24/03/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles