:00:36. > :00:40.The leave campaign deploys Boris Johnson to defeat
:00:41. > :00:42.what they call Project Fear, but are the remain campaign
:00:43. > :00:48.George Osborne hoped taxing pensions would help him fill the black hole
:00:49. > :00:51.in the public finances, so why has he abandoned his plans
:00:52. > :00:58.And four more states have voted - is Trump a step closer
:00:59. > :01:18.Donald J Trump for President! In the capital, new homes at a third of the
:01:19. > :01:21.price. Too good to be true? We ask if this development could be the
:01:22. > :01:30.answer to London's housing problems. And talking of Project Fear,
:01:31. > :01:33.with us for the duration this morning, a terrifying political
:01:34. > :01:38.panel whose incisive insights strike fear into the hearts
:01:39. > :01:43.of politicians everywhere. Toby Young, Helen Lewis
:01:44. > :01:47.and Janan Ganesh. So, he took a while to make his mind
:01:48. > :01:50.up which way to swing, but those campaigning for the UK
:01:51. > :01:53.to leave the European Union will hope the deployment
:01:54. > :01:55.of their most charismatic performer - Boris Johnson -
:01:56. > :01:57.on the Marr Show this morning The Mayor of London took a swing
:01:58. > :02:11.at the deal the David Cameron the stated Government policy
:02:12. > :02:17.was that we should have a reformed EU, fundamentally reformed,
:02:18. > :02:18.wholesale change in Britain's relationship with
:02:19. > :02:20.the EU was promised. That has obviously
:02:21. > :02:21.not been delivered. We were told at the time that
:02:22. > :02:24.Britain would be perfectly safe to walk away, by the Government,
:02:25. > :02:26.by the Prime Minister. That has now, that rhetoric has now
:02:27. > :02:29.very much been changed, I think, by the way,
:02:30. > :02:37.the policy was right then. We should be absolutely confident
:02:38. > :02:45.about the future of this country. What do you make of his performance?
:02:46. > :02:50.David Lloyd George said negotiating with devil are was like trying to
:02:51. > :02:57.pick up mercury with a fog, and I imagine Andrew Marr feels similarly
:02:58. > :02:58.after trying to pin down Boris Johnson over questions of the
:02:59. > :03:15.Brexit. If these leaves campaign don't have
:03:16. > :03:19.an agreement on something that fundamental, you can see them
:03:20. > :03:22.struggling with the real harsh light of scrutiny getting applied in the
:03:23. > :03:27.later weeks of this referendum campaign, I think what will end up
:03:28. > :03:31.happening is there will be a division of Labour whereby Michael
:03:32. > :03:36.Gove leads on the hard detail and interviews such as this, Boris
:03:37. > :03:41.Johnson does what he's good at such is the retail politics, and we don't
:03:42. > :03:46.have incidents like that worrying level of confusion. Was it an
:03:47. > :03:53.assured level of performance? I think the way that interview will be
:03:54. > :03:56.seen is as Boris not being able to get a wording edgeways, being
:03:57. > :04:00.constantly interrupted, not being allowed to develop his points, and
:04:01. > :04:04.that will add to a sense of grievance which is emerging as one
:04:05. > :04:15.of the features of this campaign. The leaves campaign already
:04:16. > :04:19.complaining about George Osborne lining up the G20, David Cameron
:04:20. > :04:23.getting these European leaders to weigh in on the remaining side. That
:04:24. > :04:29.grievance narrative will probably be powerful when it comes to mobilising
:04:30. > :04:32.the debate. Wasn't he being interrupted because Andrew Marr was
:04:33. > :04:38.trying to get him to address the point? When you interview Boris, you
:04:39. > :04:41.have got to come not just Boris, but when you interview him you have got
:04:42. > :04:48.to interrupt because quite often politicians just play for time in
:04:49. > :04:52.these interviews. Often he was developing a particular point, and
:04:53. > :04:56.while he was trying to develop a point and answer what Andrew Marr
:04:57. > :05:01.had asked him, he got interrupted, but I think the general sense of
:05:02. > :05:05.grievance emerging on the leave site will help mobilise the levers when
:05:06. > :05:12.it comes to the actual referendum. The fact the levers feel more
:05:13. > :05:16.passionately than the remainders do about remaining will help the leave
:05:17. > :05:26.cause. I think that is the best defence you can give Boris this
:05:27. > :05:31.morning, it is worrying. There is a moment of extreme danger for Boris.
:05:32. > :05:37.What happens after the referendum, particularly if we stay in? Should
:05:38. > :05:42.he take a Cabinet job, in which he affects people's lives, or does he
:05:43. > :05:47.stay on the backbenches not making his move? He is in real danger. A
:05:48. > :05:52.lot of his popularity comes from the fact he doesn't do politics. He
:05:53. > :05:56.hasn't got an enormous track record to his name as London mayor, and
:05:57. > :06:03.people don't have a huge amount of tolerance for that hail fellow well
:06:04. > :06:09.met act. Is there a lot of grievance, as Toby says? Yes, you
:06:10. > :06:23.can imagine how much worse it will be later on. Things like Scheuble's
:06:24. > :06:27.interview, where he said Britain would have to pay in to have access
:06:28. > :06:34.to the EU market, that could be seen as bullying. If you are on the other
:06:35. > :06:41.side of the argument, of course you will see it as provocative. My worry
:06:42. > :06:47.is the campaign will get poisonous, and the opening two weeks is
:06:48. > :06:51.reflective of something much worse. If this grievance narrative begins
:06:52. > :06:56.to gain traction over the course of that campaign, won't it help
:06:57. > :07:02.mobilise the leave side? We have seen how it can motivate voters in
:07:03. > :07:09.America with Donald Trump. But there was grievance in the Scottish
:07:10. > :07:14.referendum, I think it helps, but to win plurality you need to go beyond
:07:15. > :07:18.grievance. That partly depends on turnout and if the public are turned
:07:19. > :07:23.off by the negative tone of the debate, you will have a low turnout
:07:24. > :07:30.and that will probably favour leaving rather than remaining. We
:07:31. > :07:33.will see. It is a long time until July the 23rd.
:07:34. > :07:36.It's been branded Project Fear by opponents and in a moment I'll be
:07:37. > :07:38.talking to one of the remain campaign's chief protagonists.
:07:39. > :07:41.First, here's a reminder of how they've been making their case over
:07:42. > :07:48.Tell us what the model is that they believe
:07:49. > :07:50.the European Union would negotiate with Britain.
:07:51. > :07:52.Remember, this is going to be a divorce if we
:07:53. > :07:59.decide to leave, and as with any divorce it is likely to get messy.
:08:00. > :08:03.In many ways, I am a Eurosceptic, absolutely, and I'm still a Brussels
:08:04. > :08:14.basher in many ways and will always remain so.
:08:15. > :08:16.I think the answer to the concerns that people have, and these
:08:17. > :08:19.concerns of course are not completely absent in Scotland,
:08:20. > :08:27.isn't to clamp down on free movement.
:08:28. > :08:30.If we leave, the people who are advising us to leave,
:08:31. > :08:33.they cannot at the moment answer the question about what arrangements
:08:34. > :08:49.So Project Fact is about saying stay and you know what we get.
:08:50. > :08:52.And I'm joined now by Nick Herbert who is leading the Conservatives'
:08:53. > :09:05.Let's go through a number of things your site has been saying. Firstly
:09:06. > :09:21.let's take the Calais camp, the Prime Minister 's office has said if
:09:22. > :09:25.we move the camp -- if we leave the camp will move to the south-east of
:09:26. > :09:32.England. They would be little interest in remaining the agreement
:09:33. > :09:37.we have that people stay on the French side. That will result in
:09:38. > :09:41.people coming over to this side, and we having to deal with them rather
:09:42. > :09:45.than the French, which means they can claim asylum in this country.
:09:46. > :09:51.And what was interesting about this claim, which I think is about a
:09:52. > :09:55.common-sense that is how the French would respond if we were outside of
:09:56. > :09:58.the EU and they no longer have the same set of incentives to cooperate,
:09:59. > :10:02.is that it was dismissed as scaremongering and now we have the
:10:03. > :10:05.most senior politicians in France confirming that this would probably
:10:06. > :10:10.be the case so this isn't scaremongering at all. What I'm
:10:11. > :10:13.wondering is why you would move the camp overnight to the south of
:10:14. > :10:19.England. Explain why they would form a camp if they have made it to
:10:20. > :10:24.Britain. The point is that we would have to deal with them on the
:10:25. > :10:30.British side. That would require us to send them back. One of the things
:10:31. > :10:35.we have in this debate that many to do is to remind ourselves that we
:10:36. > :10:39.have border controls in Britain, we are not part of the passport free
:10:40. > :10:44.area, the Schengen Agreement in the rest of Europe, and we can and do
:10:45. > :10:50.check EU citizens when they come in. We indeed turn them away. Thousands
:10:51. > :10:54.of EU citizens are turned away from our borders and it is too are
:10:55. > :10:58.advantage that the controls that prevent people from coming in are on
:10:59. > :11:03.the French side. Let's assume the French do what you are claiming. If
:11:04. > :11:09.they come here, if they make it here, either they will apply for
:11:10. > :11:14.asylum, in which case they will don't to official reception centres
:11:15. > :11:20.until it is sorted out, or they will disappear into the labour market.
:11:21. > :11:26.Neither involves creation of a camp in England. I don't know what was
:11:27. > :11:29.meant about a camp, what I do know is that at the moment we have
:11:30. > :11:35.arrangements where people can be stopped on the French side, the
:11:36. > :11:40.French would have little incentive to keep that if we walk out of the
:11:41. > :11:44.EU. It was initially dismissed on this site by Brexit campaigners as
:11:45. > :11:49.scaremongering, I think it is a very good example of an issue that we
:11:50. > :11:54.will have to deal with if we leave. You keep on mentioning these French
:11:55. > :12:01.politicians, only one has said this, that the economics minister. Would
:12:02. > :12:07.you like to tell our viewers what the interior minister has said?
:12:08. > :12:12.Right up to President Hollande... He didn't say anything about that.
:12:13. > :12:17.President Hollande and his ministers have said this will be on the
:12:18. > :12:25.agenda. There is a raft of French politicians who have made this
:12:26. > :12:32.clear. Name one. Common sense would tell us that if there is an
:12:33. > :12:35.arrangement, because it is a part of the cooperation and partnership we
:12:36. > :12:39.have with the French that they would no longer have that same arrangement
:12:40. > :12:43.if we were out of the EU. I will tell you what the French interior
:12:44. > :12:49.minister says, he says ending the treaties which govern the Calais
:12:50. > :12:53.camp would not be responsible solution, we will not do it, we
:12:54. > :13:00.would like to go on building a good immigration policy with the UK,
:13:01. > :13:09.especially at Calais. Other French ministers have said different
:13:10. > :13:29.things. One. Let's just look at what governs the Calais camp. The 1991
:13:30. > :13:34.protocol governs the tunnel, another treaty... Wires are EU membership
:13:35. > :13:39.critical factor? I have already made that point, that this a separate
:13:40. > :13:44.issue legally to our EU membership of the question is what incentive
:13:45. > :13:50.would the French have to continue with those arrangements if we were
:13:51. > :13:52.outside of the EU, and it is as I say senior French politicians
:13:53. > :13:56.themselves and local French politicians who are raising these
:13:57. > :14:03.questions. What I think is a reminder of... But these are EU
:14:04. > :14:08.treaties, Anglo-French treaties, the French could stop them tomorrow
:14:09. > :14:12.whether we are in or out. I said that before you did that it is
:14:13. > :14:15.legally a separate matter, but politically I think there is little
:14:16. > :14:19.doubt that the French would not have the same set of incentives to stand
:14:20. > :14:24.by this issue. That was made clear at the highest level last year. All
:14:25. > :14:29.of this is a reminder that Britain is in a different position than the
:14:30. > :14:33.rest of our EU partners. We are not in the Schengen arrangement, we do
:14:34. > :14:40.have border controls. It is in our interests that some of those border
:14:41. > :14:42.controls operate on the other side of the Channel Tunnel, and in our
:14:43. > :14:45.interest that we continue to remain outside of the Schengen area. It is
:14:46. > :14:49.one of the things that gives Britain the best of both worlds, we are able
:14:50. > :14:54.to access the market but outside of the passport free area. The protocol
:14:55. > :14:57.that governs the tunnel is a protocol to the Treaty of Canterbury
:14:58. > :15:04.which sets up the tunnel, there is no way you can change it without
:15:05. > :15:08.reneging on the treaty. To close down the existing situation would
:15:09. > :15:12.effectively close the tunnel. The French government owns 55% of the
:15:13. > :15:22.operation of the tunnel, why would they do that in or out of the EU?
:15:23. > :15:29.Ask the French politicians. You confirmed it was the senior French
:15:30. > :15:33.minister. He said he was implicitly confirmed by the President. He hopes
:15:34. > :15:38.to be running for President next year. None of this has come out of
:15:39. > :15:42.thin air. It has come because it would very obviously be one of the
:15:43. > :15:45.ways in which we would lose out, potentially, from withdrawing from
:15:46. > :15:50.the EU. That is because the same sort of arrangements that means that
:15:51. > :15:55.we cooperate with our partners would no longer exist. Let's move onto the
:15:56. > :16:00.benefits of membership. Your side of the campaign has said that we
:16:01. > :16:06.benefit ?3000 per household has accumulated over our time in the EU.
:16:07. > :16:09.Do you stand by that figure? It was a CBI figure and it was not actually
:16:10. > :16:14.their own calculation. What they did was look at a range of studies that
:16:15. > :16:18.show the economic benefits of the single market. They range from some
:16:19. > :16:22.saying that there was not a benefit, to some saying there was a very
:16:23. > :16:25.substantial benefit. They have updated this research just last
:16:26. > :16:30.month and they said that the majority of the studies showed there
:16:31. > :16:38.was a substantial benefit. About 10% of JD chilly GDP. They calculate it
:16:39. > :16:44.as ?10,000 per head. You are using it, Britain is stronger in Europe,
:16:45. > :16:49.do you stand by it? It is the CBI's figure. Do you stand by it? It is a
:16:50. > :16:55.average figure that has been done by the studies that have been done, not
:16:56. > :17:02.just the CBI's own studies. It shows there is a net benefit to us being
:17:03. > :17:07.in the single market. Do you stand by the ?3000 figure? It is not a
:17:08. > :17:13.figure I have used. Your campaign has used it, look down there,
:17:14. > :17:16.Britain Is Stronger In Europe. It is a perfectly reasonable figure for
:17:17. > :17:19.them to use because it is a study that has been done, not their
:17:20. > :17:23.studies. The majority of those studies that have been done, they
:17:24. > :17:30.show that there is a benefit to being in the single market. The CBI
:17:31. > :17:34.stays of its study of 12 research papers, originally beginning with
:17:35. > :17:40.five, all of which were pro-EU, it has widened that to 12, some of
:17:41. > :17:50.which are more hostile. It there is an and avoidable degree of
:17:51. > :17:57.uncertainty. But you have to caveat that? We need to weigh up the costs
:17:58. > :18:01.and benefits. The majority of the studies showed that there would be a
:18:02. > :18:05.benefit. That could be more substantial. In terms of the
:18:06. > :18:08.increase in GDP, the domestic product, that has been gained as a
:18:09. > :18:14.result of being in the single market. It comes back to the single
:18:15. > :18:16.market, because it gives us easier trade and facilitates business,
:18:17. > :18:22.because it benefits the huge number of companies that trade with the
:18:23. > :18:26.European Union, there is a benefit to the whole economy. The big
:18:27. > :18:30.question is, if we were to leave the European Union, what alternative
:18:31. > :18:33.arrangement would we have? That is the question the opponents will not
:18:34. > :18:37.answer. They will not say if we would be in the single market or
:18:38. > :18:43.not. The risk is that we would lose those benefits. As a consequence,
:18:44. > :18:46.there would be an impact on businesses and, therefore, on the
:18:47. > :18:51.economic benefit coming to the country. On the research paper, you
:18:52. > :18:55.are right that the CBI did not do its own research, the latest one was
:18:56. > :19:01.12 research papers with 14 estimates. Out of those, it took
:19:02. > :19:06.seven. It did not include some of them. It happens that the seven they
:19:07. > :19:12.took out showed far fewer benefits. So we are right to be sceptical. The
:19:13. > :19:17.sample is down to a largely pro-EU sample. To be fair, I think you need
:19:18. > :19:20.to ask the CBI about its calculation. But what was striking
:19:21. > :19:26.was that the range of benefit and the majority of studies that they
:19:27. > :19:34.tuck it down to, the seven... Took it down to. Yes, was up to 10% of
:19:35. > :19:38.GDP. Most serious economic analysis shows there was a benefit to being
:19:39. > :19:42.in the single market for the economy. That is why businesses
:19:43. > :19:46.themselves, the majority of members of the British chamber of commerce,
:19:47. > :19:53.the majority of members of the Institute of Directors, the FTSE 100
:19:54. > :19:57.companies, a full third of the FTSE 100 companies said it would be
:19:58. > :20:03.damaging to leave the EU. The other two thirds were not saying the
:20:04. > :20:06.opposite. This claim of a decade of uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU
:20:07. > :20:10.would be the start, not the end of the process and could lead to a
:20:11. > :20:14.decade or more of uncertainty. Why would it take twice as long to
:20:15. > :20:18.withdraw from Europe as it took to win the Second World War? Because of
:20:19. > :20:22.the length of time it takes to do trade deals and make alternative
:20:23. > :20:29.arrangements. If you look at the average trade deal that is done,
:20:30. > :20:34.they take years. Canada's trade is still not fully signed off. It took
:20:35. > :20:38.seven years. We would have had to negotiate alternative arrangements,
:20:39. > :20:41.not just with the EU, that would be problematic enough, and the other
:20:42. > :20:44.side has not told us what arrangement that would be, but the
:20:45. > :20:47.one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that it would
:20:48. > :20:53.not give us the benefits of the single market we currently have.
:20:54. > :21:00.With the 35 other trade deals that the EU has done, those arrangements
:21:01. > :21:06.would fall as well. Would we not just say, put the need to negotiate
:21:07. > :21:10.a single market agreement to one side, why would we not say to other
:21:11. > :21:13.countries, Morocco, South Korea and so on, we will continue with
:21:14. > :21:18.existing trading relationships. Why would they not agree? Because,
:21:19. > :21:23.automatically, all of these deals fall. But why would Morocco not
:21:24. > :21:28.continue to trade with us on the same basis as it does at the moment?
:21:29. > :21:32.The question is not whether people would continue to trade, it is what
:21:33. > :21:39.it terms the trade would be. On the same basis? We would have to
:21:40. > :21:42.renegotiate with the EU, which would be hugely problematic and we would
:21:43. > :21:46.be disadvantaged by the process that would be triggered. Stick with
:21:47. > :21:52.non-EU countries, why would a country that happily trades with us
:21:53. > :21:56.under the EU rules, why would they not continue to trade on the same
:21:57. > :22:02.basis out of the EU? It depends on the kind of deal that we are doing
:22:03. > :22:06.with the EU. If we are unable to do a deal with the EU, we would fall
:22:07. > :22:10.out altogether and then into the World Trade Organisation rules,
:22:11. > :22:13.meaning we trade with tariffs, which would be immensely damaging to
:22:14. > :22:22.British business and to jobs. Hold on, you mentioned tariffs. In your
:22:23. > :22:26.Project Fear scenario, sterling is down by 20%. The average tariff on
:22:27. > :22:31.cars would be ten. Overall we would be more competitive, we would face a
:22:32. > :22:37.tariff wall of 10%, but we would be 20% more competitive? What is wrong
:22:38. > :22:42.with that? What is wrong with all of this is that we have, at the moment,
:22:43. > :22:47.a situation of certainty, where businesses know they have access not
:22:48. > :22:52.just to the single market, but also to the 50 or more countries that
:22:53. > :22:57.have done deals with the EU, and more in the pipeline. That gives
:22:58. > :23:01.certainty. We face the prospect of huge uncertainty because the other
:23:02. > :23:05.side will not say what kind of deal would be on offer. They don't know
:23:06. > :23:08.whether it would be like Norway, like Switzerland, these are
:23:09. > :23:14.countries that have the benefits, some benefits of access to the
:23:15. > :23:18.market. It is essentially an open market from Iceland through to
:23:19. > :23:23.Turkey. There is not a single arrangement. But essentially open.
:23:24. > :23:29.Why would the European Union pick on us and not include us in that
:23:30. > :23:32.largely open market from Iceland to Turkey? Because, as the German
:23:33. > :23:36.finance minister said today, we cannot have access to the single
:23:37. > :23:43.market without accepting certain things. Those include freedom of
:23:44. > :23:47.movement and paying in. Overall, the single market gives us much greater
:23:48. > :23:50.benefits to the businesses than alternative arrangements. That is
:23:51. > :23:53.why it would be economically damaging to leave, in the view of
:23:54. > :24:01.most businesses. The important point is this. It is not just a question
:24:02. > :24:08.of the deals we would do, have to do with the EU, it would also be with
:24:09. > :24:11.the 35 other countries, more than 50 other deals, leading to a period of
:24:12. > :24:15.huge uncertainty that is damaging for British businesses and jobs. We
:24:16. > :24:19.have discussed that already. The director-general of the British
:24:20. > :24:23.chamber of commerce, suspended for coming out in favour of Leave. Did
:24:24. > :24:26.anybody involved in Downing Street have something to do with this? I
:24:27. > :24:32.think that is a ridiculous suggestion. I am not surprised there
:24:33. > :24:35.is unhappiness in the British chamber of commerce. They were meant
:24:36. > :24:39.to have a neutral position. The majority of their businesses, in a
:24:40. > :24:45.recent survey, said they wanted to remain. So, no Downing Street hand?
:24:46. > :24:48.Absolutely not. Why would they? Thank you very much.
:24:49. > :24:51.Now, the scenes of hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants
:24:52. > :24:53.that fill our TV screens provide powerful images for those arguing
:24:54. > :24:56.that we should turn our backs on the crisis-hit European Union.
:24:57. > :24:59.In a moment I'll be asking Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell,
:25:00. > :25:02.First let's have a look at what Leave campaigners have
:25:03. > :25:11.They need a free-trade deal with us and it will be a central part
:25:12. > :25:14.of the negotiations when we leave the European Union, an important
:25:15. > :25:16.part, but one where they have a commercial imperative
:25:17. > :25:28.Once we have control of our own borders, we can send back
:25:29. > :25:31.whoever we want so if somebody comes in and they are not appropriate,
:25:32. > :25:33.they shouldn't be here, they should've stopped in France
:25:34. > :25:35.or Germany or wherever, we will send them back.
:25:36. > :25:40.So the threat is both wrong, inappropriate, and won't work.
:25:41. > :25:43.Come on, donnez-moi un break, as we say in Brussels.
:25:44. > :25:55.It's sad but perhaps unsurprising that those who want
:25:56. > :25:58.the British people to be kept in the European Union have launched
:25:59. > :26:15.This is designed to make the British people afraid of change.
:26:16. > :26:20.Douglas Carswell joins me now. Let's look at some of the things your side
:26:21. > :26:26.have been complaining about. The cost of membership. We will stop
:26:27. > :26:31.sending ?350 million every week to Brussels. Do you stand by that
:26:32. > :26:37.figure? Absolutely. The reason I do is because every year we make a
:26:38. > :26:43.gross contribution of 19.2 billion, if you divide that by the weeks in a
:26:44. > :26:48.year, 350. We're talking about what we send to Brussels. Let's look in
:26:49. > :26:54.little more detail. This is from Office for Budget Responsibility.
:26:55. > :27:03.These are the 2014 figures. The column on the left-hand side, we
:27:04. > :27:09.have 18.3 billion. It is 19.2 now, but I will let that go. It gives you
:27:10. > :27:16.350 million. But before we send that, we deduct the rebate of 5
:27:17. > :27:22.billion. We don't send the rebate, we take the ?5 billion off. The
:27:23. > :27:33.contribution we send is ?13.5 billion and that is 260 billion --
:27:34. > :27:38.million per week. The figure is very vulnerable to the machinations of
:27:39. > :27:42.ministers. Look at what Tony Blair did with the rebate. They were fast
:27:43. > :27:48.and loose with it at the blink of an eye. What I am trying to point out,
:27:49. > :27:52.because the phrase here was we are sending ?350 million, we don't send
:27:53. > :27:58.the rebate and we send it back. We take the rebate off and then we send
:27:59. > :28:02.them 13.5. The rebate is very vulnerable, as we discovered when
:28:03. > :28:06.Tony Blair gave away a large section of it. It is very vulnerable to
:28:07. > :28:09.change. I think it's fair that we include a figure. But we don't send
:28:10. > :28:17.it. In addition to that, having not sent the rebate and sent 13.5, we
:28:18. > :28:22.then get 4.4, almost ?4.5 billion back to spend in ways that will be
:28:23. > :28:26.guided, sometimes dictated by the EU, but it is money that comes back.
:28:27. > :28:33.Our net contribution, as you can see from the table, is 9 billion. That
:28:34. > :28:39.is ?175 million each week. It is not 350 million. The reason I think it
:28:40. > :28:46.is vertical about the gross contribution of ?19.3 billion a
:28:47. > :28:50.year, you don't deduct the services you get from the government, you
:28:51. > :28:56.don't say your tax bill is zero because of the mended potholes and
:28:57. > :29:00.the streetlights and things you get. It is appropriate that we talk about
:29:01. > :29:05.the 19.2 billion we send every year. But I just explained that we don't
:29:06. > :29:12.send that. The actual saving, because the original quote was about
:29:13. > :29:16.saving to spend elsewhere, is 175 million each week. You can say it is
:29:17. > :29:23.too much, not enough, I don't want to stay in, but it's not 350 million
:29:24. > :29:26.a week. 350 million on the table, some of that is highly vulnerable
:29:27. > :29:30.because it is part of the rebate. I think it is right and proper we talk
:29:31. > :29:35.about that. It is enough money to build a new hospital every week. It
:29:36. > :29:39.would not be a saving, even out of the EU we would continue to have
:29:40. > :29:43.some form of farm subsidies and forms of regional aid? We would
:29:44. > :29:47.spend some of the money we currently send to Brussels for ourselves. I
:29:48. > :29:51.think instead of sending 350 million each week to Brussels, we would be
:29:52. > :29:55.better spending that money improving the NHS, giving a better deal to
:29:56. > :29:59.farmers, maybe even tax cuts. I think it is fair we talk about ?350
:30:00. > :30:01.million we have to send every week to Brussels. People will make their
:30:02. > :30:13.minds up on that. Let's move onto another issue. Nigel
:30:14. > :30:18.Farage has said 75% of UK law is made in Brussels. Do you with that?
:30:19. > :30:22.I asked the Parliamentary authorities when I first became an
:30:23. > :30:33.MP and they were not able to tell me. Some claim it is as little as
:30:34. > :30:38.15%, on our side some claim 70%. The German legislature in Berlin have a
:30:39. > :30:46.figure of 80%. Do you agree with the 75% figure? It is probably about
:30:47. > :30:50.right. What is the source? The question was talking about the
:30:51. > :30:54.amount of legislation that is emanating from member state versus
:30:55. > :31:02.that coming from Brussels. What is the source of the 75% figure? You
:31:03. > :31:07.just cited Nigel. He is not a source, he is a messenger. We have
:31:08. > :31:13.looked carefully at the research, we can find no credible study. Even by
:31:14. > :31:23.pro-Brexit groups that puts the figure at 75%. I have seen studies
:31:24. > :31:28.that show 25%, but I can find nothing that gives me 75%. I don't
:31:29. > :31:33.think this morning you can help on that. I have raised questions in
:31:34. > :31:39.Parliament and I am happy to forward on the answers I have got, but there
:31:40. > :31:43.is a question raised... The German parliament has produced a figure of
:31:44. > :31:54.80 something. For the German parliament. Talking about the ratio
:31:55. > :31:57.coming from Brussels. Vote Leave says if we Vote Leave we can take
:31:58. > :32:02.back control of our immigration policy. No country has full access
:32:03. > :32:16.to the single market without first agreeing to the free movement of
:32:17. > :32:20.people. As you demonstrated earlier this week when you quizzed Matthew
:32:21. > :32:28.Hancock, you can have free trade from Iceland to Ireland to Russia,
:32:29. > :32:32.so you can leave the EU and have tariff free access. Canada have
:32:33. > :32:42.recently negotiated a deal to give them free market access. The
:32:43. > :32:50.Canadian deal includes tariffs, even tariffs on some manufacture
:32:51. > :32:54.products, it includes tariffs on products and does not include
:32:55. > :32:58.anything to do with services and we are 80% service economy. But we
:32:59. > :33:01.would benefit, as a service economy. But we would benefit, as every
:33:02. > :33:09.country in Europe does apart from Belarus, for tariff free access. But
:33:10. > :33:15.how do you know that? The Council of the European Union is unequivocal.
:33:16. > :33:18.Two years ago, the internal market and its freedoms, one of which is
:33:19. > :33:22.freedom of movement, are indivisible, you cannot have one
:33:23. > :33:28.without the other. We know that last year we had a trade deficit with the
:33:29. > :33:32.other EU member states, about 60 billion. The idea they would
:33:33. > :33:37.introduce tariffs seems to me absurd. On the point of regulation,
:33:38. > :33:47.sometimes it is said we need to be part of the single market for
:33:48. > :33:50.regulatory reasons, but in many ways it is possible to have market access
:33:51. > :33:55.from a regulatory perspective without being part of the single
:33:56. > :34:02.market. If you are selling into Europe you have got to meet Europe's
:34:03. > :34:08.regulations... But do I take it that you are indicating that if we leave,
:34:09. > :34:13.we would not seek total access to the single market as we have at the
:34:14. > :34:19.moment? We would seek instead of free trade agreement which is less
:34:20. > :34:26.than a single market? We would see access to the single market but we
:34:27. > :34:31.would not want to be bound up. We would not initially seek full access
:34:32. > :34:35.to the single market? I think if we had tariff free access and wouldn't
:34:36. > :34:40.have regulatory obstacles put in our way, it would be free access. But
:34:41. > :34:45.the trade agreements you have specified, particularly the one with
:34:46. > :34:49.Canada, it is not a single market agreement, it includes tariffs, it
:34:50. > :34:57.includes... It does not include services. Look at Switzerland for
:34:58. > :35:02.example. Switzerland at the moment has 4.5 times trade ahead the EU
:35:03. > :35:10.from outside of the single market than we manage from within. But it
:35:11. > :35:21.does not have full access for its services. You accept that a free
:35:22. > :35:26.trade agreement... They have also moved huge chunks of their financial
:35:27. > :35:31.services to London so that they are inside the EU and can trade. Another
:35:32. > :35:37.confidence within the City of London. On Friday Suzanne Evans and
:35:38. > :35:41.your fellow Vote Leave supporters were sacked from their roles as UK
:35:42. > :35:48.speakers. Miss Evans has now been sacked twice, are you next for the
:35:49. > :35:53.job? Suzanne Evans is brilliant at this sort of stuff, we will hear a
:35:54. > :35:59.lot more from her. Are you next for the chop? Nigel described me as
:36:00. > :36:05.irrelevant, I have been called far worse in the elections I have
:36:06. > :36:10.stored, but in four of those five Parliamentary elections are won.
:36:11. > :36:16.That is the beauty of democracy. There is being a member of Vote
:36:17. > :36:22.Leave, and being a Ukip MP, are these things becoming mutually
:36:23. > :36:25.exclusive? Absolutely not, Vote Leave is now garnering support from
:36:26. > :36:34.the political left, the political centre right, and people... So why
:36:35. > :36:38.doesn't Nigel Farage? You need to address that question to him. He is
:36:39. > :36:46.your leader. There are differences of opinion. There is a strategic
:36:47. > :36:54.difference, I'm the think we need to win this election with an upbeat,
:36:55. > :36:57.positive campaign. Your leader says you are relevant, could you not
:36:58. > :37:04.resign the whip and become an independent? It is the voters who
:37:05. > :37:12.decide who is and who isn't relevant. Thank you for joining us.
:37:13. > :37:15.If you want more facts about the EU referendum, you can check the BBC
:37:16. > :37:17.News website. It is excellent. It's just gone 11.35,
:37:18. > :37:19.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:37:20. > :37:21.in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes -
:37:22. > :37:26.will Donald Trump win the Republican First though, the Sunday
:37:27. > :37:41.Politics where you are. Coming up later: At breaking point,
:37:42. > :37:44.as London's junior doctors prepare for Tuesday's strike,
:37:45. > :37:46.we ask who will blink first in the stand-off with
:37:47. > :37:50.Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Here in the studio, I'm joined
:37:51. > :37:52.by Colonel Bob Stewart, Conservative MP for Beckenham,
:37:53. > :37:55.and Meg Hillier, Labour MP Let's kick off, if we can,
:37:56. > :38:03.with the issue of school places. 81,000 kids in the capital found out
:38:04. > :38:06.this week whether they had got their first choice
:38:07. > :38:08.secondary school. 31% of those across London
:38:09. > :38:09.were disappointed. In some boroughs, that
:38:10. > :38:12.was up to one in two. What do you put this down to,
:38:13. > :38:17.Bob Stewart, what's the problem? In Bromley, my borough,
:38:18. > :38:19.there are far too many children Last year, for example,
:38:20. > :38:23.there were 4800 babies born There are 4100 primary
:38:24. > :38:33.school places in Bromley. In four years' time, 500,
:38:34. > :38:36.sorry, more than that, 700 places, assuming
:38:37. > :38:37.people don't go private, have got to be found in the first
:38:38. > :38:40.year of primary school. That is a huge problem if each
:38:41. > :38:44.class is roughly 30. Meg Hillier, what is
:38:45. > :38:47.the situation where you are? Well, Hackney has planned ahead
:38:48. > :38:54.for the population growth, so actually we are not doing too
:38:55. > :38:57.badly, with enough school The key thing here is
:38:58. > :39:00.that the Government says it is not its responsibility,
:39:01. > :39:02.local government has had Really, the Government has to make
:39:03. > :39:06.sure that planning is in place to make sure children
:39:07. > :39:08.have school places. It really is a quite
:39:09. > :39:10.simple question of maths, Your local Conservative-run local
:39:11. > :39:16.council failed to predict and provide, or is it
:39:17. > :39:18.central government? The problem is, they are trying
:39:19. > :39:22.to build schools, but nobody The locals don't want schools
:39:23. > :39:26.built on their doorstep. We are in greenbelt land
:39:27. > :39:29.and there is not a lot They are trying their very best,
:39:30. > :39:33.but, actually, there is a problem. We could have a solution to that,
:39:34. > :39:40.we will come to that later on. Next week, applications open
:39:41. > :39:44.for a radical housing scheme that offers brand-new homes
:39:45. > :39:46.for a third of market value. Well, the scheme in London's East
:39:47. > :39:50.End is the first of its kind Sarah Neville has
:39:51. > :39:59.been taking a look. Established as a Victorian
:40:00. > :40:02.workhouse, then a psychiatric institution, St Clement's Hospital
:40:03. > :40:05.has been an imposing local landmark Now disused and dilapidated,
:40:06. > :40:14.it is about to be transformed as part of a pioneering
:40:15. > :40:19.housing project. This may look like an ordinary
:40:20. > :40:22.building site, but what is taking shape here in Bow is the first
:40:23. > :40:26.of its kind in a British city, a ground-breaking way to buy
:40:27. > :40:29.a new house at a third of the cost 23 of the 250 properties on this
:40:30. > :40:40.site will be sold through London's first community land trust, or CLT,
:40:41. > :40:42.an innovative not-for-profit organisation, established by local
:40:43. > :40:45.people to provide affordable housing for local residents -
:40:46. > :40:48.a model some hope could help bring I think this is the answer
:40:49. > :40:58.to London's chronic What we are doing is developing
:40:59. > :41:03.homes here on this site, which will be basically one third
:41:04. > :41:12.of the market price. We are doing that because we
:41:13. > :41:15.are linking the price The average income in
:41:16. > :41:19.Tower Hamlets is ?30,000. We are saying if you are on ?30,000,
:41:20. > :41:22.you should be able to afford That means a one-bed apartment
:41:23. > :41:26.through London CLT will cost Or two beds for ?182,000,
:41:27. > :41:30.rather than the market Tower Hamlets is one
:41:31. > :41:37.of London's poorest boroughs. Despite that, property has recently
:41:38. > :41:41.reached record highs, with an average sale of over
:41:42. > :41:44.?500,000 making it unaffordable Suzanne Gorman and her family hope
:41:45. > :41:53.the CLT can change that. We have three kids who share
:41:54. > :41:58.a bedroom, a bunk bed with a trundle bed underneath, which is fine
:41:59. > :42:03.but not going to be forever. We live in a shared ownership
:42:04. > :42:06.property, which we bought Even that model which was our access
:42:07. > :42:21.to affordability has been This development breaks the mould
:42:22. > :42:25.because it offers permanently We have created the first
:42:26. > :42:29.community land trust on the St Clement's Hospital site,
:42:30. > :42:32.and we will do Mayor Boris Johnson has
:42:33. > :42:38.enthusiastically backed the St Clement's scheme,
:42:39. > :42:40.which is on former GLA land. Nobody could deny that the capital
:42:41. > :42:44.needs this, but it has been a slow process to deliver
:42:45. > :42:45.a handful of homes. The Government has put housing
:42:46. > :42:48.at the heart of its administration, with a target of 1 million
:42:49. > :42:57.new homes by 2020. In London, 50,000 homes a year
:42:58. > :42:59.are needed to be built, but only a fraction
:43:00. > :43:01.of that number going up. The housing charity Shelter says
:43:02. > :43:04.a more radical solution is needed. If we are going to build
:43:05. > :43:06.the houses London needs, we're going to have to take some
:43:07. > :43:09.really quite difficult choices That means taller buildings in some
:43:10. > :43:13.places, which aren't always popular. It means losing some industrial
:43:14. > :43:18.land, which isn't always popular. It maybe means building
:43:19. > :43:20.out into the greenbelt, to a small extent, in order to get
:43:21. > :43:23.the homes we so desperately need. The cut-price homes go on sale
:43:24. > :43:26.on Monday, when thousands With plans for several more
:43:27. > :43:34.CLT sites in London, perhaps this old hospital represents
:43:35. > :43:37.the future of home buying. Toby Lloyd from Shelter
:43:38. > :43:46.is with us again. It has been very slow progress,
:43:47. > :43:54.in the take-up of CLTs. Well, I certainly think that this
:43:55. > :43:57.kind of approach really should be It is providing really affordable
:43:58. > :44:02.housing in a place where people This was GLA land, mayoral land,
:44:03. > :44:08.this one has taken long enough. It has taken a long time because,
:44:09. > :44:11.unfortunately, it took an awfully long time to release that land
:44:12. > :44:13.and get everybody to agree Look, there is no single magic
:44:14. > :44:17.answer to London's housing crisis. If there was, we would have
:44:18. > :44:20.done it by now already. Unfortunately, we need to be looking
:44:21. > :44:22.at every single possible intervention to get more housing
:44:23. > :44:24.built and, most importantly, make sure enough of it is
:44:25. > :44:27.genuinely affordable. But a lot of the land
:44:28. > :44:30.where you could put new developments is owned by councils,
:44:31. > :44:32.owned by boroughs. What is stopping them
:44:33. > :44:37.from using this model, retaining the value of the land,
:44:38. > :44:40.if you like, and making these homes Well, there are a lot
:44:41. > :44:45.of different obstacles there. Firstly, local councils have quite
:44:46. > :44:47.stringent best value rules. They are expected to get market
:44:48. > :44:49.value for their land. If not, they can get in trouble
:44:50. > :44:52.with the Government. They can even be sued by rival
:44:53. > :44:54.companies for not having So it's actually very difficult
:44:55. > :44:59.for local authorities to do We should be making it
:45:00. > :45:05.an awful lot easier. Public sector land,
:45:06. > :45:07.where it does exist, affordable housing, not
:45:08. > :45:10.being sold on the open market So, if your assumption is that
:45:11. > :45:16.you are seeing no signs from central government that they are going
:45:17. > :45:18.to create the framework and environment where you can get
:45:19. > :45:20.more of these models, you are looking elsewhere
:45:21. > :45:22.for alternatives, presumably, to build the kind of housing
:45:23. > :45:25.you need and you are advocating we should be thinking
:45:26. > :45:27.about the green belt more? We are looking at
:45:28. > :45:28.every single option. The answer is that London needs
:45:29. > :45:31.all of these things. That does include a sensible look
:45:32. > :45:33.at releasing little bits London's green belt
:45:34. > :45:36.is extremely large. It is about 22% of
:45:37. > :45:38.the entire GLA area. It has been a great policy
:45:39. > :45:47.and should be preserved. But it makes sense to release
:45:48. > :45:49.small pieces of it, where we can do that,
:45:50. > :45:51.in order to build housing Only a fifth of that land has some
:45:52. > :45:55.sort of environmental protections. I don't know if you heard,
:45:56. > :45:58.we were just talking about schools and Bob Stewart will say one
:45:59. > :46:01.of the restrictions why you cannot build schools and many other things
:46:02. > :46:04.is because of the green belt. What about housing
:46:05. > :46:06.on the green belt? People are looking
:46:07. > :46:10.at the green belt. There's a huge amount
:46:11. > :46:13.of local objection to that. Once you have built on green belt,
:46:14. > :46:16.it is gone for ever. A lot of green belt,
:46:17. > :46:19.I agree with you, is actually called green belt but it is a bit
:46:20. > :46:23.like building sites. There is probably a lot
:46:24. > :46:30.of this in Bromley. The problem in Bromley
:46:31. > :46:43.is that we are actually struck -- stuck for space to build schools,
:46:44. > :46:46.for example, new housing. So it is time, you'd say,
:46:47. > :46:49.to think about it? I would say look at it very
:46:50. > :46:56.carefully. There might be some possibilities,
:46:57. > :46:58.where it is a rubble site which is actually called green belt,
:46:59. > :47:04.that might be a possibility. I think Toby Lloyd is right to say
:47:05. > :47:08.that it's not just about that You've got to look at
:47:09. > :47:14.it across the board. We have seen to the Public Accounts
:47:15. > :47:17.Committee, which I chair, that the Government is releasing
:47:18. > :47:19.public land for sale, it is for housing, but it can't
:47:20. > :47:21.even tell us family homes are built, let alone how
:47:22. > :47:24.many are affordable. If you could take away some
:47:25. > :47:26.of the restrictions, you get a double dividend
:47:27. > :47:28.for taxpayers and people that need homes, and you provide homes
:47:29. > :47:30.for local communities, holding unit is together,
:47:31. > :47:33.affordable homes for key workers so we keep public services running
:47:34. > :47:36.and we need to look at the change to allow that to happen
:47:37. > :47:38.because there was also public land in London that could be one
:47:39. > :47:46.of the top priorities. Unfortunately, several
:47:47. > :47:48.of the sites is not enough, There isn't that much available
:47:49. > :47:52.brownfield development site land. In London, there is brownfield land
:47:53. > :47:55.that can be developed, We just published a report
:47:56. > :47:59.where we looked at all of the land in London and found, let's face it,
:48:00. > :48:02.most brownfield land already has If you look at vacant brownfield
:48:03. > :48:09.land, there is very little of that. Quite rightly, all of that is
:48:10. > :48:11.already in the planning system Do you think it is time
:48:12. > :48:21.we should explore this? Sadiq Khan has been very clear
:48:22. > :48:24.as our mayoral candidate that he doesn't want to start
:48:25. > :48:26.building on green field. David Lammy, one of your neighbours,
:48:27. > :48:29.said we should start doing that. Well, he's not the mayoral
:48:30. > :48:30.candidate. I think what is really clear
:48:31. > :48:34.is that we need to focus on the land that the public sector already owns
:48:35. > :48:37.and get that double dividend. What is your own view
:48:38. > :48:39.about the green belt? That we need to focus on hospital
:48:40. > :48:42.sites that have been taken over by this thing called PropCo,
:48:43. > :48:44.by central government. Local areas would do much more
:48:45. > :48:46.for the local health economy if they could provide possibly
:48:47. > :48:49.a good health facility, but mostly a good,
:48:50. > :48:50.affordable housing. You would prefer to see
:48:51. > :48:52.the green belt go? I would prefer us to
:48:53. > :48:54.look at those sites. Frankly, the green belt in my area
:48:55. > :48:57.does not make a difference, Bob Stewart, we have schoolchildren
:48:58. > :49:03.that need places now, And houses for them,
:49:04. > :49:06.as they grew up. Places like Bromley have got
:49:07. > :49:12.a huge problem. There is not that much land that
:49:13. > :49:14.isn't green belt that Bromley Council have
:49:15. > :49:22.been all over it. They know every single square inch
:49:23. > :49:25.of land that isn't green belt that Do you think any mayoral candidate
:49:26. > :49:35.can rule out any of these options if they are going to
:49:36. > :49:37.deliver their promises? No, the next Mayor can fix this
:49:38. > :49:40.in London, but it does require some tough choices and it requires
:49:41. > :49:43.looking at all the options, including densifying the suburbs,
:49:44. > :49:44.includes town centres, includes brownfield land,
:49:45. > :49:46.includes being really imaginative But it will probably involve
:49:47. > :49:49.a little bit of green London's junior doctors
:49:50. > :49:57.are preparing for another Earlier this week, the BBC's
:49:58. > :50:02.Inside Out programme gave a flavour of the stress and anxiety
:50:03. > :50:06.in the profession at the moment. I was supposed to finish
:50:07. > :50:08.at eight o'clock. I didn't finish until 1:30
:50:09. > :50:10.and I didn't get home It was only at two o'clock
:50:11. > :50:16.in the morning when I realised my own father was waiting for me
:50:17. > :50:19.to talk about the operation he was due to have that day,
:50:20. > :50:22.and he wanted to talk to me I just felt really bad,
:50:23. > :50:30.because his daughter is a doctor and I felt like I couldn't look
:50:31. > :50:37.after my own father. But I was trying to help someone
:50:38. > :50:43.else, that's really difficult. It's really difficult,
:50:44. > :50:45.because it felt like I totally Two weeks after we filmed with her,
:50:46. > :50:55.she collapsed while working, suffering dehydration,
:50:56. > :50:57.low blood sugar and a racing heart Last month, the Health Secretary
:50:58. > :51:06.Jeremy Hunt said he would impose With neither side backing down,
:51:07. > :51:16.we are asking how this will end. In the studio are Dr Hamed Khan,
:51:17. > :51:19.an A doctor at Tooting St George's Hospital and Sam Bowman
:51:20. > :51:21.from the Adam Smith Institute. Well, I think the key issue
:51:22. > :51:27.to realise is that the whole premise for the junior contract,
:51:28. > :51:29.the seven-day NHS that the Health Secretary pledged in the last
:51:30. > :51:32.election, is completely flawed. Jeremy Hunt has constantly
:51:33. > :51:36.manipulated data from a research study that was done earlier to scare
:51:37. > :51:40.the public into believing that more people who are admitted on weekends
:51:41. > :51:43.die as a result of understaffing. He is making changes to the junior
:51:44. > :51:51.contract to allow him to stretch the non-emergency,
:51:52. > :51:53.five-day service within the current That just isn't sustainable
:51:54. > :52:02.or doable at all. It just isn't feasible,
:52:03. > :52:04.as the Cass Business School told the public affairs
:52:05. > :52:10.committee last week. Ultimately, this isn't
:52:11. > :52:13.about patient safety. It isn't about patients at all,
:52:14. > :52:15.this is about money. If I was a doctor,
:52:16. > :52:17.I might be striking. I might be annoyed that some
:52:18. > :52:20.doctors, for example, But, ultimately, this is
:52:21. > :52:26.an industrial dispute about money. The doctors are being given
:52:27. > :52:28.a reasonably generous offer. What comes first is limited
:52:29. > :52:32.resources for the NHS Do we continue to pay doctors that
:52:33. > :52:41.are already very highly paid, junior doctors will go on to earn
:52:42. > :52:44.over ?100,000, much more than most people can ever hope of earning,
:52:45. > :52:49.what do we use that money for, other things on the NHS,
:52:50. > :52:52.which is already extremely I think we go with the plan that
:52:53. > :52:56.we've got and we use that money where it is going to be needed more,
:52:57. > :52:59.not to pay doctors more. He addressed the remarks to me,
:53:00. > :53:02.but he could be addressing Junior doctors have a basic starting
:53:03. > :53:06.salary of ?23,000. They spent thousands of pounds
:53:07. > :53:09.of their own money to do their qualifications
:53:10. > :53:12.so that they leave no stone unturned in providing the best
:53:13. > :53:19.patient care possible. They work 60-70 hours
:53:20. > :53:20.a week, routinely. Together with other health care
:53:21. > :53:22.workers, they provide about ?1.5 billion worth of unpaid,
:53:23. > :53:27.unrecognised overtime to the NHS. The British taxpayer gets
:53:28. > :53:29.brilliant value for money out The whole ?100,000 thing
:53:30. > :53:33.is just completely wrong. Junior doctors will
:53:34. > :53:39.go on to earn that. But this is about the
:53:40. > :53:41.junior doctor contract. We're not talking about
:53:42. > :53:42.the consultant contract. We are talking about doctors
:53:43. > :53:49.who will go on to earn A senior consultant will earn
:53:50. > :53:54.multiples ?100,000. You weren't saying a junior
:53:55. > :54:02.doctor gets ?100,000? The most a junior doctor can
:54:03. > :54:05.earn is about ?70,000, But Hamed says a lot
:54:06. > :54:11.of stuff is not monetised, stuff that they do which does
:54:12. > :54:14.not get thought of now, So do nurses and lots of other
:54:15. > :54:18.health care workers. If the idea is that we are paying
:54:19. > :54:21.people according to the effort they put in, we should be talking
:54:22. > :54:24.about nurse salaries, we should be talking
:54:25. > :54:26.about the salaries of people much If we are talking about how to get
:54:27. > :54:33.the best value for money for people who use the NHS, patients
:54:34. > :54:36.and taxpayers, then I think the key is to restrict the amount of money
:54:37. > :54:39.we are paying doctors, to make sure it does
:54:40. > :54:41.not go up any further, because they will go on to a get
:54:42. > :54:44.much more than almost It's pretty clear, Jeremy Hunt
:54:45. > :54:51.himself said he had to do this because he wanted to stop dealing
:54:52. > :54:59.with militant staff. That tells us he came at it
:55:00. > :55:02.from completely the wrong angle, he has escalated
:55:03. > :55:03.this to a ridiculous level, when you're dealing
:55:04. > :55:05.with people that really They are public servants who really
:55:06. > :55:10.believe in what they do. He should never have let
:55:11. > :55:18.escalated this level. He should never have let it
:55:19. > :55:20.escalate to this level. We have looked at the
:55:21. > :55:23.funding on the Public Accounts Committee and you are
:55:24. > :55:25.right, it is about the maths, but they never did the maths
:55:26. > :55:27.about seven-day working and they never did
:55:28. > :55:30.the maths on this issue. Would you allow Meg Hillier
:55:31. > :55:33.to get away with that? I think we need
:55:34. > :55:35.seven-day working for I wouldn't like to go into hospital
:55:36. > :55:41.with a real problem at the weekend. I don't care what statistics are,
:55:42. > :55:44.there are not the same number of staff in hospitals
:55:45. > :55:50.at the weekend. It's not so much about seven-day
:55:51. > :55:53.working, it's about the way the contract was handled,
:55:54. > :55:55.the contract negotiation, so-called, and is now
:55:56. > :55:59.being imposed with some insulting a group of
:56:00. > :56:01.very dedicated public He didn't insult anyone,
:56:02. > :56:04.he wants the doctors to be onside. He's tried to give them a fair
:56:05. > :56:07.by increasing their basic salaries. He is trying very hard to give
:56:08. > :56:13.the public a first NHS service. Sometimes I am wondering
:56:14. > :56:15.what the heck the junior Hamed, you're standing
:56:16. > :56:18.in the way of progress? This will make the Health Service
:56:19. > :56:25.far poorer by the following. The first thing that will happen,
:56:26. > :56:28.as a result of making junior doctors work even more hours
:56:29. > :56:30.than they do and by reducing their pay is that more
:56:31. > :56:34.will opt to leave abroad. We are in a situation
:56:35. > :56:38.where about a third of the entire A workforce has emigrated over
:56:39. > :56:41.the last five years, about a third of GPs
:56:42. > :56:43.are planning to emigrate. If this continues, soon,
:56:44. > :56:46.we will become a net I thought doctors' hours
:56:47. > :56:53.were coming down from 90 to 70? Listen, the second issue,
:56:54. > :57:03.the key thing to appreciate is that they are removing
:57:04. > :57:05.the fundamental safeguards that exist at the moment
:57:06. > :57:07.which prevent doctors We have an independent system
:57:08. > :57:12.at the moment that this incentivises That will be replaced
:57:13. > :57:20.by an in-house guardian system It will make doctors
:57:21. > :57:24.leave to go abroad. This cannot improve
:57:25. > :57:28.the state of care. From 16 points of contention
:57:29. > :57:29.between the Government The one sticking point
:57:30. > :57:33.was overtime for This is about money,
:57:34. > :57:39.it's not about patient safety. They should get back
:57:40. > :57:41.to work, shouldn't they? I don't think the junior doctors,
:57:42. > :57:48.we should not call them junior, they are pretty senior
:57:49. > :57:50.people,should go on strike. The Secretary of
:57:51. > :57:53.State has mishandled I would go with Dan Poulter,
:57:54. > :57:58.a Conservative MP, a former minister of health, who is also a doctor
:57:59. > :58:01.and knows the system far better than any of you do, frankly,
:58:02. > :58:04.because he is a doctor. He also feels the new contract
:58:05. > :58:06.is unsafe in terms of making doctors over fatigued
:58:07. > :58:08.and unfair, which will result I said last word, but,
:58:09. > :58:12.Bob Stewart, you don't I don't think they will,
:58:13. > :58:20.I hope the doctors will stay working and I don't expect
:58:21. > :58:22.them to put patient They have signed
:58:23. > :58:26.an oath not to do so. Thank you very much
:58:27. > :58:33.indeed for coming in. Now a quick look at the rest
:58:34. > :58:36.of the week's news in 60 seconds. All Heathrow express trains have
:58:37. > :58:39.been taken out of service indefinitely after engineers found
:58:40. > :58:41.a crack on the underside However, replacement
:58:42. > :58:47.trains have been deployed and the service
:58:48. > :58:49.is running at the same speed MP for Orpington and Universities
:58:50. > :58:57.and Science Minister Joe Johnson spoke on Thursday
:58:58. > :58:59.in favour of staying He told Cambridge University,
:59:00. > :59:04.my clear view is that a vote to leave would be
:59:05. > :59:06.a leap in the dark. It puts him at odds with his
:59:07. > :59:09.brother, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who announced two weeks ago
:59:10. > :59:15.he would campaign to leave the EU. London is the global capital when it
:59:16. > :59:18.comes to attracting high skilled workers, according to
:59:19. > :59:20.a new report by Deloitte. It said that almost a quarter
:59:21. > :59:23.of a million high skilled jobs had been created
:59:24. > :59:26.in the capital since 2013. However, it also criticised
:59:27. > :59:30.the city's gender diversity, pointing out that just
:59:31. > :59:48.one in ten of London's senior The city Corporation are voting this
:59:49. > :59:53.week that they want to stay in. Jo Johnson, your neighbouring MP wants
:59:54. > :00:00.to stay in. You are reluctantly saying out? I am reluctant to
:00:01. > :00:04.actually stay in. I think the fundamental principle for me is the
:00:05. > :00:08.sovereignty business. I want us to be able to control what we do in
:00:09. > :00:13.this country. At the moment, increasingly, we are not. You have
:00:14. > :00:18.about 20 seconds, why do you want to stay in? We are safer if we stay in,
:00:19. > :00:21.I've spent three years negotiating with ministers and I know what can
:00:22. > :00:25.be achieved when 28 nations work together. I don't want to become a
:00:26. > :00:28.little England outside of that and unable to influence what is
:00:29. > :00:38.happening on our doorstep. Thanks very much for joining's.
:00:39. > :00:41.Welcome back - and with the Budget coming up in just 10 days time,
:00:42. > :00:43.George Osborne was hoping taxing pensions would help him fill
:00:44. > :00:54.the black hole in the public finances.
:00:55. > :00:57.Tax relief on pensions costs the Treasury ?34 billion a year,
:00:58. > :00:59.but yesterday an ally of the Chancellor let it be known
:01:00. > :01:02.that there would be no changes to the way retirement savings
:01:03. > :01:06.So why has the George Osborne abandoned the idea?
:01:07. > :01:09.Here's Ellie - and I should warn you that her report contains
:01:10. > :01:22.For lots of people, retirement looks a little bit like this.
:01:23. > :01:26.The Government's drive to encourage us to save for ourselves,
:01:27. > :01:28.but is the current way we save for our pensions
:01:29. > :01:35.an effective and fair way of doing things?
:01:36. > :01:38.Well, in last year's Budget, the Chancellor seemed to tee up yet
:01:39. > :01:45.Pensions could be treated like ISAs, you pay in from taxed income
:01:46. > :01:47.and it's tax-free when you take it out, and in-between it receives
:01:48. > :01:54.This idea and others like it need careful and public consideration.
:01:55. > :01:55.At the moment, pensions contributions are tax-exempt
:01:56. > :01:58.because earners get tax relief on what they put in.
:01:59. > :02:01.As the fund grows they aren't taxed, so again exempt, but you pay income
:02:02. > :02:07.tax when you come to take the money out.
:02:08. > :02:09.It's a principle known as exempt exempt taxed.
:02:10. > :02:13.One of the proposals was to turn that on its head by stopping all tax
:02:14. > :02:15.relief on the way in, so taxing contributions,
:02:16. > :02:18.but exempting the fund as it grows, and allowing pensioners to take out
:02:19. > :02:27.That was described as a pensions ISA.
:02:28. > :02:29.The other option was to introduce a flat rate of tax relief
:02:30. > :02:35.That would have meant higher-rate taxpayers would lose out.
:02:36. > :02:37.The pensions industry estimate the changes could earn the Treasury
:02:38. > :02:40.an extra ?10 billion a year, essentially bringing forward tax
:02:41. > :02:49.But ?10 billion is, you know, a lot of money but money
:02:50. > :02:52.that the Chancellor himself could do with.
:02:53. > :02:55.It is, but it's needed for people's pension savings and really this
:02:56. > :02:57.is just a short-term tax raid on people's pension funds.
:02:58. > :03:00.They didn't go down terribly well with the Pensions Minister either,
:03:01. > :03:06.who made clear the pensions ISA idea would be a big mistake.
:03:07. > :03:10.And when I spoke on Friday to a Tory backbencher opposed to the single
:03:11. > :03:12.rate of tax relief idea, he said his Chancellor's of politics
:03:13. > :03:18.It seems to me it is unreasonable, bordering on socialism,
:03:19. > :03:24.to give people tax relief from other people's tax, and it undermines
:03:25. > :03:26.the certainty which people have had with their pension saving.
:03:27. > :03:29.Tricky political territory for the Chancellor.
:03:30. > :03:32.At a time when he really needs your support.
:03:33. > :03:35.At a point when he is otherwise so popular because of his stance
:03:36. > :03:42.So, was it because of concern of a backlash from Tory voters -
:03:43. > :03:45.the people the Government needs on-side ahead of the EU referendum?
:03:46. > :03:53.The Treasury says it was nothing so cynical.
:03:54. > :03:56.The Chancellor's eyes are on the prize one
:03:57. > :03:59.day of being leader, and he's keen to avoid a repeat
:04:00. > :04:01.of a raft of unpopular measures in 2012.
:04:02. > :04:03.Even people within Downing Street are calling
:04:04. > :04:09.He's no stranger to climb-downs either, remember tax
:04:10. > :04:13.I've listened to the concerns, I hear and understand them.
:04:14. > :04:15.The simplest thing to do is not to phase these changes
:04:16. > :04:20.The Chancellor is unlikely to avoid altogether any further
:04:21. > :04:22.rows with his own party, but dumping these pension proposals
:04:23. > :04:30.Of course, supporters of the changes say he has missed an opportunity.
:04:31. > :04:33.He may have read the lay of the land for now,
:04:34. > :04:50.but one Tory MP told me he doubted this would be the end of it.
:04:51. > :04:57.Helen, there is a lot of politics in this. The Chancellor has been under
:04:58. > :05:01.pressure from Tory MPs, his changes he suggested will run popular, I
:05:02. > :05:05.would also suggest the referendum plays into this. It would mainly
:05:06. > :05:10.affect older people, who are likely to vote no to leaving the European
:05:11. > :05:14.Union, and who doesn't want to give them another reason to do so. I
:05:15. > :05:23.think you will also be looking at this through the prism of tax
:05:24. > :05:27.credits where he did a U-turn. Voters simply don't remember things
:05:28. > :05:32.that didn't happen in the way they do remember things did happen.
:05:33. > :05:37.Pensions is particularly tricky territory. Labour and the SNP
:05:38. > :05:41.together have managed to get an interesting coalition opposition,
:05:42. > :05:45.it's one of the few times Labour have looks like an effective
:05:46. > :05:51.opposition. Pensioners who are close to retirement age vote and this was
:05:52. > :05:55.potentially a huge landmine for him. There were reasons for unifying the
:05:56. > :06:01.tax relief, making it lower for those who were better off, he would
:06:02. > :06:04.have saved money by doing so, but has he bottled it because he has
:06:05. > :06:11.realised it could get in the way of his leadership ambitions? At the
:06:12. > :06:14.very least it would make the next four months before the referendum
:06:15. > :06:19.more tricky than they need to be. It is interesting that when he
:06:20. > :06:23.capitulates, he capitulates entirely. With tax credits he ended
:06:24. > :06:28.up doing none of them. He has pretty much abandoned all of it. Were you
:06:29. > :06:32.to tax people going into the pension rather than when they come out, all
:06:33. > :06:36.of the political losers are in the here and now rather than in 20
:06:37. > :06:42.years. The political cost outweighs the benefit in revenue. All of the
:06:43. > :06:50.obvious tax increases and all of the obvious spending cuts happen in the
:06:51. > :06:54.first parliament. What he's left now with is a list of equally
:06:55. > :06:59.provocative options. If you try to do tax credits it is unpopular,
:07:00. > :07:03.pensions is unpopular, logically he should be putting more on petrol
:07:04. > :07:09.duty given where the oil price is but you can imagine how provocative
:07:10. > :07:14.that would be among Tory voters. If his deficit reduction plans are in a
:07:15. > :07:19.bit of trouble and he may not hit this year's financial target, where
:07:20. > :07:24.does he get the money from? One possibility is cutting the top rate
:07:25. > :07:30.of tax. He said in the House of Commons it had raised 8 billion in
:07:31. > :07:36.the financial year 13/14 so maybe he is preparing the case for that. The
:07:37. > :07:45.figure is pretty suspect because people knew the tax rate was falling
:07:46. > :07:52.so in the year 12/13, they held back. We won't know until we get the
:07:53. > :07:56.14/15 to know if the cut generated extra tax rather than displacing tax
:07:57. > :08:03.year from year. That's right but his already claiming it. It doesn't mean
:08:04. > :08:07.he is right. No, but he needs to throw some red meat to
:08:08. > :08:11.Conservatives. At the moment George Osborne makes it look as though the
:08:12. > :08:15.only point in winning general elections is to put yourself in a
:08:16. > :08:19.stronger position to win the next general election, even if that means
:08:20. > :08:29.embracing Labour policies. He wants to give the impression there is some
:08:30. > :08:32.vision there, some substance. If he has got serious ambitions, doesn't
:08:33. > :08:38.he have to do something more for Middle Britain? That's why it is
:08:39. > :08:44.interesting to see Labour's response on this, which hasn't been on the
:08:45. > :08:51.why are they letting rich people off vibe. He won't achieve his targets,
:08:52. > :08:55.he has consistently done that and faced almost zero political come
:08:56. > :09:00.back for doing so. It is an artificial target he has created.
:09:01. > :09:06.And he still gets to borrow at record low interest rates.
:09:07. > :09:09.So, five more states voted last night in the race for the Democrat
:09:10. > :09:15.On the Republican side Donald Trump and Ted Cruz won two states each.
:09:16. > :09:17.Before voting Trump asked his supporters at a rally in Florida
:09:18. > :09:19.to pledge their primary votes to him.
:09:20. > :09:30.That I, no matter how I feel, no matter what
:09:31. > :09:34.the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever...
:09:35. > :09:43...Will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J Trump for president!
:09:44. > :10:09.He then went on to give a three-hour lecture on health reform. Trump is
:10:10. > :10:15.still the clear front runner. Mr Rubio is almost out of it, will be
:10:16. > :10:20.if he loses his home state on March 15 and Ted Cruz is probably hated
:10:21. > :10:25.even more by the Republican establishment than Mr Trump.
:10:26. > :10:35.Discuss. Rubio isn't even number two any more. As shocking as all of this
:10:36. > :10:41.is, I find Rubio's failure in many ways more interesting than Trump's
:10:42. > :10:46.success. He has all of the raw materials of a top-level politician.
:10:47. > :10:51.He is young and attractive, sensible enough, with a compelling life
:10:52. > :10:55.story. To fail to translate any of that into any degree of momentum at
:10:56. > :10:59.all during this primary campaign, to the point where the only people who
:11:00. > :11:07.think he should be the nominee are people in my profession really... He
:11:08. > :11:14.won the Minister of caucuses, let's not forget that. Jeb Bush went into
:11:15. > :11:18.this having raised the most amount of money and completely tanked.
:11:19. > :11:23.There is one argument which is that money controls politics, that is
:11:24. > :11:30.proving quite challenging in this election. The second thing is that
:11:31. > :11:33.media controls politics, but people say Jeremy Corbyn would do better if
:11:34. > :11:41.only the media stopped attacking them, but the media has relentlessly
:11:42. > :11:44.attacked Donald Trump. It is a nightmare for the mainstream
:11:45. > :11:52.Republicans now. Their choice is down to Trump and Cruz, but not a
:11:53. > :12:02.single senator has come out and endorsed Cruz. Trump's popularity is
:12:03. > :12:06.a disaster for Conservatives around the world because he is associated
:12:07. > :12:11.with the Conservative brand, and in particular it is a disaster for
:12:12. > :12:18.those who want Western democracy to triumph in the battle of ideas.
:12:19. > :12:24.Trump is like a villain in a Marvel superhero Hollywood blockbuster
:12:25. > :12:27.written by the Islamic State's propaganda mastermind. What better
:12:28. > :12:35.recruiting Sergeant could you have for the Islamic State than a parody
:12:36. > :12:40.of a kind of capitalist billionaire, sexist, racist, Islamophobic ogre?
:12:41. > :12:45.But other than that, he is very good! The establishment are not
:12:46. > :12:51.hoping for a broken convention, we haven't had one for 60 years, it is
:12:52. > :12:59.a pretty long shot. Yes, I think their nightmare must be that Trump
:13:00. > :13:04.is elected as the candidate, and you think fine, the worst comes to the
:13:05. > :13:11.worst, Hillary Clinton winds, but what if something happens to her
:13:12. > :13:19.between now and November? She gets indicted or is forced to withdraw?
:13:20. > :13:25.That is why Joe Biden is vice president, still tarnishing his
:13:26. > :13:27.credentials. Or Bloomberg. It should be fun.
:13:28. > :13:30.We're back same time next week here on BBC One.
:13:31. > :13:33.The Daily Politics is back on BBC Two at midday
:13:34. > :13:44.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.