18/04/2016 Victoria Derbyshire

Hello it's Monday, it's 9 o'clock, I'm Victoria Derbyshire -

Our top story today - the Government says leaving

the European Union will cost your household around ?4,300 a year.

We'll scrutinise those figures and we'll hear

from the Chancellor George Osborne after 10 this morning.

Also on the programme - a mother of five tells us how

she battled to get her baby son back, after he was forcibly taken

I didn't really believe that they were going to take him,

I didn't really believe that in this country a baby could be removed

from its mother on a future risk, when the mother hadn't done anything

So the midwife came round to the bed, and I smiled at the midwife

and handed my baby to the midwife, and then I've never see

She went out of the door and the last thing I saw

was this fluffy little head going out the door.

Here the full interview in the next few minutes.

And - the Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk tells us why he falsely claimed

-- for Parliamentary expenses he's routinely living

-- for Parliamentary expenses he's been ordered to pay back.

We're live until 11 every weekday morning.

A little later in the programme we'll bring

you the latest on the celebrity injunction case - judges

could overturn the ban naming the celebrity at the centre

We'll talk to one judge who's granted several injunctions

If you're getting in touch use the hashtag Victoria Live

and if you text, you will be charged at the standard network rate.

And don't forget if you've got a story you think we should be

Some of our best stories come from you, our viewers.

Joanna Gosling is in the BBC Newsroom with a summary

Good morning. Good morning, Victoria.

Leaving the EU could cost every UK household ?4,300

a year by 2030 - according to a report

A 200-page document published by the Chancellor,

argues that the British economy would shrink by 6%

because trade barriers would be higher, hitting exports.

It also claims that investment would be lower

But Vote Leave - the group campaigning for a vote

to leave the EU in June - dismissed the document,

saying it's just another "erroneous pro-EU economic assessment

Mr Osborne denies the warning is part of the warning of so-called

project fear. The Treasury analysis is supported by the analysis of

respected independent organisations like the London School of economic.

It is supported by economic arguments made from people in the

International monetary fund, the OECD, big international businesses

and small firms as well. There is a consensus opinion Britain would be

poorer and worse off outside the European Union.

Rescue teams in Ecuador have spent the night searching

through the debris of collapsed buildings, trying to find survivors

The country's president - who has cut short a visit to Rome -

says that 272 people are now known to have died, but he fears

Two 14-year-olds charged with murdering a woman

and her teenage daughter are due to appear in court.

The victims, named by police as 49-year-old

Elizabeth Edwards and her 13-year old daughter Katie,

were found at a property in Lincolnshire on Friday.

Reports of a drone hitting a British Airways aircraft landing

at Heathrow are being investigated by police.

The flight from Geneva was struck as it approached the airport

with 132 passengers and five crew on board.

It's believed to be the first incident of its kind in the UK.

A mother of five children has told this programme about her agony -

after her newborn son was taken from her and put into care.

The woman - we're calling her Annie -

has had her five kids taken from her, but successfully fought

Annie suffers from a history of mental health problems -

we'll hear more from her in just a minute.

Children from poorer households are losing out in the competition

for places at the best primary schools in England,

according to research by Teach First.

The education charity, which helps provide teachers

in low-income communities, says a bias against less

well-off children is unfair and a waste of talent.

Families across England will learn today where their children

Brazil's lower house of Congress has voted for the impeachment

of the country's president, Dilma Rousseff, to go ahead.

She denies manipulating government accounts and says plans

The impeachment battle has paralysed the activity of government,

just four months before the country is due to host the Olympics

In Australia, dog smuggling charges against Johnny Depp's wife

Amber Heard have been dropped, after she admitted lying

The 29 year old pleaded guilty to making a false statement

to immigration about the couple's Yorkshire terriers Pistol and Boo.

She brought the dogs to Queensland in a private jet while her husband

The couple has released a short statement, apologising for breaking

Australia is free of many pests and diseases that

That is why Australia has to have such strong bio-security

And Australians are just as unique - both warm and direct.

When you disrespect Australian law, they

I am truly sorry that Pistol and Boo were

That's a summary of the latest BBC News - more at 9.30.

In a minute we'll bring you a moving interview with a mum of 5

who tells us how she fought to get her youngest child out

of care after he was forcibly removed from her just days

If you've been through a similar experience

or you're a social worker - we'd really like to hear your

thoughts on this story - use the hashtag Victoria LIVE

and if you text, you will be charged at the standard network rate.

Jessica has the sport and quite a bit of fallout from Leicester's

Yes, exactly. There is a lot going on at the top of the Premier League

at the moment, exciting times. Emotions are high and West Ham

striker Andy Carroll has accused the referee in the game with Lester of

trying to even things up. Official Jonathan Moss awarded Leicester

penalty in the dying minutes, which rescued them a point in the 2-2

draw. And its players have criticised job some of his decisions

in the match. Lester's Jamie Vardy was sent off after getting two

yellow cards. The second after this, which the referee said was diving.

And then in this minute of injury time Jonathan Moss pointed to the

penalty spot for this, Andy Carroll believed to have brought down the

Leicester City player. There was a shock in the old firm derby at

Rangers beat Celtic on penalties to reach the Scottish cup final. It was

2-2 after extra time. But this misses the Celtics or Rangers

through to next month's final with Hibernian. That is all the sport for

now. Thank you. More later.

This morning - a mum of five whose children had been taken into care -

tells us how she fought to regain custody of her youngest son

who was forcibly removed from her days after being born.

The woman - who we're calling Annie -

describes the agony of saying goodbye to her new-born

and tells us she instinctively let out an

"animalistic howl, just a primal noise";

she was so frightened she didn't even realise the noise

"Annie" has a history of severe mental health problems.

We can't reveal her real name or anything which might lead

to the identification of her children because of a reporting

This is her story - it's detailed, and I really want

you to stick with it, because it's a rare insight

into what happens when children are taken into care.

I think it's very different, depending on the manner

When I've asked for the children to be taken into care,

the feeling has been one of massive guilt, overwhelming guilt,

but also the knowledge that it needed to happen,

that I wasn't capable, at that time, of providing the right level

But you can't help but feel guilty, you need the help,

When a child is forcibly taken into care, the feeling is not guilt,

There's no way round it, the state is removing your child,

That is a feeling of helplessness, you feel very vulnerable

as a parent, and frightened, I think terrified is the easier

Partly because you don't know if they're going to come back

When you put your children into care, there's always

the thought that you can do some work, you can try and right

the wrongs that have meant the children have

The story has already started to be written,

and if the child is a baby, you know that that child may

never come back to you, that child may be adopted.

And you don't know what the future holds for your family.

And when you have been reunited with some of your children

after they have been taken into care, what's that like?

It's lovely, it's wonderful, it's great.

But it's also very scary, because your children

have lost trust in you, because you have put them in a house

with strangers through no fault of their own, they haven't done

anything to warrant, to deserve being there.

So they have to build up their trust in you again.

And you also have to demonstrate that the reason that they went

into care won't happen again to the local authority.

And when you have said goodbye to them, how have...

You have to make it OK for them, you have to show them

that you are all right, they have permission to be

happy there, they have permission to smile,

and it's OK, and this is the right thing, even if it feels -

and it does feel - like it's the wrong

thing and your insides are screaming for your children.

If you know that you aren't capable of parenting them at that time,

you have to make it OK for them to be there.

There's no easy way of doing it, you just have to do it.

You can't think too much, because you would never leave.

What were the circumstances surrounding your last pregnancy?

I fell pregnant during a set of care proceedings in respect of my elder

children, and a lot of people will ask if I had enduring

mental-health problems, and I already had children

within the care system, why did I get pregnant again?

And it's a fair question, and it's a difficult one to answer.

I think that I, historically, was searching for a family

and desperate to have what I didn't have when I was a child.

And I'm not sure why I kept having children,

other than trying to get it right that time.

I think I was trying to replicate what I had and what I'd lost

It wasn't a conscious choice to get pregnant,

And I wrestled with an abortion, because I knew that the local

authority could try and take my baby away when he was born.

So I was booked in to have a termination, and it came

to a few days beforehand, and I couldn't do it,

because I was fighting for the other children in the care proceedings,

and I felt that I had to fight for this child too.

But I went through that pregnancy knowing that they may

When you're preparing to give birth, and that is the backdrop,

knowing that as soon as you give birth, the child may

be removed from you, because of what happened

with your other children, because the local authority

have placed them into care on other occasions, how do you get

It was about a month before my child was due that I knew the local

authority's plans were to take him into care when he was born.

And after that meeting, it was a case of just waiting

It felt like you were waiting for the end, knowing

that the first contraction, when your waters break,

that sparks the end, you may not see this child grow up.

So I took videos of my bump, when he was kicking,

I used to take videos, and I just used to sit

holding my bump all the time, talking to him and stroking my bump.

And trying to understand how I was going to survive him

What explanation did the local authority gave for saying

that they were going to remove this baby from your care

The local authority had no issue with my parenting, they said I had

a higher than average standard of parenting care,

they acknowledged that I was stable at that time,

but that historically I had not been stable, and they felt

that there was a future risk of emotional harm for this child.

So a theoretical, possible, potential risk?

Yes, yes, that may or may not happen.

But based on previous history, they felt justified in making

the application to court to remove my baby at birth.

But at that time, I think, you really felt you were turning

things around in your life, and mentally as well.

I was, I was, I'd started to access therapy, which had been recommended

I'd started to work with a counsellor, and I had started

to move, I had started to move my life around.

Prior to this, I really had no insight into the way that might be

I had mental-health problems from childhood, really,

and my behaviours were having an impact on my children,

even the separation, even the act of me putting my children

into the care system, I had no insight into how that

might feel for a child, to be taken by your mother

to a stranger's house and left, and then that it is,

you don't see your mum for a few days.

I had no insight into how that might feel.

Can I ask you why you believe you have experienced such severe

mental health problems, why your life has, in periods,

From childhood, I was subject to abuse, systematic abuse,

physical, emotional, sexual abuse, neglect.

The people that were supposed to protect me didn't protect me,

and I spent some time in the care system.

And what that meant for me, or the consequence that it had,

was that I was drawn towards inappropriate

and abusive relationships, normally with older men.

I'd experienced rejection and humiliation, which were

routinely used as punishments within my childhood,

so I became very, very frightened of rejection,

and because of that I would put up with any behaviour from a man.

They would get drunk, they were maybe on drugs,

and I would accept that as being OK because I was so frightened

And when I did, invariably did get rejected, I didn't have the tools

within me to cope with that so I would feel overwhelmed

with emotion and I would feel the need to externalise that

emotion by self-harming, by suicide attempts.

And all of this has happened from childhood, really.

I started self-harming at a very young age.

I had eating disorders and problems around body dysmorphia.

And this has been right throughout my life,

but when I became a mother, it didn't stop, and it should have

So my children came along on the journey with me.

And it was only in that first set of care proceedings that

I was catapulted into realising what all of these behaviours that

had been going on for many years had meant for me, but also had

You were overdue, you passed the due date, and the midwife wanted to help

you have some time with your baby before the local authority

She came to the house early Friday morning and tried to start my labour

And because we knew that if I gave birth on a Friday or a Saturday,

I would have the weekend with my child and I did.

As it happened, the court hearing wasn't until the following Friday,

What was it like a sixth day to hear the midwife

say, "It's time to hand your baby over"?

I was breast-feeding my child exclusively,

I'd had to be away from my child in order to go to court,

the hospital provided a taxi because there was no thought given

to how I would get to court which was about ten miles away.

And I took the witness stand and I had to give evidence

for around an hour, where I really thought, I really tried hard,

And sometimes I got confused with the questions

and sometimes I wasn't sure how to best put my case.

I knew that I was going to lose my baby.

I knew that was the decision the court would come to,

so I ask, after giving evidence, to go back to the hospital,

and when I walked into the hospital, there was just an eerie silence,

because everybody knew that, shortly after, I baby

because everybody knew that, shortly after, my baby

And the foster carers came to the hospital,

which is quite unusual, normally the social worker

would remove the baby, and you could hear them in next room

with the social worker, just chatting, normal conversations,

but in the next room I was dressing my baby

in clothes that I had bought, knowing that I would either be

taking him home or they would take him away.

And I brought the vest to show you, which I dressed my child

in when the foster carers were in the next room waiting

But I knew that I had to make my peace with them

so I asked for the foster mother to come into the room.

And she sat down on the bed next to me.

We just instinctively reached for each other's hands,

and I said, "I haven't done anything to him."

And I said, "You will look after him, won't you?"

And neither of us could speak, she was crying and I was crying.

And when she went out of the room, you could hear her

And it was about half an hour afterwards, the midwife had kept

coming in, and I kept saying, "Is it time?"

And she kept saying, "No, no, no," and then she came in,

And people that were there in the room with me,

my eldest was there with me and some friends said that

I was smiling, and I think that I was smiling because I didn't

really believe that they were going to take him, I didn't really believe

that in this country a baby could be removed from it's mother on a future

risk when the mother hadn't done anything to this baby.

So the midwife came round to the bed, and I smiled

at the midwife and handed my baby to the midwife.

And then I've never seen anyone moves so quick.

She went out of the door, and the last thing

I saw was this fluffy little head going out the door.

And then I just heard a noise which...

I thought there was something wrong, I thought something had

happened on the ward, and it took me a second to realise

It was just a primal noise, and I fell forward.

And all I could feel were hands and me, it was my friends

and my eldest son, desperately trying to just take the pain away

from me, and they couldn't, nothing could take it away.

Then I had to walk out of the hospital, being held up

Without my child, with an empty body, with empty arms,

with neighbours looking to see when the baby was coming home,

and into a house that was ready for my baby but it wasn't there.

At what point, Annie, did something click,

and did you think, OK, I'm going to get my baby back?

He was taken on a Friday, and that whole Friday night

was just spent crying and weeping and screaming.

It was the lowest point of my entire life.

I felt like a child, I wanted my mam.

And then, at about half 12 on the Saturday,

somebody sent me a message, and it said, "You dry your tears

and you get up and you fight, because this isn't over."

And there was something about that word "fight",

and I thought, "You're right, I haven't done anything to this

child and actually the children that I do have are either with me

or I have high levels of contact with them."

And I have let my children down in the past, that is right,

I've got good relationships with my children, I'm a good mum,

Forced adoption is not the right thing for my child.

But I knew that fighting in the wrong way would ensure

So fighting against the local authority, fighting

against the court system, so I knew that I had to start

to learn about the law, and that is what I did.

And I had to look really carefully at what I could do to prove my case,

that I was changing, that I was engaging in my therapy,

and that the behaviours that I'd engaged in in the past were not

How did you feel when it was clear that your youngest child

I really believed that the best thing for my child was to come home,

I knew what the local authority were saying,

but I didn't know what the guardian was going to say, and she filed her

evidence in the November, and she said that she thought my

child should be rehabilitated home with the minimum of delay.

That was against what the local authority said.

It was, it was against what the local

The guardian is a state-appointed adult who can look independently.

Independent, and is there to represent the child

And she felt that my child should come home,

and she asked the question, "Why should this child be adopted

whilst the other children have regular contact with their mum

She trusted me, and at that point the local authority didn't.

But when I knew that the guardian was supporting me, I started

to prepare for my child coming home, so I got a cot, and I started to get

I started to prepare, as you would when you were pregnant,

you know, as I should have done when I was pregnant,

that whole journey that you go on, I started it were my child

And last day, when it finally became clear it was real,

he was coming home, my legs just went out from under me.

I couldn't believe that we were going to be back together,

that he was going to be back where he belonged.

And all that fight and all them nights without him, and all them

days that I used to see babies and I couldn't stand it,

I just felt so empty without him, all of that resilience,

all of that strength, it was all going to be worth it,

But you did it, you did it, didn't you?

And that is quite an astonishing achievement, actually,

I'm not proud of very much that I've done in my life.

I'm very proud of my children's strength, my children's resilience.

But I'm extremely proud that I recognised the local authority's

concerns, I took on board what the issues were,

I never, ever gave up, I always believe the right place

for my child was with family, and that where he is now.

And he has been for over two years, successfully.

We asked the local authority for a statement.

They said that, in your case, the proceedings to return your child

took longer than they should have done, and that they've learned

from your case and they're working to improve how they work

with families in the future, and they also said that

you are helping them to improve the way that they, as a local

authority, practise in this area, and the way that contact visits

between parents and their children operate.

It sounds like they are trying to learn from you and your case.

I put my hands up and I've said, "Look, I've messed up,

The local authority have now put their hands up and said,

"We messed up. We've made mistakes too."

And now we are coming together and having a conversation about how

we can best serve the other parents in the borough who are going

Previously, it has all been about parents recognising

concerns and learning, but actually the local authority

have got concerns that they need to recognise as well.

The system is risk averse at the moment, and it is set up

We are set up to fight against each other and that does not promote

Social workers have been pushed into bureaucracy,

they've been pushed into sitting behind a desk, filling

in forms and paperwork, and they are so tied by policies

and procedures and red tape, and risk-averse practice in case

we have a repeat of Baby P or Victoria Climbie.

Nobody wants that, parents don't want that, local

But previously it's always been about parents making the changes,

and actually I think the local authority also need

Social workers would do well to learn from parents' experience

like mine and think about how it would feel if it was their family

and their children, and practise in a way that maybe promotes

the core of social work, which is human relationships.

Can I ask you what you think of the 26-weeks time limit

the Government introduced a couple of years ago for care proceedings?

The intention was to speed up the process of making long-term

decisions over the care of a child, because the best interests

of the child are served by not dragging things out and not leaving

I think when a decision has been made about a child,

things do need to move, I don't think that children should

be subject to delay, I don't think that the adoption

However, the issue that I've got with the 26-week rule

is that it is a very short amount of time to demonstrate change.

Absolutely, if you are a parent with mental-health problems,

it takes an inordinate amount of time to recognise

what your own issues are, to gain insight, to go

Therapy is not something that can be forced upon you,

it's something that you have to be ready for, and you can't

shoehorn people into, you must complete your therapy

within 26 weeks or you'll lose your child, because then people

I mean, the very first thing to note is that a lot of the therapy that's

recommended within proceedings isn't actually available on the NHS,

so it almost like you're being set up to fail as a parent anyway.

Thank you very much, Annie, thank you for

Thank you for your messages as you were watching that interview on

Facebook. Some viewers say such a desperately sad case. Another says,

this is really sad but she continued to have children, why? She should

not have been allowed to. Another on Twitter says heart-rending insight

into what it's like to have your children taken into care. Another

says, I feel strongly from the children's point of view they are

better off without unstable mothers. That kind of harm can never be

under. Times and put the children first. Another says, what our social

services supposed to do? And another says, this is really sad and it

happens to fathers every day and it seems to be accepted in society, but

when it happens to a mother there is outrage. Thank you for those. Do

continue to get in touch with us about the stories in the news today.

Still to come, Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk talks

for the first time about wrongly claiming parliamentary expenses.

Which he has now been ordered to pay back.

A married celebrity couple will find out today whether judges will lift

an injunction barring them from being named over

We'll be talking about the case to a former High Court judge.

Here's Joanna in the BBC Newsroom with a summary of today's news.

Leaving the EU could cost every UK household ?4,300 a year by 2030,

according to a report by the Treasury.

A 200-page document published by the Chancellor, argues

that the British economy would shrink by 6%

because trade barriers would be higher, hitting exports.

But Vote Leave has dismissed the document as just another

"erroneous pro-EU economic assessment".

We'll hear from the Chancellor George Osborne

Rescue teams in Ecuador have spent the night searching

through the debris of collapsed buildings, trying to find survivors

The country's president - who has cut short a visit to Rome -

says that 272 people are now known to have died, but he fears

A police investigation is underway after a passenger plane approaching

Heathrow Airport was hit by what is thought to have been a pro. The

British airway 's flight from Geneva with 132 passengers and five crew on

board was hit as it approached Heathrow on Sunday. If confirmed it

is believed it would be the first such incident the UK.

A mother of five children has told this programme about her agony,

after her newborn son was taken from her and put into care.

The woman - who we're calling her Annie -

has had some of her five kids taken from her,

but successfully fought to get her youngest back.

Annie suffers from a history of mental health problems,

Victoria asked her what she thought of the 26-week rule,

which was introduced to speed up decisions about care.

The issue I've got with the 26 week rule is, it's a very short amount

If you're a parent with mental health problems, it takes

an inordinate amount of time to recognise what you're own issues

are, to gain insight, to go through the therapeutic process.

Therapy is not something that can be forced upon you, it's something

In Australia dog smuggling charges against Johnny Depp's wife were

dropped after she admitted lying on her card last year. She pleaded

guilty to making. It meant to immigration about the couple's

Yorkshire terriers. She brought the dogs to Queensland in a private jet,

while her husband was filming there last year.

That's a summary of the latest BBC News - more at 10am.

Jessica has this morning's sports headlines now.

West Ham striker Andy Carroll has accused the referee in their game

with Leicester of trying to even things up. Official Jonathan Moss

awarded Leicester penalty in the dying minutes, which rescued them a

point in the 2-2 draw. There was a shock in the old firm derby as

Rangers beat Celtic on penalties to reach next month's Scottish cup

final. They will play Hibernian. Rafa Nadal has claimed a 68th title

of his career, winning in three sets against Gael Monfils in the Monte

Carlo Masters. And snooker legend Steve Davis has announced his

retirement aged 58 in a career spanning almost 40 years. He won six

world titles and the BBC personality of the year in 1988. He announced

the news that the Crucible, the scene of so many of his greatest

triumphs. That is all of the headlines, Moore at 10am. -- more.

Next, an expenses cheat or just someone who made an honest mistake?

The Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk who is currently suspended

from the Labour party over sexting allegations, talks for the first

time about parliamentary expenses he falsely claimed for his two older

children who did not "routinely" live with him.

The expenses watchdog is expected to publish the findings

of its investigation into him this week.

It has already ordered him to repay over ?11,500.

He's also waiting to find out if he will be charged over

Good morning. Are you an expenses cheat? No, it's an honest mistake.

That was the reality of it. I should have checked the rules on regular

-ish and is more than I did. I relied on a member of my team to

explain what the rules were, I should have read that myself. I

prioritised campaigning over this administration work and that is

where the mistake occurred. But I take full responsibility for it and

I will pay the money back. You haven't paid it back yet? I will pay

back imminently. The point is they now except these rules around

accommodation and around children are not fit for purpose and are

talking about revising them. I think that is what they need to do. You

said the rules of vague but you admitted you didn't read them? I

didn't, I relied on advice. But it is down to me to check that advice

and I didn't prioritise the administration of IPSA and how it

worked. I prioritised casework in the constituency, campaigning. I am

not big on Administration. I got it wrong. I wonder what is vague about

this wording. An MP's entitlement to this expense will cease when the

child ceases to reside routinely at the property with the MP. Your two

older children when you registered for this never once stayed with you?

This is one of the problems with the regulation. It is effectively

retrospective. So when you make the claim, which I did, I thought the

rule was if they are dependent upon you, because it talks about

dependence, if they are dependent upon you, you can claim it. As

opposed to what the rules actually say which is if they are routinely

resident with you you can claim it? It does also talk about dependants.

When I made the claim they came and stayed with me on regular basis, the

relations with my first two children were healthy, they stayed with me in

Rochdale regularly. And when I made the claim I knew they would continue

to spend time with me in London... That they never did. But that was

retrospective. One of them could have wanted to come and stay with

me. This is the nature of the modern-day family. After the first

year when they didn't stay with you, you could've told the expenses

watchdog may could have adjusted what they were paying you

accordingly? That is why doesn't work. I could do that... But you

didn't? But the month after they could come and stay with me against

a quite that they didn't. Nor for the second or third year. That is

why it is retrospective and IPSA admits the rules do not work and it

needs refining and changing. In the end you accept you are using your

older children to subsidise your brand? Not at all. What you have to

remember is this money wasn't coming to me. All the money claimed was

going to the landlord. -- to subsidise your rent. Is still

taxpayers money helping you subsidise your rent. What point are

you making? Some people think the money has come to me but it hasn't

come to me. The money has been going to the landlord. Is still free money

from the taxpayer, for no reason? You should not have claimed it. I

shouldn't and I will pay the money back. But you have to accept, if you

want MPs from a whole range of different backgrounds, with children

who have been married, who have broken up, modern-day families, or

do you just want a certain kind of MP? An MP who reads the rules. I

already said that, I should have checked myself. That is why I am

paying it back. When a benefit claimant wrongly claims they are

investigated for fraud. I would say everybody makes mistakes. A mistake

has been made here, no doubt about it. If the benefit claimant makes a

mistake, there should be simply really see there as well. How has it

affected your relationship with your two older children? Is not this that

has affected my relationship with my first two children but my ex-wife.

That is something I really regret. I don't have a positive relationship

with my two older children and I put that very much down to their mother.

What do they think of you claiming extra money for them routinely

living you when they don't question the bad news is I haven't spoken to

them about it because I don't have a positive relationship with them.

Can you repair that racial chip? I would hope so, over time. -- that

relationship. There are many relationships which break up and one

parent poisons the children over another. That is what has happened

here and it is a very sad situation but that is where we are in life.

You are suspended from the Labour Party while you are investigated for

sexting a 17-year-old. How do you respond to that? It has been a tough

12 months. The sexting story is something of a tabloid constructed,

if I'm honest. You did send sexually explicit messages to a 17-year-old.

I am not denying that. Then it is not a tabloid constructed. It is,

how it was put together, the fact she came to me and asked for a job

is not true. The idea it went on for a long time and that I bombarded her

with messages of a sexual nature isn't true. Out of the thousands of

exchanges and words that occurred, she sent the vast majority of sexual

messages. I must have sent about six words of a sexual nature over

several months. So the reality is... Is that OK? No, and I apologised and

that is something I shouldn't have done. It occurred when I was in a

very dark place, soon after I had broken up with my second wife. I was

drinking on the evening is that it occurred and I shouldn't have done

it and I have apologised for that. If the Labour Party do end up

suspending you, what will you do? They have suspended me now. I mean

expelling you, if they come to the conclusion you should be expelled? I

think they will find it difficult to do that, to be honest. Why? I

haven't broken the law, the situation is not as it first

appeared in the newspapers, as I just described, it is a much more

complicated situation. I think they can only conclude I haven't done

anything wrong and that I should be allowed to stay within the Labour

Party. You just mentioned that you sent those messages while you were

drinking and you told the Sun that you had a drink problem earlier this

year. Is that under control now? Very much under control, I am in a

very good place. It has been a broker for 12 months. I talk

honestly and openly about these issues, so that people can

understand me, and also so they can understand politicians and politics

and they know what's going on. I have been drinking heavily in months

gone by, but yes, completely under control. And I'm actually in a very

good place. I prioritise my youngest two children. If there is any silver

lining in any of this 12 months that has occurred it is that I have

learned to understand that the real priority for me is these two

youngest children, my relationship with them and that is very positive.

When I tweeted you are coming on the programme today there was a lot of

abuse on my timeline directed at you. Some of that I cannot repeat on

air. Probably the most polite is you are an expenses liar and should

resign. Have you had masses of abuse? You often get lots of abuse

on social media, that is the nature of Twitter and everything else.

Since the expenses story came out? Politicians get abuse on Twitter and

on Facebook on a daily basis. That is the nature of social media. But

in real life, back on Earth, people are very nice and pleasant in the

constituency, people are very supportive, very helpful and

encouraging. Police are investigating you over an allegation

of rape. What is a latest on that? It is a malicious allegation. The

police have been investigating it for several months. They will pass a

file to the Crown Prosecution Service and a conclusion will be

reached. I cannot say much more. In terms of you carrying out your day

job, as that is being investigated, what is that like?

Yeah, well, but that's been hanging over me and I have to get on with

the day job. It puts a strain on you, there no doubt about that, but

the truth is, you know, I enjoy doing the work that I do as a member

of Parliament. I think I do it well. Some people, you know, the reality

is that some people won't like my politics, people on the far left

don't like them because I am a moderate within the Labour Party.

People might not like my personal life, but the reality is they can't

take it away from me, I work hard as a member of Parliament. I represent

the constituency very well. I've run excellent campaigns on a range of

issues whether it is child sexual abuse or other campaigns, business

rates and other things and that's what I have to concentrate on and

get on with on a daily basis and I enjoy doing that. Why do you think

the press wrote about your private life and not about the Culture

Secretary's private life? Yeah, I think that's a really interesting

question actually. John Whittingdale the Culture Secretary is entitled to

his personal life, I would be the first to argue that. So the story

isn't about what he got up to in his personal life, whether he had a

relationship with this woman or not, the story is about why the tabloids

didn't print that story and that takes us into a discussion about

press regulation and I think, it is an interesting question. You believe

that link, do you? You believe they didn't because of the fact he has a

sway over press relations? BBC News night broke the story about the

relationship between the press and John Whittingdale and they were

right to do so because, you know, the editors will say is there a

public interest? Well, if there is a public interest in printing a story

about my personal life, I am a backbench MP, I'm not a Minister of

State or anything like that, and yet they don't think it is in the public

interest to print a story about John Whittingdale. People will draw the

conclusion that they haven't printed it because he regulates them and

this is a really important issue. We had an inquiry a few years ago about

press regulation, the Leveson Inquiry, it concluded that the press

and newspapers should be better regulated and John Whittingdale said

I'm not going to do that even though there is cross-party support. If

there is scandals in politics, we can talk about scandals in my

personal life, but this is a scandal. This is about power in the

mead ya a in newspapers and power in politics, and it isn't about

celebrities and politicians in the newspapers, this is about the

general public, how are they perceived and how are they written

about in newspapers? Leveson gave them protection and yet this

Government, John Whittingdale, won't implement that protection of members

of the public and how they are written about in the newspapers and

that's what's wrong. Do you, do you enjoy being written about? Do you

enjoy being in the papers? I see it as a fact of life and I never

complain about it. If you're going to put yourself out there in the

public eye, I've utilised the media to campaign on child sexual abuse

issues and things like that and I put yourself up for it and it is an

inevitability being in public life. I don't complain about it, but

that's just the way it is. You made a claim about your ex-wife and you

believes she impacted on your relationship with your elder

children, clearly she is not here to defend herself. We don't have her

side of the story. Here are comments from people watching you this

morning. One viewer says, "Why would you think you are entitled to

complained the children's allowance in the first place? Nobody pays me

when my kids visit." He is a liar and a cheat, how can we believe he

has our best interests at heart. He has stolen from us." I have made a

mistake in terms of the expenses complained and I'm paying it back

and the rules are being to be revised on the basis of what

happened. Another viewer saying, "Simon Danczuk should have resigned.

Yes, money went to the landlord, but you benefited. Tone on Twitter,

"What we want Simon Danczuk are honest MPs." Chris say, "Another

greedy MP caught with his fingers in the till." Would you trust someone

to represent you if they made an ?11,500 error claiming expenses? You

get feedback and people say what they think. People don't politicians

generally, but we can't run the country without them. I accept a lot

of people don't like politicians, but it doesn't stop me from getting

on with the day job and there is a large silent majority out there that

appreciate the work that politicians do and I'll carry on doing that bit

of work that I do. Do you feel that you are in a more positive frame of

mind having gone through what you've gone through in the last... Yeah, I

wouldn't recommend anybody having to go through what I have been through

in the last 12 months. It has been a pretty difficult time and I will

never forget just after Christmas, there was a lot of controversy about

me. I had broken up with a councillor that I had just been

seeing for a few weeks. She told her story within 24 hours to a tabloid

newspaper. My son was at the school gates and didn't want to go to

school. He had seen some of the news on TV. Other children were talking

about it in the classroom and he was crying at the school gates. It is

that point after Christmas that I realised what I do, not just impacts

on me and that's not what is important, but impacts on me two

younger children and if there is anything positive to come from that,

it made me realise I need to prioritise them. I'm a work

aalcoholic, but I have to take time out and I do now and that puts me in

a really positive place. I work well with their mother. We share

parenting on a weekly basis and that's put me in a really good place

and I feel more positive than I have for a long time.

Thank you very much for coming on the programme. Thank you for talking

to us. Thank you. A married celebrity couple will find

out today whether judges will lift an injunction barring them

from being named over an extra-marital threesome

one of them had. Chances are you've already

seen their names reported online and on social media,

but we can't reveal their identity. The Sun on Sunday say the injunction

is pointless because the couple have been named so widely online

and in articles outside By way of example of just how widely

the names are known, look at what happened during this

week's Have I Got News For You. It would be interesting to find out,

cos obviously we're not going to say anything about it,

but it would be interesting to ask the audience if they know,

not to say out loud, but just put your hand up if you

know who we're talking about. Sir Charles Gray is a retired

High Court judge who during his time on the bench granted

several privacy injunctions. Do not name any names, but do you

know who it is? I do, yes, I do. Did you search the information out or

did someone just tell you? Someone told me. Now The Sun on Sunday's

argument has changed as the circumstances have changed.

Originally they said they should be able to identify the couple because

it would, it was in the public interest, it would correct a false

impression this couple projected they were in a committed, loving

marriage. Now, the Court of Appeal didn't buy that argument. Now they

are saying because loads of people know the names, name of the couple,

then they should be able to publish it. Are you persuaded by that

argument? I'm not personally because often one has a seepage of publicity

being given to stories like this one. As I understand it, the only

publicity that's been given, I say only, it is perhaps more than only,

but there is publicity in America and there is publicity in Scotland.

To some extent I think that publicity has generated, especially

the Scottish publicity by the fact that they knew if they gave

publicity that would assist to get the injunction removed in England.

Right. And that seems to me to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. But

what is the point of an injunction if lots and lots of people know the

identities? Well, you say lots and lots of people do, I suppose most

people who are interested can find out. But I think that there is a

point still in having injunctions even if there are sections of the

population who are going to know what has been said. You've granted

dozens of injunctions. Yes. Sometimes you wanted to grant an

injudges and haven't been able to, but can you, because information was

already public, is that true? Yes. Can you give us examples of the kind

of injunctions you've imposed? It is a bit difficult to give you examples

without treading on delicate ground. Don't name names. Yes. Broad areas.

There have been times when one wanted to grant an injunction, but

been persuaded it would be wrong to do so because there was some

publicity given and the beginning of publicity generates more publicity

and the injunction will be less and less purposeful and there is no

point in a judge granted purpless injunctions, that's the problem and

it is a problem. I'm sure the Court of Appeal will regret having to

counter manned their original decision if that's indeed what they

are going to do this morning. What do you think is going to happen

then? To me, they might well say that there should be no injunction.

So lift the injunction and allow The Sun on Sunday and everyone else in

England and Wales to publish? Yes. You don't think would be fair or

right? I can understand why they say they feel that they must do that. I

think they probably will feel a little uncomfortable will it too

because it is information which you don't want to have disseminated

unless it is inevitable and it is right that it should happen. If the

injunction is lifted, the onslaught about the newspapers writing about

the couple's private life will be huge and there could be consequences

for their young children? Absolutely. Those are additional

reasons why this there should be hesitation, I think, before any

injunction is lifted. How has social media changed the role of

injunctions if you think it has changed the role of injunctions at

all? I don't think it changed it much. You know, there is more media

outlet being given to stories of various kinds and I suppose that

increases the possibilities of arguing as has been argued

successfully in this case, apparently or was going to be argued

in this case successfully that there shouldn't be an injunction. I am

unhappy about it being taken too far. I think it can be taken too

far. Well, we will see what happens in court today. Thank you very much

for coming on the programme. Pleasure. Charles Gray retired High

Court judge. More messages about Simon Danczuk,

"He is innocent and everyone else is to blame." Paul e-mails, "Surely the

MP must see the defence he put up is a farce." Becky says, "I don't think

Simon Danczuk explained himself. If anything he seems to have dug

himself a larger hole than he had before." Emily says, "He can't see

the error of his ways." April says, "This must be a swan song for Simon

Danczuk because it is only making matters worse."

Coming up, as Leicester extend their lead at the top

of the Premier League to eight points, we'll have the latest

Let's get the latest weather update with Carol.

It is cloudy, mainly dry. It is starting to brighten up in Greenock.

Further south, it is sunshine. In the south, it will cloud over and in

the north, it will brighten up. So you can see the extent of the cloud

on the satellite picture, slowly pushing southwards. Still bright

skies in the south and we are seeing sunshine across other parts of the

British Isles. But some of that cloud is thick enough for the odd

shower. More particularly across Northern England where we've got a

weak weather front. Through the day, the cloud moves down towards the

south. It brightens up for Scotland and northern England and the north

of Northern Ireland, but elsewhere, we will see some glimmers of

sunshine at times. Some showers though, heavy across the Northern

Isles, here too, we are looking at gusts of wind up to gale force.

Temperatures 11 to 13 Celsius. As we head through the evening and

overnight, the cloud is really across Southern England, the

Midlands, Wales, Northern Ireland and Western Scotland. That will help

maintain the temperature level. Where the cloud remains broken in

the north and the east, that's where the temperatures will be lowest and

that's where we are expecting just a touch of frost. The winds continuing

to ease down through the night and also tomorrow. Tomorrow the best of

the sunshine in the north and the east, still fairly cloudy out

towards the west, but in lighter winds, it will feel better.

Hello it's 10am, I'm Victoria Derbyshire.

Welcome to the programme, if you've just joined us.

The government warns that every household will be over four thousand

pounds worse off if Britain votes to leave the EU.

We will scrutinise is bigger than we will hear from the Chancellor around

10:15am when he gives a speech. A woman with a history of mental

health problems tells us of the of the agony

of having her baby taken away. The foster carers were in the next

room waiting to take my baby home and I hated them,

I absolutely hated them but I knew that I had to make my peace

with them so I asked for the foster mother to come into the room

and she sat down on the bed next to me and we just instinctively

reached for each other's hands and I said I haven't done anything

to him and she said I know, and I said you will look

after him won't you? You can see the full

interview on our programme Johnny Depp and his wife say they're

truly sorry they brought their pet dogs into Australia illegally -

we'll bring you that apology and speak to a journalist who's

been covering the case. here's Joanna

in the BBC Newsroom, Leaving the EU could cost every UK

household ?4,300 a year by 2030, according to a report

by the Treasury. A 200-page document published

by the Chancellor, argues that the British economy

would shrink by 6% because trade barriers would be

higher, hitting exports. But Vote Leave has dismissed

the document as just another "erroneous pro-EU economic

assessment". But the Chancellor denied

the warning was part The Treasury analysis is supported

by the analysis of respected independent organisations,

like the London School of Economics. It is supported by the economic

arguments being made by everyone from the International Monetary

Fund, to the OECD, to big international businesses and,

indeed, small firms as well. There is a consensus opinion Britain

would be poorer and worse off And we're expecting the Chancellor

to take to the stage and deliver his warning in around

ten minutes - we'll listen in. Rescue teams in Ecuador have

spent the night searching through the debris of collapsed

buildings, trying to find survivors Troops are helping with the rescue

effort. The country's president -

who has cut short a visit to Rome - says that 272 people are now known

to have died, but he fears Meanwhile, we've learnt a nun

from Northern Ireland is among the dead -

Sister Clare Theresa Crockett was working in a school

in Playa Prieta. Reports of a drone hitting

a British Airways aircraft landing at Heathrow are being

investigated by police. The flight from Geneva was struck

as it approached the airport with 132 passengers and five

crew on board. It's believed to be the first

incident of its kind in the UK. A mother of five children has told

this programme about her agony - after her newborn son was taken

from her and put into care. The woman - we're

calling her Annie - has had several of her five

kids taken from her, but successfully fought

to get her youngest back. Annie suffers from a history

of mental health problems - Two 14-year-olds charged

with murdering a woman and her teenage daughter are due

to appear in court. The victims, named by

police as 49-year-old Elizabeth Edwards and her thirteen

year old daughter Katie, were found at a property

in Lincolnshire on Friday. A high-profile MP suspended

from the Labour party over allegations of sexting,

who's also being investigated for false expense claims,

has told this programme he's not Simon Danczuk is due to hear this

week whether he broke parliamentary rules for claiming money for two

children who did not routinely live with him.

He says he accepts responsibility. It is an honest mistake.

That's the reality of it. I should have checked the rules

and regulations much more I relied on a member of the team

to tell me what the rules were. I should have read them myself

and I didn't do. I prioritised campaigning over these

administration work that IPSA sets out for you and that's

where the mistake occurred. But I take full responsibility

for it and I'll pay the money back. Children from poorer households

are losing out in the competition for places at the best

primary schools in England, according to research by Teach

First. The education charity,

which helps provide teachers in low-income communities,

says a bias against less well-off children is unfair

and a waste of talent. Families across England will learn

today where their children Brazil's lower house of Congress has

voted for the impeachment of the country's president,

Dilma Rousseff, to go ahead. She denies manipulating government

accounts and says plans The impeachment battle has paralysed

the activity of government, just four months before the country

is due to host the Olympics In Australia, dog smuggling charges

against Johnny Depp's wife Amber Heard have been dropped,

after she admitted lying The 29 year old pleaded guilty

to making a false statement to immigration about the couple's

Yorkshire terriers Pistol and Boo. She brought the dogs to Queensland

in a private jet while her husband The couple has released a short

statement, apologising for breaking Australia is free of many

pests and diseases that That is why Australia has to have

such strong bio-security And Australians are just as unique -

both warm and direct. When you disrespect

Australian law, they I am truly sorry that

Pistol and Boo were That's a summary of

the latest BBC News. We will bring you the Chancellor

George Osborne's speech live in a couple more minutes. Thank you to

those who have got in touch, thickly over the MP Simon Danczuk and the

mum who fought to get her some back from car. One says, I'm so glad

someone is shedding light on this. I had to fight for my son for six

years and had fights with social services. Women are not allowed to

make this public because of court restrictions, it is soul destroying

and has affected much of my life. And another, in 2001, my fourth

child was taken from leaks from the room I gave birth in, despite no

harm ever coming to a child in my care. -- taken from the

. Fate they took those children because I asked for help, I kept my

fifth child, he stayed with me even though my circumstances where the

same as when they took my baby at birth. Social services gave me an

assessment keep my fifth child but not my fourth. And another viewer, a

moving story about the woman whose baby was taken from her, respect

her, very brave. On the MP Simon Danczuk, who told us earlier he is

not an expenses cheat and he made an honest mistake, he admitted he did

not read the expenses rules and denied using his children subsidise

his rent. One viewer says, not a fit and proper person for public office,

and self serving individuals and another says, saying the landlord

gets the money anyway is why we hate politicians. Thank you.

Do get in touch with us throughout the morning -

use the hashtag Victoria Live and If you text, you will be charged

Jessica has the sport and quite a bit of fallout from Leicester's

West Ham striker Andy Carroll has accused the referee

in their game with Leicester, of trying to "even things up."

Official Jonathan Moss awarded Leicester a penalty in the dying

minutes which rescued them a point in the 2-2 draw.

Pundits and players have criticised Moss for some of his

Leicester's Jamie Vardy was sent off after receiving two yellow cards.

His second for this, which the ref said was diving.

And in the fifth minute of injury time, Moss pointed

Andy Carroll was believed to have brought down Jeff Schlupp.

The result keeps Leicester at the top of the table,

At the end I feel like you just try to equal the game up and give them a

penalty. For me and the lads are clearly wasn't. You feel Jonathan

Moss wanted to give them something? I think so, I think that's what he

was going for. Other than that I cannot see how he has given it. He

gave a touch pass me, I stopped the run, he ran straight into me and

there is nothing I can do. There was a shock in Old Firm derby

as Rangers beat Celtic on penalties It was 1-1 after 90 minutes before

Rangers went ahead thanks to this superb strike

from Barrie McKay. But Celtic equalised again,

as Tom Rogic's goal took the game It was Rogic's miss that saw Rangers

through to next month's One other football line for you,

the women's FA Cup Final will be contested by Arsenal Ladies

and Chelsea Ladies. Both teams won their

semi-finals yesterday. Rafa Nadal has claimed the 68th

title of his career, beating Gael Monfils in three sets

in the final of the Monte Carlo Nadal knocked Andy Murray

out in the semi-finals. He has now won nine titles

in the principality, I spoke to snooker legend

Steve Davis last Friday about his new career

as a DJ. And as one door opens,

another closes, with the six-time World Snooker Champion announcing

his retirement at the age of 58. Davis became one of the sports

biggest names in the 80s and won the BBC Sports Personality

of the Year in 1988. Fittingly he announced

the news at the Crucible - the scene of so many

of his greatest triumphs. I wasn't particularly delighted, I

thought I was just pushing the boundaries anyway and thought they

would continue forever. Until Stephen Hendry came along! And

ruined it all... Best of luck to Steve.

Thank you, Jessica. Every household will be more

than ?4000 worse off That's the claim from Chancellor

George Osborne this morning. Before that, we can speak

to our political guru Norman Smith. Where does he get this figure from?

Well, he got it from 200 pages of analysis here. Boiled down what they

did was took the example of Canada, which has negotiated its own deal

with the EU and looked at all the tariffs and restrictions Canada

faces in terms of trading with the EU. It said if you replicated that

in Britain, it would hit us extremely hard. They calculate by

2030 we will be something like 6% worse off in terms of the overall

wealth. If you average that out in terms of individual households, it

is more than ?4000 per household. I have just had a look through the

document, it also suggests we will be something like ?30 billion worse

off in terms of tax receipts, in other words public services will be

short of billions of pounds worth of cash. The point about this is its

basically George Osborne's the zoo car. His big argument he hopes will

kind of blows the Brexit team out of the water. What he's saying is

Britain will be poorer, permanently. -- taught Osborne's big temper

bazooka. That will be the big argument he hopes will win this

referendum campaign. For him it is a very big day. We will be with you as

soon as Mr Osborne begins to speak. We will bring that to you as soon as

it starts. Leicester have extended their lead at the top of the Premier

League by eight points but the game had quite a bit of controversy

yesterday when star striker Jamie Vardy were sent off, reducing the

team to ten men. Leicester's story so far has been a football fairy

tale. This time last year they were bottom of the Premier League and

facing relegation and now they are at the top and have been for ages.

We have been following their story for some time through the eyes of

two supporters who have been keeping video diaries. Here is the latest.

Very nervous today, West Ham play nice attacking football, so

I don't think they'll park the bus, but the atmosphere should

be absolutely fantastic down the King Power.

We just need to go there today, and we just do

what we keep doing, which is being Leicester City.

It doesn't make it any less nerve-wracking

Please, for my sake, Leicester, just do some good

and get an early goal today to calm my dad down, please.

we've now picked up Big Ann and Wendy.

And all the are fans on the way to the stadium,

we're a little bit late, because we hade to keep going back,

because everybody forgot their lucky earrings

or their lucky scarf or their lucky socks.

but you're not seeing my lucky knickers!

'I do not want to hear that line about knickers!'

Unlike Channel 1, there's nobody there.

About to go in now, hopefully to see Leicester pick up another three

to winning our Barclays Premiership game.

# You can give it to me when I need to come along

Half-time at the King Power, Leicester are 1-0 up,

and I think Tom Daley is playing for West Ham,

because there's been more dives that have got a perfect ten

There is an air of tension in the ground,

and I think everybody knows how much the three points means to us here.

Dramatic twist in the title race, because Leicester

are down to ten men, and Jamie Vardy has been sent off!

Leicester haven't conceded in five matches,

It's turned right around at the King Power Stadium,

because West Ham have scored a second goal.

Well, we have now only seconds left, 20 seconds to play.

Yes, he sends Adrian the wrong way,

and Leicester have salvaged what could be an all-important point.

We are just walking back to the car now after the match,

and literally all you can hear is everybody talking about the referee.

If Jamie Vardy died, he dived, and if he did dive,

He was like the pantomime villain today.

Onwards and upwards, it has put a whole dampener

on what was an absolutely cracking match.

We carry on fighting, though, right to the end.

And come on, Leicester, we are a point closer

to getting that Premier League title.

So build a bridge, get over it, we've dropped two points.

Many favourite bits, but the bit where Gary says, "One word, the

referee." And we'll keep following Sandra

and Gary over the course You can find all the video diaries

on our programme page - Right, I have got so many messages

about your interview with Simon Danczuk. This 2003er wants to know

if Simon Danczuk received a fee from the BBC? No, we don't pay guests for

interviews. Jerome on Twitter says, "This is why the public think MPs

are untruth worthy and corrupt." Don on Twitter says to Simon dan choork,

"That was a disastrous attempt to explain away your conduct." Robert

tweets, "If a poor benefit's claimant fiddled the amount that

Danczuk has, it would be a stretch as a guest of Her Majesty." Kath

says, "Shouldn't be able to claim money for family visiting and

staying over. That should come out of your pay." Sue says, "Is this

really the calibre of MP this country needs?" And this one from

Kath says, "I love how MPs get off with this, but hard up folk claiming

extra benefits get taken to court for fraud. It stinks." Thank you for

those. Keep them coming in. We are expecting George Osborne, the

Chancellor, to begin his speech around now to talk about how much he

says, he believes or the Treasury believes it will cost each household

in the UK if you vote to leave the European Union. Let's go back to

Norman Smith who is in Bristol where Mr Osborne is about to explain why

it will cost your household ?4300 if there is a vote to leave. Where is

he? He is out the back. With him is Stephen Crabb and Liz Truss, the

Chancellor will get up and set out his case and we will have mini

speeches from the ministers, and the Chancellor will wrap up. This is a

document, 200 pages long, you asked me how did the Chancellor reach his

calculations. Boy, oh boy, you would have to be some relative of Einstein

to work it out! How do you work that out? That's hugely complex, but

that's the sort of sums the boffins in the Treasury have been doing to

come up with this Figg to say we would be 6% GDP, 6% worse off. Is

that not some equation! Try and say that out loud. I'm not sure I could

do that. Oh my god, really? Yes! OK. Here we go, INDFI equals A plus A 1,

YIT plus A to the power of 2, YJ 2, IN to the power of I, do you want me

to go on with this? That's not auto even half-way through. This is some

sum! There will be someone really, really clever watching. Let's have a

look... You reckon? If someone can send us an explanation of how that

gets to the sum of ?4300 then please, please do because that will

be fascinating because... I have another theory. This is all bluff.

It is designed to intimidate anyone from challenging his sums, he will

say, "You work that out and people say, "Oh Christ no, I don't think I

can do that." It gives you some amount of the time and effort the

Treasury put into this. Although it is stuffed full of facts, it is a

forecast and a hugely long-term forecast. A lot of people say this

is mystic Meg country, it is crystal ball country, you are talking about

something 15 years away and forecasting what's going to happen

next week is hard enough, never mind in 15 years time and that will be

the central criticism of this. I wonder what will get through toll

people? Will it be the people who want to exit the European Union, the

campaigners in this country saying, "This is the most ridiculous

forecast ever, I cannot believe how the Chancellor has come up with

this." Will it be the ?4300 Figg? I mean, difficult to say, but I tend

to think in these referendums, there is usually just one or two things

which people latch on to. If you look at the Scottish referendum, the

kind of turning or the game changer in that referendum was this thought

of, what's going to happen to the pound? What will your currency be

and people think hang on a second, what will the currency be? Sometimes

a single idea can be the Trump idea and that is basically what the

Chancellor hopes. He doesn't expect anyone to go through this. He

certainly doesn't expect anyone to answer the equation, but what he

kind of hopes is people will think gosh, I'm going to be poorer

forever. That's a really big claim and he hopes that will make people

just stand back and think, you know what, I don't think I want to take

this risk. So for them, it is a really big claim. This is the key

card which they are putting down on the table and basically saying to

families up and down the UK, you have got to realise you go for

Brexit, it won't be a short-term hiccup or currency instability, not

just a temporary shock, had is forever, you, the nation, will be

worse off. It is a massive claim to make. Yeah. As far as I can tell,

almost every claim that those who want Britain to, you know, that want

people to vote to stay in, to remain in the European Union, every single

claim is rubbished by those who want to leave. I wonder if that is

credible? Well, I think the difficulty with that is you kind of

get into a crying wolf syndrome in that every time the Chancellor or

someone produces one of these documents they go...

PROBLEM WITH SOUND Scare people and it is like crying

wolf, wolf, over and over again. The difficulty, the Brexit camp have is

they can't produce this sort of document. These sort of Figgs, this

arithmetic, these facts. Why? Because no one ever has walked out

of the EU, there is no one they can model it on. There is no one they

can look at and say, "Looking at what they do, they are massively

better off from getting out of the EU." So what they are left with

asserting that they think Britain would flourish outside the EU

because we would be liberated from endless red tapement we wouldn't be

chucking loads of money into the EU budget, we would become a more

self-confident, buck nearing nation. They can't point to such a such a

country did it and they are growing much better than the rest of the EU.

That's why when we heard the Chancellor on the wireless, he was

throwning down the gauntlet to the Brexiters and saying, "Where is your

document?" They can't produce a document and they can only make the

argument and hope that resonates with people and they think, "We

might be better off. The EU is a burden." It is an appeal to people's

instincts, they can't produce the facts which is hugely to the

Government's advantage. Added to which they have got the whole

Government machine churning out these things so they have got a load

of brainy people who are able to do these sums and that is, I think,

quite a big advantage for Team Cameron and George Osborne and so

on. A couple of comments about the equation, Norman. First of all,

Suzie on Twitter says, "Just because you lot can't do complicated maths

doesn't mean the formula is wrong." Johnny says, "Without knowing the

value of A then it may not be possible to reach the said total,

but if I see the rest of the paper then maybe." Says Coffee Johnny and

Paul tweets, "The formula proves if you cannot blind them with science,

baffle them with absolute nonsense, it's simple." I have to tell you,

Vic, before I took my maths O listen level back in the year dot, my maths

teacher wrote one sentence in my school report which was, "Things

look bleak." I can't do maths. I am the last person to ask what this is

about, you know, numbers, total disaster. I haven't a clue! Maybe it

can go on mastermind or something like that, there is no way I can get

to grips with this, I am afraid. Since thence looks looked up for

you, Norman! He is not there, the Chancellor, we

will take the news headlines and we will come back to you, if that's all

right. See you in a bit. Leaving the EU could cost every UK

household ?4,300 year by 2030, according to a report

by the Treasury. A 200-page document published

by the Chancellor, argues that the British economy

would shrink by 6% because trade barriers would be

higher, hitting exports. Vote Leave has dismissed

the document as just another "erroneous pro-EU

economic assessment". Rescue teams in Ecuador have

spent the night searching through the debris of collapsed

buildings, trying to find survivors Troops are helping

with the rescue effort, but the country's president says

that 272 people are already known to have died and he fears

that number will rise. Meanwhile we've learnt a nun

from Northern Ireland Sister Clare Theresa

Crockett was working Back to Victoria. The Chancellor is

about to start speaking. Well, here he is. I am joined by

Liz, Stephen and Amber. The engineers, the scientists, the

designers o who work here to deliver world leading research and

innovation in composites, one second toor that benefits from the work of

the National Composite Centre is aerospace. Half of everything our

aerospace sector exports is sold to the European Union and our aerospace

industry relies on imports from Europe to make their finished

products. And we're here to talk about Europe today. In a little over

two months time, the people of the United Kingdom will decide whether

our country should remain in the European Union or leave it. It is

the biggest decision for a generation. One that will have

profound consequences for our economy, our living standards, and

for Britain's role in the world. But what many people are saying at the

moment is they don't have enough facts and information to make an

informed decision. And so it is up to all of us who fought so hard to

give people this referendum, so that they could take this momentous

decision to provide those facts and that information. That's what today,

the Government is doing, by publishing a comprehensive treasury

analysis for the long-term economic impacts of EU membership, and the

alternatives. This is a sober and serious look at the costs and

benefits of remaining in the EU or leaving it. Not just for Britain,

but for the individual families of Britain. To put it simply - are you

better off or worse off if Britain leaves the EU? Has your family got

more money each year or less? And is there more or less money available

to your Government to spend on public services, and lower taxes? To

find the answer to those questions, the Treasury has gone back to first

principles and looked at the current costs and benefits of our membership

of the European Union, essentially what we put in, and what we get out.

We've also looked at how that would change if the EU were to reform

along the lines it has committed itself to. And we've look at the

costs and benefits of leaving the European Union. Not the immediate

shock, a future treasury study will look in detail at that, but rather

the long-term impact that our exit from the EU would have on family

finances, and the nation's finances. We've done that by examining in

detail what the alternatives to EU membership would be like for

Britain's economy. We know now pretty clearly what those

alternatives might be, although we do not know which one Britain would

pick or our European neighbours would axe at. There is seeking

membership of the European economic area, where you get access to part

of the single market that you have to pay into the EU and axe at free

movement, without any say over either. That is the Norway model.

There is relying on our existing mention of the World Trade

Organisation, where like Russia Brazil, you put nothing into the EU

but get nothing out in terms of preferential access. That is the WTO

model. Then there is a halfway house of trying to negotiate a bilateral

trade with the EU, where you get some trade access but you are not

part of the single market. That is the Canada model. It is a complete

fantasy to claim we could negotiate some other deal, where we have

access to the EU's single market that don't have to accept the

costs and obligations of EU mentorship. Other member states have

made it very clear in recent weeks that that is not on offer. And how

could it be? How could other European countries give us a better

deal than they have given themselves? And never forget, that

while 44% of our exports go to the rest of the EU, less than 8% of

their exports come to us. So in today's analysis we look at the

costs and benefits of our existing membership of the EU and tests that

against three realistic alternative models, like that of Norway, the WTO

and Canada. And shortly I will ask my colleagues to go through each

alternative in turn. But first, let me say something about the

underlying economic assumptions were made and the where this analysis

rests. We assumed the underlying objective of economic policies to

increase living standards through the creation of jobs, rising

household incomes and low and stable prices for consumers. You may have

other policy objectives that you think from those objectives, but the

main thing is higher living standards. Those living standards

are driven by long-term improvements in productivity, in other words,

increasing the value of what British workers reduce per hour. It is also

a well-established doctrine of British economic thinking over

centuries, the greater economic openness and connectedness, helps

raise productivity. That is because greater openness to trade increases

incentives for firms to operate and gives them increased finance, which

allows them to employ people and gives consumers access to more

choice and lower prices. I accept those -- there are those that

advocate a different economic approach, a closed economy with no

free trade and no politician and no private business, but that has never

been a consensus in Britain or the rest of the world these last few

decades. And those most prominent in advocating our withdrawal from the

EU, do so in part with the claim it will lead to free trade and free

markets, so they share these basic assumptions about the advantages of

the economic openness as well. In this document the Treasury assessed

the alternatives to EU membership and see whether they enhance or

diminish our economic openness and interconnectedness and by how much.

First is market access increased or reduced? Do British businesses and

consumers face carrots and quotas and unfair competition or other

barriers? Second, is Britain's economic influence in enhanced or

curtailed? What say do we have over the rules and the standards that

apply to the goods and services we trade in? And third, are the costs

to Britain greater or less? What do we end up paying for a different

trading relationship? We know the answer to these tests with Britain's

current membership of the EU. When it comes to market access there are

no tariffs or quotas applied to British exports to 500 million

consumers who live in the European union. But a single market is about

more than the absence of quotas and tariffs, it means common standards,

so there aren't invisible barriers and obstacles to trade. So, for

example, when a highly skilled, to is building a car, they know it can

be sold directly and without any hindrance into the continent of

Europe. It also means a British-based architect or engineer

can get off the plane in Munich or Madrid and immediately start doing

business. And it means any European airline can offer the best service

at the best price, to provide that journey. That's what the single

market means. The Treasury analysis shows the EU's membership has

increased trade with EU members by around three quarters. Greater

openness leading to higher productivity and writing living

standards. We also know that our current EU mentorship gives us

influence over the rules and standards of that single market. We

have votes over what they are, our commissioners can help design, our

ministers and elected MEPs can shape them and on key issues like common

tax standards, we have an absolute veto. But we're not in the single

currency, we are not in the Schengen free border area, so we have a

special status in the EU. That gives us the best of both worlds,

influence over the single market without the obligations that

membership of the euro and open borders would bring. And we know

what the costs and the financial rewards of being in the EU are. We

pay into the EU budget, but our citizens, businesses and

universities also receive money from the EU budget. The net direct cost

is the equivalent to a little over 1p for every ?1 we raise in taxes.

But we also have received over ?1 trillion of overseas investment into

Britain, much of it driven by the fact we are in the EU and its single

market. Indeed, we have received more of this overseas investment

than any other EU member state and that drives better jobs, rising

living standards and it brings money into the Exchequer to spend on

public services. So we know how our existing mensch above the EU

performs against these tests of openness and interconnectedness. And

we know the advantages that future reform of the EU can bring for

Britain, for the EU is not perfect. The single market can be expanded,

the costs can be reduced and the influence of member states can be

enhanced. That's what the new settlement, negotiated by the Prime

Minister, supported by the Cabinet, delivers. The Treasury analysis

shows achieving EU wide reforms to deepen the single market and

complete major ongoing trade deals offers a huge prize for Britain.

They could add up to 4% to our GDP over the coming 15 years, and that

is equivalent to thousands of pounds more per household. So Britain's

membership of the European Union contributes to the openness of our

economy and that leads to higher quality jobs, rising living

standards and lower prices. We know there will be better jobs, higher

living standards and lower prices if Europe reforms. That is the future

on offer... In a reformed EU, a future where we are stronger, safer

and that off. So what does the Treasury's rigorous economic

analysis show about the alternatives question at this is where I am going

to hand over to my colleagues, and ask them to go through each of the

alternative models, like that of Norway, the World Trade Organisation

and Canada, and look at what they would mean for British families.

Liz. The document published today shows how one of the big advantages

of being in the European Union is the ability we have... Let's leave

George Osborne and his speech in Bristol, handing over to his

colleagues. Plenty of you watching what he had to say, listening to

what he had to say this morning. Trying to work out his formula,

which Norman Smith showed a seller, the equation in the 200 page

document, which comes to the conclusion of Britain votes to leave

the EU it will cost each household ?4300. One viewer an e-mail says he

has worked out the equation. Even if it is true, how is 6% equal to ?4300

question at the income for each household would need to be ?80,000

after tax. Another says they have worked out the formula and they get

?4298. Where does George Osborne get the extra ?2 question mark and an

anonymous e-mail says the equation is a regression model, which is to

some extent subjective. That's just what I was thinking! Whether a

variable has been submitted or not is debatable. A similar equation

could come up with something very different. Thank you for those. We

are trying to get someone on before the end of the programme to work out