09/05/2013 Question Time

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

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