27/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The Labour Party is facing a fresh row over anti-semitism after one


of its MPs posted controversial remarks about Israel and the Jews.


Naz Shah has apologised for Facebook posts she made before becoming an MP


supporting the deportation of all Israeli Jews to America.


She's stepped down as a Parliamentary aide to the Shadow


Junior doctors are staging their second all-out strike -


walking out of routine and emergency care.


But the Government insists it won't back down.


So there's plenty for MPs to quiz the Prime Minister on.


We'll have full coverage of PMQs at midday.


And, while we're on the subject of PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn said


he wanted to make the weekly bout less confrontational.


All that in the next hour and a half, and with us for the whole


of the programme today the Shadow Energy Secretary Lisa


Nandy, and the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox.


Both Lisa and Liam have been tipped as future


Although, now I've said that, it probably won't come to pass!


However, without wishing to go too far, the next 90 minutes could play


a key role in shaping the future of British politics...


junior doctors in England have begun their second


Once again senior doctors and other medical staff are having


Junior doctors are staging the walk-out over the imposition


Ministers say the change is required to provide safe


Let's talk now to our Health Correspondent Smitha Mundasad


who at St Thomas' Hospital in central London.


The second day, and is the atmosphere and resilience the same


as yesterday? The picket line behind me with a drum out here today, and I


have been told that there few doctors on the picket line today


that -- but the passion is still running high. The message is the


same, that the contract is not fair and they will not accept it. The


Department of Health have said that around 78% of junior doctors did not


turn up for work yesterday which could be around one in five crossing


the picket line. What has the impact been? Hospitals around the country


have told us they coped very well. Some said that their accident and


emergency departments were less busy than usual and perhaps the public


heeded warnings not to come in unless it was a genuine emergency,


but the question remains today whether more patients will turn up


and the really big question is where both sides go from here. It feels


very much like neither side is budging from their sticking points.


Are they saying, the doctors you spoke to, that they would consider


an indefinite walk-out if the government does not give in to their


demands? They have been saying that all options are on the table. Some


said to me that they brought their babies with them on the picket line


and said, look, I have a family to think about and I don't know what to


do if his contract lands on my door. Others say they might go abroad.


Scotland and Wales are not imposing the contract, and there has been


some talk of indefinite strikes, but hospital managers, one I spoke to


yesterday, he said he did not feel the NHS could cope with an


indefinite strike. The truth is that junior doctors have had to rely on


the goodwill of senior staff to cover for them, and the question is


how long will the goodwill stretch. Thank you very much.


Liam Fox, used to be a doctor. The health service is already stretched


doing what it does at the moment. How can you go to a seven day per


week all up service with no more money? This has been one of the


things that has come the entire dispute. --, located the entire


dispute. It is not really defined in what the seven-day NHS was. Are we


talking about a seven-day emergency NHS where we think it is patchy and


needs improvement? We have always had a seven-day NHS, but are we


talking about a seven-day elective NHS that does everything on a


Saturday and Sunday, which you cannot simply deal with with more


doctors because you need the ancillary and support staff. I have


been asking questions about this and the Secretary of State has made it


increasingly clear that we are talking about an emergency service


and it shouldn't be that difficult to implement if you are just


improving what we already have got and you are not moving to a full


service. Are you saying that the government policy, as you understand


it, is simply to provide better emergency cover? It already provides


emergency cover at weekends. Are you saying the policy is simply to


improve the scope and level of emergency cover? And to improve


access to general practice. It's a different concept to move into a


full elective service. What underlies this dispute is this


misunderstanding about what it is we're trying to achieve. Greater


clarity is setting out the policy from the outset, that would have


been helpful. But to be fair, on the other side, we need to have an


understanding that this is about pay and conditions and I don't believe


any dispute about pay and conditions justifies putting patients at risk.


Perhaps if the government had given more clarity, she said, from the


start, we wouldn't be where we are now. Even if we had that, we still


have the dispute about pay and conditions. There is another problem


and we have to be frank about it, the NHS has had not enough doctors


since its inception. The problem is exacerbated now by the fact that you


have more elderly patients with more comics medical needs and you require


more doctors to just stand still, as you were, in terms of the quality of


patient treatment and we have to accept that we have a finite budget


and we have to decide what the priorities are. We need a proper


grown-up debate in this country because what medical sciences able


to do is growing exponentially. Even if we are giving a substantial


increase in funding we need a much better quality debate than we get in


this country. Lisa, am I behind the curve, or is what Liam Fox said News


to you as well? That this is just down to providing better emergency


cover at weekends? It was news to me because this has changed over the


course of the last few months and is changing it seems on a daily basis.


The point Liam made was important because it's not clear what the


government is now imposing on junior doctors. Because it's not clear what


they are imposing it is not clear what the impact will be on them and


patient safety. That is why we said earlier in the week, backed by the


Royal colleges, that they should be piloted in a number of trusts and we


could see the impact. Any sensible government would do it. We did it


when we brought in a new covenant -- when we brought in a new contract.


We shall see, it is an ongoing dispute.


Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West,


has stepped down from her role as a parliamentary aide to


the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell after controversial Facebook


comments about Israel were unearthed.


Miss Shah has also apologised over the Facebook post from 2014


in which she called for Israel to be relocated to the USA.


In August 2014, Naz Shah shared a graphic showing Israel's outline


superimposed onto a map of the US with the comment "problem solved".


And the following month she shared an image of a man


with a number around his neck with the words "Never forget that


everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" and the hashtag


Yesterday the Bradford West MP,


who was elected in May 2015, resigned from her position


Ms Shah said: to shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.


Well, we asked Naz Shah for an interview but she declined.


We also contacted John McDonnell's office.


to the statement he made yesterday saying he had accepted Miss Shah's


resignation as his parliamentary aide.


We also asked the Labour Party for a statement.


Why has the whip not been withdrawn from her? My understanding is that


Naz Shah has been called in to hold her to account for the comments she


posted there and I think it's the right thing to do. Hold her to


account? Do you expect her to have the whip with withdrawn? We have a


policy in the Labour Party that people who make anti-Semitic remarks


are suspended and an investigation is carried out. I don't want to


pre-empt the outcome of the conversation that Jeremy is about to


have but I have made clear my view to the office that the policy should


be followed without exception. You would say that quite clearly those


anti-Semitic remarks, never forget that everything Hitler did in


Germany it was legal, with that hash tag. We heard views from the Jewish


community today who found the remarks offensive. Do you not find


them offensive? I do, and I think it was wrong to share those posts on


social media and I think she was right to resign and apologise.


Resigning as an aid is not the same as being suspended from the party.


The party has suspended other people for saying similar things, so why


are they not using that zero tolerance approach with an MP? I


agree with you and I made that clear to the leader 's office this


morning. As Louise Ellman, one of the most high-profile Jewish MPs


said in the media this weekend, the vast majority of members of the


Labour Party are not anti-Semitic and Avevor these views. It is really


important that we make that clear to the country and give the Jewish


community and the rest of the country the confidence that we take


it seriously. This is a statement that has come from the Labour Party.


What Naz Shah did was offensive and unacceptable and I have spoken to


him -- her and made it clear. These are historic social media posts made


before she was a member of Parliament. Naz Shah has issued a


fulsome apology, she does not hold these views and accepts she was


completely wrong to have made these posts. The Labour Party is


implacably opposed to anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. That


doesn't look like she will have the whip withdrawn. All I can say is


that when I spoke to the leaders offers this morning they said she


was being called in to see Jeromy personally and he was handling it


personally, which is right as the leader of the Labour Party. Do you


think she should have the whip withdrawn? I've made clear my view


on the leader 's office that we should suspend anybody who makes


anti-Semitic remarks in line with our policy and investigate. I don't


want to pre-empt the outcome of it an investigation. We know this


morning that she apologised and her local synagogue came out in support


of her. It's right we look at the circumstances of what happened but I


think the policy is clear, though we suspend and then we investigate. If


the party does not move swiftly to deal with this, or certainly in the


same way as they did with other people, and they say they are


implacably opposed to anti-Semitism, it will leave the impression that


they don't actually follow through on an issue that they say they are


against. I think that's right and I think that is a problem for the


Labour Party if we don't look like we are taking these things


seriously. But what I would also say is that it's not just about the


impact on the Labour Party. There is also a question of what is the right


thing to do, and the right thing to do is to do a full investigation and


make sure that we do not tolerate anti-Semitism in our party at all.


You have said she has apologised for these posts, she has and she says


that that is not her view, but it clearly is what she thinks otherwise


she would not have shared her posts. You could argue that she has just


been rumbled. I can't get into saying what somebody thinks. I think


the apology was right. I think it is wrong to share those posts and I


think they were very offensive. The question is what happens next. The


key thing is that there must be an investigation and we have to make


sure we are not just saying that we are opposed to anti-Semitism, but we


are acting on it. The Shadow Chancellor said in a recent article


in the Independent, out, out, out, that is how people with anti-Jewish


views are dealt with. If people express these views, they are out. I


am taking a harder line, he says, than the leadership so far because


people might say I have changed my views and will do something in


another organisation. So he does not believe people change their views.


He also said in the interview that people who make anti-Semitic remarks


should be excluded from the Labour Party for life, which is further


than our stated policy. Do you agree with him? I don't know if I agree


that people should be excluded for life because I think you have to


give people a chance to say sorry and change and amend for what they


have done. But what I would say is that there has to be a suspension


and an investigation when something like this occurs, because it is so


serious and it does have such a knock-on effect on people outside of


Parliament in the real world. Liam Fox, anti-Semitism is not just


particular to the Labour Party. It is an issue that other parties have


dealt with as well over the years and decades. Do you think that


Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are sending a clear enough message? I


think there are a number of issues. I don't think it is whether you


share the posts but whether you share the sentiment behind them or


whether you write them. That's one thing. Another is that these were


done before she was selected and elected so there are questions of


process here. How does this simply not get picked up in advance of an


election, that a candidate is allowed to stand having these things


out there on social media? And I think there is a wider problem. Alex


Chalmers, who was the chairman of Oxford University Labour club, who


resigned because he said there was a problem with anti-Semitism there...


If that's happening at Oxford University Labour club, you would


suggest it was a wider problem. So I think it is absolutely essential


that a clear line is taken by the Labour leadership. Ever get us the


withdrawal of the -- I think it has to be withdrawal of the whip. I


think the problem here is that sympathising with the views, not


necessarily the timing of the event. I think you're wider point is


important because the Labour Party, the vast majority of members in the


Labour Party, are not anti-Semitic and a poor those views. But


anti-Semitism is found in every institution and every part of


society and it's important that none of us are complacent. There's a lot


of them coming out of the Labour Party at the moment, though. There


have been a number of incidents in the last few months.


And a number of suspensions. What is going through somebody's mind when


you post "Let's not forget everything Hitler did was legal"?


Some of the things that you see on social media are unbelievable. But


she's an MP. She wasn't an MP when she posted them but I'm not saying


that excuses. Eyes up is the criticism is, is the Labour Party


being reactive rather than proactive?


-- I suppose the criticism is. So, the referendum


campaign is hotting up. And what would normally be fairly


dry stories suddenly This morning new figures show


a slight slow-down in economic growth in the first


quarter of this year. The Chancellor, George Osborne,


says "the threat of leaving the EU It's the latest salvo


in the campaign, so, Jo, bring us up Earlier this month, the Treasury


released analysis in which they claimed leaving the EU


would cost British But Vote Leave called the study


"completely worthless" and said the figures didn't add up,


because they equated household Then last week, US President Barack


Obama arrived in the UK to issue a warning on future


US-UK trade deals. He said Britain would be


at "the back of the queue" when drawing up future trade deals


in the event of a British And Mayor of London Boris Johnson


got himself into hot water after arguing the President's


"part-Kenyan" ancestry may have led to a "dislike of the British


Empire". On Sunday, Home Secretary


Theresa May made her first should remain in the EU,


but admitted free movement of people makes it harder to control


immigration to the UK. And on Monday, leading Leave


campaigner Michael Gove launched a campaign arguing Britain will face


a migration "free-for-all" unless it Thanks, Jo Co. Liam Fox, the OECD


this morning, probably the most famous international think tank, has


now said that incomes in Britain will be hit if we leave the EU. So


we've now got the OECD, the IMF, the IFF, the World bank, six US former


Treasury Secretary is all saying roughly the same thing. What


international think tank still you have in your side? It's a question


of why they are saying these things and the assumptions that they are


making. I think they are making many of the wrong assumptions. If you


look at the Treasury's on report, for example, it assumes that we


wouldn't have any bilateral trade negotiations that were successful in


the opening period. It doesn't take into account the cost of regulation


on British industry and the fact that we could be freed from some of


that. So I think you have to look at the wider picture. I think that


today's figures that Jo was referring to are very interesting.


At one set annual growth, the Treasury would normally be saying,


"That's wonderful". -- at 1% annual growth. We have these strong


disruptions on the international stock markets so that's quite a good


figure. I'm afraid that I think this rather childish obsession with


blaming everything that we have in our economy on the European


referendum doesn't wash. First of all, it was too far back and wasn't


really affected by this. I understand that but let's come back


to my question. Are you saying that you are right and the IMF, the IFF


this, the World bank, the OECD, the US Treasury are all wrong? They all


said we would benefit from being the exchange rate mechanism and they


also will benefit from being in the euro and I we didn't listen to them.


So you are right, a graduate of medicine from the University of


Glasgow, and all these people - the IMF, the IFF is, the World Bank, the


British Treasury, the US Treasury - are all wrong? I think they were all


run on the euro. I think if we had followed their advice and we'd been


part of the single currency, we'd now be facing what's facing many of


the economies in Europe. The fact that we stayed out of that project


was against all of the advice we were getting at the time and thank


goodness John Major took that decision. So why hasn't Vote Leave


managed to come up with a reputable and independent think tank or study


that makes the right assumptions and shows the opposite of that? There


was the open Europe report on it, Roger Bootle's report on it. Roger


Bootle is a pro-leave economist. And these are anti-leave economists. So


you can't say it's wrong to be an anti-BV economist because you are


part... I would say open Europe is a fine think tank in this city. I


would say it is not quite on a par with the IMF, the IFF is, the World


Bank and the OECD. Excuse me if I'm not a great believer in the IMF's


editing capabilities because back in 2013 the Chancellor was up in arms


about them talking about how wrong we were to carry forward are sturdy


programme. Six months later, they were revising to radically upwards


are growth figures because they realised we'd taken the right


decisions. They wanted us to join the single currency. We didn't do


that. They have a very pro-European outlook. I don't say that they're


wrong for doing that, I just think it's wrong for the UK. Lisa Nandy,


doesn't Liam Fox make a decent point? I was looking back of the


OECD's record. The OECD recommended that we should join the European


exchange-rate in the 90s and it turned out to be a disaster, and it


advocated that we should, in 1999... It didn't just say we should


consider joining, it said we should join the euro. If it was wrong on


these two massive things, why should we listen to it now? You don't have


to listen to them if you don't want to. You could listen to Barack Obama


and the US Treasury Secretary, you can listen to our Treasury, you


could listen to a whole host of ignite experts, including the Bank


of England, who are all saying the same thing. The Bank of England has


been quite... It is only stored about short-term. The EU referendum,


they think, will have a damaging effect on investment. You could


listen to any of those experts if you want. You don't have to listen


to the OECD. I don't agree with Liam. I remember when we were having


the debate about whether to join the euro and you could actually find


credible economists on both sides of the argument but what we are seeing


with this... All these groups were on the wrong side of the argument.


But it's really difficult to find anyone credible in economic series


prepared to back your case and I think British people need to think


about that very carefully in advance of the referendum because this is a


really big decision that has gone to have a huge impact on our economy.


Other than Roger Bootle, do you have people, credible in economic, who


are on your side? I think there are people from the Mayor's financial


adviser, who is a senior figure in the city, who has made an analysis


and said that the City of London Police letter. You have to look at


it in the wider context. First of all to take up this point about our


own Treasury, our own Treasury were make this prediction in this report,


which takes is 14 years ahead and without being disloyal to my


colleagues in the Treasury, let's face it, they've got both the


deficit figure wrong for this year and they got the growth figures


wrong for this quarter. So prediction is a very dangerous thing


to do. And I think it is important to see things in the wider context.


We have a wider debate here than just this narrow element, because


there's an element... I want to be in the EU and I've made it very


clear because I want to get control of making our own laws. -- I want to


leave the EU. These are huge issues. If you take one of them... You don't


have greater control by stepping out of the European Union and refusing


to actually take collective action on the big issues. Our financial


service industry, which was the one that people said would be most


attractor uncertainty over the referendum, has actually been the


strongest part of our growth in this quarter. So it doesn't actually add


up to all that that is causing uncertainty. What you're saying


really doesn't make sense. The argument put forward by the Bank of


England on this is that it will choke off investment because of the


uncertainty created by the referendum. Companies are delaying


decisions to invest and that long-term there will be an impact


because of investment and trade. We are still getting more investment


than any other part of the EU. Why are we getting more investment? If


it's just being part of the EU, why are we getting so much of it in


Britain? Let's leave that question. We could but we won't.


David Cameron's inner circle have been accused of getting


round transparency laws by using a secret WhatsApp group.


His aides and ministers are said to be using the messaging app


Unlike e-mails sent on Downing Street computers, WhatsApp messages,


which are encrypted, cannot be released under Freedom


Now, we'd like to remind anyone in Number 10 who wants


to enter our Guess The Year competition that you can't


secretly enter via WhatsApp, you have to e-mail us.


We're nothing if not transparent here at the Daily Politics.


So to be in with a chance of winning this week's mug all you need to do


The idea that extending it from 28 days to 42 days is going to make a


# Should I give up or should I just keep chasing pavements?


What if it's Andrew Sachs's answerphone?


MUSIC: Hero by The X Factor Finalists


The Prime Minister has asked me to come back.


# You don't have to be afraid of what you are


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address - that's


Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.


That's bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics


We'd better not set up a secret WhatsApp group!


I already have. Yes, Prime Minister's


Questions is on its way. A lot going on again. The OECD


report this morning. Is Mr Corbyn going to surprise us? I think there


might be a surprise in that little bird has suggested to me that he


might, again, go on the issue of forcing every school in England to


become an academy. Didn't he do all six questions on that last week? He


did all six questions that last week. Since then it's an issue that


continue to be difficult for the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.


She had a pretty bloody exchange at the dispatch box with problems being


put forward by her own MPs and has been suggested to me that Mr Colburn


might decide to do that again. As ever, I would put a big caveat on


that and if he doesn't, it was only a little tip, but I think you might


do that. It's interesting because I think Labour believes genuinely that


they are onto something with this, partly because there is a real


unease among some of the Tory benches, among Tory local


government, and we know already there are going to be two to this


plan. Not a big climb-down but we know there are tweaks on the way.


Talking to some Labour MPs, they were saying it's quite a big issue


in Westminster but it's not a huge issue in the country. It may well


not have cut through. It's the kind of issue that you think might become


a big issue in the local elections next week, of course. We've got the


biggest, most compensated set of elections we've had for some years,


in fact the biggest set of elections will have in this Parliament, but it


doesn't seem really, and you don't hear from MPs that it's happening on


the doorstep, but it seems that Jeremy Corbyn has fixated on this.


And he did well last week so maybe that's why he's returning to it. It


is also des two of the junior doctors' strike. It was interesting


that Jeremy Corbyn and Madonna chose to go to some of the strike sites


themselves. There was an alternative. The pilot scheme is


something he could urge, which would resonate with the voters more than


another round. Yes, Heidi Alexander, the Shadow Health Secretary,


together with syllable Democrats and a Tory backbencher, a forward


doctor, put forward the idea of trying out the new contract in some


hospitals, which was dismissed by Jeremy Hunt. Would I be right in


thinking Mr Camara will try to work on something on the anti-Semitism


row? It would to practice -- surprise me if he didn't. There is a


Leicester there from Oliver Downes, so you would think it would be


something he would raise. Indeed. David Cameron is always very well


prefer prime and it is questions and armed with a list of things to choke


back, not just a list of questions you expect to come along. This is a


big issue for the Labour Party. It has been very controversial, it has


become a problem for them. We've seen that with Jeremy Corbyn having


to respond to it himself this morning. He's been accused of being


too slow to respond to these problems previously and it may well


be in any case that there should be a suspension and an investigation.


Naz Shah has had to stand down from her job working for John McDonell


but she is still there in the party. And that may not be the position by


the end of today. It may not run but there is going to be pressure on the


Shadow Cabinet members liked Lisa, saying maybe there should be a


suspension. Is there a head of steam building up to suspend the whip from


her? What we've seen on previous occasions like this... In the end,


that's been the position, whether it's been local councillors, there's


had to be a suspension on exclusion. It may well be that because of other


events today in Westminster, the story sometimes fades away. That


happens, too. Don't forget after Prime Minister's Questions, there


will be a very serious and, I think, well attended, probably quite


compelling debate, on the Hillsborough inquest yesterday. So


in the way of these things, for good or for ill, in Westminster sometimes


stories fade away, literally because a bigger thing comes along. But I


think there is going to be pressure on Labour to take more dramatic


action against Naz Shah, at least for the coming time. We should say,


she's been clear that doesn't hold those views any more and it was a


mistake. We will leave it there. Let's go straight over to the


Commons. I would like to associate myself


with the Prime Minister is important comments on the Hillsborough tragedy


along with members on all sides of the house and pay tribute to the


victims, their families, and the resilience of the campaigners who


continue to strive for the pursuit of justice. In my constituency of


easterly service the GPs provide is crucial to people's daily lives, so


does the Prime Minister agree with me that recent key announcements of


?2.4 billion of funding for GPs is only possible because there was


strong, Conservative majority government. My honourable friend is


absolutely right. We made a choice to put ?12 billion into the NHS in


the last Parliament, 19 billion into the NHS in this Parliament, and we


need to see strengthening primary care. Our vision is GPs coming


together and having in their surgeries, physiotherapists, mental


health practitioners, other clinics so people can get the health care


they need and we take the pressure off hospitals. That will only happen


if we have a government that keeps investigating -- investing in our


NHS. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, after 27 years, the 96


people who tragically lost their lives at Hillsborough and their


families finally received the justice they were entitled to. I


welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has apologised for the


actions of previous governments and I join him in paying tribute to all


of those families who campaigned with such dignity, steadfastness and


determination to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones on


that dreadful afternoon. I also paid a very warm tribute to my friends,


the members for Liverpool Walton, Holton, Garston and Halewood, who


have relentlessly campaigned with great difficulty over many years. I


hope the whole house today will be united in demanding that all those


involved in the lies, smears and cover-ups that have so bedevilled


the whole enquiry will now be held to account. Last week, the Prime


Minister told the house that he was going to put rocket boosters on his


forced canonisation proposals. This weekend, in the light of widespread


unease, it seems the Weald are falling off the rocket boosters, and


the government is considering a U-turn -- the wheels are falling.


Can the Prime Minister 's confirm whether the U-turn is being prepared


for not? First of all let me join the Right Honourable gentleman in


praising those who campaigned so hard and so long to get justice for


the victims of Hillsborough. This whole process took far too long but


I think it is right, and I pay tribute to the honourable member


that we had that Jones report and responded to it, and I also want to


mention the former Attorney General who took the case to the High Court


for the government himself to argue for that vital second inquest.


Turning to the issue of academies, I have yet to see a rocket booster


with a wheel on it, but rocket science isn't really my science, and


maybe it's not his. I repeat again, academies are raising standards in


our schools. I want a system where it is heads and teachers running


schools, not bureaucrats. There wasn't much of an answer there, so


can the Prime Minister tell us whether... If the members opposite


would be patient enough, they might hear the question I'm putting to the


Prime Minister, which is another very simple one. Could he tell us


whether he will bring forward legislation to force, against the


wishes of good and outstanding schools, to become academies in the


upcoming Queen 's speech? Yes or no? Obviously I cannot pre-empt what is


in the Queens speech, but on this one example I can help him out. We


are going to have academies for all, and it will be in the Queens speech.


Well, Mr Speaker, we look forward to that, but there is still time for


the U-turn that I'm sure is at the back of the Prime Minister's mine.


It has been reported that the government is considering allowing


good local authorities to form multi-academy trusts. Ironically,


this would give local authorities more responsibility for running


schools than they have now. Although the Prime Minister's previously


suggested that local authorities are holding schools back. So why is this


costly reorganisation of school is necessary for schools that are


already good or outstanding? Why is he forcing it on them? As I said


last week, and I like repeats on television and I am happy to have


them in the house as well, outstanding schools have nothing to


fear from becoming academies and indeed have a lot to gain. Just


because a school is outstanding or good doesn't mean it can't have


further improvement, not least, because we want to see outstanding


schools helping other schools in their area, often by being part of


an Academy trust. He raises the issue about local authorities. To


question so far, third question, third clear answer coming. Simmer


down. Perhaps if you can deal with the anti-Semites in your own party,


we might be prepared to deal with you a little bit more. Maybe we will


come answer that. Of course there are lots of ways schools can become


academies. They can convert and become academies, they can work with


an outside organisation or work with other schools in the area all look


at working with the local authority. Those schools that want to go on


looking at local authority services are free to do so. Academies are


great, academies for all our good policy, but what we are seeing from


the Labour Party, I sense, is in favour of moving towards academy


schools. When he gets to his feet, maybe he can save does he favour


academies or not? Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will be aware that


sometimes repeats on television get more views than the first time


round. The chief executive of the largest academy chain in London, the


Harris Academy, has warned that a far more fundamental thing that the


Prime Minister should worry about, whether school should become


academies or not, is actually teacher shortages. The academies, Mr


Speaker, don't want this, teachers don't want it, parents don't want


it, Conservative councils and MPs don't want it. Who actually does


want this top-down reorganisation he is imposing on the education system?


Question number four, answer number four. Let's start with Michael


Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools. Somebody quite worthwhile


listening to. Academies Asian -- academies in schools can lead to


improvement and it is right to give more power to the front line. The


OECD, they have been in the news today. The OECD say that they view


the trend towards academies as a promising development in the UK


which used to have a rather prescriptive education system. So


they have supported it. What about endless Academy trusts who support


it? He asked another question, very keen for complete at answers. If you


shout, you won't hear the answers. He asked about teacher shortages.


The fact is, there are more school places and more teachers under this


government than there were under Labour. Why? Because we got a


successful economy and we are putting it into our schools and our


children's future. Mr Speaker, there are of course still record numbers


of children in oversized classes and super-sized classes that is getting


worse. And he feel he is looking for support for his academies proposal,


he might care to phone up his friends, the leaders of Hampshire,


West Sussex and his own Oxfordshire County Council, who are deeply


concerned and opposed to it. He might care to listen to Council


Carter, the Conservative chair of the county council 's network, who


said the change will lead to a poorer education system --


Councillor Carter. So why is he pushing it through with so much


opposition and so much concern and such a waste of money when we should


be investing in teachers and schools, not top-down


reorganisation? I'm glad he is quoting Conservative council


leaders, and because they keep the council tax than provide good


services I hope we will see more of them in days' time. -- council tax


down and provide. On teacher supply, just to be clear, 13,000 more


teachers than 2010, to give a wholly accurate answer to his fourth


question. Again he asked about who else would support academies. Let me


quote Helena Mills of the burnt Mill Academy trust. She said she used to


be very sceptical and resistant to academy status. But during the


process of developing the academy I have been increasingly convinced


that this is the way forward. That is what more and more people are


seeing. That is why 1.3 million more children in good and outstanding


schools. That is why almost nine out of ten converter academies are good


or outstanding schools. We are very clear on this side of the house, we


back aspiration and opportunity. We back investment in our schools. We


want every child to get the best. It is Labour who want to hold back


opportunity and have one size fits all. Mr Speaker, there seems to be a


pattern developing here. The pattern is quite simply this. He


has a Health Secretary that is imposing a contract on junior


doctors against the wishes of patients and the public and the rest


of the medical profession. He has an Education Secretary imposing yet


another Tory top-down reorganisation that nobody wants. When will his


government show some respect and listen to the public, parents and


patients, and indeed, professionals who have given their lives to public


service in education and health and change his ways? Listen to them and


trust other people to run other services rather than imposing things


from above. I tell him the pattern that is developing. We can see 1.9


million more people being treated in the health service. We


can see 1.3 million more children in good or outstanding schools. That is


the battlements developing, a strong economy investing in public


services. -- pattern developing. The other pattern I'm seeing is that I


am on my fifth Labour leader standing at this box, and if he


carries on like this I will soon be on my sixth.


Mr Speaker, the Government package to help potential buyers of the Tata


Steel site in Port Talbot is substantial, befitting the trend is


bipartisan measures the government has taken to save this industry for


top it stands in stark contrast with the distasteful, disrespect for


contacts web of contrast of a Labour spokesman who said that it had been


good for Labour. Could I ask if there is any indication that the


package could help expedite the sale of the site, which could provide


long-term viable future for well steal the we all hope for? I want to


thank him for welcoming me yesterday and before come into his


constituency yesterday, I visited Port Talbot and I met with the


management and the trade unions. I had a very constructive discussion


and I did actually meet the Conservative leader, Andrew RT


Davies, who does an excellent job in the Welsh Assembly. If you want to


be Speaker, you better stop interrupting everybody. It's not


going to get you any votes! A little tip for you there. There is a


serious point, which is that the areas where we could help are in


power, procurement, on the issue of pensions. There is a very


constructive conversation going on but I say again from this dispatch


box, while I want to do everything I can to secure the future not only


for Port Talbot but also for Scunthorpe and steel-making in


Britain, we are coping with a massive oversupply, a collapse in


prices from China, so we must do all we can. There is no guarantee of


success but if we work hard, get a proper sales process and get behind


it on a bipartisan basis, we can see success here. Following the


Hillsborough inquiry, we join in all of the comments that have been said


thus far in relation to the families and paying tribute all of the


campaigners for justice. Mr Speaker, last night the Government was


defeated for the second time in the House of Lords on the issue of


refugee children being given refuge in the UK. There are many members of


that house, as there are many members of this House, in all


parties, including the primers to's wild side, who would wish us to do


much much more in helping provide refuge for unaccompanied children in


Europe at the present time. Will the Prime Minister please reconsider his


opposition and stop walking on by on the other side? I don't think anyone


could accuse this country of walking on by in terms of this refugee


crisis. Let's be very clear about what we've done. First of all,


taking 20,000 refugees from outside of Europe, which I think has


all-party support. Second of all, last week announcing a further 3000


principally unaccompanied children and children at risk from outside


Europe that we will be taking. Third of all, in our normal refugee


procedures, last year we took over 3000 unaccompanied children. But


where I disagree, respectively, with their Lordship's house, is those


people who are in European countries are in safe European countries. To


compare somehow children or adults who are in France or Germany or


Italy or Spain or Portugal or Greece... To compare that with


children stuck in Nazi Germany I think is deeply wrong and we'll


continue with our approach, which includes, by the way, being the


second largest donor of any country anywhere in the world into those


refugee camps. Just as in the 1930s, thereafter thousands... There's no


comparison, Mr Speaker. Apparently, there's no comparison between


thousands of children needing refuge in the 1930s and thousands of


children it in Europe at the present time. Order, order! Order! I'm not


interested in somebody yelling out their opinion of the honourable


gentleman's question. This is the home of free speech. The honourable


gentleman and every other member will be heard, however long this


session takes. It's very clear. Mr Angus Robertson. Europol estimates


that 10,000 unaccompanied children in Europe have disappeared. This is


an existential question about the safety of vulnerable children. The


Prime Minister thinks it is not the responsibility of the latest kingdom


to help unaccompanied children in Europe, so I ask him, who has the


moral responsibility to feed them, to clothe them, to educate them and


give them refuge if not us and everybody in Europe? Let me answer


that very directly. First of all, any unaccompanied child who has


direct family in Britain and claiming asylum, under the Dublin


regulations, can come to Britain, and quite right, too. But he asked


the question, who was was once both refugees? The person responsible is


the country in which they are in. -- who is responsible for refugees. You


have to ask yourself, do we do better by taking a child from


refugee camp or taking a child from the Lebanon or taking a child from


Jordan than we do taking a child from France or Italy or Germany?


And, as I said, to compare this to the 1930s is frankly to insult those


countries who are our neighbours and partners. Thank you, Mr Speaker. ATP


industries group based in Kalak would one of Europe's largest


independent manufacturers of vehicle electronics and were last week


awarded the Queens award for innovation. They export goods across


the globe, with the international trade increasing by 50 this out last


year. Will my right honourable friend join me in congratulating ATP


and will he set out what the government is doing to support


exporters to reach new markets? I certainly join her in congratulating


ATP. It's very difficult to win at Queen's on for export so they do


deserve praise. What we need to see in our country is... We currently


have one in five SMEs that exports. If we could make that one in four,


we could wipe out our trade deficit. We are courage and that through the


work of UKTI. We are also encouraging it by encouraging


reassuring, by getting the supply and components industries, for


instance, for the automotive industries, to come back on shore


and invest in Britain. In my constituency, family have lived and


raise their family in a small village for many years. Despite full


cooperation, they face an uphill and fruitless battle the Home Office,


have had their driving licences revoked and are being forced out of


a community they have served and invested in by a technicality around


their business, the local shop. Will the Prime Minister look into this


grossly unfair situation and work with me to achieve justice for this


family? I'll certainly have a look at the KC mentions if he lets me


know the names and the nature of the issues, and I'll make sure the Home


Office look at it urgently. As the primers to will know from getting


stuck in traffic on his way into Bath just before the general


election last year, my constituency is plagued by high air-pollution and


congestion. Given this government's commitment to invest billions of


pounds in a Church, something that the previous Labour government


failed to do in 13 years, will Prime Minister look at committing to look


of the construction of the long overdue and much-needed missing


A36-40 six Link Rd to the east of my constituency? I'll certainly have a


look at what he says stop the makes an important point because some


people think that if you care about air quality, there is no room for


any road building but, of course, stationary traffic is much polluting


than moving traffic and we have to make sure the arteries that serve


all our constituencies are open, so I'll carefully at what he said but


at the same time, we should recognise that air quality is


improving, nitrogen oxides are down 17% over the last four years and we


want to do more by introducing the clean air programme. With the UK


facing our most momentous decision for a generation in eight weeks,


does the Prime Minister think it makes more sense for us to listen to


all of our closest friends and allies around the world or to a


combination of French fascists, Nigel Farage and Vladimir Putin?


Well, I'm glad he takes the English pronunciation of Farage, rather than


the rather poncey foreign sounding one that he seems to prefer. I think


that's a thoroughly good thing. Obviously, I think we should listen


to our friends and our allies and as I look around the world, it's hard


to find the leader of a country that wishes us well that wants us to do


anything other than stay inside a reformed European Union. Mr Speaker,


the new ISAs that were announced in this budget are very welcome. They


will help people save for homes and retirement. Does my right Oracle


friend will have seen in this morning's City AM, as much of a


third of the gains a pension could make over a lifetime could be


stripped. Can he tell me what this covenant is doing to make sure that


firms investing people's hard earned savings reveal all the fees they


will be paying so that people can choose what is best for them? He has


fought a long campaign about this and quite rightly so. One of the


things that saps people's enthusiasm for investing and savings products


is the sense that they don't understand the fees and charges and


don't know how much they are going to get out of them. What we've done


is since last April, trustees have defined -- of defined contribution


schemes... The FCA argument bids to making regulations with us during


this Parliament requiring the publication of more costs and


charges. -- the FCA are committed. I'm sure he will put us all the way


to make sure it happens. The Prime Minister and his government did next


to nothing to say the Scottish steel industry. It was left to the


Scottish Government. Now the UK Government is breaking the promises


made by both Tories and Labour to protect the Scottish shipbuilding


industry. Why does the Prime Minister think that Scottish jobs


are so expendable? Frankly, the Scottish Government and the UK


Government should work together and one of the things we should work


together on his procurement. And it is worth asking how much Scottish


steel was in the Forth Road Bridge? Zero, none, absolutely nothing. Yes,


what a contrast with the warships that we're building. Of course, we


wouldn't be building them if we happen independent Scotland. So


we've backed the steel industry with actions as well as words. Order! The


House is excitable but it must simmer down. We must hear the


honourable lady. Hatred and ignorance lie at the heart of


anti-Semitism. And when those in public life express such views, they


denigrate not only themselves but also the institutions to which they


belong. Will my right honourable friend please reassure this House of


his commitment to fighting this vicious form of prejudice? I think


it is very simple. Anti-Semitism is effectively racism and we should


call it out and fight it wherever we see it. And the fact that, Frankie,


we've got a Labour MP with the Labour whip, who made remarks about


the transportation of people from Israel to America, and talked about


a solution, and is still in receipt of the Labour whip, is quite


extraordinary. Let me tell you what the Shadow Chancellor said about


these people. "Out, Out, out. If people express these views, they are


out. People might be able to reform their views on the rest of it. On


this, I can't see it, I'm not having it. People might say, I change my


views and will do something with a different organisation". I'm


friendly, there will be too many hours in the day before that happens


the MP in question. One of my constituents was killed at the age


of 25 by an 18-year-old driving a hire car without a licence. He was


driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The 18-year-old was convicted of


causing death by dangerous driving and received a sentence after six


years, of which probably serve three. Two weeks ago, myself along


with Joseph's family, delivered a 20,000 signature petition calling


for tougher sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. Does the


Prime Minister agree with me that sentences for these crimes are too


lenient, and when can we expect to get a response to our petition and


get justice for Joseph? Well, I have every simply with the family in


question. I had an almost identical case in my constituency, where a


young girl was killed I a dangerous driver. The maximum sentence is 14


years, so the courts do have the ability to sentence more but I know


what this means to the families. I'm making sure that the Minister for


roads is looking again at these issues in terms of dangerous driving


and I'll make sure the case she mentioned this taken into account.


-- is taken. As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, Dudley is


proud of its heritage but we need economic stability to deliver a


prosperous future. Will the Prime Minister helped to launch the new


enterprise zone in Brierley Hill, to look at how we can attract more


investment, create new jobs and develop a highly skilled workforce


our community needs? I will look very carefully, whether I'm able to


do that, because we support the industrial regeneration of the Black


Country. The truth is, enterprise zones have been a success. They


created nearly 25,000 jobs, attracted over 630 companies and


secured 2.4 billion of private sector investment. A lot of the


delivery of enterprise zones is going to involve a lot of hard work


by local authorities and I pay tribute to them and I wish him well


in the Black Country. Given the strategic and economic importance of


the M62 corridor to the northern powerhouse, can the Prime Minister


give me and the people of Bradford his commitment to the


electrification of the cold of a line, and lent his support for the


great city of Bradford to be a fundamental part of the proposed


northern powerhouse? We have made commitments knowledge


of occasion in terms of North- South lines and East - Westlands stockpile


look carefully at proposal she makes. Nuclear matters in Cumbria.


We have a nuclear Gazzi at Sellafield. Defence work at Barrow


and the prospect of serious investment in a new nuclear land at


Moorside. Given the apparent opposition to nuclear from the party


is opposite, can the Prime Minister confirm that the long-term decisions


for both nuclear power and defence will be made in a timely manner? He


is absolutely right that Cumbria does depend, to a large extent, on


jobs from the industries that he mentions. Obviously, an Sellafield,


we continue to invest in reprocessing and in the procedures


that. We are also looking at redeveloping our commercial nuclear


industries, starting with the vital decision that Hinkley Point, which


could have very great benefits for other areas that want to see nuclear


power stations. And, of course, Barrow is home to the development of


our nuclear submarines and we will be holding a vote in this House to


make sure we renew our Trident in full. The Prime Minister has just


suggested that child refugees alone in Europe are safe. There are


children's homes fall in Italy and Greece and over 1000 children will


sleep rough in Greece alone tonight. How are they safe? 10,000 children


have disappeared in Europe. How are they safe? The agencies say that


children are committing survival sex. They are being abused, subject


to prostitution and rape. It is not insulting other European countries


to offer to help. They want us to help. So will he reconsider his


position on the amendment before it comes back to the vote and stopped


with his attitude to loan child refugees, putting this House and


this country to shame? If we are helping other European countries,


and we're helping other European countries, not least with the ?10


million we was announced. But the crucial point is this. How do we in


Britain best help child refugees? We think we help them by taking them


from the refugee camps. Taken from Lebanon, from Jordan, when they to


this country. That's what we're doing and we have a proud record. --


bringing them to this country. Several small businesses I've met


within Tadcaster last week are being treated appallingly by insurance


companies. Four months after the floods Maclean's have not been


settled and renewal premiums art being hiked to astronomical levels.


-- claims have not been settled. The Government has introduced the flood


scheme to help homeowners after flooding the stock does my right


honourable friend agree with me that the same protection should be given


to small business owners, to? First of all, I absolutely recognise the


problem that he lays out. My constituency was badly flooded and


some insurance company is paid out very quickly, others were not so


fast. I understand when will look at what happened during the winter,


we've got 82% of claims that have been paid out but what I would say


to him and other colleagues is, where you have specific examples,


the Secretary of State for farming, food and rural affairs will be very


interested to see them so we can get on top of the insurance industry. On


the issue of whether we need a flood restyle approached of small


businesses, we will looks as if they're about to make sure the small


businesses can get the insurance they need. Three years ago, whilst


on holiday in France, my mother fell seriously ill. Thanks to the French


health service, she received excellent treatment, was diagnosed


with cancer, unfortunately, but she is doing well today, thanks to our


NHS is well. Millions of Brits every year travel to other EU countries


and benefit, like my mum, from the revered health insurance card. What


would happen to that card should we vote to leave on the 23rd of June?


First of all, our behalf of the whole house, can I wish Motherwell


in her treatment and the treatment she is getting from the NHS? She


raises an important point, which is, this is one of the important


benefits we have now. Many of us would have used it ourselves or for


our own children and we think we can make the system even better as we


are. It is for those who want to leave the EU to explain, if we were


to leave, would we still be able to access this and other such systems,


which are very handy for people going on holidays? Whatever the


outcome of the EU referendum, does the Prime Minister agree that one


thing that will never diminish is the mutual affection and admiration


between Britain and our great ally France? In that connection, will he


paid tribute to the people who fought and won the Normandy


campaign, such as the late Captain Paul Cash, who was killed fighting


in Normandy at the age of 26, having won the military cross. He was the


father of the honourable member, my friend the honourable member for


stone, and Sergeant Peter Carne, who, at 93, is at Westminster today,


who built the bridge is that May the break-out from the Normandy


beachhead and who will be receiving a French award in a typically


cordial gesture French allies. I join him in paying tribute all those


who served, particularly those who fell in that heroic campaign. One of


the proudest things I've been able to do as Prime Minister was to go to


the 70th anniversary and go to that vigil, where our gliders came in to


prepare for those landings and to go to Gold Beach and see the incredible


work that was done, so we should remember what they did and we should


remember what it was that they gave their lives for, which was to


achieve peace on our continent. My constituent Debra has HIV that she


contracted via a partner who received a contaminated blood


transfusion. My constituent Neil has hepatitis, again from the controller


tainted transfusion. He now needs a second liver transplant. Neither of


them can hold down a full-time job because of the catastrophic effects


of their health on the conditions so they absolutely rely on the support


from the state that the Government is applied to slash in half. I asked


the Prime Minister, why is the Government so willing to attack


people whose only this take was to be unlucky? First of all, what we


said before the election was that we'd set aside ?25 million to help


those who were infected with HIV because of contaminated blood. We


raise that to 100 million and we are currently consulting with all the


groups about how best to use that money. We are going to be doing more


than we said at a lecture on time and it is very necessary because


these people have suffered through no fault of their own.


A bit like Back to the Future, as six questions there, and we know


that they went over some of the ground last week. He did go over the


junior doctors strike in the final question saying that the government


had it in for parents and patients. Whether we learned anything new


compared with last week is another matter. We will discuss that in a


minute. Before we do, what are the viewers thinking today? They agreed


in the main that perhaps academies was not the issue to choose the


second week running. John from Hemel Hempstead said the Jeremy Corbyn


went on academies last weekend and it would have been better to go on


the doctors strike this week. John Gray said he was saddened that


Jeremy Corbyn missed an important opportunity to put meaningful


questions about the junior doctors strike. Tim said that last week was


a failure going on academies and a repeat was worse. John from


Wakefield said Jeremy Corbyn was right to ask why once again there


was a proposed top-down reorganisation in a very important


institution, ie the children's education. It seems pretty evident


the reason for what he's doing is the same as his reorganisation the


NHS which is to privatise service delivery. Before we go on we are


going to read a bit from Naz Shah who were talking about earlier, who


stood down as Parliamentary aide to John McDonald over comments made


that were claimed to be anti-Semitic and were certainly anti-Zionist. She


has written a full apology to the Jewish community via the Jewish


news. She says that she is sorry, someone who knows the scourge of


oppression all too well it is important that I make an unequivocal


apology for statements and ideas I foolishly endorsed in the past. The


manner and tone of what I wrote in haste is not excusable. With the


understanding of the issues I have now, I have to wear not that


ignorance is not a defence. But that importance is the impact that the


posts have had on other people. I understand that referring to Israel


and Hitler, as I did, is offensive to Jewish people, for which I


apologise. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm shocked myself that


the language used in some instances during the Gaza Israel conflict. For


this, I apologise. Since winning the seat Bradford West I have made a


conscious efforts in areas around integration, building bridges and


community development in and around Muslim and Jewish relations. Indeed,


one of my first visit was to my local synagogue. If politicians put


their hands up when they get something wrong it helps restore


faith in politics and I hope that by writing to those who might have hurt


I am practising what I preach and calling myself out. Lisa, this is an


apology which presumably she hopes might spare her being suspended from


the party. Would that be wrong if the Labour Party decide to keep her


in the Labour Party and not suspend her? Listening to that it sounded


like an incredibly genuine and difficult thing for her to do and I


think it's right that she has so unequivocally apologised for what


she said. At the heart of that statement is the recognition that


the reason comments like that are so damaging it's not the impact on the


Labour Party or Parliament it's the impact on people. To stick to what I


said earlier, we have a process in the party and it's important we


follow it. She is apologising to the Jewish community? But my


understanding is that she wasn't advocating that British Jews should


be sent to America, it was Israeli Jews. Shouldn't she apologised to


the people of Israel? She said in the early statement that she did not


really think about what she was posting at the time and she is


sorry. But she did it. She was saying that the people of Israel


should be mass deported to the United States. Surely she has to


apologise to them, because she was not saying that British Jews should


be mass deported as well. I'm pretty sure that would be even worse. What


I would say is the important thing is she's made it clear she does not


hold the views or subscribe to them fighting for the Labour whip. The


Labour Party a policy and we should follow it and I made that clear to


the leader 's office. You would be happy with her having the whip


withdrawn? Pending an investigation. I don't think it's fair or right to


pre-empt the outcome of an investigation. All of the points


that she made should be considered and she should be given the


opportunity to make the case but we have a policy in the party, and the


reason that the policy and process is important is because it gives


confidence to the outside world that we deal with these things in that


way. It's not an isolated incident, there have been others in recent


times and there's another issue for the Labour Party which is


reputational. She made these comments and put out these posts


before she was elected, so why was it not picked up? You made a decent


point that a political party cannot just respond to problems, we need to


be pre-emptive and make sure that they don't occur. I think that's a


decent point and something I'll be considering. You do get Mavericks


all over the place is Conservative Party chairman and with social media


it is more difficult but there needs to be a process when people are


putting out statements like that which are very extreme and which are


being posted by very dangerous and radical groups that there needs to


be a way of discovering or monitoring this as part of due


diligence. It is about being proactive, I think. I'm sure you


would agree that none of us should be complacent about what happens in


our political parties and we should be proactive. What is happening? The


most of my adult life, anti-Semitism was overwhelmingly the preserve of


the far right, it is what the National front spoke about. Le Pen's


father was a Holocaust denier and it was always on the far right of


British politics where there was lingering Nazism, and when it rose


up, it was slapped down. Why is this now coming from elements of the


left? What I'd say first of all is that the vast majority of the Labour


Party, and beyond the Labour Party on the left eye and these sort of


things an affront to our values. I maybe wrong, historically, but I'm


thinking, on the Democratic left, because the Russians had their


pogroms, but on the Democratic left, they fought anti-Semitism. That is


why so many Jews join the Labour Party in the 1930s, so why has it


now become, in a small element on the left, such an issue? It is a


minority of people and I struggle to understand how people can hold those


sorts of views. I was really surprised recently when Luciano


Burge put something on twitter with a series of abuse she had faced --


Luciana Berger. She was being subjected to the most appalling


content and images. Apparently she gets it on a daily basis, and I was


shocked. As somebody who is not Jewish, I don't face that, and I


didn't realise the extent of the problem, particularly on social


media. I go back to what I said earlier. I think none of us can


afford to be complacent, we need to be proactive. You are right on this


point, Andrew, it's always been associated recently on the far


right, but there is a far left element, and I was quoting Karl


Marx, written in the 1840s, saying the essence of Judaism and the


Jewish soul is expediency and. Judaism is the embodiment of


anti-social attitudes. There is an element in the left that has always


taken some of these views. It needs to be stamped out. Whether it comes


from right or left, it is fundamentally wrong and it degrades


our society. I think David Cameron ratcheted up the pressure on Jeremy


Corbyn. He said it was quite extraordinary that she still had the


whip was his quote. We should be watching this space through the


course of the day. There has been, and certainly in the first time that


I've been reporting on politics in 12 or 13 years based in Westminster,


it's the first time really that we have seen this bubble up as a


problem that affects the leadership of the party and where the


leadership of the party has been sometimes, by the critics, open to


the accusation of not acting swiftly enough when these things pop up.


Like you, it seems to have become an issue now and I can't unpick the


reasons, and the Labour leadership has tried. John McDonald was quoted


early as saying out, out, out, that is what we will do. When out, out,


out is not the immediate response it leaves the door open for people to


have worries, to have a question in their mind about why things are not


happening quickly enough. She is still a member of the home affairs


select committee which is currently carrying out an enquiry into


anti-Semitism, and people will make a judgment on that.


It's also worth noting that the whole selection process in Bradford


was a very messy, bruising situation with lots of Labour infighting. It


was something we noted in the general election campaign. It was


George Galloway. Yes but there was also Labour infighting to quite


some... Well, a very striking degree, having gone there and looked


at the story. There was an awful lot of upset into early in the Labour


Party over the whole selection process. When they defeated George


Calloway, many people in the Labour Party were delighted, "Oh, we come


to be sold are problems in Bradford now," but I think the way this has


popped up, by the end of the day we might be in a position where she is


suspended. I don't think a suspension means she should be


budget out of the party forever but I suspect there will have to be


further action on this. Before you go, Laura, there has been


speculation that some kind of U-turn or at least some kind of change of


the Academy policy was coming. So how are we to read the Prime


Minister saying there will be Academy is in the Queens speech?


That has been the question, whether or not the government would bottle


it on this policy to such an extent that they wouldn't even try to put


the power to force schools to become academies into the Queen's speech.


What Nicky Morgan is trying to juggle our knowledge of the moment


is to give guarantees about small, tiny happy rural schools,


particularly primary schools, where certain Tory MPs are worried. They


could soften the principal? Yes, and don't forget even last week Number


Ten was emphasising, "We've got six years to discuss all this so they


could put the power there but mitigate how the stick could be


wielded. So not a lot happening. Laura, are you taking the rest of


the week of? Taking the rest of the month. See you June 24? I a comeback


June 25. Not much will changed! When Jeremy Corbyn became Leader


of the Opposition back in September, he said he wanted to make PMQs less


aggressive, less confrontational - with the focus on policy,


not personal attacks. In a moment we'll speak


to an academic who says But, first, let's get a reminder


of how the Labour leader has been Many told me


that they thought Prime Minister's Question Time was too


theatrical, that Parliament was out of touch and too theatrical,


and they wanted things done differently


but, above all, they wanted their Can I welcome him to


the front bench and I had more than 1,000


questions on tax credits. I'm sure we will have many strong


exchanges that where we can work together in a national interest, we


should do. I wish him well in his job.


Paul, for example, says this very heartfelt question.


Why is the Government taking tax credits away


The year six pupils were very interesting.


Hawan, Taznia, Eamon and Maryanne


asked me to say this to the Prime Minister...


Martin contacted me this week, who says...


OK, it's very funny for many members opposite.


I thought this was the new Question Time!


I'm not sure the message has fully got home!


We're joined now from Nottingham by Dr Peter Bull.


He has co-authored some research which shows that Mr Corbyn's


tactic of using questions from the public has had some effect


Welcome to the Daily Politics. So what is the impact been? Good


afternoon to you. We've done a study of Corbin's use of these questions,


which are sourced remember that the public, and we used two measures,


one of which we called reply rate. That's simply the extent to which


the Prime Minister answers the questions that are put in. In that


respect, we didn't find any effect. Cameron only gives direct replies to


about 20% of the questions and that doesn't matter whether they're


sourced from members of the public or not sourced from members of the


public. But where we did find an effect was when we looked at


personal attacks. Overall, David Cameron makes almost twice as many


personal attacks on Corbin is Corbin does on him but when you compare


questions from members of the public with those other questions, you find


his rate of personal tax drops quite significantly and it's quite similar


to that of Jeremy Corbyn. So it does seem that sourcing these questions


from members of the public seems to have a significant effect on the


personal attacks that Cameron is making. Not answering the question,


of course, is a common strategy amongst politicians that we serve me


experience here on a daily basis but it's interesting in terms of using


the personalised questions. Has it contributed to making PMQs more


grown-up and less confrontational? Well, personal attacks are


confrontational and the issue is whether you are actually making the


punch and Judy show, which David Cameron Atchley criticised when he


first became leader of the Conservative Party, or whether you


are discussing the actual issues concerned. There seems to be some


effect on these questions are sourced from members of the public


but there is a greater retention to the Michu rather than these Puncheon


Judy politics. You had to sit down and watch 20 sessions PMQs in a row.


Was that a depressing experience or an enlightening one? I found it


really rather interesting, unlike a lot of people. We've done quite a


lot of PMQs. We did 20 PMQs with Ed Miliband and David Cameron for


comparison purposes and I find the fine details of communication very


interesting. Lisa Nandy... It's like my worst nightmare! 40 episodes


PMQs! And the repeats are even better, as we heard today. Isn't


that the point of PMQs? It supposed to be adversarial. Whether you're


using personalised questions from the public doesn't seem to have had


that much of a dramatic change because the personal attacks are


still level stop I think it has changed. I've definitely noticed a


change in the field in the chamber. What hasn't changed is that Cameron


still doesn't answer the question but when Jeremy uses questions from


the public it makes it harder for him to be so personal and so brutal


and it's quite noticeable that every time Jeremy reference is a member of


the public, Tory MPs grown very loudly, so they obviously don't


really like it and they don't want to be held to account in that way.


And credit to him, all leaders of the opposition say they are going to


change PMQs. Cameron said when he was Leader of the Opposition. Jeremy


has actually done it. He has put his money where his mouth is, hasn't he?


I don't know if you are one of those who groans when he asks questions.


But the research doesn't look very good, does it, for the Conservative


Party or for David Cameron, with his high use of personal attacks? What


the study sheens to show is that politicians have more respect for


the public than they do fall on another. The thing about PMQs, and


it's interesting how Jeremy Corbyn moved away, is that it's one thing


to read at a question and be a postbox for the electric buggy art


of premises questions is to use the answer you get to take forward your


case and be able to probe a bit further. In the early days, I


thought he was ineffective because he would simply move on to another


question from a member of the public without any analysis. Dr Peter Bull,


thank you very much. 20 PMQs is nothing. I've just worked


out that I've covered 400 since 2003! In the last few minutes, the


Home Secretary has made a statement about Hillsborough. Yesterday the


jury inquest concluded 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed. This is


what Theresa May has just said. The decision about whether any criminal


prosecution or prosecutions can be brought forward will be made by the


Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of evidence gathered as part


of the two ongoing investigations. That decision is not constrained in


any way by the jury's conclusions. The House will understand that I


cannot comment in detail on matters that may lead to a criminal


investigation. I can, however, say that the offences under


investigation include gross negligence, manslaughter, misconduct


in public office, perverting the course of justice and perjury, as


well as offences under the safety of sports grounds act 1975 and the


health and safety at work act 1974. I know that those responsible for


the police and IPCC investigations anticipate that they will conclude


the criminal investigations by the turn of the year. We must allow them


to complete their work in a timely and thorough manner and we must be


mindful not to prejudice the outcome in any way. That was the Home


Secretary. There's just time to put you out


of your misery and give Lisa Nandy, press that red button to


find the winner. Well done.


That's it for the Daily Politics today. We'll be back tomorrow on BBC


Two at noon as usual. I hope you can join us.


Download Subtitles