03/02/2016 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

David Cameron could face a tough ride in the Commons today.

The PM's making the case for his draft EU settlement deal

which he hopes will persuade voters to stay in Europe.

Not everyone's convinced, though, and plans to restrict welfare

payments to migrants have been dubbed "unworkable" by some.

Last night, the Home Secretary said the draft EU agreement

But some of her Cabinet colleagues aren't too sure.

Eurosceptic ministers are still gagged by the Prime

Before the PM's statement on Europe, there's another small

David Cameron faces Jeremy Corbyn across the despatch box at midday.

And in our soapbox today, the inconvenience of a lack

just having access to a clean hygienic public toilet is a simple

basic human rights. Time for some serious investment. Time to spend

more than a penny! All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration, a match

made in heaven. Deputy Leader of the House

of Commons, the Conservative MP, Therese Coffey and Shadow Leader

of the House of Commons, Now, do you know your red card

from your orange card, Morning, folks, and welcome

to the Daily Politics. David Cameron could face a tough

ride in the Commons today. The PM's making the case

for his draft EU settlement deal which he hopes will persuade

voters to stay in Europe. Not everyone's convinced, though,

and plans to restrict welfare payments to migrants have been

dubbed "unworkable" by some. Last night, the Home Secretary said

the draft EU agreement But some of her Cabinet

colleagues aren't too sure. Eurosceptic ministers

are still gagged by the Prime Before the PM's statement on Europe,

there's another small David Cameron faces Jeremy Corbyn

across the despatch box at midday. And in our soapbox today,

the inconvenience of a lack Just having access to a bog just

having access to a clean hygienic public toilet

is a simple basic human rights. investment, time to spend

more than a penny. All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration, a match

made in heaven. Deputy Leader of the House

of Commons, the Conservative MP, Therese Coffey and Shadow Leader

of the House of Commons, Now, do you know your red card

from your orange card, or indeed your emergency brake

from full frontal throttle Well, David Cameron will find out

what MPs think of the deal he's been negotiating to change Britain's

membership of the EU, when he discusses it

in parliament today. Europe's top officials published

a draft offer yesterday, but it's fair to say not

everyone's a happy bunny. The PMs deal has been lambasted

on the front page of nearly every national newspaper this morning,

the Sun and the Mail are particularly critical;

and if you believe everything you read, he's heading

for a bit of a meltdown So did Britain's most important

negotiator get what he wanted. David Cameron wanted a four-year

benefit ban on EU migrants... suggests a graduated access

to benefits from initial complete exclusion and increases over

the four-year period, with child benefits linked

to the standard of living in the country where

the child lives. The UK can also apply

for an emergency brake on welfare, but it's not completely

clear how that brake is pulled The PM also wanted protection

for non-eurozone economies, prohibiting discrimination

between currencies. Cameron wanted to get

Britain out of 'ever closer union' with

the European Union? that the UK is not committed

to further political integration The Prime Minister also

wanted the sovereignty of national parliaments

to be bolstered? - if 55% of national parliaments

club together EU law can be blocked. Some of the Cabinet

are reportedly not happy with the deal and are discussing

whether to break ranks But the President of

the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker,

speaking this morning in Strasbourg, Well let's talk now to the Ukip

leader, Nigel Farage, Let's talk now to our

guests in the studio and to the Conservative MP Liam Fox,

who's in Central Lobby. Well, after PMQs, the Prime Minister

will give a statement to the House MPs are expected to discuss that

until well into the afternoon. Labour's Kate Hoey,

and Caroline Lucas from the Green Now, as a public service broadcaster

it's our duty to inform, There are two things that can sway

the referendum, first can he get us a deal that will give more control

of a Borders and the second is the day because of the European Union --

the daily cost. That has not been discussed and if he honestly thinks

this emergency brake will persuade people on migration he is wrong.

Four years from now not only will we pay benefits to EU migrants at the

same levels as now on top of that our minimum wage will be going up to

a living wage. I think we can predict with confidence in four

years, people factors to Britain will be even greater than today and

that is why he's got a problem. -- the pulling factors. One problem was

persuading people like Theresa May, key members of his cabinet and she

zooms to back this deal as the basis for future negotiation. That has

been a success for the Prime Minister. In a way. He also has some

time until this summit to persuade other Cabinet ministers who might

have thought of joining your side. To reason may has always supported

the European Union through her career. She has never rebelled on

that issue. She has the worst immigration record are some

secretary of anyone in UK history. She gave one speech at the Tory

confidence when she talked about getting back control of borders,

everybody cheered, the Tory papers that she was the new Mrs Thatcher,

heroin. If she had been sincere in that speech, then she must campaign

for us to leave the EU because it's the only way to get back control of

our borders and put into place a points system on immigration which

is what the British public want. No Cabinet ministers have joined Leave

yet but even if, say, Chris Grayling, or Iain Duncan Smith or

Theresa Villiers or all of them join, would that make a massive

difference to the Leave campaign? Everyone in Westminster is obsessing

about which people will break ranks and support the Leave campaign. I am

not sure that politicians have as big a sway over the way people will

vote in this referendum as many commentators think. This political

class lied to us in 1975 about what the common market was about, they

did their best to get us into the euro, thank goodness, we stopped

them. I am less worried about which political figures join the Leave

campaign. Michael Caine on Radio 4 last week talking about why he

thinks Britain would be better outside the European Union, maybe

that has a bigger impact on the way people vote than whether one

minister comes in on it or not. So in your mind and would not make much

difference? Two all three will join Leave, maybe four on a good day with

a fair wind. They will be welcome and we need a proper cross-party

campaign, not just for ministers, we need Labour people and trade union

members. This is all across the board, not about left-wing

right-wing parties. It is about a key issue. From my perspective it is

the most important vote will have in our lifetimes. Benchmark is not the

going problem is not the problem there is not one that United Leave

campaign, and those that exist seem to be taking chunks of it each other

which is not your message. And angry about it. I have sat in a room with

one fellow director of Leave has put an offer on the table and said to

John Mills, who is the chairman of Vote Leave, let's merge the

organisations Camille can be the chairman, it's doesn't matter about

me, let's get together. And time after time the Vote Leave crowd

rejected those offers of coming together. I wonder if Vote Leave

really want to leave the European Union because they are not talking

about a double referendum strategy. It makes no sense. We need to have

one unified campaign. Basically two well-paid employees voting Leave

will hold up the process. On that, not much time left to bring them

together. You are calling for one group and no more, if the referendum

is in June you are running out of time. Ie Agree but I don't see any

circumstances in which these two well-paid employees will make a deal

which is why we launched the initiative for Though, we came on

your programme some weeks ago and we'll be on the platform in

Manchester for a second meeting. 12 people on the platform from across

the political spectrum, David Davis will be joining us on the evening.

Thank you, Nigel Farage. In a moment we will talk to our guests in the

studio, first, Liam Fox is in the lobby of the House of Commons. Liam

Fox, do you believe that the proposed settlement, if that is what

it turns out to be, at the summit, will it play much of a part in the

referendum campaign? It may play a part with voters who are genuinely

undecided. As I have said, for my part, the renegotiation did not make

a difference to my view because I had already decided that what we

were asking for was too little, so the only way to get back the powers

I wanted was to leave the European Union. The question will be for

members of Parliament, those who said, some more genuinely than

others that they will waiting for the results of the renegotiation,

know that they've seen the results, whether that will be enough for

them, and in the days ahead Ebor have to make up their minds because

it is a binary choice, referendum, you are either in favour of European

Union membership or not, you are in favour of Britain determining its

own borders or you want them determined somewhere else. People

will have to get up that fence. -- of that fence. Are you concerned, as

Tory polling seems to suggest, as the Prime Minister comes off the

fence and campaigns for Britain to stay in the EU, that that will swing

many Tory voters his way, not yours? We will have to wait and see what

happens when the documents are put before the voters. Rather than just

the Prime Minister, who is a single voice in this in terms of the

Cabinet, other Cabinet ministers may campaign for the Leave side and will

put with authority a different message. I would not put too much

emphasis on polling at the moment, if you look at polling on the

referendum it is all over the place. Given that the Prime Minister has

already begun to campaign to keep Britain in the EU, we saw that with

his speech in the West Country yesterday, do you think that

Eurosceptic Conservative Cabinet ministers should now come out and

give the other side of the case? It's a question of fairness and how

fairly we deal with both sides, how easy it may be after the referendum

to come together. If the deal is that nobody should campaign for or

against the deal until it is finalised at the European Council

that should apply equally to both sides. The Prime Minister is already

campaigning. If it is OK for one side to campaign in favour, natural

justice says the other side should have an equal chance. It's only a

short window, less than two weeks but there is an issue of fair play

here. Liam Fox. Thank you for joining us.. Therese Coffey, let's

look at this issue of sovereignty which artist is the many people in

your party. What is the difference between David

Cameron's red card and the Lisbon treaty's Orange card? We have made

progress in many areas and I would suggest that the Orange card, as you

say, is a query to the commission to think about it again. This extra red

card would effectively put a block on that legislation. The red card

doesn't put a block on it. Like the orange card, it asks the commission

to think again, to either maintain, amend, or withdraw but it is in the

power of the commission with both cards. My understanding is that

there will be more power to it. In the House of Commons tonight we are

doing one of these yellow cards on emotion. I think there is more to it

than what was in the Lisbon Treaty. -- on a motion. The settlement which

I have read says that you have 12 weeks as opposed to eight weeks

under the orange card to get together 56% of European

Parliaments, as opposed to 51% with the orange card, to ask the

commission to think again. What is the difference? I believe that it

has substantially more effect and this is why it matters. Are you

saying that the red card, if you can get these Parliaments into line, the

red card has the power to stop the commission? It has a more

substantial effect and what is in the Lisbon to do of requiring the

commission not just to say, we'll think about it and carry on, it goes

back to the council and the commission, which initiates

legislation so it is more substantial than what we have now.

How would you rate the chances of getting 56% of Europe's Parliaments

in line within a 12 week period? That depends on what the issue is. I

would say that the bigger consequence is the matter is that

the Prime Minister has progressed with, subsidiarity, applying that

further, and closer political union. So there's more of a challenge about

what legislation comes down the line. Is it credible given that you

all have different holiday periods and many of the government 's under

boating will have already voted for the issue, that you can get more

than 15 European Parliaments to defy their governments in a period of 12

weeks? Is that really a credible position? If it is a case of trying

to stop laws progress in which we believe are contrary to the

interests of the UK and we can work with other countries to achieve that

it is a minor detail as to when someone goes on holiday or not. But

if you want the votes of the other Parliament! The Polish problem and

cannot vote if it is on holiday. The four errors we have made progress

on, I will suggest that we will perhaps see fewer laws coming down

the line which we believe should be decided in the UK rather than in the

EU. That is the reference to increased used of subsidiarity. We

will reinforce that, I think. The Tory election manifesto promise

to stop child benefit for the children

to stop child benefit for the rates of those benefits for children

not resident in this country. But that wasn't what the manifesto

promised, it that wasn't what the manifesto

benefit. This is part of that wasn't what the manifesto

negotiation. If I were a Polish person paying the same taxes and

negotiation. If I were a Polish insurance in the UK, and I could not

get child benefit from the Polish government in

get child benefit from the Polish there is a conversation that has to

be had there is a conversation that has to

states. I don't think it is an unreasonable compromise. But it was

not what you're manifesto promised. The Tory manifesto also promised

that there would be no in work benefits for four years for migrants

coming to this country. Why have you broken that promise? That is

coming to this country. Why have you bit of the text where the years have

not been pencilled in. This is a live negotiation for lease the next

two weeks. Nobody is saying the deal has to be completed at the fabric

council. But the settlement talks about graduated payments, starting

from when you arrive. about graduated payments, starting

affect any migrants already here, but graduated payments which will

rise the longer you are here until you get to the standard rate after

four years. That is not what the manifesto promised, so why have you

broken that promise? You need to wait for the final deal before you

can get the weather we have achieved what we set out to achieve. The

Prime Minister has a record of negotiating. He has done it in the

past, and last year, nobody believed any of this would be possible at

all. We have made progress. The Tory manifesto also promised that there

would be no social housing for migrants coming until they had been

here for four years. Why is there no mention of that in the settlement? I

don't believe the initial paper that has gone to the other European

councils has gone into every consequence of every decision. This

is a principle -based document. We have made considerable progress. Not

long ago, people said there would be no chance of that. Is the Prime

Minister asking for no social housing for four years? We have seen

no mention of it in the settlement. I am not in the negotiations with

the Prime Minister. We did pass the EU act in the last Parliament, and

there will be referendums on other matters. We know if the European

Union wants to take more powers away from this country, we would have

that in the bank. We need to recalibrate the relationship for

things like the Schengen zone and the ever closer union. There are

important steps. Let me show you what William Hague said about the

idea of a red card in the House of Commons in 2008. They say, look at

the enhanced role of national parliaments which is set out in the

treaty. If a majority in half the Parliament of the EU object to an EU

measure, they might be able to block it. But once again, it does not take

much analysis to work out that the chances of that mechanism being

employed vanishingly small. It could be used only if 14

different national Parliaments, nearly all of which have

a Government majority, defeated an EU proposal,

and did so within We have only to consider that

for a moment, as Members of Parliament, to begin

to laugh about it. Given the difficulty of oppositions

winning a vote in their Parliaments, the odds against doing so in 14

countries around Europe with different parliamentary

recesses - lasting up to 10 weeks in our own case - are such that

even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter

of the first-born, it would be difficult to achieve such

a remarkable conjunction Mr Hague cannot have been right then

and the Prime Minister right now. He was saying it is difficult for an

opposition to challenge European law, and that is still the case. No,

he was saying it is impossible to get 15 European parliaments to block

a commission policy. He made the point that I made about holidays as

well and getting all the parliaments to meet. Now we are told that this

is the Prime Minister's men grab of a return of sovereignty. As I said,

I believe this has more impact than what was proposed under the Lisbon

Treaty. And I believe he was saying that from the prospect of an

opposition. Where you have a governing party, particularly our

government, who wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we didn't get

one because it had been ratified by the time we get to power, and

unfortunately Labour decided not to have one, we might have had a

different scenario. But we are having a referendum and it is for 60

million people to make that decision. Although you are

enthusiastic about what the Prime Minister is bringing back, you will

still campaign to stay in? I am a passionate pro-European. I believe

our destiny lies within the European Union. Watching Nigel Farage, he

can't help himself. The people's front of duty are fighting against

the Judaean people's front. They are all wearing green ties in the

Commons today. But they cannot unite around a common theme. In the end,

voters will have to decide. Is the total package of our membership in

our interests? And you think it is. We will come back to you. Just be

patient. Well, after PMQs, the Prime Minister

will give a statement to the House MPs are expected to discuss that

until well into the afternoon. Labour's Kate Hoey,

and Caroline Lucas from the Caroline Lucas, is this a deal you

can support? I never supported what he was trying to achieve through the

negotiation anyway. There are bigger issues at stake on as Chris Bryant

said. What is at stake is whether we believe we are better off working

with our European colleagues when it comes to trying to tackle the

biggest challenges we face, whether that is the environmental challenge

or international terrorism, I believe we are better inside the EU,

working with our colleagues to do that. To me, this renegotiation is

about David Cameron strutting his stuff to try to persuade his

Eurosceptic backbenchers. I do not agree with some of the premises he

has been trying to achieve. I think we should make a bigger case to say

that if we want a secure and better off Britain, there were to do that

is inside the EU. Kate Hoey, you will campaign for Britain to leave

the EU, but the deal, like it or loathe it, doesn't change Labour's

position of Chris Brant is not enthusiastic, but he will still

campaign in -- Chris Bryant. The Labour Party has never said what it

would like to see reform. It keeps talking about reform, but never says

what it would like to reform. I did not support the kind of things David

Cameron was asking for. I thought he would go for fundamental change. He

hasn't done that. The whole thing is a sideshow. Nothing is going to

change unless we can get back control of our own borders and we

get control of how we make our own laws, and unless we get back control

of this Parliament making decisions. All of this is a bit of frippery,

and I think the public are much more sensible, because they know what

they want. Kate Hoey, any sign of new Labour recruits to your side of

the referendum argument? You said recently that you knew one or two

shadow ministers were likely to campaign for Brexit. Are they coming

forward? Yes, AI think you will see shifts in the next few weeks,

particularly after the final negotiation. I do not think the

referendum will come in June, because it will not work out with

other issues. It is the public, in the end. MPs do not matter. Thank

you both. If I can make one point, one of the light that Nigel Farage

perpetuates that somehow, we were sold a lie in the 1970s and that was

all to be about trade. For a start, I always thought that trade is part

of politics. It is subject to political rules. Secondly, if you

look at the speeches back then, it was clear that the formation of the

EEC and then the European Union was all about saying we were a war-torn

continent, and it was a price worth paying to sit through boring

meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg and to pull a bit of our sovereignty

so that we could achieve greater prosperity across the whole of the

union and that we would end up, in my lifetime, Spain, Portugal and

Greece were under dictatorships and will never be so again. Pooling

sovereignty was a phrase that Ted Heath would never have used in the

1975 referendum. Now, as a public service broadcaster

it's our duty to inform, manifestly failed on all three

counts, it's up to JoCo and I to try to win your affection

with material goods. But at a time of straitened

financial circumstances for the BBC, we had to jettison the idea

of offering up box seats So we're offering this

little beauty instead. To be in with a chance

of winning, tell us MUSIC: Jesus To A Child

by George Michael MUSIC: Don't Look Back

In Anger by Oasis # But don't look back

in anger, I heard you say... MUSIC: Mysterious Girl

by Peter Andre I am happy to answer the grand

jury's questions and look forward 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's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben - It is a difficult day in Parliament,

Questions is on its way. It is a difficult day in Parliament,

because you It is a difficult day in Parliament,

Minister's statement on Europe, when there will be lots of questions.

What does Mr Corbyn do? It is always a balance on these kinds of days,

because political leaders want to look relevant, but there is no point

in labour trying out all the arguments they might

in labour trying out all the statement that follows. So this

morning, the Westminster is that Jeremy Corbyn

will pose questions on health, not talking about Europe. He has done

that from time to time. We have seen it on lots of occasions, like on the

day of the junior doctors' strike. And Jeremy Corbyn chose to talk

about housing on that day. We have seen two modes of Jeremy Corbyn at

PMQs evolving. To start with, it was all on issues the

PMQs evolving. To start with, it was suggesting. Last week with Google,

he was suggesting. Last week with Google,

hot button that the government was in trouble with. Today, I think we

will see Corbyn Mark one. But Downing Street disappointed by this

morning's front pages, or did they expect to get a kick in? They knew

there was going to be a punchy attitude. They are watching the

papers carefully. It is not clear where the Sun will end up where the

Daily Mail or Telegraph will end up. In a sense, it doesn't matter with

FrontPage is like that. Nobody reads the editorials Thomas Davies front

pages. -- they don't read the editorials, they read the front

pages. But as the Sun said about the deal, the FrontPage stank for Number

Ten this morning. It is whether those newspapers decide to do ten

pages every day all the way through until the referendum. If Jeremy is

doing health today, that would be right because the majority of

voters, Europe is not in the top ten for them. Immigration might be, but

they are far more concerned about health and jobs. But immigration is

the top of many voters' concerns, and that is the part of the deal

that David Cameron has problems with. Yes, the ink is not dry. The

ink has not even been filled in on the deal. But it is clear that the

manifesto is much younger than the draft deal is. Let's go to PMQs.

In addition to my duties in this house holed I shall have further

meetings today. Jon. Mr Speaker, is that it, is that the best the Prime

Minister can do? Nothing for British pensioners? Nothing for British

workers and as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Treasury have

confirmed, his long-term economic plan is reliant on over 1 million

new migrants entering this country before 2020! Has the Prime Minister

got the bottle to confirm this inconvenient truth? I'll tell you

what we are doing for pensioners, a triple lock on pensions. Never again

be 75p rise that they got from the Labour Party with prices and wages

at two and half percent. What we are doing from people who work hard in

Britain is create 2.3 million more jobs since I became Prime Minister.

Of course I believe we will succeed more as a country if we get a good

deal in Europe and stay in a reformed Europe. It will be good for

jobs, for investment, for growth and that is what I'm fighting for.

Marcus Fish. People in my constituency, Yeovil, are rightly

proud of their contribution to the defence of this country, whether

through the skill and redness of the fleet arm at your fill all the local

high-tech industry making and maintaining helicopters and

equipment for ships and aircraft and those who serve on them. In the

current circumstances of increasing security challenges and

responsibilities and a worrying lack of commitment to defence in many

European countries, I welcome the leadership, the government has shown

in committing to spend 2% of GDP on defence and I ask whether my right

honourable friend will meet with me to discuss ideas that I have two

build on local capability. My friend friend is absolutely right that your

fill makes a huge contribution to the defence of our country, not

least through Augusta Western, a big dish business. We are committed to

spending ?178 billion on defence equipment over the next decade,

something we can only do because we have a strong economy. We are

committed to that 2% and will make sure the money is well spent and

making sure we have the right equipment for our brave Armed

Forces. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow, Mr Speaker, is

world comes a day. Cancer is a disease that almost every family in

this country has been affected by. Two and a half million people in

this country have cancer. There are members on both sides of this House

who have or have received treatment. 1000 people every day diagnosed with

cancer and go through a trauma as soon as they are diagnosed. Accent

in the last year there's been a 36% increase in the number of people

waiting more than six weeks for vital diagnostic tests. Could the

Prime Minister two something to bring that down? First I agree with

the right honourable gentleman that the fight against cancer is one of

the great fights of our time, one we are determined to win. When we look

at the way we treated in this country we are putting an extra ?19

billion into the NHS and specifically while he is right,

everyone in this House and every family will know somebody affected

by cancer, we are treating more patientss. The figures. Compared

with 2010, over 645,000 more patients with suspected

cancers have been seen, an increase of 71% and almost 40,000 more

patients have been treated. An increase of 17%. We have more

doctors, nurses, more cancer specialists but the fight against it

is something we need to continue with. Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker,

early diagnosis is essential when dealing with cancer. I think we all

know that from personal experience. The government 's independent task

force into cancer reported last year, and I quote, we currently have

a serious shortage of radiologists in England. We need more of them so

could the Prime Minister explain why we are cutting by 5% the number of

training places available for therapeutic radiographers? We need

more radiologists and we are getting them because we are putting more

into the NHS. Where he is right is that waiting times, a moment ago the

right honourable lady was shouting about waiting times, there are three

key targets on them. First that people should be seen by a

specialist within two weeks of an urgent GP referral, and we're meant

to be on 93% of occasions, we are currently on 94.7, we need to make

sure that the first treatment comes within 31 days of diagnosis, that's

very important, there's a 96% standard and we meeting that by

97.7%. Yet I accept that when it comes to the first treatment within

62 days the standard is 85% and we are at 82.5 so we must improve. With

training, we are increasing training places in the NHS, we discussed

nurses last week where we are opening up nurse training by making

sure that we train an extra 10,000 nurses but the crucial point is that

the money is there in the NHS because we've got a strong economy.

?19 billion of money which would never be there if we followed his

crazy economic plans! Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker, my question was on

therapeutic radiographers. The Prime Minister did not answer on that.

Without an improvement in the numbers available there will be a

problem with treatment, that must be obvious to everyone. The cancer task

force also asks, and I could, for a radical upgrade in prevention and

public health. Programmes like stopping smoking and anti-obesity

absolutely essential to stop the spread of cancer and indeed to help

people live better lives so they don't develop cancer at all. Yet if

we cut, as he proposes, ?200 million from the Public health budget,

surely that is going to lead to an increase in cancer, with all the

trauma that goes with it, and indeed the greater cost for the rest of the

community. Could he explain why he is making this cut? First of all,

but to diagnostic radiographers, there are 1800 more diagnostic

radiographers than when I became Prime Minister in 2010. As for the

interests... That is a 15% increase. The reason that there is an increase

is that we said that we would put more money into the NHS, a real

terms increase, something we were told by the then Shadow Health

Secretary was then irresponsible. We ignored Labour and would put money

into the health service. As a result, there's been a 15% increase

in diagnostic radiographers. When it comes to the rest of the Cancer

plan, the money is being invested, there is a key difference, though,

between England and Wales and something he can help with, is that

there is a Labour government in Wales. Whereas we have a Cancer

Drugs Fund, they don't have one in Wales. So he needs to sort that out

with that Labour Administration. As for public health, under this

government, real advances have been made on public health, including

smoking rules in the backs of cars, including plain paper packaging, and

ring fencing public health budgets. All done and the Conservatives, not

done under Labour. Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is

responsible for the health service in England. Wales is a devolved

matter. He must be aware... SHOUTING

And he must know that cancer surviving rates are improving better

in Wales than in any other part of the UK. But my question was... My

question, Mr Speaker, was about the cuts in public health budgets and

the effect that has on cancer care. Could the Prime Minister tell us

when was the last time that the NHS targets are starting cancer

treatment was met with in the 62 days required? As I have

treatment was met with in the 62 the three big targets we are meeting

the specialist within two weeks target and meeting the first

treatment within 31 days of diagnosis treatment and we are

treatment within 31 days of currently falling short of the 62

days target, something currently falling short of the 62

said in the answer to question two currently falling short of the 62

but he has not got around to it until question five. The cogs need

to turn a little faster! He can't wash his hands of the situation in

Wales, Labour run Wales. And what have they done in Wales? They have

cut the NHS in Wales! Now it is emerging, what Labour's great plan

is, cut the NHS in Wales and raise income tax on hard-working people in

Scotland. That's right. What will they do to radiographers in

Scotland, raise their taxes. What will they do to nurses in Scotland

or dentists? Raise their taxes. We now know the Labour plan, higher

taxes for more welfare, they have learned nothing in the last decade!

Mr Speaker, the last time the two months target was mad was 19 months

ago. The Prime Minister must be aware of that. -- the last time it

was mad. I am pleased that he is taking action to make sure that

doesn't continue all get worse. Another issue that affects cancer

patient Dexter is the recently division and -- deleted provisions

in the Welfare Reform Bill that would have taken money from the

group. Martin, who contacted me this week, says, yes, it is funny the

many members opposite, it isn't funny for Martin. Martin has a close

friend who has breast cancer, and I quote, is obviously too unwell to

work, and cuts will put her into hardship at a time when she is most

vulnerable. There are 3200 people with cancer hit by this cut to the

essay. Will the Prime Minister now confirm that when that matter

returns to the House of Commons, he would ensure that the Lord's's

position is app out and people like her don't suffer the cut that he

wanted to make in the first place? -- the position is upheld. Let me

tell you the situation. Though two sorts of support allowance, the

work-related activity group who are able to train for work and the

support group will go on getting employment and support allowance

indefinitely. That's the situation. We have said that in future the

work-related activity group should be paid at the same rate as

jobseeker's allowance but that is for future claimants, not for

existing claimants. They will continue to be paid at the same

rate. Of course if someone has cancer and cannot work they should

be in the support group. We've had this issue looked at again and again

and again. If they cannot work they go on getting the welfare payments

they need. That is what a compassionate conservative

government does. But I have to come back to him because he cannot wash

is hands of the situation in Wales. Hip operations in England take 75

days waiting times on average, in Wales, its 197 days. Diagnosis of

pneumonia takes two weeks longer, treatment of cataracts, Ernie Els,

heart operations take two months longer than in England. Labour are

running Wales. He is responsible for Labour. The phone and tell them to

stop cutting our NHS! Keen Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker it is interesting

that the Prime Minister did not answer the question iPod. Which is

whether or not he will proceed with the cut in the essay to 3200 people

with cancer at present. -- in the support allowance. I hope he thinks

seriously about this and doesn't proceed with this proposal. He'll

find that MacMillan Cancer Support, rethink Meltham illness, Parkinson's

UK are all united in opposing this cut because of the affected will

have on people with a range of serious conditions. The Prime

Minister used to say that those with the broadest shoulders should bear a

greater load. Can it be right that cancer patients and those with

disabilities on ?102 a week really are those with the broadest

shoulders who should bear this cut? Please, Prime Minister, think again,

and don't try to reverse the decision of the House of Lords on

this important matter. The people with the broadest shoulders are the

highest earners in this country and they are paying a higher share of

tax and the ever did under labour. That money is paying for the NHS and

the welfare assistant. I am the question very directly. If you are

an existing claimant unemployment and support allowance welfare not

changing. But in future those people who are able to work, we should help

them to get back to work, that is what a compassionate country does

when it is quite clear what the Labour policy is, cut the NHS in

Wales and raise taxes in Scotland to pay for more welfare. That's not the

approach this David Warburton. My right honourable

friend will know the West Country is becoming ever more the envy and the

engine room of the rest of the country, with dozens of companies

moving from the dark recesses of London to the bright sunlight of the

West. Will he keep supporting what they are now calling Somerset's

Silicon Gorge by maintaining investment in our roads, rail and

digital infrastructure? I am certainly keen to support Silicon

Gorge. For a moment, I thought he said Silicon George! It is essential

that we have a balanced economy, and that means a strong economy in the

west of our country as well as in the South and the north. We are

investing in the transport infrastructure, not least the vital

roads to the West Country, and improving rail links as well, as I

saw for myself yesterday in Chippenham. We also need to Mitch

with this broadband roll-out is effective across the country, and

that has to be a big focus getting to the last 10% of homes in so many

rural areas. It is crucial to make sure they are not left out. Angus

Robertson. The timing of the forthcoming European Union

referendum is extremely important. Today, the first ministers of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have jointly called for a commitment

by the UK Government not to hold the EU referendum in June, which would

clash with elections to the devolved legislatures. Will the Prime

Minister give that commitment today? Firstly, there is no agreement, so

no date has yet been fixed for the referendum. We discuss this a lot in

the House of Commons, and we legislate to make sure we wouldn't

hold the referendum at the same time as Scottish or Welsh elections. The

former First Minister of Scotland, who is not in his place today, said

it would be wrong to hold the referendum within six weeks of those

elections, and I can guarantee that will not happen. The first ministers

of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have written today, saying

that they believe holding a referendum in June "Risks confusing

issues when clarity is required, and call upon the Prime Minister to

defer the EU referendum at least until later in the year". Why will

the Prime Minister not respect the electorate and the governments of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and give that commitment today? I do

respect the former First Minister of Scotland, who said that six weeks

was necessary. I also respect the electrodes of England, Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland on the basis that I think people are

perfectly capable of making up their minds in a local election or a

Scottish Parliamentary election or a Welsh assembly election, and then,

some weeks afterwards, making up their mind on the vital question of

the European Union. No date has been fixed. There must be a six-week gap,

but I think he is looking for things to complain about. This House has

voted for a referendum. It would be odd if having voted for a

referendum, we then spent ages not having one. The Prime Minister will

be alarmed to hear that a shop in Gillingham selling illicit tobacco

was making ?25,000. Order. Excessive chuntering from a sedentary position

from a number of Scottish National Party members who wanted a hearing

for their leader. The honourable gentleman is entitled to be heard. I

appeal to the honourable gentleman to start his question again. The

Prime Minister will be alarmed to hear that a shopping Gillingham

selling illicit tobacco was making ?25,000 a week, destroying the local

economy, damaging people's health and nationally, this trade is

cutting the economy 2 billion a year. Will the government to look at

increasing the statutory maximum penalty for this offence to bring it

in line with the supply of class A drugs? -- Kas C drugs? I will look

at the issue my honourable friend races. HMRC, working closely with

the Border Force, has been effective in reducing this tax gap of people

selling illegal tobacco, and have closed off 1.3 billion of tax gaps

since 2000. They have sanctions to deal with illicit sales, including

seizure, penalties and criminal situations. They prosecuted almost

800 different people in the last two years, so I think the powers are

there, but I will see if more is needed. My constituent works for the

DWP and tells me that the government is correct when they deny that staff

have targets set for sanctioning benefits. They are not called

targets, they are