02/03/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Government's published a report today


claiming that all alternatives to EU membership


and would leave us weaker and less safe.


No surprise those camaigning to leave the EU


We'll be talking to former Conservative chancellor


Norman Lamont, who wants to leave the EU.


It looks like it'll be Trump vs Clinton come November's


and look like being their respective parties' candidates.


And Times journalist Hugo Rifkind gives us his take on the battle


between Apple and the FBI over an an iPhone linked


Battles we will always bound to lose against digital piracy, pornography,


and soft drugs, but now we are looking at battles that really


matter, terrorism, organised crime, and those battles are much harder to


fight. All that in the next hour and a half


and with us for the duration, Cabinet Office Minister, Matt


Hancock, the only government minister brave enough to appear on


our programme, and Shadow Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray, the only


Labour MP in Scotland. Welcome to both of you. Now let's gaze into the


Daily Politics Crystal Ball, and find out what the UK would look like


if it left the EU. Actually we can't do that because we can't afford a


crystal ball. But a new report, published by the government, which


backs staying in, does attempt to do that, and, you have guessed it, the


report paints a pretty bleak picture.


The report, required by law under the European Referendum Act,


declares that the UK would be "weaker, less safe and worse off"


if it left the EU, with the gloomy analysis arguing that an exit


from the EU would see fewer jobs and rising prices.


The report also looks at non-EU alternative arrangements.


It argues that UK would have to revert to World Trade Organisation


rules and accept new costly tariffs on UK exports to the EU.


It also states that non-EU members Norway and Switzerland still have


to make financial contributions to the EU and accept principle


as part of their trading arrangements.


While it warns that Switzerland and Canada's arrangements provide


only limited access to the single market.


Foreign secretary Philip Hammond declared that


"hard-headed analysis shows working people


the pro-exit Work and Pensions Secretary,


He has called the report a "dodgy dossier" that "won't fool anyone."


The government says that we would be weaker, we would be less safe, we


would be worse off if we left the European Union, presumably that is


true, whether or not we we negotiated a new deal. That is


looking at all of the difficult options available. Even if the Prime


Minister had not achieved a renegotiation, that would be true?


The good thing... If he had not, that would still be true? It is


hypothetical, we did get a good renegotiation, the fact that we get


better competitiveness and an ever closer union, ever closer union


ending, which to me, is really important, we got those advantages,


we have the best of both worlds. Even if you had not come you say it


is hypothetical, it is not, Prime Minister told us that if he did not


get a deal, he said I would rule nothing out. So if he did not have a


deal, would he have plumped for a future in which he would be weaker


and less safe and worse off? We would be those things if we left the


European Union... With or without a deal? Compare to what is on the


table. Also compared to the status quo before renegotiation. The


analysis is about the comparison of the good deal we have got, or,


leaving altogether. And so actually, the question of what we are


comparing, we are comparing the deal that we have got, positive, for


competitiveness, ending the ever closer union... The point I'm fine


to get you to address, if there is such a big gamble in which so much


would go wrong, it must be true that it would have been wrong to take the


gamble whether or not we got a renegotiation. In the manifesto we


committed to having a referendum, everyone is pleased we are having a


referendum. Really? Even the Prime Minister? S, he committed to having


it... Why have a referendum? You are saying it would be weaker, less


safe, sterling would plummet, uncertainty... Tariff barriers...


All of that! Sodom and Camorra! Why would you risk a referendum? We have


promised, in the manifesto, and we are fulfilling that commitment, that


is why we are having this, and for years, politicians before my time


promised a referendum and it never got delivered. -- Sodom and


Gomorrah. We can settle this for a generation. Even though leaving is


so boring, in your view. It ends the drive towards ever closer union,


against better competitiveness, those are important changes. --


abhorrent. That means that we can be in the European Union but not on


track to a single country called Europe. That is an important change,


and on the economics of it, that is paramount for me, that is what got


me into this politics in the first place, the economics are not


ambiguous, the deal we have got is better than the alternatives.


Looking at the alternatives, Norway is one example, that you look at and


dismiss, you say that 75% of EU law has got to be adopted by Norway,


what does that mean? That is based on lists... What is the figure based


on? It is based on what happens in Norway. What is the source? The


Foreign Office have analysed the situation that happens in Norway,


Switzerland, Canada, and looked at the WTO. I looked at the compiling


of the figures, the EU does not dispute these figures, between 2000


and 2013, there were 52,000 legal instruments issued by the EU, Norway


adopted 4724... 9%... Where does this 75% come from? That is from the


Foreign Office. I am asking where they got it from, the after


secretary act compiles these figures, their figure is 9%, where


does 75 come from? It comes on the analysis of the impact on Norway.


Only 100 of these changes required primary legislation. Only 100 out of


52,000... That is not 75%. A huge amount of legislation goes through,


primary legislation, secondary legislation. That is the 9%. What


you are not disputing, and that nobody can dispute, if you choose


the New Zealand option, then you end up with the rules and regulations.


You end up with the free movement of people. You end up with the rules


without having to say over them. How many EU rules... Switzerland given


as example, how many rules does it right into its law? It is 0%, I can


tell you. Switzerland is a different type of deal, they do not have full


access to the single market, but they still have free movement of


people. It is a different example. They do not have access to services.


But, as you know, there is no single market in services. There is and we


are strengthening it, part of the deal and the competitiveness of the


deal that the promised brought back is all about our arguments to


strengthen the services to the single market. The digital market,


that is beginning stronger. The key point is this, the majority of our


collar me is services. Indeed. To be in the Swiss position where you are


not involved in the single market, you do not have full access, that


would hit jobs and prospects. If not having access to the single market


is such a disadvantage, Switzerland does not have it, how come, per


capita, Twitter link exports five times as much as we do? Physically


it is much closer and surrounded by the European Union. That has nothing


to do with it. Geography is almost irrelevant in the digital age!


Island is the only country... Switzerland, historically, has


always been next to... Most of the exports to Ireland do not go through


the Northern Ireland border, having aborted makes no difference. --


Switzerland exports five times as much as we do. Only one tenth of EU


exports come to the UK, that shows that in a renegotiation, were we to


leave, then our argument for being able to export to the Yukon would be


much more... We would need that more than they would need the 10% from


last. -- to the EU. If it is a disadvantage, why has America,


Canada and Australia increased their exports to the European Union in the


past 20 years far more quickly than we have? Having increased trade


across the world, because we started with a high position, because Europe


is next door to us, increased trade around the world has happened right


across the world. Increased trade between the US and... Why have they


done better than us, we are inside and they are not, why is it such an


advantage? They have not done better than us in absolute terms but they


are trading more with the world, with China, as well, the Americans.


It comes back to this, all of these options have big downsides in terms


of access to the single market, or, you have to abide by the rules


anyway. What we do not know, what underpins this discussion, all the


different options, we do not know what leaving would look like, we do


not know what the options are. Anybody who wants to leave is


putting forward. You also talk about how Europe would impose tariffs, if


we did that, we would impose tariffs on Europe, why do you presume that


would happen at all, when from Iceland, in the north Atlantic, to


Turkey, in Asia Minor, whether you are a member of the year you are


not, there are no tariffs. Why would the Europeans pick on us? That is


not accurate, looking at the trade deal being done with Canada. I said


from Iceland down to Turkey, the outermost stretches of the


continent, from Iceland all the way through to Turkey, there are no


tariffs. Whether you are in the EU or out. For goods. So, why would the


Europeans pick on us? The only one that has them, Belarus. Why would


the Europeans position as with Belarus, that is what you are


saying. That is what is presumed? No, not at all, it looks at what


happens if we do not end up in the single market, if you do not have


the free movement of people, then, the WTO rules, the World Trade


Organisation rules allow tariffs of up to 10% on things like cars, and


in fact, only this morning... This is not just coming from me. Why


would the European Union, our allies, our friends, whether we are


in or out, why would they pick on us when there is not another country


through the whole European continent that has these tariffs? You have


just named one. Belarus? LAUGHTER That is a Stalinist dictatorship!


Are you saying the European Union would file us with a Stalinist


dictatorship? I am not! But, some of the people who want to leave argue


for a trade deal like with Canada, and the Canadian example, even


though it is not yet passed, it includes these tariffs, but the key


point is this, you do not just have to take it from me, from the Foreign


Office, from the Foreign Secretary, listen this morning to the justice


minister, who wants to leave, he argued that yes, tariffs in things


like services and agriculture may go up slightly. You do not have to take


it only from me. What I want from people who want to leave is an


explanation of what would look like, because I care deeply about the jobs


and livelihoods of British people and that is what has made me decide


to vote to remain, because I care about the future stability and


security of the economy and we just do not know what things would look


like if we left. We will be coming back with more questions, don't go


away. It is clear that the Shadow Cabinet


backs David Cameron's position but Jeremy Corbyn will not share a


platform with David Cameron, will you embrace this dossier and what


has been set out and use it in the labour campaign? The issue about the


dossier is that we do not know what it looks like, the Foreign Office


have try to put together some kind of document. -- Labour campaign. I


fear that we are in a position where the UK Government is putting forward


all of the downsides without the positive case for staying in, like


with the Scotland referendum. Would use the claims being made that all


of the alternative, as we have just been through, in terms of EU


membership, would be worse for Britain? EU membership is good for


Britain, being out of the European Union would be bad for Britain, we


all agree on that, we want to stay in. If you take that as the premise,


the dossier is trying to find their way through what Britain would look


like not being part of the European Union. Is it useful? The ad campaign


would tell us what that looks like. What the questioning has shown is


that nobody knows what it would look like armour that is why we are


better off in, whether it is for trade or jobs or investment, we are


part of the European Union project. -- nobody knows what it would look


like, that is why we are better off. Did David Cameron do a good job with


the renegotiation? It was a sideshow, some of it was even in the


manifesto, so we do back that, but we must set that aside, we would be


campaign to stay in the European Union with or without those changes.


If those are the kind of changes he has got, we will accept those.


Jeremy Corbyn is going to enthusiastically campaign to stay


in, is he? Absolutely. That's why he wants a distinctive labour campaign,


because we want the Labour message in this campaign to be brought


forward. We don't want the internal squabbles of the Conservative Party


to rule this campaign. Do you agree that it is jobs and people's


livelihoods that should be at the centre, the forefront, of the remain


campaign? I think it should be at the centre and forefront of every


single campaign in terms of our pursuit -- constituency MPs. But


there is also the big social side of the European Union, whether it be


holiday pay, but hers in paternity issues. The social side of Europe is


incredibly important. Thank you. Last night across the pond,


Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump


were celebrating their victories in yesterday's so-called


Super Tuesday polls. Super Tuesday is when 11 states


choose their candidates for the presidency, and it can be


a turning point in the race. What a super Tuesday! Surely only


the Americans could make a Tuesday super. All the candidates had some


success last night. The Republicans' Ted Cruise taking three states, his


rival, Marco Rubio, one. For the Democrats, Bernie Sanders won four


states. But it was the night that the presidential race seemed to


narrow to being a battle between these two and they're setting their


sights on each other. She's been there for so long. If she hasn't


straightened it out by now, she's not going to straighten it out in


the next four years. It's just going to become worse and worse. It's


clear to me that the stakes in this election have never been higher. And


the rhetoric we're hearing on the other side has never been lower. The


pantomime villain for the Democrats is worrying some Republicans and Mr


Trump, even though Ted Cruise is behind you, his call for his rivals


to dropout may start to resonate. So long as the field remains divided,


Donald Trump's path to the nomination remains more likely. And


that would be a disaster for Republicans. And yet last night


Donald Trump seemed to strike a conciliatory tone. I'm a unifier. I


know people are going to find that hard to believe but believe me, I am


a unifier. Much of this campaign has been hard to believe and be election


isn't even till November. Thank you all very much.


We're joined now by Kate Andrews from Republicans Overseas


and by the MP Sir Simon Burns, who makes no secret of his support


He's even got a selfie with Hillary Clinton to prove it.


We won't show that now. It's daytime television! Kate Andrews, are you


now reconciled to Donald Trump being your party's candidate? I think


anyone looking at this race would have to assume that he is the very,


very likely Republican candidate. Something interesting that came out


of last night is how well Senator Ted Cruise did do in a lot of the


states. He did well in his own state of Texas and Oklahoma. Second place


is very important because it is awarded proportionally it isn't


winner take all. You raise a very interesting point. It is very


interesting. I would suggest it helps Mr Trump that Mr Cruise is


still in the race because the Rubio/ Cruz vote will split and Mr Trump


will almost certainly win Florida. At this point to... The grand old


party needed the candidates to consolidate weeks ago before super


Tuesday. Now that they haven't and Donald Trump is clearly in the lead,


I wonder what their strategy will be. It is a bit radical but in some


ways now, having more candidates in the race will take delegates away


from Donald Trump as well. They might angle for burger convention.


It hasn't happened in 60 years so I'm not calling that... Even I


didn't cover that. That could be a strategy. Let's take it that Mrs


Clinton has got the nomination sewn up. On the indictment over the


e-mails over the Clinton's financing, over Rumsfeld, is unknown


unknown. Let's part that. She'll be happy she up against Ardron? I would


think so because it's quite extraordinary. Most politicians in


the Western world, if they've behaved like Donald Trump has in the


last two or three months, if they'd spoken over some of the things he's


said, they would be toast, and yet he has gone from strength to


strength with some things that are pretty distasteful, like mimicking


someone who is distasteful etc. Doesn't seem to matter what he says.


It doesn't because he seems to be appealing to a certain niche market


of voters who are coming out in their droves to support him and if


you then look at the policy proposals that he has, apart from


the sound bites there isn't much flesh on them in the way that


Hillary Clinton is addressing issues that are relevant to the people of


America, like health care, the economy, the middle classes. But


here's the issue, and I understand the White House view, which is that


they are delighted it is Trump. They were terrified it was Rubio. They


thought Rubio could win they're delighted it is Trump. But the


problem is that no Democratic front runner in recent memory has gone


into a presidential campaign, at the general election, with as big a


negative as Hillary Clinton. She is vulnerable. Of course she is


vulnerable. But when it narrows down to the two candidates, so you don't


have a choice of other people as the potential nominee, it will


concentrate minds and when you look at the electoral arithmetic of the


United States, California, New York, they have the two largest electoral


colleges, just under 100, 270 votes, and when you then see the base of


the Democratic party, and I think that the people who are


idealistically supporting Senator Sanders at the moment will come home


to the Democratic party when they realise the sheer horror of what is


confronting America with the alternative. One of the things that


could swing in Mr Trump's Wake on the general election is if he could


attract what we used to call the Reagan Democrats, the former


Democratic blue-collar men of Italian Irish background who voted


for Mr Reagan in 1980 and not Mr Carter. Is there any sign Mr Trump


could do that? Yes, I think the biggest make the rest -- mistake the


Republican Party has made so far as to underestimate him and I think


most Republicans are doing the same thing. He's not just winning a small


proportion of radical votes, he's running Hispanics, he's willing


African-Americans, he's winning women. Among Republican registered


voters. In a lot of open primaries. In Iowa, 37% of the people who voted


went Republicans, they were either Republicans or Democrats. He is


appealing to a very wide base of people. But he is policy light in


terms of what he stands for and he's really weak on the Fatton policy.


You saw what Marco Rubio was able to do to him simply on the Obama care


reform. When Hillary Clinton gets hold of him... She's a walking


encyclopaedia of our civil stop I wouldn't necessarily agree that he


is policy light, just that he is outrageously lacking in policy but


will you have to understand is that the American people have been


promised polity Saint for the better part of two decades. You had a


president who promised hope and change and we haven't seen it. The


American people stuff they like their salaries haven't gone up,


those jobs aren't there. They're tired of it. It is a point that Mr


Trump made in one of his post-victory speeches, Hillary


Clinton is promising to do something about wages... His point is, they've


been in power for the past eight years and were in power a lot before


that as well. Why would it get any better? Because it is already


getting better now and it is a sound bite from people who oppose


President Obama, without taking into account what is behind it. No change


since 2009? What is Obama care? He's the first president... Bad for the


middle class. He is the first president who has managed to get


health care reform through the Congress. You've also seem that they


inherited an economy that had gone down the tubes thanks to George W


Bush, who squandered the Bill Clinton surplus and now we are


seeing the American economy picking up with wages beginning to improve,


unemployment coming down. That is the future and the hope and Hillary


Clinton would continue that. Just yes or no, do you fear Mr Trump gets


the ticket you could lose the Senate? I think it's very possible.


It's also possible that President Trump will come to fruition. Who is


going to win? Hillary Clinton. Who is going to win? Between the two of


them it is a toss-up, I would be terrified of I was Hillary Clinton.


Clinton. I think it is very difficult to call. It is difficult


for government ministers to make predictions, I understand.


Now, this year is a big one for one of our avid viewers.


I hope you're enjoying your gin and Dubonnet, Ma'am.


In half an hour, you usually take it, after you been watching the


show. And, to commemorate the birthday


of our longest serving monarch, politicians are


donning their pinnies and high-vis jackets


to clean up Britain The Palace is commemorating the big


day in its own way. They've released a selection


of birthday china for Liz. For just ?55 you can


get a cup and saucer or if you have ?89 to spare,


you can purchase Hand finished in 22-carat gold,


made from the finest English bone china and using traditional


techniques that date back 250 years, these will add an elegant


touch to your tableware. I always eat by big Mack of one of


these. But why would you want a mug fit


for a Queen when you can Yes, it's the Daily Politics mug -


made from basic something or other, it's probably dishwasher safe


and hopefully won't crack. But, if it does -


we don't do returns. To win one, all you have to do


is tell us what year this happened. Will he tell us


what his position is? Madam Speaker, there's one


Oh, no, there's one very big difference.


follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines


Nick Leeson became famous when he lost more than $1 billion


John Major's never been the safety first politician he sometimes looks.


To remove this uncertainty, I have this afternoon


tendered my resignation as leader of the Conservative Party.


action find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty


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 12:30pm 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 -


Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.


And that's not all - the BBC's deputy political editor


Despite the divisions and beer unanimity in the Labour Party,


Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated much interest in raising this as an issue


in PMQs. Wildie today? I'll be surprised. It's the open goal. You


would think it is the natural weight of debate in Parliament but I think


he might try and choose thing left field. Pensions may be. Lots of


people are talking about that in terms of when the state pension age


may be changed, what sort of transitional protection should be in


place, particularly for women. He might go for something... Person I


this report about child poverty. He could go on that. The government has


announced this morning that they are not going to go ahead with the


vaccines for meningitis, which has been a big story in the news in


recent weeks. And go to stop you there. We'll find out.


Patricia Gibson. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to


confirm that the UK Government intended to take ?7 billion from


Scotland, over a decade, through the fiscal framework West remark and


will he take this opportunity to take this opportunity today to


explain why that was the case. -- through the fiscal framework? Only


the SNP can try to maintain a grievance after the settlement has


taken place. What we have done is build a powerhouse parliament for


Scotland with more powers, more ability to set tax rates, more


ability to determine benefits for its citizens, and now is time for


the SNP to stop talking about grievances, and get on with


government! CHEERING CSA group in my constituency has


recently taken on six new apprentices. Across my constituency


we have had more than 1000 apprenticeship starts since 2014,


does my right honourable friend agree that this is time for


government to stick with the plan, so that even more governments have


the ability to take on apprenticeships. We have a very


stretching target for 3 million apprentices to be trained during


this Parliament, we will do our bit, we want business to do its part, I


contributing to the apprenticeship levy, but we need small businesses


like CSA, in her constituency, and indeed the public sector, to get


fully involved in training apprentices to give young people the


chance to earn and learn at the same time. Jeremy Corbyn. It is three


years since the government announced a policy of tax free childcare.


Could the Prime Minister tell us what is the hold-up? We are


introducing that, along with the 30 hours of childcare, for everyone


with a three and four-year-olds, with a ?6 billion commitment, with


the start of the 30 hours coming in in a pilot scheme this year. Jeremy


Corbyn. Mr Speaker, the Treasury website describes it as a long-term


plan... LAUGHTER It certainly is that, it was


announced in 2013, and is not apparently going to be introduced


until next year. Could the Prime Minister tell us why his promise of


30 hours free childcare for three and four-year-olds is not there for


one in three working parents who want their children to be cared for


in preschool? First of all, on the tax relief on childcare, we lost a


court case against some of the existing providers, so there was a


delay, and the tax free childcare will come in in 2017. As for the 30


hours, as I have said, there will be pilot schemes this year, and full


temperament Asian next year, in line with what we have said in the


manifesto. I'm delighted he is helping me to promote government


policy! CHEERING When I became Prime Minister I think


we only had ten hours of childcare, now it has gone up to 12, and is now


15, and is now 30. These are all the things you can do if you have a


strong economy with a sound plan, you are getting your deficit down,


your economy is growing, you are able to do all of these things.


CHEERING I'm glad we are able to talk about


them. Jeremy Corbyn. Today, the National Audit Office report


confirms that one third of families promised 30 hours free childcare now


will not receive it, this is a broken promise. The report also


warns that many childcare providers are not offering the new entitlement


due to insufficient funding. There are 41,003 -year-olds missing out on


free early education as a result of this. -- 40 1000 three-year-old.


Will the Prime Minister intervene and make sure those children get the


start in life they deserve? -- 41,000 three-year-olds. The


department has successfully in fermented entitlement to free


childcare for three and four-year-olds with almost universal


take-up of hours offered to parents. -- implemented universal


entitlement. The Department has made significant progress in making free


entitlement, parents and children are benefiting, stakeholders are


positive about increasing the time to 30 hours. All of these things we


are able to do because we have a strong and sound economy, what a


contrast it would be if we listened to the right honourable gentleman,


as I regularly subscribe to the Islington Tribune, I can announce


his latest economic adviser, Yanis Varoufakis! He was the Greek finance


minister, who left his economy in ruins! That is Labour's policy, into


words, Acropolis -- in two words, " Acropolis now". That is not much


help to the 41,000 children not benefiting from what they were


promised by the government, looking further on in the education life of


children, according to the figures from the government, half a million


children in primary schools are in classes over 31, 15,000 are in


classes of over 40, we all know the importance of both preschool and


early years of education to give all of our children a decent start in


life. And yet half a million are living in poverty and many are in


oversized glasses, isn't it time for a serious government intervention to


sort out this problem? -- oversized classes. Introducing the extra hours


for childcare is a huge operation for the childcare providers, since


the National Audit Office report, that said only 58% of disadvantaged


to-year-olds were accessing the free childcare offer, the latest


information shows it is over 70% of those. Now, he mentioned the number


of teachers and overcrowded classes, there is 13,100 more teachers than


there were in 2010, because we have invested in teach first, we have


invested in bursaries, we have made sure that teaching is a worthwhile


career, when it comes to school places, I want to answer him,


because there is 453 fewer schools that are full or overcapacity,


compare 220 ten. That is progress. 36,500 fewer pupils who are in


schools that are overcrowded. Again, why have we been able to do this? We


protected education funding, detected the money that went


following every pupil in the school, introduced the pupil premium, the


first time any government had recognised the extra needs of


children from the most poor backgrounds. We did all of that, the


school system is growing, there are more places, fewer overcrowded


schools, all because they have the strong economy and the right values


in place. Mr Speaker, the problem is that class sizes are growing, the


problem is that there is a crisis of teacher shortages as well, and I


have been talking, as I am sure the Prime Minister has, too many


teachers, I have a question from one, I quote, from Tom, " I have


been teaching for ten years and I am currently head of design and


technology at a successful secondary school. With increasing numbers of


teachers leaving the profession, will the government is now access


that there is a crisis of recruitment and also of retention of


teachers in this crucial profession?" I have given you the


figures, there is 13,000 more teachers in schools than when I


became Prime Minister, if he worries about teacher recruitment, explain


this: how is it going to help his party's proposal to put up the basic


rate of tax, starting in Scotland, that will mean classroom teachers,


secondary school teachers, nursery teachers all paying more tax, what


we are doing is helping teachers by saying, you can earn ?11,000 before


you pay any income tax at all. I don't think that recruiting teachers


is simply about money, it is also about having a good school system,


which we have in place in this country, it certainly won't help if


we listen to Labour and put up people's taxes. The Prime Minister


seems to be in a bit of denial here. SHOUTING


Ofsted and the National Audit Office all confirmed there is a shortage


and a crisis of teachers. Ensuring there is another excellent teachers


in our schools is fundamental to the life chances of children. When 70%


of head teachers warned they are now using agency staff, is staff there


are classroom, isn't it time the government intervened and looked at


the real cost of this, damage to children's education, but also, ?1.3


billion spent last year on agency teachers. We have this agency


working situation in the National Health Service, and also in


education, are we moving into an era in which we can turn it agency


Britain? He has got to look at the facts, rather than talk down people


working so hard to teach children in our schools. Teachers are better


qualified than ever, that is the fact, 96.6% of teachers in state


funded schools now have a degree or higher qualification. Those are the


facts. I would argue that going into teaching, and now, teach first is


the most popular destination for Oxbridge graduates, which never


happened under a Labour government, if you want to encourage people to


go into teaching, you have got to know you have a good school system


with more academies, more free schools. -- Teach First. Higher


qualification, making sure we have rig and discipline in the classroom,


all of which has improved, but all of that is only possible if you have


a strong and growing economy to fund the schools that our children need.


In my constituency, we have one of several UK power stations, which has


seen closure this year. In Germany and Holland, both of whose carbon


emissions are higher, they are building brand-new mega power


stations, much of that we are going to import. It is very hard, for me


to expand the logic of this to my constituents, could the Prime


Minister review the pace of our closure programme, particularly in


the context of next year 's energy crunch. My honourable friend raises


an important question, he is right, there is big change in the industry,


we want to see an increase in gas capacity, an increase in renewable


capacity and the restarting of the nuclear programme, which I hope to


be discussing with the French president this week. He is right


that security of supply must be the number one priority, that is why we


have announced we will bring forward the capacity market to provide this


extra boost to existing stations, this could indeed help Fiddlers


Ferry itself. I say to him and everybody across the house, all of


the decisions we take about energy, they have consequences for peoples


bills. He mentions Germany, German electricity prices are 40% higher


than in the UK, the level of subsidies makes up 30% of German


bills, ours is less than half that level, and we have got to think


through these decisions for the consequences for energy consumers.


Angus Roberts and. We all have a right not to be disconnected


against. On the basis of age, gender, six, sexual orientation,


disability or ethnicity. Parents have right is to paternity and


maternity entitlement. -- Angus Robertson. All of the things --


semi-things are guaranteed through membership of the European Union,


does the Prime Minister guarantee that there are due to social


benefits to being members of the European Union. What we have done,


including under this government, is actually add to the right that


people have, including maternity and paternity rights. I think that the


emphasis on Europe now needs to be making sure that weeks band the


single market and make it more successful for businesses,


recognising the social benefits matter as well but principally, I


believe they are a matter for this house. Angus Robertson. Millions of


UK citizens live elsewhere in the European Union, European decisions


have helped the environment reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by nine


tenths, relations between 28 EU member states are often imperfect


but they occur through dialogue and agreement, surely a huge improvement


on confrontations and wards of the past. With the Prime Minister


concentrate on the positive arguments for EU membership, and


reject the approach of "Project Fear". My arguments about being


stronger in the refund European Union, and safer, and better off in


the refund European Union, are all positive arguments, and I would add


the point that he makes, things like pollution, crosses borders, and it


makes sense to work together. The fundamental point he makes is one


worth thinking about, he and I are both post-war children, but we


should never forget, when we sit around the table, that 70 years ago,


these countries were murdering each other, on the continent of Europe.


For all the frustrated of this institution, and believe me, there


are many, we should never forget that, the fact that we talk and work


together and resolve disputes around the table. Alberto Costa. Those who


foster children deserve our full support. To mark fostering February,


I visited in my constituency a fostering unit which since


establishment in 2003 has helped over 1250 children, find a loving


and caring home. Would my right honourable friend join me in


thanking the unit, as well as the carers, but would he also agreed to


look into how the currently complex funding arrangements for over 18s


could be considerably simplified to ease the transition of children into


adult third. We all know as parents it is very


important to give people the support they need. That's why we changed the


law in the last parliament so local authorities are under a duty to


support young people who choose to remain with their foster carers


beyond the age of 18. We put in place what is called a staying put


arrangement and are providing 40 formerly pounds over three years. In


the first year of its roll-out, almost half of those eligible to


stay but have decided to do so. This is a real advance in our fostering


arrangements. Thank you, Mr Speaker. As this is my first ever question to


the Prime Minister, I do hope... CHEERING


I do hope my suit and tie matches mother's high expectations. Mr


Speaker, in September last year, 16-year-old Mohammed was stabbed to


death in my constituency. His mother discovered last week the CPS will


not be prosecuting the man arrested for his murder. Sadly, she joins the


84% people in Southwark are experienced by crime last year who


have seen no one held to account. Home Office blamed local police for


that Lopez occasioned great and I resent the position that my local


elites are not up to the job. Will the Prime Minister ensure that my


local police have the resources to investigate knife crime fully and


bring more killers to justice? The honourable gentleman uses his first


question to raise an incredibly important issue which is knife crime


in our country. The good news is that knife crime has come down about


14% since 2010 but he makes an important point about the level of


prosecutions. Last year there were something like 11,000 prosecutions.


The rate of prosecution is similar as for other areas but clearly


everything we can do to help the police, the CPS to increase the rate


of prosecution is wholly worthwhile. We need to give the police the


resources they need and we are, through the spending round. We need


to educate young people on the dangers of knife crime and we need


to make sure those who commit these crimes are properly punished. Mr


Bernard Jenkin. Where is the fellow? He's not here. Well let's hear from


someone who is here, Mr David Davis. For five or six years... Order. I


know the houses in a state of some motivation but we must hear from The


Right Honourable gentleman when he's composed himself. Mr David Davis.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. For five or six years, national insurance


numbers issue to EU migrants have been hundreds of thousands higher


than the official immigration figures. This implies the figures


may be a dramatic underestimate. We can only know the truth of the


matter is HMRC release the data on active EU national insurance buzz,


which HMRC has refused to do. Will the Prime Minister instructed HMRC


to release those statistics so that we know the truth about European


immigration? And glad we've got the single transferable question, if not


the single transferable vote. The reason why these numbers don't tally


is you can get a national insurance number for a very short-term visit


and people who are already here without insurance number can apply


for them, so these numbers are quite complex. The HMRC has given greater


information and I will make sure that continues to be the case. The


proposed changes to Sunday trading are causing great concern to many


retailers, shop workers, to their families, to faith groups and to all


who want to Keep Sunday Special, get before the election the Prime


Minister said he had no plans to change Sunday Trading laws. When did


he change his mind or was it always his plan to scrap this great British


compromise as soon as the election was safely out of the way? Well, I


thought it was right to bring forward these proposals because they


are genuinely new proposals. New in that we are devolving to local


authorities to make those decisions and secondly, crucially, I'm sure


honourable members opposite will be interested in this, we will be


introducing new protections not only for new workers on Sundays but for


all workers on Sundays and so I think the house should look


carefully at this idea, not least because our constituents are able to


shop online all day, every day, including Sunday. All the evidence


shows this will be welcomed by customers, will create more jobs and


I think we have nothing to be scared of moving into this new arrangement.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the weekend I visited a Young enterprise


trade fair where teams from across local Staffordshire schools,


including Rugeley sixth form Academy, where showcasing their


entrepreneurial skills. Will my right honourable friend join me in


wishing good luck to all of the teams and does he agree that with


me, initiatives such as this are key to inspiring the next generation of


entrepreneurs? I think my honourable friend makes an important point,


which is four years in our schools not enough was done to encourage


enterprise and entrepreneurship when we know that so many jobs of the


future will come from start-up businesses and small businesses and


rapidly growing start-ups, so it is absolutely right that in our schools


we should be promoting enterprise, not only through teaching but also


to exercises including starting businesses for young people by


giving them small grants. Yesterday, a north-east SME ceased to trade.


Their goal was the extraction of gas from coal deep under the North Sea.


The Government failed to abide -- provide a supporting statement to


support investment due to its inability to compound that not only


would the company secure our energies apply but also provide


feedstocks to grow our industries and all of that totally decarbonise


stop Will the Prime Minister look at this appalling loss of opportunity


and urgently change course and develop a meaningful industrial and


energy strategy that British industry and workers and the planet


so badly need? I will certainly look at the case that he raises because


we back all energy projects that could create jobs and create growth


in our country and we have a very active industrial strategy for that.


I know that he's disappointed about our decision on carbon capture and


storage but I would say to him that that is an extra capital investment


and even after that, there is no sign yet that carbon capture or


storage can be even close to competitive to even nuclear power


offshore wind but I will look carefully E mentions. -- at the case


he mentions. A large proportion of the fish caught by British vessels


and landed in the UK are exported to Europe, mainly to EU countries, and


a great many of our fishermen fish in the sovereign waters of other


European Union countries. In a reformed regime, reforms that were


led by the British government. Does my right honourable friend agree


that our sees, those that exploit them and the communities that they


support, are better off in a reformed European Union? I agree


with my honourable friend and I pay tribute to him for the huge work


that he did to reform the common fisheries policy from what was a


very poor policy to one that is now working much better for our


fishermen. When it comes to fishing and farming, the key issue is going


to be making sure that Europe's markets remain open to the produce


that we land and we produce and that I think is going to be vital in the


debate in the months ahead. When more than 16,000... 1600 families


are on York's waiting list, when care workers are forced to leave the


city due to the cost of renting, when young families are placed in


single rooms in homeless hostels and when supported housing schemes will


have to close due to benefit changes, can the Prime Minister


specifically state why, up to 2500 predominantly high-value homes are


being planned for development in York Central without building a


single home for social rent? The decisions made in York about


planning for York City Council and their local plan but what I would


say to her, one of the things that we did in the last parliament was


specifically designed to help York, was to change the change of use


provisions so that empty offices could be used to build flats and


houses for local people, which is happening in York and will help to


make sure that city continues to thrive. Will my right honourable


friend agree to meet me and my constituent William Lawrie, a


brilliant young farmer whose business has been put at risk


because the RPA haven't paid his basic payment scheme money? Will he


also confirmed that the RPA figures that they keep putting out our


fictional, or does he agree with his Defra secretary that it is the EU's


commissioners' fault for making the cap so compensated? What I would say


to my honourable friend is that the system is complicated and we need to


make sure that the rural payments agency does the very best that it


can. To date, 70,000 farmers have received their 2015 payments, which


is now 81% of all claims paid but there is always room for


improvement. We should look at all the devolved areas of the UK and see


how they are coping with this problem. In terms of the issue more


broadly, I think it's very important we maintain the access that our


farmers have without tariffs, without tax, without quota, to


produce the cleanest and best food anywhere in the world and explored


it -- export it to 500 million people in the EU single market.


Yesterday the chair of the board of international campaign for Tibet


came to the House of Commons to meet with members of parliament as well


as you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister follow the example set by


the United States, Canada, Germany and Japan and write to the Chinese


authorities to express his concerns about their oppressive


counterterrorism laws, introduced in Tibet? I wasn't aware of that visit.


I will look very closely at what he said and perhaps get back to the


honourable lady about the issues he raises. In 2004, the 16-year-old


some of my constituent Lorraine Fraser was murdered by a gang and


the conviction of four of them was secured by joint enterprise. The


recent ruling in the Supreme Court has caused Lorraine and many other


Victors' families a great deal of anxiety. Would my right are both


friend agreed to facilitate a meeting to enable these families to


discuss their concerns with ministers and understand what the


ruling might mean in cases like there's? Well, through my honourable


friend, can I extend my sympathy is to his constituents? He is


absolutely right, we should remember that the families of all those


who've lost loved ones to dreadful crimes who are worried about this


judgment and what it might mean for them. I'm very happy to facilitate a


meeting between him and one of the justice ministers to discuss it. We


should be clear that this judgment only referred to a narrow category


of joint enterprise cases and I think it would be wrong to suggest


that everyone convicted under the wider law on joint enterprise will


have grounds for appeal. It is very important that message goes out but


I will fix the meeting that he calls for. People in the Midlands are


absolutely furious to learn that the Government's awarded a contract to


make British medals to some French company. Imagine it, Mr Speaker. You


open your distinguished service order or CBE and it says "Made in


France". I visited Midlands metal manufacturers in Birmingham's


jewellery Quarter. They are the best in the world. We should go back to


Downing Street -- he should go back to Downing Street, call in the


Cabinet Office minister and get this scandal sorted out. The only point


Cabinet Office minister and get this would make to the honourable


gentleman is, I'm sure all of those in the Royal Mint in Wales would


want to contest the fact that they make the finest medals in the United


Kingdom and I'm sure the competition between them and Birmingham is very


intense. I'll certainly take away what he says. I wasn't aware of this


issue but I'm always in favour, where we can make something in


Britain, we should make something in Britain. A recent investigation


carried out by my local newspaper, the Derby Telegraph, uncovered


reports of alleged experiments carried out on children by medics at


a medical facility in Derbyshire during the 1960s and 1970s. Can I


ask the Prime Minister to ensure that a thorough investigation into


this situation is now undertaken? I'm very happy to give my honourable


friend that assurance. She is absolutely right to raise this. They


are very serious allegations and it's vital that the full facts are


considered. My understanding is that the police, the local authority and


NHS working together and there's an inquiry process under the Derby


safeguarding children board in line with its procedures. I would


encourage anyone who knows anything about this to come forward and give


evidence to that board. The Syrian ceasefire is extremely fragile.


There are reports that Russia is continuing to attack anti-Assad


rebels, not Daesh, and that Islamic terrorists and weapons continue to


pass into Syria across the Turkish border. What is the British


Government doing to ensure the ceasefire is properly monitored and,


in particular, to reduce serious tensions between Russia and our Nato


ally Turkey? The honourable lady is absolutely right to raise this. The


cessation of hostilities is an important step forward, imperfect


though it is, and it does enable the possibility of political


negotiations starting next week. She asks service and agree what we are


proud to admit it is properly enforced stop we are working with


the Americans and Russians to make that happen. I've got a European


conference call with Vladimir Putin later this week to reinforce these


points. Even though the ceasefire is imperfect, it is progress that we


have it. Not every group is included in the ceasefire but basically there


aren't the attacks that were taking place on the moderate opposition,


which is welcome, and it is also enabled us with others to get aid


into communities that desperately need it, including through airdrops


and convoys. So I wouldn't put too much optimism into the mix right now


but this is progress and we should work on it. Two weeks ago I visited


a refugee Cap and the surrounding area on the Jordanian/Syrian border,


primarily to assist health care services. I was struck by the


remarkable resilience the local people have and this system is under


quite significant pressure. Would the Prime Minister meet with me to


discuss further what Britain can do to enhance health care services on


the ground, both for the Syrian refugees and the wider Jordanian


community? I'm very happy to meet with my honourable friend to discuss


this. It is an extra ordinary sight, that refugee camp, because of the


scale of the endeavour under way. Britain can be proud of what we've


done in terms of the direct aid we've given and also the London


conference that raised $11 billion for these refugee camps. I know he's


got a long-standing interest on what we can do to make sure facilities


are delivered quickly, including on occasions using military facilities,


and I think there may be opportunities for that but we also


need to make sure the emergency response from NGOs and the knighted


nations is as fast as it can be when crises like this happen in the


future. As the Prime Minister struggles with certain elements in


his party over Europe, does he ever think that on an inspirational Prime


Minister -- think back on an inspirational Prime Minister, Harold


Wilson, who faced difficulties but stood up to the rebels in his own


party and secured a yes vote for staying in Europe, and will he join


with me because Harold Wilson's Centenary of his birth is next week


and could be celebrated across all parties, a great innovative Prime


Minister. I do feel a natural sympathy for anyone who has had this


job. Irrespective of what side of the house we're on. I think he did


do some important things and the honourable gentleman has some


important things. I wish his family well on this important day and I


think we approach things in different ways but one thing we


would have agreed about is Britain's future is better off in a reformed


EU. I'm sure the whole house will join me in expressing our


condolences to Neil and Jennifer Burdett, the parents of two-year-old


Fay, who died on Valentine's Day of meningitis B. Since they's death,


815,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Government


to vaccinate more children against meningitis B. I'm proud that the UK


is the first country to have a vaccination programme for meningitis


B but could my right honourable friend make sure the government


looks at what more can be done to prevent more children like fei dying


from this disease? On behalf of the whole house, let me extend my


sympathies and condolences to Faye's parents and all those who have had


children suffering from this terrible disease. By Robert friend


is absolutely right, we were the first country in the world to have


this vaccination programme, which is based on the advice of the joint


committee on vaccination and immunisation who recommended


targeting the vaccine to protect the infant at highest risk. The


incidence of highest risk it does occur in babies at five months and


of the 276 children contracting meningitis B last year, over 100


were one year of age but she makes important points. We need to look at


all the evidence carefully, as do the expert bodies that advise us,


recognising that Britain is already taking some important steps forward


by being the first country to vaccinate in this way.


Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn went on education related


issues, to begin with, childcare for infants, then moved on to what he


said was a growing crisis in teachers and growing class sizes.


Attacking Tory cuts has been a successful Labour strategy,


according to one viewer, but the point is an additional childcare


provision did not hit home, just gave David Cameron an opportunity to


talk about an area of policy where Tories are weak. Same drivel from


the Romans as usual, says one viewer, and our viewers so dumb that


backbenchers need to be asking planted questions. James Patterson


says, Jeremy Corbyn bleeding all over the floor, Prime Minister


drowning him under a sea of figures. Jeremy Corbyn, new suit, proper


tire, and up to the collar, now David Cameron's mother only needs to


teach him how to do a Windsor knot! That was a Windsor knot... I thought


you would say that. I do it automatically, I do not even know


how to do it if you ask me, it is automatic! Isn't the problem, there


is the other things on the news agenda, that Jeremy Corbyn's


contribution to PMQs is largely likely to be ignored. It is a


strategic choice that he has made, not to follow the Westminster


agenda, to do his own thing, to settle on the issues he wants to


settle on, it is right for the government to be challenged on these


policies, what frustrates Labour MPs is two things, the execution of


this, if we go on education, don't go on everything, don't go on class


sizes... Choose one thing. Really nail in on this, jabber away, all


six questions, when you get to the fifth or sixth, you get to expose


prime ministers. They have run out of their brief. Labour MPs are also


frustrated that they have nothing to say on the issue of the moment,


Britain's place in the European Union. I know this will be a long


campaign with many months to go but it is the only thing that


Westminster and politicians and the newspapers are talking about. A lot


of Labour MPs are frustrated that they are almost not having a voice


in this debate, that begins to worry them. That is true, perhaps


inevitably, because the big divisions are inside the


Conservative Party, but the debate, the argument, seems to be taking


place almost with Labour having a walk on part. I wonder if that is


also not because a lot of people, including on your own side, feel


that his heart is not quite in it, when it was the big in day last


Saturday, he spoke with a CND rally. I will tell you why he has gone on


education. Could you address my question first. And then we will


come back. But it is linked, the genesis of your question, why isn't


he talking about Europe at the dispatch box, why is he not pressing


on the divisions of the Conservative Party, but he is enthusiastically


supporting staying in the Hugh the party is supporting that. Where we


have seen that enthusiasm...? Backing the campaign, the Shadow


Cabinet is fully supportive. He went to a CND rally last Saturday, that


was meant to be Labour's day of in and it was full remain... Going to


the CND rally, all of the headlines were about Jeremy Corbyn going


there. Bottom line, we are trying to create a division in the Labour


Party which does not exist. Every single Labour MP is enthusiastically


supporting the campaign to stay in the European Union, you have seen a


premises question, the divisions are on the Conservatives. We are very


united in the message the Labour Party is putting out, the reason


Jeremy Corbyn did not go on the European Union today on the dispatch


box, most parents are founding out this week which secondary school


their children will be going too, very current in terms of ordinary


parents up and down the country, they will watch that and think, I


have just had a letter which means I cannot get into the secondary


school, even I live in the catchment area. Given that he chose to go on


that area, why did he not include, from the Institute for Fiscal


Studies, these quite serious figures about the growth of child poverty.


About the end of the decade. Surely, for a Labour leader, it is an easy


link, as well, to link education and child poverty, did not even mention


that. New has mention the national audit in terms of education. I am


not in the room when he is discussing what to do. Why not?


Would you like to be? LAUGHTER You write some very good jokes for


the Prime Minister. That Acropolis one was terrible. The Leader of the


Opposition can go on a plethora of subjects, going through the analysis


of what is best, one of the things he's trying to do is go on real


issues, rather than fuelling this Westminster bubble of continually


banging on about Europe. What is the point of being Labour leader if you


do not highlight a potentially devastating report on child poverty?


It is important that he does. But also... It is also important to the


party leader to be on the side of parents who are really concerned


about the shortages of school places, who are receiving those


letters this week. He is raising that issue directly with the prime


and it, why are you not sorting this? Coming back to Europe, are you


worried? You need Scottish national votes and Labour votes to win -- he


is raising that issue directly with the Prime Minister. Are you worried


about Jeremy Corbyn's enthusiasm for Europe? The Labour Party is pretty


much united in favour of in. There is a huge amount of Labour support


for that position. Are you worried about the apparent lack of


enthusiasm from Jeremy Corbyn? Not really. The thing that lay beneath


the more to get the Labour vote out. Jeremy Corbyn is not the most


appealing political figure for the general public. We need the voices


that the public trust. Would you share a stage with him? I'm not


planning on, I think that he has said that he will not share a


platform with any of us, but it is about allowing people to decide. I


don't think Jeremy Corbyn... Doesn't matter what he says? It is ordinary


voices that will win or lose this, not all editions. It could be won or


lost on turnout. If you want to stay in Europe, you need to get the vote


out. It is not about Jeremy Corbyn, it is about the argument, the case,


the economy will be stronger. One question that was very accurate, the


Prime Minister should have been brave enough to say to the Tories,


we have a deal, we are voting in, the fact he has not done that makes


a huge split, makes it more difficult to win it. Indeed. Final


thought? Many people in the Labour Party are worried by the


leadership's slight hint of equivocation when it comes to the


issue, they suspect that is one of the reason Jeremy Corbyn does not


like doing that, getting into positions. I offer Peter Mandelson


the opportunity to be critical of Jeremy Corbyn yesterday, was very


cautious about it, he said he is the right man, there is a definite sense


from the pro-Remain campaign the Labour side that they do not want to


get into a fight with the leadership over this. During the referendum.


They want to keep the ceasefire on Europe intact. We will have to see


what we can do about that(!) Sticking with the issue


of the EU referendum, the former Conservative chancellor


Norman Lamont has come Earlier this year he took part


in a roleplaying exercise as the British minister in charge


of negotiations if Britain voted was greater control over our


borders. We would seek to introduce


legislation to that effect. We would be willing to explore


a number of options on that front. If we had our own system,


perhaps a points system, we could seek to give a bias


towards EU nationals what took you so long to officially


come out and say, when clearly you were on that side? I was war-gaming


on the assumption that was given to me by the organisers of the session,


I have never ever in the past said that we should come out, as long ago


as 1994I made a speech saying the time may come when we have to choose


between a much more politically integrated Europe and leaving. The


way that Europe has gone since then, I think as adequately fulfilled the


warnings I gave then, I think Europe is at a fork and we must choose. It


is still taking quite a long time. We have at the renegotiated package


from the Prime Minister. What was the turmoil in your mind? It is a


big decision, altering the policy of this country over 40 years, it means


having a disagreement with colleagues within one's own party. I


did not want to rush into it, but I thought and thought and came to the


view, you say it is not surprising that I can do it but I did. Do you


feel like in some ways you are betraying your colleagues, like the


primers to? No, this is a big decision, splitting friends and


families, so important, one must recognise the right of people to


disagree with you. And after all, that is the purpose of a referendum.


As you say, it is dividing families, dividing friends, dividing the


Conservative Party once again. How difficult is it going to be


post-referendum in terms of the unity of the party? I think there is


a great awareness of this danger in the Conservative Party and people


are very determined that after it is over people should get together and


heal the divisions. It is very important that the referendum


discussion should be conducted with civility and respect for other


people's point of view. You think Iain Duncan Smith was practising


that when he described the dossier as dodgy, the government 's dossier.


It sets out alternatives, one is entitled to argue about the premise.


One is entitled to dispute it. I would seriously disputed as well. Is


it dodgy? I think that it is arguable. If you want to keep the


civility between the sides, should Iain Duncan Smith the indulging in


that kind of language? People will get over it, it is not a great


thing. It has been said that there are big risks attached to leaving.


Switzerland, Norway, Canada taking seven years, limited access to the


single market, going through the World Trade Organisation, resulting


in extra tariffs on certain products like food, they are right. I don't


think so. The German finance minister has said that were Britain


to leave, it would be necessary, necessary, to have a free-trade


agreement with Britain. This isn't something Britain has to


demand, it's just as important to the other side. Britain is the


largest customer the German cars and German manufacturers. They would be


desperate to know the terms on which they would be able to sell into the


UK and so an agreement is absolutely on both sides' interest. The country


you didn't mention was the United States. The United States actually


sells into Europe since 2011 more than we do. We compare with Norway,


we compare with Switzerland but the United States actually sells more


than we do. Nobody is saying, or they shouldn't be saying, that there


wouldn't be some sort of deal. The question mark is, how much turmoil


there could be while the deal is being made. It's not just the


government. You've even got a US fund manager saying that Brexit


offers a lot of risk with little obvious reward top equity, sterling


and the London property market would all be likely to suffer and we've


seen some proof of that recently with sterling. Sterling has been


lower than this during the life of this government and nobody commented


whatsoever. You trotted out Black Rock. I could run you through a list


of companies and fund managers this very morning... Legal and general


said it would have no effect on their business. Take Neil Woodford,


who is one of the staff and managers of this country, who said it is very


difficult to argue it would have any great effect. Take Eleanor Morris E,


who runs Newton asset management. There are lots of people who say


economically it will make no difference and that is what I


believe. But which model would you choose? There's a letter now from


Nick Herbert that has just been published, the chairman of the


Conservatives. It has been said to Ian Duncan Smith specifically but it


says, you have said that if Britain were to be leave the EU we wouldn't


copy any other country's deal and have a settlement on our own terms.


Do you agree with Iain Duncan Smith that it would be different to what


has ever been settled with other countries? Yes, I think it ought to


be a special deal for top obviously, one can't say in every detail what


it would be like because it is... Even in broad detail. Let me finish.


Because it is subject to negotiation. But Jack Delors has


gone out of his way to say he recognises that Britain historically


is interested in the economic son should have a special arrangement.


He said that would not be difficult to arrange. Of course in this period


when people are trying to persuade Britain to vote to stay on, people


are going to say it is going to be difficult. In reality, it won't be.


Is it a fair playing field, a fair fight on both sides? Advocate is


reasonably fair. I think the funding arrangements, but that goes back to


the Blair government, are very odd and not entirely fair. The civil


service papers? Do you feel very strongly that they should be given


to ministers on both sides of the argument? I'm not a member of the


government. This issue doesn't really concern me. What I understood


Jeremy Hayward to say was that civil servants could not provide political


lines for those who were in favour of Brexit to pursue and that seems


to be entirely reasonable. But some of the exit terms that were outlined


to don't seem to be that different to what our relationship would be


like if we were to remain. You have implied that we would accept the


existing body of EU law and regulation analysis of the fine


matters and ensure a deal could be completed in the next decade.


Preferential access for EU citizens under whatever deal is reached. And


that Britain should chip in to the EU budget other gesture of goodwill.


What's different? Economically, I think things would be very similar


but the issue is, you can say why, then, exit? We would be free of this


juggernaut of integration. Whatever barriers Britain direct the European


Court of Justice, the European Parliament find ways around. They


are masters at bending the rules. Take the bailout of Ireland which


was plainly illegal, plainly illegal. Christine Lagarde admitted


such but they just did it nonetheless. Thank you.


Should Apple help the FBI to unlocking iPhone used by one of the


gunmen responsible for the San Bernardino shootings? The FBI thinks


so and argued in a congressional hearing yesterday that Apple's


encryption was a vicious guard dog that hurts national security. A


short jump back across the pond, the UK Government food web published a


revised version of its much criticised investigatory Powers


bill. In our Soapbox this week,


Hugo Rifkind asks whether politicians are right to be circling


on Apple and other tech companies, before reflecting on whether all


of the fights they've picked surrounding internet security


and freedom are the right ones. The San Bernardino shooting


in December last year left 14 dead. Who wouldn't want to


help the police get to the bottom of it,


whatever it takes? Well, Apple wouldn't,


or so the accusation goes, and seemingly all because of one


of these - a phone with a pass lock and some pretty


sophisticated encryption. The company has been


accused of placing commercial interests


over national security. What "commercial interests" means


for Apple is people still wanting So, is it any surprise


that Apple wants to We're often told that people


who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear but who doesn't


have something to hide? Music lovers who illegally


download a few songs, box set lovers who Torrent,


and then there's internet porn But if you did, would you really


want a record kept? Think of that information


being hacked or flung Freedom flows on the internet like a


river. Nothing spurs innovation


like being told you can't do something but these


innovations weren't devised Often they were popularised


to shield more minor crimes, such as buying drugs,


or for simple privacy. But the lesson here is


that the dogged online onanist is not a man you'd want


in your enemy's corner, The battles we were always bound


to lose against digital piracy, pornography and soft drugs have


bequeathed us a world in which the battles that really


matter, against terrorism and organised crime, are much,


much harder to fight. Hugo Rifkind is with us now, having


played his chance at being Doctor Who. Should Apple help or turn its


back on the law in this case? It's not quite that simple. It's easy to


say Apple should help in one case if they possibly can. A pretty


important case. It's cleverly possible the FBI can get into this


phone by themselves if they wanted to and this is a test case to


establish a precedent. The point is that if you place an onus on tech


companies to break encryption like this, what they're going to do, what


Apple is doing, is try to develop products where they can't break the


cushion because that removes the responsible as you from them --


removes the responsibility from them. In the battle against terror,


people will say this is a special case. This is not the same as


perhaps other crimes that could be seen as less challenging to national


security and that surely Loren for is that agencies have to be able to


do their job to gather evidence? -- law enforcement agencies. You could


argue that. Firstly if you damaging corruption like this, it isn't just


security services that benefit, criminals benefit. If security and


terrorism special case then we need to be very careful with things like


our own investigatory Powers bill which vastly boosts the powers that


the police have. Other law-enforcement agencies have


private data. This essentially gives terrorists allies. Matthew Hancock,


should Apple be cooperating? Well, in the UK, we're proposing, as Hugo


said, a new set of laws with a balance. Of course you've got to the


tech National Security Council pits the first duty of the state. But the


way we're proposing to get through this in the UK context is to make


sure that there are safeguards so that the warrant requires a judge to


sign off in order to show... Both to make sure in the specifics that it


is in the national interest but also to demonstrate... David Davis says


the judge will just be signing of what the Home Secretary said. That's


how judges act. -- not how judges at. How would companies like Apple


be forced to remove the encryption on their messaging software? The


proposal in the bill is that with the check by the judiciary and


therefore this being independent and decided on, whether it is in the


national interest, you have that check there and that would be


required by law. Hugo Rifkind, thank you.


There's just time to put you out of your misery and give


Hit the big red button. Let's see what happens.


You fulfil your role very expertly. -- fulfilled.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political


No doubt the European referendum will be rumbling on and the official


campaign hasn't even started yet! And we've got another four months or


so of it. Can't get enough.


Download Subtitles