Young Voters' Question Time Young Voters' Question Time

The politicians have set out their stalls at the party conferences

will young voters buy their policies? Welcome to Young Voters'

With me tonight, the rapper wh says sometimes young people need to

blaze up a fire, Speech Debelle. The business woman and winner of

the Apprentice, Stella English. The story who is tipped to be the first

black Prime Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng. Humza Yousaf. Voted the

sexiest MP the newest Liver bird in Liverpool, Luciana Berger and the

unionior minister who quit over tuition fees, Jenny Willott.

So, hello there. Welcome to Young Voters' Question Time. We are live

from Salford. Just down the road from the Tory party conference with

a lively audience of young people. You see! They are ready to tackle

our panellists from left, right and centre. You can get involved too

via twitter. Just include the hash tag yvqt and it will come through

right here. I will read out as many as I can. Let me hear the first

question from Rory Anderson of Leeds University. My question to

the panel is, I want to know if they think Meredith Kercher has

received justice? Has Meredith Kercher received justice? Amanda

Knox is on her way home to Seattle as we speak. Speech Debelle? Um, I

don't... I mean, somebody's died, I'm not sure if there can really be

justice, even if what happened yesterday didn't happen. I think,

already somebody is already in jail for the murder. Rudy Guede is in

jail. Exactly. I mean, to be honest, when I was watching the news

yesterday, when they were revealing the verdict I kind of just felt

like, looking at the family, like, it still just hurts, do you know

what I mean? It still feels the same to them, regardless of whether

she stayed in jail or not, I think that is probably how they would

have felt. It still feels the same. Four years now since the murder?

don't think four years makes a difference if that is the case. In

erms terms of justice whether it was served, I'm not sure. That is

something the family will be more in a position to answer. They said

they are back to square one which is what Meredith's brother said

today. There are unanswered questions. Italy's highest court

said the murderer in prison for this did not act alone. They are

saying who is it if it wasn't Knox incomes and Raffaele Sollecito.

hasn't received justice because she was murdered. We don't know who the

people were who were responsible for it. There was difficulty with

this case because it was a massive media circus with Foxy Knoxy. The

details of the case were obscured.. I'm not sure the family have

received justice. Did it feel strange that you could watch that

verdict? An incredible moment of human drama, wasn't it? You could

watch the verdict being read out. They had a live satellite libg link

to Amanda Knox' family. Were you comfortable being able to see that?

I think this was quied quite odd. They have a different process than

we have. There are talks of CAMRA in court in England? I wouldn't

support that. Any thoughts on this from the audience? The gentleman at

the back. I don't think there was justice. I think that it's just a

clear example that somebody with enough money and enough time,

you'll always be able to pick small little things in a case. I think

that - I don't know what you mean, with enough money? What are you

implied? They found that evidence might have been contaminated or...

Ipg over four years you are going to find small parts of a case that

might have been contaminated. I don't think that they should change

the sentence after four years. I still think she did it. You are,

basically, saying you think Knox and her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele

Sollecito, are guilty is what you are saying? Yes. Two things about

that. One, what you described there is the Italian system, the appeal

system. Secondly, they have been found not guilty. That is the view

of the court. That DNA evidence was undermined and dismissed, wasn't

it? I think that the Italian justice system made a big song and

dance about this and they got it completely wrong. I don't see how

you can bang someone up for four years and then just suddenly

overturn the decision for like a life sentence and sent them free

completely. I think they handled -- handled the case completely wrong.

Whether she did it or not, the fact I heard today that Amanda Knox is

possibly getting a book deal from it. Hollywood movies. That is

rubbing it in for the family. you were her and you had four years

taken away and you had been through hell. Let us assume she is innocent.

That is how she was found by the court. Wouldn't you want to profit

from it? From the family's perspective for four years they

thought she was a murderer. For her to be on television etc. To become

a celebrity. What do you think? What about the fact there that she

might make a load of money from that? I think that's untasteful.

She will get compensation, I have no doubt for having time taken away

from her life for what was a horrific experience. People have

been miscarriages of justice have happened in Britain. It's been

longer than four years. We have to recognise that miscarriages can

happen. I agree with Kwasi, maybe the only time - Don't rub it it in.

What this media circus can do is create witch hunts. That is

dangerous. We have seen it time and time again, Rebecca Lleyton she

went through a difficult time. It happens time and time again. Media

in court rooms is a bad area. It's certainly you don't have in

Scotland and something I don't think it should be introduced here.

The SNP and the Conservatives don't agree, really? Amanda Knox some

people think it's distasteful she can make money out of this.

Apparently, her parents re- mortgaged their house to fund her

appeal, what do you think about that? They funded a massive PR

campaign which played out on televisions across the media.

that a bad thing We have forgotten Meredith Kercher. Meredith Kercher

was the daughter and the sister to the Kercher family. That should be

the focus of this discussion not what happened to Amanda Knox.

Back out to the audience. Gentleman there, in the red top. I think that

the prosecutors made a massive mistake in the way they went about

pleading their case. It became a case of character assassination

rather than presenting the facts. They used that to cover the fact

they had little forensic evidence. 50 pieces of forensic evidence were

flawed. The way they went about it didn't help them. Police and

prosecutors came up with this sex game theory, didn't they?? The Foxy

Knoxy thing didn't work in their favour. This became a bigger story

partly because of her looks, didn't it, in the end? It's the media. The

media have control - We watch the media. We are not even, like, half

of the time we are not given the choice whether to watch. It's in

our face all the time. It's rape, murder on the front pages. Whether

this comes to play in the actual court deciding on who is guilty or

not. One more question and move we will move to our next topic. The

lady there. Surely with the amount she changed her story that in

itself is a crime against the courts? OK. Jenny quick comment

from you on this. Well, I think, what it has shown up is significant

differences between the way the media relates to court cases in

Italy from the way we would have it here. Eagree with the gentleman who

said it was a circus the way Amanda Knox was portrayed and the way

prosecutors were speaking in the media. I think it did completely

overshadowed what happened to Meredith Kercher. And, the thing

that has upset me this week is that you would think the entire trial

was about - the entire thing was about Amanda Knox and her boyfriend

whether or not they were guilty or innocent. Completely forgotten the

original crime that took place. I think that the Kercher family have

shown the most amazing resilience and dignity throughout it.

Particularly, this week. APPLAUSE

They were impressive at their press conferences. In a strange way, even

Raffaele Sollecito got for got continue became about Amanda Knox

largely, didn't it? Stella a comment from you on this. I think

the mere fact that what we are all discussing is Foxy Knoxy and her

media persona just is really test month to the fact that the whole

thing went wrong, from my point of view, morally. We shouldn't be

talking about that. It should be about what happened and why and

everything else. So, unfortunately, I think, from the point of view of

taste, the media has played a role here which has knead very

distasteful. Thank you. Our next question. You can tweet us at: That

is if you want to get involved tonight. Thomas Gore, a student for

our next question. My question is, how is it fair that the Scottish

gefplt can charge English students �9,000 per annum in tuition fees

from next year when Scottish students don't have to pay a penny?

I have a feeling this will blow up. You are from the SNP? Absolutely.

The Scottish government gets money, pocket money a block grant where by

it has to take care of those who live in Scotland. You are impeding

the view of the young gentleman. Bethey English Scots, Irish Scots

those living in Scotland don't pay a single penny we in the Scottish

Government believe that education has to be based on the ability to

learn not the ability to pay. If we could extend that...

APPLAUSE If we could extend that and other

policies like our free prescriptions charges to cover

English students and the rest of the UK students, by God, we would.

I wish we really Co on that point shall I respect Jenny for the

position she took, it must have been a difficult position - When

she quit Yes. Those Lib Dems who did the opposite. Scottish MPs

voted for tuition fees even though it doesn't cover Scotland. That is

the biggest betrayal in recent modern British political history.

Those people - it should be - as young people it should be your duty

as young people when the next general election comes you should

make sure it's them out of jobs and not you. In Scotland the students

don't have to pay tuition fees an English student going there would

have pay. Northern Ireland student or Welsh student. Anyone from the

EU would have to pay. In Wales they are getting a subsidy? There are

not enough Welsh university places. EU students would wouldn't have to

pay? It's currently illegal. We are trying to work with the European

Commission to change it. Your thoughts on this. Surely, it should

show that Scottish MPs shouldn't be allowed to vote on English matters

that only affect English citizens? Absolutely.

APPLAUSE Can I make a point on. That I'm a

Welsh member of Parliament, so it's not - it doesn't apply quite the

same in Wales. It isn't quite as simple as that. I have constituents

I represent the area that covers car div University, University of

Glamorgan and so on. I have English students living there at Cardiff

University and Welsh students living there. I have constituents

who come under the Welsh and English system. It affects people

living in my area as well. It's the same for Scottish MPs. None of it

is quite as cut and dry at first glance it might be. The guy who

said Scottish MPs shouldn't be voting on English matters. Which

way did you vote? For tuition fees. They were introduced by the Labour

government in 2004 the debate was about the level. Is it fair English

students will have a bigger debt for the rest of their working

lives? Absolutely not. Than Scottish students Yes. The cap on

Welsh students is just over 3,000 the rest is subsidised. It sounds

unfair. The burden on the taxpayer was so big that we couldn't have a

system which I had, because I am just about old enough to remember

that, where it was entierly free. Free education? Did you just say it

was unfair? I said it's unfair the disparity between Scotland and

England, yes. That is an issue for the Scottish Government. They will

have to subsidise. Loads of hands up. Gentleman there in the glasses.

What Kwasi done has cut the ladder so we cannot climb the ladder of

suck kes -- success we will not be where you are today because of what

you have done. I will collate a few points, right. We will come back to

My opinion on the matter is that the British Government and the

British economy created a derth in opportunity by driving every single

young person in England and Britain through university and not creating

vocational opportunities and making boy technics -- polytechnic

universities, and creating a... It's a Labour policy to get 50% of

people into university and that was a mistake is what you are saying?

The economics don't work. The market will not support a majority

of young people who have professional degrees. There needs

to be more of a balance. OK, the gentleman in front of you. I have

to be honest, Kwasi, I disagree, there is no need to put this

massive burden on students. can't be afforded. Tax bankers. Why,

why...? Can I come back to that. Why are you taxing students?

your objection to the principle of fees generally, or the level?

level. �9,000 a year is just unrealistic for the majority of

young people. You are willing to pay, you are not saying it - some

people are saying it should be free. I am willing to pay, but not a

level where the majority of people - education should be a right for

everyone. Sure. Many people cannot afford the level that your

Government has put in place. More have gone for the �9,000 level.

People only start paying back when they start earning �21,000 a year.

It's still a debt that hangs over them, like a mortgage. The interest

on that is �7 a month, which is a lot of money but for the quality of

an education, the price of education I think it's a price

worth paying. I think a lot of people would agree with me. If I

went to university for �9,000 and the rest of my life never earned

above �21,000 I would feel a bit short-changed. APPLAUSE.

Speech Debelle, Stella English, neither of you went to university,

did you? I didn't and I think - I didn't have the opportunity to do

it. I don't think it's something that one should have to think about

whether they can afford it or not. I think we have got a whole

generation of people that need to be educated, they're our future.

They can't afford until they don't pay back until they're earning

money. We are talking about here people are worried about getting in

debt, they're thinking about how they're going to cope going forward.

Why should they have to think like that? Exactly,ed problem is that

it's - I don't think it boils down to whether they can afford it or

can't. If you have a situation where a generation of people feel

like now they're some sort of, you know, to a certain extent like an

enemy, to the point they feel they have to go out and riot, know what

I mean, because of a decision that's been made that puts them in

a position that isn't good. I don't think a generation of people in our

country should feel like that. I think that's a problem. Whether

they can afford it, necessarily or not, I don't think we can afford to

make them feel like there's a level of hopelessness in their future. I

think that's probably the biggest debt that's going to have to be

paid there. You think it's unfair because there are certain people

will feel that and other people would never feel that way. It boils

down to how we feel as society and I don't think we can afford to let

young people feel as though they're not going to be part of it. A lot

of hands up. We go to the lady with blonde hair up there. Good evening.

Hi, I was going to say the average age of the first-time house buyers

is 37, which is obviously shockingly high and David Cameron

said this was appalling but when you are charging us that much to go

to university how can you expect us to get into the property ladder, to

get into society and earn the high figures? I don't think it's

something that can be justified. The average repayments are about �6

a week, they're low. It doesn't matter. When you go to any new

agreement people will want to know whatets you have got. -- what debts

you have got. It might not seem like much to people on the panel.

The The tuition fees have only gone up. They went up a few years ago

and that was a lot to some people. There's a lot of people aren't

willing to pay at the risk of going through university and not getting

a job at the end of it. It's a big risk for people to take and a lot

of people wouldn't. On this point, at the Labour Party conference last

week Ed Miliband, your leader, was talking about tuition fees and it

seems there have been a policy U- turn, where he was against putting

them up, right. And now he is saying they do support a �6,000

tuition fees. That's not what he said before. What Ed Miliband said

at our conference only last week was that right now we could put

fees down to a cap of �6,000, rather than �9,000. An increase

from where they were. In terms of what we can promise and deliver,

someone mentioned the bankers, if we introduced a bankers' bonus

bonus - forgive me, if we didn't cut the corporation tax of banks,

it's gone from 29% to 23% and bankers are benefiting from that.

If we scrap that for banks and allocated that to tuition fees we

could reduce the cap to �6,000 and the point is we can't make promises

we can't keep. We saw that with the Lib Dems at the last election.

There's so many students in my constituency that feel let down

because they made promises they couldn't keep. Now we need to

regain trust with the British public and ensure that what we

promise is what we can deliver. Some tweets have come in. One says:

I want to go to uni and not live in debt. Matthew is impressed by the

wonders of devolved Government, the Scots in my opinion, wisely, spend

the money on higher education as an investment. Another says: The

English Government should try to be like Scotland, but they're not. A

lot of people won't now go to uni. Kenny says well done for showing it

isn't Scotland's fault, the English Government want to give their

students a huge financial burden but it's strange how the UK's taxes

subsidise Scottish tuition fees. Do they? There's a formula and under

that Humza would know, each person has to get more... That's true.

It's the investment. Let me come back to two points - I will come

back. Under the formula you are? we gave 9.4%, we gave that in tax

money and got less in spending how is that a subsidy? Let me come back

to the affording point. Politician after politician saying we can't

afford it, but why don't you try not spending �100 billion on

replacing nuclear weapons and Trident? Billions of pounds on

wars? Why don't you try spending the money on higher education

instead of money on that? Exactly what your tweet says, it's about

where you choose to spend your money. Nuclear weapons are these ar

cane cold war relics. Young people don't like the nuclear deterrent,

who would have thought! Let's have a few points and move on to the

next question. You look very enthusiastic. From a graduate's

point of view, I graduated a few years ago under the old system and

I am on about �18,000 a year, I wouldn't be paying anything back. I

am paying about �30 a month back which is a lot of money for me, I

would be paying less back under the new system. I would prefer the new

system even though you will be paying back more in the long run

it's more affordable. The main issue is maintenance, that's what I

found cost me the most money at university. I had to get a part-

time job because I had to pay maintenance and rent and going out

having a few beers. Books, that's what you spend money on. The

tuition fees, that's what you pay for after you graduated. Right so

your real cost is your drink bill! One point, the gentleman here with

the beard. I found it hard to respect decisions made by

politicians who didn't have to pay for their education at university

and how can they empathise with us making us pay �9,000? APPLAUSE.

This generation of politicians didn't have to pay tuition fees and

these guys are. Let's move on to other questions. Can I come back on

one thing, I don't agree with Tuesday and volted -- tuition feess

and voted against them. One positive thing, students will have

a much bigger stay - universities will have to pay more to what

students want out of their course. We have to see how much more

influence students, because they're paying, will be able to have over

universities, over the courses and be able to change universities to

give them more what they want and I hope people take the opportunity to

use that power that they will now have to get what they want from

universities. You are reducing investment in higher education so

students will pay �9,000 but reducing the money that goes to

universities so you are not getting a better quality education in

return. We are going to move on. We are going to Megan Caulfield, I

believe. A law student, what's your question, please. Other than on a

political level, how can you justify the sentences given to this

year's rioters? OK, here we go back on riots. How can the sentences be

justified? There are remarkable stats relating to this. Here in the

Manchester area, those that were convicted of organising riots or

looting commercial properties were given eight years and above. Eight

years and above. So, a very dramatic sentence. Who would like

to go first? I will. Stella, you are smiling at me. I think that's

ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because if you look at the broad

range of crimes that go on that is just not proportional... Organising

a riot is not a serious crime? this the Mafia, organised crime? We

are talking about - I thought it was looting and know what I mean,

if you are talking about those crimes in the riots, then no, it

wouldn't justify. If you were to set fire to a building that would

be regarded as arson. Regardless of organised crime. People who got

convicted of arson again here in the Greater Manchester area got six

years and upwards. Those who looted commercial property and those were

seen as ringleaders got eight years and above. There were tough

sentences but I will explain why Lordship. You -- you don't think

too tough? I am trying to explain what the thinking is. There was a

breakdown of civil order and people were generally scared about what

was going on. The idea was to try and get a very strong message out

to the public that this sort of behaviour wouldn't be tolerated. We

haven't seen riots for 30 years on this scale. It was quite terrifying

for people. And the public generally wanted to see that

justice was done. Now these were tough sentences and some people

would say they were too tough. But I think the right message went down

and restored faith in our justice system. When did we start

sentencing to please the public? The most important thing...

August. It's quite important for the public as a whole to feel safe.

They don't determine determine sentencing because they're angry?

There has to be confidence in the system. Once there isn't confidence

in the system, then you can lead to breakdown and in a way that was

what happened in the riots. People said that they didn't think the

sentences would be tough enough and that's why they went on the streets.

And to keep order as well. It was civil order. Anyone here think

that's right, those sentences I already mentioned, it's a good

thing that the sentencing was that harsh on the people that organised

riots? The gentleman there. I think the problem with it, I mean, it's

important to have sentenced the two half-wits who tried to start riots

in... The Facebook ones? Yeah, it was like, I didn't feel necessarily

comfortable with that being the case but they could have caused a

lot of damage but four years is a lot. They never left their bedrooms.

They need to be proportional, something like a year of community

community service for being a lunatic but someone who breaks

stuff needs a lot more. It all needs to be within proportion. If

you do something really bad that needs to be a hell of a lot longer

than someone who just thinks about or tries to encourage others. Maybe

a community sentence. Thank you. Who thinks the sentences are about

right? The gentleman there. Both of you can speak. As a guy from

Salford who was witnessing my local area, I think it's right, because

it puts people off. But also an added sentence on top of that was

the fact all those people who cleaned up afterwards deserve

credit for what they did and it rubbed in how terrible they were.

There was a Lidl burned down in Salford. Bricks thrown at

firefighters. Gentlemen there. think it's absolutely ridiculous

that the Conservatives can go on about how the big society, because

that was an explosion of the big society. The people who the

Conservatives are creating the underclass of people who if they

were in jobs they would not have rioted. They simply would not have

done. It's ridiculous how the Conservatives are going oh no, this

is all to do with social order and breaking social order and we need

to punish them. We need people to be rehabilitated because that is

proven to work better than punishing them by just throwing

them in prison and locking away the key. It's ridiculous. APPLAUSE. Are

you saying, to break that down, that's an example of the big

society, people going out and rioting? This is the big society

where people are extremely annoyed at the Government, at the coalition

and Labour can't really talk, because they didn't help in their

13 years of Government. They did not help the people of Great

Britain. You really think those people rioting were thinking about

David Cameron and Nick Clegg? Not in particular, they didn't think I

will smash into this shop because of David Cameron. Of course they

didn't. You are saying it was politically motivated. If they had

good jobs and in square jobs and if they had -- square jobs and people

around them who supported them they would not have rioted. It's it's

Conservative Party's fault that those people didn't have a job.

The fact they are sending them to to prison for eight years will be a

strain on the prison system thesm are forming gangs, as you have

heard on the news. The families are getting evicted. Where are you

going to put those families? Evicting those problem families

will not sort the problem out. member of your family rioted you

might lose your social housing, which has happened. What would you

do for people who rite rioted? would imprison them I wouldn't give

them eight years. What would you give them? Lower than that. Hard to

think of a year. Three if they were ringleaders. It will be a huge

strain the amount of people they arrested. You said it's a strain on

the prison population you would still put them in prison anyway.

You accept a message has to be sent? Yes. What rewe are dealing

with here is an interference in the judicial system by -- by the

political system. I don't think so. I agree. To the lady there, second

from back row. Megan's question was on a non-political level bg how can

you justify the sentences. How can you just a sentence depending on

what is going on in politics? If you want a coherent system when you

know what the sentence is people will get for the crimes, you have

to know what you will get for doing the crime. The judges listened to

what the politicians said. They shouldn't do that? Yeah they should

don't that. The lady behind. It has nothing to do with the Big Society

and David Cameron's plan. We can't give credit to the rit rioters. It

wasn't organised. It was young people stealing Tesco value rice

for the fun of it. The sentencing issue is different to the politics

and should be dealt with in different ways it's a legal issue

sentencing nothing to do with politics. They may have nicked down

rice, miss Selfridges was burnt down. It was diverse. The

sentencing needs to reflect that. It can't be one long sentence.

There were no riots in Scotland. That is not because it's the land

of milk and honey and everything is pure. We have plenty of problems.

Taking the sentencing point. There can't and shouldn't be inconsistent

cyst in sentencing. If Kwasi denies there was any political

interference in that, that is ridiculous. You can go with that

line of thought if you wish. You have to ask the question, why were

people rioting? There were opportune criminals. Our Police

Service work with the gangs and work with the young people. They

say, if you want to have a life of crime, go on and have a life of

crime we will come after you. Here are the opportunities. Here is the

Keating. Do people in England have any of that? You are not telling me

that people in England were rioting because the educational maintenance

was taken away? People didn't riot in Wales, why not? Lots of places

in England where there weren't riots. It's to do with community

relations and policing and so on. One of the concerns I have about

sentencing, a lot of people involved in in this have criminal

records and have been in prison. Sending them to prison for longer

and longer doesn't work. We need to look at what does work. One of the

early speakers talked about pay back to the community, looking at

community sentences. I think we should look Mott more at restorive

justice making people realise the impact they have had on their

community and make improvements to their local. That has been shown to

be successful than sending people to prison. Sending people to prison

when they are much less likely to get a job at the end of it, their

families will be broken down and can't get good housing they will be

in a position - A long-term to serve eight years. If you have a

criminal record you find it harder to get work and rehabilitate

yourself afterwards. Some of the looters were ten years old? There

is a big issue with parenting, with educational opportunities. That has

been mentioned already. Putting money into deprived areas. There

are interesting projects that have been looking - working closely with

families and helping the specific families, problem families in an

area. We need to do more of that across the UK. Some tweets that

have come in. We are live on BBC Three. Our address is: Jemma Fox,

sentences are not in proportion with other crimes, maybe the other

sentences are wrong. Another one, the sentencing was ridiculous

regarding the riots. Everyone knows the prison system in England

doesn't work. Another one, sentencing policy has always been

to please the public. You are a Liverpool MP. I am, yes. Young as

ten? There were lots of young people right across the country.

One of the dangers we are falling into is that the government are

demonising young people. That is not very helpful. Demonising young

people? When have they done that? We heard today from the Justice

Secretary about a feral underclass. There are people in my community

who joined the clean-up. Jenny picked up on restorive justice.

With. We need to look at ways to ensure we have effective

rehabilitation. We want to ensure if people commit a crime they are

punished for trk it's about how we support those people to make sure

they don't commit crimes again. Intervention that is Jenny talked

about are being cut down. Whether that is through the Early

Intervention Grant, within the justice sector the justice budget

cut down by 23%. Those frontline police officers and frontline

probation officers and prisoners who are supposed to be there to do

that work are already pressed. My fear is what will happen going

forward. Another question. Is it time for the UK to leave the dying

EU and use the money we save to tackle our economic issues at home

Is it time to pull out of the EU altogether. Here we are in Salford

down the road from the temperature conference, is it something of an

issue at the conference? Let us go to Kwasi? There are big issues

about our relationship with the EU, no doubt about it. People on the

streets are saying, certainly in my constituency, are saying, what will

we do about the EU? That is a discussion we should have. If you

look at the eurozone and the greater political intergration we

are seeing there, there is a debate to be had in this country about our

relationship with the EU. It cost �230 for every household to be in

the EU. Is that a good deal? will look at that bien line byeline

especially in austerity times as we are now. You don't want to you will

pull out altogether but repatriate some powers. Repatriate powers.

seems to be a bigger issue for Conservative Party members than it

does for the public at large. Why is it such an issue? It's also an

issue, this is beared out by older voters, people under 30, 35% of

them think, come out of the EU, people over 60, it's 60%. Yes. It

is an issue for all the parties certainly within the Conservative

Party, you are right - Why are they obsessed with it? I don't think

people are obsessed with it. If you look at where we are, in terms of

the economy, every country in Europe is cutting back its budget,

trying to spend less. The EU is spending more money as an

organisation, year-on-year. That can't be rielt right. People have

issues. Could we exist outside the EU? That is a big almost a

philosophical question. Of course we could exist without the EU. I

don't believe - We wouldn't all die? Or the skies would fall in the

moment we left. That is not on the table. We should debate and have a

discussion about the basis - think we would do. 60% of our trade

is with Europe. You could set up a single market. Three million jobs

in the UK depend on Europe. They will still trade with us. If we

left they wouldn't stop trading with us. Do you think we should

pull out of the EU? Gentleman there. Go on. I think the cost is just far

too much to justify really. The amount of parliamentary time that

is wasted by the EU, the amount of judicial time that is wasted by the

UEU is unacceptable. Judges having to refer to the European courts of

justice for rulings on what they can and can't do with renches to

peoples' crimes or the relationship between The Human Rights Act and

the European Convention on Human Rights. It's ridiculous. Why is it?

Why don't you like human rights? I have got myself confused there. I

prefer sovereignty of the state rather than sovereignty of the

European Union. I would prefer our Parliament to be able to do what it

thinks is right for the state than what it thinks is right for the EU.

Are you a member of the Conservative Party? No. No, I'm not.

People always complain about Europe but don't complain about America

when you lose sovereignty to America or NATO. They complain

about it with Europe, why? What is wrong with Europe? They are going

for a Federal system where they want to include as part as one

state. I want to correct you on one point the European Convention of

human right isn't from the EU that separate. One day the human race is

going to become to the part where we have to accept we are a world of

one people much we are one planet. I know I sound like a hipy now.

sound like John len lon. We will have to get along. The human race

will evolve beyond this planet. We will have to get along and live.

Ail agains aside - I'm not separate from you. You are not separate from

anyone else in the world. You're not that special. You're not that

special from the rest of the world. Two points, there one, you are not

special. Two, that's it. We just need to get along. Basic logic. Why

hasn't any politician thought of that?! The gentleman there at the

back. I think it's quite a strange situation that we have really. I

mean, obviously, you know, all the countries in Europe being closely

intergrated is a good thing because of the history of Europe and the

wars and conflicts we had in the past. You might say that is a long

time back, Second World War is two or three generations ago. People

are still alife live who thought fought in that. Winston Churchill

was in favour of a United States of Europe which I'm not personally. I

think we have to find a way to work together. I'm not saying there are

not problems with the EU, of course there are. It's better overall to

work within that, to change it, rather than sitting on the outside

- If we pull out there will be another world war? I'm not saying

that. Back to the pan el. Stella, you are a business woman. You have

done trading with Europe. EU, do we pull out? It's a difficult question.

I think, you know, it's very problemic. We are in the situation

we are in now and I think to think about pulling out... You know, what

are the repercussions of it? Is it something we can really do? I don't

know. A lot of polling shows, Wyles it's a big issue for a lot of

Conservatives, which it is, for the public at large it's a long way

down their list, it comes in number eight behind NHS, education and

defence. Do you care? I just don't really have an opinion on, it to be

honest, do you know what I mean? And... There is nothing wrong with

not having an opinion. Yeah, do you know what I mean? I just - I don't

have an opinion on it, to be honest. There are a lot of other things

that - That might be the problem for the Conservatives. They are

going on about it, that is how people think. Given the economic

difficulties we have had this issue has become much more important. We

are, at the moment, giving Europe a lot of money. When the times were

good, people didn't really in the that. Now, people are much more

aware of it. Jenny? I agree with Luciana, it would be catastrophic

to business and job fs we pulled out of the EU. It's true that we

could. We could, but we would lose a huge amount of trade. It's

possible for businesss to carry on trade if anything we weren't in the

EU. We have huge advantage, we don't have to have tariff barriers.

We have a level playing field for British businesses who operate on

the same rules as the businesses across the rest of Europe which

gives us a massive advantage against people who are not within

the European bloc. As a group, the European states are much more

powerful. We have much more powerful voice globally as we ever

would as individual countries. That is not to be forgotten. It's very

important that we make sure that we get good value out of the eurozone,

out of the rest of Europe, that we support them and make sure the

eurozone and the current crisis doesn't bring down the rest of the

Let's move on to another question from David Hughes, a member of

Greenpeace. Yesterday George Osborne said we are not saving the

planet by cutting our country out of business. Have the Tories back-

pedalled on their pledge to become the greenest Government. You guys

are all from Greenpeace? Yeah. Thought so. Are you angry, because

that was one of the big deals from yesterday's George Osborne's speech.

He said we are going to cut emissions no slower and no faster.

Are you angry? Before he came in he pledged he would be a green ally

and that was one of the the reasons he won votes. He's gone back on

that, at the conference it's all come out his opinions. What is

wrong with that as a statement, we won't go slower or faster.

Shouldn't he be showing leadership. He is going on about innovators and

leadership, he is just we will do it how they do it. David Cameron

did say this would be the greenest Government when the coalition was

formed. Britain's total emissions about 2% of global emissions, China

and America together about 40%. George Osborne's point was let's

not bankrupt companies or the country when actually we can't make

that much difference. We can't save the world because we produce 2% any

way? I come back to my point, I don't think it's right to refer to

exact figures when it's about setting an example to other

countries. The gentleman there. we are only saving a certain amount

we should be looking at no why don't we save the world, we should

no matter what the cost. It's not just about the savings, it's what

you can make. I don't think it's just about the economics. It's our

generation that's going to have to pay for the consequences, and our

children. What about the money you can make. Scotland as an example,

we have climate change targets. 100% of our electricity to be

produced, we are a third there. 16,000 jobs in the renewable sector.

Mitsubishi investing �100 million. Look at the opportunities. We have

the opportunity as a country where we are to be the world leaders in

renewable technology. Let's seize that opportunity and be leaders,

not fall back and lose that money. APPLAUSE

you are a Conservative, what happened to this? No one is going

to say we are going to stop being innovators in renewable energy.

What George Osborne, the point he was making, was that he is not

going to tax British business to try and save the world when we

can't save the world. As you said it's only 2%. It's a shift, the

point these guys are making, it's a shift. Your Government were going

to be the greenest ever, actually let's prioritise... What he said is

what we can do will not affect the global picture. We are not going to

run... We will give up? We are not. It would extend the logic of his

argument. It's not what he meant, that's not what I mean. We are not

going to tax British business for the sake of a goal we can't achieve

ourselves. OK. You are a shadow Minister for energy and climate

change. Yes, I am. Firstly, it's 2% but it's also, that doesn't include

our imports so there's more emissions we generate from

importing things from other countries. It's not just it's a

moral obligation, I think that we need to play our role, this

Government should be showing leadership as we previously did

under the last Government. Ed Miliband and the work he did in

Copenhagen was held by the Green groups and businesses as well.

Actually it's the opportunity and the fact is that within, the

transition from a high carbon to low carbon economy could create

hundreds and thousands of jobs across the UK and we are already

seeing companies going to other countries like Germany and China

where there is the opportunity and they are making the investment in

low carbon technologies in infrastructure for charging for

cars, and if we don't - it's a tragedy this Government is letting

down the country on making that investment. Because of the

challenges... What George Osborne said yesterday is a tragedy? Yes.

don't think this is what's happening. I would be disappointed

if it was going to happen because the potential is phenomenonal. We

have, this is one of the windiest countries in the world, we have

huge tidal ranges. There's potential for renewable

technologies and it can generate hundreds of jobs and the Government

is investing in significantly in this area. We are going to be

creating 1,000 apprentices in renewables and with the green new

deal it's generating 100,000 new jobs. It might not be enough, but

it's not saying, at least let's say we are not doing anything. Some Lib

Dems must have been uncomfortable with what George Osborne said.

have to confess I am one of them, I don't agree with the idea that it's

either or. You don't have to be either friendly or good for the

sraoeur. Being good for the environment and investing in that

can be good for business as well. come back on that. We are going to

move on to one more topic. We covered that. Let's go on to Mark

Scarborough. Should Britain follow Denmark's example and impose a fat

tax to help tackle obesity? LAUGHTER. A fat tax? This has been

brought in, in Denmark. The tax is on food with more than 2.3%

saturated fat. It costs the NHS �4.2 billion a year of obesity at

the moment. Recently I read this it's 1.00am pwhrapbs service

service --am pwhrapbs service had to buy new ambulances. Should we

bring in a fat tax? I am a student nurse and I deal with an awful lot

of people who are suffering really significant health problems because

of their weight and because of their lifestyle. What I found from

talking to them is that people don't realise the effects that

being overweight can have on you. Everyone knows you can have a heart

attack and join problems but they don't realise the effect on other

bits of your body, increasing chances of cancer and respiratory

problems. The answer is not to change the affordability of food or

the sraeupblt of -- availability of food but is to paint a realistic

picture of what a lifetime of obesity can do to you. If you make

the food more expensive fewer people will buy it and eat it.

depends entirely on your income. If that was the case you would see a

return to diseases of lifestyle which diabetes used to be but isn't

any more. Who thinks it's a good idea? Put your hands up if you

think we should have a fat tax? The gentleman in the front row from

Greenpeace. Well, smokers generate more money than the NHS spends on

treating them, surely they could do the same with fatty foods.

should turn a profit out of people's obesity? Not turn a profit,

but we should bring down smoking tax a little bit, but relative tax.

Speech Debelle, what do you think? I think investing in food education

would probably be a better idea. I notice there's a lot of people that

seem to be overweight and from having conversations with them

about food they don't actually know about food groups and which are the

right types of food to eat and which are not the right type to eat.

That's food education and I don't think that as much TV programmes

and we have, you can see different fat from different angles and stuff

or their bones, that doesn't seem to be working. Talking about those

programmes and it's just entertainment. I think food

education, you know the programme I am talking about? OK. What the

nurse is saying at the back of the room as well, we are, I believe,

the fattest nation in Europe, the fattest nation in Europe.

Something's got to be done, tax? The distinction between smoking and

eating is you choose to smoke, whereas you have to eat. We have to

be careful not to punish families... You don't have to eat really fat

food? The challenge is it's cheap tore buy food with more fat --

cheaper to buy food with fat. We have to make sure we can't put a

tax on people that can't afford the food that they get. APPLAUSE.

I am not sure I would go the whole hog, as it were, to go for a fat

tax. But I understand that people have to take responsibility for

their own choices and you can't endlessly bail people out if they

just keep doing the wrong things. So having a fat tax is saying well

actually, if you are going to buy this food you have to pay extra.

it's a good idea. I think the principle is a fair one, not sure I

would bring it into this country, I don't think it's right but I

understand... How can it be a good principle and not right? I think

the idea of making people responsible for their own actions

is a good one. It's not just fat people that buy fattening foods, so

if you put a fat tax on a chocolate bar it's not just fat people that

are going to eat chocolate. I think it's a - it punishes everyone for a

minority or even a majority's decisions and at the same time I

can see the logic in it and it's better than investing in things

that don't teach people anything. Stella? What it might do is just

make people think about what they're actually eating, which is

what you are trying to say. Whether it's the best way of doing it or

not I don't know. Glasgow, the place is associated with fried Mars

bars, but I agree in this time of austerity it's not a good idea,

though more in food education certainly would be welcome. That is

it for this edition of Young Voters' Question Time. Thank you

very much to the panel and thank you to our audience. Thank you! And

thank you to those of you who joined in on Twitter. I am back

with a new show from 17th October, it's about unemployment, it's about