20/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Another day on the EU referendum campaign trail, another letter


urging voters to back one side or another.


Today, we've heard from a group of former White House advisers.


But this week's also seen some big numbers and big arguments deployed


by the heavy hitters on each side of the referendum debate.


We'll be looking at what's fact and what's not.


This time next week, junior doctors in England will be


staging the first all-out strike in the history of the NHS.


Will doctors or the Government pull back?


From the doctors' strike to the steel crisis to the first


rise in unemployment since last summer -


what will Jeremy Corbyn choose to ask David Cameron


We'll bring you all the action live at midday.


And the public has spoken - in a story that's gone around


the world, an online vote decides that the UK's new polar


research vessel should be called Boaty McBoatface.


But are ministers preparing to overrule the will of the people?


Surely not. I like the name. Is it a boat or a ship? A line that


is where the debate is going to centre.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today, two MPs who would never dismiss


the views of the general public in so cynical a fashion.


At least not in an election year, anyway.


It's the Culture and Digital Economy Minister Ed Vaizey


and the former Labour minister and Leave campaigner Kate Hoey.


First today - what else but the EU referendum?


And it's clearly a week for American interventions in the debate,


because ahead of President Obama's visit, eight former


US Treasury Secretaries have written to the Times saying voting to leave


the European Union on June 23rd would be a "risky bet" for the UK.


David Cameron says it's an "important letter",


of "belittling Britain's place in the world".


You can expect to hear a lot more of this type of thing.


But away from those day-to-day skirmishes, this week has at last


seen the big hitters from each side of the debate answer the public's


demand for facts with some real substance -


JoCo's been keeping an eye on the field of play.


Yes, we've seen some star strikers take to the pitch this week.


Chancellor George Osborne was first, and he kicked off on Monday


with Treasury forecasts that the UK economy would be 6% poorer by 2030


a figure the Treasury says equates to ?4,300 per household.


Leave campaigners were quick to put the boot into that figure,


They also pointed out that the Treasury forecast assumed


that net migration over the same 14-year period would reach


That's 185,000 a year from 2021 - much higher than the Government's


target of "tens of thousands" For the Leave Campaign,


Michael Gove went on the attack with his own figure,


repeating the central claim that the ?350 million spent


on the European Union each week could be redirected into the NHS.


But their figures have also been tackled by their opponents,


who point out that number does not take into account Britain's rebate


on the membership cost and other grants Brussels spends in the UK,


And just to remind you that if you're hungry for more facts


about the debate, you can find out more on


Andrew, we are glued to them. We are indeed. Ed Vaizey, can we


start with something, is the Government claiming that if we leave


the EU, by 2030, each household will be ?4300 worse off? The Government


is saying that the growth of the UK economy would be lower if we let the


European Union, lullaby some 6% and that equates to around ?4000 per


household -- lower by some 6%. If you take it and divided by the


current household in the UK and I know you have an issue with that,


and indeed, the BBC Reality Check does, which is a very good thing,


but... But are you claiming that households will be ?4300 worse off?


I couldn't be clearer in saying that we save the economy will contract by


around 6%, around ?36 billion that we will not grow and that equates to


?4300 per household, it can be loss of income, loss of jobs... You are


not measuring household income in this equation, you are measuring GDP


per household. It is clear in the document that Kate has brought with


her that it is clear to -- equal to ?4300. I have listened to the great


BBC business editor explaining it using the word... But two things are


not the same. 27 million households, GDP is 1.8 trillion. If I do the


same calculation as the Treasury, that gives me a household per GDP,


the income, of 60 7,000. Average household incomes, which measure


people's living standards, ?44,000, they are entirely different. There


are lots of figures that may be confusing the issue. The key point


is that on any scenario you take our position outside of the European


Union, Britain will grow less slowly and be poorer. It is not just of the


Treasury saying that. An independent survey of likely growth scenarios


for the UK economy shows we will be poorer if we left the European


Union. Hold on, hold on, I am not going to let you try and talk your


way out or something. I am going to try! If you wanted to measure


whether households would be worse or better off, you should use average


household income and you didn't. Why not? Because we talked about GDP and


the Treasury is making an estimate across three scenarios. There is


actually a worst-case scenario. I understand that but why didn't you


use the proper measure, which is household income? Well, that is your


assertion. Well can you tell me any other... Hold on. Can you tell me


other project on the Treasury red paper where they use this metric of


GDP per household? The LSE independent report came out in March


which had the same criticism of the BBC Reality Check, which uses... Has


the Treasury used this before? It said the GDP will contract by X,


that is per household... What does this relate to? It may well have


been used in the red book, it may well have been used during Treasury


analysis in the Scottish referendum or looking at other policies, but


the point is, it is very clear what that document says, which is why


Kate has it in front of her. I am trying to work out... Let me ask you


this question. No, I am asking the questions, I am not letting you


answer your own questions. I want you to answer this. If you think


about GDP per household is such an important measure, why did you take


the projected GDP in 2030 and divided by the number of households


today, not the number of households projected for 2030. Because we are


saying it is equivalent to the households today, it is a figure


that brings it in line. You asked me to look at different surveys and how


they are calculated, can you point to any survey, any economic


analysis, independent economic analysis, that says the UK would be


better off if we let the European Union? My fundamental point is that


on a range of measures, and the Treasury has taken a mid-range


measure of a mid-range scenario. If it really wanted to frighten the


horses, it could have taken the WTO scenario. Can we come back and get


some clarity on this? If you are trying to measure GDP per household


in 2030, which, is, as I suggested is a dubious metric in the first


place, why did you use the number of households now, which is 27 million,


not the official projection of households of 31 million? That is a


question you can put the Treasury people who put together but the


point I am trying to make is that every analysis of our position,


whether leave the EU, is that it will grow less quickly than if we


stay. It will cost us, as citizens of the UK, cost us as households.


But when it gets to the detail, it is quite difficult. Let me ask you


one final thing. You use the number of households now, 27 million, but


to get to the GDP for 2030, you assume a huge rise in immigration,


which must mean there will be a lot more households. Why do you assume


that you will break your immigration target in every year for the next 15


years? Well, immigration is one of the key issues that we debate


constantly, but... So why do you break it? There will be a lot of


people coming to live in this country and a lot of Brits moving


out, there are more than a million Britons now living in the European


Union. But you have an immigration target of 100,000, your Government's


target is to get net migration down to 100000 and your projections


assume it rises by at least 150,000, 185,000, every year up to 2030, why?


We have set ourselves stretching targets but this is an economic


analysis based on the current scenarios. So you are going to break


your immigration targets? We haven't succeeded in meeting our immigration


targets. But by having a tough immigration target, we have reduced


the amount of net migration and as you know, a lot of people who come


to this country are students that come to study at our world-class


universities. That is not the argument, you have included them in


your 100,000. Kate Hoey, can you name an independent study that says


we are better off if we leave? Probably not better off. Even one


that says we will be the same? I think we are discussing this, with


the greatest respect, in the wrong way. With the greatest respect, I


think our viewers would like an answer to the question, can you name


any reputable study that will show us better off or even just the same


if we leave? I can't produce a study that says that because what I am


interested in in terms of leaving the EU is the Democratic argument,


and the argument that we will then control the money we are currently


bringing in and I don't feel that all of these different economists...


Look, they can bring out paper after paper and they will all have


disagreements about the long-term effects. So even if we were worse


off, you would want to leave? I don't think we will be because all


of the evidence shows that, as a proud country that is economically


sound, we would be able to trade with the rest of the world and do


equally well. I just don't accept the underlying assumptions... Banks


are a key figure in your side of the campaign. He says that even if the


Treasury figures right and I think, as we have demonstrated, there is a


lot of doubt about it, banks says that ?4300 is a price worth paying.


That is nonsense, I don't know when he said it but... He made a press


conference for the league campaign. Nobody would think everybody being


worse off by 2030 is right. Let's look at the reputable bodies. The


IMF, the IFS, the World Bank, the OECD, the White House, major


financial institutions, they all think it would be bad for us to


leave. Can you name any global institution that thinks it would be


good for us to leave? I'm not sure that any global institution or


certainly any other country... They are all part of this kind of idea


that somehow, it is important to them. America wants, for example, us


to stay in the EU because it suits them. I am interested in what is it


our interests as a country and I'm not going to change my views that we


are better off leaving by discussing what another country thinks. So the


answer is not a single ally that we have, not a single friend of this


country, not a single global institution, favours us leaving the


EU? I'm not surprised that that, because the European Union is an


institution that is fundamentally about supporting and wanting the


global corporations and the big business to do very well indeed, but


I can think of one person who was the ex-Prime Minister of Australia


who very clearly thinks we should leave. Tony Abbott? I am not sure


that is true. He was coming around to the idea that we should stay.


This decision and the boats are not by Tony Abbott. You raised Tony


Abbott? They are not by anybody outside of this country, the British


people will decide and not just look at the detail of this gobbledygook,


an econometric model that is not going to be read in my constituency


or in the housing estates... So your site will not produce an equivalent


scenario? I doubt very much that we want to. To give us an idea of


whether we might be better off? It is not just about economics. That is


what we are talking about because the Treasury report came out.


I think it is John Howard, the ex-Australian Prime Minister who


said we should leave. Thank you. One final question. You are not going to


ask me about gravity modelling Ayew? No, we're not going to look at that.


Last year, the Treasury, at this time, couldn't even tell us


accurately what the GDP for 2015 would be. Why would we give any


credence to what it thinks the GDP for 2030 would be? We live in a free


country, so you can dismiss that document. I put off watching some


excellent BBC programmes last night to read through it. Did you read the


model? It would be important for your viewers, because very few of


your viewers will have seen this. Look at this gobbledygook. This is


meant to be a serious document. Just because you don't understand it,


doesn't make it gobbledygook. Andrew, I know you are one of the


few people who doesn't understand it. I am not an economist. We are


not a free country at the moment because our laws can be overruled by


the Court of Justice and we are subject to majority voting. These


are the issues that matter. When you talk to people, this might have been


done by the Treasury and they spent lots of money and it, but this will


not decide the vote. We will have to leave it there. I think we have got


as far as we are going to get today, which wasn't very far!


But there is time. We can come back tomorrow. With another document?


This time next week, junior doctors in England will be


staging the first all-out strike in the history of the NHS as part


of their dispute over a new contract being introduced by the Government.


Medics will walk out of Accident Emergency,


intensive care and maternity units for the first time -


although consultants, nurses and midwives will still be working.


Well, yesterday, the profession's regulator the General Medical


Council said that some hospitals may struggle to cope and striking


may not be the "right option" in some places.


Let's talk now to Labour's Shadow Health Minister Justin Madders,


he's in the central lobby of the Houses of Parliament.


Jeremy Hunt says an all-out strike which withdraws life-saving care


over a dispute on Saturday pay rates is disproportionate. Do you agree or


disagree? What Jeremy Hunt has got to do is give straight answers as to


whether he has the legal power to impose these contracts or not. In


the Commons on Monday, he was asked five times what is legal powers were


to impose contracts and he refused to answer. His lawyers are using


different words to the one he used the Bisley and he spent thousands of


pounds on another case arguing individual trusts and he is not the


appropriate employer. He is trying to impose something, which


apparently he doesn't have the legal power to. It is within his hands to


end this. Do you agree or disagree, but this all out strike for the


first time in the history of the NHS is a proportionate response to this


dispute? Junior doctors don't want to go on strike, they made an offer


yesterday to get round the negotiating table if he dropped the


threat of imposition. Given he probably doesn't have the legal


powers to impose that contract, I don't know what is stopping him


getting around the table. This name-calling is not doing to reduce


the temperature or resolve the dispute. Will you be showing


solidarity and standing on the picket line with junior doctors


because I'm assuming you think it is a proportionate response? My


presence wouldn't make any difference, there is nobody other


than Jeremy Hunt who can bring this to a conclusion. Is that yes no, you


will be joining them on the picket line? People can make their own


decisions. I will see what I'm next week. We need to see what the


government are doing to resolve the situation. Given we know it seems


unlikely the government can impose the contracts, what have they got to


lose by getting round the table and talking and stopping the strikes in


the first place. You backed the strikes, so why wouldn't you be


joining junior doctors? I am hoping we don't have a strike, I am hoping


there is time to resolve this. There are six days to go, you should be


asking the government what they will do to avert the strikes. They have


sat on their hands for six weeks. I will ask a minister in a minute, but


a former health minister says an all-out strike would do lasting and


irreparable harm to the profession. He said maybe junior doctors will


deeply regret this. Do you think junior doctors should listen to him?


They have two make-up their own minds. What the damage to the NHS is


being done by this current health trust. Worst records for A


attendances. He should be trying to improve the services, rather than


dividing them. In terms of Labour's position on strike action, Heidi


Alexander said she didn't want to see any member of the Shadow Cabinet


on the picket line. But you said individual Labour MPs are making


their own minds up, John McDonnell was on the picket line. John is a


supporter of the trade union, so there is no surprise. Does it help


the Labour Party's position? If there are deaths blamed on the


strike, that could see public support for junior doctors fall off


a cliff and that will drag your party in also? It is more important


what our party is saying. It is critical we try to get a resolution.


That is why I am saying we need to be putting pressure on the


government and Jeremy Hunt to show a bit of humility and get background


the negotiating table. Whether we take an individual position or not


is not helping to resolve the matter. The pressure has to be put


on Jeremy Hunt to come up with some concrete proposals to resolve the


issue. He has done nothing since he announced imposition in February. Ed


Vaizey, if this all out strike goes ahead, as it will be the first time


ever in the history of the NHS, do you think Jeremy Hunt of the BMA


will blink first to prevent it happening? Obviously I hope the


strike doesn't go ahead. We'll Jeremy Hunt be the one who blinks


first? His position is a respectable position. We had in our manifesto we


wanted to introduce seven-day working. There have been lengthy


negotiations with the BMA. We agreed 90, 90 5% of the contract. In terms


of what Jeremy is saying, three quarters of junior doctors will see


their pay increase, no want will see their pay decrease. We have had all


these negotiations but we are in a position where Jeremy Hunt has not


been able to resolve this. There is no whether Jeremy to go. It is a


matter that the junior doctors. I am not sure why they feel the need to


go for an all-out strike. Can you deny a staffing crisis would be


worse in the week with more medics shifted to weekends without any


additional resources. It is clear, if you put more medical resources


and shift them through the weekend but don't add any extra investment,


it will struggle in the week and that is why they are on strike. It


is about reforming the contracts, which Labour have agreed that the


contracts need reforming, they cannot stay the way they were. It is


incorporating weekend working, a seven-day NHS. With no extra


resources. We shouldn't get different care and staff at the


weekend and you get in the week. No one is going to lose money from this


contract. Ed Vaizey, you deflect the core question at the centre of this


dispute. If you have seven days and you shift some of the resources from


the week to the weekend, then you do not make up the shortfall in


resources, there will then be uneven share, doctors are not prepared to


do that. I do not see where this call for extra resources comes from.


From junior doctors. It is simply a renegotiation of the contract to


ensure Saturday and Sunday is treated the same as a weekday. It is


perfectly right. Given the contract was 95% agreed with the BMA, given


junior doctors are not going to lose money, I genuinely, I genuinely


cannot see why in all -- an all-out strike is needed. I worked with


Jeremy Hunt when he was Culture Secretary. I know what he does has


Health Secretary. We couldn't have anyone more committed with the time


he spends in hospitals and talking to people on the front line. Simon


Stephens, a former Labour adviser now chief of the NHS, has worked in


the health arena all his working life. We couldn't have two more


committed people. But it hasn't worked. Are you comfortable with the


idea that some of your labour colleagues are out on the picket


line or supporting the strike in the way they are? I have Saint Thomas 's


hospital just across the road and I talked to my doctors and work with


them. If they are out on strike and will go and talk to them. The


problem is now, we have got to a stage where the Prime Minister,


instead of floating off round the country doing this EU stuff, he


should realise there is a crisis looming next week. He should be


getting involved. I think Jeremy Hunt has lost the confidence of


people. Whether right or wrong, he has lost the confidence of the trade


union and lost the confidence of the ordinary doctors. Therefore the


Prime Minister needs to step in. He should be stepping in now and


saying, this isn't working. Not necessarily sacking Jeremy Hunt, but


him calling it in, having tea and biscuits or what ever they used to


do. Sorry Justin, we haven't got time to come back to you.


Now, minister and Leave campaigner, Michael Gove, is fond of quoting


Robert Burns who once wrote "But facts are chiels that winna


In modern English that means something like "facts are fellows


who will not be shaken, and cannot be disputed."


Whether this week's referendum facts winna ding, we'll


But there is one thing that downa be disputed,


and that's the value of a Daily Politics mug,


which will be just as desirable in or out of the EU.


And just like the Treasury we've even come up with our own


complicated equation to show you how to win one.


Proof if you needed it that our producers are


And if that wasn't entirely clear, to be in with a chance of winning


this week's mug all you need to do is see if you can remember


# This town, is coming like a ghost town #.


I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father.


He didn't riot, he got on his bike and looked for


work and he kept looking till he found it.


# And soon you will find that there comes a time...


MUSIC: "Souvenir" by Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark.


Here is the stuff of which fairy tales are made.


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.


And that means we're just moments away from Prime


Lovely spring day year in London. It is cold. Moan, moan, moan. It is


a beautiful day. And that also means we're joined


by the BBC's political I am very happy with the weather.


What do we think Jeremy Corbyn will go on? I think he will go on


education. Not sure, but a few hints and whispers have reached my ears.


What is going on right now, on the Tory benches, which is one of the


reasons he might raise it is nervousness by the government's


plans to force all schools in England to be academies. Including


primary schools. Another controversial part, which lots of


conservatives are worried about, including powerful bonuses in local


government. If you have a good school that is not a academy, if it


isn't broke, why try to fix it. Why put schools through this upheaval


and reorganisation? Lots of concerns on the Labour benches, the Shadow


Education Secretary has been talking about it. I wouldn't be surprised if


Jeremy Corbyn will talk about that. One of the reasons he may do that is


there is growing concern of the Conservative back benches. A lot of


chatter about a tweak to these plans, if not for U turn. Can they


do a U-turn, wouldn't that look ridiculous? It's not like they


haven't done it before. It is one of the patterns we have seen in this


government, put forward by the government and then dropped. They


don't just tweak, it is gone. The government is not listening, would


change its mind. The government does a U-turn, the government has changed


its mind. Can they introduce some phasing in? It is mainly


Conservative MPs concerned about this because smaller primary


schools, it is ridiculous. They are probably reasonably happy with their


primary schools. Yes, they are working all right. There may be


Conservative ministers. Let's go over to the Commons.


Mr Speaker, this morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues


and in addition to my duties today, I shall have further such meetings


this morning. -- today. On her 21st birthday in 1947, a young woman


declared her whole life, whether long or short, would be dedicated to


the service of our nation. Nobody, Mr Speaker, could possibly argue


that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has done anything other than fulfil


her promise to the nation with dignity and grace. People across the


country will be marking the Queen's 90th birthday tomorrow in many


different ways, many honourable and right Honourable members will have


joined the WRI in the four the Queen initiative, tidying the


neighbourhoods, some will be raising a small glass and many will be


having a proper knees up. So when the Prime Minister next has an


audience with the Queen, will he pass on my best wishes and those...


And those of the whole house. To our remarkable monitor, and long may she




I'm very glad my honourable friend has raised this, I will certainly


pass on his best wishes and best wishes from right across Yorkshire.


Tomorrow is an important landmark, not only for Her Majesty the Queen


but also for the country and Commonwealth as a whole. She has


served our nation with such dignity, with such ability for so many years,


64 years on the throne and I think it is right we will have the


opportunity in the House tomorrow to pay tribute to what she has done and


I know the whole country and the whole house will want to join me in


saying, long may she reign over us. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you


very much, Mr Speaker. I am also looking forward to wishing her a


happy birthday tomorrow. But until then, Mr Speaker, until then, could


the Prime Minister explain why he is intent on forcing good and


outstanding schools to become academies against the wishes of


teachers are parents, school governors and local councils? The


short answer is because we want schools to be run by head teachers


and teachers and not by bureaucrats, that is why we support the policy.


But we also support it because of the clear evidence of academies. If


you look at converter academies, 88% of them are either good or


outstanding and you look at schools started by academies, they see a 10%


improvement on average over the first two years. The results are


better, education is improving, I say let's complete the work. Mr


Speaker, he hasn't managed to convince the former chair of the


Education Select Committee, his friend the Member for Beverly Ann


Holderness, who said, "Current evidence does not approve that


academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children." Why is


the Prime Minister ignoring evidence of select committee chairs and so


many others on this issue? The results speak for themselves. Under


this Government, there are 1.4 million more pupils in good or


outstanding schools, but let me take him to a school near where he lives.


Let's try the downhills primary school not far from his


constituency. It was in special measures, taken over by an academy


and two years later, it was a good school, so the question I would put


to the Leader of the Opposition and indeed so many other MPs opposite,


why do you want to stand on a picket line under a banner saying "Save our


failing schools"? Mr Speaker, as he well knows, every teacher, parent,


pupil wants the best they can get for their schools and they want a


good education system. What many are concerned about is this top-down


reorganisation. If he won't listen to the former chair of the Education


Select Committee, will he listened to his friend the Member for


Colchester, who said this, "If a school is well governed, well-run


and performing well, it should be left alone and allowed to do its


job." Can the Prime Minister explain why good school leaders should focus


their time and resources not on educating children but on arbitrary


changes imposed from above? Let me make two points on the specific


issue he raises. I would say to outstanding or to good schools, they


have nothing to fear from becoming academies, but a huge amount to


gain. The truth is, even about outstanding or good schools, we want


them to be even better and the truth is academies and greater


independence, letting headteachers run their schools, has been hugely


effective and actually, this is something started by the Labour


Government, given rocket boosters under this Government. We have seen


massive improvements in our schools because of academies and we say


let's get on with it, finished the job and give all of our children are


great opportunity. Mr Speaker, I'm sure the Prime Minister is aware of


the views of people in Oxfordshire on this issue. Councillor Tilly, the


Conservative Cabinet member for education in his own county, said,


"I am fed up with the from above", "Saying you will do this and you


won't do that." He claims to be an advocate of devolution so is he not


concerned about criticisms from the Member for altering the sale West


who says there is little accountability or parental


involvement. Can't the Prime Minister understand the anger so


many people feel just being imposed on them, a system they don't want on


what of often already very good or outstanding schools? It is always


good to get a lecture McDevitt lecture on diktats from somebody


who's press secretary is an avowed Stalinist. The truth is, creating


academies is true devolution because you are putting the power in the


hands of the headteachers and the teachers. And of course you will


find people in local Government who want to keep things exactly as they


are, but the truth is, one of the reasons I so strongly supported


academies is that when they fail, they are intervened on so much


faster. Local authority schools are often left to fail, year after year


after year. I think one year of a failing school is one year to many,


so let's encourage academies, let's build a great education system and


let's have opportunity for all our children. Mr Speaker, last week, I


spent a very interesting afternoon at a local school in my


constituency. I visited Duncan primary school and it is a good to


outstanding school and I had a long discussion with the headteacher,


parents, parent - governors and year six pupils. The year six pupils were


very interesting, asking me to say this to the Prime Minister, "Why are


you doing this?" They love their school. They like it the way it is,


they don't want any top-down reorganisation and he hasn't even


convinced the former Education Secretary Kenneth Baker, who says I


don't quite know why the Government is doing this. What is his answer to


those very smart pupils in year six? My answer to those pupils in year


six is very much the answer that he gave, because I was following his


tour of the school and this is what the Right Honourable gentleman said.


"I Want to see a family of schools and I want to see them properly


funded. " with our reform to the formula, there will be fair funding


across the country and with our plans for academies, there will be


genuine families of schools, families that choose to group


together and here is the point about outstanding schools, not only will


they be able to get better but in groups of academies, they will be


able to help others schools to improve, so a game, that is why we


need this reform, to make outstanding and good schools even


better and to help raise the aspiration of all. That is what it


is all about. Mr Speaker, we appear to be heading into some kind of


fantasyland here. The Institute for fiscal is to -- fiscal studies state


that school spending is expected to fall by at least 7% in real terms in


the next four years. It is the biggest cup since the 1970s. So why


on earth is the Prime Minister proposing to spend ?1.3 billion on a


top-down reorganisation that wasn't in his manifesto, teachers don't


want it, parents don't want it, governors don't want it,


headteachers don't want it, even his own MPs and councillors don't want


it. Can't he just think again and support schools and education, not


force this on them? Let me answer his question very directly about


spending, because we have protected spending per pupil all the way


through the last Parliament and all the way through this Parliament and


we are spending ?7 billion on more school places to make up for the


woeful lack of action under the last Labour Government. That is the truth


on spending. Now, he talks about fantasyland. I think it is the


Labour Party that this week entered fantasyland, where they are now


abandoning trident in Scotland, they have selected someone who sits on


platforms with extremists in London and they have now decided that when


I read they were going to ban McDonnell from the Party Conference,


I thought it was the first sensible decision they have made, but it


turns out it wasn't the job destroyer they wanted to keep away


from their conference, it was one of Britain's biggest destroyers. No


wonder Labour MPs are in despair. Frankly, I'm loving it.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask my right honourable friend whether he


agrees with the Treasury forecast issued on Monday, which warns that


if we stay in the European Union, there will be 3 million more


migrants by the year 2030? Last year, my right honourable friend and


I were elected on a clear manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to


the tens of thousands. How are we going to be able to deliver on that


pledge unless we leave the European Union? The point about the Treasury


forecast is it takes the Office of National Statistics' figures and the


OBR figures and it doesn't alter them, but it is trying to make a


very clear and pure argument, backed by the governor of the Bank of


England, that shows what would happen if Britain leads the EU.


There is a demand out there for independent and clear statistics and


that is exactly what the Treasury provided.


It is believed that the recent murder of Glasgow shopkeeper Asad


Shah was religiously motivated and this week, faith leaders launched a


campaign across Scotland entitled United Against Extremism. Will the


Prime Minister join me and colleagues of all parties in


supporting the aims of this campaign to support and foster understanding


and to stand up to extremism? I will certainly join The Right Honourable


gentleman. This was an absolutely shocking murder and I think what it


demonstrates again and what his question hints that is we need not


only to stand up against violence and acts of appalling violence like


this, but we also need to stand up against the extremist mindset that


sometimes tries to justify events like this or other such outrages.


Total agreement with the Prime Minister and the murder of Asad Shah


is just the most recent of sectarian extremism targeting the community in


the UK. This is reports, dear being refused employment, businesses being


boycotted, children being shunned and people working to bring faith


leaders together facing death threats. Does the Prime Minister


agree this is totally unacceptable in a country where we believe in


free speech and religious tolerance and the time has come for all


community and all faith leaders of all religions to stand up against


extremism? I agree Faith leaders can play a


huge role in standing up against extremism, and I welcome what they


do. But the attack on Muslims by other Muslims demonstrates once


again that what we face is not some clash of civilisations between Islam


and Christianity, or Islam and Buddhism. What we are seeing is a


small minority in a great religion in our world, is lamb, believing


there is only one way, our violence, extremist way of professing their


faith. This is a battle in Islam and we have to be on the side of the


moderate and help them win it, otherwise we take the wrong path.


The future of services provided by Paignton hospital has been thrown


into doubt by news that the CCG and local trust are about to launch a


consultation which could see it close with no replacement.


Does the Prime Minister share my concerns and agree it is vital


services are placed and the trust and the CCG are unsupported actions.


I understand no decision has been made. These bodies are clinically


led and I think it is important. Decisions about what services are


required will be taken by that group. If there are significant


changes, they have to meet key tests. Support from clinical


commissioners, public engagements and clarity on the clinical evidence


base and support, all those things have to be satisfied. Mr Speaker,


the air in our cities is both toxic and illegal with diesel fumes


contributing to 800 deaths a week. 40,000 a year. So why is the Prime


Minister, instead of removing the most heavily polluting diesel


vehicles from our streets, lobbying the EU in Brussels with the Mayor of


London, to weaken plans to improve our air quality and save lives? We


are investing in better air quality. Since 2011 we have committed ?2


billion to help us operators upgrade their feet. We have seen her quality


improved in terms of emissions of nitrous oxide is coming down by 17%.


When it comes to these standards we all have to meet, we are working


with our car industry. I want a car industry in Britain. I am proud of


the fact it has recovered so strongly. In the north-east of


England we now make more cars than the whole of Italy. We are going to


make sure they have the resources they need to meet the high standards


that are set out. It is a truth universally acknowledged, that fish


and chips taste test on the beaches of Skegness and that is why 4


million people visit every year. Does the Prime Minister agree with


me, that we should work with the Environment Agency, the local


enterprise partnership, the local councils and builds on the work of


this government that has brought jobs and growth, extend the tourist


season and build ?1 billion coastal economy by the end of this decade?


By honourable friend is right, that is why I announced the 5-point plan


for tourism last year, to encourage people to visit UK resorts, both


from overseas and British people as well. That is what is happening. In


the week where we are supporting fish and chips on this side of the


House, they are banning McDonald's. Mr Speaker, more than 2000 people


have signed a petition started by Alison's chemist in Cockermouth in


my constituency, calling on the government not to cut the funding


for community pharmacists. Given the major reports last week from Bootsy


face investigation by the regulator, isn't it time the Prime Minister and


his government supported independent pharmacies which are vital lifeline


for our community and help to keep the high streets alive? We are


supporting the pharmacies. There is a specific scheme to help will stop


if we look at the massive fire -- last five year there was a massive


increase in pharmacy spending and we have to make sure as much of the NHS


resources go to the front line, nurses, doctors and the operations


and the A we want to see carried out. We have to make sure we are


getting value for money in pharmacies but also protecting the


pharmacies she talks about. Mr Speaker, given his earlier important


comments, does my right honourable friend agree, it is the duty of all


members of this House to condemn, without caveat, all extremism and


never, never to share a platform with any extremist? I think my


honourable friend is absolutely right. If we are going to condemn,


not just by Liz and -- violent extremism, but extremism that


justifies violence in anyway, we cannot back these people and appear


on platforms with them. I am concerned about Labour's candidate


as Mayor of London who has appeared again, and again... The leader of


the Labour Party is saying it is disgraceful. Let me tell him...


Solomon Ghani, the honourable member for tooting has appeared on a


platform with him nine times. This man support IS. Mr Speaker, they are


shouting down this point because they don't want to hear the truth.


Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with. We


are not always responsible for what our political opponents say. But if


you do it time at the time, time after time, it is right to question


your judgment. Mr Speaker, news overnight of a management and worker


buyout at Tata will bring hope the families. It is important UK


Government provides all the supporter can. Will the Prime


Minister become the company's head of sales and meet with Port Talbot's


biggest customers to make sure no orders for Welsh steel are lost? We


will do everything we can to help this company and help it with its


customers during this difficult time. Right now we are talking with


the board of Tata to make sure the questions they need answered, are


answered by us. We want to have a proper sales process with proper


buyers coming forward and we want to be cleared the government is


prepared to support that process and support the outcome. That is exactly


what we will do. The EU security is only as strong as its weakest


border. Does the Prime Minister share my concerns, not only over


Angela Merkel's legitimate and -- legitimisation over the Turkish


leaders speech. Is he concerned currently Angela Merkel seems to be


outstripping everyone in making the case that Brexit. If you are in the


Schengen zone you are only as strong as your weakest border. But we're


not in the Schengen zone. The second point, the Schengen zone has decided


to offer visas to Turkish nationals. We have not made that decision and


we will not be making that decision. At Visa is not a right to go and


live and work reside. The Visa is a right to visit. So let's be clear


also, those Turks with their visas are visiting Schengen countries,


don't have those rights and they don't have the right to come to


Britain automatically either. Important to get back clear. In the


last hour we have had the devastating news that reduce gas


proposed to close a site with the loss of 700 jobs. Will the Prime


Minister in strip his ministers to contact the company and the unions,


and arrange urgent meetings, preferably to save these jobs. If


that proves impossible, to establish a task force to create alternative


opportunities for this loyal and hard-working workforce? I can give


the honourable gentleman that assurance. I heard is new shortly


before PMQs. We will make sure a task force of ministers available to


talk to the company, the local community to provide assistance in


terms of retraining and other things to be done to help. Mr Speaker, Mrs


Thatcher used to organise seminars for ministers and senior academics


for colleagues like myself whose knowledge of modern science she


thought needed to be improved. Would he contemplate similar seminars for


some of his senior and very respect did Cabinet colleagues with


businessmen, on the nature of international trade in today's


world? Because some of their respective figures believe you


simply turn up and sell goods and services that comply with British


made rules, but don't have to comply with any rules agreed with the


country to which you are selling. And would he also include some of


the many businessmen who are cutting investment decisions on hold now,


because of the uncertainty about Brexit after June the 23rd will stop


if we made our whole future trading arrangements with the outside world


as uncertain as some people are trying to do. I always listen very


careful to my right honourable friend and will consider such


seminars. I hope they will never be as frightening as seminars sometimes


used to be under Mrs Thatcher. One of the first times I met her, I was


responsible for trade and industry research. She asked me what today's


figures were, I didn't know. I wanted the floor to open up and


swallow me at that moment. Just because you have friendly relations


with the country, doesn't mean you get automatically good trade


relations. We are very pleased President Obama is coming on Friday,


but it is worth noting, even though we have a friendly relationship with


America, we cannot sell beef or lamb to the United States of America. The


point is, you don't need good relations, you need nailed down


trade relations. Mr Speaker, at the budget the Chancellor announced the


creation of a northern school strategy, which I broadly welcome.


But I am concerned that the progress it could make would be reversed by


the government's forced a cad plans. Why is the government pushing these


plans, which parents in my constituency don't want and plans,


which even a former Tory Education Secretary, describes as a plain daft


and unnecessary? What I said to the honourable gentleman, wake of the


outcome of this review, which the Chancellor sets up. The point is,


some schools that have been failing for year after year have been left


by local authorities in that state. We have found the way to help


succeed schools to fly and for failing schools to improve is to


have academies. The evidence is in front of us and that is why we are


so keen in progressing this. One of the reasons my right honourable


friend led his party to victory at last year's general election, was


the pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can he tell


us why the OBR project immigration to be above 200,000 a year for the


rest of this decade? By what assumptions do they reach this


figure? Can he give some details? The OBR don't take into account the


agreements we have just reach with the European Union over welfare and


other immigration restrictions. The Treasury document is very clear


about not trying to make all sorts of different assumptions by


variables, but to take a very clear set of statistics, established by


the OBR. That is why it was interesting when the governor of the


Bank of England came out and said it wasn't analytically robust process.


It doesn't take into account the agreement we reached in Europe. In


2009, Michelle was brutally raped and murdered in Walthamstow. Since


2011, a man wanted in connection with this crime and seven other


counts of sexual violence in my constituency, has been evading


extradition from India. Over 30 court appearances and another one


planned tomorrow. Yet, despite the severity of this crime and the delay


in these proceedings, there is no record of any ministerial or


diplomatic representations from either the Foreign Office or the


Home Office. Will the Prime Minister today, personally committed to put


this right and directly raised this matter with his counterpart, so we


can finally seek justice for Michelle? I am happy to give the


honourable lady that assurance. The British government is always raises


all these individual cases, if that is what the victims want us to do.


We always raise them, just as we raise a series of cases where there


are British people stuck in the Indian justice system. I wasn't


aware of this specific case, if she gives me the details I will raise it


appropriately. With the president of the United States visiting the UK


later this week, can I ask my right honourable friend to raise the issue


of the islanders. The government concluded in a report last year that


they have a right of resettlement and with the US military presence,


will he raise the case of US assistance for the right of return


to the British Indian Ocean Territory? I certainly will be


discussing this issue. I know it is right right honourable friend raises


it. There are many chip Austrians who live in Crawley. What he said is


not entirely correct. What the National Security Council and the


Cabinet have been doing is looking at the situation of the islanders


and reviewing all of the options for how we can help with their future.


Those discussions have taken place and we need to come to a conclusion


about the best way forward. Some people think the worst case that has


been made so far to vote to leave the EU is the claim that England is


an island. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the worst


argument he's heard from Brexit is? I think probably the one we would


get out of the Eurovision Song contest. Not only would that be


incredibly sad, but given Israel and Azerbaijan and anyone near Europe


seems to enter, I think we are pretty safe from that one. Would my


right honourable friend point out to President Obama, in a series of


European court judgments, such as Davis and Shrems using fundamental


rights, the EU has established its jurisdiction over our intelligence


data and sought to prevent our intelligence sharing with the United


States. Will he therefore warned the president, if we vote Remain, far


from the US gaining influence in the EU, the United States is losing


control and influence over her closest ally. I am sure the


president will take all of these calculations into account before


saying anything. Let me make two points. First of all, this decision


is a decision for the British people and the British people alone. We are


sovereign in making this decision. Personally, I believe we should


listen to advice from friends and other countries. I struggle to find


the leader of any friendly country who thinks we should leave. When it


comes the United States, it is worth looking at what so many Treasury


secretaries have said, going back over a Republican or Democrat


administrations. It may not be the determining factor for many people,


but listening to what our friends say in the world, is not a bad idea.


The average property price in Hackney is ?682,000. The medium rent


for a two-bedroom flat for month is 1500 pounds and overcrowding and


demand for social housing is the highest I have seen in 20 years. Can


the Prime Minister tell my constituents how the housing bill


will help them? It is going to help them because we are building starter


homes for the first time that people come by. We are extending the right


to buy two housing association tenants, so they can buy homes. I


noticed the lady giving us the benefit of her wisdom. Many people


in her constituency would love to buy a council House or a housing


association House. We have the Help to Buy scheme which is helping many


people get on the housing ladder. And with shared ownership, all of


those things will help. Since 2010, 101,000 homes have been built in


London, including 670,000 affordable homes. We need to build many more.


We need to do the right thing and that his side we are on. Prime


Minister, woodland is much valued, not least the recycling much of our


hot air, but especially ancient woodland. There is only 2% of the


remaining. It is as precious as the rainforest and its biodiversity


cannot be replaced. Would the Prime Minister agree this precious habitat


and the Prime Minister has 331 ancient and veteran trees in his


constituency, would he agree it ought to be protected in line with


Heritage sites and national monuments? I am lucky to have an


ancient forest in my constituency, containing many of the trees she


mentions. I will look carefully at what she says. The most important


thing we can do is make sure we are planting more forests, more trees


and woodland, which this government has a very good record on. The


Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently, politics in


Northern Ireland was on a more stable footing than it has been for


some time. We will continue to offer strong leadership for a better


future in Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland are


concerned about a two sided approach to the past to investigate a police


officer who bravely stopped an IRA bomber trying to kill police


officers 25 years ago at a police station. Will the Prime Minister


agree with me, we have to get behind our security forces, praise them for


the work they did in Northern Ireland and not persecute them going


forward? Let me be tribute to the right honourable gentleman and his


Members of Parliament and members of the assembly. It is right to say


politics in Northern Ireland is more stable and is more given our ban has


been for many years. Obviously, issues around the acts of the past


cause pain and difficulty on both sides of the debate. But we have an


independent and impartial justice system. Order.


And as Laura correctly predicted, the Leader of the Opposition went on


academies and education, and all primary schools being made to become


academies. Plenty have chosen to do so but it seems the Government would


like every state school in the country to become academies. All six


questions went on that. He implied there were many education experts,


former Conservative ministers, against the idea and he asked the


Prime Minister to step down on this idea. I think he has asked him to


step down on something else, but not today! But the day is early, he may


well before it is out! And the Prime Minister was robust and his defence


over academies, which will be interesting if, in the end, they do


decide to change their policy on academies. Let's first hear what you


made of PMQs. They responded to the debate around


the academisation of schools in England. J in Milton Keynes says,


just my imagination perhaps but the Tory benches appeared to be


unusually quiet during David Cameron's and sewers regarding


academisation. From York, I want schools to be run


by teachers, not bureaucrats. This was a bit rich for a man campaigning


to allow unelected Eurocrats to run British lives.


In Norwich, Mr Cameron continues to rule over the dispatch box and Mr


Corbyn again goes on the wrong subject. Education, however


important, is not the issue of the day. How about the junior doctors'


strike? And Chris says the knock-about between Corbyn and


Cameron is becoming ever more boring and pointless, the backbencher


questions are often more interesting and challenging and I think we


should give more time to backbenchers. John Burke gives more


time then there has been in the past, but point taken -- John


Bercow. It is almost 20 to one, so he has


allowed it to go over, but the long business about the Queen at the


beginning. I don't think she is watching today, she is out at


Winsley. She normally watches but she is out today -- at Windsor. Do


they not get television in winds are? She is out and about, you are


meant to know that. The Counselor mentioned by Jeremy Corbyn watches.


The issue of academies is a very important issue and Mr Corbyn had


six questions about it. Simply in terms of the process, or in terms of


media management, is there a difficulty when you go with


something that is important but is not on today's agenda or this week


agenda -- this we's agenda Chris Watt doesn't it then struggle to


make the news? It can be a problem and we have seen it with Jeremy


Corbyn before, on days when he has gone on housing, an issue he really


cares about, but it dominates the session and then doesn't go anywhere


else. That could happen with this debate, it is a wider danger, but


what I thought was interesting was that in a funny way, David Cameron


was sending more robust on these plans than Nicky Morgan, the


Education Secretary, has. What Jeremy called and didn't raise the


comments Nicky Morgan made yesterday in an interview to the BBC that


critics have raised important issues, it is legitimate to raise


questions and question the policy. If that doesn't end there will be


changes, I am not sure what is, I don't know if Jeremy Corbyn hadn't


seen the comments and he didn't as perhaps the most pertinent question,


can the Prime Minister guarantee right now there will not be any


changes to this plan at all? I don't think David Cameron would have been


able to. The Government has long been in favour of academies and it


picked up the idea of academies from the last Labour Government and it


puts rocket boosters under it, and they have been expanding at quite a


fast rate, particularly in the second there is for you, but where


did the pressure come from to make all schools academies? It is a good


question, I don't know. I don't know whose idea it was. I think what they


have done is, it is important to put it into context, when they say they


are making all schools academies, it is going to be spread over six


years, and I think the impetus, I don't know which individuals have


pushed it, but as more schools become self-governing academies and


fewer schools are under local authority control, you get a


mismatch where a lot of money is spent on bureaucracy managing fewer


schools and academies have made a material difference to school


standards and therefore a decision will be made, if you have a halfway


house, to go full house. Are you concerned about the way of support


against this idea on the Tory benches? I represent a rule


constituency and all secondary schools are academies and I have


primary schools that are small -- eight to community. If they may go


to MPs and say they are nervous about this but it does not mean MPs


say it must not happen but in terms of what Nicky Morgan was saying,


they will say I have small primary schools that are nervous, they don't


have the necessary resources to handle academisation, can we discuss


the best way? In my constituency, a lot of my schools are becoming


academy trusts and I think it is working very well and I think having


all schools academies will work very well but I noticed my constituents


and dear colleague, Melinda Tilly, was mentioned by Jeremy Corbyn and


she will be furious about that. Even Michael Gove, who was the Radzi


Education Secretary, didn't go for this one size fits all, he was keen


to have a variety of size of schools if the school was delivering and


doing well and the key to all of this is the head and how the school


is run and I can just see that where a school is being run well and there


is a good head that now hanging over them, and I know you say it is going


to take a lot of time, but that is going to weigh down on them and the


rest of the staff and it just doesn't seem necessary. Yes, we all


want to tackle schools that are failing, but to kind of have this


top down... I have had lots of problems with my local authority


but, you know, there are some really, really good schools and you


don't want it all to be the same. Do you have academies in your


constituency and local authority? Yes. Those schools that come under


the local authority, do they really run them now? Ultimately, they still


have control over various aspects, in terms of they make them all come


to various meetings where their heads have to go off and talk about


how they can share things across the authority, that is very good, but it


is not how it used to be. The head has not got the power to make


decisions about how they make changes to their own school. Laura,


do you think they will keep their requirement for parent governors in


school? That was one of the things that also was angering Tory MPs.


There has already been a bit of mood music around that softening up


because the idea of chucking of parents who have been involved in


their children's schools successfully be years seemed to many


people to be going too far, so that may have already been tweaked and


they may have acknowledged they are not going to throw people off, as it


were. But I do think that on this whole issue, there is a bit of a


misunderstanding from a lot of people about how the local authority


role has already changed to become a lot more supervisory. Lots of people


believe in the ideas of academies very passionately, the evidence is


disputed, it is mixed in some places but not in others, but in terms of


the genesis of this, fascinating that Ed Vaizey said he didn't know


where the impetus to force academisation came from. There was a


suspicion when this was announced, just on the eve of the budget, by


the Chancellor, not the Education Secretary, that it was in part to


try to show the Conservatives went all about the economy, not all about


the deficit, they still wanted to have the social reforms, they still


had ideas. And George Osborne wished to be associated with that. For his


leadership bid. Exactly. There is an expectation around some education


experts that this policy would inevitably come in, it has been the


direction of travel for some time but the political timing of when it


actually emerged is significant, so if we review this reform in that


context, if I have to back down, it is a bit of a failure of that


political strategy. Your councillor Tilly, "If it's not broke, don't fix


it. I don't think schools should be force. We have been supportive of


the Government's agenda, we have been helping schools to convert


wherever they could and now all of a sudden they are going to force the


rest of them. It makes my blood boil. I am put in a position where I


can't protect schools. One size does not fit all." Absolutely. Has she


been text in you? Is it a tweet? That is classic Melinda, "Making my


blood boil". She is a very strong minded and highly successful member


of the Oxfordshire County Council Cabinet responsible for education.


She has strong views and has never hidden her strong views on a range


of Government policies. You have quite a few Tories... In what we


could call the rebel quarter on this issue. Tim Loughton, former


education minister. Graham Stewart, Jason McCartney, Will Quinn, James


cartridge, Edward Leigh, Stuart Jackson, Richard Drax, Lucy Allen,


Richard Benyon, Caroline Noakes, quite a lot. And you only have a


majority of 12. More than 12 officially in terms of


the rebellion. It is always interesting with these debates


because on the one hand, people say the Government doesn't listen and it


is a terrible thing and then if the Government does listen and amends


any policy, it is seen as a U-turn. Shouldn't you listen before the


announcement? According to you, a lot of MPs have raised issues. It is


not to say they are opposing academisation and spreading it over


six years, but it is perfectly right that we have a dialogue with any MPs


that raise concerns and they will be reflecting the concerns... Very few


people on many sides oppose academies as such. Mr Corbyn does.


If he had a good one in his constituency, maybe he wouldn't,


London has had fewer than the rest of the country. It is the top down


making it happen, the one size fits all, as Melinda has said. I would


turn it around and say it is bottom-up and academisation is


precisely the opposite of one size fits all because it gives


headteachers the freedoms to drive their schools. We will come back to


this, it is an important issue and only refers, of course, to England,


but that means a lot of schools. I want to quickly say, I think Melinda


Tilly has to come on the Daily Politics after all this. With Ed


Vaizey. I don't think I would survive. It is bad enough, being


destroyed by Melinda would be too much. I think you could cope.


Now, a Conservative MP is warning the Government could face defeat


in the Commons unless it gives way and offers sanctuary in Britain


to thousands of unaccompanied child regugees stranded alone in Europe.


Heidi Allen claims another 30 Tory MPs are "waiting


to be convinced" ahead of a vote next week.


The government's position has so far been that it's better to help


vulnerable people from camps in the affected regions and avoid


providing incentives for migrants to attempt the journey to Europe.


And Heidi Allen joins us now from Central Lobby.


Heidi Allen, is there any indication that the Government is going to


shift ground on this? Well, I am hoping so, yes. We had a Westminster


Hall debate yesterday morning and James Brogan shar spoke very


positively that an announcement would be coming in the coming days


but we are desperate to hear the content, because so far we have


seen, from our point of view, not as much assistance to children in


Europe already as we would like, so we are waiting to hear what he will


say. He has, as immigration minister, said the Government will


be looking to do more but it is the central issue of whether the


Government would actually change its mind in terms of helping


unaccompanied children that already are in Europe, when it has


repeatedly said no, we will focus effort and perhaps more effort on


dealing with children and families in refugee camps in countries like


Jordan. That is right. It still remains the


right thing to do. That way I look at it is, nobody would argue leaders


across the world were slow to react to this. It is a great plan, educate


the region, but the plan came after so many people made the journey


already. I saw the boats for myself in Lesbos, you don't want anybody


getting into those. But the fact remains, some of them are here.


Three weeks ago I was in Calais. There are children who are totally


vulnerable. No safe guarding. Are we going to look at ourselves in the


mirror and say, they can stay there. It is not good enough. What about


incentives? They are here already, what the government keeps stating


that by taking and agreeing to take a certain number of those


unaccompanied children in Europe, it will only tempt more people to make


the journey? But there are so many of them who have a genuine right to


claim asylum here. When I came back from Calais three weeks ago, the


first Syrian refugee boys who had made it through the process, they


were with us. But there was no room for the fourth one in the car and he


was sent back to the jungle to wait for another month. So it is the


processing and the mechanics, there are children out there already with


family in the UK and Europe and we have the ability to facilitate that


more quickly. I don't agree with the arbiter in number of 3000. But if we


can say if we don't have processes in place at the right locations to


identify these children at risk, the number becomes arbitrate. But we


need to see action on the ground. Ed Vaizey, should we move on this? I


cannot say if the government is going to move. The minister is


giving evidence to the home affairs select committee. He has indicated


he is taking this seriously. I would echo what Heidi said, on the one


hand we have a robust policy, which is to help people in the region, to


take specific people we can into the UK, but not to help the human


traffickers, as it were. You know we have an outstanding record in terms


of the financial support as well, both to the Mediterranean rescue


operation and Syria. But people feel strongly about this. It is a


horrible thing to have to talk about, but all factor. But that has


to be a potential factor because a lot of people are coming here via


criminal gangs and it is important there is a clear policy. Heidi, in


terms of support, are there enough Tory MPs to defeat this? Why all


these things, it hinges on the announcement James is able to make.


He talks to me and colleagues on a regular basis. It is within his


power, it depends on what he's going to announce. Something else perhaps


we don't think about, the other all factor is a nasty one and that is


the pull factor of abuse and trafficking of children being put


into prostitution. Because they are left there? Yes, it happens, I talk


to the doctors at Medecins Sans Frontieres, the injuries they


sustained, it is awful. Heidi Allen, thank you very much.


Now let's talk about one of the biggest democratic


Or indeed the results of our Guess the Year comeptition.


No I speak of course of the online poll held to choose a name


for the UK's new ?200 million polar research vessel.


More than 120,000 people wanted it to be Boaty McBoatface. But it looks


like the government might step in to thwart their democratic will.


It's the ship that launched a thousand smiles.


The Royal research ship, due to be built by 2019,


will be used to study the Polar regions.


They asked Britain what we should call it and Britain spoke.


Yes, the minister in charge didn't like that idea.


It's not a duck and it doesn't have a daft name,


We have a link of Shakespeare and heroines.


We ask our staff first for a short list.


And then we iron out any embarrassing situations.


She drowned, so that wouldn't be good.


Boaty McBoatface, that is a lesser-known Shakespearean


character from the Scottish play, I believe.


But I think it would fall beautifully within


But back to the Polar explorer, a case of a rose by any other name?


Let's name this boat Boaty McBoatface and let's see it


as a monument to minister or folly, and a lesson


to all those in positions of authority in ministries.


For goodness sake, if you're going to try a bit of Aye democracy,


The man who used to be in charge of the British Navy sort of disagrees.


I think Her Majesty, although inwardly, she will be


amused at the whimsy of the British nation,


it will be difficult to say the words.


"I name you Boaty McBoatface, God bless you and all


The Queen may also have trouble with the other


suggestions like 'Usain Boat', 'Boatimus Prime' and 'What Iceberg'.


The moral of this story - if you're asking the public,


There we go. Should it be called Boaty McBoatface? Whatever happens,


it will be called that by the public. Maybe 20, 30 years' time,


people will have no idea why it is called that. I agree, one you start


this, democracy is all right, but once you start asking... Be careful


what you say, Kate. Some suggest as it is a polar ship it should be


called What Iceberg. What is your view on this, Ed Vaizey. Trust in


politics is going down, we should go with the will of the people. Joe


Johnson said it was stupid to call it that. As we get more involved in


the European Union, eventually the Brussels bureaucrats will abolish


the British sense of humour. This will be a great memorial. You have


just handed Kate right line. In that one sentence you have annoyed Joe


Johnson and annoyed the Chancellor, joining sides with Kate Hoey. What


about Ice, Baby Ice. Ice, Ice Baby. On that shock moves, they are split


on the issue of Boaty McBoatface. Let's give put you out of your


misery and give you the answer to Guessed The Year. It was 1981. Well


done Kenny McGrath. The royal wedding was the giveaway. The one


o'clock News is starting on BBC One. We will be here at noon tomorrow


with another edition of your favourite Daily Politics. We hope


Her Majesty will be back from her parameter elation is. Until then,




Download Subtitles