[Music]
On question time tonight, Bernard
Jenkins, shadow defense secretary.
George Galloway, Labour MP, vehement
opponent of war with Iraq. Mark Otton,
chairman of the Liberal Democrats in the
House of Commons, and Anne Leslie,
award-winning special correspondent for
the Daily
Mail. And um good evening. Welcome to
Tamworth. If you're observant, you may
have noticed we're missing Jermaine
Greer, who was going to be here, but got
stuck in a snow drift in Cambridge, so
she'll have to come some other week. Um,
and just one thing before we start,
remember if you want to comment on
what's said during the program, you can
send us a message by texting us to it to
us and you can read what other people
watching are saying about the program as
it goes along, which can be fun. And the
instructions are there on the screen.
Let's take our first question to our
panel who as ever don't know what
they're going to be asked tonight. And
this comes from Nigel Morris, please.
Mr. Morris.
Why do the Liberals and the left wing of
the Labor Party continually undermine
the Prime Minister's determination to
rid the world of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
Um well well don't don't clap because I
was going to come to a first. Bernard
Jenin. Well that's a question for them
not for me. Well you must have a view on
it. Um the the danger is that uh uh the
Liberals um are chasing public opinion
polls rather than sticking up for
principle. I mean there are people and
let's uh be absolutely blunt about this.
There are lots of people with very
severe doubts about it but I have my
doubts about the Liberals because I'm
sure when military action comes to be
taken they will be there as they were in
Kosovo as they were in the first Gulf
War as they were in the Falklands. And I
think there's a certain amount of
political posturing that goes on from
the liberal benches which isn't entirely
unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. I
think the position we have taken on this
has been absolutely principle. Charles
Gennady has made it quite clear from the
start that if you're going to maintain
peace in this world, you do it through
the international institutions, the
United Nations, and we in this issue I
believe have led public opinion and this
is not a cheap issue where we're trying
to get votes. We strongly feel this is
an important principle to speak up in a
way that the officials so-called
opposition just are not doing at the
moment.
George George Galloway. Well, we've got
his holiness the pope, the cardinal
archbishop of Westminster, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of
the British forces who went into Kuwait
to liberate Kuwait in the last Gulf War.
We've got field marshals by the dozen.
Uh, we've got people from all political
stripes backing the stop the war
coalition campaign to stop us going over
the cliff with George W. Bush. There
must be an awful lot of liberals and
left-wing labor people in the country if
that question was right because
something between 75 and 80% of the
people of the country agree with us that
there is no case for going to war on the
basis of the current evidence and on the
likelihood of the whole thing turning
into a disaster. The truth is we the
Liberals, people like me and the others
I've mentioned speak for Britain. I have
a letter in my bag from Count Nikolai
Toltoy, a grande of the conservative
right, placing himself under my command
in the campaign. A man whom I never
thought I'd ever even have a
conversation with. But that's the
breadth of the support that we have
across the world from kings, shakes,
presidents. Nelson Mandela today made a
blistering attack on George Bush and Mr.
Blair for the way they're conducting
this crisis. Now, I just don't think you
can pigeon hole us as liberals and
left-wing people. This view is shared
across the board. And listen, well, the
simple answer to the question is because
they are oppositionists, you know. I
mean, they don't like Tony Blair. I
don't like Tony Blair. I think on on
this particular issue, he's probably
right. Uh but I noticed that uh George
is saying he's got, you know, half the
world and all the grandees and all the
lobbies and all the sort of useful
idiots, as Lenin put it, uh on his side.
speak about the pope
app and the Daily Mail whom you work
for. The Daily Mail also against the
Daily Mail she used to work for after
that comment. I just thought No, it's
exactly I mean I don't I unlike some
people I don't vote the entire ticket of
whatever party and whatever faction um
is is speaking. Um, I happen to be in a
minority at the Daily Mail thinking on
the whole we do have to do something
about Saddam. And it's not because I'm a
wararmonger. I've actually seen war
close quarters in three quant
continents, including in Iraq. It is a
horrible thing to see, but I think we
probably do have to go to war. And it
seems to me extraordinary that George,
who's always going on about, you know,
he's got world opinion on his side and
and so on. I mean, you were saying after
911 that there was no evidence that Bin
Laden was involved with the 911 attack.
That's completely untrue. No, I'm sorry.
I had completely untrue. You must have I
said from the first moment it was Bin
Laden. You said there from the first
moment evidence. I said nothing. I'm
sorry. I have just run through a program
you did where you said there was no
evidence the Taliban was involved. There
was no evidence this. There was no that
I accused Bin Laden in the House of
Commons 4 days after the disaster when
the House was recalled. And I said, "I
despise Osama bin Laden. The difference
is I've always despised them. When the
Americans and the British were giving
him guns and money, I despise." I don't
think I don't think this little argument
is getting us anywhere. Let's revert to
Iraq. Let me go back to the questioner.
What's your view? I'm sure uh 90% of the
population agreed with Neville
Chamberlain when he landed at Cudon
Airport in 1938.
Uh, nevertheless, this man has started
two wars, has murdered millions of
people in his own country, gassed them.
Uh, he's killed his son-in-laws, which I
can imagine you might want to do. Uh,
but this man has to be stopped. Does
George Galloway want a million people in
the tube in London or something like
that with anthrax poisoning uh provided
by Saddam Hussein? George Galloway, do
you believe Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction? If so, what would you do
about them? And what do you say to his
point? I asked the Iraqi president to
let these inspectors in. I hope I wasn't
fooling them. I told them that if you
let these inspectors in to go through
the country to destroy any remaining
stocks of weapons of mass destruction,
then we can have a diplomatic end to
this. It now looks as if George Bush and
Tony Blair had decided long, long ago
that they were going to invade and
occupy Iraq. But what I say is this,
David, an attack on the London tube,
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, is
going to be a much greater danger after
you've bombed and burned Iraq and after
you've occupied Iraq for itself. Very
gentle, nobody wants to bomb and burn
Iraq. uh uh and even if military action
is taken, I hope we will see the very
minimum of bombing and burning Iraq. Uh
just as in fact it turned out the people
of Afghanistan, the war that you opposed
there, there were people dancing in the
streets as Carbull was liberated and
I've walked down I've walked down the
streets of Carbull with British soldiers
who have been mobbed by an adoring
population because it's the British
soldiers that brought peace and opened
the schools and freed the women in
Carbal. And I think that's what we want
to see in in in Iraq and Baghdad and
only and it's the choice is Saddam
Hussein's if he actively cooperates with
those weapons inspectors if he takes
them to the weapons of mass destruction
and says come and film me dismantling
these weapons as they did in for example
in Ukraine when they disarmed. That's
what the weapons inspectors are meant to
be doing. George just getting the
weapons inspectors. You can't expect 180
weapons inspectors to find weapons if
they're being deceived by the dictator
in Baghdad. Okay, hold on. Can I come to
one or two members of the office? You I
think many of us are probably very
suspicious of George Bush's motives for
going to war. But in the week when it
was celebrating Holocaust week, I think
we have to stand up and be counted.
Okay. And and you in the in the for
fifth row with the white shirt. Yes. Um
my my point is that um once we we start
this process, once we say we're going to
war, that's just the beginning. The
battle there are no battle lines with
this. That's my concern. And the
terrorist is the man or the woman
sitting next to you on the bus, there
are no battle lines on it. and you sir
in the second row here. Well, quite
simply um in order to give confidence to
the troops and us the British public in
becoming an aggressor towards Iraq, uh
perhaps some of this evidence should be
made public. And I'm thinking yesterday
that President Bush announced that
they're watching materials being moved
just prior to weapons inspectors visit.
Um if he's watching it being moved, it's
not beyond the wit of man to inform the
inspectors so they can intercept such
movements.
What I think uh probably surprised and
alarmed Saddam was Hans Blicks who is
the chief inspector produced a report
saying that we have been deceived in the
end that we have not been told the
truth. We've been given the runaround.
Now Hans Blicks was somebody who when he
was the head of the atomic agency u
which was supposed to be inspecting uh
Saddam's nuclear
u program or non-nuclear program uh said
that nuclear um program didn't exist in
Iraq. He now admits he was fooled. He's
probably fooled now. The problem with
constantly saying, "Why don't we have
all the evidence?" is because the
evidence comes from a lot of people
within Iraq and outside Iraq, people who
have left. Um, which if you reveal it is
going to mean that those people and
their families are going to be killed or
destroyed or tortured. The fact is
there's an enormous amount of missing
armory in uh the account in the 12,200
page account which you're so keen on.
Okay. And I think that we have to do
something before people talk about
there's no smoking gun that smoking gun
is once it's been you cannot and the
gentleman is absolutely right to say we
need to see what this evidence is. Now
we're told that Coen Powell is going to
make a PowerPoint presentation next
Wednesday to the security commission.
Now, we need to know what this evidence
is. This should be made public. If
you're going to actually ask our troops
and our democracy to make a decision on
something as important as this. We need
to see the evidence. If then, having
seen that evidence and the House of
Commons votes in favor of military
action and we have full UN support, then
with a heavy heart, the Liberal
Democrats would support that action. But
until the case is made, we believe the
inspector should be given much more time
to carry on that and much more time for
Saddam to keep on concealing his weapons
of mass destruction, which is the whole
point. I do wish Hang on. Hang on. The
woman in woman in in pink there, you
madam. And then I want to take a second
question on the same subject. You mad.
This is in relation to what was
mentioned earlier by the panel. And I
hasten to add that I am neither a racist
nor a wararmonger. But as someone quite
rightly said that once that first shot
fires out in Baghdad then there are
going to be repercussions throughout
this country. An article in Sunday's
paper by a correspondent stated that
1,200 British Muslims had gone out to
join Alqaeda's terrorist training in
Afghanistan.
Most of them by way of either being
killed or through other reasons have
been accounted for. A lot have returned
to
Britain. The special branch are most
concerned that about a dozen of these
terrorists are now loose in Britain and
they are raring to go. All
right. The woman, the woman in the white
over there, you lots of people. Hold on
a second. Yeah. Lots of people
undoubtedly would like to see Saddam
Hussein removed from power. But how do
our world's leaders expect that to
happen? Surely any bombs that the West
drop, any troops that go in fighting
with or guns blazing, it's only going to
be the population that get hurt. Saddam
is is going to hide away in his palace.
He's not going to get the bombs hit on
him. It's the population that have
already been under awful sanctions by
their president that are going to suffer
once again. And it's going to be us that
does it to them. and the man in the
black jacket there and I'll come to you
at the back and then I'm going to take a
second question on this. I agree in
pring principle with what an Leslie said
about protecting your intelligence
sources and understand why she says
that. At the same time, I found it
extremely distasteful that five minutes
after hearing George Bush making the
link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Tony Bla
is doing exactly the same thing. And
where's the evidence to back it up? It
it seems that this is the way things are
going. Bush says one thing one minute.
Blair follows without without Blair
appearing to be the poodle that is often
portrayed. He's got to start presenting
evidence so that we can understand why
these things are being said. George
Galloway, do you think he's a poodle?
The prime minister? Well, I don't know
what poodles did to get themselves such
a bad
name. Poodles poodles are
uh poodles are inoffensive creatures who
who seldom harm anyone. I'm not sure
that the analogy is a good one, but I do
wish this gobellian uh resort to telling
big lies often enough would stop. Hans
Blicks said the Iraqis were cooperating,
and I'm quoting rather well. The head of
the atomic agency inspectorate said that
it was not true that Iraq was now trying
to rebuild its nuclear weapons
potential. Both of them, both of you may
think that, but don't distort, don't
distort what they actually said by
telling people they said one thing when
they did say that he thought that Iraq
was lying about its production of nerve
agents. And he said it didn't have a
genuine acceptance of the disarmament
that was demanded of it. Both of them
are saying what the rest of the
governments in the security council and
the vast majority of people in the world
are saying is that this process has to
be given more time. After all, the
consequences of going to war are very
serious. For our own sons and daughters
that we send into battle for the
thousands of Iraqi children like little
Victoria Colombia who'll be scolded and
killed in their homes under the bombs.
Like the children and old people who are
living in terror waiting for the dive
bombers at the moment. and the
tremendous boost that bin Laden and the
other lunatics, the Islamic
fundamentalist terrorists will get from
this confrontation of east and west.
That's what Bin Laden tried to bring
about. No, no, hold on. I Okay, fine.
No, I'm going to go another question.
Uh, let's I want I want to have another
question on this on this subject from
Thomas Lawrence, please. Mr. Lawrence,
should we let the supposed threat of
Saddam Hussein ruin our relationship
with European countries such as France
and Germany? France and Germany who uh
have come out at the moment against and
um other countries in Europe of course
signed this advertisement or article
order it was today. Should we let our
relationship with the rest of well with
European countries be ruined? France and
Germany. Mark Otton, you're pro-
European. I am. I mean, I think we're
going to find that probably most of
these European countries come around to
having basically the same view. The
French have an incredible tradition of
starting off saying no, they move to
maybe, and they nearly always end up
saying yes. And I suspect I suspect
we're going to see that's what happens.
What I think is Jenkins says that's like
the Liberal Democrats. Well, the Liberal
Democrats will actually take a judgment
on this issue. Look, Bernard, Bernard's
quite happy just to make his mind up and
just bypass the United Nations. That is
not our position. We will wait and see
what the United Nations and the weapons
inspectors find and that has got to be
the most sensible view. Let's stick with
France and Germany. Um and Leslie. Yes.
Well, uh France in my view will come
round in the end because it's taking a
decision which is purely and I don't
blame it on its own commercial
interests. It has a lot of contracts in
Iraq and with Iraqi businesses. It also
likes very much to cocker snoop at
America. That's a sort of standard uh
thing about them. Um Germany is has got
a very strong pacifist streak because
Germany knows very well that when it
wasn't pacifist, it plunged Europe into
the world. Saving your grace. We don't
want the history. The question is
whether we should let our relationship
be ruined with these countries. I don't
think it will be ruined. I think the
French will come around once they've
done a deal behind closed doors about
the sorting out of what the contracts
are going to be, what the oil contracts
are going. I think that France will come
round. Germany is a different issue
because the people are very pacifist
because of their own experience.
Secondly, Gad Shura won the last
election. and I covered that campaign
simply because he he said in no way will
we go to war with Iraq and because he
appealed to the pacifist appealing in
Germany that's so I think we can ignore
those two things because I think they
will come round the woman at the back
there in red the gentleman over here
says about ruining the relationship with
France and Germany what relationship
with France and Germany
questioner seems to be applauding that.
Do you agree with that? What? Yeah.
Because what's your time, don't they? We
have to be unified or we won't achieve
anything. Surely you think we should be
unified. We've got to be unified.
Surely. I think what demonstrates if we
were unified, we wouldn't be able to
achieve anything because we're
independent. It turns out and because
countries like Spain and Portugal and
the Czech Republic and Hungary and Italy
that have all signed the support for the
American and the British position, it
shows their independence is a far better
guarantee of our independence than
getting into some kind of common foreign
policy which quite clearly couldn't
possibly work when we can't agree on
fundamental issues like Iran. Okay. Can
we get right over to the right there to
the man at the very back there um on the
right hand side if it's possible to
reach him? Yes, it is. far away. The man
in the red jacket. Is it right that Tony
Blair and other leaders of other nations
can decide whether we go to war or not?
Or or is public opinion important? What
about public opinion important? What
about Parliament? I mean, shouldn't
Parliament have a vote on this?
Shouldn't the MPs who are the Democratic
elected people to represent you? Surely,
we should have a vote and a say in a
full debate in Parliament on this issue.
But, but weren't you, didn't you accept
what the prime minister said at Prime
Minister's questions on Wednesday? No, I
don't believe that. Well, you don't
believe what he said? He said he'd have
a vote and he can't not before it's too
late. It's the timing the timing at
which you have the vote times on whether
it's okay to kill foxes, but we've not
been allowed a single vote on whether
it's okay to kill thousands of people in
Iraq. Okay, the man in blue
there
you man in blue and then I'll come to
you in Yes. comment earlier about
carving up of oil resources surely
demonstrates that this whole
conflict rights or intervention or
chemical weapons but it's about the
future of oil. Exactly. End of story.
The sorted reality and and and the man
in the fair pullet my point also and
Leslie let out slip oil and that finish
the rest of the argument. No, of course.
Of course this war. Can I respond? Yes.
Yes. Of course, this war is partly about
oil because frankly, if all that uh
Saddam Hussein produced or his country
produced were carrots, nobody would give
a toss, frankly, whether he was killing
his own people, gassing his own Kurds,
and so on. Oil is important. The reason
he invaded Kuwait was because he was
annoyed with the Kuwaitis for
undercutting his ability to charge more
for his oil and therefore to be able to
produce his nuclear program and his
weapons of mass destruction. Of course,
it's about oil, partly about oil, but it
is also partly about what they say it's
about. You wouldn't agree is about
weapons of mass destruction. If you have
a man who is a psychopath, a murderer,
who is in charge of the literal
lubricant of modern industrial society,
this is incredibly dangerous for us. How
many of us arrive by car or who go to
schools that are heated by oil or go to
hospitals that are heated by oil? When
we say it's only about oil as if it was
a trivial issue, it is not a trivial
issue. And it seems to me that we have
to take into account that he can destroy
Western civilization by dominating the
oil fields of the Middle East which have
threequarters of the world's oil. Okay,
that's fine. George, very briefly if you
would and then I'll we've got a
dangerous psychopathic murderer in
charge of weapons of mass destruction.
He's just got a thumping he's just got a
thumping new majority in General Chaon
in Israel and he's got a mountain of
weapons that we gave him.
I wanted to deal with the European
question. Mr. Blair said that we were
going to be at the heart of Europe in
we're turning out to be a cancer inside
Europe, a tumor acting for American
interests inside Europe. To say that we
are independent when we're actually
synchronizing our policy statements,
they're made in Washington and five
minutes later, as the questioner said,
they're made in London. We've become the
51st state of George W. Bush's United
States of America.
It's it's not for nothing that George is
known in political circles as the
honorable member for Baghdad South. He
is acting
he is acting in heark. If if you're not
careful, I'll tell people what you're
known in
a fat old bag. But I don't mind that
because that doesn't that doesn't much
worse than that. All right. All right.
Let's let's cut out. And finally on the
poodle question. The poodle question.
This is a man who goes and spends
Christmas in Baghdad. I spent Christmas
in the next to Tony Blair in Egypt. I
was waving at him across the sandunes.
Well, it's all very interesting. I'm not
sure it's totally relevant. Um, we'll
move we'll move on to another subject.
Thanks very much. Uh, just before we do,
question time. Next week is going to be
in Dartmouth in Devon. Uh, a week after
that we're going to be in Canavan in
Wales. Now, we'd like you to come very
much to those question times. And if
you'd like to, the thing to do is simply
to ring us. The number's on the screen
now, uh,
0901441. Or you can, of course, as
always, apply on our website
bbc.co.uk/questtime. You can argue about
these issues there, too. And you'll see
your views published. And do keep your
questions coming uh or remarks coming by
texting us in the way that's described
on the screen. Let's have another
question. Now, this one is from Joanna
Kerry, please. Joanna Kerry, did the
wrongful conviction of Sally Clark
confirm that there is no presumption of
innocence for mothers of cot death
victims? The wrongful conviction of
Sally Clark did it confirm no
presumption of innocence for mothers of
cot death victims. Um, Bernard Jenin.
Well, what I find so distressing about
this whole case is how what is obviously
a terrible family tragedy finishes up
with police and handcuffs and the crime
prosecution service and the whole weight
of the law being thrown around uh just
to investigate what's happened. And it
seems to me we need to look at how we
approach these cases that it's not
necessarily somewhere for the law to
intervene immediately. uh that the
suspicion of the commission of a crime
tends to drive out the perhaps more
humane responses and more humane
investigation that should have taken
place to avoid this injustice in the
first place and I think we need to have
a a long long look at uh the whole law
that surrounds this. I don't entirely
follow you. Are you saying that uh two
cop deaths shouldn't be followed up by
the police? Well, I'm I'm not I'm s what
I'm suggesting is that the law of murder
and a police investigation might not
necessarily be the best institutions to
follow up uh two cot deaths. What what
might be more appropriate is a far
softer approach because I don't think
many many mothers uh go around
intentionally murdering their children
unless there is some terrible terrible
problem in that family or there's some
illness. I I I think that is the lesson
of this case. I don't pretend to be an
expert, but but when uh I I read about
it in the papers this morning and heard
about it on the radio, I I just couldn't
help feeling that there should have been
something more humane in this case.
Joanna Kerry, you asked question. You
you're are you a lawyer or a law
student? No, I'm a law student. Law
student. What do you think? Well, I
think that it's very difficult to prove
that you haven't killed a child if the
onus of proof is on the mother. How on
earth is she supposed to do that? If the
medical experts can't agree that what
the child died of, how can she refute
that? Unless John, I think the main
problem is that we don't actually know
quite enough about COP deaths. I mean
for example recently geneticists have
been discovering that um a child is
extremely vulnerable to infection about
8 to 12 weeks after the child has been
weaned because you inherit a lot of your
mother's immune system uh to begin with.
Then if the immune system of the child
doesn't kick in at that point then they
are very very susceptible to infections
and uh most deaths occur during
that time. We're learning a lot more
about deaths. I don't know whether
it's a question of whether we should be
more humane or anything like that. What
I think we should be asking about is the
quality of the pathologist reports. One
of the pathologists said the chances of
two cop deaths in one family are one in
73 million. It turns out if anything
it's about one in a 100 and it may be
even less. The other one concealed it
seems to me uh evidence of a severe
staff uh infection in the second child.
uh these are questions which I think are
more serious because I think it's very
difficult to say whether two cop deaths
are um in one family means murder. Um
but I think what we have to say is that
in these cases you must have pediatric
uh pathologists not general pathologists
because a pediatric path um pathologist
knows more about child development and
baby development and immune systems and
so on than the general one who goes
around you know as in movies and uh
things you know just picking up. They
did ask they did ask I heard this
evening uh in a discussion about this
the lawyer for Sally Clark said that
they did ask for a child pathologist a
pediatric pathologist and the police
apparently said no no our pathologist is
adequate but he was a general
pathologist he was doing all sorts of
murder the man in the yellow tie there
is what's happened to that lady you just
have to look at the pictures of her uh
before her trial and the pictures that
we saw her on her acquitt at the court
of appeal
It's ruined her life. It's possibly gone
a long way to ruining many uh good other
lives as well. I was going to raise the
point that an Leslie did mention uh
about that path the pediatrician who
gave that grossly misleading statistic
and that's the sort of thing that's got
to be eradicated from our system. What
saddens me is that hold a second. Come
back to your m the man there with the
black Yes. You said now you've got a
black shirt on. At least it looks like
it. Right. Sorry. Yeah. Um it seems to
me as though from what we've heard that
some information has been withheld as
well, vital information. And it makes me
wonder whether um our justice system our
system is trying to actually determine
the truth or just gain a conviction.
That's right. Okay. And and
you in the front row. Yes.
Although this uh pathologist wasn't a
pediatric pathologist, is he is he going
to face any charges? Well, he's having
some inquiries made this vital evidence.
Okay. I think there's several issues we
need to learn from the case. The first
is just the length of the whole
procedure when somebody has got such a
strong case for appeal. Why does it just
take so long? Secondly, there was and
has already been an appeal and they went
through the appeal process and none of
this came up even through that appeal
process. So, what went wrong there?
Thirdly, the jury asked for some of this
information to be given to them, but it
was actually withheld from the first
jury. So, something's gone wrong there.
And then finally, I think we do need to
learn much more about the whole question
of cot death, postnatal depression, all
of these issues, there is so much
misinformation and lack of
understanding. So, I hope from what is
an awful story, uh, it's a it's a it's a
lovely story in another way. The way in
which a husband and wife just hung
together and stayed through this so
strongly. I hope some good can come of
it. And never again when this kind of
thing is raised again will we have the
kind of medical evidence just brushed
over. I think some very serious
questions will be asked in every court
case which follows and that at least
will be some good that's come from this
awful case. But the tragic thing is that
the thing about the Clarks, they were a
loving middleclass legally trained
couple. They could go on fighting. There
are other cases of women who are in
prison who are workingass who don't have
that uh knowledge who don't have that
clout who don't have stars like Martin
Bell you know campaigning on their
behalf and I think that is really
seriously dangerous man in the front row
here then surprised that such a grossly
misleading statistic like that wasn't
picked up by somebody else in the court
at the time when it was read out or by a
colleague indeed or whether by the judge
or the jury I mean if I was in the jury
and heard a statistic like that, the
first thing I'd do is, you know, check
out that fact for myself because it even
sounds completely ridiculous. George G.
Well, statistics, damned lies and
statistics are used all the time to
bamboozle people and unless they've got
the expertise to challenge it, they
often go unchallenged. But the original
question was about the presumption of
innocence. And I actually think the
presumption of innocence is being
steadily and quite dramatically eroded
in this country. We've seen it in a
number of cases recently, pedophile
cases for example, where the media finds
somebody guilty or rape cases where they
found somebody guilty before the matter
has even uh started the due legal uh
process. We've seen it in terrorist
cases. And in this case, I think you're
right. The woman was held to be uh
responsible for proving her own
innocence. And of course, the process of
the trial was appalling. I just say
this, David, lastly, if this woman had
lived in Texas, she'd have been
electrocuted by now. And so for those
for those who who still cling to the
idea that it's a good idea to execute
people and have the death penalty, this
woman for killing two children would
have been executed by now. Right.
It does a lot of nonsense. I'm against
the death penalty. But they don't
execute women who've been accused of
move. That's absolutely untrue. They've
just done it in America. They've just
killed a woman who killed her children.
She drove them into a lake and let them
drown. You do talk nonsense and you
talk. She was convicted of murder. She
was convicted of murder. And in the
United States in the United A woman has
just been executed for precisely this,
killing her children. These were not
caught death. They were murder according
to the jury. They should have their own
show. Yes, I think moving around in a
moment. Do calm down. Robin, you telling
me to come. Robin McConnell, please. Mr.
McConnell, can you stir things up for
us? Do you think John Prescott as a
former active union official is right to
change the law to end a a democratically
balloted strike by the firefighters?
Mark, it's gone on too long. I've got
concerns about this dispute because
clearly with the troops who are having
to step in and the pressure that may be
on them in the next couple of months, we
need to settle this very quickly. But
because we need to settle it quickly, I
actually think Prescott is wrong. If you
really want to resolve this issue, then
the kind of macho language which he's
talking about about forcing a government
settlement on these individuals is
actually just going to harden opinion
amongst the firefighters. What I think
we should put in place is some form of
compulsory arbitration so that we
actually force both sides to get back
round the table and discuss this issue.
What's compulsory arbitration?
Compulsory basically what the government
told they disagree. What do you do then?
Well, this should be the next step that
is taken. Now it may very well be that
we end up with a point where you do have
to impose a settlement but we're not
there yet. The need sorry. What is
compulsory arbitration? You go to jail
if you don't go to the arbitration. you
get fined or how do you work compulsory
arbitration? You require both sides to
go around, sit around the table and
actually have independent arbitration.
But what's your clout to do that? The
the same clout that the government are
suggesting and putting in place that
ultimately there'll be an end process
where you will have to take control on
this. But at the moment, the government
aren't talking about getting around the
table. Jen, what do you think about
Prescuit's intervention? Well, what John
Prescuit is actually talking about is
taking powers to impose a settlement,
but that won't actually settle the
strike. uh what he has at his disposal
now is powers which the lab Labor
government used in the 1970s to stop a
fire strike when they decided it was a
threat to public safety and they keep
saying it is a threat to public safety
they could apply to the court for an
injunction and stop the strike now and
that's what we're suggesting he he
should do and then there would be uh
nowhere for the union to go but I
suppose compulsory arbitration you would
actually say you stop the strike what
would you do if they refused to go back
to work well What you do is you put an
injunction on the union to stop
organizing the strike. That's
legislation that's worked worked before
and it's legislation that a Labor
government has used before. And if they
ignore it, what do you do? It will work.
Uh it's worked before, has been used
before, and it will work. Uh the the
tragedy of the present strike is that
the firefighters have been led up the
garden path by their union. Uh the
leader of the fire brigades union is
like a latter-day Arthur Skgill. Uh he's
led his people up a blind alley. there's
no possibility that the government is
going to give any kind of settlement
along the lines that he's suggesting and
in fact the longer that it goes on like
Arthur Skargle's miners uh the more
firefighters are going to lose their
jobs and the more fire fire stations are
going to be closed by the government.
Let me go to the question. It would be
far better if they got back to work to
start with, took the pressure off the
armed forces, which is a disgrace and uh
shouldn't be happening,
and and settled down to the practical
discussions about how to settle the
dispute rather than carrying on with
what is now quite obviously a pointless
strike. And I fear most of the
firefighters know that, but they don't
know how to get out. Robin McConnell,
what do you think? You asked the
question. What's your view? I would like
uh a negotiated settlement. I'd be very
concerned about any imposition of law as
a trade union member for most of my
working life. It would go against the
grain for me to have the the weight of
the law to decide this strike. And I
think there's a world of difference
between Andy Gilchrist and Arthur
Scarwell. Okay. Mr. Gilchrist at least
took took the action on the back of a
Democratic ballot
which Mr. Scargle didn't. Okay. and and
you said in the third row there just a
couple of points being a trade union
official myself I believe Mark Oen is
correct there has to be a negotiated
settlement I think Mr. Jenin is an
absolute disgrace when he calls
firefighters idiots I never called them
idiots I believe if Mr. Jenke's house
was burning down. What he is he saying
he would ring up a bunch of idiots and I
think he's a disgrace. There has to be a
settlement. I I certainly think the fire
brigades union are a bunch of idiots
because I think they've led the
firefighters up the garden path and uh
but the firefighters themselves I think
they're a fantastic bunch and uh they
should be recognized as such and this
union is is that recognized by a 4% in
job cuts and award
itself pay award I I'm in parliament at
the moment to speak for the armed forces
they haven't had a 4% increase in years
the average squad
Are you are you are you sorry are you
saying that the firefighters the
firefighters who you admire aren't any
longer supporting the strike? I think
you'll find or you admire them but they
are supporting the strike which you
disagree with. I admire the work they do
which is frequently difficult and
dangerous but the soldiers who are doing
that job uh when the firefighters are on
strike are already paid much less. They
have to modernize. It's called Queen's
regulations. They don't have a chance to
go on strike to negotiate their terms of
conditions. They also can be called
overseas possibly to die for their
country. And I think it's a disgrace
that the that the that the fire brigades
union is disrupting uh the family lives
of soldiers who may be going abroad to
fight for their country uh when they are
the firefighters themselves are already
paid substantially more than soldiers.
You convinced by that and they get
second jobs? Absolutely not. I'm sure
the firefighters would love the sort of
pay rise Mr. Jenin had uh and other MPs
had over the last few years. The lady of
the fourth row there. You Mr. Blair
wants to stop pussyfooting about and
give him a decent wage.
George firefighters every time they turn
up for work are ready to die for their
country. And the union is not some
other. The union is made up of the brave
men and women that if you call them 999
tonight will be ready to plunge into a
burning building for money that Bernard
Jenin wouldn't get out of bed for. Let
me assure you about that. So what do you
think of John Prescott's action? I think
it's a despicable act and I think that
it has turned the stomach of genuine
decent labor people the length and
breadth of the country and I hope he
knows that he's being made a psy by the
cabinet when they put him up to do it.
The man with his credentials, his
background, his trade union history to
be put up to stab the firefighters in
the back is an absolutely despicable act
of treachery. He never
looks he never looks like like a No. And
I I I'm I was I was one of those
campaigning for him to be the leader of
the Labour Party in 1994. And I'm
absolutely I'm absolut Well, I think he
might have done a better job than uh has
been done, but anyway, he didn't get the
job, but I'll tell you what job he's got
now. The job he's got now is to be put
up to spit on his own history, to spit
on everything he used to believe in. And
these firefighters are an integral part,
a pillar of the Labor Party. They've
stood by the Labor Party in dark days.
and for the government to be effectively
um making them forced labor because
that's what it's called. This binding
arbitration and forcing them back to
work. That's called slavery in other
countries. Men, men and women, men and
women in a free country are entitled.
Look, if we've got money to go around
the world setting fire to other people's
countries, we've got money to pay the
firefighters a decent wage. Georgeay,
thank you. And Leslie and the
brief. I've always thought that this uh
whole dispute was a question of lions,
i.e. the firefighters, led by donkeys,
i.e. the FBU. And now we're going to put
in another donkey, try and sort it out.
John Prescott.
What I believe is that uh the FBU made
such a mess of this dispute with a 40%
increase which is more than you know
nurses were getting and so on. And this
idea that uh George has is that all the
firefighters do all the time is running
into buildings rescuing you know burning
babies nonsense. 10% of their time is
spent on that. They don't know which 10%
I respect. I respect and the rest of the
time they're dragging out people from
traffic accidents and doing things like
that. A lot of other things they are
doing that they have an enormous
increase in work to that. This is
somebody who gets £100,000 a year for
pontificating in a newspaper. How do you
know about my my salary? Now before you
before you two start work for the same
like having terrible twins on the
program. Look, could you could you Why
don't we do a musical act? Let's let's
No, let's let's do the let's do John
Prescuit and the union uh um the credit
of taking the issue seriously. Could you
just answer this and then we'll move on.
Do you think that John Prescuit is right
to change the law to try and bring an
end to the strike? I think that probably
it's the only alternative particularly
if we are on the brink of war. I'm sorry
that it's going to be him in charge and
he hasn't got to change the law. There
are sections of the law 1947 and so on
which will enable him to do it. So he's
not having to change the law. I think in
fact if we went to war I think the
firefighters themselves would call off
the strike and settle for what they're
offered. Okay. I'm going to take one
more point from the man in the yellow
tide there who's waving his hand
vigorously. And I would have brought you
in but I'll bring you on the next one.
Yes. Yeah. It's been reported by uh John
Prescott that the uh strikes cost 70
million pounds of the taxpayers money.
Isn't it time that the strikes ended
now? A million a day is what he says.
Well, that's your view. Okay. Uh on that
note, I'm going to move on. And this is
a question, please, from Claire Strain.
Claire Strain,
are the Conservatives trying to sneak
the asylum seekers issue onto the
anti-terrorist bandwagon in order to
gain popular support for it?
Conservatives sneaking the asylum
seekers issue onto the anti-terrorist
bandwagon to gain popular support.
George Galloway. Yes, they are. And not
only the conservatives, many others uh
from whom it's less expected are doing
the same thing. This conflation of
asylum, immigration, race, Islam, and
war, and terrorism is being made
deliberately to stir up people's
feelings against the other, against the
alien, to build support for war by
Bernard Jenkins party and also by some
people who should be even more ashamed
of themselves. Don't get me wrong. Who
are the people who should be even more
ashamed of themselves? Well, there are
all sorts of people who are making the
most reckless statements. I'll I'll I'll
just name one of them, the Home
Secretary, David Blancet, who actually
lectured people on speaking their own
language in their own house. He said
they'd get schizophrenic if they didn't
speak English even in their own houses.
And I think that that kind of uh casual,
reckless statement helps build the kind
of support for racist ideas that led to
a fascist party winning a seat on the
Halifax Council just a couple of days
ago. We need to cool this issue. All
responsible people of whatever political
stripe, if they want to have a
harmonious country, should be cooling
this issue down, not inflaming it by
throwing petrol on the fire.
Bernard Bernard
Jenkins Bernard Jenkins. Well, it is
gets to a pretty pass, doesn't it, when
you cannot actually discuss what is a
very major issue, which is the question
of asylum. Um because some left-wing
lunatic is going to jump on you and say
you're stirring up a a racist war. I
tell you what what gives the uh gives a
purchase for the for the fascists to win
council elections. It's the complacency
of politicians who somehow think this
doesn't matter so that people who live
in areas uh where they have high ethnic
populations begin to feel genuinely
afraid about who is living in their
area. So what we've got to do is first
of all get a grip of who is coming in
and out of our country. Get control of
our borders. make sure that we identify
the terrorists before they come in so
that people don't think that's an asylum
seeker, that must be a terrorist because
that is that is the situation we've got
because we have lost control of the
asylum issue. We also need to look at uh
uh giving genuine refugees a fairer deal
because they're the people that get
caught up in all this because the asylum
system is overloaded with with people
who aren't genuine asylum seekers. We
need to address this is the policy we
announced this week the whole question
of article three of the human European
commission on human rights which stops
uh even if you identify a terrorist
who's come in pretending to be a san you
can't deport that terrorist back to
their country of origin under the
European Commission on Human Rights.
That's clearly crazy. Uh we've got a lot
of work to do but the government is got
itself tied in knots. It's desperately
split on this issue and the and the
issue is going nowhere. So I make no
apology for launching a policy this week
to deal with the fact uh that it is
quite obvious that one of the ways that
the terrorists who are trying to get
into this country is by walking in and
claiming an asylum or even getting into
this country and then claiming asylum as
from in country. the the woman in the
second row.
I'm a wife of a genuine asylum seeker
who was actually deported back to Kosovo
this Sunday and um and we had a
horrendous time trying to do everything
by the book and we actually paid for him
to go back and we did everything by the
book. We paid for legal advice and
things like that and all the time it
really opened my eyes seeing how many
people how many false claims and things
but what I'm actually saying is as my
husband he's been my husband for 15
months and we've been together three
years we were stopped quite a few times
um on when he was in the car and he was
stopped by police sometimes and saying
what's your name are you a Muslim or and
he the last few years has been very
difficult and it's opened my eyes to
what black people have had to encounter
because I live in Birmingham and it was
and he's now back and we're trying to go
through the process from Kosovo and now
it's we can't do it in Kosovo because
they sorry what do you think of the of
the government and the Conservative
party's attitude to asylum seekers?
Well, I'm not um not very not very good.
Um I'm I do appreciate it's the the
whole system is absolutely choking at
the seams
and people my colleagues my friends
cannot believe that we've tried we are
real and we've you know I'm British and
we're married but we can't we've done
everything by the book and
yet it's the system is just too vast the
corruption the bribery
and there's so much to say Okay. And
Leslie's nodding in agreement. And
Patrick Jenin, Bernard Jenin, I'm sorry,
I've done it before, is nodding in
agreement. Um, well, I I totally agree.
The problem is a complete shambles. So,
nobody can tell who is genuine, who is
not, the amount of corruption, the false
ID cards, and so on and so forth. And
it's got to the stage where, frankly, if
Saddam Hussein, uh, George's great
friend with whom he shares so many No,
please, let's just stick to the point.
Let's not trade himself. Let's try and
get these
question send his entire Republican
guard to do where they could then claim
asylum and be allowed in and disappear
into the woodworks. It is a shambles.
And so your husband is suffering as much
as anybody from the shambles. I think
the fact that he's a Muslim, this is has
been a situation because he's a Muslim,
he's had really quite bad experience.
Um, but we've been stopped. He's been
stopped many times in the car uh and
look for papers and your surname and
it's we've really noticed it a lot.
Okay. The the man in the with in in the
dark pull over there. Second in Yes, you
sir. I've been I've been friends with a
Muslim who for like a year now and I've
been he he's a driver and I've been in
his car for the past year now and he
hasn't been stopped once. So, how can
you claim that? there just because he's
been stopped in his car is a claim. He
just gives his asylum seeker. Okay. And
you sir in the front here with the blue
blue tie. Yes. Um I think it's about
time we move back to conservative based
principles where compassion is exercised
with objectivity and it would enable
them everybody to get a control of this
situation. Right. So you would you would
would want to see the law toughened up
and and asylum seekers imprisoned while
they're checked or or or put in rather
than imprisoned. Imprisoned is an
emotive term but certainly compassion
with objectivity. Yes. And and you mad
in in the Yes. You in the pink. Uh yes.
Because I think that 95% of these are
not asylum seekers. They are illegal
immigrants. Okay. You think they're not
genuine? All right. Yes. Don't don't
read it. Just say say speak your mind.
All say is that all Mr. Blair says is
more dramatic steps need to be taken.
How true. Let's get rid of him as prime
minister. Okay. And the man in the front
row here on the left, please. Okay. I
mean I I find it quite amazing that
so-called intelligent people can sit
there and just for a small political
gain they can kind of attack these
asylum seekers and say why are they
coming here being a second generation my
father was he came here through asylum
the reason why these people come here
the reason why these people they they
get on board things that could hardly be
called boats to escape what's happening
in their lands and the devastation that
has been caused on their lands is
directly due to the colonization of
their lands by the west and these people
they come to seek refuge from these. So
if you want to solve the problem of
asylum seekers then I think you really
need to go deeper on this and can solve
the reasons why these people are coming
from
I I it's worth acknowledging I think
Bernard's language tonight was was
tolerant and measured on this issue.
Unfortunately not all politicians have
actually taken that position and I've
heard some pretty outrageous remarks in
the past. It is difficult as a
politician because you know you want to
get clapped by an audience like this.
But I'm going to say things that you
probably won't agree with and you might
want to boo about. But I feel very
passionately that we ought to have a
much more tolerant approach on this
whole issue. That we ought to not have
inflammatory language and we ought not
to have this rather macho battle in some
of the right-wing press to see who can
work up the nasty headlines on asylum
seekers. There is a lot of nonsense
written about frankly on this issue.
What I do think needs to happen is that
we must yes speed the process up. I
don't think it's going to be effective
to start ripping up international
treaties. I don't think the
conservatives idea of building these
centers all over the country is
practical. It will cost a lot of money
and even in their own shadow home
secretaries constituency, nobody wants
the suggested center there anyway. What
we must do is speed the process up,
tackle this and also work with our
European partners so that they do also
take some of the burden of this issue as
well. Okay, let me in the in the second
row here.
Could we also cover the co the cost to
the National Health Service of the
asylum seekers coming in with the health
risks that they bring with them i.e. TB
small and um yes you sir with the
spectacles on there. Thank you very
much. A genuine asylum seeker would come
to the first country that offered him a
safe haven.
And and I feel that these are not
genuine asylum seekers when they're
prepared to hang off the back of trains,
sitting in freezing lines, and come to a
country which they think is a soft
touch.
Okay. Well,
we we talked about we talked about
asylum seekers last week and this week
and no doubt next week as well because
it's a key issue. But I want to go on to
a final question from Richard McDermad.
Richard McDermad, please. Yes. Um,
what's the panel's views on the new sex
laws, sex law reforms outlined by the
Home Office, which allows gay men to
engage in having sex in public
lavatories. What's your view of it? My
view is that I've got no problem with
sexuality of any person, but I do
believe that it should be done within
their own private houses or hotels, but
not in a public lavatory. Apparently
also um uh people are allowed to do it
in their bedrooms with the curtains open
uh if it even if it can be seen from the
street but not in the garden. Correct.
That's right. And Leslie, what do you
think about these reforms? Well, I
thought public laboratories were for
relieving yourself of um you know um
certain u fluids which were not
connected. Careful. I think I think we
better move on to somebody else. This is
going to be your say is that a friend of
mine who uh uh took his uh small
children into a public lavatory. He had
no idea this was well known in the quote
unquote gay community as a
cottage and he was absolutely
thunderruck at what he saw and the abuse
he got when he said oh and and the
little boys were rushed out. I think
public laboratory should be for their
original purposes. Okay, George
Galloway.
Oh, she's bashed the asylum seeker.
She's bashing the gays. My god. I just
think we're bashing. We're too hung up
about these things. I'm amazed we've got
legislative time to legislate on this
kind of rubbish. Frankly, there are far
more important things that we should be
uh getting down to, if you'll pardon the
pun, in the in the British Parliament,
than where people have uh have have sex
or not. And public lavatory. I mean,
they can have it anywhere they like. Why
do they have to go into public
laboratory where parents, you know, take
their small children? I mean, I don't
even know if that is in the legislation.
I very much doubt if it's framed in
those terms. Uh I'm frankly, well, I I
quote I quote Tony Ben's son, Hillary,
who's the Home Office Minister involved,
who said, "If the cubicle door is open,
an offense is committed. If it's closed,
it's different." I don't want to go into
much more detail on this. Um Um Why did
you choose this? Bernard Jenin. No,
Richard McDermad asked it. Yeah. Uh
public um conveniences are not meant to
be threatening places. They're meant to
be places where uh uh you feel safe and
I can imagine uh as an found out that it
without wishing to cast any aspersions
on the gay community. Uh I'm not
antihomistic and the fact I was one of
the first conservatives to vote for the
equalization of the age of consent. But
uh I think that public laboratories
might become more threatening than they
need to be. I mean there are actually
gaps under the doors. So what
constitutes a closed door? I ask you I
want to look at this legisl I haven't
studied this. I think I saw I think I
saw a picture in one of the newspapers
but decided it wasn't work to read that
bit. Mark open very briefly because
we're coming to the end briefly. I hope
we're moving to a more tolerant society
where gay men don't feel they have to go
and hide in public laboratories but can
actually be in society and have
relationships in society. And as for the
other issue about sex in the garden, I'm
a liberal and a democrat. So as far as
I'm concerned, you can do most things
where you like as long as the other
person agrees. and the neighbors. The
man in the white pull over just very
briefly if you would sir. Is it not the
case that the whole of the sexual
offenses act actually needs to be looked
at and we shouldn't be just targeting
one group of people. We should look at
the whole issue of of sex offense and
address it accordingly. Yes, to be fair
to to the legislation, it does uh the
questioner just put this particular
point. It does have a fairly wide
ranging effect which we can't go into
now because our hour is up and it just
falls to me to thank our panel very much
indeed uh for for coming here to
Tamworth to thank all you for taking
part in the program. We're going to be
in Dartmouth next week and we're going
to have on the panel the former
education secretary Estel Morris uh Eric
Forth the shadow leader of the commons,
Shirley Williams the Liberal Democrat uh
leader in the Lords, Billy Bragg the
musician, and Aan Wilson the novelist.
Uh those will be our five snow
permitting. And um if you'd like to join
us in Bournemouth or if you'd like to
come to Canavan the following week,
remember to ring this number. It's on
the screen
0901441. Um or go to our website
bbc.co.uk/questtime where you can
comment on tonight's program. And if I
said Bournemouth instead of Dartmouth, I
can't think why I go to Dartmouth much
more often than I go to Bournemouth. And
a very admirable place. So anyway, um
you can comment on tonight's debate
there. You can also tell us who you'd
like to see on other editions of this
program. So, do join us again next
Thursday. In the meantime, from all of
us here, good night.
[Applause]