tired

of going to AGMs and some woman

standing up, shareholder,

saying, why am I looking

at all these grey suits?

Why aren't there any

women on the board?

So I was there as the token woman.

My attitude was always I don't care

what your motivation is,

as long as when I get there I'm

allowed to do the job.

So, in a sense, what I'm saying

is that I would happily

back a quota system,

as long as it wasn't ridiculous.

You don't want people who are not

qualified for the job, but,

believe me, there are enough good

women, well-educated women in this

country to do almost any job.

APPLAUSE

Basically, I am absolutely

behind targets and quotas, anything

that will get women towards...

Because very quickly what happens

is they start to realise, oh, gosh,

they are rather good at this job.

And then the only trouble

is they still don't pay

them as much as men.

Which is wrong, and illegal.