Welcome to St. Pancras in London and to the British Library, our hosts for the 50^th anniversary edition of 'Any Questions?' and the first ever broadcast from this fine new institution. It's 50 years since Freddy Grisewood first ushered this programme onto the airwaves for a six week run to fill an unexpected gap in the schedules. This, for us, is a celebration though touched by sadness that the founder of Any Questions? the inventor of Any Questions? distinguished war correspondent and veteran broadcaster, Frank Gillard, who was looking forward to being here with us, died earlier this week.

However, for this occasions we are in front of an invited audience in the midst of which is a host of names that you will know extremely well as regular panellists on this side of the Any Questions? microphone and it's these luminaries that are going to be pointing the questions to the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke, Charles Kennedy for the Liberal Democrats and the evergreen doyen of her trade Ann Leslie. [APPLAUSE]

And our first question please.

Andrew Foster of the Audit Commission. Does natural justice demand that General Pinochet should be called to account for the crimes of his regime?

Charles Kennedy.

Yes I think natural justice certainly does. I'm not sure that that natural justice can be exercised in the rather curious context that it's developed in Britain this week and there's obviously a lot of questions to be asked about that. The Home Secretary will have to take a decision on Pinochet's personal position and he'll do that, I suppose, once he's heard from his Home Office officials that are in Madrid at the moment. There are questions also to be raised, I think, at the Foreign Office as to the access and the status of the access that he has enjoyed on more than one occasion to this country. But I think in the broad sense of the word leaving aside the rather confused context that we've got at the moment certainly he should stand charged for the terrible crimes that took place under his particularly oppressive regime, without any shadow of a doubt.

Ann Leslie.

Well when people talk about natural justice it gets very complicated and when you're talking about international affairs and also the affairs of a country which is trying to come to terms with its own past. I'm afraid our definition of a war criminal or civil war criminal which is what it usually involves is the murdering bastard for whom we no longer have any use, so this particular murdering bastard goes and has cup cakes with Mrs T. but then Tony Blair goes and has any amounts of sort of fried sea slug with the butchers of Tiananmen Square because [APPLAUSE] because Pinochet being a clapped out old monster aged 82 with a bad back is of no use to anybody whereas the people in Beijing are very useful so we're prepared to wink at those things.

The warrant, the Spanish warrant Foreign Secretary effectively, and I quote, accuses him of being responsible for overseeing kidnapping, torture, the false displacement of people and numerous murders or disappearances - genocide and terrorism. What's your answer to the question?

That wasn't the question Jonathan let's be quite clear about it ...

I'm giving you the context to which you say should he be called to account?

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary: We must insist on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

The question was about natural justice and I have to say that what is important both here is that we live in a country which is governed by the rule of law and we have received an extradition request from Spain, that extradition request has been backed by a warrant issued by a British court and it is right that we should now insist that what happens next is due process of law takes place. And I have to say that maybe Chile and some other countries in the past may have been happier places if that rule of law and that due process of justice had actually taken place rather than have political solutions imposed upon them. I think it is absolutely right that we should insist that the courts take their course with this application of extradition. Senator Pinochet will have a perfect right to put forward his defence through his lawyers at any such hearing. Equally the Spanish application of extradition should have its right to be proceeded through the courts in that way and that is the right way to take this forward. We are after all a country which often prides itself on the rule of law and indeed traditionally the Conservatives have often supported the rule of law. Frankly I found it rather surprising the last few days that many of them have questioned whether the rule of law should be paramount when it's when of their pals that comes up against it.

Do you share Lady Thatcher's view that Pinochet "did so much to save so many British lives"?

Oh Senator ...

But did you know it?

Oh I'm well aware of what Mrs Thatcher is referring to at the time and you'll forgive me if I'm not going to discuss any intelligence relationship on this programme. But that is not the substance of the extradition warrant and it would have been quite wrong for us to have said politically, for our own interests or because of diplomatic pressures we are not going to allow the process of law to take place. Once you start down there then you end up without democracy and without civil rule.

Okay Robin...

Hold on a second Ann Leslie while I go to Kenneth Clarke, I'll let you know.

Kenneth Clarke, Former Chancellor: Pinochet should be allowed to go home

CLARKE:

Well I could have anticipated that Robin would say this is a wholly judicial matter, the legal process must take its course. That is the Government's media managers way of getting them all off the air after Peter Mandelson had firstly done a bit of grand standing last week and it stops anybody getting answers to questions like "Did the Foreign Office know he was coming?" and "On what terms was he allowed to come?" "Did the Home Secretary know he was going to be arrested?" But now, no, no it's a quasi judicial matter and the Foreign Secretary could not dare, possibly, go into any of those things. The serious question, I think, is one ...

No I did not say that, I did not say that. I did not take any refuge of being quasi between the matter being under sub judise. I'm perfectly happy to respond to any of those questions but perhaps you would say now - do you disagree with us and the position that we are taking that this is a matter for due process of law and to be settled by the courts and if the Conservative Party in the past did intervene to suppress extradition applications I think we deserve to hear it.

Let's try and get these questions answered. But finish your point first Kenneth Clarke.

Firstly I would like to know whether the Government encouraged him to come and was party to the arrest ...

No is the answer to that. No because the answer is no we did not encourage him to come.

... if he's going back to Chile. Let me ask ....

Hey look, hold on, hold on both of you. Both - you can but hold on for a second both of you. We got an answer there which was an important answer - you did not know Foreign Secretary, you are saying, about the arrival of Pinochet in this country?

No, no Kenneth Clarke's question was did we encourage him to come? And the answer to that is no.

I didn't say did you encourage him to come I said, did you know he was coming and on what terms did he come and in view of recent events can I ask you whether your department, perhaps may have forgotten to tell you. [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE] Whilst you're thinking about that, the key question is how General Pinochet should be handled and how these cases should be handled? Chile, at the moment, is a free democracy - it's a very good democracy under the government of President Frei, a government with a very broad range of political opinions in it - it's a good friend of this country as well. And it's joined the ranks of countries like Argentina and South Africa where they're trying to restore democracy and the rule of law after a highly controversial period of political violence. And they have reached a delicate understanding there and I think it's a matter for the people of Chile and at the moment the government of Chile is stopping the followers of Allende, the followers of General Pinochet actually re-opening the old questions of the early 70s. And I think it's a pity that what appears to be a left-wing judge in Spain and some middle age radicals in the Labour Government in the United Kingdom are deciding to re-open the matter in western Europe, causing a serious diplomatic crisis and I think it's probably a good idea that the General's health should now allow him to go home.

Two things, if I may Ken Clarke. First [APPLAUSE] first are you saying that Britain's obligations under international law can be put aside if those obligations are, as the court's clearly here believe and the Spanish government believes, is to allow this extradition order and the warrant to be served and heard?

Well I'm not sure we've had a court hearing, we're about to have a series of court hearings I would imagine. And obviously if the whole process go ahead the courts will answer the questions that are put to them like, "Is this a proper case for extradition?", "Are the offences those which we would recognise here?" "Does the court seeking his extradition have jurisdiction?" those various things. If, as I suspect, the Home Office have authorised an arrest when the Foreign Office had authorised his entry into this country as a VIP guest and if he's been coming backwards and forwards on that basis for a very long time, I think the suggestion that the Downing Street spokesman - Alistair Campbell I suppose - was trailing in this morning's newspapers that perhaps he's very old and perhaps he's very sick and he might be allowed to go home on compassionate grounds is the best way of getting out of an unholy mess which is doing great damage in Chilli and will do great damage to our relations with several Latin American countries...

DIMBLEBY:

If you were now Home Secretary as you once were you would use your powers, at once, to say, "You can go home"?

Well if I was Home Secretary, to be fair to Jack Straw, if I was Home Secretary I'd be saying what I heard Jack Straw saying on the radio before he too vanished off the airwaves. He does have to consider the thing - the compassionate grounds, he'll have to look at medical evidence. The law, if it takes its course, you will now have to look at the legal position. If the background is that the Government's got itself in a complete muddle over this and one half of the Government didn't know what the other was doing and they now rather regret that a Spanish judge rather than a Spanish government's got them into a mess. I would advise Jack to read his medical reports with particular care and have a look at the powers he can exercise at this particular stage.

Were you glad that Lady Thatcher intervened in the way she did?

Yea. I mean I actually had come to the same conclusion as Margaret Thatcher. So if you're going to ask me - do I agree with her? - yes I do though as you may gather it's for slightly different reasons. That's a problem I've had before. [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]

Charles Kennedy.

Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat: An awful lot of people mistake me for James Naughtie

KENNEDY:

I could just hear Ken putting it to Mrs Thatcher that way the night he suggested she should resign as leader of the Conservative Party in full support of you Prime Minister - goodbye. I think Ken undermines his argument. He's right, I think, to be critical of what Mandelson was saying, which I think was a foolish thing for a Cabinet Minister to be saying given that the other decisions Cabinet Ministers were going to make.

This is when he said it would be gut wrenching if he was given diplomatic immunity or its equivalent?

I mean a Cabinet Minister can't go around prejudicing a decision that the Home Secretary's got to make in that way - that clearly was wrong. And I think there are hard questions to be asked of the inter-relation between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. But coming back to Baroness Thatcher, Ken was careful not to address the central point that she made which is that because he was a friend to this country during the Falklands War we should, therefore, behave in a way which maybe extra-legal in an international sense. Now you cannot just justify the dealing of people, either on a domestic or an international level, with how they behaved towards you in a certain time. On that level you wouldn't condemn Stalin because he stood with this country against Hitler. That is not a way to proceed.[APPLAUSE]

We must, we must press on - do you want in Foreign Secretary?

The central question which Kenneth Clarke is not addressing though, is he agrees with the Government. He says if he was the Home Secretary he would have done the same thing but at the same time he wants to distance himself from it and I return to the central point, what this Government has done is it's upheld the rule of law, supplied due process of law in the case of General Pinochet and frankly it is important that we do that, not just because of the case of General Pinochet, but because once we depart from that and allow politicians to pick and choose the cases where they can suspend once then we're all at risk.

You'd be delighted if Mikhail Gorbachev came here to pose for another spread in Hello and a Lithuanian judge issued an extradition warrant for him for what he did in Lithuania, you would be delighted to have him arrested. I don't think this is realistic and I don't think that would happen.

I'm going to leave this debate there so that we must move on to other topics. With a brief reminder of the number for Any Answers after the Saturday edition of Any Questions? It's 0171 580 4444 on this topic and any of the others we're going to discuss. And a reminder that, for the first time in its 50 years history, Any Questions? is at this moment reaching a worldwide audience via the Internet and the address if you wish to communicate for Any Answers, you'll be surprised how many will, is www.bbc.co.uk/news very easy to remember. Next question please.

A.N. Wilson. If you could go back in history and change one historical event, for example the result of the Battle of Hastings so that it's reverse had happened, which would that event be?

You can turn history on its head or you're invited to by the novelist and journalist, writer and much more A.N. Wilson. Ann Leslie you're looking as if you want to start. [LAUGHTER]

This is what's known, in the trade, as one of the funnies and none of us ever want to start it. I usually find this thing called a bee in my sock, I try and look as if I'm not, you know, I'm about to be stung so I'm not going to answer it first.

Well I don't know, considering the amount of work I do in really dreadful parts of the world full of massacres and all the rest of it, I do sometimes wonder if it mightn't have better if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out and that we had never come into dominance of this world.

And Charles Kennedy.

Well I suppose as a Scot there was a certain event at Wembley Stadium in 1966 which is still hard to come to terms with. But I think a more serious problem, from the Scottish perspective, although the Jacobites weren't exactly the best people around, I think that the events at Culloden cast a very long shadow, indeed, across the part of the country that I come from and I would like to see that reversed, certainly the consequences of what lead from Culloden and in this era of constitutional change, if the Jacobites had won then I could declare myself a monarchist, an absolute monarchist, and not have to worry about proportional representation.

Ken Clarke.

Well I think it's probably appropriate to the questioner but, 'cos his enthusiasm for good food which I have occasionally been known to persuade him, but I really would like to get rid of King John from history, not because he either agreed or didn't agree to Magna Carta, because in the end he lost us the entire Enchevagne Empire. I think history would have been very much better if I, as an Englishman, had been able to live in a country which was England, Brittany, Normandy, the whole of Bordeaux. [APPLAUSE] and all the best in western parts of France and then A.N. Wilson and myself could have just enjoyed ourselves untroubled, perhaps, by the Scots and the Welsh to .... [LAUGHTER]

Tories were always supposed to be imperialist. And even somebody as unimperalist as Ken has revealed his true colours.

Robin Cook.

I'm immensely impressed by the broad geo-political sweep of some of these wishes. I mean I've been sitting here trying to debate which race I would want to see the result altered of and there are just too many for me to pick among them, so I will settle the fact that, if I had my opportunity, I would like to have produced an entirely clear technical problem which would have made it impossible to develop the mobile phone. [LAUGHTER]

A.N. Wilson what would you turn on its head?

When she was on her deathbed Stalin's mother murmured to her son, "What a pity you never became a priest". [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]

We'll go to our next question.

Peter Bottomley member of Parliament for Worthing West. Is President Carlos Menem of Argentina likely to be grateful for the broadcasting of every detail of the Prime Minister's Press Secretary's help with his article?

Kenneth Clarke.

Well no he's not. I didn't realise - I'm not quite up to speed on this, I hadn't realised this was all carefully crafted for the Sun by somebody in the Prime Minister's office. Is this his statement on the Falklands Peter?

Well.

Jonathan Dimbleby: For the first time in its history, 'Any Questions?' reached a worldwide audience live on the internet

This is - do you want to explain Peter or shall I sort of outline it, no you do it, you do it ... he has a version of it, so he apologised according to the Sun newspaper, he apologised to Sun readers, specifically to Sun readers, and he was alleged to have been helped along in this, at least stylistically Number 10 says, by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary. But you might want to elaborate for a moment Peter.

Those who were listening to Radio 5 this morning will have heard all the details about how the Sun said could we have an article like the one we'd had from some previous outside president, so Alistair Campbell, we're told authoritatively, organised that. And one way or another we hear, on the record, that both the article and the headline had been approved by the Argentinians. Now, I don't think that is either necessarily true or helpful but that's what we've been told officially.

Well I'm grateful for two people who won't admit they're Sun readers for telling me the full background of this. If Alistair Campbell helped to draft it I think they were probably rather reckless 'cos I don't think Alistair Campbell's all together successful in handling the statements made by all of his ministers all of the time but there we are. I've already made one reference to Alistair and I think Alistair's role in this government is pretty deplorable. As it happens the statement by Carlos Menem is rather a welcome, it's a pretty it's all been loaded in peoples reaction to it. Carlos Menem and the present government of Argentina were not involved in the invasion of the Falklands, I think he was an opponent of the regime then in power. He has been consistent ever since in not, remotely, threatening to re-open a military claim to the Falklands and in wanting to try to settle it and I think it should be accepted as a good attempt by the Argentinian President on a difficult diplomatic visit to actually reach a satisfactory understanding of the matter. I hope the British Government, preferably not through Alistair Campbell, makes it clear that that's fine, it's accepted in the spirit of which it's given but we're not prepared to see the question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands re-opened again, that's my own personal opinion and I hope that from now on the Sun doesn't do anything to impair this particular visit because Argentina is a country with which we ought to be on extremely good terms.

Foreign Secretary.

First of all there is no question of the issue of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands being re-opened or being re-opened on this visit. I also am aware of the allegations but I must say I didn't hear it on Radio 5, like a good listener to the Any Questions? programme, I was listening to Radio 4 at the time. I have seen it alleged that the Number 10 wrote the Sun headlines and I rather suspect the truth is nearer the observations of the spokesman for Number 10 which said that contrary to public belief newspaper headlines are not normally cleared through Number 10 but we're willing to consider it if they're willing to offer it. [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE] And the idea that the Sun clears it headlines with Number 10 is plain fantasy. What we're in danger of losing here is the very important central point which is that the President of Argentina has expressed deep regret for the Falklands War and is coming here to make an act of reconciliation. And let's remember that President Menhem himself is in no way responsible for that war, he was actually imprisoned by the regime that launched that war. Yes, of course, we must keep up our guard and yes, of course, we must insist on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. But it is surely right now that we should start to forge a new relationship with what is a democracy in the South Atlantic with whom we've got many other interests including Cyprus where we are shoulder to shoulder in the same peacekeeping exercise. And let's face the future together whilst not forgetting our past.

There's been much textual analysis of the term regret and the President is said to have said that saying sorry is something completely different from regret, you can regret that something happened without feeling that, which most of us would believe was saying sorry for it. Does it matter to you whether it is one or the other?

I think what we should surely do is accept the words which President Menhem has written and those words are deep regret and also the observation that the war should never have happened. Frankly I think that that is a very good basis on which to build a positive relationship with both President Menhem and with his government. Let's certainly remember the sacrifice of those who died in the Falklands War and let's both commemorate the sacrifices of those who died in the Falklands War at that ceremony of reconciliation but let's not continue to pretend we're still at war, it is after all almost 20 years ago. We did manage to forge a relationship with Germany in the 60s, 20 years after that war, it's time we started with Argentina.

Just to come back to the [APPLAUSE], just to come back to what are sometimes referred to as the modalities. Were you, sort of, in on this article writing, did you come up ... was the Foreign Office told about this to and fro and how it was going to be stylised to make sense for Sun readers?

I have to say, as a matter of regret, that the Sun does not ring up the Foreign Office often enough to clear what appears in their papers or their headlines. I hope that we can perhaps approach a greater relationship with the Sun in which they do that. But no this was entirely within the control of the Sun and of President Menhem and I do think it was actually both courageous of President Menhem to say what he said and absolutely right that the Sun, which was a paper which took a very strong view at the time of the war, was a paper which was willing to print it and to recognise the courage it took to write it. I also do think that we should bear in mind that every veteran that's spoken on this has very much welcomed what President Menhem has said and if those who fought in the war can welcome this offer of reconciliation then so should the rest of us.

Ann Leslie.

Yes there's been much textual analysis also on the differences between the statement given to the Sun by Carlos Menhem and the one he gave to Argentinian newspapers. And I must say anybody who thinks it was only stylistic adjustments by Alistair Campbell hasn't read it, I mean all the stuff about Tony Blair this great leader, I mean, it almost ended up Tony Blair walks on water. But the textual analysis on the difference between regret and saying sorry, I do actually think a lot of people who say he hasn't actually apologised are quite, sort of, nasty people - what they really want is to rub peoples noses in defeat. The fact is that this regime or this government, it's not a regime, it's a democratic government, was not responsible for what happened, if he went and made some frightful mea culpa - oh dear I'm so sorry that we invaded South Georgia and all the rest of it - it would be political death for him in some areas of his country. I think he's made a very generous gesture and it's funny how hypocritical we are. When it was suggested by the Indians that when the Queen went to India that she should apologise for the Amritsar massacre, we were, no goodness can't have her apologising on behalf of this nation. And, you know, we ask other people to apologise endlessly for the things that their regimes and their countries have done in the past but when anybody suggests that we should do it we think that's a frightful imposition on us and I think we should be generous and say, this is a trip which is about reconciliation and we should welcome it and move on - get a life. [APPLAUSE]

Charles Kennedy.

Well applying similar textual analysis and I think a transcript would be of interest and some illumination here to the Foreign Secretary's comments. The conclusion I draw unmistakably from what Robin's been saying is that he, like I think the rest of us across the party spectrum in this room probably prefer important foreign policy initiatives to be in the Foreign Office hands than in the hands of the editorial rooms of the Sun and Alistair Campbell at Number 10 Downing Street and I think that that's a useful constitutional point. [APPLAUSE] It's obviously extremely important that this visit is taking place, it's extremely important that reconciliation and improvement takes place, continues to take place, between this country and Argentina. And I think that is a gambit on the part of the Sun and Alistair Campbell that has backfired particularly, knowing of Alistair's predilections for football and I've got the copy of this article in front of me - the President apparently concludes by saying, "There is one more piece of good news I will give Tony Blair when I see him next week, it is that Argentina will be giving her strong backing to England's bid to host the World Cup in 2006". And I think when you read that there is to my ears the unmistakable sound of the clock striking 13. [APPLAUSE]

Charles would you have taken a different view if he'd said that they would back Scotland's bid for the World Cup?

The Scottish Sun, I think, is backing independence, so presumably he wouldn't do so.

We'll go to our next question.

Rodney Bickerstaffe, Unison: We must do more to ensure that the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer in future

BICKERSTAFFE:

Rodney Bickerstaffe of Unison. Should Eddy George's quote or misquote surprise us, don't the most disadvantaged invariably make sacrifices for the most advantaged?

The Governor of the Bank said in answer to the question - is unemployment in the north an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south? He answered, "I suppose, in a sense, I am, it's not desirable but the fact is we can only seek to affect through monetary policy the state of demand in the economy". Robin Cook.

Well Eddy George can defend himself. I understand that he has since made a clarification making it clear that he did not say that jobs go in the north were an acceptable price for curbing inflation in the south and indeed he did say it was not desirable and the objective of his policy would be to try to make sure that one minimised any loss of jobs. As a matter of record there have been more jobs created in the north over the past year than there have been jobs lost. And it is very important that we don't lose sight of the fact that if we're going to have a steady growth in the economy we're going to have to have a sound economy which takes that long term view. But to pick up Rodney's point about social equality and social equity, that has to of course to be very much part of any programme to make sure that we have a just society on which we can build economic efficiency and that's why I'm proud to be a member of a government which is about to increase pension by three times the amount that it would have under the old rules and which has brought in a minimum wage, which has increased child benefit by £2.50 to make sure we tackle child poverty and which has brought in a working families tax credit which is going to guarantee that people going back into work will have an income of £180 a week. Yes, it is very important that we do make sure that the growth in our economy is actually shared by those who are economically weak and that that is decided, not just by those who may have power in the economy through financial circles, but is decided democratically - that's what this government's doing and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Charles Kennedy.

Well I thought it was very mean of Gordon Brown to obviously buy the Governor of the Bank the Norman Lamont quote book as a Christmas present because you would have thought, having seen what happened to that particular Chancellor when he uttered a similar sentiment, you would have thought the Governor of the Bank might just have thought twice when asked by a northern newspaper journalist such a loaded question, that this might just creep into the public print. So when Robin says the Governor of the Bank can look after himself, I'm afraid to say I reached quite the opposite conclusion, I don't think he can. The important point here that Rodney Bickerstaffe's question is addressing is the whole regional dimension of the UK economy and I have a great deal of sympathy for the kind of point that Rodney's making. One of the things we support, the Liberal Democrats, the independence of the Bank, we support the greater degree of illumination that Ken Clarke, when he was Chancellor, brought to the proceedings between him and the Governor - those have been good developments and worthy of continuing support. We did try and amend the independence of the Bank legislation when it went through to make sure that there was satisfactory regional or within the United Kingdom other national representation so that the view geographically across the country were perhaps more adequately represented in the monetary policy committee. And I think that perhaps some of the decisions we're seeing are a reflection of that inadequacy and also a reflection of the tightness of the remit that Gordon Brown has given to the monetary policy committee, only to look at inflation. Well if that is the only decision or the only factor that they can weigh the knock on effect will be of the characteristic that the Governor quite openly admitted to. So, I think, that we need ...

Do you, do you, in that you were sighting Norman Lamont's unemployment as a price worth paying quote, to look at what the Governor is saying in that context, do you accept that unemployment is a price that has to be paid if inflation is to be kept down in an economy that is not growing fast but is beginning to contract?

Only if you leave these strictures upon the monetary policy committee as closely drawn as Gordon Brown has drawn them, which is only to look at inflation and not other issues as well. And I think therefore the remit, as well as the membership of the MPS, could have been broaden and that's something that we argued at the time. And you wouldn't perhaps therefore have both gaffs of this nature but much more importantly, which the questioner's giving rise to, the social reality which lies behind it.

Kenneth Clarke former Chancellor.

Well I like Eddy personally so I will defend him on his so-called gaff in the north-east because I've been stitched enough by journalists enough in my time and I can see how it happened. And of course Eddy having taken responsibility for interest rates, the Chancellor doesn't have it, has more excuse than I have for getting stitched up occasionally because he's not used to handling these people. My advice to him is the next time you hear a journalist say, ask a question saying, "But isn't what you're really saying blah blah blah" do not answer yes because it will appear - this daft version of what you've just said will appear in the newspapers as your own quote in the morning. And I suspect that is what occurred. I also believe that attaining low inflation is one way of getting low unemployment in the medium term and maintaining jobs, so I don't take that dichotomy either. Having said that I can then go on to continue to be Eddy's bitterest critic on policy. I raised interest rates more often than I reduced them, I think, when I was Chancellor but you do have to avoid overkill and you do have to look, not just at the inflation target which we're obviously going to hit - indeed we're quite likely going to undershoot - you do have to look at the general stable wellbeing of the economy and I think they've got it wrong. I think when they were given independence we shouldn't have had a committee which is absolutely full of Bank of England officials and academic economists, I think they carried on raising interests rates far too far for far too long. They seem to think that the effect on the exchange rate of the pound wasn't a problem for them, fortunately it's easing a little bit now and we've already got manufacturing in recession and we've got agriculture in ruins and the effects of the world slow down have not really yet begun to hit us. So I think we have rather serious problems so that no doubt cheers up Eddy that I'm on his side on policy intentions and I do understand about the journalists but I think we now face very difficult problems. And if Gordon just turns round and says well it's not my fault, it's nothing to do with me, it's an independent bank, he's press aides were telling everybody, when he first set it up, that Eddy should have put up interest rates further and faster and then when he panicked recently when he was in Washington he suddenly got his press aides to bellow across the Atlantic that it was time Eddy starting reducing them. And as his own fiscal policy has tended to make things worse I should be rude about Eddy and Gordon on their genuine quotes as opposed to the ones that comes out of dinners up in Newcastle.

Just before I come to you Ann Leslie. Would you like to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rescue, as it were, on that Robin Cook?

I think that the point I would make is to entirely agree with Kenneth Clarke that, of course, one should not let interest rates get too high, they have started to come down from 7 ½ per cent which is, of course, precisely half the level they reached under the Conservatives when they were in office, who plainly did get it wrong. So please spare us the lectures Ken. [APPLAUSE]

Not in recent times Robin. I always listen to Labour Ministers who talk as though they're taking - they took over government in 1990 in the middle of an inflationary boom ...

Wish we had Ken.

... they actually took over, no, no, no, this inflationary boom is a complete illusion. For the Chancellor and the Governor to turn round and say, "Look there's no inflation" is like the man in the railway carriage with the machine for driving away elephants he says, "Look it works there are no elephants in the railway carriage". It's always a myth.

Ann Leslie.

Well this was turning into a sort of sympathetic, you know, free the Bank of England I from the vultures of the press thing. No he obviously has got to learn quite fast how to deal with us - ghastly creatures who come and trick noble upstanding human beings into saying things they don't mean. But if he didn't ...

Quite right.

Yes I know. Goodness you just bite the vultures in the ankles, I mean we don't have a chance against you but Eddy George has clearly got to learn. But basically what he was saying is that you can't set interest rates at different levels throughout a country, I mean, you can't say well Chipping Campden or Chipping Sodbury needs this interest rate and South Shields needs another, of course it's got to apply to the whole nation. And what amused me or rather horrified me during this row is a very pro EMU MP on the Labour side was saying, "Sack Eddy George" you know, "This is absolutely disgraceful", this is a man who is welcoming, not just having an independent British Central Banker but an independent Banker or set of Bankers in Frankfurt who will have even less interest in what's going on with our industry and if they want to keep inflation rates down in Germany and Italy and if our businesses have to go bust, they'll do it. But for some reason or other, you know, that's okay but what Eddy George says is not.

May I ask Rodney Bickerstaffe from Unison to respond to his own question?

A couple of quick points. I can't agree with Kenneth Clarke's view that he's been stitched enough, not nearly enough so far as I'm concerned but [LAUGHTER]. On the more substantive point, I mean, safety nets, minimum standards, non means tested benefits, fairer taxation - there are a number of things that we need to do during the next 50 years that we haven't done these last 50 to ensure that the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer in future. [APPLAUSE]

And are Labour Ministers - are Labour Ministers on course for that?

If they're not we're got to put them on that course soon.

And we'll go to our next question please.

Sue Arnold from the Observer. Bearing in mind the plummeting ratings, maybe that's too harsh, the dwindling ratings of Radio 4 are the panel doing their bit by listening loyally and if so what are their favourite programmes and why?

When you refer to the plummeting ratings of Radio 4 what you mean is the little downward blip as they say that's soon on its way up again yea?

Yes, yes.

Given that. Do you do your bit? Just wanted to clarify what you were really saying Sue. Given that, do you listen - do your bit by listening? If so what are your favourite programmes in addition to Any Questions? and why? Ann Leslie.

Yes I'm a great Radio 4 person but, of course, I'm a classic Radio 4 person. I don't wear combat trousers, I don't have large amounts of ironmongery in my nose. I am not 16 ½ and people like me are rather despised by the mandarins at Broadcasting House but they're not there anymore I suppose.

Half of them are in here.

Exactly. They don't like the wrinklies, they wish we would put duvets over our aged heads and expire. What they want are young people. And the result is, of course, young people incidentally have much more interesting things to do than listen to speech radio of any kind, you know, they're getting drunk and getting laid. You don't [LAUGHTER] you don't get round to listening to Radio 4 until you've stopped, not necessarily getting laid, but certainly getting drunk. And then you listen to it, you become very loyal, what you don't like is all these middle aged executives, who are just the same age as us, despising people like me who've been loyal to the thing, as being fuddy duddies who must be, you know, tipped off the edge of the cliff. And the result is, of course, they tip us off the edge of the cliff but they don't get the young kids in the combat trousers and the ironmongery in their noses either. So it's absolutely hopeless. I'm very loyal but my loyalty is strained. [APPLAUSE]

There appear to be one or two people who agree with you Ann. Charles Kennedy.

It's very touching in this historic programme to have enjoyed Ann's final contribution as a panellist on Any Questions? [LAUGHTER] But as valedictory addresses go that was a hum dinger. I do my bit, yes I listen to Radio 4 and I try and do my bit for its ratings by appearing on it almost every day and I say this because, whether I'm on frequently or not, an awful lot of people at this end of the country think I am on everyday because they think I'm James Naughtie [LAUGHTER].

Ken Clarke.

Now I'm one of those politicians who listens to Radio 4 every morning so that's my favourite programme. But otherwise I have a lot of sympathy with what Ann Leslie said and I found myself driving around the country, that's when I listen to the radio all the time otherwise, and I find myself going over to Radio 5 because it is quite an entertaining, rather informative, keeps up to date, lively programme and I think with any luck I'm listening to it alongside people who are getting drunk and getting laid and are younger than I am but ...

When you say alongside - when you say alongside - would you like to clarify Ken.

My car is empty and I mean it. But I too will take the same risk as Ann. I genuinely believe there is a dumbing down going down of Radio 4 and I think sadly it goes alongside the dumbing down of British politics.

Robin Cook.

Well my loyalty is also stretched because I read with interest the papers today knowing that any of these questions might come up. And when I got to the bit about the Radio 4 ratings going down I was a bit put out to discover that the explanation offered by the BBC was that politicians aren't arguing enough. I thought for a piece of buck passing that surpassed anything I have ever heard in parliament. Yes I listen to Radio 4 and indeed I listen most often to the Today programme because I believe one should always go to work with a surge of adrenaline and make to feel cross and it serves its very useful purpose in thoroughly waking me up. But I do tend to agree, let's remember that this country now has a higher proportion of people over 50 than ever before, surely the 50^th anniversary programme of Any Questions? is the time to remember that and perhaps the Controllers of Radio 4 should reflect on the fact, with it's enormous mass audiences, not one now to be courted.

Well after that terrifically encouraging set of answers we'll get swiftly to one more last question which we can just squeeze in.

Trevor Phillips broadcaster, presenter, of an extremely demanding Radio 4 science programme. The cream of the British establishment is gathered here with wine and canapés on tap, over whom would you like to throw a glass of red wine?

Modest amounts of modest wine, you should know beforehand, as it was a celebration. Who's going to start on this? Ken Clarke.

Well the recipient has occasionally been tempted me to throw red wine at him as well so, but for not quite the same reasons no doubt, but he might be a good one to receive it. But needless to say you'd expect me to say I have never done any such thing because it always strikes me, upon reflection, as a waste of a perfectly good drink.

Charles Kennedy.

Well again, like Ken, as a good Scot I certainly wouldn't waste the alcohol but I think what I'd do and what I intend to do when we get out of this theatre shortly is to exchange, no doubt the glass of rather indifferent BBC red wine that I'll be offered, and say make it a large dram please.

Ann Leslie.

Well I have quite a long list in my mind. But even though I am a very wrinkley old thing of no use anymore to Radio 4 I think I'm going, as I wish to stay in employment in general, I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut on that front but watch out.

Robin Cook.

Totally impossible question for somebody who represents 2,000 diplomats but I would offer all the panellists the skills in conflict prevention the Foreign Office have attempted to take you up on it.

Thank you very much which does bring us to the end of this 50^th anniversary programme. A reminder of Any Quest - Any Answers number it's 0171 580 4444 and the Controller of Radio 4, if you call in, you are welcome to have your say as well and in fact anyone else in the BBC if they want to - I won't let them all on. Next week's programme comes from Kings Lynn in Norfolk where the panel will be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam, the Shadow Education and Employment Secretary David Willetts, Lord Steel of the Liberal Democrats and the Head Teacher of the Phoenix - the rising from the ashes - Phoenix High School in London William Atkinson. Join us then don't forget Any Answers but from this 50^th anniversary programme here in the British Library - goodbye.

[APPLAUSE]