:00:17. > :00:21.get their chance to quiz our panel, and welcome to Question Time.
:00:21. > :00:27.And good evening to you at home, good evening to our audience here
:00:27. > :00:31.and our panel, Conservative former shadow home secretary, David Davis,
:00:31. > :00:34.historian and Labour shadow education Minister, Tristram Hunt,
:00:34. > :00:41.Liberal Democrat equality and employment Minister, Jo Swinson,
:00:41. > :00:51.critic and feminist fire near Germaine Greer, and the barrister
:00:51. > :00:53.
:00:53. > :00:57.and former Conservative MP, Jerry Hayes. -- feminist pioneer.
:00:57. > :01:04.Thank you very much. We have a lot to get through. Let's start with
:01:04. > :01:12.Sanjit Johal's question. With the recent success of UKIP, has British
:01:12. > :01:16.politics moved permanently to the right? Newline David Davis? Know.
:01:16. > :01:19.But what they have done, and we had to recognise this, is they have
:01:19. > :01:23.highlighted parts of the public debate we have not paid enough
:01:23. > :01:27.attention to - immigration, Europe, a whole series of issues which the
:01:27. > :01:32.main parties have tended to shy away from, they have highlighted. And
:01:32. > :01:36.they have a huge, one has to recognise it, a huge uptake in
:01:36. > :01:40.public support. I had a by-election in my part of the world during the
:01:40. > :01:44.course of this election, and with pretty much no campaigning on the
:01:45. > :01:47.ground, no organisation -- no organisation, against my
:01:47. > :01:54.organisation, which is quite effective, they got 30% from
:01:54. > :01:59.scratch. You got what?We won, but we lost about 15 points against
:01:59. > :02:03.them. We have to recognise this, and it is not good enough for the major
:02:03. > :02:07.parties to sneer at them and people who vote for them. We have to take
:02:07. > :02:10.them seriously. It does not mean we have to adopt their policies. I
:02:10. > :02:14.think a lot of the reason they did well was because of the feeling that
:02:14. > :02:21.the main parties are out of touch, a bit distant, not one of them. We had
:02:21. > :02:25.to deal with that, too. Can we tease this out further? UKIP are generally
:02:25. > :02:27.seen as to the right of the Conservative party. Our Usain you
:02:27. > :02:34.can acknowledge their success without the Tory party moving in
:02:34. > :02:39.that direction? -- are you saying? They also took Labour votes as well.
:02:39. > :02:44.They took votes on council estates. In my part of the world - it is
:02:44. > :02:47.unfair to aggregate them as one group - but the mid--- the biggest
:02:47. > :02:51.number were Asper lower-middle-class people in my part of the world. I
:02:51. > :02:55.think that is normal. People who want to get on, to see their country
:02:55. > :03:00.do well. We do not have to mimic UKIP Wallasey to do that, although I
:03:00. > :03:04.have to say that what UKIP is almost attempting to be these days is a
:03:04. > :03:09.primary colours caricature of the 1980s Conservative party. That is
:03:09. > :03:12.what they are looking like. I am not saying we should do that. I am
:03:12. > :03:16.saying we should make sure we have the public convinced that we know
:03:16. > :03:22.their problems and we are willing to address their problems. That is not
:03:22. > :03:28.necessarily a right wing thing. It could be right or left. I agree with
:03:28. > :03:32.David on that. But that is probably the last time. The fact of the
:03:32. > :03:38.matter is that a lot of people say that UKIP is the right wing of the
:03:38. > :03:42.Tory party but it is not. It is the Rampton wing of the Tory party. The
:03:42. > :03:46.policies do not add up. David said the other day on this programme that
:03:46. > :03:51.they are not a manifesto but a state of mind. The trouble with Tory
:03:51. > :03:54.backbenchers is that they have three gears - complacency, panic and self
:03:54. > :04:00.destruct. They pressed the panic button at the moment. Lots of them
:04:00. > :04:04.want to do deals with these people, which is absolutely insane. It is
:04:04. > :04:08.not high political principle but the politics of funk. We should take on
:04:08. > :04:14.UKIP, expose them for what they are. We should have proper debates
:04:14. > :04:19.with these people. Of course, some people say a vote for UKIP is a
:04:19. > :04:25.wasted vote. It is not a wasted vote, it is a dangerous vote,
:04:25. > :04:28.because if you want to get Ed Miliband in, and I don't, UKIP are
:04:28. > :04:38.Ed Miliband Cosmo for helpers. It is a stealth debt of socialism. They
:04:38. > :04:46.
:04:46. > :04:51.are very dangerous. However, the last bit... Actually, you are doing
:04:51. > :04:59.exactly what the Tories did. You are insulting the voters who voted for
:04:59. > :05:03.UKIP. No, I am not. I am not insulting the voters. You are now.
:05:03. > :05:11.Let him speak. You have to appreciate, people have gone out and
:05:11. > :05:16.voted for UKIP, so you can't, this blanket, you know, that you are all
:05:16. > :05:22.nutters, the natty part, you are off again to the races. Were you one of
:05:22. > :05:28.the ones who did this? I would vote against UKIP. I feel they are saying
:05:28. > :05:35.what a lot of the British public are feeling. Like what?About
:05:35. > :05:39.immigration and things like that. Can I endorse that? You cannot
:05:39. > :05:44.dismiss these people as a group who are creating a number of soundbites
:05:44. > :05:46.for the convenience of trying to get people to vote for them. What they
:05:46. > :05:53.are saying and proposing to introduce the sort of things which
:05:53. > :05:55.the voting public believe are the right things to do. You guys that
:05:55. > :05:59.work in government are elected by the public, and if you do not
:05:59. > :06:08.recognise that, you will not be in power for very long and certainly
:06:08. > :06:14.not the next time you get votes. Labour was hit as well by the surge
:06:14. > :06:18.in UKIP. What do you make of this? In Staffordshire, where I
:06:18. > :06:25.represent, 25% of votes went to UKIP in the last county elections. That
:06:25. > :06:30.is a significant voice, and we have to take those concerns seriously.
:06:30. > :06:34.How? We address the issues. Questions about Europe, making an
:06:34. > :06:38.argument in favour of Europe, the jobs that come from Europe, the
:06:38. > :06:42.single market. I represent Stoke-on-Trent. We have the Michelin
:06:42. > :06:47.tyre plant there, a European multinational company. If we go out
:06:47. > :06:52.of the single market, will we lose those jobs? We take them on one case
:06:52. > :06:59.is about being progressive and pro-yelled -- pro-European. We talk
:06:59. > :07:02.about immigration. What do you say? We believe immigration was too
:07:02. > :07:05.quick, too sudden in many communities when we were in power
:07:05. > :07:10.and we did not listen closely enough to the effects it was happening --
:07:10. > :07:15.having. What do we do? We attacked the culture of low wages, make sure
:07:15. > :07:19.people are paid the national wage, to prosecute gang masters doing the
:07:19. > :07:23.wrong thing, taking on agency workers. You look at the policies
:07:23. > :07:28.but come back with a progressive Labour response. You take the issues
:07:28. > :07:33.very seriously and you have a policy response. You do not do exactly what
:07:33. > :07:39.the gentleman says there, dismiss them as somehow misguided. I think
:07:39. > :07:47.their answers are misguided, but we have two take them on on a policy
:07:47. > :07:51.level and have the argument. And I am quite up for the argument.
:07:51. > :07:54.it be you are putting too much emphasis on policy, and a lot of
:07:54. > :08:01.people who have switched from Labour to UKIP it is simply an anti-Tory
:08:01. > :08:05.vote? I think it is an anti-politics vote. Nigel Farage is saying
:08:05. > :08:09.everything is wrong, we want the world to stop, we want to get off,
:08:10. > :08:19.we do not like what is going on. Nigel Farage is an attractive,
:08:19. > :08:26.interesting, visually compelling character. And he does not talk...
:08:26. > :08:30.He talks in an interesting manner. I am not up for a labour- UKIP
:08:30. > :08:36.alliance, but we have two be serious that he speaks a language and speaks
:08:36. > :08:39.in a manner that people who are not often attracted five politics are
:08:39. > :08:44.interested in. You go for a man of his policies but you think he
:08:44. > :08:47.touches on policies you got wrong? He touches on policies people think
:08:47. > :08:49.are not being discussed properly and we need to be on that territory
:08:49. > :08:55.discussing them, but he is interested in the past, not the
:08:55. > :08:59.future. The question was about whether British politics has moved
:08:59. > :09:03.to the right. British politics has been moving to the right steadily
:09:03. > :09:08.for quite a long time. Margaret Thatcher understood something about
:09:08. > :09:14.the working class, that it was not socialist that was actually Tory. So
:09:14. > :09:19.she created the new idea of the working-class Tory that was her
:09:19. > :09:23.backbone as she developed her policies, which had the virtue of
:09:23. > :09:27.being very simple. At the same time, they broke the back of the labour
:09:27. > :09:32.movement. The craft unions have gone, the elite unions have gone,
:09:32. > :09:37.manufacturing is in crisis. We always had this enormous pool of
:09:37. > :09:41.non-organised labour, much of which was female. We are now visibly
:09:41. > :09:45.involved in service industry, rather than manufacturing. It has been very
:09:45. > :09:51.easy to keep moving to the right. And it is very easy in those
:09:51. > :09:55.circumstances to stir up paranoia and fear, because people are
:09:55. > :09:59.insecure. They do not have agreed contracts any more, they have
:09:59. > :10:03.short-term contracts, minimum hours contracts. Everybody is scared. And
:10:03. > :10:07.in that situation, you play to their fear and their loathing and you tell
:10:07. > :10:13.them that it is somebody's fault and that that somebody has got to be got
:10:13. > :10:15.rid of. Nigel Farage's whole argument is, let's get rid of this,
:10:15. > :10:21.get rid of that. There is no suggestion as to what might take
:10:21. > :10:31.their place. I have every respect for that. I know how people are
:10:31. > :10:35.
:10:35. > :10:39.afraid, but I also know they are afraid of the wrong thing. One thing
:10:39. > :10:43.I am seeing is a lot of people really passionate about their vote
:10:43. > :10:47.-- policies. I found as a voter, one of the key things that happened in
:10:47. > :10:52.local elections was I did not see any Labour canvassing, no
:10:52. > :10:55.Conservative canvassing. I did see UKIP and the Green party but it
:10:55. > :10:59.appears some parties were hasty in thinking they were going to get the
:10:59. > :11:04.vote, but UKIP got out with the public, argue their point and that
:11:04. > :11:08.is why people turned out to vote for them. Let's go back to the issue
:11:08. > :11:15.about the effect of the UKIP victory. I was just thinking it is
:11:15. > :11:23.not only in the UK that they are facing the rise of the right. In
:11:23. > :11:27.Greece and France they are, too. think we do not have a permanent
:11:27. > :11:30.shift to the right, in answer to the question, but I think what we do
:11:30. > :11:34.have is a real need for pause for thought from all of the main parties
:11:34. > :11:41.after last week's election results, because it was not good for any of
:11:41. > :11:46.us. It was a disaster for you.We lost lots of councils. It was worse
:11:46. > :11:51.for you than anybody else. It has been a real challenge for us. That
:11:51. > :11:53.is why we have to listen to what people have said. One of the
:11:53. > :11:58.interesting elements is that where you have a coalition government when
:11:58. > :12:01.you have two parties in government and then you have an opposition,
:12:01. > :12:04.some people will support the Labour Party but if others are not
:12:04. > :12:08.convinced, and I think there are signs, last week that key parts of
:12:08. > :12:12.the country are not convinced by what Labour is offering, then they
:12:12. > :12:15.are looking for something else. I do not think it is as simple stick is
:12:15. > :12:19.to say it was all about Europe, all about immigration, being right wing.
:12:19. > :12:22.It is about people looking for something different that they are
:12:22. > :12:27.not getting from the rest of politics, and we have to look at
:12:27. > :12:30.ourselves. There is something about Nigel Farage. He is a decent kind of
:12:30. > :12:35.bloke, very direct and has clearly struck a chord with people and
:12:35. > :12:39.connected with people. Far too often politics can seem to be in a
:12:39. > :12:44.Westminster bubble far removed from everyday people's lives. We need to
:12:44. > :12:48.get better at reaching out and connecting. That point about the
:12:48. > :12:52.reaction in other countries, it is a reaction against metropolitan
:12:52. > :12:56.elites, to a large extent, a feeling that the people running the country,
:12:56. > :13:00.in some cases running the continent, just do not have the interests of
:13:00. > :13:09.ordinary people at the front of their mind. It is a rejection of
:13:09. > :13:14.that. A couple of points made about us not taking them seriously enough.
:13:14. > :13:17.There is a fair point. I read in the papers in the last week, mostly
:13:17. > :13:21.written in London, the Metropolitan commentators are sneering and
:13:21. > :13:24.dismissive of it, and they should not be, because they reflect real
:13:24. > :13:30.fears and concerns. Whether the analysis is right, the fears are
:13:30. > :13:32.there. The interesting thing is that you could not get a more
:13:33. > :13:37.metropolitan figure than Nigel Farage, city broker, Dulwich
:13:37. > :13:42.schoolboy, who is coming up with these things. To go back to the
:13:42. > :13:46.European context, what happens when they get in? You see what happens if
:13:46. > :13:50.and when they get in in Italy, with the 5-star movement, and it is total
:13:50. > :13:55.chaos, an inability to govern, because half of it is about vanity
:13:55. > :13:59.and protest and just being anti the political protests -- process. When
:13:59. > :14:05.they have to make decisions, it crumbles and the country is the
:14:06. > :14:15.loser. What they have done is to replace the Liberal Democrats as the
:14:16. > :14:19.spittoon Frankston. -- for banks to. As David says, people do not like
:14:19. > :14:24.the political classes. As you said, they do not include our listening to
:14:24. > :14:31.you. Not that I am a politician any more. I think we are but we are not
:14:31. > :14:38.getting the message across. Erin Burrows Has A Question. Should The
:14:38. > :14:42.Queen's Speech Have Mentioned The Topic Of An Eu Referendum? That Of
:14:42. > :14:47.Course Is What Niger Farage Was Going On About A Great Deal And
:14:47. > :14:50.There's A Motion Saying, Should The Queen's Speech Have Mentioned A
:14:51. > :14:56.Referendum So People Feel This Government Or The Tory Part Of It,
:14:56. > :15:02.If It Came Back, Would Offer One? Tristram Hunt, Where Do You Stand On
:15:02. > :15:07.The Eu Referendum? We Are In Favour Of A Referendum On A Transfer Of Pow
:15:07. > :15:11.Powers. Under The Sovereignty Act If There's A Major Transfer Of Pow,
:15:11. > :15:16.That Would Trigger A Referendum And The Labour Party Are Happy To Have
:15:16. > :15:21.That. That's The Law?That's The Law, But We Wouldn't Reverse That.
:15:21. > :15:25.Would We Have An In-out Referendum Now, No, I Don't Think We Would. The
:15:25. > :15:30.Big Challenge We Have In Stoke-on-trent And Coventry Is Jobs
:15:30. > :15:35.And Growth. How Would It Help People Get Into Work? How Would It Help
:15:35. > :15:39.Businesses To Grow And Help People To Invest In The Country If We Begin
:15:39. > :15:44.A Five-year Conversation About Our Place In Europe? The Single Market
:15:44. > :15:49.Takes 50% Of Our Trade And Investment. We Export More To
:15:49. > :15:52.Belgium Than To Russia, Than To China, Than To Indonesia, Than To
:15:52. > :15:56.All These Places Which We Have Been Told Are The Wonderful Future And
:15:56. > :16:00.They Are And They Are Growth Markets And That's Great. But Our Economy's
:16:00. > :16:04.Embedded In Europe. So If You Care About Your Jobs And Pensions, If You
:16:04. > :16:11.Care About Apprenticeships, You Have To Be A Believer In A Reform, Yes,
:16:11. > :16:15.But Also In A Single European Market Which Is Vital To Our Prosperity.
:16:15. > :16:18.Let Me Just Say This One Thing. Wait. We Are On The Verge Of A
:16:18. > :16:24.Really Exciting Trade Pact Between Europe And America, A Free Trade
:16:24. > :16:26.Pact Between Europe And America And This Is The Moment David And His
:16:26. > :16:30.Friends On The Conservative Backbenches Want To Think About
:16:30. > :16:34.Taking Us Out Of Europe. It's Crazy. You Have Got No Experience Of
:16:34. > :16:38.Running A Government Department, You Have Not Been At The Treasury Or
:16:38. > :16:43.Chancellor Of The Exchequer, What Do You Make Of The Chances -- What Do
:16:43. > :16:53.You Make Of The Chancellor Of The Exchequer, Including Denis Healey,
:16:53. > :16:57.
:16:57. > :17:01.He's Now Saying We Should Pull Out. Said. He Said It Today? You Read The
:17:01. > :17:04.Newspapers. There Is An Interesting...
:17:04. > :17:07.Applause I'll Take It All! There Is An
:17:07. > :17:13.Interesting Cultural Point I Think About Nigel Lawson, Norman Lament.
:17:13. > :17:18.You Know, Interesting Chancellors In Their Own Unique Way. But They Are
:17:18. > :17:22.Figures Of Finance, They Are Figures Of The City Of London, They Are
:17:22. > :17:25.Concerned About The Investment Houses And Finance Houses And We
:17:26. > :17:30.Have A Brilliant Financial Services Industry In This Country And That's
:17:30. > :17:34.Great But The Rest Of The Economy Should Have A Say, The Manufacturing
:17:34. > :17:41.Base, Everything Germaine Spoke To. Those Are The Export Markets, That's
:17:41. > :17:45.The Investment Market We Want To See. Mess Messers Lamont And Others
:17:45. > :17:50.Have Their View, But There Should Be A Broader Economic Conversation.
:17:50. > :17:58.David, What Is Your Position On This, Because You Signed This?
:17:58. > :18:02.What Do You Want To Happen? Three Major Parties Have Broken
:18:02. > :18:06.Promises On Referenda On Europe, Every Single One. Therefore, It's
:18:06. > :18:10.Not Unreasonable For The Public To Have A Little Loss Of Trust In Each
:18:10. > :18:16.Party Leader, No Matter Who It Is, When They Say I'm Going To Give You
:18:16. > :18:22.A Referendum. You Could Say, I Told You That Last Time And It Didn't
:18:22. > :18:26.Happen. It's Said That We Should Have A Law Put In Thousand So It
:18:26. > :18:36.Would Be Guaranteed Beyond The Next Election When It Takes Place. It's
:18:36. > :18:36.
:18:36. > :18:45.An Issue Of Public Trust. SO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WOULD VOTE? THAT'S
:18:45. > :18:52.ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENT. my step sfaert worked for michelin, i think
:18:52. > :19:01.he was a shop steward there actually and the reason michelin is here is
:19:01. > :19:05.because they sell tyres, just as audi sell cars and the various
:19:05. > :19:08.French vineyards sell wine. They are not going to cut off their nose to
:19:08. > :19:13.spite their face if we come to an arrangement with them. Her not going
:19:13. > :19:18.to do that. Let's not scare people, as happened in 1975, with panicked
:19:18. > :19:21.stories about what might happen if we are in or out. You are saying in
:19:22. > :19:28.or out, it's an equal, you are not saying out would be a disaster?
:19:28. > :19:32.depends what the negotiated outcome is. What Lawson said... Nobody knows
:19:32. > :19:39.what the negotiation would be? Exactly. Lawson said the negotiation
:19:39. > :19:42.would lead to an inconsequential outcome. That was the word he used,
:19:42. > :19:46.inconsequential. I don't think that's true, some do, some don't. We
:19:46. > :19:52.should give the British people a choice between a seriously
:19:52. > :19:56.renegotiated arrangement and being out. Can I clarify your position. If
:19:56. > :20:01.there were no substantial renegotiations, you would vote for
:20:01. > :20:03.out? If it was today's situation. Let me finish on the point that both
:20:03. > :20:09.parties said we have this circumstance where if there's more
:20:09. > :20:13.power going to Europe, we'll vote. Every single day of the year, more
:20:13. > :20:17.power goes to Europe. Michael Portillo writing this week said we
:20:17. > :20:23.haven't joined a club, we have joined a process which continues to
:20:23. > :20:29.transfer power over our judicial system, over our trade, over our
:20:29. > :20:35.industrial policy, over our safety policy. Some of it is very good for
:20:35. > :20:39.British jobs and competitiveness. But what I'm saying is, don't kid
:20:39. > :20:41.yourself that power transfers will have a remp dumb. Explain that. I
:20:41. > :20:47.don't understand it. The Prime Minister's give an clear can
:20:47. > :20:51.commitment that in 2017, if he bin wins an outright majority to make
:20:51. > :20:55.Europe more transparent, and it's for everybody in Europe, no t just
:20:55. > :21:00.for us, transparent and democratic, he'll put to it the people in or
:21:00. > :21:03.out. But what are you guys doing? Every single party leader, Nick
:21:03. > :21:08.Clegg, David Cameron and not Miliband, but his predecessor said,
:21:08. > :21:18.we are going to have a referendum on in-out. The Liberals even said it
:21:18. > :21:21.
:21:21. > :21:26.and none of them did it. No You can have this little vote, the Amish
:21:26. > :21:30.wing can sit round and sign this little thing. But it's going to be
:21:30. > :21:34.meaningless because Jo Swinson and her party won't have it, the
:21:34. > :21:41.coalition won't, so you can join hands and see it tried out and have
:21:41. > :21:46.contact with the living but it will mean nothing!
:21:46. > :21:48.APPLAUSE Jo Swinson? Well, I don't think that
:21:48. > :21:52.that is what we should have had in the Queen's speech because we
:21:52. > :21:56.already have a very, very clear position in the Government. It's, as
:21:56. > :21:59.has been said, actually written into law now that if there is any further
:21:59. > :22:02.transfer of power to the European Union, then there has to be a
:22:02. > :22:06.referendum. That is the sensible time at which to have it. Because
:22:06. > :22:10.that's the point at which to make the decision. What about
:22:10. > :22:13.renegotiations leading up to 2017 if Cameron is Prime Minister and if
:22:13. > :22:18.those are done, would you support a referendum then? You were the party
:22:18. > :22:21.that wanted a referendum at the last election? And we have Leggetted to
:22:21. > :22:27.make sure that that will happen if there's any further transfer of
:22:27. > :22:30.power. What I'm worried about and what I think it was right to happen
:22:30. > :22:34.in the Queen's speech was that on a day-to-day basis, my constituents
:22:34. > :22:38.and everybody else is worried about whether or not their children can
:22:38. > :22:41.get jobs, wlorpt we can make sure that people who're in their old age
:22:41. > :22:44.will be properly protected with pensions with the new Pensions Bill
:22:44. > :22:47.that's coming forward. You are dodging the question. I'm talking
:22:47. > :22:55.about the Queen's speech. Yes, but in other words you are not in
:22:55. > :22:59.favour? You are not in favour of an EU referendum in 2017 come what may
:22:59. > :23:04.and you are frightened that Mr Davis's thing would happen? This
:23:04. > :23:07.would be a daft time for us to be spending all of our energy and focus
:23:07. > :23:10.on creating uncertainty with our biggest trading partner when we need
:23:10. > :23:15.to focus on getting the economy moving and getting jobs and
:23:15. > :23:19.investment. If you have got European companies making decisions about
:23:19. > :23:23.where to invest and put that factory and create jobs, I don't want them
:23:23. > :23:26.to have a question mark in their mind about whether Britain will be
:23:26. > :23:30.part of the European Union in a few years' time. So I think it's
:23:30. > :23:33.actually dangerous to be having that discussion. That's why I think the
:23:33. > :23:36.Queen's speech was right to focus on measures that will help people's
:23:36. > :23:37.every day lives, rather than the naval gazing that the Conservative
:23:37. > :23:43.Party likes to have sometimes on Europe.
:23:43. > :23:47.OK. The man here in the centre? Somebody up there wanted to speak so
:23:47. > :23:50.his hand's gone down now. This man here? A referendum can only be
:23:50. > :23:54.meaningful if people have a chance to dispassionately consider the pros
:23:54. > :24:04.and cons of both sides of the argument. We don't have that. If we
:24:04. > :24:10.were to rush into that, we'd be selling it to a press.
:24:10. > :24:13.Ierks I think it's dangerous if we leave the E U, we'll have no trade
:24:13. > :24:17.deal with countries like America because we'll be seen as having no
:24:17. > :24:20.influence. There is a good point on this at the moment. The Prime
:24:20. > :24:23.Minister currently can't get a meeting with either the Prime
:24:23. > :24:26.Minister or President of China. So all this stuff we are going to
:24:26. > :24:30.export to China, all these great links around the world, actually,
:24:30. > :24:37.the reason why China and India are interested in us is because we are
:24:37. > :24:42.in Europe. We can have both of those advantages. He can get a meeting
:24:42. > :24:47.with the Dalai Lama. The reason we are interested in us is because we
:24:47. > :24:52.are a market within Europe. Germaine? It's probably equally true
:24:52. > :24:55.to say that many people feel that we really can't two having a referendum
:24:55. > :25:00.now that we have put our hand to the plough and what we've got to do if
:25:00. > :25:03.we don't like what is going on in Europe is we have to change it. We
:25:03. > :25:08.are only going to change it if we are there. I have to remind you that
:25:08. > :25:14.I'm Australian and the break-up of the British Commonwealth for us was
:25:14. > :25:19.extremely painful and costly. We got dumped on our faces and understood
:25:20. > :25:23.it because we could see that after World War II, Britain and Europe
:25:23. > :25:29.needed to integrate. They needed to get to understand each other.
:25:29. > :25:32.That whole power block had to come together in a more rational way. The
:25:32. > :25:36.British Commonwealth is now non-existent. The world Commonwealth
:25:36. > :25:41.actually means the old Russian Soviets these days, if you look it
:25:41. > :25:46.up, and it was a painful thing. It's a curious thing too because
:25:46. > :25:50.Australia is still a source of huge wealth to Britain and gets no
:25:50. > :25:57.consideration. But I'm surprised that David didn't point out that one
:25:57. > :26:02.of the things we rely on as libertarians in this country is the
:26:02. > :26:05.European Court of Human Rights which has corrected us on a number of
:26:05. > :26:08.absolutely ah cake and cruel legislations.
:26:08. > :26:14.APPLAUSE OK. I'm going to take a brief point
:26:14. > :26:22.from you, Sir -- archaic. If you at home want to join in the
:26:22. > :26:27.debate, you can do it on text, Twitter. You can follow us and can
:26:27. > :26:30.text comments and push red to see what others are saying. A brief
:26:30. > :26:35.point because we have a lot of questions.
:26:36. > :26:40.I may be missing a very fundamental point here - why are we talking
:26:40. > :26:45.about a referendum in this utterly and critical way? Isn't the
:26:45. > :26:49.Government aboutry gating its responsibility by giving the people
:26:49. > :26:55.of this country the right to vote on an issue which not only affects our
:26:55. > :27:01.economy and our security for that matter? Why a referendum?
:27:01. > :27:04.Government shouldn't be giving the people... No, it's an abrigation.A
:27:04. > :27:09.jeingts should decide these things? Indeed.
:27:09. > :27:14.I'll move on. Jasminder Dhaliwal, please? Is it right for the
:27:14. > :27:18.Government to ask NHS staff to act as border agents to prevent health
:27:18. > :27:24.tourism? This was a proposal which again a came out of the Queen's
:27:24. > :27:27.Speech in the middle of this week, that NHS staff, among others,
:27:27. > :27:32.landlords was another one, should have the obligation of checking
:27:32. > :27:37.whether people were legitimately in this country. Germaine Greer, is it
:27:37. > :27:40.right to ask NHS staff to act as border agents? Well, obviously not,
:27:40. > :27:45.I would have thought. I find the whole thing extraordinary. Look, I
:27:45. > :27:49.live in mid Anglia. I'm surrounded by people who come from central
:27:49. > :27:53.Europe to pull up onions and carrots, who get very poorly paid,
:27:53. > :27:58.they are poorly housed, they are overworked, out in all weathers and
:27:58. > :28:03.now we want to say they can't have access to health care. This is
:28:03. > :28:08.outrageous! That's not what's being said. This is not who we are. That's
:28:08. > :28:11.not what the question was about, but it's been said that even though
:28:11. > :28:14.these people have come to take jobs that nobody else wants to do, that
:28:14. > :28:21.we are going to treat them as if they are ripping us off. This is
:28:22. > :28:26.nonsense. It's purely to stop health tourism. For goodness sake.If
:28:26. > :28:32.somebody is in trouble, has a heart attack, they'll be looked after free
:28:32. > :28:35.and rightly so. People need to be reassured that those who come into
:28:35. > :28:38.this country whom we welcome from abroad, don't get a free ride for
:28:38. > :28:42.nothing. They don't want to see them getting to the front of the housing
:28:42. > :28:45.queue and they don't want to see them getting free transplants, they
:28:45. > :28:49.don't want to see them getting hip replacements done when they can do
:28:49. > :28:52.it in their own country. No-one's going to be asked, no doctor is
:28:52. > :28:56.going to say, I am going to refuse you treatment, if they are ill,
:28:56. > :29:01.they'll be sorted out, but if it's for elective surgery and things like
:29:01. > :29:06.that, I'm afraid the answer must be no, go back to your own country and
:29:06. > :29:09.get it. That's what people want. It's only right and frair. Germaine
:29:09. > :29:12.talks about people in East Anglia, who're working, who're immigrants?
:29:13. > :29:17.They won't have a problem. Ierks it's different. This isn't about
:29:17. > :29:22.people who're here in a law-abiding way, here on a visa working,
:29:22. > :29:26.contributing to the country, who understandably and rightly have
:29:26. > :29:30.access. This is about illegal immigration. If you are going to
:29:30. > :29:33.have a system that people can have trust and faith in, you need to be
:29:33. > :29:36.tolerant and welcoming and recognise the benefits that we have of
:29:36. > :29:41.migration and you also have to be intolerant of abuse of the system
:29:41. > :29:51.because it's not fair if people can come here illegally and stay and get
:29:51. > :29:53.
:29:53. > :30:00.access to things they haven't with a difficult pregnancy, send
:30:00. > :30:04.them off? This is about looking at the range of ways in which we
:30:04. > :30:08.currently have a problem with illegal immigration. Much of this is
:30:08. > :30:12.common sense. If you go abroad on holiday and you fall ill, you will
:30:12. > :30:16.often be asked, if it is not within the EU, to provide travel
:30:16. > :30:19.insurance, health insurance, to be able to be treated. We are used to
:30:19. > :30:23.that in other countries, and the thought that we could have something
:30:23. > :30:28.that works the same way should not be shocking. It is also about
:30:28. > :30:32.stopping illegal immigrant from having UK driving licences. I was
:30:32. > :30:35.surprised they could currently get UK driving licences. These things
:30:35. > :30:39.are important, to make sure we have a system that welcomes and
:30:39. > :30:49.recognises the benefits of immigration but does not tolerate
:30:49. > :30:57.
:30:57. > :31:07.Should we not have border agency is deciding who can get in or out?
:31:07. > :31:11.
:31:11. > :31:16.BA ARA basket case, hopeless. -- UK BA. Let's come back to the origins
:31:16. > :31:21.of this, because I do not think we are getting the accurate story about
:31:21. > :31:26.a government policy. Remember where we started. We started with fears of
:31:26. > :31:34.a Bulgarian and Rumanian immigrants coming to the UK after January of
:31:34. > :31:39.next year. I do not know how many there will be. They will be legal.
:31:40. > :31:45.Exact li, not illegal. It has been in that context that they have been
:31:45. > :31:50.arguing the case here. I agree there is an issue here. I agree with Jerry
:31:50. > :31:54.that there should be action on restricting welfare and access to
:31:54. > :31:59.housing. Of course, it is proper that people who live here to start
:31:59. > :32:02.off with should have the first advantage. But the simple truth is
:32:02. > :32:06.that this is not about illegal immigrants. When you have a
:32:06. > :32:10.immigrant is, they often do not have driving licences or insurance, which
:32:10. > :32:15.is more critical. That is very common. So that is not much of a
:32:15. > :32:18.restriction. The issue is about whether healthcare is what the
:32:18. > :32:23.health secretary described as a pull factor, whether it brings people
:32:23. > :32:27.into the country. We have had health tourism here for a very long time,
:32:27. > :32:31.more often from the Middle East than anywhere else. But the thing that is
:32:31. > :32:36.bringing Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to Britain after the
:32:36. > :32:40.beginning of January next year is the fact that their national average
:32:40. > :32:44.income is one third of our minimum wage. They will be coming here to
:32:44. > :32:50.work, like the Polish, those from the Czech Republic and so on. That's
:32:50. > :32:54.not represent the situation. Taking away the right to health care, in my
:32:54. > :32:59.view, is an unwise policy, because when we take on immigration policy,
:33:00. > :33:05.and I have been a strong advocate of strict immigration policy, it should
:33:05. > :33:10.be fair and civilised. And I do not see asking people on a trolley in
:33:10. > :33:13.accident and emergency where they are from as a civilised approach.
:33:13. > :33:19.Wide EU say they will not? Jo Swinson and Jerry Hayes, I want to
:33:19. > :33:23.quote to you this article by a cancer specialist. Foreign women
:33:23. > :33:28.often arrive in the UK in late pregnancy, often after detecting a
:33:28. > :33:32.complication. They come on a visitor's Visa and present to
:33:32. > :33:40.accident and emergency in labour, refuse to pay and claim care. What
:33:40. > :33:42.are you going to do about that? The doctors think it does happen.
:33:42. > :33:47.is not about accident and emergency health care, not about turning
:33:47. > :33:51.people away in that kind of emergency situation. The bill has
:33:51. > :33:55.not been published and the details will be fully published and that
:33:55. > :33:59.will be subjected to much debate in Parliament on the exact details but
:33:59. > :34:02.this is not about accident and emergency care. This is about having
:34:02. > :34:07.mechanisms so that where people are in the country illegally there are
:34:07. > :34:11.more ways of being able to find out about it so action can be taken.
:34:12. > :34:17.point being made was that people present as accident and emergency,
:34:17. > :34:20.not actually accident and emergency. There was a programme on last week
:34:20. > :34:24.Tom one of the London hospitals is already doing that. They have a
:34:24. > :34:31.gentleman and his job is to identify patients, politely ask where they
:34:31. > :34:35.have come from and to build and reclaim the money. That is the
:34:35. > :34:41.point, this is the law already. What we have had in this Queen's speech
:34:41. > :34:47.is an awful lot of rhetoric. It is already the law that hospitals
:34:47. > :34:51.pursue foreign citizens for expenses here. So why is the government doing
:34:52. > :34:57.it? It returns to the influence of UKIP and right wing policies. What
:34:57. > :35:01.they are announcing here in a range of areas already exists. If I was
:35:01. > :35:05.running a hospital in the NHS I would be focusing on the 111 line,
:35:05. > :35:10.which seems a much greater source of emergency and problems in our
:35:10. > :35:19.hospital service than this. think this is a smokescreen?
:35:19. > :35:26.policy is exactly right, but it is repetition. What would be left in
:35:26. > :35:33.the Queen's Speech if they removed repetition? I fear it would be empty
:35:33. > :35:38.at the end. The more ways you can trip up an illegal immigrant, the
:35:38. > :35:42.more likely they are to be found out. I think you should enforce the
:35:42. > :35:47.law. You do not need government ramping up the rhetoric in often
:35:47. > :35:51.unhelpful manners, even though the legislation is all ready there.
:35:51. > :35:56.a personal experience point of view, my wife went to hospital for
:35:56. > :36:01.an MRI scan. She was sat next to a gentleman who, midway between the
:36:01. > :36:06.process of having his MRI scan, changed his name. How did she
:36:06. > :36:10.notice? Because he was asked to fill out a form and he did not know his
:36:10. > :36:14.name that he was supposed to be having the MRI scan under, so he
:36:14. > :36:19.said, I have changed my name. There was no suggestion that he paid for
:36:19. > :36:23.it, but he just had to fill out a new form. One other point that you
:36:23. > :36:27.alluded to, much of this would be controlled by the introduction of ID
:36:27. > :36:31.cards. In this electronic age, I find it difficult to accept that
:36:31. > :36:36.people cannot work with the simple introduction of an ID card that
:36:36. > :36:40.would control many of the problems we are talking about. It would also
:36:41. > :36:50.be controlled by a proper Border Force. And under Theresa May, there
:36:50. > :37:00.is absolute chaos. Come on!We have people leaving and coming and going
:37:00. > :37:03.
:37:03. > :37:07.and we do not know what. We have criminals... That was on your watch.
:37:07. > :37:12.It is chaos under this government in terms of controlling the Borders.
:37:12. > :37:22.am going to measure your nose after this! Under which government did we
:37:22. > :37:23.
:37:23. > :37:30.have 1 million immigrants coming to the UK? You are sitting quietly,
:37:30. > :37:35.watching this. The British have lots of immigrants, but lots of other
:37:35. > :37:39.people have lots of British immigrants. And they are sometimes
:37:39. > :37:43.not expecting to work as hard as they will be expected to work. They
:37:43. > :37:47.think it is going to be a lot easier than it is. They had to come round
:37:47. > :37:55.to a whole new attitude in the countries they go to. And often they
:37:55. > :38:04.do a lot of whingeing and talk about going back home. The whingeing
:38:04. > :38:07.Palmer is a real creature. People are moving backwards and forwards
:38:07. > :38:10.and testing different lifestyles. I do not like the idea that if people
:38:10. > :38:19.are in this country and need medical attention that we will find a reason
:38:19. > :38:25.not to give it to them. I am hustled by your man who changes his name
:38:25. > :38:35.before having his MRI scan. -- I am puzzled. Where does the report go
:38:35. > :38:37.
:38:37. > :38:40.to? It could be part of the illness. Should police withhold identities of
:38:40. > :38:48.those people they have arrested until such time as they are formally
:38:48. > :38:52.charged? This is in light of a number of people in show business
:38:52. > :38:55.who we will not go into their names, who have been prominently arrested
:38:55. > :39:02.but not actually charged. Should their names be kept secret until
:39:02. > :39:07.there is a charge? Jerry Hayes, you are a barrister. I do not think they
:39:07. > :39:11.should. I do not think their names should be secret, because they have
:39:11. > :39:16.been arrested. It is going to get out anyway. There was a case
:39:16. > :39:20.recently involving an MP. All of the neighbours saw the police there and
:39:20. > :39:25.it is going to come out, but there is a real problem, I think, and I
:39:25. > :39:28.have prosecuted and defended serious sexual offences for years. The fact
:39:28. > :39:32.is, I am firmly of the view that if you are accused of a sexual
:39:32. > :39:37.offence, particularly rape, particularly with children, you
:39:37. > :39:41.should be anonymous until after the trial. Because the stigma is worse
:39:41. > :39:51.than murder. I have seen people who have been acquitted, perhaps when I
:39:51. > :39:52.
:39:52. > :39:58.have defended them, not many, but the stigma sticks for life, because
:39:58. > :40:02.everybody says, no smoke without fire. I know there is a movement of
:40:02. > :40:05.people who say it stops women from coming forward. It does not stop
:40:05. > :40:11.women from coming forward. We have gone a long way from the old ideas
:40:12. > :40:16.about rape. Women are treated very, very well. What about what the
:40:16. > :40:20.police said in the Stuart Hall case, which was that it was by
:40:20. > :40:26.arresting him and naming him that all the people came forward that he
:40:26. > :40:30.then accepted he had abused? There might be a case in those sort of
:40:30. > :40:33.circumstances for a judge to make an order, but by and large I think
:40:33. > :40:39.there should be an automatic rule, anonymous. If the police say it
:40:39. > :40:44.could help the investigation, a judge could make the order. I have
:40:44. > :40:49.an unusual attitude towards this because I am not actually in favour
:40:49. > :40:57.of the accuser remaining anonymous. I think if you want to put somebody
:40:57. > :41:02.away for seven years, for offending you, by taking sexual liberties with
:41:02. > :41:06.you, then you ought to stand up there and face him. Because you
:41:06. > :41:11.should not be shamed. He is the person who should be ashamed. The
:41:11. > :41:14.idea that the fact that this has happened has somehow damaged you and
:41:14. > :41:20.made you a person who cannot show her face in public, to me, that
:41:20. > :41:23.really does not work for me. On the other hand, I also think the legal
:41:24. > :41:29.category of rape is medieval, and it should all be under the blanket of
:41:29. > :41:36.sexual assault. Because sexual assault, say, one boys, which is now
:41:36. > :41:40.called rape but is still regarded as forcible buggery, that is just as
:41:40. > :41:44.damaging and sometimes more damaging. Really, we should be
:41:44. > :41:49.thinking in a less medieval way, because the point about rape is that
:41:49. > :41:53.it is actually stealing a woman who belongs to somebody else, that is
:41:53. > :41:57.the etymological meaning of the term. That will not do. If you have
:41:57. > :42:02.outraged me sexually, it is not because you upset my father, my
:42:02. > :42:06.husband or my brother. You have upset me. That is one reason why
:42:06. > :42:08.civil action against rapists is sometimes more satisfactory,
:42:08. > :42:12.especially given the strange attitudes of the Crown Prosecution
:42:12. > :42:18.Service towards rape cases, especially involving prostitutes,
:42:18. > :42:21.who are just as likely to be raped as anybody else. So I think the
:42:21. > :42:25.whole thing needs overhauling. But we all have to have the courage. If
:42:25. > :42:29.you are going to stand up there and accuse somebody of a serious offence
:42:29. > :42:35.that could send him to prison for up to seven years, or whatever, I think
:42:35. > :42:41.you should show your face and you should not the ashamed. -- you
:42:41. > :42:44.should not be ashamed. I completely disagree with the fact that it is
:42:44. > :42:49.easier for women to come forward and speak about rape at the moment, in
:42:49. > :42:55.the near future or whatever. I think it is actually really hard for
:42:56. > :43:01.someone to get prosecuted for rape. That obviously is not the case.
:43:01. > :43:04.course it is the case. There were 95,000 rapes last year and less than
:43:04. > :43:12.900 men prosecuted for it. How does that show it is easy for women to
:43:12. > :43:16.come forward? You cannot say there were 95,000 rates, because clearly
:43:16. > :43:22.they were not raped because they were not prosecuted. The evidence
:43:22. > :43:28.did not stack, so they were not charged. They are allegations, and
:43:28. > :43:33.sometimes people do make them. women cannot come forward to say it.
:43:33. > :43:38.Just because there is not enough evidence... It does not mean the
:43:38. > :43:42.rape did not happen. The two things are very different. I can understand
:43:42. > :43:46.a situation where there is not enough evidence to prove it in a
:43:46. > :43:51.court of law, but it is doing the victor make huge disservice if you
:43:51. > :43:55.say, therefore, it did not happen and it is not rape. So you take
:43:55. > :43:59.somebody to court with no evidence? The question was about people's
:43:59. > :44:08.identity being revealed. The Liberal Democrats had a policy when they
:44:08. > :44:13.fought the last election. It was not in our manifesto. You can tell me if
:44:13. > :44:17.I am right or wrong. The Liberal Democrats had publicly stated
:44:17. > :44:22.policy... Apparently. It was passed at a conference but not in our
:44:22. > :44:27.manifesto. That and it -- anonymity should be granted to people until
:44:27. > :44:30.they were found guilty. We have had all these cases, cases of people who
:44:30. > :44:37.have been named and the police have said they are not charging them, and
:44:37. > :44:39.their names have been all over the price, repeated every time. It was
:44:39. > :44:43.something the government considered at the beginning of the parliament,
:44:43. > :44:50.in 2010, and I think we were right not to go ahead with it. It was the
:44:50. > :44:55.correlation agreement. It may well have been. I salute the thing,
:44:55. > :45:00.although it is absolutely appalling for people who are accused wrongly,
:45:00. > :45:06.that we need to get a proper balance here. Because we also have lots of
:45:06. > :45:09.examples where there are serial criminals, the minicab driver in
:45:09. > :45:14.London was an example, where people are only court for what they have
:45:14. > :45:18.done because it has not been anonymous. I think there is still a
:45:18. > :45:22.problem, because, for example, it is not just that it is public knowledge
:45:22. > :45:27.that somebody has been arrested, but far too often the media are tipped
:45:27. > :45:31.off by the police and turn up to take photos of it happening. That is
:45:31. > :45:35.too cosy relationship. The media also has a responsibility to be much
:45:35. > :45:40.clearer about innocent until proven guilty when reporting these things.
:45:40. > :45:43.We tend to get a frenzy where the assumption is, not because somebody
:45:43. > :45:48.has been charged or arrested, partly because of the pages and pages of
:45:48. > :45:52.coverage that basically says, effectively, insinuating that
:45:52. > :45:58.somebody is guilty. We should get to a much more balanced way of these
:45:58. > :46:02.things being reported. But it is important because of the reasons of
:46:02. > :46:06.people who otherwise have committed horrendous crimes, otherwise their
:46:06. > :46:10.victims would not be coming forward. And I agree with Germaine Greer that
:46:10. > :46:14.women or men who have been raped should not feel ashamed, but
:46:14. > :46:22.nonetheless, I think if they did not have anonymity, many would be
:46:22. > :46:26.dissuaded from coming forward and that would be a great injustice.
:46:26. > :46:30.bomb in red there? Just to say to Germaine, I mean obviously, quite
:46:30. > :46:33.clearly like the victims of any crime, a victim of a rape shouldn't
:46:33. > :46:37.feel ashamed. That doesn't change the fact that obviously they do. I
:46:37. > :46:41.mean, it's the society we live in, but you would feel ashamed if that
:46:41. > :46:45.was you. I think that they shouldn't have to openly say if they are
:46:45. > :46:50.accusing someone, they should be allowed to keep that anonymous.
:46:50. > :46:54.about the position about the person accused of the rape, should they be
:46:54. > :47:02.given anonymity? Obviously if a high-profile case where other people
:47:02. > :47:08.would recognise the name, but in a lot of that kind of sexual crimes,
:47:08. > :47:11.it is someone you know so it's unlikely that if you know them,
:47:11. > :47:16.someone else who hears about the case through the media will also
:47:16. > :47:19.know them. OK. And the woman there on the
:47:19. > :47:23.gangway? Agreeing with both points really, I agree with the idea that
:47:23. > :47:28.you should be able to stand up and speak openly, but also society's a
:47:28. > :47:31.long way from people not feeling ashamed and also there's a big
:47:31. > :47:35.assumption talking today that all rape victims are female which is
:47:35. > :47:41.clearly not the case. That brings along all sorts of issues about
:47:41. > :47:46.gender identity as well. question was about people who have
:47:46. > :47:50.been arrest arrested, not the victims, but the people who 've been
:47:50. > :47:54.arrest and charged. David Davis, what is your view on that? Ierks let
:47:54. > :47:59.me start with Germaine's point and I'll move on from that. The rape
:47:59. > :48:03.victims have suffered once and when they go to trial, they suffer again.
:48:03. > :48:10.Ierks let's understand that. It's a miserable process for the victim.
:48:10. > :48:13.For that reason and because we have had low conviction rates, I think we
:48:13. > :48:22.still must pre-Conservative the confidentiality of the victim's
:48:22. > :48:25.position. I really can't see that we can reduce that at all. -- preserve.
:48:26. > :48:29.Ierks I want to see both sides having the same rules applied to
:48:29. > :48:33.them, fairness applied to both sides. My instinctive opening
:48:33. > :48:37.position should be, if you are going to give confidentiality to the
:48:37. > :48:43.accuser, you should give it to the defendant. But, you know, I hate the
:48:43. > :48:48.idea of having secret trials. Our justice system depends on being in
:48:48. > :48:52.the public domain. But there is a balance here. I am frankly disgusted
:48:52. > :48:56.by the fact that we have so many cases, particularly with celebrities
:48:56. > :49:01.where the police turn up at exactly the same time as the press
:49:01. > :49:06.photographer. APPLAUSE
:49:06. > :49:09.Now, it is a disgrace, in my view it's criminal action by the police
:49:09. > :49:18.involved, and frankly we should be very intolerant of that. Criminal
:49:18. > :49:22.action? Yes. Giving, putting people under duress who 've not been
:49:22. > :49:26.charged or convicted of anything. Now, let me come back to what we do
:49:26. > :49:33.- where is the compromise? I think it's that we should protect people's
:49:33. > :49:37.identity until they are charged. The charge point is a point of which the
:49:37. > :49:40.judicial authorities have to say there is evidence here. The Crown
:49:40. > :49:43.Prosecution Service not just the police are making the judgment. Bear
:49:43. > :49:48.in mind, all the institutions we are talking about now are under
:49:48. > :49:51.pressure. Because of the failure of the Jimmy Savile cases, because the
:49:51. > :49:55.police fell down on the job there basically, there is a pressure on
:49:56. > :50:00.them now to go the other way. I think there are a lot of people
:50:00. > :50:05.whose lives are being destroyed, I don't know whether it's right or
:50:05. > :50:13.wrong, because their names are being put in the public domain before
:50:13. > :50:17.they're even charged. That should be protected - absolutely. Yes.
:50:18. > :50:23.APPLAUSE You at the back there? Ierks I agree
:50:23. > :50:26.that it can be very damaging for celebrities to be named before
:50:26. > :50:32.they're charged, but one of the problems with the crime of rape is
:50:32. > :50:36.that it tends to be a serial offence and by naming someone, it will very
:50:36. > :50:40.often enable other people to come forward and build up more evidence
:50:40. > :50:44.against that person and without naming them, that wouldn't happen.
:50:44. > :50:49.Tristram Hunt? I think that's exactly the point. I mean, it's a
:50:49. > :50:52.very tricky balance that has to be struck in terms of innocence until
:50:52. > :50:58.proven guilty and whether you are going to be tried in the court of
:50:58. > :51:03.public opinion and everything Jerry said about what is attached to it
:51:03. > :51:08.versus the notion that people could see justice that, people who have
:51:08. > :51:13.been abused and raped and had criminal acts committed to them come
:51:13. > :51:20.forth knowing that the person who committed those crimes is now being
:51:20. > :51:24.prosecuted. As Jo said in terms of the Stuart Hall case, I mean, this
:51:24. > :51:29.is a tricky area, but surely the balance in terms of public policy
:51:29. > :51:34.has to be on the side of the victims. I think David's idea of the
:51:34. > :51:39.name going public at charging is a good one because it provides enough
:51:39. > :51:49.space before trial, it provides enough capacity for others to come
:51:49. > :51:53.forward. Would you try - do you think police should not make arrests
:51:53. > :51:56.with the police there? I think post-Leveson and post-some of the
:51:56. > :51:59.prosecutions we have seen, that the culture within the police is
:51:59. > :52:03.beginning to change in terms of what's happened. I would also say
:52:03. > :52:07.the most worrying thing we have seen in terms of police culture is the
:52:08. > :52:12.reactions of police in South London who simply did not prosecute sexual
:52:12. > :52:18.crimes and shoved them to the side. The fact that that culture is still
:52:18. > :52:24.going on in a major city in the 21st century is terrifying.
:52:24. > :52:29.Last word? A very quick word. David Davis was talk talking about justice
:52:29. > :52:32.and fairness. If the Lord Chancellor gets his way in two years' time and
:52:32. > :52:35.this will never be debated in Parliament because it doesn't
:52:35. > :52:39.involve premare legislation, the independent criminal bar will be
:52:39. > :52:43.dead. Solicitors in the high street will be gone, G 4 S, people like
:52:43. > :52:49.that will be running the criminal justice system. There will be a
:52:49. > :52:52.layer of bureaucracy where you don't get a choice at all who your
:52:52. > :52:56.solicitor is going to be, it's appalling and it won't even be
:52:56. > :53:02.debated in Parliament. The right to a fair friel will disappear and the
:53:02. > :53:06.last and most insidious thing of all, the legal conglomerations who
:53:06. > :53:10.'ll be controlling your lives will be given financial incentives for
:53:10. > :53:14.the person to plead guilty. No, no, it's the criminal justice
:53:14. > :53:20.system which is at risk. APPLAUSE
:53:20. > :53:25.I would like to make a basic point about rape as a crime in law.
:53:25. > :53:30.Most rapes are not reported at all. Very few rapes that are reported
:53:30. > :53:36.result in a prosecution. Very few prosecutions result in a conviction.
:53:36. > :53:40.Now, why? Because the burden of proof is too heavy. You cannot
:53:40. > :53:45.provide the proof that is necessary because most rapes don't happen in
:53:45. > :53:50.front of witnesses and this is one reason why you have to rethink the
:53:50. > :53:56.whole thing. Police work very hard on rape cases, spending hours and
:53:56. > :54:00.hours and hours working up the case. When they discover that all that
:54:00. > :54:04.effort, it's extremely expensive, has produced nothing, they haven't
:54:04. > :54:09.had enough to go to court with, and they've gone to court and haven't
:54:09. > :54:12.got their prosecution, when they're making their own costs basis
:54:12. > :54:18.analysis, they decide not to work the cases up. This is a consequence
:54:18. > :54:23.of the med eel hangover from this ridiculous body of law which makes
:54:23. > :54:26.rape very common, happens every day, in every street, by turning it into
:54:27. > :54:31.something extravagant and the fact that celebrities are now involved
:54:31. > :54:36.has made it even more extravagant. It distorts the perception of what
:54:36. > :54:43.it is. Women can't get redress for sexual outrage at the momentment.
:54:43. > :54:48.It's just too hard. APPLAUSE
:54:48. > :54:53.A couple of minutes left. A question from Tom Myers, please? Does David
:54:53. > :55:03.Cameron need to jettison his old Etonian advisers to have any chance
:55:03. > :55:09.
:55:09. > :55:13.of winning the next general election? David Davis? I'm not an
:55:13. > :55:19.old Etonian, I should say, for the absence of doubt. You are not one of
:55:19. > :55:22.his advisers? That's also true.On both grounds then. The point I was
:55:22. > :55:26.making here, it goes back to the UKIP argument we had at the
:55:26. > :55:29.beginning. One thing that's happening is, people feel that
:55:29. > :55:33.Government and opposition, or the whole political class are out of
:55:33. > :55:37.touch with them. There are two aspects to this. One is a political
:55:37. > :55:42.one. If we allow that to go on, we as Conservatives won't win next time
:55:42. > :55:47.because people won't think we represent them. The other one is an
:55:47. > :55:50.effective Government one. It wouldn't matter if you had Ten
:55:50. > :55:54.Downing Street populated entirely by Nobel Prize winning nuclear
:55:54. > :55:59.physicists or by the farmers or whatever, if you've got a single
:55:59. > :56:02.narrow group, you render yourself less able to understand the
:56:02. > :56:08.operation of the whole of society. That's my point. You shouldn't do
:56:08. > :56:11.that. Better off if we had a wider remit. We must be brief on this,
:56:11. > :56:15.though it's a serious point. Tristram Hunt? It's absolutely
:56:16. > :56:20.clear, the Prime Minister's limiting the intellectual gene pool that's
:56:20. > :56:25.available to him and, as David says, that produces group think. Everyone
:56:25. > :56:29.thinks the same about the same policies and you end up with a kind
:56:29. > :56:35.of chaotic useless Government we've got. My suggestion is that what the
:56:35. > :56:40.Prime Minister should do is read the great book Team of Rivals about what
:56:40. > :56:44.President Lincoln did when he came into pow, to bring in opponents into
:56:44. > :56:51.power with him. I think they should bring David back, rather than being
:56:51. > :56:56.the mange mangy... No, no, no. Swinson? You recognise this at the
:56:56. > :57:01.heart of this coalition, there are too many Etonians? It's up to the
:57:01. > :57:03.politician to choose his own advisers, but this is a wider issue
:57:03. > :57:09.in politics more generally and in other second #14u7bs of society
:57:09. > :57:13.where there's far too little diversity, not just of gender but of
:57:13. > :57:16.background, ethnicity and we end up with this group think. Politics in
:57:16. > :57:20.particular suffers from this and so, the only thing I would say to the
:57:20. > :57:24.audience here and at home, if you watch Question Time regularly and
:57:24. > :57:27.enjoy it, chances are you are interested in politics and political
:57:27. > :57:31.debate, have you ever thought about getting more involved yourselves
:57:31. > :57:35.because politics needs people like you, democracy relies on people
:57:35. > :57:44.getting involved - please do. APPLAUSE
:57:44. > :57:47.Very, very quickly? I think David Davis is being a bit McCarthy-like.
:57:48. > :57:51.I don't care where people have come from, what gender, colour, school,
:57:51. > :57:56.as long as they are good at their job. But they are not, that's the
:57:56. > :58:01.point! That's what we are saying!
:58:01. > :58:06.Below the belt! You are being unfawr to Eton. It doesn't look the way it
:58:06. > :58:09.used to look. Go and have a look. Eton itself is multiculture these
:58:09. > :58:14.days and happens to be a very good school. What I would like is for
:58:14. > :58:18.every school in the country to be as good as Eton and then there would be
:58:18. > :58:22.no problem. Sorry, we have to stop. Our hour is
:58:22. > :58:24.up. Sorry. Now, what about next week? We are going to be in Ipswich
:58:24. > :58:27.week? We are going to be in Ipswich next week. We have Charles Kennedy
:58:27. > :58:31.on the panel for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Bryant for Labour
:58:31. > :58:35.and Philip Hammond for the Tories. Gillian Tett of the Financial Times
:58:35. > :58:38.and the chairman of the Arts Council. The week after that, we'll
:58:38. > :58:46.be in Belfast, so if you want to come either to the programme in