24/02/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

the Prime Minister has done with the EU could be ripped up

Downing Street says it's irreversible -

Jeremy Hunt has claimed that there are 6,000 excess deaths

because the NHS in England doesn't have a proper seven-day service.

But did the Health Secretary use unpublished data to make the claim?

It's 15 years since foot and mouth caused chaos in the countryside -

but have we learned the lessons to cope with a similar crisis today?

The fresh faces of Parliament's new boys and girls -

but how hard have they worked since they were elected in May?

All that in the next 90 minutes and, of course,

Prime Minister's Questions at midday.

Public service broadcasting at its finest! PMQs will be live and

uninterrupted. MPs have been around for quite a while but have lost none

of their youthful enthusiasm. the Business

and Enterprise Minister Nick Boles - he's on the Prime Minister's side

and will be campaigning to remain And we have Labour's Gisela Stewart,

who is one of the small number of Labour MPs who will be

campaigning to leave. Much more on the EU debate later

but first, do 6,000 people really lose their lives every year

because the NHS in England doesn't That's the claim the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt made last summer to explain why

it was so important to introduce a new contract for junior

doctors in England - here he is on the Today

Programme last July. When you turn medicine into a Monday

to Friday profession, you end up with catastrophic

consequences for patients and in 2003 the then government

changed the contract to give consultants the right to say,

we are not going to do any The result is that now

if you are admitted on Sunday, you are 15% more likely to die than

if you are admitted on Wednesday. We have about 6000 avoidable

deaths every year. That is something that doctors

passionately want to change. Now, though, the BBC has seen

e-mails which suggest that Mr Hunt used unpublished data to make that

claim of excess death rates The BBC's Health Editor, Hugh Pym,

has the story and joins us now What is the essence of this row?

Well, it is a bit of Whitehall farce. Quite serious in its own way

because of the use of statistics. Jeremy Hunt the Health Secretary

used the figure of 6000 access deaths happening among patients who

were admitted at the in England. Deaths within 30 days of admission.

This sort of figure has become central to the whole dispute with

junior doctors. Consultants are in talks with the government at the

moment and they are not happy to hear the clip and they take issue

with the suggestion they don't work at weekends because they say they

do. That 6000 figure was used in a speech last July and on the Today

programme, but when journalists got in touch they could not back up the

figure. E-mails we have obtained under Freedom of information

requests show a lot of toing and froing in the insuring weeks. One

e-mail saying, we will have to give a bland statement to neither confirm

nor contradict what the secretary was saying. There was a link but out

suggesting this came from a study in was saying. There was a link but out

2012 and the statistics authority also got involved to ask the

Department of Health to also got involved to ask the

figure. Jeremy Hunt's people say also got involved to ask the

that he got the figure directly also got involved to ask the

the head of NHS England's also got involved to ask the

Department Bruce Keogh and it was confirmed by NHS England but it was

not really based at the time on any published data. There was a study

published in September showing 11,000 excess deaths from Friday to

Monday, so it is a confused picture. A lot of toing and froing to find

out where the figures came from. The figures in the end came out and

increased if you take the figures from that particular study. Wasn't

there also a problem in that the author of the study hadn't actually

there also a problem in that the linked those deaths between Friday

and Monday to most baffling levels? That's correct, the study was put

out by academics to look at mortality data and came up with the

11,000 excess deaths between Friday and Monday, add missions within 30

days of admission, but they did not link it to any

days of admission, but they did not staffing might not have something to

do with it, but it might. Other studies have suggested it did have

something to do with staffing but it has become a central issue in the

junior doctors dispute. These has become a central issue in the

studies have been questioned a lot has become a central issue in the

but the people who wrote this from Birmingham in September are adamant

that they published it without any influence and it is what it is. How

that they published it without any announced? Well, this

that they published it without any noting our story and saying that it

raises noting our story and saying that it

government use of statistics in the row. Obviously a lot of distrust on

both sides, the Department of Health is adamant that the figures used by

the Secretary of State have been passed on by senior officials at NHS

England and they were totally robust. Yes, the sides seem as far

apart as ever with no sign of further talks, the first of the

348-hour strikes set to begin further talks, the first of the

weeks today, at the moment it looks like it will go ahead. Thank you

very much. We're joined now from Central Lobby

by the Shadow Health Minister, What do you make of this? The

Secretary of State has been caught manipulating the figures but he

Secretary of State has been caught then used that as a way to

Secretary of State has been caught junior doctors, imposing a contract

on them, and they are the very staff who do work seven days a week and on

whom we depend so much. This is a real concerning story because

whom we depend so much. This is a you are talking about people's

lives, and the impact a policy change has you have to do it on

lives, and the impact a policy basis of robust research which has

been peer-reviewed and he clearly just took the figure up without any

of that taking place. He is then using it to attack British doctors

and the NHS. It is dreadful behaviour. And for patients of

course it is raising concerns, but not in a sensible way, in a very

political way, attacking hugely important groups of staff in the

NHS. It certainly looks like Jeremy Hunt used these figures from a study

which had not yet been published. It was unfinished. But he hasn't

manipulated the figures, they stand, and in fact they are worse if you

take the figures from that study, initially he said 6000 excess deaths

but it was 11,000. He plugged it out of the air, didn't he, and then used

it as a way to attack doctors in the NHS? That is unacceptable. That is a

slightly different point. On the issue of mortality rates at the

weekend, what is clear from the story that we have just seen is that

we don't actually know the exact reasons. We know that in the past

patients who are more ill are often admitted at the weekend because if

you are less ill be NHS prefer to meet you during the week and you

need to get to the bottom of that. Before you go in for a major policy

change and start using it to attack junior doctors. Let's get your

reaction, we spoke about the figures but perhaps what would most offend

people is the idea that the figures were used as Philip Hunt has said,

to attack junior doctors when there was no proven link between that and

as he put it the staffing levels at weekends? No one is attacking junior

doctors, they do a vital job and work incredibly hard. Their current

contract sees many of their working too many hours, dangerously long

hours and we are trying to change that. The most important thing is

what you said, the final report said it was actually the weekend effect,

as it's known, 11,000 deaths, not 6000. The 6000 figure that the

Secretary of State got was from the NHS medical director. Before it was

published and finished? Politicians should not apologise for taking

advice from experts employed to advise them on what's going on. It

was not verified? If you talk to the statistics authority they say it

should be openly and equally shared publicly and he did not do that. He

used the figure in a report which had not yet been finished and then,

used it to actually play out in this dispute with junior doctors, saying

it is because we don't have a seven-day NHS and the report did not

say that. There have been 15 studies showing higher mortality rates at

the weekend of which this is the latest. The British public will be

interested in the final result, published in September last year,

actually 11,000 deaths are extra deaths that come at the weekend, and

they won't be critical of the Health Secretary who firstly is responding

to a clear manifesto commitment, this is not a new story, we had a

commitment to a seven days a week NHS. Because of this series of 15

studies showing weekend effects that meant that services people were

getting were causing... Was it right to say was because of low staffing

levels? You have to ask, what is different at the weekend? There

could be lots of other factors. You have to ask what is different and

the key thing is that staffing levels at all levels, not just

junior doctors as you yourself pointed out, at the consultant level

too, are different. Lots of people going at weekends because they are

doing more dangerous things at weekends? Rather than the more

routine ones in the week. Nothing to do with staffing? Bruce Keogh has

long felt that staffing is a contributor to unnecessary

additional deaths at the weekend. I think it is our responsibility as a

government to ensure that whenever you get ill, whenever you go to

hospital you receive the best care. That is what we are trying to do.

Philip Hunt, thank you for listening, you want an

investigation, shut the head of NHS England Bruce Keogh should resign?

No, he is a man of great ethics. I respect him. The person who should

consider his position should be the Secretary of State for not waiting

for verified research. The risk at the moment, apart from what this is

doing to junior doctors is that because the NHS is financially

distressed, the way in which they will deal with seven-day working is

that they will have to transfer staff from the weekday to the

weekend and if this is an issue of staffing, the risk is that mortality

rates could go up during the week, in order to compensate for what is

happening at the weekend. The policy is so ill thought out, it is so

politically driven. And it is using figures in an inappropriate way, and

the Secretary of State really needs to consider his position and what he

really needs to do to start with is to apologise to junior doctors, get

around the table and stop threatening to impose this contract

on them. What is your reaction? Ultimately we are here to serve the

British public who rely on the NHS and they clearly voted for a

manifesto policy to create a seven days a week NHS and it requires a

more even level of staffing patterns, not just for junior

doctors, but for nurses and consultants and that is what we will

do. There is no reason to apologise to anyone for seeking to do that. If

it is the case and it is so transparent, why was it so hard to

get these figures? Internal e-mails about what studies have been

published when is something that freedom of information requests...

There hasn't been a cover-up by NHS England? Report was published in

September 2015, showing 11,000 excess deaths, not the 6000 that was

the tentative figure that Bruce Keogh and buys to the Secretary of

State about. Will Labour be supporting the next three strikes?

We want to see the juniors getting back to work and we want to do that

through a settlement. Yes, but will you be supporting the strikes? John

McDonnell said he was always committed to them. I am always wary

of industrial action because of impacts on patients but equally on

the government side, they have to start talking to the juniors again

and have to take away the threat of imposing the contract, there is two

weeks to go before the next industrial action will take place,

that is time for the government to sort this out and sit down again

with the juniors. It doesn't sound like you will be advocating Labour

to support the strikes from your position? I never want to see

industry at action in the health service but I do want to see the

government trying to sort this out. We are at great risk here, these

junior doctors are really committed people and we are at great risk of

losing their commitment and many of them to the NHS. For goodness sake,

let's try to sort it out in the two weeks we have got. Will you be

supporting the strike and should Labour support them? Philip is right

that the patients have to come first and the responsibility is to make

sure the hospitals keep going. We support the junior doctors in

pushing for a settlement and this has undermined their trust in the

government that they serve. Now, his wife says he hates

house plants and quiche. We've also learned today why

the Justice Secretary and confirmed 'outer' Michael Gove is not so keen

on the deal his friend, David Cameron, has done

on our EU membership - telling the BBC it could be struck

down in the European Courts. Downing Street are insisting

the that changes the Prime Minister has negotiated are "irreversible" -

but it's the latest in a series of questions that have surfaced

about the deal the PM brought back The PM returned from Brussels last

weekend, saying that the UK's new status within the EU would offer

the country "the best The deal includes restrictions

on EU migrants' benefits, an opt-out from the concept

of "ever closer union" and more financial protection

for the City of London. But it's unclear whether

restrictions to benefits will dissuade EU migrants

from coming to the UK and help the Conservatives

meet their manifesto pledge to bring migration down to

the tens of thousands. The PM insisted the deal gives

Britain "special status" in the EU. But there are question marks over

whether the deal could be overturned And today the Justice Secretary said

the terms of the agreement could be challenged in the European

Court of Justice. What David Cameron has got

is an agreement amongst It's an international

law declaration. I don't for a moment discount

that but, ultimately, it is a matter of

the European Union law and British law that only treaties

have effect and that because these agreements that have been reached

are not yet treaty changes, the European Court of Justice

could take a different view. Downing Street says that the

European court and justice has to take these changes into account

because it is an agreement. We understand that. But taking

something into account is not the same as being bound by it. The

European court could rule against some of these changes if it was

asked to do so. I think if you look at what the Cambridge professor of

EU law, who I think is called Dashwood, said, it is very clear. He

said it is absolutely Begovic binding in the same way as other

agreements that affected Denmark and, I believe, the Netherlands.

It's going to be registered with the UN. What was interesting when I read

what he said, he said it has the same status as the treaty. That is a

treaty between the 20 member states so in the eyes of the UN it has the

same status. But it isn't an EU treaty until it has been through the

treaty ratification process. But that is to symbolism. You aren't

going to go to the UN to litigate it there. The issue is that because

these changes are not part of the treaties - they've been agreed

outside of the treaties - the fundamental job of the European

court is to interpret the treaties. That's what's legally binding on the

take a case to the ECJ saying that take a case to the ECJ saying that

might want to choose - welfare for migrants also an - are not

consistent with the treaties, the ECJ could rule against you. With

consistent with the treaties, the respect, you are not a lawyer, I am

not a lawyer and Michael Gove is not a lawyer. But I'm paid to ask

questions and you are paid to answer them but what is the answer? The ECJ

questions and you are paid to answer could rule against you because of

the changes not being part of the treaties. The answer is very clearly

as spelt out by the current attorney general, the previous attorney

general and the Professor of EU law at Cambridge University, which is

that these are legally binding agreements between the 28 leaders of

these nation states, that the European Court of Justice would

absolutely need to respect those agreements and follow those

agreements and, indeed, previous at agreement stop Bob let me finish.

Previous such agreements with exactly the same legal statements...

Which the European Court of Justice several times. You said something

very interesting. You said that the European court will be bound by

these changes. Bound by these changes would you like to reconsider

that? Let's just think about how judges and courts work. They aren't

specifically bound by any particular thing. They have to take into

account all of the laws that prevail... They are bound under

European law by the treaty changes. They are bound by the content of the

Treaty of niece, the Treaty of Lisbon, all the other treaty changes

that have gone through the convention. These changes have not

gone through treaty change. That is why you have put into the agreement

that at some stage they bust become part of treaty change. -- they must.

I put it to you so you can maybe reconsider what you said that until

they are part of treaties, the European court is not bound to

follow them. It is only bound to take them into account. I don't

agree with that and I don't accept that. The job of courts is to

interpret the law. In the case of the European Court of Justice, it

interprets the treaties. It isn't bound by the treaties, it interprets

them. It is the application of the provisions of those treaties to

specific instances. It is also their job to interpret those treaties in

the light of other agreements, such as this agreement. This agreement

will shape their interpretation of the European treaties. Are you

saying today that the changes the Prime Minister has agreed have equal

legal status as the contents of the European treaties? I'm not saying

that, nor did I say that at the first. I am saying that they are

bound to take them into account in their interpretation of the

treaties, as they have done before, and that these are legally binding

agreements which can only be changed through the consensus, which would

include, therefore, the agreement of the UK government, which, of course,

we would never give. Gisela Stuart, what is your take? I used to be a

lawyer and I have negotiated treaties. Ask yourself this question

- if this agreement was as legally binding as we are given to believe,

why would the 28 member states ever go through the pain of treaty

negotiations? They've got to be different, otherwise you wouldn't

bother about these things. It's very interesting that the Prime Minister

is using his words very carefully, both to his treaty changes and to

the effect of ever closer union. Within his own narrow definitions,

he is right, except that the European Court of Justice doesn't

work that way. It's not a British common law court. They also have

within their re-met a juicy to further, deeper integration. It is

fundamentally a Federalist court. It doesn't have the kind of political

checks and balances which is courts have got. It's the classic British

story with Europe. We look at it, only half understand it, tell half

the story and draw the wrong conclusions. The Prime Minister who

promised us fundamental treaty changes, because he knew that unless

it is a treaty change it will only be taken into consideration, now

realises he can't get it. You mentioned Denmark. 80 times now the

Danish provisions have been overruled. That was my point to you

and you denied that. The agreement that the Danes thought they had, in

the end to the European court of overruled them - I don't know the

exact figure - but it turned out not to be as cast-iron as the Danes

thought. You only have to read the Danish media to find that out. But I

don't quite understand what you're driving at. What we have here is we

have the maximum legally powerful agreement that 28 member states can

achieve... Without changing the treaties. And within that maximally

vis-a-vis powerful statement, there is very high up a provision that

treaty changes will be made to incorporate the effect. But we know

there will be no treaty change. You mentioned Professor Dashwood. The

legal adviser to the European institutions said it will not be

binding. Our last judge to the court actually said that until it is a

treaty, we cannot even promised that it will be binding. Yes, they can

take note but the prime minister gives the impression that this

cannot be changed. The European Court of Justice is not the only

actor in the European firmament. It is the ultimate arbiter. We have the

20 governments, we have the European commission and we have the president

of the European Parliament, who have all agreed to the provisions. They

are all junior to the rulings of the European court. But the European

court has to take into account the agreements they reach. Let me

broaden this out a bit. I want to put something up on the screen.

You'll like this. I'm trying to educate! Here is what you said on

October 20 14. This is about immigration.

Is there anything in this agreement that would produce more control over

immigration? Clearly, we are bound by the freedom of movement and so in

my constituency there are lots of people... Is there anything in this

agreement that will allow more control? I will answer this question

in my way if you give me a bit of time. In my constituency there are

lots of people who come here under the freedom of movement and the

freedom of movement means that any European citizen can come here to

work, to take a job, just as I went to Germany and also got a job. What

is clear from this agreement is that those who were attracted to coming

to the UK by the prospect that their incomes will be topped up by in work

benefits, or by child benefit that they can send back home to their

home country that would be paid at UK levels, those attractions are now

going to be substantially removed... How many people do you think that

will affect? I don't know because it is a dynamic position. You said you

don't know so let me ask you a question... There are several

thousand people receiving tens of thousands of pounds in additional

income from benefits. It would be strange to me if that wasn't

impacting their decision. Except that at the same time with the other

hand, your government by the end of this decade will have introduced the

most generous national minimum wage in the European Union. That will be

just as big a pull factor for people to come as the marginal negative

push factors that you are talking about. That is just the blunt truth,

isn't a? So you were right - you still have no control over

immigration. We have an influence on it through restricting access to

British in work benefits. But it is marginal. Well, you can say it is

marginal. No, the OBR has said it is marginal, the president of the

European Parliament has said it is marginal, economists have said it is

marginal. I will give you the final word. If me and economist of

repeatedly said it won't be marginal. We will see what happens.

What I know that my constituents don't want to see is people getting

something for nothing, people who have not paid into our system

receiving benefits. They have much less of a problem with people who

are working hard and getting a salary. We will probably becoming

back to this after PMQs. You will get more of a chance. We need to

move on. Now, forget the

Eurovision Song Contest. The musical battle could

to be about to hot up The "remain" side have

yet to release a song - as far as we know -

but here's how a supporter of the Grassroots Out campaign

is hoping to inspire voters, In the interests of balance,

if someone wants to produce a "remain" theme song we'll

be happy to play it. I hope it's different. Have you got

one up your sleeve? And if you're worried that there's

a danger the arguments over our EU membership might be being dumbed

down, we have a contest right here on the Daily Politics to really

excite your cerebral cortex. That is just under your arm. That

can only mean one thing, a chance to hold this.

We'll remind you how to enter in a moment but first,

What are you going to do when we run out of old money?

Blimey, I don't know what I shall do.

We think we should have C Grade, which is skilled labour.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz email address

Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms

and conditions for Guess The Year on our website

It is coming up to midday. We are running a little let. Big Ben is

behind me. It has gone midday so not only are we vote, Prime Minister's

Questions is late. Laura Coombs burgers here. I have a feeling Mr

Corbyn may not go on Europe. I have a feeling he may not. He may talk

about health today. I'm very sad that I missed the debate about the

niceties... As Will Michael Gove's entire interview be up on the

website later today. Just look at some thing else slightly different.

For Jeremy Corbyn's team, fascinatingly, I think some of them

are rather pleased that all of this is giving them some breathing space

to carry on with what they want to do, which is not to focus on Europe

but focus on what they are trying to do in the party. Let's go to the

House to find out. Here is Prime Minister's Questions.

The family and friends of the victim.

The house will be aware of the dreadful accident at Didcot

power Station, one died and three are

missing and the whole House will want to send

The family and friends of the victim.

And emergency services dealt with the incident with typical

professionalism. The Health and Safety Executive will find out what

led to the tragedy. This morning I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others and I shall have further such meetings later

today. I would like to associate myself and the people of Wiltshire

with the Prime Minister's sentiments about Didcot. Wiltshire has

successfully integrated a number of Syrian refugees including babies and

children that would have otherwise frozen or starved to death in the

camps. There has been delays in introducing more to the area. Can

the Prime Minister say what more he can do and can he look into it and

also outline what can we do to fulfil our moral duty to these

desperate people? Let me first pay tribute to Wiltshire Council and

many councils up and down the country who have done lives in job

in integrating taking in Syrian refugees and their families, finding

them homes and schools and I hope in time jobs too. If you look at what

has happened across Europe in terms of the resettlement programme,

actually Britain has done far better than any other country in terms of

this sort of resettlement programme, we said 1000 by Christmas and we

have delivered 1000 by Christmas. First of all I will make sure she

can meet with the Home Office to talk about how we can make sure this

system works well, we will continue to invest in the Syrian refugee

camps, not least with the $11 billion we raised that the landmark

London conference, and we will continue to do what we can to

deliver 20,000 Syrian refugees we said we would take into our country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to echo the Prime Minister's tribute to

all of the emergency services in dealing with the major incident in

Didcot. Our thoughts are with the families of the person who died and

those of the families who are missing and injured and we should

always make