09/05/2013 Question Time


09/05/2013

David Dimbleby presents from Coventry. With Business minister, Jo Swinson MP and former Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis MP. Also Tristram Hunt, Germaine Greer and Jerry Hayes.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/05/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

get their chance to quiz our panel, and welcome to Question Time.

:00:17.:00:21.

And good evening to you at home, good evening to our audience here

:00:21.:00:27.

and our panel, Conservative former shadow home secretary, David Davis,

:00:27.:00:31.

historian and Labour shadow education Minister, Tristram Hunt,

:00:31.:00:34.

Liberal Democrat equality and employment Minister, Jo Swinson,

:00:34.:00:41.

critic and feminist fire near Germaine Greer, and the barrister

:00:41.:00:51.
:00:51.:00:53.

and former Conservative MP, Jerry Hayes. -- feminist pioneer.

:00:53.:00:57.

Thank you very much. We have a lot to get through. Let's start with

:00:57.:01:04.

Sanjit Johal's question. With the recent success of UKIP, has British

:01:04.:01:12.

politics moved permanently to the right? Newline David Davis? Know.

:01:12.:01:16.

But what they have done, and we had to recognise this, is they have

:01:16.:01:19.

highlighted parts of the public debate we have not paid enough

:01:19.:01:23.

attention to - immigration, Europe, a whole series of issues which the

:01:23.:01:27.

main parties have tended to shy away from, they have highlighted. And

:01:27.:01:32.

they have a huge, one has to recognise it, a huge uptake in

:01:32.:01:36.

public support. I had a by-election in my part of the world during the

:01:36.:01:40.

course of this election, and with pretty much no campaigning on the

:01:40.:01:44.

ground, no organisation -- no organisation, against my

:01:45.:01:47.

organisation, which is quite effective, they got 30% from

:01:47.:01:54.

scratch. You got what?We won, but we lost about 15 points against

:01:54.:01:59.

them. We have to recognise this, and it is not good enough for the major

:01:59.:02:03.

parties to sneer at them and people who vote for them. We have to take

:02:03.:02:07.

them seriously. It does not mean we have to adopt their policies. I

:02:07.:02:10.

think a lot of the reason they did well was because of the feeling that

:02:10.:02:14.

the main parties are out of touch, a bit distant, not one of them. We had

:02:14.:02:21.

to deal with that, too. Can we tease this out further? UKIP are generally

:02:21.:02:25.

seen as to the right of the Conservative party. Our Usain you

:02:25.:02:27.

can acknowledge their success without the Tory party moving in

:02:27.:02:34.

that direction? -- are you saying? They also took Labour votes as well.

:02:34.:02:39.

They took votes on council estates. In my part of the world - it is

:02:39.:02:44.

unfair to aggregate them as one group - but the mid--- the biggest

:02:44.:02:47.

number were Asper lower-middle-class people in my part of the world. I

:02:47.:02:51.

think that is normal. People who want to get on, to see their country

:02:51.:02:55.

do well. We do not have to mimic UKIP Wallasey to do that, although I

:02:55.:03:00.

have to say that what UKIP is almost attempting to be these days is a

:03:00.:03:04.

primary colours caricature of the 1980s Conservative party. That is

:03:04.:03:09.

what they are looking like. I am not saying we should do that. I am

:03:09.:03:12.

saying we should make sure we have the public convinced that we know

:03:12.:03:16.

their problems and we are willing to address their problems. That is not

:03:16.:03:22.

necessarily a right wing thing. It could be right or left. I agree with

:03:22.:03:28.

David on that. But that is probably the last time. The fact of the

:03:28.:03:32.

matter is that a lot of people say that UKIP is the right wing of the

:03:32.:03:38.

Tory party but it is not. It is the Rampton wing of the Tory party. The

:03:38.:03:42.

policies do not add up. David said the other day on this programme that

:03:42.:03:46.

they are not a manifesto but a state of mind. The trouble with Tory

:03:46.:03:51.

backbenchers is that they have three gears - complacency, panic and self

:03:51.:03:54.

destruct. They pressed the panic button at the moment. Lots of them

:03:54.:04:00.

want to do deals with these people, which is absolutely insane. It is

:04:00.:04:04.

not high political principle but the politics of funk. We should take on

:04:04.:04:08.

UKIP, expose them for what they are. We should have proper debates

:04:08.:04:14.

with these people. Of course, some people say a vote for UKIP is a

:04:14.:04:19.

wasted vote. It is not a wasted vote, it is a dangerous vote,

:04:19.:04:25.

because if you want to get Ed Miliband in, and I don't, UKIP are

:04:25.:04:28.

Ed Miliband Cosmo for helpers. It is a stealth debt of socialism. They

:04:28.:04:38.
:04:38.:04:46.

are very dangerous. However, the last bit... Actually, you are doing

:04:46.:04:51.

exactly what the Tories did. You are insulting the voters who voted for

:04:51.:04:59.

UKIP. No, I am not. I am not insulting the voters. You are now.

:04:59.:05:03.

Let him speak. You have to appreciate, people have gone out and

:05:03.:05:11.

voted for UKIP, so you can't, this blanket, you know, that you are all

:05:11.:05:16.

nutters, the natty part, you are off again to the races. Were you one of

:05:16.:05:22.

the ones who did this? I would vote against UKIP. I feel they are saying

:05:22.:05:28.

what a lot of the British public are feeling. Like what?About

:05:28.:05:35.

immigration and things like that. Can I endorse that? You cannot

:05:35.:05:39.

dismiss these people as a group who are creating a number of soundbites

:05:39.:05:44.

for the convenience of trying to get people to vote for them. What they

:05:44.:05:46.

are saying and proposing to introduce the sort of things which

:05:46.:05:53.

the voting public believe are the right things to do. You guys that

:05:53.:05:55.

work in government are elected by the public, and if you do not

:05:55.:05:59.

recognise that, you will not be in power for very long and certainly

:05:59.:06:08.

not the next time you get votes. Labour was hit as well by the surge

:06:08.:06:14.

in UKIP. What do you make of this? In Staffordshire, where I

:06:14.:06:18.

represent, 25% of votes went to UKIP in the last county elections. That

:06:18.:06:25.

is a significant voice, and we have to take those concerns seriously.

:06:25.:06:30.

How? We address the issues. Questions about Europe, making an

:06:30.:06:34.

argument in favour of Europe, the jobs that come from Europe, the

:06:34.:06:38.

single market. I represent Stoke-on-Trent. We have the Michelin

:06:38.:06:42.

tyre plant there, a European multinational company. If we go out

:06:42.:06:47.

of the single market, will we lose those jobs? We take them on one case

:06:47.:06:52.

is about being progressive and pro-yelled -- pro-European. We talk

:06:52.:06:59.

about immigration. What do you say? We believe immigration was too

:06:59.:07:02.

quick, too sudden in many communities when we were in power

:07:02.:07:05.

and we did not listen closely enough to the effects it was happening --

:07:05.:07:10.

having. What do we do? We attacked the culture of low wages, make sure

:07:10.:07:15.

people are paid the national wage, to prosecute gang masters doing the

:07:15.:07:19.

wrong thing, taking on agency workers. You look at the policies

:07:19.:07:23.

but come back with a progressive Labour response. You take the issues

:07:23.:07:28.

very seriously and you have a policy response. You do not do exactly what

:07:28.:07:33.

the gentleman says there, dismiss them as somehow misguided. I think

:07:33.:07:39.

their answers are misguided, but we have two take them on on a policy

:07:39.:07:47.

level and have the argument. And I am quite up for the argument.

:07:47.:07:51.

it be you are putting too much emphasis on policy, and a lot of

:07:51.:07:54.

people who have switched from Labour to UKIP it is simply an anti-Tory

:07:54.:08:01.

vote? I think it is an anti-politics vote. Nigel Farage is saying

:08:01.:08:05.

everything is wrong, we want the world to stop, we want to get off,

:08:05.:08:09.

we do not like what is going on. Nigel Farage is an attractive,

:08:10.:08:19.

interesting, visually compelling character. And he does not talk...

:08:19.:08:26.

He talks in an interesting manner. I am not up for a labour- UKIP

:08:26.:08:30.

alliance, but we have two be serious that he speaks a language and speaks

:08:30.:08:36.

in a manner that people who are not often attracted five politics are

:08:36.:08:39.

interested in. You go for a man of his policies but you think he

:08:39.:08:44.

touches on policies you got wrong? He touches on policies people think

:08:44.:08:47.

are not being discussed properly and we need to be on that territory

:08:47.:08:49.

discussing them, but he is interested in the past, not the

:08:49.:08:55.

future. The question was about whether British politics has moved

:08:55.:08:59.

to the right. British politics has been moving to the right steadily

:08:59.:09:03.

for quite a long time. Margaret Thatcher understood something about

:09:03.:09:08.

the working class, that it was not socialist that was actually Tory. So

:09:08.:09:14.

she created the new idea of the working-class Tory that was her

:09:14.:09:19.

backbone as she developed her policies, which had the virtue of

:09:19.:09:23.

being very simple. At the same time, they broke the back of the labour

:09:23.:09:27.

movement. The craft unions have gone, the elite unions have gone,

:09:27.:09:32.

manufacturing is in crisis. We always had this enormous pool of

:09:32.:09:37.

non-organised labour, much of which was female. We are now visibly

:09:37.:09:41.

involved in service industry, rather than manufacturing. It has been very

:09:41.:09:45.

easy to keep moving to the right. And it is very easy in those

:09:45.:09:51.

circumstances to stir up paranoia and fear, because people are

:09:51.:09:55.

insecure. They do not have agreed contracts any more, they have

:09:55.:09:59.

short-term contracts, minimum hours contracts. Everybody is scared. And

:09:59.:10:03.

in that situation, you play to their fear and their loathing and you tell

:10:03.:10:07.

them that it is somebody's fault and that that somebody has got to be got

:10:07.:10:13.

rid of. Nigel Farage's whole argument is, let's get rid of this,

:10:13.:10:15.

get rid of that. There is no suggestion as to what might take

:10:15.:10:21.

their place. I have every respect for that. I know how people are

:10:21.:10:31.
:10:31.:10:35.

afraid, but I also know they are afraid of the wrong thing. One thing

:10:35.:10:39.

I am seeing is a lot of people really passionate about their vote

:10:39.:10:43.

-- policies. I found as a voter, one of the key things that happened in

:10:43.:10:47.

local elections was I did not see any Labour canvassing, no

:10:47.:10:52.

Conservative canvassing. I did see UKIP and the Green party but it

:10:52.:10:55.

appears some parties were hasty in thinking they were going to get the

:10:55.:10:59.

vote, but UKIP got out with the public, argue their point and that

:10:59.:11:04.

is why people turned out to vote for them. Let's go back to the issue

:11:04.:11:08.

about the effect of the UKIP victory. I was just thinking it is

:11:08.:11:15.

not only in the UK that they are facing the rise of the right. In

:11:15.:11:23.

Greece and France they are, too. think we do not have a permanent

:11:23.:11:27.

shift to the right, in answer to the question, but I think what we do

:11:27.:11:30.

have is a real need for pause for thought from all of the main parties

:11:30.:11:34.

after last week's election results, because it was not good for any of

:11:34.:11:41.

us. It was a disaster for you.We lost lots of councils. It was worse

:11:41.:11:46.

for you than anybody else. It has been a real challenge for us. That

:11:46.:11:51.

is why we have to listen to what people have said. One of the

:11:51.:11:53.

interesting elements is that where you have a coalition government when

:11:53.:11:58.

you have two parties in government and then you have an opposition,

:11:58.:12:01.

some people will support the Labour Party but if others are not

:12:01.:12:04.

convinced, and I think there are signs, last week that key parts of

:12:04.:12:08.

the country are not convinced by what Labour is offering, then they

:12:08.:12:12.

are looking for something else. I do not think it is as simple stick is

:12:12.:12:15.

to say it was all about Europe, all about immigration, being right wing.

:12:15.:12:19.

It is about people looking for something different that they are

:12:19.:12:22.

not getting from the rest of politics, and we have to look at

:12:22.:12:27.

ourselves. There is something about Nigel Farage. He is a decent kind of

:12:27.:12:30.

bloke, very direct and has clearly struck a chord with people and

:12:30.:12:35.

connected with people. Far too often politics can seem to be in a

:12:35.:12:39.

Westminster bubble far removed from everyday people's lives. We need to

:12:39.:12:44.

get better at reaching out and connecting. That point about the

:12:44.:12:48.

reaction in other countries, it is a reaction against metropolitan

:12:48.:12:52.

elites, to a large extent, a feeling that the people running the country,

:12:52.:12:56.

in some cases running the continent, just do not have the interests of

:12:56.:13:00.

ordinary people at the front of their mind. It is a rejection of

:13:00.:13:09.

that. A couple of points made about us not taking them seriously enough.

:13:09.:13:14.

There is a fair point. I read in the papers in the last week, mostly

:13:14.:13:17.

written in London, the Metropolitan commentators are sneering and

:13:17.:13:21.

dismissive of it, and they should not be, because they reflect real

:13:21.:13:24.

fears and concerns. Whether the analysis is right, the fears are

:13:24.:13:30.

there. The interesting thing is that you could not get a more

:13:30.:13:32.

metropolitan figure than Nigel Farage, city broker, Dulwich

:13:33.:13:37.

schoolboy, who is coming up with these things. To go back to the

:13:37.:13:42.

European context, what happens when they get in? You see what happens if

:13:42.:13:46.

and when they get in in Italy, with the 5-star movement, and it is total

:13:46.:13:50.

chaos, an inability to govern, because half of it is about vanity

:13:50.:13:55.

and protest and just being anti the political protests -- process. When

:13:55.:13:59.

they have to make decisions, it crumbles and the country is the

:13:59.:14:05.

loser. What they have done is to replace the Liberal Democrats as the

:14:06.:14:15.

spittoon Frankston. -- for banks to. As David says, people do not like

:14:16.:14:19.

the political classes. As you said, they do not include our listening to

:14:19.:14:24.

you. Not that I am a politician any more. I think we are but we are not

:14:24.:14:31.

getting the message across. Erin Burrows Has A Question. Should The

:14:31.:14:38.

Queen's Speech Have Mentioned The Topic Of An Eu Referendum? That Of

:14:38.:14:42.

Course Is What Niger Farage Was Going On About A Great Deal And

:14:42.:14:47.

There's A Motion Saying, Should The Queen's Speech Have Mentioned A

:14:47.:14:50.

Referendum So People Feel This Government Or The Tory Part Of It,

:14:51.:14:56.

If It Came Back, Would Offer One? Tristram Hunt, Where Do You Stand On

:14:56.:15:02.

The Eu Referendum? We Are In Favour Of A Referendum On A Transfer Of Pow

:15:02.:15:07.

Powers. Under The Sovereignty Act If There's A Major Transfer Of Pow,

:15:07.:15:11.

That Would Trigger A Referendum And The Labour Party Are Happy To Have

:15:11.:15:16.

That. That's The Law?That's The Law, But We Wouldn't Reverse That.

:15:16.:15:21.

Would We Have An In-out Referendum Now, No, I Don't Think We Would. The

:15:21.:15:25.

Big Challenge We Have In Stoke-on-trent And Coventry Is Jobs

:15:25.:15:30.

And Growth. How Would It Help People Get Into Work? How Would It Help

:15:30.:15:35.

Businesses To Grow And Help People To Invest In The Country If We Begin

:15:35.:15:39.

A Five-year Conversation About Our Place In Europe? The Single Market

:15:39.:15:44.

Takes 50% Of Our Trade And Investment. We Export More To

:15:44.:15:49.

Belgium Than To Russia, Than To China, Than To Indonesia, Than To

:15:49.:15:52.

All These Places Which We Have Been Told Are The Wonderful Future And

:15:52.:15:56.

They Are And They Are Growth Markets And That's Great. But Our Economy's

:15:56.:16:00.

Embedded In Europe. So If You Care About Your Jobs And Pensions, If You

:16:00.:16:04.

Care About Apprenticeships, You Have To Be A Believer In A Reform, Yes,

:16:04.:16:11.

But Also In A Single European Market Which Is Vital To Our Prosperity.

:16:11.:16:15.

Let Me Just Say This One Thing. Wait. We Are On The Verge Of A

:16:15.:16:18.

Really Exciting Trade Pact Between Europe And America, A Free Trade

:16:18.:16:24.

Pact Between Europe And America And This Is The Moment David And His

:16:24.:16:26.

Friends On The Conservative Backbenches Want To Think About

:16:26.:16:30.

Taking Us Out Of Europe. It's Crazy. You Have Got No Experience Of

:16:30.:16:34.

Running A Government Department, You Have Not Been At The Treasury Or

:16:34.:16:38.

Chancellor Of The Exchequer, What Do You Make Of The Chances -- What Do

:16:38.:16:43.

You Make Of The Chancellor Of The Exchequer, Including Denis Healey,

:16:43.:16:53.
:16:53.:16:57.

He's Now Saying We Should Pull Out. Said. He Said It Today? You Read The

:16:57.:17:01.

Newspapers. There Is An Interesting...

:17:01.:17:04.

Applause I'll Take It All! There Is An

:17:04.:17:07.

Interesting Cultural Point I Think About Nigel Lawson, Norman Lament.

:17:07.:17:13.

You Know, Interesting Chancellors In Their Own Unique Way. But They Are

:17:13.:17:18.

Figures Of Finance, They Are Figures Of The City Of London, They Are

:17:18.:17:22.

Concerned About The Investment Houses And Finance Houses And We

:17:22.:17:25.

Have A Brilliant Financial Services Industry In This Country And That's

:17:26.:17:30.

Great But The Rest Of The Economy Should Have A Say, The Manufacturing

:17:30.:17:34.

Base, Everything Germaine Spoke To. Those Are The Export Markets, That's

:17:34.:17:41.

The Investment Market We Want To See. Mess Messers Lamont And Others

:17:41.:17:45.

Have Their View, But There Should Be A Broader Economic Conversation.

:17:45.:17:50.

David, What Is Your Position On This, Because You Signed This?

:17:50.:17:58.

What Do You Want To Happen? Three Major Parties Have Broken

:17:58.:18:02.

Promises On Referenda On Europe, Every Single One. Therefore, It's

:18:02.:18:06.

Not Unreasonable For The Public To Have A Little Loss Of Trust In Each

:18:06.:18:10.

Party Leader, No Matter Who It Is, When They Say I'm Going To Give You

:18:10.:18:16.

A Referendum. You Could Say, I Told You That Last Time And It Didn't

:18:16.:18:22.

Happen. It's Said That We Should Have A Law Put In Thousand So It

:18:22.:18:26.

Would Be Guaranteed Beyond The Next Election When It Takes Place. It's

:18:26.:18:36.
:18:36.:18:36.

An Issue Of Public Trust. SO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WOULD VOTE? THAT'S

:18:36.:18:45.

ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENT. my step sfaert worked for michelin, i think

:18:45.:18:52.

he was a shop steward there actually and the reason michelin is here is

:18:52.:19:01.

because they sell tyres, just as audi sell cars and the various

:19:01.:19:05.

French vineyards sell wine. They are not going to cut off their nose to

:19:05.:19:08.

spite their face if we come to an arrangement with them. Her not going

:19:08.:19:13.

to do that. Let's not scare people, as happened in 1975, with panicked

:19:13.:19:18.

stories about what might happen if we are in or out. You are saying in

:19:18.:19:21.

or out, it's an equal, you are not saying out would be a disaster?

:19:22.:19:28.

depends what the negotiated outcome is. What Lawson said... Nobody knows

:19:28.:19:32.

what the negotiation would be? Exactly. Lawson said the negotiation

:19:32.:19:39.

would lead to an inconsequential outcome. That was the word he used,

:19:39.:19:42.

inconsequential. I don't think that's true, some do, some don't. We

:19:42.:19:46.

should give the British people a choice between a seriously

:19:46.:19:52.

renegotiated arrangement and being out. Can I clarify your position. If

:19:52.:19:56.

there were no substantial renegotiations, you would vote for

:19:56.:20:01.

out? If it was today's situation. Let me finish on the point that both

:20:01.:20:03.

parties said we have this circumstance where if there's more

:20:03.:20:09.

power going to Europe, we'll vote. Every single day of the year, more

:20:09.:20:13.

power goes to Europe. Michael Portillo writing this week said we

:20:13.:20:17.

haven't joined a club, we have joined a process which continues to

:20:17.:20:23.

transfer power over our judicial system, over our trade, over our

:20:23.:20:29.

industrial policy, over our safety policy. Some of it is very good for

:20:29.:20:35.

British jobs and competitiveness. But what I'm saying is, don't kid

:20:35.:20:39.

yourself that power transfers will have a remp dumb. Explain that. I

:20:39.:20:41.

don't understand it. The Prime Minister's give an clear can

:20:41.:20:47.

commitment that in 2017, if he bin wins an outright majority to make

:20:47.:20:51.

Europe more transparent, and it's for everybody in Europe, no t just

:20:51.:20:55.

for us, transparent and democratic, he'll put to it the people in or

:20:55.:21:00.

out. But what are you guys doing? Every single party leader, Nick

:21:00.:21:03.

Clegg, David Cameron and not Miliband, but his predecessor said,

:21:03.:21:08.

we are going to have a referendum on in-out. The Liberals even said it

:21:08.:21:18.
:21:18.:21:21.

and none of them did it. No You can have this little vote, the Amish

:21:21.:21:26.

wing can sit round and sign this little thing. But it's going to be

:21:26.:21:30.

meaningless because Jo Swinson and her party won't have it, the

:21:30.:21:34.

coalition won't, so you can join hands and see it tried out and have

:21:34.:21:41.

contact with the living but it will mean nothing!

:21:41.:21:46.

APPLAUSE Jo Swinson? Well, I don't think that

:21:46.:21:48.

that is what we should have had in the Queen's speech because we

:21:48.:21:52.

already have a very, very clear position in the Government. It's, as

:21:52.:21:56.

has been said, actually written into law now that if there is any further

:21:56.:21:59.

transfer of power to the European Union, then there has to be a

:21:59.:22:02.

referendum. That is the sensible time at which to have it. Because

:22:02.:22:06.

that's the point at which to make the decision. What about

:22:06.:22:10.

renegotiations leading up to 2017 if Cameron is Prime Minister and if

:22:10.:22:13.

those are done, would you support a referendum then? You were the party

:22:13.:22:18.

that wanted a referendum at the last election? And we have Leggetted to

:22:18.:22:21.

make sure that that will happen if there's any further transfer of

:22:21.:22:27.

power. What I'm worried about and what I think it was right to happen

:22:27.:22:30.

in the Queen's speech was that on a day-to-day basis, my constituents

:22:30.:22:34.

and everybody else is worried about whether or not their children can

:22:34.:22:38.

get jobs, wlorpt we can make sure that people who're in their old age

:22:38.:22:41.

will be properly protected with pensions with the new Pensions Bill

:22:41.:22:44.

that's coming forward. You are dodging the question. I'm talking

:22:44.:22:47.

about the Queen's speech. Yes, but in other words you are not in

:22:47.:22:55.

favour? You are not in favour of an EU referendum in 2017 come what may

:22:55.:22:59.

and you are frightened that Mr Davis's thing would happen? This

:22:59.:23:04.

would be a daft time for us to be spending all of our energy and focus

:23:04.:23:07.

on creating uncertainty with our biggest trading partner when we need

:23:07.:23:10.

to focus on getting the economy moving and getting jobs and

:23:10.:23:15.

investment. If you have got European companies making decisions about

:23:15.:23:19.

where to invest and put that factory and create jobs, I don't want them

:23:19.:23:23.

to have a question mark in their mind about whether Britain will be

:23:23.:23:26.

part of the European Union in a few years' time. So I think it's

:23:26.:23:30.

actually dangerous to be having that discussion. That's why I think the

:23:30.:23:33.

Queen's speech was right to focus on measures that will help people's

:23:33.:23:36.

every day lives, rather than the naval gazing that the Conservative

:23:36.:23:37.

Party likes to have sometimes on Europe.

:23:37.:23:43.

OK. The man here in the centre? Somebody up there wanted to speak so

:23:43.:23:47.

his hand's gone down now. This man here? A referendum can only be

:23:47.:23:50.

meaningful if people have a chance to dispassionately consider the pros

:23:50.:23:54.

and cons of both sides of the argument. We don't have that. If we

:23:54.:24:04.

were to rush into that, we'd be selling it to a press.

:24:04.:24:10.

Ierks I think it's dangerous if we leave the E U, we'll have no trade

:24:10.:24:13.

deal with countries like America because we'll be seen as having no

:24:13.:24:17.

influence. There is a good point on this at the moment. The Prime

:24:17.:24:20.

Minister currently can't get a meeting with either the Prime

:24:20.:24:23.

Minister or President of China. So all this stuff we are going to

:24:23.:24:26.

export to China, all these great links around the world, actually,

:24:26.:24:30.

the reason why China and India are interested in us is because we are

:24:30.:24:37.

in Europe. We can have both of those advantages. He can get a meeting

:24:37.:24:42.

with the Dalai Lama. The reason we are interested in us is because we

:24:42.:24:47.

are a market within Europe. Germaine? It's probably equally true

:24:47.:24:52.

to say that many people feel that we really can't two having a referendum

:24:52.:24:55.

now that we have put our hand to the plough and what we've got to do if

:24:55.:25:00.

we don't like what is going on in Europe is we have to change it. We

:25:00.:25:03.

are only going to change it if we are there. I have to remind you that

:25:03.:25:08.

I'm Australian and the break-up of the British Commonwealth for us was

:25:08.:25:14.

extremely painful and costly. We got dumped on our faces and understood

:25:14.:25:19.

it because we could see that after World War II, Britain and Europe

:25:20.:25:23.

needed to integrate. They needed to get to understand each other.

:25:23.:25:29.

That whole power block had to come together in a more rational way. The

:25:29.:25:32.

British Commonwealth is now non-existent. The world Commonwealth

:25:32.:25:36.

actually means the old Russian Soviets these days, if you look it

:25:36.:25:41.

up, and it was a painful thing. It's a curious thing too because

:25:41.:25:46.

Australia is still a source of huge wealth to Britain and gets no

:25:46.:25:50.

consideration. But I'm surprised that David didn't point out that one

:25:50.:25:57.

of the things we rely on as libertarians in this country is the

:25:57.:26:02.

European Court of Human Rights which has corrected us on a number of

:26:02.:26:05.

absolutely ah cake and cruel legislations.

:26:05.:26:08.

APPLAUSE OK. I'm going to take a brief point

:26:08.:26:14.

from you, Sir -- archaic. If you at home want to join in the

:26:14.:26:22.

debate, you can do it on text, Twitter. You can follow us and can

:26:22.:26:27.

text comments and push red to see what others are saying. A brief

:26:27.:26:30.

point because we have a lot of questions.

:26:30.:26:35.

I may be missing a very fundamental point here - why are we talking

:26:36.:26:40.

about a referendum in this utterly and critical way? Isn't the

:26:40.:26:45.

Government aboutry gating its responsibility by giving the people

:26:45.:26:49.

of this country the right to vote on an issue which not only affects our

:26:49.:26:55.

economy and our security for that matter? Why a referendum?

:26:55.:27:01.

Government shouldn't be giving the people... No, it's an abrigation.A

:27:01.:27:04.

jeingts should decide these things? Indeed.

:27:04.:27:09.

I'll move on. Jasminder Dhaliwal, please? Is it right for the

:27:09.:27:14.

Government to ask NHS staff to act as border agents to prevent health

:27:14.:27:18.

tourism? This was a proposal which again a came out of the Queen's

:27:18.:27:24.

Speech in the middle of this week, that NHS staff, among others,

:27:24.:27:27.

landlords was another one, should have the obligation of checking

:27:27.:27:32.

whether people were legitimately in this country. Germaine Greer, is it

:27:32.:27:37.

right to ask NHS staff to act as border agents? Well, obviously not,

:27:37.:27:40.

I would have thought. I find the whole thing extraordinary. Look, I

:27:40.:27:45.

live in mid Anglia. I'm surrounded by people who come from central

:27:45.:27:49.

Europe to pull up onions and carrots, who get very poorly paid,

:27:49.:27:53.

they are poorly housed, they are overworked, out in all weathers and

:27:53.:27:58.

now we want to say they can't have access to health care. This is

:27:58.:28:03.

outrageous! That's not what's being said. This is not who we are. That's

:28:03.:28:08.

not what the question was about, but it's been said that even though

:28:08.:28:11.

these people have come to take jobs that nobody else wants to do, that

:28:11.:28:14.

we are going to treat them as if they are ripping us off. This is

:28:14.:28:21.

nonsense. It's purely to stop health tourism. For goodness sake.If

:28:22.:28:26.

somebody is in trouble, has a heart attack, they'll be looked after free

:28:26.:28:32.

and rightly so. People need to be reassured that those who come into

:28:32.:28:35.

this country whom we welcome from abroad, don't get a free ride for

:28:35.:28:38.

nothing. They don't want to see them getting to the front of the housing

:28:38.:28:42.

queue and they don't want to see them getting free transplants, they

:28:42.:28:45.

don't want to see them getting hip replacements done when they can do

:28:45.:28:49.

it in their own country. No-one's going to be asked, no doctor is

:28:49.:28:52.

going to say, I am going to refuse you treatment, if they are ill,

:28:52.:28:56.

they'll be sorted out, but if it's for elective surgery and things like

:28:56.:29:01.

that, I'm afraid the answer must be no, go back to your own country and

:29:01.:29:06.

get it. That's what people want. It's only right and frair. Germaine

:29:06.:29:09.

talks about people in East Anglia, who're working, who're immigrants?

:29:09.:29:12.

They won't have a problem. Ierks it's different. This isn't about

:29:13.:29:17.

people who're here in a law-abiding way, here on a visa working,

:29:17.:29:22.

contributing to the country, who understandably and rightly have

:29:22.:29:26.

access. This is about illegal immigration. If you are going to

:29:26.:29:30.

have a system that people can have trust and faith in, you need to be

:29:30.:29:33.

tolerant and welcoming and recognise the benefits that we have of

:29:33.:29:36.

migration and you also have to be intolerant of abuse of the system

:29:36.:29:41.

because it's not fair if people can come here illegally and stay and get

:29:41.:29:51.
:29:51.:29:53.

access to things they haven't with a difficult pregnancy, send

:29:53.:30:00.

them off? This is about looking at the range of ways in which we

:30:00.:30:04.

currently have a problem with illegal immigration. Much of this is

:30:04.:30:08.

common sense. If you go abroad on holiday and you fall ill, you will

:30:08.:30:12.

often be asked, if it is not within the EU, to provide travel

:30:12.:30:16.

insurance, health insurance, to be able to be treated. We are used to

:30:16.:30:19.

that in other countries, and the thought that we could have something

:30:19.:30:23.

that works the same way should not be shocking. It is also about

:30:23.:30:28.

stopping illegal immigrant from having UK driving licences. I was

:30:28.:30:32.

surprised they could currently get UK driving licences. These things

:30:32.:30:35.

are important, to make sure we have a system that welcomes and

:30:35.:30:39.

recognises the benefits of immigration but does not tolerate

:30:39.:30:49.
:30:49.:30:57.

Should we not have border agency is deciding who can get in or out?

:30:57.:31:07.
:31:07.:31:11.

BA ARA basket case, hopeless. -- UK BA. Let's come back to the origins

:31:11.:31:16.

of this, because I do not think we are getting the accurate story about

:31:16.:31:21.

a government policy. Remember where we started. We started with fears of

:31:21.:31:26.

a Bulgarian and Rumanian immigrants coming to the UK after January of

:31:26.:31:34.

next year. I do not know how many there will be. They will be legal.

:31:34.:31:39.

Exact li, not illegal. It has been in that context that they have been

:31:40.:31:45.

arguing the case here. I agree there is an issue here. I agree with Jerry

:31:45.:31:50.

that there should be action on restricting welfare and access to

:31:50.:31:54.

housing. Of course, it is proper that people who live here to start

:31:54.:31:59.

off with should have the first advantage. But the simple truth is

:31:59.:32:02.

that this is not about illegal immigrants. When you have a

:32:02.:32:06.

immigrant is, they often do not have driving licences or insurance, which

:32:06.:32:10.

is more critical. That is very common. So that is not much of a

:32:10.:32:15.

restriction. The issue is about whether healthcare is what the

:32:15.:32:18.

health secretary described as a pull factor, whether it brings people

:32:18.:32:23.

into the country. We have had health tourism here for a very long time,

:32:23.:32:27.

more often from the Middle East than anywhere else. But the thing that is

:32:27.:32:31.

bringing Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to Britain after the

:32:31.:32:36.

beginning of January next year is the fact that their national average

:32:36.:32:40.

income is one third of our minimum wage. They will be coming here to

:32:40.:32:44.

work, like the Polish, those from the Czech Republic and so on. That's

:32:44.:32:50.

not represent the situation. Taking away the right to health care, in my

:32:50.:32:54.

view, is an unwise policy, because when we take on immigration policy,

:32:54.:32:59.

and I have been a strong advocate of strict immigration policy, it should

:33:00.:33:05.

be fair and civilised. And I do not see asking people on a trolley in

:33:05.:33:10.

accident and emergency where they are from as a civilised approach.

:33:10.:33:13.

Wide EU say they will not? Jo Swinson and Jerry Hayes, I want to

:33:13.:33:19.

quote to you this article by a cancer specialist. Foreign women

:33:19.:33:23.

often arrive in the UK in late pregnancy, often after detecting a

:33:23.:33:28.

complication. They come on a visitor's Visa and present to

:33:28.:33:32.

accident and emergency in labour, refuse to pay and claim care. What

:33:32.:33:40.

are you going to do about that? The doctors think it does happen.

:33:40.:33:42.

is not about accident and emergency health care, not about turning

:33:42.:33:47.

people away in that kind of emergency situation. The bill has

:33:47.:33:51.

not been published and the details will be fully published and that

:33:51.:33:55.

will be subjected to much debate in Parliament on the exact details but

:33:55.:33:59.

this is not about accident and emergency care. This is about having

:33:59.:34:02.

mechanisms so that where people are in the country illegally there are

:34:02.:34:07.

more ways of being able to find out about it so action can be taken.

:34:07.:34:11.

point being made was that people present as accident and emergency,

:34:12.:34:17.

not actually accident and emergency. There was a programme on last week

:34:17.:34:20.

Tom one of the London hospitals is already doing that. They have a

:34:20.:34:24.

gentleman and his job is to identify patients, politely ask where they

:34:24.:34:31.

have come from and to build and reclaim the money. That is the

:34:31.:34:35.

point, this is the law already. What we have had in this Queen's speech

:34:35.:34:41.

is an awful lot of rhetoric. It is already the law that hospitals

:34:41.:34:47.

pursue foreign citizens for expenses here. So why is the government doing

:34:47.:34:51.

it? It returns to the influence of UKIP and right wing policies. What

:34:52.:34:57.

they are announcing here in a range of areas already exists. If I was

:34:57.:35:01.

running a hospital in the NHS I would be focusing on the 111 line,

:35:01.:35:05.

which seems a much greater source of emergency and problems in our

:35:05.:35:10.

hospital service than this. think this is a smokescreen?

:35:10.:35:19.

policy is exactly right, but it is repetition. What would be left in

:35:19.:35:26.

the Queen's Speech if they removed repetition? I fear it would be empty

:35:26.:35:33.

at the end. The more ways you can trip up an illegal immigrant, the

:35:33.:35:38.

more likely they are to be found out. I think you should enforce the

:35:38.:35:42.

law. You do not need government ramping up the rhetoric in often

:35:42.:35:47.

unhelpful manners, even though the legislation is all ready there.

:35:47.:35:51.

a personal experience point of view, my wife went to hospital for

:35:51.:35:56.

an MRI scan. She was sat next to a gentleman who, midway between the

:35:56.:36:01.

process of having his MRI scan, changed his name. How did she

:36:01.:36:06.

notice? Because he was asked to fill out a form and he did not know his

:36:06.:36:10.

name that he was supposed to be having the MRI scan under, so he

:36:10.:36:14.

said, I have changed my name. There was no suggestion that he paid for

:36:14.:36:19.

it, but he just had to fill out a new form. One other point that you

:36:19.:36:23.

alluded to, much of this would be controlled by the introduction of ID

:36:23.:36:27.

cards. In this electronic age, I find it difficult to accept that

:36:27.:36:31.

people cannot work with the simple introduction of an ID card that

:36:31.:36:36.

would control many of the problems we are talking about. It would also

:36:36.:36:40.

be controlled by a proper Border Force. And under Theresa May, there

:36:41.:36:50.

is absolute chaos. Come on!We have people leaving and coming and going

:36:50.:37:00.
:37:00.:37:03.

and we do not know what. We have criminals... That was on your watch.

:37:03.:37:07.

It is chaos under this government in terms of controlling the Borders.

:37:07.:37:12.

am going to measure your nose after this! Under which government did we

:37:12.:37:22.
:37:22.:37:23.

have 1 million immigrants coming to the UK? You are sitting quietly,

:37:23.:37:30.

watching this. The British have lots of immigrants, but lots of other

:37:30.:37:35.

people have lots of British immigrants. And they are sometimes

:37:35.:37:39.

not expecting to work as hard as they will be expected to work. They

:37:39.:37:43.

think it is going to be a lot easier than it is. They had to come round

:37:43.:37:47.

to a whole new attitude in the countries they go to. And often they

:37:47.:37:55.

do a lot of whingeing and talk about going back home. The whingeing

:37:55.:38:04.

Palmer is a real creature. People are moving backwards and forwards

:38:04.:38:07.

and testing different lifestyles. I do not like the idea that if people

:38:07.:38:10.

are in this country and need medical attention that we will find a reason

:38:10.:38:19.

not to give it to them. I am hustled by your man who changes his name

:38:19.:38:25.

before having his MRI scan. -- I am puzzled. Where does the report go

:38:25.:38:35.
:38:35.:38:37.

to? It could be part of the illness. Should police withhold identities of

:38:37.:38:40.

those people they have arrested until such time as they are formally

:38:40.:38:48.

charged? This is in light of a number of people in show business

:38:48.:38:52.

who we will not go into their names, who have been prominently arrested

:38:52.:38:55.

but not actually charged. Should their names be kept secret until

:38:55.:39:02.

there is a charge? Jerry Hayes, you are a barrister. I do not think they

:39:02.:39:07.

should. I do not think their names should be secret, because they have

:39:07.:39:11.

been arrested. It is going to get out anyway. There was a case

:39:11.:39:16.

recently involving an MP. All of the neighbours saw the police there and

:39:16.:39:20.

it is going to come out, but there is a real problem, I think, and I

:39:20.:39:25.

have prosecuted and defended serious sexual offences for years. The fact

:39:25.:39:28.

is, I am firmly of the view that if you are accused of a sexual

:39:28.:39:32.

offence, particularly rape, particularly with children, you

:39:32.:39:37.

should be anonymous until after the trial. Because the stigma is worse

:39:37.:39:41.

than murder. I have seen people who have been acquitted, perhaps when I

:39:41.:39:51.
:39:51.:39:52.

have defended them, not many, but the stigma sticks for life, because

:39:52.:39:58.

everybody says, no smoke without fire. I know there is a movement of

:39:58.:40:02.

people who say it stops women from coming forward. It does not stop

:40:02.:40:05.

women from coming forward. We have gone a long way from the old ideas

:40:05.:40:11.

about rape. Women are treated very, very well. What about what the

:40:12.:40:16.

police said in the Stuart Hall case, which was that it was by

:40:16.:40:20.

arresting him and naming him that all the people came forward that he

:40:20.:40:26.

then accepted he had abused? There might be a case in those sort of

:40:26.:40:30.

circumstances for a judge to make an order, but by and large I think

:40:30.:40:33.

there should be an automatic rule, anonymous. If the police say it

:40:33.:40:39.

could help the investigation, a judge could make the order. I have

:40:39.:40:44.

an unusual attitude towards this because I am not actually in favour

:40:44.:40:49.

of the accuser remaining anonymous. I think if you want to put somebody

:40:49.:40:57.

away for seven years, for offending you, by taking sexual liberties with

:40:57.:41:02.

you, then you ought to stand up there and face him. Because you

:41:02.:41:06.

should not be shamed. He is the person who should be ashamed. The

:41:06.:41:11.

idea that the fact that this has happened has somehow damaged you and

:41:11.:41:14.

made you a person who cannot show her face in public, to me, that

:41:14.:41:20.

really does not work for me. On the other hand, I also think the legal

:41:20.:41:23.

category of rape is medieval, and it should all be under the blanket of

:41:24.:41:29.

sexual assault. Because sexual assault, say, one boys, which is now

:41:29.:41:36.

called rape but is still regarded as forcible buggery, that is just as

:41:36.:41:40.

damaging and sometimes more damaging. Really, we should be

:41:40.:41:44.

thinking in a less medieval way, because the point about rape is that

:41:44.:41:49.

it is actually stealing a woman who belongs to somebody else, that is

:41:49.:41:53.

the etymological meaning of the term. That will not do. If you have

:41:53.:41:57.

outraged me sexually, it is not because you upset my father, my

:41:57.:42:02.

husband or my brother. You have upset me. That is one reason why

:42:02.:42:06.

civil action against rapists is sometimes more satisfactory,

:42:06.:42:08.

especially given the strange attitudes of the Crown Prosecution

:42:08.:42:12.

Service towards rape cases, especially involving prostitutes,

:42:12.:42:18.

who are just as likely to be raped as anybody else. So I think the

:42:18.:42:21.

whole thing needs overhauling. But we all have to have the courage. If

:42:21.:42:25.

you are going to stand up there and accuse somebody of a serious offence

:42:25.:42:29.

that could send him to prison for up to seven years, or whatever, I think

:42:29.:42:35.

you should show your face and you should not the ashamed. -- you

:42:35.:42:41.

should not be ashamed. I completely disagree with the fact that it is

:42:41.:42:44.

easier for women to come forward and speak about rape at the moment, in

:42:44.:42:49.

the near future or whatever. I think it is actually really hard for

:42:49.:42:55.

someone to get prosecuted for rape. That obviously is not the case.

:42:56.:43:01.

course it is the case. There were 95,000 rapes last year and less than

:43:01.:43:04.

900 men prosecuted for it. How does that show it is easy for women to

:43:04.:43:12.

come forward? You cannot say there were 95,000 rates, because clearly

:43:12.:43:16.

they were not raped because they were not prosecuted. The evidence

:43:16.:43:22.

did not stack, so they were not charged. They are allegations, and

:43:22.:43:28.

sometimes people do make them. women cannot come forward to say it.

:43:28.:43:33.

Just because there is not enough evidence... It does not mean the

:43:33.:43:38.

rape did not happen. The two things are very different. I can understand

:43:38.:43:42.

a situation where there is not enough evidence to prove it in a

:43:42.:43:46.

court of law, but it is doing the victor make huge disservice if you

:43:46.:43:51.

say, therefore, it did not happen and it is not rape. So you take

:43:51.:43:55.

somebody to court with no evidence? The question was about people's

:43:55.:43:59.

identity being revealed. The Liberal Democrats had a policy when they

:43:59.:44:08.

fought the last election. It was not in our manifesto. You can tell me if

:44:08.:44:13.

I am right or wrong. The Liberal Democrats had publicly stated

:44:13.:44:17.

policy... Apparently. It was passed at a conference but not in our

:44:17.:44:22.

manifesto. That and it -- anonymity should be granted to people until

:44:22.:44:27.

they were found guilty. We have had all these cases, cases of people who

:44:27.:44:30.

have been named and the police have said they are not charging them, and

:44:30.:44:37.

their names have been all over the price, repeated every time. It was

:44:37.:44:39.

something the government considered at the beginning of the parliament,

:44:39.:44:43.

in 2010, and I think we were right not to go ahead with it. It was the

:44:43.:44:50.

correlation agreement. It may well have been. I salute the thing,

:44:50.:44:55.

although it is absolutely appalling for people who are accused wrongly,

:44:55.:45:00.

that we need to get a proper balance here. Because we also have lots of

:45:00.:45:06.

examples where there are serial criminals, the minicab driver in

:45:06.:45:09.

London was an example, where people are only court for what they have

:45:09.:45:14.

done because it has not been anonymous. I think there is still a

:45:14.:45:18.

problem, because, for example, it is not just that it is public knowledge

:45:18.:45:22.

that somebody has been arrested, but far too often the media are tipped

:45:22.:45:27.

off by the police and turn up to take photos of it happening. That is

:45:27.:45:31.

too cosy relationship. The media also has a responsibility to be much

:45:31.:45:35.

clearer about innocent until proven guilty when reporting these things.

:45:35.:45:40.

We tend to get a frenzy where the assumption is, not because somebody

:45:40.:45:43.

has been charged or arrested, partly because of the pages and pages of

:45:43.:45:48.

coverage that basically says, effectively, insinuating that

:45:48.:45:52.

somebody is guilty. We should get to a much more balanced way of these

:45:52.:45:58.

things being reported. But it is important because of the reasons of

:45:58.:46:02.

people who otherwise have committed horrendous crimes, otherwise their

:46:02.:46:06.

victims would not be coming forward. And I agree with Germaine Greer that

:46:06.:46:10.

women or men who have been raped should not feel ashamed, but

:46:10.:46:14.

nonetheless, I think if they did not have anonymity, many would be

:46:14.:46:22.

dissuaded from coming forward and that would be a great injustice.

:46:22.:46:26.

bomb in red there? Just to say to Germaine, I mean obviously, quite

:46:26.:46:30.

clearly like the victims of any crime, a victim of a rape shouldn't

:46:30.:46:33.

feel ashamed. That doesn't change the fact that obviously they do. I

:46:33.:46:37.

mean, it's the society we live in, but you would feel ashamed if that

:46:37.:46:41.

was you. I think that they shouldn't have to openly say if they are

:46:41.:46:45.

accusing someone, they should be allowed to keep that anonymous.

:46:45.:46:50.

about the position about the person accused of the rape, should they be

:46:50.:46:54.

given anonymity? Obviously if a high-profile case where other people

:46:54.:47:02.

would recognise the name, but in a lot of that kind of sexual crimes,

:47:02.:47:08.

it is someone you know so it's unlikely that if you know them,

:47:08.:47:11.

someone else who hears about the case through the media will also

:47:11.:47:16.

know them. OK. And the woman there on the

:47:16.:47:19.

gangway? Agreeing with both points really, I agree with the idea that

:47:19.:47:23.

you should be able to stand up and speak openly, but also society's a

:47:23.:47:28.

long way from people not feeling ashamed and also there's a big

:47:28.:47:31.

assumption talking today that all rape victims are female which is

:47:31.:47:35.

clearly not the case. That brings along all sorts of issues about

:47:35.:47:41.

gender identity as well. question was about people who have

:47:41.:47:46.

been arrest arrested, not the victims, but the people who 've been

:47:46.:47:50.

arrest and charged. David Davis, what is your view on that? Ierks let

:47:50.:47:54.

me start with Germaine's point and I'll move on from that. The rape

:47:54.:47:59.

victims have suffered once and when they go to trial, they suffer again.

:47:59.:48:03.

Ierks let's understand that. It's a miserable process for the victim.

:48:03.:48:10.

For that reason and because we have had low conviction rates, I think we

:48:10.:48:13.

still must pre-Conservative the confidentiality of the victim's

:48:13.:48:22.

position. I really can't see that we can reduce that at all. -- preserve.

:48:22.:48:25.

Ierks I want to see both sides having the same rules applied to

:48:26.:48:29.

them, fairness applied to both sides. My instinctive opening

:48:29.:48:33.

position should be, if you are going to give confidentiality to the

:48:33.:48:37.

accuser, you should give it to the defendant. But, you know, I hate the

:48:37.:48:43.

idea of having secret trials. Our justice system depends on being in

:48:43.:48:48.

the public domain. But there is a balance here. I am frankly disgusted

:48:48.:48:52.

by the fact that we have so many cases, particularly with celebrities

:48:52.:48:56.

where the police turn up at exactly the same time as the press

:48:56.:49:01.

photographer. APPLAUSE

:49:01.:49:06.

Now, it is a disgrace, in my view it's criminal action by the police

:49:06.:49:09.

involved, and frankly we should be very intolerant of that. Criminal

:49:09.:49:18.

action? Yes. Giving, putting people under duress who 've not been

:49:18.:49:22.

charged or convicted of anything. Now, let me come back to what we do

:49:22.:49:26.

- where is the compromise? I think it's that we should protect people's

:49:26.:49:33.

identity until they are charged. The charge point is a point of which the

:49:33.:49:37.

judicial authorities have to say there is evidence here. The Crown

:49:37.:49:40.

Prosecution Service not just the police are making the judgment. Bear

:49:40.:49:43.

in mind, all the institutions we are talking about now are under

:49:43.:49:48.

pressure. Because of the failure of the Jimmy Savile cases, because the

:49:48.:49:51.

police fell down on the job there basically, there is a pressure on

:49:51.:49:55.

them now to go the other way. I think there are a lot of people

:49:56.:50:00.

whose lives are being destroyed, I don't know whether it's right or

:50:00.:50:05.

wrong, because their names are being put in the public domain before

:50:05.:50:13.

they're even charged. That should be protected - absolutely. Yes.

:50:13.:50:17.

APPLAUSE You at the back there? Ierks I agree

:50:18.:50:23.

that it can be very damaging for celebrities to be named before

:50:23.:50:26.

they're charged, but one of the problems with the crime of rape is

:50:26.:50:32.

that it tends to be a serial offence and by naming someone, it will very

:50:32.:50:36.

often enable other people to come forward and build up more evidence

:50:36.:50:40.

against that person and without naming them, that wouldn't happen.

:50:40.:50:44.

Tristram Hunt? I think that's exactly the point. I mean, it's a

:50:44.:50:49.

very tricky balance that has to be struck in terms of innocence until

:50:49.:50:52.

proven guilty and whether you are going to be tried in the court of

:50:52.:50:58.

public opinion and everything Jerry said about what is attached to it

:50:58.:51:03.

versus the notion that people could see justice that, people who have

:51:03.:51:08.

been abused and raped and had criminal acts committed to them come

:51:08.:51:13.

forth knowing that the person who committed those crimes is now being

:51:13.:51:20.

prosecuted. As Jo said in terms of the Stuart Hall case, I mean, this

:51:20.:51:24.

is a tricky area, but surely the balance in terms of public policy

:51:24.:51:29.

has to be on the side of the victims. I think David's idea of the

:51:29.:51:34.

name going public at charging is a good one because it provides enough

:51:34.:51:39.

space before trial, it provides enough capacity for others to come

:51:39.:51:49.

forward. Would you try - do you think police should not make arrests

:51:49.:51:53.

with the police there? I think post-Leveson and post-some of the

:51:53.:51:56.

prosecutions we have seen, that the culture within the police is

:51:56.:51:59.

beginning to change in terms of what's happened. I would also say

:51:59.:52:03.

the most worrying thing we have seen in terms of police culture is the

:52:03.:52:07.

reactions of police in South London who simply did not prosecute sexual

:52:08.:52:12.

crimes and shoved them to the side. The fact that that culture is still

:52:12.:52:18.

going on in a major city in the 21st century is terrifying.

:52:18.:52:24.

Last word? A very quick word. David Davis was talk talking about justice

:52:24.:52:29.

and fairness. If the Lord Chancellor gets his way in two years' time and

:52:29.:52:32.

this will never be debated in Parliament because it doesn't

:52:32.:52:35.

involve premare legislation, the independent criminal bar will be

:52:35.:52:39.

dead. Solicitors in the high street will be gone, G 4 S, people like

:52:39.:52:43.

that will be running the criminal justice system. There will be a

:52:43.:52:49.

layer of bureaucracy where you don't get a choice at all who your

:52:49.:52:52.

solicitor is going to be, it's appalling and it won't even be

:52:52.:52:56.

debated in Parliament. The right to a fair friel will disappear and the

:52:56.:53:02.

last and most insidious thing of all, the legal conglomerations who

:53:02.:53:06.

'll be controlling your lives will be given financial incentives for

:53:06.:53:10.

the person to plead guilty. No, no, it's the criminal justice

:53:10.:53:14.

system which is at risk. APPLAUSE

:53:14.:53:20.

I would like to make a basic point about rape as a crime in law.

:53:20.:53:25.

Most rapes are not reported at all. Very few rapes that are reported

:53:25.:53:30.

result in a prosecution. Very few prosecutions result in a conviction.

:53:30.:53:36.

Now, why? Because the burden of proof is too heavy. You cannot

:53:36.:53:40.

provide the proof that is necessary because most rapes don't happen in

:53:40.:53:45.

front of witnesses and this is one reason why you have to rethink the

:53:45.:53:50.

whole thing. Police work very hard on rape cases, spending hours and

:53:50.:53:56.

hours and hours working up the case. When they discover that all that

:53:56.:54:00.

effort, it's extremely expensive, has produced nothing, they haven't

:54:00.:54:04.

had enough to go to court with, and they've gone to court and haven't

:54:04.:54:09.

got their prosecution, when they're making their own costs basis

:54:09.:54:12.

analysis, they decide not to work the cases up. This is a consequence

:54:12.:54:18.

of the med eel hangover from this ridiculous body of law which makes

:54:18.:54:23.

rape very common, happens every day, in every street, by turning it into

:54:23.:54:26.

something extravagant and the fact that celebrities are now involved

:54:27.:54:31.

has made it even more extravagant. It distorts the perception of what

:54:31.:54:36.

it is. Women can't get redress for sexual outrage at the momentment.

:54:36.:54:43.

It's just too hard. APPLAUSE

:54:43.:54:48.

A couple of minutes left. A question from Tom Myers, please? Does David

:54:48.:54:53.

Cameron need to jettison his old Etonian advisers to have any chance

:54:53.:55:03.
:55:03.:55:09.

of winning the next general election? David Davis? I'm not an

:55:09.:55:13.

old Etonian, I should say, for the absence of doubt. You are not one of

:55:13.:55:19.

his advisers? That's also true.On both grounds then. The point I was

:55:19.:55:22.

making here, it goes back to the UKIP argument we had at the

:55:22.:55:26.

beginning. One thing that's happening is, people feel that

:55:26.:55:29.

Government and opposition, or the whole political class are out of

:55:29.:55:33.

touch with them. There are two aspects to this. One is a political

:55:33.:55:37.

one. If we allow that to go on, we as Conservatives won't win next time

:55:37.:55:42.

because people won't think we represent them. The other one is an

:55:42.:55:47.

effective Government one. It wouldn't matter if you had Ten

:55:47.:55:50.

Downing Street populated entirely by Nobel Prize winning nuclear

:55:50.:55:54.

physicists or by the farmers or whatever, if you've got a single

:55:54.:55:59.

narrow group, you render yourself less able to understand the

:55:59.:56:02.

operation of the whole of society. That's my point. You shouldn't do

:56:02.:56:08.

that. Better off if we had a wider remit. We must be brief on this,

:56:08.:56:11.

though it's a serious point. Tristram Hunt? It's absolutely

:56:11.:56:15.

clear, the Prime Minister's limiting the intellectual gene pool that's

:56:16.:56:20.

available to him and, as David says, that produces group think. Everyone

:56:20.:56:25.

thinks the same about the same policies and you end up with a kind

:56:25.:56:29.

of chaotic useless Government we've got. My suggestion is that what the

:56:29.:56:35.

Prime Minister should do is read the great book Team of Rivals about what

:56:35.:56:40.

President Lincoln did when he came into pow, to bring in opponents into

:56:40.:56:44.

power with him. I think they should bring David back, rather than being

:56:44.:56:51.

the mange mangy... No, no, no. Swinson? You recognise this at the

:56:51.:56:56.

heart of this coalition, there are too many Etonians? It's up to the

:56:56.:57:01.

politician to choose his own advisers, but this is a wider issue

:57:01.:57:03.

in politics more generally and in other second #14u7bs of society

:57:03.:57:09.

where there's far too little diversity, not just of gender but of

:57:09.:57:13.

background, ethnicity and we end up with this group think. Politics in

:57:13.:57:16.

particular suffers from this and so, the only thing I would say to the

:57:16.:57:20.

audience here and at home, if you watch Question Time regularly and

:57:20.:57:24.

enjoy it, chances are you are interested in politics and political

:57:24.:57:27.

debate, have you ever thought about getting more involved yourselves

:57:27.:57:31.

because politics needs people like you, democracy relies on people

:57:31.:57:35.

getting involved - please do. APPLAUSE

:57:35.:57:44.

Very, very quickly? I think David Davis is being a bit McCarthy-like.

:57:44.:57:47.

I don't care where people have come from, what gender, colour, school,

:57:48.:57:51.

as long as they are good at their job. But they are not, that's the

:57:51.:57:56.

point! That's what we are saying!

:57:56.:58:01.

Below the belt! You are being unfawr to Eton. It doesn't look the way it

:58:01.:58:06.

used to look. Go and have a look. Eton itself is multiculture these

:58:06.:58:09.

days and happens to be a very good school. What I would like is for

:58:09.:58:14.

every school in the country to be as good as Eton and then there would be

:58:14.:58:18.

no problem. Sorry, we have to stop. Our hour is

:58:18.:58:22.

up. Sorry. Now, what about next week? We are going to be in Ipswich

:58:22.:58:24.

week? We are going to be in Ipswich next week. We have Charles Kennedy

:58:24.:58:27.

on the panel for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Bryant for Labour

:58:27.:58:31.

and Philip Hammond for the Tories. Gillian Tett of the Financial Times

:58:31.:58:35.

and the chairman of the Arts Council. The week after that, we'll

:58:35.:58:38.

be in Belfast, so if you want to come either to the programme in

:58:38.:58:46.

David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Coventry. On the panel: Business minister, Jo Swinson MP; former Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis MP; Shadow Education Minister, Tristram Hunt MP; Germaine Greer, feminist writer and academic; and Jerry Hayes, criminal barrister and former Conservative MP.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS