24/03/2016 Daily Politics

The British head of Europol has warned of new, unprecedented threats

posed by the Islamic State group in Europe.

He says that up to 5,000 jihadists could be at large

across Europe, far more than initially feared.

EU ministers meet again today to discuss better

intelligence-sharing following the suicide bombings in Brussels

Is Britain safer in or out of the EU?

The former head of MI6 and the Defence Secretary,

Michael Fallon, have very different views.

Junior doctors say they won't provide emergency medical care

during a two-day strike next month. The Department of Health have called

the move desperate and irresponsible.

And Jeremy Corbyn says he knows nothing about the Labour list that

But David Cameron seems to know who is on it and where they stand.

We've got "core support", I think you can include me

We've got "core plus", the Chief Whip is being a bit quiet

And with us for the duration, Conservative MEP Dan Hannan

and Steve Richards from the Independent.

Now, first this morning, to Brussels.

EU interior and justice ministers are due to hold a crisis meeting

today to discuss the need for better intelligence-gathering and sharing

in the wake of Tuesday's suicide bombings.

Belgian police are stepping up their search for a fourth suspect

in the attacks, who survived because his bomb didn't detonate.

Let's talk now to our Europe correspondent Chris Morris,

Can you give us the latest in terms of the manhunt. At least one person

is being sought, that is versus. -- for certain. The man in the black --

white jacket and black hat was carrying the largest bomb which only

exploded later, after the initial blast. If it had gone off as planned

the number of dead would have been considerably higher. We have no ID

on him. Nobody has said who that individual might be. There is the

possibility of a second suspect taking part in the bombing at

Maelbeek Metrocentre, behind me here, good news this morning signs

of life getting back together here today. CCTV footage shows another

man with a bad standing next to the named suicide bomber Khalid

el-Bakraoui, we know that this is a network. It wasn't just an isolated

cell. It appears to be the biggest network of this Islamist militancy

that Europe has ever encountered. The numbers were larger than people

thought. What is being discussed at this meeting about better

intelligence sharing. The lodging is -- the logic is from that that there

was a failing in intelligence. Some people would say that some countries

aren't up to the task, including Belgium, many would say. Some say

that countries are reluctant to share the crucial intelligence that

they may have. One of the things here in Belgium is the squabbling

multilevel nature of government. By pulling information, bits of who is

responsible always seems to fall through the cracks. Two things they

are going to be talking about at this crisis meeting. Let's not

forget that they had a meeting after the Charlie Hebdo attacks last year

and the Paris attacks in November. Better sharing of data and

intelligence is high on the list. High on the list for the French

government has been the sharing of data of airline passengers. Names,

and so forth, of who is travelling around Europe. That is becoming

entwined in the debate about civil liberties, held up in the European

Parliament. There is a feeling that the balance between security and

liberty is something democratic societies have dog about when they

are under attack like this. Governments feel that there has to

be more emphasis on security. -- half to talk about.

Yesterday, BBC Panorama took a detailed look at the terror

The programme featured the testimony of an accomplice of

Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the man who masterminded the Paris

Several months before those killings, he told police about how

He gave me some shooting lessons by showing me how

He made me shoot round by round and in bursts.

He trained me to use a handgun and a green

He told me it was set on three seconds.

He told me to take the weapon and throw the grenade inside.

Wait for a small explosion and then to retrieve the targets.

I went in, shot three targets, and then the grenade exploded.

I was bleeding from the arm and in the leg.

He just told me to choose an easy target.

Imagine a rock concert in a European country.

He specified, the best thing to do is to wait

there for the intervention forces and die fighting with hostages.

He told me, whoever rushes against the

enemy would have to have the reward of two martyrs.

And Peter Taylor, one of the reporters from last night's

Congratulations on the documentary. A superb piece of work. On the

broader picture, we are seeing briefings from the intelligence

services that there is a hard-core of 400-600 highly trained, largely

in Syria, Islamist working for an Islamic State external command whose

job is to come back here and do the kind of thing in Paris and Brussels.

Is that your understanding? My understanding is that there are a

number of trained jihadis trained in Europe. It is interesting that the

ringleader of this network, that network didn't die with him but he

told his cousin that he had sent, just before he was killed, that he

had sent I think it was 90 jihadists to attack Europe. The evidence also

comes from the meeting that we saw was held in October in which it was

expressed concern about him and reports that he was planning to send

90 trained jihadists to attack Europe. Clearly, the threat is still

there from the remnants of the network. And from others that we

don't know. I would question the number of 400 or 500 trained jihadis

ready to storm Europe but there are numbers and they are causing great

concern. It is my understanding that they are deeply trained in weapons

and surveillance, countersurveillance and special

forces techniques. That is absolutely right. In the clip we

have seen, that particular individual was given a crash course

because he had a French passport that was about to expire so they

wanted to use him with a valid passport, a measure of their

sophistication. What makes them so worrying, different from anything

else that we have seen is that they are trained, military operators sent

to Europe to do this. We have never seen this before. That is the worry.

Prior to this, the way I S operated was by inspiring people to carry out

lone wolf, lone operator attacks. This is an escalation of the threat

and it is extremely serious. The question is, what happens next? When

the IRA broke into a devolved cell structure to make it harder to break

and what is known within a smaller number of people, am I right

thinking that what we have is something between a cell structure

and a network. Not quite as enclosed, but not quite a network.

My understanding is that they are no longer depending on orders from

Syria but to take virginity is as they see them? -- to take

opportunities. A network consists of several cells. The IRA cells were

run by the England department which is not unlike the external

operations department of IS. That network is made of different cells,

the attack cells that attacked Paris and Brussels and the logistical

cells, Salah Abdeslam, who was arrested last week was in charge of

them. You have to have guns, safe houses, rented cars. Nobody knows

how many cells there are. The logistical cells are just as

important as the attack cells. Once you have identified the logistical

cells, which is very difficult, you can begin to identify the attack

cells. It is very interesting that within almost a week they were able

to get ammunition and explosives to carry out the attacks in Brussels

this week. When did it dawn on us, when did we realise that Brussels

had become the epicentre of Islamist terrorism? We knew that because

Belgian intelligence, Belgian MI5, I viewed the former head of that

agency, he told me he gave me endless warnings and to politicians

about the growing threat from jihadis and what it involved for

Belgium and the rest of Europe. He said the politicians didn't want to

know about it. It is a question of stable doors and horses. If you look

at the question here, our intelligence services are joined up.

It is as a direct result of the 7-7 bombings. Belgium wasn't joined up

and that is why there are so many cracks and it is widely IS operators

manage to get through. If you want an AK-47, it is not a huge problem

in Brussels. Not in Brussels or mainland Europe but very difficult

here. If you look at the Shepherd's Bush case, that culminated yesterday

when two men were found guilty, the weapon there was a small handgun. We

don't see - touch wood- automatic weapons being used here. Very

difficult to get them. I think it has been established that the man in

your film visited Birmingham and London in the run-up to the Paris

attacks and another man, Mohamed Abrini, of Moroccan extraction, a

Belgium, he went to France before the Paris attacks and flew back from

Birmingham to France, coming to see presumably like-minded people in

this country? It is a very confused situation. We found no evidence that

he came to the UK. He may have done, he may not. We were convinced that

Muhammad Abu Renee, one of his blue tenants did -- one of his Lieutenant

Colonel Law did visit the UK. He was a suspect of somebody who may have

been Syria. In the course of the interview they looked at his mobile

phone. I was told that on his phone were several photographs, one of

which, confirmed by the Belgians, was of a football stadium. He might

be a football fan. He might have gone to watch a match. But we know

what happened in Paris. As far as the network in the UK, we did note

that Mohamed Abrini had visited the UK and I don't think he was here on

a long weekend vocation. We know that he is still at large and that

his brother was killed in Syria. What is your take on this?

The first thing is the sheer horror of what happened. The footage from

the tube attack was taken by a friend of mine in Brusselslike

everybody else who knows that city, my first thoughts were, are my staff

OK, and my friends? It is a terrible trauma to go through. I think we do

need to look at the security considerations at a European level

and at a UK level. We need to think about the indications of EU passport

holders, EU nationals, carrying out these attacks, and of how we monitor

their entry or exit from the country. We also need to look at how

we can deport people that we think are dangerous. One point which the

former head of intelligence Sir Richard Dearlove made yesterday in

his article was that it is increasingly difficult in the EU to

deport people when we know that they are dangerous pass EU judges say

that they have rights as EU citizens. We will come onto these

issues later on. Steve? Apart from Daniel's attempt to frame it in an

argument for out of the European Union, I agree with everything he

said. What else can you say, other than utter banality is, and

expressing alarm at the Panorama programme which we saw last night

got this is not some kind of primitive organisation with anarchic

networks. It is clearly coordinated, sophisticated, trained, in a way

that I had not realised until your exchange just now, the degree to

which they are trained. And it is going to be very, very difficult to

contain. If I could counter Daniel's view, it clearly needs a degree of

coordination between different countries. We are going to come onto

that. Let's not get that argument into everything. Not while we have

got Peter here. There are more important issues at stake. Peter, I

thank you for coming on today. Graduations again. Table can catch

it on the iPlayer. Or on the panorama website. I would recommend

that anybody who wants to know what is happening should do so. In some

ways it is the Prime Minister's worst nightmare, that security has

now become deeply embedded into the European debate because of what has

happened in Brussels. It raises the question, inevitably...

Here, the former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove says a British

exit would lead to important security gains for the UK.

That prompted a swift rebuttal from the Defence Secretary,

Let's talk now to the BBC's deputy political editor,

It seems to me that this is what the Government would have liked to have

avoided. What leading Conservative said to me, our worst nightmare is

that there is a major terrorist incident while the referendum

campaign is going on, and it comes caught up in the debate. That is

exactly what has happened. Yet it is. To some extent the Prime

Minister should share some responsibility for this. He was the

person who began this debate about security in the European Union. In

his speech to Chatham House last November, he specifically made the

case for staying in the EU, because it helps our security. Is argument

was that it helps European countries get together to put sanctions on

Russia and negotiate with Iran. But since the attacks in Brussels, that

debate has become more acute. Firstly, the question about the free

movement of people within Europe and whether or not it endangers the

countries in Europe because it is easier for terrorists to move about.

But also, the second debate, which is about whether or not intelligence

sharing is easier within the EU or not. There is a divide between the

MI6 view, which is represented by Sir Richard Dearlove, which

essentially says, intelligence sharing is bilateral, it has nothing

to do with the European Union. Britain leads on this in its

relationship with the United States, and so there will be no change,

whether or not we leave or stay. The other viewpoint, which is more MI5,

more police, more Home Office, which says, for gritty, on the ground

exchanges of information about police operations, sharing passenger

lists, that does help EU co-operation. That is where the

debate is changing. If there is any sense that the electorate pick up

on, begin to think, Europe, there is a security risk to it, then it is a

danger for the Government, because it could get the Leave camp into a

risk argument. What is the case for arguing, in

terms of what we have been talking about, security from terrorism, for

saying we are better off out? That we are safer when we control our own

borders and can control who crosses them and who can settle here. And

that we are safer if we can determine who can be kicked out on

security grounds. We agreed when we joined the EU to open our borders to

the rest of the European Union. It is now clear that the European Union

has in effect opened its borders to the entire world of that was never

the original deal. And it has security indications. As we see the

Schengen crisis, and the euro crisis, unfolding, the choice we

have, is, do we make those problems our problems? Because we stayed out

of Schengen, because we kept the pound, we have options. We can stay

away from these things and focus on the rest of the world. And Steve,

what is the case for saying that our security is better if we remain?

Well, as far as this is an issue at all, and I say that because if we

were not having a referendum now, and this appalling event had not

happened in Brussels, I doubt we would have been having this debate.

Nobody would have stood up and said, the reaction to Brussels is that we

pull out of the European Union. It is only because we are having this

referendum. We would not even be debating it if it was not for that,

because it is so peripheral. A lot of the coordination would carry on

as normal whether we were in or out. Part of it is so central with the

United States. However, as James Landale pointed out, a lot of the

nitty-gritty of daily, unglamorous intelligence watching does involve

co-operation in different countries. And even though we are out of

Schengen, you mentioned this senior ices guy who got to Birmingham

recently. Without that freedom in the rest of the European Union, they

are still coming here. So if they do not ignore boundaries, we need

institution that can coordinate as well. We have had judicial and

intelligence co-operation globally, long before they was a European

Union. We have it outside the European Union, with our closest

allies in the English-speaking democracies. We have Interpol, we

have intelligence showing. The point made by Sir Richard Dearlove is

critical - frankly we have the best intelligence service in the European

Union. It is a bit like the Common fisheries policy. We are

disproportionately filling the pot from which the others are drawing. I

think we should do that, of course, it is in our security to enhance the

security of other EU countries. So do you not therefore accept that

this argument in the context of the EU is a red herring? We have had

good security, we will continue to have good security. This, oh, we

should pull out of the European Union, is really peripheral. My

reasoning for leaving the European Union is that it is the only bit of

the world which is not experiencing economic growth. That is the bigger

argument. This will undoubtedly go on. And we will be exploring some of

the other arguments surrounding the EU referendum in a moment.

And today it's all about the referendum to find

After a lengthy campaign, prime minister John Key has

So what did the people of New Zealand choose?

b) the existing design with union flag?

c) they have decided to share the Australian flag?

Or d) a picture of their national bird, the kiwi?

And Steve and Daniel will give us the answer a little bit later on.

A different referendum at least to talk about!

Speaking of questions, all this week we've been asking

viewers to send in questions about the EU referendum.

Postman Pat has had a busy time, and the office munchkins have been

And to answer them, we're joined by Lucy Thomas from

She is campaigning to remain, and Daniel Hannan is still here -

he's just written a book called Why Vote Leave.

Out today, I understand. Let's go through the questions. We have

picked a selection. The first one, from British pensioners in Spain.

What could happen to our pensions if we left the EU? Batches from Ann and

Norman Harrison in Costa Blanca. Well, currently there is mutual

recognition of pensions and we simply do not know what would happen

if we were to leave. We do not know what the incentive would be for

Spain to continue to do that. So I think that would be a huge question

for our pensioners in Spain. The other issue facing them is access to

health care. At the moment we have a European health insurance card,

which allows people living in Spain from Britain to access health care

for free. Again, there is no way that that would continue, were we to

leave. So I think there are a lot of uncertainties here. And no real

reason why a they would continue to be the case, were we to leave. We

are talking about 1.5 million Brits living in Spain, I believe. Quite a

few of them pensioners. So, uncertainty and risk in terms of

their future... On pensions there is absolutely no prospect of any

change. By jumping on to health care, Lucie pretty much conceded

that. As it is up to the UK Government. Just because you are in

Spain or wherever, the UK Government pays and operates your pensions. We

have mutual deals with some countries in the EU and some

countries outside the EU. And that would continue? Until one side or

the other wants to change it. But Lucy Thomas brought up health care.

We are paying through our health care system hugely more to EU

nationals in the UK then we are receiving via EU nationals in the

rest of the EU. There is an immense in balance and I think it would be

in the interest of all of those other countries to keep those

reciprocal deals going. On pensions, we have to look at what the value of

the pension would end up being. Already we have seen the value of

sterling going down. Front page of the Financial Times today looking at

the potential indications. If our economy were hit by leaving, which I

believe it would be... Of course, a lot of those pensioners in Spain

were there before Spain joined in 1986, so they know perfectly well...

Moving onto the next question, how much does the UK pay into the EU and

how much do we receive in subsidies. That is from Adrian Hansell in

Exeter. Be honest and transparent. Gross figure, about 19 billion, of

which some 9 billion is spent in the UK or handed back. So the net figure

is about half. Shouldn't you use the net figure? No, because we do not

use the net figure anywhere else. Ask any of your readers what they

pay in council tax, and see if they deduct the notional value of the pin

collecting. What we pay is what we handover. We do not hand over 19

billion, we take the rebate of first. It is not actually a rebate,

it is an arrangement. Explain that to the elector. No, we do not send

it in the first place. That figure comes from the Office for National

Statistics. Rather than twiddling, we have just given the gross and net

figure coming from them. Talk about being fair and honest, how much do

we actually pay to the EU? If you look between 2010 and 2014, and then

15-16, I don't know where you got 19 from, it never even got to that. So

absolutely you have to take account of the rebate. , which is 5 billion.

So not as much as Daniel was saying. We did all of this on The Sunday

Politics. The gross figure, if I can put it that way, for 2014-15, was

18.3 billion. And we paid 13 billion because 5 billion of the rebate

comes off. It is still enough to give a huge... I just want to hear

what your campaign is actually saying, when people say, how much do

we pay to the EU? Per household, it is around 206 ?2 per household per

year, which breaks down to about 30p per person per day. That is taking

into account yes, that rebate and some of the things we get back, for

example, investment in our poorer regions. ?20 billion for our farmers

are to 2020. Wouldn't we do that anyway? That is an interesting

question for Dann, because I'm not sure that everybody on his side of

the argument would want to... By your logic, basic income tax is

zero, because we get it all back inroads and schools and hospitals.

That is what happens when you start treating it like this. Moving onto

the next question. What assurances would there be that working people

would enjoy the same levels of rights, minimum wager, paid holiday,

maternity and paternity pay, Lucy Thomas? In short it depends on what

kind of arrangement we get. But it really does mean that these things

would be at risk were we to leave. Why would those rights change? Even

if any government would want to introduce that. On the other side of

the Adi Matt, they spend their whole time complaining about employment

rights for people, whether that be maternity rights,

anti-discrimination rules - these are things which are guaranteed by

EU law. And a future UK Government could please side, were they to wish

to do so, to scrap them. But we would have elected that government.

Could you imagine any major political party in this country and

paining to take away paid holiday? Or wanting to reduce it, because the

UK Government, they gold-plated it and added in bank holidays. And that

is actually the piece of EU revelation which SMEs in numerous

surveys have said is the most costly to them.

According to the IFF is, all the savings in the last Parliament saved

?35 billion. During that period, the money given to the EU could have

wiped out all austerities, even given Lucy's number. We legislated

for paid holiday in this country when Chamberlain was Chancellor in

1938. We have 90% pay for mothers during maternity leave, which is

much higher than the EU. The idea that any of this would be at risk is

outrageous scare mongering. Our final question from Alan Carlyle.

Will the UK remain 100% sovereignty if we stay in? What makes the EU

different from every international body in the world, is that it

legislate, creates a new legal order that has precedence over the laws of

the member states. We do not have sovereignty as long as we are in the

EU. That has been the argument all along. It is what makes the EU

different from a co-operative international body which everybody

would support. This is quite an emotive issue. I would say that we

can decide to leave if we want to, we are sovereign. The real question

is whether we control the laws that affect us. It would be interesting

to hear what kind of model Dan would want from outside, would you liked

to be like Norway and Switzerland who accept the majority of laws from

the EU or do they want to accept a trade deal like with Canada which is

overseen by an international court and the single market rules we would

still have to comply with in order to export are still controlled by

the European Court of Justice. Leaving doesn't give you more

sovereignty, it gives you less. Coming to Steve Richards, the rows

between two other roses. Is it illuminating for the public

listening to this? Do you want me to be honest? No. I think the world of

figures highlights, I am a sceptic about referendums in general, I

would prefer them not to be held. One of the problems with them is

that you get a world of figures following everything. I'm not sure

now where the figure lies in terms of our contribution and all the rest

of it. I don't think that is the way that the argument will be swayed. It

will be framing an argument around whether we are better working with

others and that democratic institutions or whether we would

regain control of our own powers and be liberated. That is the framing of

the debate and the economy. I should stress that you are for Remain in

this. Oh yes. People do go with the hunches in this. We look across the

Channel and there isn't a sense that this is a successful project that we

need to be part. There is a world out there where we have friends,

links and language and that is where should be re-oriented.

Yesterday, the party confirmed it had suspended its former welfare

spokeswoman Suzanne Evans for alleged "disloyalty"

Ms Evans, who was on Ukip's list for the London Assembly elections

in May, went to the High Court at lunchtime in an attempt

to overturn the suspension, but lost.

She will now be unable to represent her party.

Well we did ask Suzanne for an interview, but she declined.

Let's listen to her though speaking on the programme last June.

I think Nigel himself has not called to leave the Out campaign.

I think it might be that a figure to lead

the Out campaign comes from outside politics.

Would you advise him not to lead the Out campaign?

I would advise him to take a very significant part in it.

I understand that but as you know, that wasn't

Would you advise him for the greater good of the cause,

from your point of view, that he shouldn't lead

I think Nigel is a very divisive character, in terms of the way

But the way he is perceived as is having strong views

Joining me now is Chris Woods, a Ukip councillor in Hampshire.

Also joining me is the Ukip MEP Diane James. As Suzanne Evans been

suspended for criticising another party candidate, once -- who once

compared, sexual is to Nazis? She has been criticised -- suspended for

a number of reasons. I'm trying to get out why she has been suspended

is one of the reasons is that she attacked this particular candidate?

You are using the word attacked. She made comments. Criticisms? That is

better. She criticised an individual. That individual made

statements that reflected his conscience. She then I understand

attempted to interfere in terms of his placing on the assembly

candidates list and that was a step too far. This candidate is called

Alan Craig, he was a candidate for the London assembly elections. He

says that he can defend himself and there is evidence... What evidence

does he bring to substantiate his claim that he has said that society

is being "Crushed under the pink jackboot". You are focusing too much

on one incident. I don't know the detail on that. He has already

compared, sexual is to Nazis and he now says that we as a society are

being "Crushed under the pink jackboot". How would you defend

that? In the past, where individuals within Ukip have been accused of

making homophobic comments which have brought the party into

disrepute those individuals have been dealt with. We have not

resorted to a candidate on the London assembly deciding to take

matters into her own hands, handling it in a way that did not reflect our

Constitution and rules which led to a panel hearing which led to her

suspension. Nobody should and can awkward take matters into their own

hands. -- can awkward. -- can or could. Why would you have a

candidate like that? That candidate would have been dealt with. Suzanne

Evans has resolved to suspend her member ship of the party for six

months. I don't think there is anything wrong about raising

concerns about a candidate who would say such things as you have quoted.

I would also have concerns. To suspend somebody for six months is

wholly wrong. This was just one example amongst at least four. To

highlight just one is starting to mislead will stop it is in the

public domain. Give me a quick one. Our second-place candidate David

Curtin, effectively, there was an instance of intimidation to get him

to stand down. Suzanne Evans intimidated him? Look at the detail

to establish whether. They didn't get a vote in London anyway and we

should be told by somebody is suspended like this when she is one

of our greatest assets. The public would like to see her reinstated.

Patrick O'Flynn created a petition yesterday and 1600 people have

signed it. Would you get suspended for signing it? I would hope that

nobody would go against a High Court judgment with a petition. My

understanding is that the petition is to raise money for an appeal

which she could have done before the High Court issue was raised. Isn't

the truth of it that she has done two things that are anathema to

Nigel Farage. She described him as divisive and she has joined the Vote

Leave part of the campaign which Nigel Farage things is tantamount to

treason? The criticism of Nigel was over a year ago. If Nigel had wanted

to, I can tell you that this isn't an issue, just supposing he had been

tempted, he could have demoted her at that stage. This is so

conjugated. -- complicated. They're with us. We have a process just like

any party. She has breached Constitution rules. The very purpose

of Ukip was to get a referendum to take is out. We have a referendum

but instead of view fighting the referendum, you are like rats in a

sack fighting each other. We agree with an awful lot. We want to leave

the European Union. We need to when the referendum and work together to

do that. Unless Suzanne had gone to the press, nobody would have known

about it. I would actually say that this is revenge, hell hath no fury

like a woman scorned. How is she? She is lovely. She is a huge asset

to the party. Last night she as to come on and defender -- asked me. I

said no problem. Now yesterday, junior

doctors in England decided to escalate their strike action over

the imposition of new contracts. They announced they would not

provide emergency care during walkouts on the 26th

and 27th of April. The Government described

the escalation as "desperate The new contract will increase

the basic pay of doctors But it will extend their core

working hours, thereby reducing extra payments for working

"unsociable hours". Automatic pay increases linked

to time served will also be scrapped and replaced with a system

based on successful The Government says that no junior

doctor working within the current But that around 1% of junior doctors

who currently work lots of extra However, junior doctors are unhappy

that under the new contract, they will be expected to work more

weekends and that their salaries After talks broke down in February,

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt decided to impose the contract from August

2016 without further negotiation. The BMA has organised a series

of strikes over the contract, but this will be the first time that

doctors have refused to provide emergency care -

they say they have been left with "no choice" by the Government's

refusal to come back And with us now is Dagan Lonsdale -

a junior doctor working So you are desperate and

irresponsible - that is how the Government describes you? I am very

sad that we have got to this stage. Part of the problem has been the

language which has been used by government. Junior doctors and

doctors as a whole would like nothing more than to work with the

Government to produce this seven-day NHS. But we cannot do it without a

full and frank discussion about how it is going to be funded, about the

risks of stretching staff from five days to seven and without a

discussion of the effect on patients. Junior doctors have done

everything in their power to explain to government that they are

concerned about how unsafe these changes are. 10,000 others marched

on the streets of London. 98% voted in favour of industrial action.

Throughout that period the Government described us as

militants, as radicals, and used provocative and emotive language to

describe people who want to care for patients, who want the NHS to

succeed as a world-class health service. But you just said you and

your colleagues are worried about an NHS which will leave residents

unsafe. Is it justified to withdraw emergency care and leave those same

patients unsafe? Let's be clear about what the action is. On the

days of the strikes, for nine hours, the people in the hospital providing

emergency care will be the most experienced, highest trained doctors

that the NHS has, which is consultants. It is the first full

walk-out in the history of the NHS. Many viewers will say, this is a

step too far. That you are taking action which will endanger the lives

of people, whatever and whoever is in the sidelines waiting to step in

of I understand why people will be concerned. I would reiterate, for in

my hospital for example there are 300-plus consultants, the highest

trained people in the NHS. They are more than capable of providing

emergency cover. It will have a knock-on effect on routine

operations and outpatient clinics, and for that disruption I am sorry.

But David Cameron simply needs to step up and show leadership in an

NHS which has record deficits, record levels of A waiting times

and doctors leaving the profession. Needs to engage with the

professionals on the front line. If this is the situation the Government

finds itself in, with junior doctors walking out, emergency care to be

withdrawn, and Jeremy Hunt still saying he is going to impose that

contract, saying that the junior doctors are holding the country to

ransom, is that responsible of a government minister? No government

minister will ever win the popularity stakes. Jeremy must know

who is going to win in terms of PR. So why is he doing this? The answer

is, because it is his job as Health Secretary. Somebody has to be

standing up for the consumer. It is less about the popularity stakes, I

think what the public want is a solution. But the solution has to

involve modernisation, and has to involve a seven-day service. I do

not think the two sides are impossibly far apart, I think it is

regrettable that they are taking this extraordinary step of a full

right. Yes, we need a solution but we know from the Public Accounts

Committee that the seven-day NHS is on costed, as no risk assessment and

no workforce planning. We need to work towards it together. A solution

is what people would like. We have heard that there has not been a

willingness to negotiate. But actually the BMA has not been

willing to negotiate, either. They never want to come on and speak to

us about their position and they refuse to negotiate over Saturday

pay. Are they leading junior doctors down a blind alley? Partly, in the

sense that I am sure the Government is right to want seven-day

provision. And you say you want seven-day provision as well. The

issue is partly to do with resources. I thought it was very

interesting in David Laws' book last week, he revealed that Simon

Stevens, who runs NHS England, wanted George Osborne to commit to

?16 billion of additional NHS spending. Andrew Lansley disputed

that. From the conversations I have had with people at NHS England, it

rings true, that they think that is the kind of money required. Well

Jeremy Hunt is white to push for this, most of us now accept that

weekends, you work, and the rest of it. I know you say you do already.

But there is a big friends, anyone who has been to hospital at

weekends, you must accept. But the Government has moved, offering

higher pay and compensation. Obviously, it is partly an issue of

resources, trying to spread execs existing staff around seven days.

There are bound to be resources issues. And so they have got to find

more money for this service. Proportionately less money is going

into it than Germany, France, Italy. But they are right to push the

seven-day provision. It is obvious, people need operations and all the

rest of it at the weekend. When we think back to the miners' strike,

and how long it went on for, and how desperate it became, is this the

same? Not on that scale. That was totemic in capital letters. With

every respect to your cause, it is not on anywhere near that scale.

David Cameron when he had his first conversation with Jeremy Hunt as

Health Secretary, said, get health of the news, Beacon silly tree. He

has not done that. He did up until about the election. --

all-conciliatory. I don't think anyone could claim that is the case

now. If the Saturday pay issue was resolved, would you go back to work?

I don't think this is about pay at all. But there have been doctors who

have come on and said it was about Saturday pay and the hours and the

compensation you would get for working Saturdays. That's why it is

this feeling that it is wider than just the issue of pay and

conditions? I understand that is the narrative that the Government want

you to believe. Junior doctors have had a ten-15% real terms pay cut in

the last few years, and had our pensions slashed twice. This is

about the safety of our working conditions. It is really important

that we have a contract which appropriately recognises the work

that people do in the acute services in anti-social hours. Not a lot of

people understand that this contract covers 56 specialties, from acute

medicine down to dermatology. If you wrongly set out the contract, then

you will have an exacerbation of the workforce crisis which we already

have, with one in three GPs due to in the next five years, one in three

training places in the north of the country empty, and doctors missing

from rotors up and down the country. Now are you part of the core group,

or maybe core group plus? Neither, apparently,

does Jeremy Corbyn. But here's our Giles to explain

the Labour MP loyalty list that PMQs should have been

a joy for Labour. A cabinet minister resigned

amid severe criticism of a government policy,

a budget U-turn, EU referendum divisions,

more big targets for an opposition Jeremy Corbyn asked, and rightly so,

but was hamstrung by a spreadsheet. We've got core support,

I think you can include me in that We've got core plus -

the Chief Whip is being a bit quiet Mr Speaker, I thought

I had problems! He does - but this list

of Labour MP loyalty, we think written some months ago,

was apparently not the work of Mr Corbyn and his team -

its appearance now has his

supporters are suspicious of why it has just

appeared, but its effect David Cameron should have been

crying over his lunch today. We've had a disastrous week

for the Conservatives. We've seen

George Osborne's political career effectively ended and we've seen

a civil war erupt within somehow, this list has

appeared and has taken the focus completely off

the Conservatives again and let David Cameron completely

off the hook. That really isn't acceptable

and shouldn't have happened. The hostile, you shout,

hostile shout, that's right. Neutral, but not hostile,

you have to be quiet. It shouldn't have existed

in the first place. The fact that it was

then, by all accounts left in a bar for people to find,

I think, is absolutely Every single Labour MP in the Palace

of Westminster today has been Everybody is saying,

I'm on a different place in that list to where people

think I am on the list. And I'm afraid it really

does speak to the heart of the professional effort

which we are seeing now Now, we don't know

who made this list. We also don't know whether

it was made to order. It could have been done

of somebody's own bat. But he is one thing we should

probably all agree on. If you're going to

make a list of names of MPs who are hostile

to the leadership, probably don't, even though it wasn't

this one, leave Good idea never to leave anything in

the pub, I think! Do you know who drew up the list, Steve?

Jeremy Corbyn's office says that he and his office had nothing to do

with it. Do you think that is true? If I were Jeremy Corbyn, I would

want it and I would find it very useful. Rather than be

embarrassed... It is a disaster that it turned up, but I think it is a

sign of new professionalism that they are finding out what the state

of their Parliamentary party really is. If you were leader of this

Parliamentary party, which is inconstant insurrection and fuming

mood against you, you would want to know every... I am told quite a lot

of it is inaccurate. It is out of date, I think. Some of those who are

there as core loyalists are fuming because they have been scheming

against him! One MP said he is not on any of the lists and he says he

does not know if this means a first-class ticket to Havana or the

train to the Gulag. Yes, very ominous not to be there at all! Much

safer to be in the really hostile list or whatever! Look at some of

the names - former shadow cabinet ministers, Caroline Flint, hostile,

Chris Leslie, hostile. Chuka Umunna, hostile. I mean, in a sense it is

accurate, isn't it? I would say that is pretty accurate. I don't think

they would deny it. This is the longer version of what we have just

had with Ukip. I just want to put on the record, Susanne Evans is a great

asset to the Leave campaign. She is optimistic and cheerful. Can I say

one thing about Labour? I need to bring Steve back in. He is the

Labour expert here. I don't know about that. There is a darker side

to some of this. We had a man recently on the programme, who had

briefly rejoined Labour from the far left, who talked about the Jewish

question, Mr Downing. The Jewish question, it was like a real

conspiracy stuff. We have somebody called Marlene Ellis, a Labour Party

member, momentum activist, who has said that Chuka Umunna is, quote,

not politically black. Extraordinary. Who is this woman?

Marlene Eller, a party member and a momentum activist. Not politically

black. What this whole context has done, by the way, I find it much

more interesting looking at the governing party that this stuff,

because you just go around in circles. What this whole thing has

done is, you know, brought back to the four... I saw your interview

with that guy who has now been expelled. Again. And I read some of

the stuff. Part of the problem is that they cannot write, actually.

You have to wade your way through it. 15 seconds. I think this is an

absolute tragedy. We need a serious opposition. We have had a decent

radical tradition in this country. For us to be without an opposition

now is betraying the people. Moral ground! High

There's High just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was about the referendum to find a new flag

c) they will share the Australian flag?

So, Steve and Dan, what's the correct answer?

I hope they have gone for the Kiwi. No, they have stayed with the

existing design! And there it is, they kept with a version of ours.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

I am on BBC One tonight with Michael Portillo,

Chuka Umunna, Isabel Hardman, Maajid Nawaz, Alfred "Pee Wee" Ellis

and Fred Wesley, joining me on This Week from 11.45.