:00:39. > :00:48.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:49. > :00:54.the Prime Minister has done with the EU could be ripped up
:00:55. > :00:56.Downing Street says it's irreversible -
:00:57. > :01:00.Jeremy Hunt has claimed that there are 6,000 excess deaths
:01:01. > :01:06.because the NHS in England doesn't have a proper seven-day service.
:01:07. > :01:09.But did the Health Secretary use unpublished data to make the claim?
:01:10. > :01:12.It's 15 years since foot and mouth caused chaos in the countryside -
:01:13. > :01:15.but have we learned the lessons to cope with a similar crisis today?
:01:16. > :01:18.The fresh faces of Parliament's new boys and girls -
:01:19. > :01:26.but how hard have they worked since they were elected in May?
:01:27. > :01:28.All that in the next 90 minutes and, of course,
:01:29. > :01:35.Prime Minister's Questions at midday.
:01:36. > :01:47.Public service broadcasting at its finest! PMQs will be live and
:01:48. > :01:49.uninterrupted. MPs have been around for quite a while but have lost none
:01:50. > :01:54.of their youthful enthusiasm. the Business
:01:55. > :01:56.and Enterprise Minister Nick Boles - he's on the Prime Minister's side
:01:57. > :01:58.and will be campaigning to remain And we have Labour's Gisela Stewart,
:01:59. > :02:03.who is one of the small number of Labour MPs who will be
:02:04. > :02:05.campaigning to leave. Much more on the EU debate later
:02:06. > :02:09.but first, do 6,000 people really lose their lives every year
:02:10. > :02:11.because the NHS in England doesn't That's the claim the Health
:02:12. > :02:16.Secretary Jeremy Hunt made last summer to explain why
:02:17. > :02:18.it was so important to introduce a new contract for junior
:02:19. > :02:21.doctors in England - here he is on the Today
:02:22. > :02:26.Programme last July. When you turn medicine into a Monday
:02:27. > :02:28.to Friday profession, you end up with catastrophic
:02:29. > :02:34.consequences for patients and in 2003 the then government
:02:35. > :02:37.changed the contract to give consultants the right to say,
:02:38. > :02:39.we are not going to do any The result is that now
:02:40. > :02:44.if you are admitted on Sunday, you are 15% more likely to die than
:02:45. > :02:49.if you are admitted on Wednesday. We have about 6000 avoidable
:02:50. > :02:52.deaths every year. That is something that doctors
:02:53. > :02:58.passionately want to change. Now, though, the BBC has seen
:02:59. > :03:05.e-mails which suggest that Mr Hunt used unpublished data to make that
:03:06. > :03:07.claim of excess death rates The BBC's Health Editor, Hugh Pym,
:03:08. > :03:18.has the story and joins us now What is the essence of this row?
:03:19. > :03:23.Well, it is a bit of Whitehall farce. Quite serious in its own way
:03:24. > :03:27.because of the use of statistics. Jeremy Hunt the Health Secretary
:03:28. > :03:32.used the figure of 6000 access deaths happening among patients who
:03:33. > :03:37.were admitted at the in England. Deaths within 30 days of admission.
:03:38. > :03:42.This sort of figure has become central to the whole dispute with
:03:43. > :03:45.junior doctors. Consultants are in talks with the government at the
:03:46. > :03:49.moment and they are not happy to hear the clip and they take issue
:03:50. > :03:57.with the suggestion they don't work at weekends because they say they
:03:58. > :04:02.do. That 6000 figure was used in a speech last July and on the Today
:04:03. > :04:07.programme, but when journalists got in touch they could not back up the
:04:08. > :04:12.figure. E-mails we have obtained under Freedom of information
:04:13. > :04:17.requests show a lot of toing and froing in the insuring weeks. One
:04:18. > :04:20.e-mail saying, we will have to give a bland statement to neither confirm
:04:21. > :04:26.nor contradict what the secretary was saying. There was a link but out
:04:27. > :04:31.suggesting this came from a study in was saying. There was a link but out
:04:32. > :04:32.2012 and the statistics authority also got involved to ask the
:04:33. > :04:35.Department of Health to also got involved to ask the
:04:36. > :04:38.figure. Jeremy Hunt's people say also got involved to ask the
:04:39. > :04:39.that he got the figure directly also got involved to ask the
:04:40. > :04:45.the head of NHS England's also got involved to ask the
:04:46. > :04:50.Department Bruce Keogh and it was confirmed by NHS England but it was
:04:51. > :04:55.not really based at the time on any published data. There was a study
:04:56. > :05:00.published in September showing 11,000 excess deaths from Friday to
:05:01. > :05:05.Monday, so it is a confused picture. A lot of toing and froing to find
:05:06. > :05:09.out where the figures came from. The figures in the end came out and
:05:10. > :05:14.increased if you take the figures from that particular study. Wasn't
:05:15. > :05:16.there also a problem in that the author of the study hadn't actually
:05:17. > :05:23.there also a problem in that the linked those deaths between Friday
:05:24. > :05:27.and Monday to most baffling levels? That's correct, the study was put
:05:28. > :05:33.out by academics to look at mortality data and came up with the
:05:34. > :05:37.11,000 excess deaths between Friday and Monday, add missions within 30
:05:38. > :05:39.days of admission, but they did not link it to any
:05:40. > :05:46.days of admission, but they did not staffing might not have something to
:05:47. > :05:50.do with it, but it might. Other studies have suggested it did have
:05:51. > :05:51.something to do with staffing but it has become a central issue in the
:05:52. > :05:55.junior doctors dispute. These has become a central issue in the
:05:56. > :05:57.studies have been questioned a lot has become a central issue in the
:05:58. > :06:02.but the people who wrote this from Birmingham in September are adamant
:06:03. > :06:10.that they published it without any influence and it is what it is. How
:06:11. > :06:15.that they published it without any announced? Well, this
:06:16. > :06:16.that they published it without any noting our story and saying that it
:06:17. > :06:20.raises noting our story and saying that it
:06:21. > :06:25.government use of statistics in the row. Obviously a lot of distrust on
:06:26. > :06:29.both sides, the Department of Health is adamant that the figures used by
:06:30. > :06:33.the Secretary of State have been passed on by senior officials at NHS
:06:34. > :06:38.England and they were totally robust. Yes, the sides seem as far
:06:39. > :06:40.apart as ever with no sign of further talks, the first of the
:06:41. > :06:47.348-hour strikes set to begin further talks, the first of the
:06:48. > :06:49.weeks today, at the moment it looks like it will go ahead. Thank you
:06:50. > :06:50.very much. We're joined now from Central Lobby
:06:51. > :06:58.by the Shadow Health Minister, What do you make of this? The
:06:59. > :06:59.Secretary of State has been caught manipulating the figures but he
:07:00. > :07:04.Secretary of State has been caught then used that as a way to
:07:05. > :07:07.Secretary of State has been caught junior doctors, imposing a contract
:07:08. > :07:13.on them, and they are the very staff who do work seven days a week and on
:07:14. > :07:16.whom we depend so much. This is a real concerning story because
:07:17. > :07:20.whom we depend so much. This is a you are talking about people's
:07:21. > :07:23.lives, and the impact a policy change has you have to do it on
:07:24. > :07:25.lives, and the impact a policy basis of robust research which has
:07:26. > :07:30.been peer-reviewed and he clearly just took the figure up without any
:07:31. > :07:35.of that taking place. He is then using it to attack British doctors
:07:36. > :07:39.and the NHS. It is dreadful behaviour. And for patients of
:07:40. > :07:45.course it is raising concerns, but not in a sensible way, in a very
:07:46. > :07:49.political way, attacking hugely important groups of staff in the
:07:50. > :07:54.NHS. It certainly looks like Jeremy Hunt used these figures from a study
:07:55. > :07:58.which had not yet been published. It was unfinished. But he hasn't
:07:59. > :08:03.manipulated the figures, they stand, and in fact they are worse if you
:08:04. > :08:09.take the figures from that study, initially he said 6000 excess deaths
:08:10. > :08:16.but it was 11,000. He plugged it out of the air, didn't he, and then used
:08:17. > :08:22.it as a way to attack doctors in the NHS? That is unacceptable. That is a
:08:23. > :08:25.slightly different point. On the issue of mortality rates at the
:08:26. > :08:30.weekend, what is clear from the story that we have just seen is that
:08:31. > :08:37.we don't actually know the exact reasons. We know that in the past
:08:38. > :08:40.patients who are more ill are often admitted at the weekend because if
:08:41. > :08:45.you are less ill be NHS prefer to meet you during the week and you
:08:46. > :08:50.need to get to the bottom of that. Before you go in for a major policy
:08:51. > :08:56.change and start using it to attack junior doctors. Let's get your
:08:57. > :08:59.reaction, we spoke about the figures but perhaps what would most offend
:09:00. > :09:03.people is the idea that the figures were used as Philip Hunt has said,
:09:04. > :09:08.to attack junior doctors when there was no proven link between that and
:09:09. > :09:12.as he put it the staffing levels at weekends? No one is attacking junior
:09:13. > :09:18.doctors, they do a vital job and work incredibly hard. Their current
:09:19. > :09:21.contract sees many of their working too many hours, dangerously long
:09:22. > :09:26.hours and we are trying to change that. The most important thing is
:09:27. > :09:29.what you said, the final report said it was actually the weekend effect,
:09:30. > :09:36.as it's known, 11,000 deaths, not 6000. The 6000 figure that the
:09:37. > :09:41.Secretary of State got was from the NHS medical director. Before it was
:09:42. > :09:45.published and finished? Politicians should not apologise for taking
:09:46. > :09:52.advice from experts employed to advise them on what's going on. It
:09:53. > :09:55.was not verified? If you talk to the statistics authority they say it
:09:56. > :10:00.should be openly and equally shared publicly and he did not do that. He
:10:01. > :10:06.used the figure in a report which had not yet been finished and then,
:10:07. > :10:10.used it to actually play out in this dispute with junior doctors, saying
:10:11. > :10:15.it is because we don't have a seven-day NHS and the report did not
:10:16. > :10:18.say that. There have been 15 studies showing higher mortality rates at
:10:19. > :10:23.the weekend of which this is the latest. The British public will be
:10:24. > :10:27.interested in the final result, published in September last year,
:10:28. > :10:33.actually 11,000 deaths are extra deaths that come at the weekend, and
:10:34. > :10:36.they won't be critical of the Health Secretary who firstly is responding
:10:37. > :10:41.to a clear manifesto commitment, this is not a new story, we had a
:10:42. > :10:45.commitment to a seven days a week NHS. Because of this series of 15
:10:46. > :10:50.studies showing weekend effects that meant that services people were
:10:51. > :10:57.getting were causing... Was it right to say was because of low staffing
:10:58. > :11:00.levels? You have to ask, what is different at the weekend? There
:11:01. > :11:04.could be lots of other factors. You have to ask what is different and
:11:05. > :11:07.the key thing is that staffing levels at all levels, not just
:11:08. > :11:13.junior doctors as you yourself pointed out, at the consultant level
:11:14. > :11:17.too, are different. Lots of people going at weekends because they are
:11:18. > :11:22.doing more dangerous things at weekends? Rather than the more
:11:23. > :11:26.routine ones in the week. Nothing to do with staffing? Bruce Keogh has
:11:27. > :11:30.long felt that staffing is a contributor to unnecessary
:11:31. > :11:33.additional deaths at the weekend. I think it is our responsibility as a
:11:34. > :11:37.government to ensure that whenever you get ill, whenever you go to
:11:38. > :11:42.hospital you receive the best care. That is what we are trying to do.
:11:43. > :11:46.Philip Hunt, thank you for listening, you want an
:11:47. > :11:51.investigation, shut the head of NHS England Bruce Keogh should resign?
:11:52. > :11:59.No, he is a man of great ethics. I respect him. The person who should
:12:00. > :12:02.consider his position should be the Secretary of State for not waiting
:12:03. > :12:08.for verified research. The risk at the moment, apart from what this is
:12:09. > :12:14.doing to junior doctors is that because the NHS is financially
:12:15. > :12:17.distressed, the way in which they will deal with seven-day working is
:12:18. > :12:22.that they will have to transfer staff from the weekday to the
:12:23. > :12:26.weekend and if this is an issue of staffing, the risk is that mortality
:12:27. > :12:32.rates could go up during the week, in order to compensate for what is
:12:33. > :12:38.happening at the weekend. The policy is so ill thought out, it is so
:12:39. > :12:43.politically driven. And it is using figures in an inappropriate way, and
:12:44. > :12:46.the Secretary of State really needs to consider his position and what he
:12:47. > :12:50.really needs to do to start with is to apologise to junior doctors, get
:12:51. > :12:55.around the table and stop threatening to impose this contract
:12:56. > :12:59.on them. What is your reaction? Ultimately we are here to serve the
:13:00. > :13:04.British public who rely on the NHS and they clearly voted for a
:13:05. > :13:07.manifesto policy to create a seven days a week NHS and it requires a
:13:08. > :13:11.more even level of staffing patterns, not just for junior
:13:12. > :13:15.doctors, but for nurses and consultants and that is what we will
:13:16. > :13:20.do. There is no reason to apologise to anyone for seeking to do that. If
:13:21. > :13:27.it is the case and it is so transparent, why was it so hard to
:13:28. > :13:31.get these figures? Internal e-mails about what studies have been
:13:32. > :13:33.published when is something that freedom of information requests...
:13:34. > :13:41.There hasn't been a cover-up by NHS England? Report was published in
:13:42. > :13:46.September 2015, showing 11,000 excess deaths, not the 6000 that was
:13:47. > :13:50.the tentative figure that Bruce Keogh and buys to the Secretary of
:13:51. > :13:54.State about. Will Labour be supporting the next three strikes?
:13:55. > :14:01.We want to see the juniors getting back to work and we want to do that
:14:02. > :14:04.through a settlement. Yes, but will you be supporting the strikes? John
:14:05. > :14:09.McDonnell said he was always committed to them. I am always wary
:14:10. > :14:13.of industrial action because of impacts on patients but equally on
:14:14. > :14:17.the government side, they have to start talking to the juniors again
:14:18. > :14:21.and have to take away the threat of imposing the contract, there is two
:14:22. > :14:24.weeks to go before the next industrial action will take place,
:14:25. > :14:29.that is time for the government to sort this out and sit down again
:14:30. > :14:32.with the juniors. It doesn't sound like you will be advocating Labour
:14:33. > :14:36.to support the strikes from your position? I never want to see
:14:37. > :14:40.industry at action in the health service but I do want to see the
:14:41. > :14:45.government trying to sort this out. We are at great risk here, these
:14:46. > :14:49.junior doctors are really committed people and we are at great risk of
:14:50. > :14:54.losing their commitment and many of them to the NHS. For goodness sake,
:14:55. > :14:59.let's try to sort it out in the two weeks we have got. Will you be
:15:00. > :15:03.supporting the strike and should Labour support them? Philip is right
:15:04. > :15:09.that the patients have to come first and the responsibility is to make
:15:10. > :15:12.sure the hospitals keep going. We support the junior doctors in
:15:13. > :15:13.pushing for a settlement and this has undermined their trust in the
:15:14. > :15:18.government that they serve. Now, his wife says he hates
:15:19. > :15:21.house plants and quiche. We've also learned today why
:15:22. > :15:27.the Justice Secretary and confirmed 'outer' Michael Gove is not so keen
:15:28. > :15:30.on the deal his friend, David Cameron, has done
:15:31. > :15:32.on our EU membership - telling the BBC it could be struck
:15:33. > :15:35.down in the European Courts. Downing Street are insisting
:15:36. > :15:37.the that changes the Prime Minister has negotiated are "irreversible" -
:15:38. > :15:40.but it's the latest in a series of questions that have surfaced
:15:41. > :15:43.about the deal the PM brought back The PM returned from Brussels last
:15:44. > :15:49.weekend, saying that the UK's new status within the EU would offer
:15:50. > :15:51.the country "the best The deal includes restrictions
:15:52. > :15:56.on EU migrants' benefits, an opt-out from the concept
:15:57. > :15:59.of "ever closer union" and more financial protection
:16:00. > :16:02.for the City of London. But it's unclear whether
:16:03. > :16:05.restrictions to benefits will dissuade EU migrants
:16:06. > :16:09.from coming to the UK and help the Conservatives
:16:10. > :16:12.meet their manifesto pledge to bring migration down to
:16:13. > :16:17.the tens of thousands. The PM insisted the deal gives
:16:18. > :16:21.Britain "special status" in the EU. But there are question marks over
:16:22. > :16:24.whether the deal could be overturned And today the Justice Secretary said
:16:25. > :16:32.the terms of the agreement could be challenged in the European
:16:33. > :16:43.Court of Justice. What David Cameron has got
:16:44. > :16:46.is an agreement amongst It's an international
:16:47. > :16:48.law declaration. I don't for a moment discount
:16:49. > :16:50.that but, ultimately, it is a matter of
:16:51. > :16:54.the European Union law and British law that only treaties
:16:55. > :17:01.have effect and that because these agreements that have been reached
:17:02. > :17:04.are not yet treaty changes, the European Court of Justice
:17:05. > :17:18.could take a different view. Downing Street says that the
:17:19. > :17:22.European court and justice has to take these changes into account
:17:23. > :17:25.because it is an agreement. We understand that. But taking
:17:26. > :17:29.something into account is not the same as being bound by it. The
:17:30. > :17:34.European court could rule against some of these changes if it was
:17:35. > :17:38.asked to do so. I think if you look at what the Cambridge professor of
:17:39. > :17:44.EU law, who I think is called Dashwood, said, it is very clear. He
:17:45. > :17:49.said it is absolutely Begovic binding in the same way as other
:17:50. > :17:52.agreements that affected Denmark and, I believe, the Netherlands.
:17:53. > :17:57.It's going to be registered with the UN. What was interesting when I read
:17:58. > :18:01.what he said, he said it has the same status as the treaty. That is a
:18:02. > :18:06.treaty between the 20 member states so in the eyes of the UN it has the
:18:07. > :18:12.same status. But it isn't an EU treaty until it has been through the
:18:13. > :18:15.treaty ratification process. But that is to symbolism. You aren't
:18:16. > :18:21.going to go to the UN to litigate it there. The issue is that because
:18:22. > :18:25.these changes are not part of the treaties - they've been agreed
:18:26. > :18:29.outside of the treaties - the fundamental job of the European
:18:30. > :18:33.court is to interpret the treaties. That's what's legally binding on the
:18:34. > :18:38.take a case to the ECJ saying that take a case to the ECJ saying that
:18:39. > :18:45.might want to choose - welfare for migrants also an - are not
:18:46. > :18:49.consistent with the treaties, the ECJ could rule against you. With
:18:50. > :18:52.consistent with the treaties, the respect, you are not a lawyer, I am
:18:53. > :18:56.not a lawyer and Michael Gove is not a lawyer. But I'm paid to ask
:18:57. > :19:00.questions and you are paid to answer them but what is the answer? The ECJ
:19:01. > :19:02.questions and you are paid to answer could rule against you because of
:19:03. > :19:09.the changes not being part of the treaties. The answer is very clearly
:19:10. > :19:12.as spelt out by the current attorney general, the previous attorney
:19:13. > :19:16.general and the Professor of EU law at Cambridge University, which is
:19:17. > :19:22.that these are legally binding agreements between the 28 leaders of
:19:23. > :19:24.these nation states, that the European Court of Justice would
:19:25. > :19:27.absolutely need to respect those agreements and follow those
:19:28. > :19:31.agreements and, indeed, previous at agreement stop Bob let me finish.
:19:32. > :19:39.Previous such agreements with exactly the same legal statements...
:19:40. > :19:45.Which the European Court of Justice several times. You said something
:19:46. > :19:50.very interesting. You said that the European court will be bound by
:19:51. > :19:56.these changes. Bound by these changes would you like to reconsider
:19:57. > :19:59.that? Let's just think about how judges and courts work. They aren't
:20:00. > :20:05.specifically bound by any particular thing. They have to take into
:20:06. > :20:09.account all of the laws that prevail... They are bound under
:20:10. > :20:13.European law by the treaty changes. They are bound by the content of the
:20:14. > :20:17.Treaty of niece, the Treaty of Lisbon, all the other treaty changes
:20:18. > :20:20.that have gone through the convention. These changes have not
:20:21. > :20:26.gone through treaty change. That is why you have put into the agreement
:20:27. > :20:30.that at some stage they bust become part of treaty change. -- they must.
:20:31. > :20:35.I put it to you so you can maybe reconsider what you said that until
:20:36. > :20:38.they are part of treaties, the European court is not bound to
:20:39. > :20:43.follow them. It is only bound to take them into account. I don't
:20:44. > :20:47.agree with that and I don't accept that. The job of courts is to
:20:48. > :20:51.interpret the law. In the case of the European Court of Justice, it
:20:52. > :20:55.interprets the treaties. It isn't bound by the treaties, it interprets
:20:56. > :21:00.them. It is the application of the provisions of those treaties to
:21:01. > :21:03.specific instances. It is also their job to interpret those treaties in
:21:04. > :21:09.the light of other agreements, such as this agreement. This agreement
:21:10. > :21:17.will shape their interpretation of the European treaties. Are you
:21:18. > :21:24.saying today that the changes the Prime Minister has agreed have equal
:21:25. > :21:29.legal status as the contents of the European treaties? I'm not saying
:21:30. > :21:33.that, nor did I say that at the first. I am saying that they are
:21:34. > :21:37.bound to take them into account in their interpretation of the
:21:38. > :21:41.treaties, as they have done before, and that these are legally binding
:21:42. > :21:45.agreements which can only be changed through the consensus, which would
:21:46. > :21:50.include, therefore, the agreement of the UK government, which, of course,
:21:51. > :21:57.we would never give. Gisela Stuart, what is your take? I used to be a
:21:58. > :22:00.lawyer and I have negotiated treaties. Ask yourself this question
:22:01. > :22:04.- if this agreement was as legally binding as we are given to believe,
:22:05. > :22:08.why would the 28 member states ever go through the pain of treaty
:22:09. > :22:11.negotiations? They've got to be different, otherwise you wouldn't
:22:12. > :22:15.bother about these things. It's very interesting that the Prime Minister
:22:16. > :22:19.is using his words very carefully, both to his treaty changes and to
:22:20. > :22:23.the effect of ever closer union. Within his own narrow definitions,
:22:24. > :22:26.he is right, except that the European Court of Justice doesn't
:22:27. > :22:31.work that way. It's not a British common law court. They also have
:22:32. > :22:37.within their re-met a juicy to further, deeper integration. It is
:22:38. > :22:39.fundamentally a Federalist court. It doesn't have the kind of political
:22:40. > :22:47.checks and balances which is courts have got. It's the classic British
:22:48. > :22:50.story with Europe. We look at it, only half understand it, tell half
:22:51. > :22:55.the story and draw the wrong conclusions. The Prime Minister who
:22:56. > :22:59.promised us fundamental treaty changes, because he knew that unless
:23:00. > :23:02.it is a treaty change it will only be taken into consideration, now
:23:03. > :23:07.realises he can't get it. You mentioned Denmark. 80 times now the
:23:08. > :23:11.Danish provisions have been overruled. That was my point to you
:23:12. > :23:14.and you denied that. The agreement that the Danes thought they had, in
:23:15. > :23:20.the end to the European court of overruled them - I don't know the
:23:21. > :23:24.exact figure - but it turned out not to be as cast-iron as the Danes
:23:25. > :23:29.thought. You only have to read the Danish media to find that out. But I
:23:30. > :23:34.don't quite understand what you're driving at. What we have here is we
:23:35. > :23:37.have the maximum legally powerful agreement that 28 member states can
:23:38. > :23:43.achieve... Without changing the treaties. And within that maximally
:23:44. > :23:46.vis-a-vis powerful statement, there is very high up a provision that
:23:47. > :23:53.treaty changes will be made to incorporate the effect. But we know
:23:54. > :24:00.there will be no treaty change. You mentioned Professor Dashwood. The
:24:01. > :24:06.legal adviser to the European institutions said it will not be
:24:07. > :24:09.binding. Our last judge to the court actually said that until it is a
:24:10. > :24:13.treaty, we cannot even promised that it will be binding. Yes, they can
:24:14. > :24:20.take note but the prime minister gives the impression that this
:24:21. > :24:25.cannot be changed. The European Court of Justice is not the only
:24:26. > :24:30.actor in the European firmament. It is the ultimate arbiter. We have the
:24:31. > :24:34.20 governments, we have the European commission and we have the president
:24:35. > :24:40.of the European Parliament, who have all agreed to the provisions. They
:24:41. > :24:45.are all junior to the rulings of the European court. But the European
:24:46. > :24:50.court has to take into account the agreements they reach. Let me
:24:51. > :24:54.broaden this out a bit. I want to put something up on the screen.
:24:55. > :25:01.You'll like this. I'm trying to educate! Here is what you said on
:25:02. > :25:19.October 20 14. This is about immigration.
:25:20. > :25:27.Is there anything in this agreement that would produce more control over
:25:28. > :25:30.immigration? Clearly, we are bound by the freedom of movement and so in
:25:31. > :25:34.my constituency there are lots of people... Is there anything in this
:25:35. > :25:39.agreement that will allow more control? I will answer this question
:25:40. > :25:42.in my way if you give me a bit of time. In my constituency there are
:25:43. > :25:45.lots of people who come here under the freedom of movement and the
:25:46. > :25:49.freedom of movement means that any European citizen can come here to
:25:50. > :25:55.work, to take a job, just as I went to Germany and also got a job. What
:25:56. > :26:00.is clear from this agreement is that those who were attracted to coming
:26:01. > :26:04.to the UK by the prospect that their incomes will be topped up by in work
:26:05. > :26:08.benefits, or by child benefit that they can send back home to their
:26:09. > :26:14.home country that would be paid at UK levels, those attractions are now
:26:15. > :26:18.going to be substantially removed... How many people do you think that
:26:19. > :26:23.will affect? I don't know because it is a dynamic position. You said you
:26:24. > :26:28.don't know so let me ask you a question... There are several
:26:29. > :26:32.thousand people receiving tens of thousands of pounds in additional
:26:33. > :26:36.income from benefits. It would be strange to me if that wasn't
:26:37. > :26:40.impacting their decision. Except that at the same time with the other
:26:41. > :26:43.hand, your government by the end of this decade will have introduced the
:26:44. > :26:48.most generous national minimum wage in the European Union. That will be
:26:49. > :26:53.just as big a pull factor for people to come as the marginal negative
:26:54. > :26:58.push factors that you are talking about. That is just the blunt truth,
:26:59. > :27:02.isn't a? So you were right - you still have no control over
:27:03. > :27:04.immigration. We have an influence on it through restricting access to
:27:05. > :27:13.British in work benefits. But it is marginal. Well, you can say it is
:27:14. > :27:15.marginal. No, the OBR has said it is marginal, the president of the
:27:16. > :27:18.European Parliament has said it is marginal, economists have said it is
:27:19. > :27:22.marginal. I will give you the final word. If me and economist of
:27:23. > :27:26.repeatedly said it won't be marginal. We will see what happens.
:27:27. > :27:30.What I know that my constituents don't want to see is people getting
:27:31. > :27:33.something for nothing, people who have not paid into our system
:27:34. > :27:37.receiving benefits. They have much less of a problem with people who
:27:38. > :27:41.are working hard and getting a salary. We will probably becoming
:27:42. > :27:43.back to this after PMQs. You will get more of a chance. We need to
:27:44. > :27:46.move on. Now, forget the
:27:47. > :27:48.Eurovision Song Contest. The musical battle could
:27:49. > :27:50.to be about to hot up The "remain" side have
:27:51. > :27:54.yet to release a song - as far as we know -
:27:55. > :27:56.but here's how a supporter of the Grassroots Out campaign
:27:57. > :27:59.is hoping to inspire voters, In the interests of balance,
:28:00. > :28:27.if someone wants to produce a "remain" theme song we'll
:28:28. > :28:36.be happy to play it. I hope it's different. Have you got
:28:37. > :28:45.one up your sleeve? And if you're worried that there's
:28:46. > :28:53.a danger the arguments over our EU membership might be being dumbed
:28:54. > :28:56.down, we have a contest right here on the Daily Politics to really
:28:57. > :29:08.excite your cerebral cortex. That is just under your arm. That
:29:09. > :29:11.can only mean one thing, a chance to hold this.
:29:12. > :29:13.We'll remind you how to enter in a moment but first,
:29:14. > :29:25.What are you going to do when we run out of old money?
:29:26. > :29:36.Blimey, I don't know what I shall do.
:29:37. > :30:34.We think we should have C Grade, which is skilled labour.
:30:35. > :30:36.To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,
:30:37. > :30:39.send your answer to our special quiz email address
:30:40. > :30:43.Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms
:30:44. > :30:46.and conditions for Guess The Year on our website
:30:47. > :31:03.It is coming up to midday. We are running a little let. Big Ben is
:31:04. > :31:07.behind me. It has gone midday so not only are we vote, Prime Minister's
:31:08. > :31:11.Questions is late. Laura Coombs burgers here. I have a feeling Mr
:31:12. > :31:16.Corbyn may not go on Europe. I have a feeling he may not. He may talk
:31:17. > :31:23.about health today. I'm very sad that I missed the debate about the
:31:24. > :31:28.niceties... As Will Michael Gove's entire interview be up on the
:31:29. > :31:33.website later today. Just look at some thing else slightly different.
:31:34. > :31:36.For Jeremy Corbyn's team, fascinatingly, I think some of them
:31:37. > :31:39.are rather pleased that all of this is giving them some breathing space
:31:40. > :31:42.to carry on with what they want to do, which is not to focus on Europe
:31:43. > :31:47.but focus on what they are trying to do in the party. Let's go to the
:31:48. > :31:58.House to find out. Here is Prime Minister's Questions.
:31:59. > :32:00.The family and friends of the victim.
:32:01. > :32:03.The house will be aware of the dreadful accident at Didcot
:32:04. > :32:05.power Station, one died and three are
:32:06. > :32:07.missing and the whole House will want to send
:32:08. > :32:08.The family and friends of the victim.
:32:09. > :32:12.And emergency services dealt with the incident with typical
:32:13. > :32:17.professionalism. The Health and Safety Executive will find out what
:32:18. > :32:21.led to the tragedy. This morning I had meetings with ministerial
:32:22. > :32:28.colleagues and others and I shall have further such meetings later
:32:29. > :32:32.today. I would like to associate myself and the people of Wiltshire
:32:33. > :32:38.with the Prime Minister's sentiments about Didcot. Wiltshire has
:32:39. > :32:45.successfully integrated a number of Syrian refugees including babies and
:32:46. > :32:51.children that would have otherwise frozen or starved to death in the
:32:52. > :32:55.camps. There has been delays in introducing more to the area. Can
:32:56. > :32:59.the Prime Minister say what more he can do and can he look into it and
:33:00. > :33:05.also outline what can we do to fulfil our moral duty to these
:33:06. > :33:08.desperate people? Let me first pay tribute to Wiltshire Council and
:33:09. > :33:14.many councils up and down the country who have done lives in job
:33:15. > :33:17.in integrating taking in Syrian refugees and their families, finding
:33:18. > :33:25.them homes and schools and I hope in time jobs too. If you look at what
:33:26. > :33:28.has happened across Europe in terms of the resettlement programme,
:33:29. > :33:33.actually Britain has done far better than any other country in terms of
:33:34. > :33:39.this sort of resettlement programme, we said 1000 by Christmas and we
:33:40. > :33:43.have delivered 1000 by Christmas. First of all I will make sure she
:33:44. > :33:49.can meet with the Home Office to talk about how we can make sure this
:33:50. > :33:54.system works well, we will continue to invest in the Syrian refugee
:33:55. > :33:58.camps, not least with the $11 billion we raised that the landmark
:33:59. > :34:01.London conference, and we will continue to do what we can to
:34:02. > :34:13.deliver 20,000 Syrian refugees we said we would take into our country.
:34:14. > :34:16.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to echo the Prime Minister's tribute to
:34:17. > :34:20.all of the emergency services in dealing with the major incident in
:34:21. > :34:26.Didcot. Our thoughts are with the families of the person who died and
:34:27. > :34:28.those of the families who are missing and injured and we should
:34:29. > 0:27:33always make