09/05/2013 Question Time


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!



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


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


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


historian and Labour shadow education Minister, Tristram Hunt,


Liberal Democrat equality and employment Minister, Jo Swinson,


critic and feminist fire near Germaine Greer, and the barrister


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


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


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


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


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


highlighted parts of the public debate we have not paid enough


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


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


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


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


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


ground, no organisation -- no organisation, against my


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


can acknowledge their success without the Tory party moving in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


are saying and proposing to introduce the sort of things which


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


future. The question was about whether British politics has moved


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


for quite a long time. Margaret Thatcher understood something about


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


circumstances to stir up paranoia and fear, because people are


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


interesting elements is that where you have a coalition government when


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


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


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


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


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


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


It is about people looking for something different that they are


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


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


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


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


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


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


reaction in other countries, it is a reaction against metropolitan


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


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


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


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


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


written in London, the Metropolitan commentators are sneering and


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


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


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


metropolitan figure than Nigel Farage, city broker, Dulwich


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Friends On The Conservative Backbenches Want To Think About


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


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


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


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


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


Newspapers. There Is An Interesting...


Applause I'll Take It All! There Is An


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


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


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


Concerned About The Investment Houses And Finance Houses And We


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


should give the British people a choice between a seriously


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


there were no substantial renegotiations, you would vote for


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


contact with the living but it will mean nothing!


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


will be properly protected with pensions with the new Pensions Bill


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


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


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


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


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


on creating uncertainty with our biggest trading partner when we need


to focus on getting the economy moving and getting jobs and


investment. If you have got European companies making decisions about


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


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


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


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


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


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


Party likes to have sometimes on Europe.


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


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


meaningful if people have a chance to dispassionately consider the pros


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


British Commonwealth is now non-existent. The world Commonwealth


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


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


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


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


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


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


absolutely ah cake and cruel legislations.


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


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


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


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


point because we have a lot of questions.


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


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


Government aboutry gating its responsibility by giving the people


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


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


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


jeingts should decide these things? Indeed.


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


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


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


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


landlords was another one, should have the obligation of checking


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


contributing to the country, who understandably and rightly have


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


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


tolerant and welcoming and recognise the benefits that we have of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


stopping illegal immigrant from having UK driving licences. I was


surprised they could currently get UK driving licences. These things


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


recognises the benefits of immigration but does not tolerate


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that there should be action on restricting welfare and access to


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


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


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


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


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


restriction. The issue is about whether healthcare is what the


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


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


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


bringing Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants to Britain after the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


hospital service than this. think this is a smokescreen?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


people have lots of British immigrants. And they are sometimes


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


offence, particularly rape, particularly with children, you


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


damaging and sometimes more damaging. Really, we should be


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


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


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


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


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


civil action against rapists is sometimes more satisfactory,


especially given the strange attitudes of the Crown Prosecution


Service towards rape cases, especially involving prostitutes,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


something the government considered at the beginning of the parliament,


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


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


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


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


examples where there are serial criminals, the minicab driver in


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


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


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


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


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


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


clearer about innocent until proven guilty when reporting these things.


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


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


coverage that basically says, effectively, insinuating that


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


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


people who otherwise have committed horrendous crimes, otherwise their


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


know them. OK. And the woman there on the


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


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


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


assumption talking today that all rape victims are female which is


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


gender identity as well. question was about people who have


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


them, fairness applied to both sides. My instinctive opening


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


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


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


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


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


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


photographer. APPLAUSE


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


APPLAUSE You at the back there? Ierks I agree


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


involve premare legislation, the independent criminal bar will be


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


system which is at risk. APPLAUSE


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


something extravagant and the fact that celebrities are now involved


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


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


It's just too hard. APPLAUSE


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Downing Street populated entirely by Nobel Prize winning nuclear


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


narrow group, you render yourself less able to understand the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


debate, have you ever thought about getting more involved yourselves


because politics needs people like you, democracy relies on people


getting involved - please do. APPLAUSE


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


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


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


point! That's what we are saying!


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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