Jo Coburn and Andrew Neil present live coverage of Prime Minister's Questions. They are joined by Labour MP Gisela Stuart and Conservative minister Matt Hancock.
Browse content similar to 25/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
The Remain campaign has been handed yet more ammunition for its claims
that leaving the EU would harm the economy.
This time, from on highly respected think-tank which says it could mean
We'll be taking stock of all George Osborne's scary stories
and asking if they're more fairytale or just grim economic reality.
Speaking of George Osborne, he'll be standing in for David Cameron
We'll have all the action live from noon.
We've previously heard from military leaders backing Remain.
Today, we'll talk to one of the retired senior officers
claiming that a vote to leave will aid our defence and security.
And, as both sides of the referendum debate reach out to young voters,
former DJ Mike Reed will join us to discuss what's gone wrong
All that in the next hour and a half.
And with us for the whole of the programme today,
speaking of scary things, it's the cabinet office minister Matt Hancock
Gisela is supporting a Leave vote in the EU referendum
and is well known for disagreeing with her party's position
on some of the big issues of the day.
Matt is supporting Remain and, well, let's just say
he's not exactly famous for attacking his own government.
So, if you're tuning in today hoping for a break from the EU referendum,
then prepare to be thoroughly disappointed.
There are plenty of stormy exchanges taking place between both sides
on everything from Turkey joining the EU to the NHS to farming.
But it's also been another week in which the Leave camp
has been buffeted by some big economic warnings.
This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies,
a group that's usually treated with respect by most politicians,
has weighed in and joined the likes of the IMF, the OECD, and the Bank
of England in saying that a vote to leave would harm the economy.
And it comes, of course, after a series of warnings
from David Cameron and George Osborne.
Jo is going to remind us of some of their most frightening assessments.
Yes, with all these bleak economic forecasts around,
you can see why critics have accused the Remain camp of relying on scary
Last month, George Osborne looked far into the future and warned
a vote for Brexit could leave families ?4,300 worse off by 2030.
And this week, voters may have been spooked by his new Treasury report
claiming a vote to leave would tip the UK into
a year-long recession, costing, he said, 820,000 jobs.
Homeowners may have felt a chill down their spine when the Chancellor
said house prices could fall by up to 18%.
David Cameron then raised the spectre of more expensive
holidays as early as this summer, by as much as ?230.
But probably the scariest of scare stories from the Prime Minister
was his claim that Brexit could lead to another war in Europe.
The Remain camp reject claims they're relying on fear,
and accuse Leave campaigners of preferring conspiracy theories.
Let's see how the story ends in just under a month.
So, those are the economic warnings coming from Numbers 10 and 11.
And, this morning, they've been able to add to their arsenal the verdict
on Brexit of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said
a vote to leave could lead to two more years of austerity.
In 2019 as it says it does, that would require another ?5 billion of
public spenting cuts, 5 billion pud of security cuts and tax increases.
Most likely, what the Government will decide to do is let's have
another year or two of austerity. This is just adding a year or two to
the decade long us astery. Something we can cope with but another year of
spending cuts to come It came on the Treasury short-term predictions of
what would happen if we leave. It said if we left the EU we would fall
into recession. How deep does it say that recession would be? It says
there will be a recession, as in more than two quarters of negative
economic growth. How bad would it be? It would be bad for people who
lost their jobs. We lost 7% of our GDP after the 2008 financial crash.
How much is the report predicting this time? The report predicts the
recession would be four quarters long. And that growth would go
negative. By how much? Well, there's numbers for each of the four
quarters. How much are they? Between 0% and minus 1%. No, it's not
actually. It is actually. The central forecast is that four the
period you predict a recession, the loss of GDP is.1% per quarter. I'll
repeat that again. 0.1%. And what about... 0.1% negative involves
hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. People losing
their livelihoods. The key is this, it's not just the Treasury. The Bank
of England said there could be a technical recession. You say
hundreds of thousands of jobs. We only lost several hundred,000 jobs
when we lost 7% of our GDP after 2008. So, why would a 0.1%, I say
again, 0.1%, fall in GDP in any one quarter mean the loss of hundreds of
thousands of jobs? Because that's what the Treasury forecast says. I
know that. I'm asking you why. Because when the he he goes into
recession, people lose their jobs. Not by 0.1%. Yes. Let's move on.
This.1% fall in GDP for four quarters, but it's 0.1% each
quarter, that also assumes that the Government and the Bank of England
take no remedial action, do nothing to counter recession, correct?
That's at assumption. No, you're wrong. What is the assumption? It
assumes the autofiscal stabilisers will work. The Government's policy.
But the Government will do nothing else? It is backed up by the Bank of
England, the national institute, by all of the others. Of course, they
all use roughly the same model. No, they don't have the same model. It
has nothing to do with the questions I'm asking. Let's stick with this.
On the contrary, Andrew. Can we get it established, the 0.1% fall in GDP
in a quarter does assume other than the automatic stabilisers which the
Government doesn't do anything about, that it assumes no change in
fiscal policy or interest rate policy by the bank: Correct? If you
allow me to answer the question which I was aeh answering before you
inTerre uppeded last time, the Bank of England interest rates are close
to zero. Fiscal policy is constrained by high debt levels. The
automatic stabilisers are the fiscal response we, as a Government, are
allowed to operate. This is a response. I want to come back to
this point about jobs. You seem to be dismissing an idea of a recession
because you think a recession won't have a big impact. It will have a
significant impact. That's the core message. I'm simply trying to work
out why a recession which, pie your own report's prediction, would be
0.1% a quarter for four quarters would lead to a huge collapse in
house prices and increase in jobs when far deeper recessions have not
done the same. Not an increase in jobs. A loss of jobs. That's the
damage I'm worried about. Why would the bank not cut interest rates?
They are already at 00.5%. They are lower in Japan, the central bank,
lower in Sweden, lower in Switzerland. Why not cut interest
rates further? Why would it not increase QE. Name a recession we've
ever had, even one as smalls you're predicting where there was no
response from the Government or central bank. Neither you nor I
could name a recession we chose to go into by voting for something we
don't have to. We can. Your last Government. The European exchange
rate mechanism. Crucially where we go in with interest rates at already
record low levels. It comes back to this point, there is a big economic
risk. When you put screens up like that, the big book of scary story,
right, this is about worrying about people's livelihoods and people's
jobs. It is my duty, because I fear that consequence of a Brexit vote,
it's my duty to set out that what I think will happen and protect the
British people from it. Everybody thinks, the very least in the
short-term, there would be problems for the economy. Everybody. I ask
you, if that's the case. Why, before Christmas, did the Prime Minister
say it would be perfectly all right outside the EU. Why did he call this
referendum if it's such a clear case. You're answering my question
by asking a different question. I'm saying to you, it is a reasonable
concern, the short-term. The Prime Minister may be entirely wrong.
That's not what I'm asking you. It is a reasonable concern, given that
every major economic authority says there will be a short-term set back
to the economy. That's a concern? Let me meet that. It is a concern.
It is really not helpful if you have a Prime Minister who spends his
whole time talking down the markets. He's partly creating some of the
problems which you are warning us of. What I find extraordinary, even
the Prime Minister's best efforts to say the pound will decline, the
pound hasn't been declining. So, what's your problem? No, what's your
problem? The problem saying he's talking down the economy, he's not
managing to do it. What's your problem? Back to the question I
asked you. What are people to make when they vote on June 23rd
wheneverry authority says broadly the same thing, different in scale,
but if we vote to leave, there will, at the very least, be short-term set
back to the economy? It is a concern that's been pulled together by a
Prime Minister when even when negotiating was lining up the big
businesses. What you will have, just as you go into the again Lal
election, there are periods when democratic decisions, the outcome's
not clear. You create a small period of uncertainty. Then the markets
will recover. Let he in ask you this. Why does your side of the
argument continue to use this figure that we, the country, send ?350
million a week as our membership fee to the European Union when you know
that's not true? The ONS pink book says our annual contribution to the
EU institutions is ?19.1 billion. Why are you shaking your head?
Because the ONS themselves said that was misleading. Today, the IFS said
it's absurd. Do you agree with the IFS or not? Is If the ONS wishes to
change its column... They called that statistic misleading. The IFS
today said it is absurd. The only response to that is to attack the
ONS from the Leave side. You're quite right, it appears in the
accounts. That's an accountancy matter. You know, as well as I do,
we don't sent that amount of money. It does not physically leave London
and go to Brussels. You know that. What I also know... You do know it?
If you want to say the ONS should represent our annual contribution
differently... It does do that. It takes the abatement off. Let me
finish. The abatement which is continually up-renegotiation in 2020
and it is reducing... Just take a deep breath and wake a moment. It is
?5 billion at the moment. The second is with very strict conditions how
we spend it. Our point is you can take control. If you vote Leave
leave, you take control over that and decide how to spend it. Sir
Andrew dill not is the chair of the UK statistics authority. He says, I
note the use of the ?350 million figure. It appears to be a gross
figure which does not take into account the rebate or other flows
from the UK from the EU to the UK public sector. They come to about
?4.5 billion. Farming and regional subsidies. City initiatives which
come from here and get finance from the EU. Without further
explanations, I think these statements of misleading. It is the
grows contribution. Ever since the days of Margaret Thatcher, roughly
speaking for every ?2 we pay in, we get 1 back in conditions. Do you
accept we don't send the rebate. They send it back? The proper name
is not the rebate. It is the abatement. So, out of the ?18
billion a year we send, I speak roughly in these figures, we take
the 5 billion abatement off and send ?13 billion which is not ?350
million a week. Can we agree on these facts? Can we also agree...
No, just agree on that first? The abatement is paid in retrospect and
continuously open to renegotiation. Not continuously. Now and then. Your
last Government gave it a bit of it away. It is roughly ?5 billion at
the moment? I'm talking about the entire envelope we we would have
decisions to spend the money again. That's the difference. This morning.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at these questions. They said
for the 350 million figure to be right, we'd have to assume we no
longer paid anything in but still got the rebate or abatement back.
They describe that is an absurd. Do you agree that the Institute for
Fiscal Studies is a grown-up economic organisation that's
credible? I do. It also receives 11% of its
funding from the EU. If 11% of my salary came from one source, despite
the respect with which it was held, people would have a right to say it
had been bought. I'm saying it is serious but we ought to knowledge
the money is coming from. You get ?26,000 a year from a source that
gets funding from a European source? Are you compromised? My funding
comes from that. Why has the Treasury or the government not as
the Office for Budget Responsibility to look at the effect of leaving?
Because by statute the Office for Budget Responsibility is required
only to look at existing government policy and government policy is to
remain within the European Union. That is why it can't. All the
shows... Treasury forecasts are reliable and you want to give people
a fair choice. Why would you not ask the very body that was set to
overcome the buyers of Treasury forecasts to look at and then the
British people could make a choice. I have just answered. I statute it
looks at government policy. You set up the OBR, Mr Osborne explained
that he had to do this because the Treasury forecasts were so
unreliable. Now you are expecting us to believe them. These are Treasury
forecasts. It is not just the Treasury, it is the National
Institute, the Bank of England... The Treasury has made a forecasts
and you have set up a separate body because it is a unreliable. Why
should we believe it? What I'm asking you to do is believe the
combination of the Bank of England, I've gone through this over and over
again. I have made that point. When not trying to hide that. One final
question, the ISS implies that there could be another two years of
austerity if we leave the EU. We've already had six years under your
government and there is at least another two or three coming anyway
whether we stay inside or outside. Why would it make much difference?
If you're attacking the integrity of the ISS, you're losing in this
campaign. That's what we're saying. Their campaign is in chaos and they
are losing the argument. Given your government's record on prolonged
asperity with more to come, why would another two years make that
much of a difference? I don't want to see jobs lost or fixing the books
any more difficult than it is and I don't want to see another recession.
That is what all these different economic groups are same would
happen. Over to you. Hanley more days to go?
Now, there's no David Cameron at PMQs today,
he's off to a meeting of the G7 in Japan,
and George Osborne is standing in opposite Angela Eagle for Labour.
Following last year's General Election, the chancellor was seen
as something of a shoo-in to take over as Prime Minister
But even before this bruising referendum campaign,
his reputation had suffered something of a knock
From next year, we will reduce the level of earnings at which a
household tax credits and universal credits start to be withdrawn. Stop
this wrong-headed and ill walk-through piece of legislation.
These proposals latently threatened damage to millions of our fellow
citizens. I've listened to the concerns, I a and understand them,
the simplest thing to do is not to phase the changes in but avoid them
altogether. To give more power to counties and new Mayers, we are
giving them the powers to set Sunday trading hours in their areas. The
eyes, to the right. 317. The knows to the left, 318. We will be
spending more in real terms supporting disabled people than at
any point during the last Labour government. That is deeply unfair
and that unfairness is damaging to the government and the party and
damaging to the public. We will not be going ahead to the changes to PIP
that had been put forward. We're going to score complete the task of
setting schools free from local education bureaucracy and were going
to do it in this Parliament. We have decided it is not necessary to take
blanket powers to convert good schools in strong local authorities
into academies at this time. Nicky Morgan mayor. Why has he got
it wrong on so many occasions and been forced to change policy? The
government has a clear direction and we have put forward a huge amount of
policies to get there. Why has he had to U-turn on so many key pieces
of legislation. Tax credits, changes to PIP, Sunday trading and
academies? You set out a whole series across the government. They
are all from George Osborne. George Osborne announced the academies. An
academies, our aim is to complete the academies Asian process. They
are clearly the best way to drive up standards. My question is, why has
George Osborne got it wrong on key pieces of legislation and been
forced to dramatically U-turn? The goal on academies is exactly the
right one. The government wanted to Compal schools to become academies
and now they are not. He's had to change on tax credits and disability
payments, things he really wanted to do on adjustments on welfare and now
he can't. Why does he get it wrong? What we're doing is setting out
long-term goals and then there are lots of different ways to get there.
That is part of how a government best operates. To say, the most
important thing is what we're doing on the economy. Millions of jobs
being created, schools, academies, there are roots of getting there.
You set out your goals very clearly and work your way there. You admit
he has had to change his route and some of the goals he's not going to
meet in the way he wanted to. Why is that? Dissent on the Tory
backbenches? Obviously, when you have a majority of 12, it is
different to operating under a larger majority. For two decades,
Britain is used to majorities of 50 or more. It is his party on most of
these issues that is rebelling. In one case it was the house of lords.
As you say, in one case but there is a lot of dissent. Is it because
there is and trust in George Osborne? Has he lost credibility? He
can't persuade people. Academies is a very good example, the goal is
clear, all schools becoming academies. Actually, the change we
have made is that we don't Compal schools to become academies where
local authorities... But you're not going to do that now. Belo the goal
is to get a full academies. Just 11% believe George Osborne is
up to the job of running the country. Do you think he has lost
his credibility as a result of these U-turns? No, I will tell you why, he
can demonstrate on the economy, on job creation, an making sure we can
turn around the deficit and bring that down, on all of these things,
there is a clear direction and sticking to that direction, despite
things that are thrown at Oz is what that is all about. Will we watch
Tory MPs cheering him on even those who want to campaign to leave? We
will see. We are united on so many things about implementing the
manifesto on which we were elected just over a year ago. You expect him
to be cheered from the rafters? Of course. Especially because the areas
other than the European issue, and academies and academies and the tax
credits and other things they disagree with him on. He is missing
Danny Alexander. He only got through the last parliament because Danny
Alexander hold him back. Angela Eagle is up today. Will she be
brilliant. She will be brilliant. What about Jeremy Corbyn? She will
be punchier. She has had lots of practice at this.
Now, the Remain campaign yesterday launched a social media campaign
designed to reach the "Easyjet generation",
which apparently consists of young people
who take unrestricted travel around Europe for granted,
but are less likely to be registered to vote.
And as we all know if there's one thing young people love,
it's dropping the "g" from the present participle.
So the campaign's messages include: workin', earnin', makin', votin'.
and chillin', meetin', tourin', votin'.
And, as we at the Daily Politics know a thing or two
about communicating with young people
- we believe we've got as many as several viewers under 45
- we've come up with our own campaign to help explain our
Guess The Year competition to all you millennials out there.
Here it is - and I think we can all agree that
tells you how exactly how it works, no further explainin' needed.
You have an American accent when you. Drop the GE.
you too can soon be sippin' from a Daily Politics mug.
All you have to do is tell us when this happened.
I have resigned from the Cabinet and I will make a full statement today.
As trading started, there was plenty of end users for the beginning.
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 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms
and conditions for Guess The Year on our website -
You'd think I'd know it by now. I've said it about 4 million times.
There's a whole lot of tweets from young people coming in. Three now.
It's coming. It's coming up to midday here,
just take a look at Big Ben yes, Prime Minister's
Questions is on its way. And that's not all,
Laura Kuenssberg is here. The Prime Minister is in Japan. He
is big in Japan, I think. Do you remember that song? He is with G-7
finance ministers. When you say it is the B team. Some of the viewers
might think it is the 18. The last time we saw Angela Eagle and George
Osborne go together it was a very punchy session with lots of gags,
quite effective. Mr Osborne on the ropes a little bit. She took him to
task over the flooding. Also, guess what, over the EU really go see.
There could be a bit of that for George Osborne to handle. She might
want to talk about Google. George Osborne said that it was a
successful deal. Whereas, the French authorities have raided the Google
offices in the last couple of days in what people think is a different,
far braver approach. Isn't the answer likely to be, I've got 130
million, how much of the French got? Or, actually, under a Labour
government, Google had to a tiny amounts. It was in start-up phase
them. It's hard to tell what's going on in France because they are all on
strike. 25% of petrol stations have no petrol. There has been an air
strike and an air traffic control strike. It's hard to tell who is
doing the raiding and who's doing the striking. Interesting to see if
the much tougher tactics of the French get more in the end than Mr
Osborne has got. When we talk about cracking down on tax avoidance and
tax evasion which are very different things, are you better to have
conversations behind closed doors and work with people, or other
countries in the hope of getting somewhere or if you take a
sledgehammer to crack a nut do people pack of two other countries
using their better lawyers and accountants and better resources
than the tax authorities have. That's always been a difficult
balance to strike. It's something that Jeremy Corbyn feel strongly
about. He would argue that the government hasn't taken a tough
enough approach. I'm sure that many members of the government would
argue that they have moved significantly forward but tried to
take a more cooperative approach rather than just using a
sledgehammer. Maybe a French sledgehammer could do the job
better. It is tied up with European tax rules which for a long while
encouraged these big multinationals to position their intellectual
property rights mainly in Luxembourg or Dublin and that allowed them to
say they were paying zillions to use the name. And inside the single
market people can move their money and business around very easily. In
many cases, economists would say it was a big benefit. In this case,
perhaps the opposite. Someone who is trying to bring this into the
European debate as he did a couple of weeks ago, Gordon Brown is trying
to put forward easier crackdowns on tax baddies, if we say inside the EU
and losing that if we leave. Didn't he invent half the rules that people
have used to avoid tax. THE SPEAKER: There's a process to
follow. Wait his turn! Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, as always.
The Prime Minister's attending the G7 in Japan. I've been asked to
reply on his MAFF. This morning I'd meetings in ministerial colleagues.
In addition to my duties in this House, I will have meetings again
later today. I'm sure members 07 sit will disagree. The first priority of
any Government is the defence and security of our country. Therefore,
could the Chancellor outline for me, the steps this Government is taking
to replace our Trident nuclear defence? My honourable friend is
right. The first duty of Government is to defend the country. To for
almost 70 years an independent nuclear deterrent has provided the
ultimate insurance of four freedom. We'll renew Trident deterrent,
bridge forward votes in this House. We ask MPs from all sides of the
House to support this commitment to our national security. When she
stands up, the honourable lady representing the Labour Party should
inti Kate that support today. THE SPEAKER: Angela e Eagle. Thank
you, thank you, Mr Speaker. We look forward to the vote on Trident. And
he should get on with it! Mr Speaker, given the overnight news of
the French authority's dawn raid on Google investigating allegations of
aggravated financial fraud and money laundering, does the Chancellor now
regret calling his cosy little tax deal with the same company good news
for the British taxpayer? Well, it is good news that we are collecting
money in tax from companies that paid no tax when the Labour Party
was in office. Sand she seems to forget, she was the exchequer's
secretary in the last Government. So, perhaps, when she stands up, she
can tell us whether she ever raised with the Inland Revenue at the time,
the tax affairs of Google? Mr Speaker, I think obviously the
Chancellor has done a bit more research this time. I regard that as
a compliment! Mr Speaker, I think from that answer, that the
Chancellor is far too easily satisfied with his cosy little tax.
I note that even the honourable member for Uxbridge and rice lip
labelled this cosy little deal derisory. The British public think
it's even worse. Despite all the rhetoric on his watch, the tax gap
has actually gone up. His tax deal with the Swiss raised a fraction of
the revenue he boasted that it would. And the OBR blaming the lack
of resources in Revenue Customs. So why, Mr Speaker, has he sacked
11,000 tax staff since 2010? And when is he going to give them the
resources they need to do a proper job? Well, we increased resources
for the HMRC to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We've introdeuced a
diverted profits tax so companies like Google can't shift their
profits offshore nil. We made sure the banks pay a higher tax charge
than they ever did under the last Labour Government. I come back to
this, she was a Treasury minister, stood at this dispatch box. She's
asking me what we've done to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance. Did
she ever raise, as the exchequer secretary, the tax affairs of
Google? We should know this before she asks questions of this
Government. Mr Speaker... THE SPEAKER: Members must calm
themselves! And remain calm. Order! On both sides, they should take the
lead from the right honourable and learned gentlemen, the member for
Rushcliffe who's always sitting calm in a statistics manlike manner.
That's the way to behave. An loo eagle. We all have the greatest
respect for the Right Honourable Member for Rushcliffe. The
Chancellor of the exchequer will know the exchequer secretary deems
with taxes on vices not Google. I did my job in taxing vices when I
was in the Treasury. He will be judged on results. He's been in
office for six years. With France demanding ten times more from Google
than he is, the public will make their own judgment. Mr Speaker,
while Labour is campaigning to ensure the UK remains in the
European Union because it's the best way to defend rights at work, as
well as jobs and prosperity, the party opposite is split right down
the middle. And... Mr Speaker, it's descending into vicious acrimony.
Last week, the Employment Minister... Last week... Mr Speaker,
last week the Employment Minister called for Brexit so there could be
a bonfire of workers' rights. Does the Chancellor agree with her or
does he agree with Len McCluskey that a vote to stay in the European
Union is the best deal for Britain's workers? First of all, she confirmed
that when she was in the Treasury, she asked absolutely no questions
about the tax affairs of Google. When it comes to the European Union,
as she knows, she agree on this, I think it's better Britain remains in
the European Union. Why don't we have consensus on other issues, like
having an independent nuclear deterrent. Let's have a consensus on
supporting businesses rather than disparaging businesses. Let's have a
consensus and not piling debts on the next generation but dealing with
our deficit. Let's have a consensus the parties in this House should
have a credible economic policy. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think he's
just agreed with Len McCluskey. The former work and Spences -- Work and
Pensions Secretary said this week the Chancellor's Brexit report
should not be believed by anyone. He branded the Chancellor Pinnochio
with his nose just getting longser and longer with every fib.
Meanwhile, the General Secretary to the TUC said the Trish remember's
report caves us half a million good reasons to stay in the European
Union. Who should the public listen to? I don't think it's any great
revelation that different Conservative MPs have different
views on the European Union. That's why we're having a referendum.
Because this issue does divide parties and families and friends.
And we made a commitment in our manifesto that the British people
would decide this question. I might just observe, if she wants to talk
about divisions in parties, whilst she's sitting here, the leader of
the Labour Party is sitting at home wondering whether to impeach the
former member of the Labour Party for war crimes. Mr Speaker, I'm glad
he agrees with Francis O'Grady. A pitty he can't get half his
backbenches and his own party to agree with him. Given that the
former Work and Pensions Secretary has just called the Prime Minister
disingenuous and the former Tory Mayor of London called him
Demmeented, I -- demeanted, I wouldn't talk about Labour splits.
He needs to get his own house in order. Following the second
omnishambles budget this year, the Chancellor's approval rating have
collapse by 80 points amongst his own party. Given he seems to be
following a similar career path... Begin he seems to be following a
similar career path, isn't it time he turned to Michael Portillo for
advice? Last week, the former would be leader said of the Queen's
Speech, after 23 years of careful thought about what they would like
to do in power... Order. This question will be heard. Those
preyting away should cease doing so, it is stupid and counter-productive.
After 23 years of careful thought about what they would like to do in
power, Michael Portillo said, the answer is nothing. There is nothing
they want to do with office or power. The Government has nothing to
do, nothing to say and thinks nothing. That's what he said. But
even this nothing Queen's Speech has caused a revolt on his own
backbenches and caused another U-turn to force the Government to
defeat in its legislative programme in 92 years. Mr Speaker... Mr
Speaker, doesn't that tell you all you need to know about this Prime
Minister and Chancellor? It seems they can't even get their
backbenches to vote for them. Nothing without a fight. I tell you
what we've done in recent weeks, we've taken another million people
out of tax altogether. We have frozen fuel duty. We've cut business
rates for small businesses. We've seen the deficit fall by another ?16
billion. We delivered a record number of jobs and introduced a
national living wage. That's what we've been up to. What have the
Labour Party been up to? She talks of ewe turns. They've turned the
Labour Party from a party that gave Britain its nuclear deterrent to a
pear that wants to scrap it. A party that created the academies programme
which now wants to abolish them. A party that once courted businesses
now disparages them. The prawn cocktail offences is just plain
offensive these days. They've gone from a Labour Party that won
elections to a Labour Party that's going to go on losing though
elections. Mr Speaker, with 29 days to go
before the most important decision in this country has faced in a
generation we have a government in utter chaos, split down the middle,
at war with itself, the stakes could not be higher and yet this
government is at the mercy of its own rebel backbenchers, unable to
get their agenda through Parliament, instead of providing the leadership
the country needs they are facing a bitter proxy war over the leadership
of their party. I noticed that all of the Brexit supporters have been
banished from the front bench. CHEERING
Well, Mr Speaker... It's nice to see the Justice Secretary here. I think
the Chancellor has put the rest of his Brexit colleagues in detention.
Instead of providing the leadership the country needs they are fighting
a bitter proxy war over the leadership of their own party
instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their
narrow self-interest. We need a government that will do the best for
Britain. What we've got is a Conservative Party focused only on
themselves. CHEERING She talks about our Parliamentary
party, let's look at hers. They are like rats deserting a sinking ship.
We've got the shadow health minister wants to be the mayor for Liverpool,
the member for Bury South wants to be the mayor for Manchester. The
shadow leader wants to be the mayor for both cities. When we said we
were creating job opportunities, we didn't mean for the whole Shadow
Cabinet. They are like a Parliamentary party on day release,
are they? When the honourable lady is here, they know the member for
Islington will be back and it is four more years of hard labour.
Today we are voting on a Queens speech that delivers economic
security, protects national security, enhances life chances for
the disadvantaged, it doesn't matter who stands at the dispatch box for
the Labour Party, these days they are dismantling our defences,
wrecking our economy, burdening people with debt and in their own
report published this week called Labour Pars future, surprisingly
long, they say this, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to
the working people of Britain. CHEERING
Thank you, Mr Speaker, what a privilege it is to be called by you.
If the Remain campaign has its way, I will have two apply to Jean-Claude
Juncker by e-mail to speak. A wonderful example of European, not
EU, cooperation. The Fuser Large is built in this country and the wings
in Germany. Whether we remain inside or outside the EU will have no
affect on this business. As the Chancellor knows, it is trade and
hard work of businessmen and women that create jobs and prosperity not
politicians and bureaucrats. It is their job is to nurture growth and
enterprise... Order! I was looking for? For a question. Does my right
honourable friend agree it is to nurture business and not make
threats against enterprise and aspiration? Icon plie agree with my
honourable friend that jobs and enterprise are created through the
ingenuity of private businesses that we should support and nurture in
this house. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Lachlan brain is seven
years old and he attends the Gaelic medium primary school in Dingwall in
the Scottish Highlands. Next week, as the Home Secretary is currently
briefing him, the home Department plans to deport him and his family
despite the fact that he arrived through a Scottish Government
initiative from the Home Office to attract people to live and work in
the region. This case has been front page news in Scotland. What does the
Chancellor have to say to his family and the community who want him to
stay? As I understand it, the family don't meet the immigration criteria.
The Home Secretary says she is very happy to write to the Aiton
honourable gentleman on the details of the specific case. This has been
going on for weeks and that frankly is not good enough. Appeals have
been made to the Home Secretary by the First Minister, the local MP,
the local MSP, the community, it is wall-to-wall across the media of
Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly knew nothing about
it. The problem in the Highlands of Scotland is not immigration, it has
been emigration. Even at this late stage, knowing nothing about it,
speak to the Home Secretary, speak to the Prime Minister and get this
sort of -- sorted out. The Home Secretary will write on the details
of the case. Can I suggest to the Scottish Nationalists party, they
have substantial tax and enterprise powers and if they want to attract
people to the Highlands of Scotland, why don't they create an
entrepreneurial Scotland that people want to move to from the rest of the
United Kingdom where they can grow their business and have a successful
life? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Why is the Chilcott
reported not being published before the referendum? Is it because the
Prime Minister and the Chancellor don't want the public to be reminded
how the government of the day and the establishment are prepared to
produce dodgy dossiers, make things up and distort the facts to con the
public into supporting something they otherwise wouldn't ahead of the
EU referendum? No, because it is an independent report and they decide
when to produce it. In the spirit of consensus Mr Speaker, may I say that
there are few things that unite the house more than a concentration on
the periodic reviews of the boundary commission which has been studied
with fierce intensity and covered as eyes. We do note that the electorate
of the royal Boehner of Kensington and Chelsea has declined preserver
severely -- precipitately and against all logic. Should the Prime
Minister be concerned about this and what should he be doing? I thought
he was the member of party -- parliament for Ealing. They are
drawing up the boundaries and we will see their proposals.
Will the Chancellor, Barnardo 's, the oldest children's charity
celebrating 150 years of supporting and protecting the honourable
children? Does he agree that young people need support beyond the age
of 18 to maximise life chances and that the government knew care
leavers, and which extends the duty of care to 25 is a fitting way to
build an Barnardo 's proud history of giving young people best
opportunities in life? I certainly agree with my right honourable
friend that Barnardos is a brilliant charity and we should congratulate
them on the work that they do. We have huge responsibility to the
people in the care of the state and that does not end when they are 18
years old. That's why in the Queens speech we are announcing new
measures to include support from a personal adviser until they are 25
and make sure other bodies like local authorities have care for
those people and make sure all the opportunities are brought to their
attention. It is part of the life chances strategy that lies at the
heart of the Queens speech. The Chancellor wanted a march of the
maker. Hundreds of Steelworkers are marching for their future and their
communities. Why does the government backed China's bid for market
economy status against the interests of the steelworkers? Why does he
block tariffs against the interests of steelworkers. When will he put
the interests of steelworkers ahead of his own? Of course, our thoughts
are with the and their families at very difficult time. If we take a
step back, we should all acknowledge that there is a global crisis in the
steel industry that tens of thousands of jobs have been lost
across Europe alone and many tens of thousands Billy on that. We are
taking specific action today to help Tata and the port but works and
related works across the country and the Business Secretary has been in
India with the First Minister of Wales in a cross-party effort.
Nationally, we have taken action to reduce energy charges are an energy
intensive industries, we have taken action to make sure there is more
flexibility with emission regulations, doing everything we can
to help this industry at a very difficult time including making sure
there are top tariffs on Chinese dumping and as a result on tariffs
on Rebar still, those imports are down 90%. Would the Chancellor
comment on the fact that Lord sugar has joined the government as Empress
-- enterprise are show that people are abandoning the Labour Party. And
can he confirmed that he has no plans for a sugar tax? We have hired
Lord Sugar to head enterprise and he will bring knowledge and enterprise.
Apparently, he has told the Labour Party, you're fired! I have a
14-year-old autistic constituent who got on very well at primary school
but since moving to secondary school has found them on compromising,
leaving him with special school as his only option. What will the
Chancellor do to make sure when the independent expert group looking at
initial teacher training reports back that ministers will ensure that
specific autism training performs part of their curriculum? I think
the honourable lady raises an important issue and I think she will
have a lot of sympathy from colleagues around the house. The
Education Secretary has raised her concerns and shares her concerns and
has raised the issue with the chair of the initial teacher training
review Stephen Mundie and her efforts will be to ensure that
teacher training supports children with special educational needs,
specifically autism, and will recommend how teacher training
should cover this in the report which will be published shortly. My
local clinical commissioning group are reporting on the report leading
to downgrading at Doncaster infirmary. Can we ensure that all
bands are on the table and that we must be able to compete with their
needs. Any service changes need to be made by the local NHS and they
need to be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better
outcomes for patients. It's right that these decisions are made by
local clinicians rather than politicians but they do need to meet
the key tests set out. Public and patient engagement, support from GP
commissioners, be based on clinical evidence and consider patient
choice. I would expect the local NHS to consider all these in any
decision they reach. The House of Commons library estimates that 4.9
million UK citizens live or work in other countries and yet week in,
week out I meet constituents from overseas that cannot get visas,
residences or citizenship here and the whole of Scotland is outrage at
the threat of deportation for the Brain family. What is the difference
between an economic migrant and an expat? The honourable gentleman and
straights that we do have border controls in this country and we do
have immigration rules that need to be complied with. That is a very
important part of the European Union Schengen area agreements that we are
not part. It is of the special status we have in the European
Union. Would the Chancellor join me in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan,
the last of the type 45 destroyers presently moored in London for the
Battle of Jutland commemorations. Would he support the work that the
all-party group is doing to ensure all Armed Forces and their families
have the very best housing that we can offer them? I absolutely join
her in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan and celebrating all they do
on behalf of this country to keep us safe and to represent Britain around
the world and of course we return them a duty of care and that is
enshrined in government. That didn't exist before we came into government
and we are honouring our promise to honour the armed services and our
Navy. This government wants to raise tuition fees even higher. Why has
the Chancellor changed his view since 2003 when he said that you
wish and fees were attacks on learning? Back then, the Labour
Party were voting for Jewish and fees and the difference is, we
learned our lesson and they have forgotten theirs. -- tuition fees.
This has given us the best universities in the world and the
record number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They have
an incredible policy to abolish tuition fees that they introduced
and create a ?10 billion hole in the public finances. It's time they were
straight with students that it is completely unavoidable.
St Albans and many areas of the South and East need their green
belt, 3 million people might come into this country if we remain.
Which parts of the green belt will be needed to build on and where will
it go? We need to provide houses, homes and infrastructure for these
people. We made a clear commitment to protect the green belt and our
planning laws that we introduced and proposed to introduce do meet those
laws but I have to say to my honourable friend, we disagree on
this issue on European union membership and I see no particular
evidence from the Leave campaign that more people would come in.
Let's agree on this, we have a referendum and it is not going to be
up to her or me but the British people to desired. -- decide. No
wonder should underestimate public support for the BBC. 200,000 people
have signed a petition over the removal of the recipes website. The
government may have held back from some more extreme proposals but
there is still a need for concern. Will they allow MPs to provide
Parliamentary scrutiny that the charter renewal so Rob Lee deserves?
We want a great public broadcaster. We have agreed a deal with the BBC
that they have welcomed. On the specific issue she raises, that was
an operational decision by the BBC and not a decision taken by the
government. We have a great national public broadcaster in the BBC. We
don't want a newspaper in the form of the BBC. As newspapers move
online, the BBC want to be careful about what information they have on
their website so we can also have a flourishing private press. I think
the BBC have got that balance right. Will the Chancellor, firm and
explain as the House of Commons library and the ONS figures for 2015
clearly show that as we export 44% of goods and services within the
single market, why it is that in relation to the other 27 member
states we run a disastrous loss or deficit on these exports of 68
billion per annum, up 9 billion from last year alone whereas Germany with
the same 27 runs a profit or surplus of a massive 82 billion. Isn't that
a bad deal? We are a massive exporter of services and they
represent a 80% of the economy. We are home to one of the most
successful car industries in the world and we export to the
continent. We are part of the European Supply chain and that is
why leading businesses are in favour of is remaining in the European
Union. We disagree on this issue and that is why together we stood on the
manifesto to have a referendum and let the people decide. Thank you, Mr
Speaker. Headteachers, NHS, private-sector employers in my
constituency are telling me they have few if any qualified applicants
for a range of skilled roles and too many experienced staff are leaving.
The single most common reason for this crisis is the cost of rental
and purchase housing in west London which the government's housing
policies will not addressed. Even the subsidies to buy... Order!
Order! I'm sorry to say to the honourable lady, one sentence with a
question at the end of it and we must press on. Will the Chancellor
acknowledge this recruitment and retention crisis and do something
about it? We have 25,000 more clinically trained staff in our
national health service but we agree with her that there is a challenge
of housing in London. I met with Sadik Khan earlier this week and we
are going to see where we can agree with others is that can address that
issue. In my right honourable friend's enthusiast and to bludgeon
the voter into supporting the European Union that they don't
really like, how can he justify planning to break the law? Is he
aware that the public Administration select committee has now published
three legal opinions from Speaker's Council, from... THEY TALK OVER EACH
OTHER I hope the sentence is coming to an
end with a question at the end of it. Very briefly. They make it
perfectly clear that it is illegal for the government to keep their
pro-EU propaganda on the government website during the third period.
Turing the period, the government will comply with the law. Can I make
a general observation. We have fought for the referendum which is
taking place with huge issues at stake about Britain's economy,
Britain's security and place in the world. Let's debate the substance
rather than the process and then the British people will feel they have
had a range of opinions and they can make their own mind up. The care
sector faces a crisis made worse by the failure of the Chancellor to
properly fund increases in the minimum wage. Local government
Association has asked the Chancellor to bring forward ?700 million of
care funding from 2019 to this year and next year to help with those
extra costs. Will the Chancellor listen to local councils and form
his own minimum wage policy? Of course we always listen to local
authorities and we have given them the power which many have used to
apply a social care precept and that has come in in April in many areas.
At the same time, we have put more money into the better care fund and
we are confident that social care is funded. More needs to be done to
help the social care sector and the key is going to be integration with
the national health service in the coming years so it is much more
seamless as a service for our citizens. Last year at the
Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister said that the future,
for we the state provided was shameful. The Dell or early grave on
the streets. Yesterday the Prison Reform Trust produced a report
identifying that far too high a proportion of children in care come
in touch with the criminal justice system. Will he ensure that policies
are implemented that prevents the unnecessary contact between the
criminal justice system and children in care so that they can have a good
future? I think he speaks very powerfully and, of course, we've got
to have a care system that does the very best for children. The Queens
speech has measures in that respect. The key thing is reforming our
prison system so that people are punished for crimes but have a
chance to rehabilitate themselves and that is one of the reforms I am
proudest to be part of. A Southampton letting agency has been
banned from trading for three years for not giving tenants their
deposits back and using them for other purposes. The situation as far
as letting agencies is concerned is that they are almost completely
regulated and it is potluck as to whether residents get a fey deal or
not. Is the Chancellor planning to do anything about this? We are
looking to make sure that people who rent are getting proper consumer
protection including from landlords who unreasonably withhold deposits.
It was the Chancellor and Angela Eagle for Labour. Labour decided to
go on this raid on the Google offices by the French tax
authorities who are trying to get over a billion pounds out of
auto-Google compared to the arrangement come to with Google in
the UK which net HMRC about ?130 million. There was a bit of Argy
bargey on that. The Chancellor wanted to anyhow what Miss Eagle had
done when she was a Treasury minister on Google. He couldn't
quite get an answer. Whether it was irrelevant. Banting back and
forward. Not that much substance. Some of the longest-winded questions
of modern time from the backbenchers there. This was the House of Commons
in search of a question mark. Very often it didn't find that particular
question mark. We'll go through in a second. We'll find out first of all
what the voters thought of it. Francs Edwards said enAngela Eagle
is the cleverist and wittiest. On-Maxwell said who on earth in the
Labour opposition put Miss Eagle forward. What an embarrassing
performance. Paula said George Osborne said there were different
points of view on Europe in the Conservative Party. That's why we're
having a referendum. Is that a good enough reason for this turmoil for
months on end. All we are getting these days are long pre-prepared
statements. Jim Pattinson said are there any questions in PMQs. Some me
andered. Went up a cul-de-sac and came back down. Found another
cul-de-sac. Fell over a precipice and still couldn't get the question
mark. Laura, let me ask you a question that has a very quick
question mark. Why was the Chancellor going on about Trident?
He couldn't resist the opportunity when he was at the dispatch box at
Prime Minister's Questions to pry to make an awkward point for the Labour
Party. One of the things not noticed about the Queen's Speech last week
which was roundly attacked for having nothing in it, also by
Michael Portillo, there was in it a commitment to press ahead with plans
for friedent. That, for the Labour Party, as we know, is a very tricky
issue. The leader of the party wants to try to get rid of it. He's having
a defence review he pretty much hopes will come up with that
recommendation. Many, many backbenchers and the big powerful
unions disagree with him. George Osborne in shock move to try to
embarrass Labour Party when in big profile moment at dispatch box.
Angela Eagle does well at these sort of events. She's good on her feet.
Not as good as she was last time though? She wasn't a bit more
long-winded. It is quite extraordinary, this is the first
Prime Minister's Question Time setting after a Queen's Speech. It
reflected there was nothing in the Queen's Speech. None of the
questions were really going at the substance. Both sides are
struggling. Normally angle will is a punchy. She has a good turn of
phrase. Why have you hired Alan surer to do what? He's going to be
an enterprise Tsar. Works with the business department. Always good to
get people from outside in to the business department. We brought
people in to make sure you have had people in business helping with the
department to make sure the civil servants and many of whom haven't
been in business, know what it's like. He'll have to step down from
presenting The Apprentice? Not sure of the details of his contract with
his broadcasters. In 2009 when Gordon Brown made an Enterprise Tsar
said in my view it is not possible for him to continue to present The
Apprentice when so closely identified with the Government. I
had thought he would stand down in his role of Apprentice. He's made no
secret for his admiration of Gordon Brown. Is this window dressing? I
his arrangement last time is to carry on on The Apprentice and also
advise the Government. So it's window dressing? If he was a proper
member of the Government he can't present a BBC programme? He will not
be a minister. He'll support the Government and business department.
To do what? To make sure we've an environment for enterprise. This is
a man who repeatedly meets business people, entrepreneurs, trying to get
businesses going. And making sure the business department sets the
environment for enterprise. A key part of delivering what we want. He
said not so long ago, George Osborne hasn't got a handle on economics.
You will you'll see the results. It is not me you have to convince, it's
Alan Sugar you've just hired. He's clearly come on board. That's good
news. Has he changed his mind? You'll have to ask him that. Is he
the only businessman you know? Is he the only businessman you know?
Definitely not. I wondered why you politicians have been so obsessed by
him. What was his greatest business achievement? He start add long time
ago. We all started a long time ago. You did, Andrew. What's his greatest
business achievement? He started in tech in the eighties. He started in
property. How did that go? He's involved in meeting all sorts of
business people. What's been his greatest business achievement. If
he's such a great entrepreneur and advise you on enterprise what has he
achieved? We've a whole series of business people in. You've only one
Tsar. Not true. For enterprise? We'd two a year, entrepreneurs in
residence. People who come in to business to make sure there's a
voice inside the business department. Sometimes on this
programme, you can have too much fun! I'm sure it has nothing to do
with the fact that Lord Sugar was happy to associate himself with the
Labour Party and recently said he's no longer happen why I to associate
himself with the Labour Party. I would say, these things often don't
end well. We've seen it plenty of times. Gordon Brown did it. Other
politicians did it. You bring in people with a high profile with the
public or in their own sector. They come into Government. Sometimes do
good work. They sometimes don't do much at all. Then they flounce out,
point fingers and is a, that lot don't no what they are doing at all.
I've better things to do. There are already big names from business
inside the Government. Jim O'Neill, former Goldman Sachs. The former
bottom of BT is Trade Minister. The idea the Government has to be seen
to bring in business expertise seems a little bit hard to fathom. It's
not that we have. We choose to. We've brought Mark Price in to do
the Trade Minister job are. But that's a job. This is too. It's not
paid, is it? It's important constantly to make sure the
Government ask supporting this country. This must be a devastating
blow to the Labour Party? The loss of Alan Sugar? Yes. I'm trying to
come to terms with it. Shall we dim the lights and move on?
, I just say, you're fired! I've been wanting to say that. Who are
you saying it to? She's an indiscriminate firer. Thanks, Laura.
A group of ex-military chiefs have today declared that Britain's
defence and security would be enhanced by leaving the EU.
Under the banner Veterans For Europe,
they warn that the UK is on an irreversible path towards an EU army
The dozen former senior military officers include
Major General Tim Cross who was commander of UK Forces
in Iraq, and he joins us now from College Green.
Welcome to the programme. How does our membership of the EU lessen, as
has been said, our commitment to NATO? It draws us into what is an
inevitable EU military union within the EU which has been declared in a
number of different treaties, including the Treaty of Lisbon. Of
course, we are fully integrated already in the EU military staff. In
the EU defence agency, even though the Prime Minister said in 2010 he
was going to leave the EU defence agency. And the EU battle group we
saw exercising in England last week. I'll ask you again. How does it
lessen our commitment to NATO? Why can't we be part of both, the EU and
NATO? It competes with NATO. France and Germany... In what way? It draws
money from NATO. No European Government is going to expend more
defence money that it is already spending. Quite the reverse, in
fact. They'll building an EU military unit. A lot of money going
into NATO will go into that EU military union. That will be
concerning to the Americans. Barack Obama was in Germany telling Angela
Merkel she had to pay another moo NATO. They are already worried by
the amount that goes into NATO. When the Americans realise what will
happen with EU military, they will begin to draw back from NATO as
well. That's the one alliance that's kept the UK and Europe safe since
the Second World War. Not the EU. But the UK Government is still very
committed to NATO as are other members. How would our defence
Cabibility and defence security improve if we left the EU? On the
security front, what currently happens, we have to allow any EU
citizen to come into the UK. To freely chaff here. We can check
their passports. We have to let them in unless we can prove conclusively
they present an immediate threat to the life and livelihood of the UK.
We are not part of the Schengen area in this sense. We are not part of
Schengen. We have to let them in unless they are a direct threat.
That's often based on secret enEU intelligence. If leave the EU we can
prevent them coming. People who have fought with Islamic State in Syria
and Iraq. Having all these large number of people coming in puts our
intelligence service under stress. Do you accept many of the threats
from terrorism have come from people who were British-born and who are
already here? I do accept that. That's very true. We don't want to
add to that problem by continuing to allow those people who threaten us
to come into the UK from Europe if we can stop them. We can't stop them
now. Let me just go back to you. On NATO, is our commitment to NATO as
Richard Kemp says, being affected by staying in the EU and moves towards
military union? No, there will not be an EU army. Those fears can be
put to one side. Not least evidence by the vast majority of the security
of recently retired security and military senior personnel who
support our remaining in the EU alongside staying in NATO as part of
our security. It is very important. We're going to have to leave there.
Richard Kemp, thank you. Now we talked earlier
about the Remain campaign's attempts Leave.EU, which you will remember
was the group that lost out in the race to become
the official leave campaign, said it wanted to reach out
to the youth vote with its Bpop Live event
in Birmingham. after a concert planned
for earlier this year had to be
cancelled when the headline act, Yesterday, soon after
the line-up was publicised, The boyband 5ive -
which actually now only consists of two of the band -
pulled out, deeming it more a political rally
than a pop concert. The idea of appearing
at the event alongside political figures including Nigel Farage
also didn't appeal in the end to singer Alesha Dixon,
who also pulled out. and the line-up still,
as best as we can establish, and the American group
Sister Sledge. Well, to discuss this
we're joined by the former He's had his own problems
with mixing music and politics after releasing and then withdrawing
his Ukip Calypso song in 2014. What do you make of all this? It is
interesting Obama didn't mention that the American people wanted us
to remain. He didn't mention Sister Sledge. Maybe they don't know. If I
had ebeen running, I'd have targeted people who were vote Leave leave.
Roger Daltrey is vote Leave leave. I would have targeted them to go it.
Who else other than Roger Daltrey? Ian Botham on a singing day! I
thought cricket was his thing. #2348 He sings with his bat. I wouldn't
argue with him. You'd get people who were pro-vote. It is a bit more
sensible. When you're doing Live Aid you're getting people sympathetic to
Live Aid. If you're singing we shall overcome the civil rights movement.
You get people interested in it. Probably not Bob Dylan for this
concert? Probably not for this. I don't know. If the money was right.
Mick Jagger would do it for money? He didn't ask me or you. Probably
because he's heard me sing. It's easier on the left to organise these
things most singers art easts would like the identify with the left.
They've done that before. It was done in 1987-1990. Paul Weller, the
Commune Ards. Billy Bragg. Probably a mistake for Ukip to do this? This
is cross-party. A vote Leave leave. No, it's not actually. It is a
Leave. EU. This is another a Ukip kind of one? Am I right in saying
that? From what I can gayer Gombault it is not vote Leave leave. It will
be in Birmingham. Are you going to go? It is up the road. It is the
Jude Ian people's front not the people's Jude Ian front. Who's left?
Sister Sledge. Mike, bash that red button. The
Mike, thanks for being on. Sorry it was so rushed.
The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow
with all the big political stories of the day.
We'll be joined by Iain Duncan Smith.
Do join us if you can. Bye-bye.
Jo Coburn and Andrew Neil present live coverage of Prime Minister's Questions. They are joined by Labour MP Gisela Stuart and Conservative minister Matt Hancock to discuss the EU referendum, the military veterans who want the UK to leave the EU and plans for a pro-Brexit pop concert.
The Guess The Year competition closes at 12.30pm during the live broadcast of the programme.