 |
TX: 23/06/06 2000-2045
PRESENTER: Jonathan Dimbleby
PANELLISTS: Jonathon Porritt
Malcolm Rifkind
Iqbal Sacranie
Harriet Harmon
FROM: Woodford Green United Free Church, Essex
DIMBLEBY
Welcome to Woodford Green in Essex, which was once a collection of hamlets on the edge of Epping Forest. Now it is still on the edge of Epping Forest but it's only 20 minutes by tube, generally very much longer by car, to central London. We're the guests here of the Woodford Green United Free Church and we're here to help celebrate its centenary, though unhappily not because of the problems with cars we're two years late in getting here.
On our panel: As the Prime Minister yet again lays out his views about crime and punishment the justice minister Harriet Harmon.
The former Foreign Secretary, now not so humble back bencher, Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
The government's chief advisor on sustainable development and the programme director of Forum for the Future Jonathon Porritt.
And David Johnson who served for 30 years in the foreign service of the United States. Immediately before he came to this country three years ago he was US coordinator for Afghanistan. He's now deputy head of mission at the American Embassy in London, which means, incidentally, that he's embroiled in a longstanding row with Ken Livingstone for claiming diplomatic immunity from the congestion charge, a bill which now apparently amounts to some £270,000. Mr Johnson, why don't you just pay up?
JOHNSON There's a small matter of when the Mayor introduced this tax and he called it a tax himself, we have several agreements among us, primarily among them the Vienna Convention, which says that diplomats shouldn't be being taxes to the country they're credited to. So we're not really interested in requiring David Manning to pay his income taxes in Washington, so we don't think we should be paying this tax here.
DIMBLEBY So this one's going to run and run?
JOHNSON I don't think so.
DIMBLEBY Okay. Anyway David Johnson's the fourth member of our panel. [CLAPPING] Could we please have our first question?
MANDRA Mohammed Mandra. What is the panel's opinion about Professor Ian Loader's comment about the dizzying pace of new initiatives?
DIMBLEBY This is Professor Ian Loader, advisor to Tony Blair on criminal justice. Tony Blair's speech which he's been reiterating his determination to change the balance of - between the criminal and those who are the victims of crime, saying instead that the political establishment is out of touch. And the Professor, amongst other things, said that he was in danger of putting plaster on a broken leg. Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
RIFKIND Well you know this is vintage Tony Blair, it's a marvellous speech and he made the usual remarks he's been making now for about 12 years about more attention needing to be given to the victims and less to those who caused the crimes. And no one in their right mind could disagree with the sentiment. But you know there's two fundamental questions that he can't avoid answering now that he's actually been prime minister for nine years. First of all why is the problem not - only not resolved but it's actually got worse in that period? But there's also a more fundamental problem. He said today we should spend more time with the concerns of the victims and less concern - and he didn't say with the problems of the criminals but he said with the problems of the suspects. But the whole point about being a suspect is you've not yet been convicted of any crime. And as we have known over the years sometimes entirely innocent respectable people are charged with crimes which they've never actually committed. And I was deeply concerned and disturbed that a British prime minister didn't compare the victims with the criminals, we'd all agree with that, he compared the victims with the suspects. And if he's saying - as with all the authority of the prime minister of the United Kingdom is saying that he is comfortable in removing the safeguards that have built into British justice for hundreds of years to ensure that people are only convicted of crimes when they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, if now the modern Labour Party no longer believes in that and that suspects, who've not yet been convicted of any crime at all and who may turn out to be innocent, genuinely innocent, not just on a technicality, if their interest are to be neglected or downgraded well that makes Britain a very different kind of country in Mr Blair's view to the one we've all been living in over the years.
DIMBLEBY Minister of justice. [CLAPPING]
HARMON Well of course he's saying absolutely nothing of the sort. It's in nobody's interest, it's not in the victim's interest if the wrong person gets convicted of the crime and it's not in the community's interest because then the guilty person's walking free. But I think that what he is saying, and he's absolutely right to be saying, is that we should have more focus on the victim in the criminal justice system and sometimes there are measures that need to be taken which do change the balance, for example - and I just put two things to you Malcolm, because you've talked about it theoretically, but let's look at the actual practical measures that the government has taken. One is in relation to the proceeds of crime. It's been a serious problem, criminals actually using the proceeds of crime and investing in more criminality. And what we've done is institute a system where bank balances can be looked into when there's a crime committed and those bank balances frozen and sometimes the proceeds of crime confiscated. But I think that that's the right thing to do. And in some cases we've said it is in certain circumstances right to put the previous convictions in front of the jury, not in all cases, very carefully controlled, but sometimes that's the right thing to do. And we've introduced new substantive laws to deal with new aspects of criminality. So I think ...
DIMBLEBY On the question that you were purporting to answer the charge made then by Sir Malcolm. Tony Blair said - I'll quote him directly: "It's no use saying that in theory there should be no contradiction between the rights of the suspect and the rights of that law abiding majority, in practice there is such a conflict and everyday we don't resolve it the consequence is not abstract it's very real out there on our streets". Is it the case that the rebalancing, which is what Sir Malcolm was charging Mr Blair with doing, between the rights of a suspect ...
RIFKIND ... suspects not the convicted, not just criminals but people who are suspected ...
DIMBLEBY Well forgive me I've just it's suspects - rebalancing between the suspect and the victim of crime, that that has to be rebalanced?
HARMON But I've just given you two examples ...
DIMBLEBY I'm sorry we're talking about suspects.
HARMON Yes, where there's a suspect and you're allowed to bring before the jury in respect of that suspect the previous convictions and we think that that was the right thing to do in certain cases. And the same with proceeds of crime, we're talking about freezing assets of suspects in case they're subsequently convicted and we want to be able to seize those assets. And the reality is that for too long I think ...
DIMBLEBY So - sorry - sorry - must just clarify this. That's what you've done, he is now saying apparently that more needs to be done, so that there's more rebalancing to be done in favour of the victim against, as it were, the suspect?
HARMON And let me give you one other example, which has been quite controversial, which we're trying out at the moment and I truly believe to be right and I was actually in Birmingham Crown Court yesterday talking to the people who were taking forward this pilot, this experiment and that's the opportunity for after a conviction in a murder or manslaughter case that the victims' relatives should be able to speak to the court and actually say what the effect of the crime has been on them. Until now the victims' relatives, the people who care most in all the world about the case, are the people who are silent sitting in the public gallery and the defendant gets to speak and everybody else gets to speak and they're silent. So...
DIMBLEBY Quick response Sir Malcolm and then I'm going to move on.
RIFKIND It sounds - it sounds very agreeable but it's emotionalism being introduced into the judicial process because the judge and the jury have heard all the evidence, they know what the person's been actually convicted of, then a sentence should be decided. Now I've no objection to the victim expressing their views in court, of course that may be a very reasonable civilised thing to do but if you're saying it will result in a different sentence to what would otherwise be applied that is introducing a very tough emotional dimension and it's something which has very great dangers inherent in it.
DIMBLEBY I will let you back in in a moment, I'm going to bring in Jonathon Porritt. Back to the question - the dizzying pace of new initiatives, putting plaster on a broken leg, is the critique offered against the Prime Minister's new stance - or repetition of his stance on the promise of new legislation.
PORRITT Indeed and I just wanted to go back to that notion of initiative-itis as it were, I think Professor Loader referred to the fact that there have been 47 different rebalancings of the criminal justice acts since Labour came into power. So time after time efforts have been made to put this right and there is a very strong suggestion that there are so many new interpretations of what needs to be done that the system never really settles around the doing of it, they're just endlessly waiting for some other dictate to come their way from on high. And I think that's a very severe charge that the professor has brought against the government here. I think that this is - it is the Prime Minister clearly not just reacting to populace concern in the red tops in the populace press. There's a deep issue here that the public do care enormously about but I suspect they've also cottoned on to the fact that when government claims that its criminal justice policies are based on evidence that this is not true. Because we have a lot of evidence about certain things that this government chooses never to address, we know that a very high proportion of crime is caused by people who are dependent on drugs but we never see a serious stepping up of investment in all of those measures which would be needed to get people off the drugs so they stop causing the crime. We know perfectly well that prisons are in effect crime academies, 70% of people who go to prison reoffend within two years. So when you put more people into prison guess what - 70% or more means that you've got more reoffenders. We know that our prison service at the moment is desperately failing society because it fails prisoners. If we actually concentrated on educating, on training, on giving some kind of purpose to people in prisons we would end up with a less worse situation than one we have now.
DIMBLEBY Okay. David Johnson. [CLAPPING]
JOHNSON I feel a little bit like the meat in the sandwich here without a role to play. But I would just make one comment or two. The victims rights movement, if you will, is something that has worldwide salience, we've been working on it ourselves over the last several years. There are a couple of things that I know that we do differently than you. One is so-called plea bargaining which unclogs the courts and provides for a more rapid sentencing and we do use the type of techniques in some state jurisdictions that you're describing here as well. But I think one of the things that's been most effective in the United States in bringing down the crime rate over the last couple of decades is a serious incarceration of people who are repeat offenders.
DIMBLEBY Thank you. Minister, Tony Blair also said that the - in this context - the political establishment is out of touch. There are those who think he is the political establishment, as Prime Minister. Who is the political establishment if he isn't?
HARMON Well I don't know who he is referring to but perhaps he means all those people who say that these new laws that we've put in over the last nine years are dizzying initiatives and are unwarranted. And I would say that I don't think it was a bad idea to tighten the law on rape and sexual offences in the Sexual Offences Act. I don't think it was a bad idea to bring in a new law on domestic violence. I don't think it was a bad idea either to have new laws so that you can deal with crack houses under antisocial behaviour rules. And what people say is oh it's loads of new laws and it's loads of initiatives but this is to meet the real demand of the need to tackle crime and the system is too slow still, it does take too long for a case to come to trial and he's right to be frustrated about that and to say it might seem normal in the system perhaps for cases to take years before they come to trial but we need to do it quicker. There's some fantastic work being done by the police, by the prosecutors in the courts and I want to really back up and speak in support of what they do but I also want to say that I'm absolutely totally in favour of what the Prime Minister said - we need further change so that people can have a really good criminal justice system which emphasises, yes as Jonathon said, prevention as well as prosecution in bringing offenders to justice.
DIMBLEBY And very briefly, do you add your voice to his in saying that the legal establishment is out of touch as well?
HARMON Well I have to say ...
DIMBLEBY The people you deal with ...
HARMON I don't know - Malcolm are you a barrister?
RIFKIND I once upon a time was and if I needed a lawyer I wouldn't use me.
HARMON I could tell that - I could tell that because Malcolm is very against the idea that the victim after conviction, the victim's relatives should have a chance to speak in court. And yes Jonathan a lot of lawyers said that this was sharea law, that this was the lynch mob mentality and that they were totally opposed to it. That's why we're piloting it for a year and I think that it will show to be a good initiative but yes there's been lots of resistance just because it's new and I hope it works in practice.
DIMBLEBY Mohammed Mansra, what is your own view about Professor Ian Loader's comments that you raised?
MANSRA The dizzy pace of legislation hasn't produced the results. The minister quoted the Procedural Crime Act and in reality the cost of administering this is disproportionate to the whole thing. It's not producing results.
DIMBLEBY Do you think - are you - is it your view that when he also says that this government or the Prime Minister and the propositions are putting plaster on a broken leg, it's a colourful phrase, do you also share that view?
MANSRA Absolutely.
DIMBLEBY Okay, I'm going to leave it there. For Any Answers the number to ring is 08700 100 444 and the e-mail address is any.answers@bbc.co.uk. We'll go to our next please.
OLIVER
Emma Oliver. Would promotion of Megan's Law in Britain result in public persecution of paedophiles?
DIMBLEBY David Johnson, Megan's Law originates in your country.
JOHNSON It does, it originates from a very sad case in the state of New Jersey where someone - a young girl - was molested and then murdered by someone who was living in her neighbourhood and her parents did not know anything about it. And the state legislature decided that a proper response was based on transparency and providing information to the community so that they would know who was living among them if they represented a real or potential threat to their children. So a number of a jurisdictions in the United States, certainly not all the states, have adopted some form of this statute. They have different requirements for differing kinds of crimes against children. But it is a measure which has proven widely supported, particularly among parents who are fearful for the safety of their children.
DIMBLEBY Has it led to vigilantism of a kind that would be undesirable or alternatively paedophiles, as it were, going underground and therefore putting individuals more at risk?
JOHNSON Well I'm unaware of any real example of what you would call vigilantism, certainly people in neighbourhoods are aware and they take measures to protect their children, keeping them away from certain localities. And I have to say I'm puzzled by the underground aspect of this, the individual would be underground already if no one knew where they were.
DIMBLEBY Thank you. Jonathon Porritt.
PORRITT I don't believe it would achieve the apparent desired effect, indeed I think it might well do exactly the opposite. I think there's obviously a huge debate about whether paedophiles should be described as evil or sick. And you never quite know in this debate which way people are going to veer on that particular axis. It seems to me, reverting to my answer to the first question, that what we have to focus on here is treating people in this instance to ensure that these things don't happen again or happen as little as possible. The really sad truth is that most child abuse, most instances of paedophilia, take place inside the home, not outside in society. So there are a very large number of people who need help, very serious professional medical help. There are ways of providing that - I read recently of an extraordinarily successful scheme that the Quaker Peace and Service organisation has been providing for paedophiles released back into society. With a very marked impact on those people and a considerable success rate in terms of turning them away from that utterly abhorrent pattern of behaviour. And simply to go on doing what we tend to do now, which is to think that the more we put the pressure on, the more we stigmatise and the more we expose them to what could easily become some kind of communal lynch law, that that's going to provide an answer to these people's problems, it isn't. Again we have to look at a much more sophisticated set of interventions in the lives of very sick, very, very sick people.
DIMBLEBY A junior minister, minister, is going to be despatched to the United States to find out whether it might work in this country, against the background of the government previously having said it wouldn't work in this country. What's your own feeling?
HARMON Well what he's gone to do - Jerry Sutcliffe - who's a minister in the Home Office - is to look at the evidence of whether or not it's worked and as I understand from David it works differently - it operates differently in different states. And I think the important thing here when you've got serious offences and you've got a propensity for reoffending then obviously what is very important indeed in the public safety question is the evidence base. The question is - what actually works? We all know we want to tackle this problem, we all regard it as extremely serious and the question is looking at the actual evidence and working out what the agencies in particular are already trying to deal with offenders who've come to the end of their sentence, are in the community but people still feel concerned about, that how the police, the probation service, the local authority all work together to make sure there's proper supervision. And actually under the law as it stands at the moment they can actually inform people locally under our law but they do it on a case by case basis. But anyway Jerry Sutcliffe, the minister's gone to look and see how it works in the States, the different schemes there. But I would agree with what Jonathon said. When I was Solicitor General for four years looking at cases week in, week out, in every crown court in every town in this country are the most serious sexual offences against children from father, from stepfather, from the friend of the family and I think one of the things that the NSPCC say, which I think is so absolutely right, is one of the most important things for protection of children against sexual offending is to listen when they complain and to take their complaints seriously.
DIMBLEBY So why put the News of the World in the driving seat?
HARMON I don't think they are in the driving seat. I think the question is what is the evidence and whether it works. And I think there is nothing wrong with looking and seeing, not just the public confidence issue, because what is going to ultimately make people confident is whether or not the system is actually working.
DIMBLEBY Thank you. Sir Malcolm.
RIFKIND Like my colleagues I have mixed feelings on this. If my children were still young and if there was a person on the sex offenders register living in the street we live in I would be very anxious to know about that and that's a very natural human instinct. But there are legitimate concerns. Jonathon Porrit was right to refer to the fact that most paedophiles, not most but a significant proportion, are family members of the person whom they abuse. But there is the problem of vigilantism and it's not just the theoretical problem. In this country, in the south of England, a couple of years ago the home of a paediatrician was attacked because the people attacking couldn't understand the distinction between a paediatrician and a paedophile. And this poor man was subjected to serious damage to his property, abuse to himself, possible threat to his physical safety because a mob - a small mob - but a mob thought they had a paedophile in their midst because somebody said well that guy's a paediatrician, he's a risk to children in the community. Now it's that kind of response, which we can all understand how it can happen, but it would be much more likely to happen in this kind of context that we're discussing.
DIMBLEBY
Let me ask the audience here. You've heard some of the issues spelt out - who here is inclined to favour a British version of Megan's law - would you put your hands up? Who is not so inclined, who doesn't favour it? Overwhelmingly in this audience there is opposition to the idea of a Megan's law, you may have your thoughts about that, the number to ring - I'll remind you of it again - is 08700 100 444. We'll go to our next please.
David Cameron says that all fathers should attend the birth of a child for bonding. Do you agree with this statement?
DIMBLEBY Former Foreign Secretary, now a backbencher, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, is your leader speaking for you?
RIFKIND Well first of all he's not David Cameron, he's Dave Cameron, I must insist, so we are all instructed to address him. I do ...
DIMBLEBY Why are you wearing a tie?
RIFKIND You're quite right - no you're the one who's sucking up to my leader Jonathan, you're not wearing a tie, you're the only one here who's not, so people must draw their own conclusions. But I strongly agree with him for a very personal reason. When my daughter was born a good number of years ago I was in the maternity home dying to be present when it happened and some old fashioned doctor at the time refused to allow me in and I was sent away and told to come back when the professionals would have completed their task. It hasn't stopped me bonding with my daughter but I've never ceased to resent the fact. When my son was born I would have been allowed in but unfortunately I was 200 miles away and so I missed that opportunity and have always regretted it.
DIMBLEBY David Johnson.
JOHNSON Well fortunately I was present at the birth of all three of my children and it - I don't know whether it makes one bond with them or not but it's certainly an experience with one's spouse in creating family and being responsible for it. So I don't know that it's a political act but it certainly was something that meant a great deal to me. In the United States now one of the activities though of the father in the room though is you are indentured labour for the medical authorities and I think it may be actually quite difficult for a woman to be by herself now. So you always in the United States have a partner, if you will, whether it's your spouse or not who's with you through that very blessed experience.
DIMBLEBY So if you are a mature, responsible father you can't claim, as Sir Malcolm has just done, that well he was 200 miles away at the time and get away with it?
JOHNSON You probably would need photographic evidence.
DIMBLEBY Jonathon Porritt.
PORRITT Well I think it's a tribute to the increasingly sophisticated spin machine of Dave Cameron that anyone has really bothered to comment on this. I mean why is this suddenly seen as a bolt from the paternal blue? I mean fathers have been thinking like this for a very long time. Of course it's a wonderful thing to do but we really don't need the leader of a political party to point that out to us, sorry. [CLAPPING]
DIMBLEBY His people or his spin doctors, whoever they are, say that the principle point that he was making in that context of loving and bonding was that he wanted to make family friendly policies to help fathers and mothers around before and after the birth.
PORRITT Good, well go on and do it then.
DIMBLEBY Harriet Harmon - good idea?
HARMON Well of course it is, I mean it's sad that all those fathers all over the years weren't able to be there to see that moment when the child opened his eyes and looks out and you see it for the first world - it's an absolutely awe inspiring moment. But I do agree with Jonathon that - I mean what David Cameron was trying to do is he was trying to position himself after the Conservative Party voted against giving fathers a right to two weeks paid paternity leave, so he was trying to reposition himself having - the Tory Party having voted against giving parents the right of children - preschool children the right to ask for flexible working to fit in with their family life. So he's trying to reposition the Tory Party ...
DIMBLEBY So he's not just being a nice - you're claming - you're seriously claiming minister that he's not just being a kind, loving father, expressing natural human emotions but this is some political act?
HARMON Well it certainly is and I'd like to say why I - for all he's intending to do this it doesn't cut any ice with me, not just because in the past they've voted against things that I've argued for for decades and that we finally had the opportunity to do when we've been in government like increase maternity pay and leave. But also because in his speech where he talked about fathers bonding with their children he didn't say a single thing about the thing which I think is absolutely critical which is about time, parents being able to have time with their children, not just when they're young, not just to go to the parents' evening and the sports day and to do the collecting and the picking up but also when they're teenagers and they're on study leave and they can get the idea of leave but they can't get the idea of study. I mean children - parents need time for their children and for that we need a shift of power in the employment relationship between the employer and the employee so that when you're employing all the mothers of the children of the future and you're employing all the fathers you need to carve out some time. And because he wants big business to hold sway he won't make that challenge in the workplace.
DIMBLEBY Sir Malcolm I think you [CLAPPING] you will have read Dave's speech very carefully and will know whether or not he did in fact refer to the need to be together.
RIFKIND Harriet, you know I'm not upset, I'm not angry but I'm rather sad. I thought, as you were making these various remarks I thought to myself now if it was not David Cameron saying that parent - fathers should always be at the presence of their children's birth, if it had been Gordon or Tony would you have interpreted the same way or would that have been a dramatic gesture of paternal love which should be followed by the nation as a whole?
DIMBLEBY I think we will leave that - no Harriet - that's one of those ones [CLAPPING] where the question hangs in the air and we go to our next.
KENNEDY
John - Dr John Kennedy. The many St George's flags decorating our streets and cars at the present time spell support for our English national football team. The obvious absence of union jacks however, raises the question, are we no longer a united nation, what is the opinion of the panel please?
DIMBLEBY The World Cup finally gets into Any Questions. Jonathon Porritt.
PORRITT Oh I don't know, I mean it's - I was ...
DIMBLEBY You come on to the programme to have views Jonathon.
PORRITT I know, I know, I was kind of thinking to myself, I guess we're going to have to do something about the World Cup. At least it's sort of oblique rather than actually about any footballer per se, so thank you very much for that. I don't really feel very upset by these St George's flags all over the place, I think it's rather splendid, I saw a lorry the other day with 28 of them, all up and down the sides and the front and all the rest of it. And I thought to myself that's great. I'm told there are even one or two politicians who put them on their bikes, which I guess is a significant tribute to their love of football as well as their children. So to a certain extent I think it's just all good fun, if we're going to turn this into a big constitutional debate about whether this means the end of the United Kingdom then I think we could be in a lot of trouble because I know there are a huge number of people up in Scotland who are routing so passionately for England in the next round that you couldn't believe it.
DIMBLEBY That does not include minister Jack McConnell who says he's going to go on supporting Ecuador in the next time - round, as the first minister I wonder whether you're with him or whether you're with Gordon Brown who others see as ingratiating himself with the English to demonstrate that he's really more English than the Scots, would like him to be.
PORRITT Yes probably, I'm glad that Gordon Brown's awoken to the delights of football, apparently as he has to the delights of the Arctic Monkeys, so what does that tell you about culture?
DIMBLEBY Who are you with minister on this particular issue, the Chancellor who may be Prime Minister or the present senior minister in Scotland Mr McConnell?
HARMON Well unfortunately I haven't been following what Jack McConnell has been saying about football but I was ...
DIMBLEBY Well I can tell you very simply - most people listening will know that he said very clearly that he's not going to support England in this, he's going to support Ecuador and he's repeated it this very day because he wants to support Ecuador and everyone knows his position - he doesn't support England.
HARMON That's when I say - that's a matter for him. But I would say in relation to the flags point is this. Is that it's been incredible in London and no doubt in other big cities in this country that people have - so many people I've seen in their cars, they've got two flags and some of them have got on cross of St George and the other is Ghana, or the other is Trinidad and Tobago and the other is Ivory Coast. And we're here in the constituency which I think used to be Norman Tebbitt's and he talked about the cricket test. But what is really interesting - well we're nearby ...
DIMBLEBY Close by Norman Tebbitt's old constituency.
HARMON Is that he talked about the cricket test and what I see as people celebrating not only their country where they live but also their country of origin. And I was going on a train on my way back, when England was playing Sweden I was on a train for the first bit and then when I got off at the station and there's a pub on Kings Cross station and everybody was inside watching the TVs but all the cleaners and the people who clean the trains and do the catering on the trains were all standing outside watching through the glass and they were like the League of Nations, they were from all over the world and England scored and this huge cheer went up. And I thought this thing about the World Cup that is absolutely fascinating and it's been showing our strength and our diversity and I don't mean that to sound kind of David Cameronite, I mean it, I actually mean it, it's shown the strength of our diversity and I think it's great and I hope we get through beyond the quarter finals. [CLAPPING]
DIMBLEBY I hope David Johnson that you can't share in respect of America as you are now out of the World Cup, which means, I suppose, there are even fewer American flags flying than there were before. Do you take a view about this national issue?
JOHNSON Well we come at this probably from the point of view of being from a federal state where we all have, shall I say, varied affections for our neighbours with which we border. And so the - I can imagine that in the ball games - when we play what we call football which you play with an oblong ball and people with plastic helmets on top of their heads - the people in Texas probably are rooting for anyone to beat whoever is playing Oklahoma. So talking this up into a great national dispute seems to me a little far fetched but I'm only a visitor here, I'm not a resident so I can't feel this in my bones.
DIMBLEBY Have you ever seen a football match of our kind?
JOHNSON I have, I remind you that the United States womens' team consistently wins the gold in the football of your sort, Olympics. [CLAPPING] So there.
DIMBLEBY So there - absolutely. So absolutely there Sir Malcolm now.
RIFKIND Well you know if I may go back to the original question, so far as football is concerned we've never been a United Kingdom, there has always been this extraordinary rivalry. But as Scotland is no longer in the World Cup can I, as a Scot, say I unreservedly wish to see England win and not just because I'm the Member of Parliament for Kensington and Chelsea. I make one additional point - I'm not a great expert on football but I can make one claim that nobody else can make - I'm probably the only person in the United Kingdom who has ever united Rangers and Celtic fans because I managed to get 70,000 of them booing me simultaneously. [CLAPPING] And just to explain how it happened, this because when I was a junior minister I was in charge of the legislation to ban alcohol at all Scottish football matches and when I went to the first Rangers/Celtic match and the ban had been introduced the police superintendent before the match began said - Minister, would you like to walk round the ground to see how the ban is working - and like a complete idiot I said yes and it was like a Mexican wave as we walked our way round.
DIMBLEBY We'll go to our next question.
CROOK
Ann Crook. Does Gordon Brown's endorsement of Trident make his election as leader of the Labour Party more or less likely?
DIMBLEBY Jonathon Porritt.
PORRITT It's clear what he's doing, it's clear he's seeking to position himself as a true successor to Tony Blair. He's clearly trying to persuade people outside the political system that he's a world leader who will protect this nation's interests. I think it's absolutely astonishing that yet again a senior Labour politician has pre-empted the kind of proper debate we should have in this country by saying what is going to happen before apparently he's even consulted his own party. Before he's bothered to consult Parliament. Before he's bothered to consult the people of this country as a whole, who probably have some very strong views about this. And for him, before he's even been ushered into the seat that apparently awaits him, to say that he's going to commit £25 billion of our money to renew this deterrent, at a time when the world is looking at security in such different ways. And we need leadership of such different kinds, is I think absolutely astonishing, it confirms in my mind an autocratic tendency in senior Labour politicians that begins to beggar belief. If we're not permitted [CLAPPING] if we're not permitted on an issue of this kind to have a proper intelligent rational national debate, to share arguments for and arguments against, to rethink the role of Britain in such a different world, then it really raises the question - what does the Labour Party think politics in the future is all about? [CLAPPING]
DIMBLEBY Sir Malcolm.
RIFKIND Well there's two issues here. There's the question as to whether we should continue with our nuclear deterrent for years to come and I happen to believe that that is what we ought to do, and so I have no problem about that. But I entirely endorse Jonathon's remarks that this is a great national issue and requires to be properly debated. But it's even worse than Jonathon said because if there's one person - if there's one wrong way to make a decision on this it's for the Chancellor the Exchequer in an after dinner speech to reach the conclusion on this. The question of our nuclear deterrent should be for the Prime Minister in due course to speak on or the Defence Secretary but what's it to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an after dinner speech to make this announcement? Now I know exactly what Harriet's going to tell us - she's going to say - no I do know because she's going to say that the words he used were exactly what was in the Labour manifesto, no more and no less, and that is technically correct but what she is not going to say, but I will say, is that for the 24 hours after the Chancellor made those remarks all his aides were briefing the media that this was the Chancellor pre-empting the debate, telling his own Labour Party colleagues the decision had now been reached and the problem was now behind them. And what he's seeking in fact to do is to treat a great national issue as if it's an internal problem of Labour Party management and that is not good enough. [CLAPPING]
DIMBLEBY Harriet Harmon, are you going to tell us what Sir Malcolm thinks you're going to tell us?
HARMON Well I'm going to agree with him that it is a big national issue and I'm going to agree with Malcolm and Jonathon Porritt that there needs to be a big debate. We're talking about potentially enormous sums of money if we replace our nuclear deterrent capacity and we're talking about hugely long term commitments. So it's right that we should have the debate, it's right that the government should gather the evidence and then what we're committed to do is publish a white paper and that will itself be fully debated. And what his speech was, was a wide ranging speech about security in a very changing global situation and that's economic security and also security against terrorism but also he was looking at the question of the nuclear deterrent in that context. So I think ...
DIMBLEBY Did he not make it completely clear to you, as he apparently did to others, that he was ready to commit £20-25 billion sterling to the project, that he himself was in favour of that project, as the man most likely to be the next prime minister?
HARMON What he said was ...
DIMBLEBY Did you draw that - I'm asking you whether you just drew that inference, which 99% of the rest of the population appear to have drawn?
HARMON Well I was - sorry I was just reading his speech, I wasn't drawing any inferences, I was reading his speech and what his speech said was pretty much what was in the manifesto and I think it's [LAUGHTER] so Malcolm was right on that point. So - but I think the idea that we're having this debate now and are going to have it right up until late spring, early summer, that debate is going to be there and Gordon has raised this issue for debate, not pre-empted it. The idea that we're saying that the decision has been taken, it has not and actually what it said and has been made clear is that proposals haven't even gone to ministers yet, so even the case has not been fully assessed. So I would just say be confident, there will be debate, there will be openness, there will be a white paper and nobody needs to think that any judgement has been rushed to on something that will last for 25 years, cost £25 billion, that would be the wrong way of doing it and we wouldn't.
DIMBLEBY One question: do you believe that there should be a vote in Parliament on this, so that the members of parliament, the elected representatives of the people of this country, should make the decision, yourself - do you believe that or not?
HARMON Well normally for this sort of thing - well this is unprecedented because it's such a long scale, a long term thing and it's such a big amount of money. I think that whether the government calls a vote will be a matter for the leader of the House of the Secretary of State for Defence but I would expect that Parliament itself when it gets to debate the white paper would actually seek to have a vote and if parliament wants to vote it will and I would be very surprised if it doesn't.
DIMBLEBY So you favour the right of the elected representatives to make the decision through a vote which would determine the outcome?
HARMON Well we don't know whether we've got any proposals yet so I can't say whether or not...
DIMBLEBY On the assumption that there is going to be something put before parliament, am I interpreting you correctly?
HARMON I think that probably that would be the right thing to do but I don't know whether we've even got a proposal yet, so I can't say whether there should be a vote on something where I don't know whether we're even proposing it, so you'll perhaps invite me back, if you would, in a few months time and I might be able to be a bit more categorical on that.
DIMBLEBY Sir Malcolm.
RIFKIND As you're telling us Harriet that we don't yet have even a proposal before us, can you give us your own thoughts - do you think Gordon Brown was aware that his own aides were telling every single newspaper and broadcasting outlet in the United Kingdom that this was the Chancellor as the next Prime Minister stating his conclusion that Britain should continue into a new generation of nuclear weapons - do you think he just didn't know what they were saying and if he didn't know what they were saying why didn't he deny it immediately after they said it and it was reported in every national newspaper?
HARMON Okay Malcolm, what you're doing is you're asking me to comment on what you're saying that the newspapers have told you about what Gordon's spin doctors have told them and sorry but I'm just not going to get - you know - I don't know whether what you're saying adds up to a row of beans, it just might be rubbish.
DIMBLEBY
Time - time for David Johnson on this, do you think that this will - the question is put - make his election as leader of the Labour Party more or less likely? Not ever an easy question for, as it were, a guest to this country to answer but do your best.
JOHNSON
Well I won't pretend to engage in your tribal customs here on this particular question.
DIMBLEBY
Okay, I thought you might say that. We'll go swiftly to our next question please.
NEVILLE
Stephen Neville. Al Gore says the American government is in a state of denial over global warming. How do you categorise the British government?
DIMBLEBY
How would you categorise the British government? The background is the allegation by Al Gore about the American government. Sir Malcolm.
RIFKIND
Well I think the British government - I don't have any great difference of view with them in terms of what they're trying to achieve, I think the British government is genuinely committed to trying to deal with the problems of climate change and global warming. I think the debate in this country is how you take that forward, not what is the desirable objective. Now one of the differences in the government and the Conservative Party, if you take, for example, the question of the climate change levy that is essentially a tax on energy which we think is not the right way forward. We think that the problem is carbon emissions and therefore what we're looking at is whether you should have, as an alternative, a tax on carbon emissions - the more carbon you produce into the atmosphere the more you're taxed and that way you move in the right direction. So our difference with the government is not objective but the means of achieving climate control in the way that will help future generations.
DIMBLEBY
David Johnson, you don't like commenting on the British government but you can answer the question as to whether or not the charge put by Al Gore has good basis, your government in a state of denial, he says.
JOHNSON
No we're not and with due respect to someone for whom I used to work I think his statement is not only hyperbolic but is not true. The United States has taken a different approach to climate change than has many other states. We've found that the cap it and limit approach of Kyoto was one which excluded a good portion of humanity, it was based on a ...
DIMBLEBY
Do you think - can I cut to the chase on this?
JOHNSON
Yes.
DIMBLEBY
Do you think - does your government believe that global warming is the most urgent problem facing the world, as Tony Blair and others have said it is?
JOHNSON
We believe that global warming is a genuine problem, it is something that we are - the government is investing at about a five billion dollars a year, more than 20 billion dollars during the first term of the Bush administration, to produce, develop, research and deploy technologies and to deal with this at its source, not in a cap and limit approach.
DIMBLEBY
Jonathon Porritt. Just briefly on the Americans do you believe that Al Gore's right about this or that David Johnson's right?
PORRITT
I think Al Gore has been amazingly generous about the US administration's position on this, particularly George Bush's own position which I read as being scientifically dishonest, politically inept and from a humanitarian point of view completely cynical and immoral. So [CLAPPING] I only wish that Al Gore - I only wish that Al Gore when he had ...
JOHNSON
... epithet, what backs it up?
PORRITT
What your scientific dishonesty? Do you really want an answer for that, let's share it afterwards, you know perfectly well your government has been rigging the science on climate change for the last six years. Al Gore calls this denial, I don't call it denial, I call this deliberate manipulation of clear incontrovertible scientific evidence to suit a geo-political purpose. So let's be absolutely honest about this, that's the position we've got to here. I just wish Al Gore had done something about it when he was in the White House, eight wasted years in the White House. Great that he's made a fantastic film and is doing a lot of good work now, out and about doing it around the world - fantastic. If I may get on to the ...
DIMBLEBY
Yeah you can but just a very quick one from David Johnson.
JOHNSON
The agreed G8 communiqué last year said that global climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
PORRITT
Fantastic then address it for God's sake.
DIMBLEBY
Okay. [CLAPPING]
JOHNSON
So you would endorse nuclear power as a way to go about ...
PORRITT
I want to just finish the question if I may. I know I've got to speak very quickly. I don't think the Labour government is in denial on this, no, I think Tony Blair has actually demonstrated a considerable degree of international leadership on this issue which has been extremely welcome at a time when we've had such a barren terrain to look out over during that time. But the Labour government is still confused on this score, it is vacillating, its record in its own backyard is nothing like as good as it needs to be.
DIMBLEBY
Harriet Harmon I'm afraid the briefest answer you've ever given in about 25 seconds only.
HARMON
I think there's a growing sense of urgency on this, the need for government action, action at local council level, action for all of us at individual level as well. We're actually having a climate change summit next Friday in Southwark and I'm going to go along and I've got to ask does my carbon footprint look big in this.
DIMBLEBY
Okay, thank you very much. And I'm afraid that brings us to the end of this week's programme. As always you want to go on just when we have to stop. Next week - I'm away for three weeks - next week I'm very glad to say Nick Clarke will be back on the airwaves and in this chair for three weeks, with next week Jonathan Aitkin; Frederick Forsyth; Dr Beverley Malone, who is the Head of the Royal College of Nursing and the former Home Office minister Barbara Roche. Join them in Tring. From here in Woodford Green goodbye. [CLAPPING]
|
|
