22/05/2016 Sunday Politics London

Leave campaigners say Turkey is on course to join

the European Union and, if we remain in the EU,

that will mean more criminals here and greater pressure

The Prime Minister says it's nonsense.

We'll have the latest on this developing row.

This woman claims to be the voice of business -

and that most businesses in the UK want to remain in the EU.

But is the business case that clear cut?

We speak to the Director General of the CBI.

When it comes to gauging public opinion on the referendum,

which is better: telephone polls or online polls?

Even the pollsters are having trouble answering that one.

And I tell you what, if I don't know,

having done all this opinion polling for lark for 21 years,

In London it's thought 400,000, wrath citizens are eligible to vote

in the EU referendum. Which way did they tilt?

And with me - as always - a political panel of the best

and the brightest in the business, hopefully they do know which way

to jump: Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh

who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Turkey has taken centre-stage in the referendum debate today.

Vote Leave are launching a new poster campaign warning that

Turkey is on course to join the EU, leaving the UK vulnerable

to criminals, mass migration and more pressure on public services.

The Prime Minister was asked about the claims

on the Robert Peston programme on ITV.

Every country has a veto, and let's be clear,

as Boris himself said, Turkey joining the EU is not remotely on

the cards. At the current rate of progress, this would be decades

literally decades, before this even had a prospect of

happening, and even at that stage, we would be able to say no.

Well, that was David Cameron this morning.

But here's what he had to say in a speech in Istanbul in 2010

But here's what he had to say in a speech in Ankara in 2010.

It makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be

frustrated. My view is clear. I believe it is wrong to say that

Turkey can guard the camp, but not be allowed to sit in the tent. So

why will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership

and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy. The

Prime Minister six years ago after becoming Prime Minister.

Is it a proper issue for this referendum or is it a red herring?

It is an issue and quite frankly, the Leave campaign will be delighted

that we are now talking about Turkey, because every time you talk

about Turkey, you conjure up the image of more migration,

uncontrolled immigration from a poorer countries so it is a Leave

win. I am not sure that the Prime Minister is right to engage in this

one. But he has been called about this from someone whose judgment he

also calls into question. But is a strange thing, his own Armed Forces

Minister. The Prime Minister is right to say we have a veto, every

EU member has a veto in new members, but if the Prime Minister is in

favour of Turkey joining, which is said he was in Ankara, then the veto

does not matter? Absolutely. What a great clip that was the Prime

Minister in 2010, when he set out Ray clearly what his position is. He

supports Turkey joining the EU in whatever time frame that may be It

does not do for the Prime Minister to say we have a veto. The question

is, will you use that veto? If he is saying we would use our veto against

Turkey, that is big news and can we hear it? It would be a big U-turn.

It could be moot, couldn't it? There is no prospect of Turkey joining in

the future, is there? The telling thing about this conversation as we

are focusing on our veto and the veto possessed by all existing EU

members and not focusing on Turkey itself. Is that country as keen on

joining as was a decade ago? The change and internal politics in

Turkey suggests they are less keen on membership or less keen on doing

the things necessary to successfully apply for EU mentorship than they

were a while ago. I think for reasons on the Turkish side and on

the European side, it will not happen until I am a very old man.

But it is entirely legitimate for Leave to play up this issue and

every day we talk about migration is a day we're not spending talking

about the economy and I think that is their only route to victory four

weeks' time. There are plenty of forces in Germany and France, two

countries about to have elections next year, who are not going to

agree to Turkey joining any time soon. And if you were to be fair to

the prime and Vista, you would say he made that speech in 2010 in

Ankara, me and a whole load of political hacks were in the room

when he said it... Were you there? I was there. At one stage he says he

was passionate about Turkish president. He was very keen to suck

up to President Erdogan at the time because he wanted more trade. That

was pre-migration crisis. That has changed everything not just in

British politics but for Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. It may

be acceptable for the Prime Minister to do a 180 degrees U-turn on this

issue. We will see as the day develops.

So, the head of the NHS in England, Simon Stevens, says the health

service would be worse off if we decide to leave the EU.

Two of his predecessors have also written a joint article

in the Sunday Times saying that they think,

for the NHS at least, staying in the EU is

Mr Stevens was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.

When Mark Carney says that the risk of a slowdown in economic growth,

possibly a recession, if we end up exiting the EU,

if Mark Carney is right, then that is a severe concern

for the National Health Service because it would be very dangerous

if at precisely the moment the NHS is going to need extra funding,

actually the economy goes into a tailspin and that funding

Leave campaigners, unsurprisingly, take a different view -

they argue that remaining in the EU will place further strain on the NHS

due to continued free movement of people and the accession

What is the relationship between our membership

The Department of Health estimates that the cost to the NHS in England

from visitors and non-permanent residents who come from

the European economic area, that is the EU plus Iceland,

Lichtenstein and Norway, is around ?340 million a year.

To put that in context, the total annual expenditure

in England's NHS was ?113 billion in 2014-15.

There are around 3 million people from other EU countries resident

in the UK and all are entitled to use NHS services.

All those would be entitled to stay in the UK, even if we were to leave

the EU, due to the rights under the Vienna Convention.

In 2015, around 257,000 EU nationals migrated to the UK.

But whether that number would come down if we vote to leave depends

on the deal the UK strikes with the EU following an exit.

NHS England says the total number of staff coming from EU countries

was just over 53,000, or 4.6% of the total NHS workforce.

A total of 9% of NHS England's hospital doctors, 6% of its nurses

and health visitors, come from other EU countries,

however, all would be entitled to stay in the event of a vote

to leave, and without knowing what any future deal might be,

it is impossible to know if there would be any impact

A one-time pro-European Foreign Secretary, he is now

campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union.

Good morning, David Owen. Let me come straight to the remarks by the

man currently running the NHS in England, Simon Stevens. He said it

would be better for the NHS if we remain in the EU. What is your

response? Let's be quite clear. Simon Stevens is the manager of the

NHS, which is currently ?3 billion in debt. This man has presided now

for a sufficient time to judge his management skills. In almost every

part of the National Health Service, there is an acute crisis. He spent

ten years in America, with an American health care company,

effectively arguing for the TTIP, this treaty between America and the

European Union, which could be introduced, and an assessment makes

it very clear that TTIP will be very damaging to the National Health

Service, if it is drafted in the way that it is. Simon Stevens should

stick to his Lee which is to manage the health service more effectively.

He is an individual, he has a view on the European Union which is fine,

but his basic job is to look after the NHS, and at the moment he is

making a very considerable mess of. It is not just Simon Stevens, two of

his predecessors say staying in the EU is the preferable option.

Identifying, if there is any danger to the NHS, it is in staying in

with all the elements of the NHS which are now involved with the EU.

-- I don't think. For the first 20 years of our membership, with the

common market, we had no involvement with the NHS at all. Now the NHS

procurement policy, the NHS competition policy is all impact in,

because we have started to Mark ties the NHS in 2002 under Labour. It

continued under the coalition with the Liberal Democrats of this

present Conservative government and it has continued under this

Conservative government. If you treat health like water or

electricity or gas, as a utility, and you treat them all as customers,

then you will be under market pressures, and the problem with the

NHS is we lost what it was, it fortunately still is in Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in England it is a marker ties to

health service modelling itself on the United States of America. If you

wanted to make changes, you would be wiser to stick to Germany or France,

not go the United States model. Let me put a point to you. Michael Gove,

part of the Leave campaign, he says the NHS could be overwhelmed by

continued migration if we stay in the EU. He predicts an extra 5

million plus by 2030. These predictions suggest that Turkey

Macedonia and Albania all join the EU by 2020. That is not on the

cards, is it? Let's be clear about your programme so far and analyse

what has been said already. It is not the Prime Minister what he said

in Istanbul, the Prime Minister nine weeks ago signed up to the European

Council meeting on the 18th of March, and he said, to re-energise

the accession process for Turkey to join the EU, and to make preparatory

work for the opening of other chapters will continue at an

accelerating pace. This is a Prime Minister who is getting used to

saying one thing one time, another thing another. Nine weeks ago, we

were committed to increasing the speed of entry for Turkey into the

European Union. I am passionate about keeping Turkey inside Nato,

and with one foot in the EU and with one foot in the Middle East. Why?

Because Turkey is essentially important country, as a member of

Nato in dealing with Isil, Syria, Iraq and many other problems around

the world. But you will not make it by bringing them prematurely into

the European Union. What we should be doing is encouraging them to come

into the single market which has non-EU countries associated, but

without this issue of freedom of movement of Labour. You are Foreign

Secretary... Let me ask this question. You must surely know, that

Turkey's chances of joining the EU in the foreseeable future are

remote. Isn't that the reality? No, I think what was said by your

commentator earlier in the programmers that has been a change

of foreign policy. If the Prime Minister commits nine weeks ago to

speeding up Turkey's membership and then does not deliver on it, what

will be the consequences? Turkey will feel they have been lied to or

rejected by the Europeans and they will, in my view, come out of Nato

with very profound consequences At the moment, let's treat Turkey with

respect, let's try and ensure they make the necessary changes on human

rights and in many other areas. There are a lot of worrying aspects

about Turkish policy, but mention above the European Union in my view

is not the issue. It is how to make them more committed to Europe. Don't

avoid this question. If we are in the European Union, we are committed

to freedom of movement of Labour in every aspect of EU membership. That

is a problem. David Owen, thank you, we will have to leave it there.

The Confederation Of British Industry calls itself

the "voice of business", claiming to speak on behalf

of 190,000 businesses, employing up to 7 million people.

And according to the CBI, British businesses overwhelmingly

back the idea of remaining in the EU.

What's more, they've been encouraging their members to talk

to staff about the referendum to give them "the choice to hear

what impact a Brexit would have on company growth,

their jobs and their local community".

As you can imagine, Leave campaigners are not amused.

The chair of the Vote Leave business council, John Longworth,

a former director-general of the British Chambers Of Commerce,

said the call was an "anti-democratic abuse of power

He added: "It's highly regrettable to see big corporate bosses plotting

to gang up on their staff, and lecture them on how to vote "

Well, we're joined now by the director

general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn.

Welcome to the programme. Good morning. If big business told its

workers how to vote in a general election, there would be broad, so

why are you encouraging your members to warn their workers about the

dangers of Brexit? That is not what we have said. We have said that

people working today in economy want to hear from their employers about

what it means on either side of the debate. That is not what you said,

you said what impact Brexit would have on growth, jobs and the local

community. Positive for negative. You did not say that? It is clear

this is not about warning anybody. This is about the questions that

people are now asking about what it means for them. We were clean about

that. Most of your members, you claim, are in favour of staying in

the European Union. The message going out to the workforce will be

overwhelmingly about remaining in the EU. The main thing is that

people who are going to vote on June 23 have as good an understanding as

they possibly can about what it means for their jobs, families and

communities. That was the key message, nothing about telling

people how to vote. We learned this week that one of your members,

Circle, was planning uproar EU campaign with the Prime Minister,

even before the renegotiations were finished. With the CBI or any of

your members have similar discussions with the government To

my knowledge, no. The conversations that businesses, universities, all

parts of our society have with government go on every day. Were you

planning the pro-union-mac campaign with the government even before the

renegotiations? No. But Circle was? No. Everything the CBI has done is a

result of the things we have done and a half of our members. Circle

has contracts with the government worth several million pounds. The

taxpayer pays for that. Its boss was offering to help the Prime Minister

do what he could to help keep Britain in the EU. It was a behind

closed doors stitch up between big government and big business, wasn't

it? The important thing is to understand what businesses across

the country of all sizes are seeing. You're focusing on one company. What

we are seeing is that the majority of businesses want to stay in the

European Union. I understand that. I am asking you if the way this

company has handled this... It smells of a stitch up? I do not

think this is a stitch up. It is about voices of business being heard

on issues of jobs, growth and the future prosperity of our country.

People can make their decisions on polling day about a whole variety of

factors, but businesses who are trading with the European Union

everyday, having their voices clearly heard. The voice of this

company was certainly clearly heard. He saw the Prime Minister, Mr

Soames. This is what he did in the follow-up letter. He spoke about

backing the prime and is to's campaign to keep us in the EU. This

is even though the renegotiations were not finished. He went on to

lobby for business. He said... He wants more business at the same

time. It really does add to the sense that this is big business

feathering its own nest. That is not what is going on. There are

conversations all the time. Why he wise to do that, to lobby for more

business at the same time as lobbying to stay in the EU? I think

there are conversations happening all the time. Is that conversation

appropriate? Those are questions for other people. The CBI represents

mainly businesses across the UK and Europe picking on one. The important

thing is the voices of the many are heard in this. Are they heard? You

give the impression you like the EU because it is a one-stop club for

big business. There are 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, most of them

are doing for the interests of your kind of members, the business.

Ordinary folk do not get a look in? I do not think that is true. We have

had 20 business surveys since the beginning of the year, for all

different sizes of business, and it is not unanimous, but they are all

seeing broadly the same thing. We have had the creative industries

Forum coming out with the survey. 93%, because they are big exporters.

This is not just big business. It is all sizes of business. Let's look at

how the EU is good for your members but not necessarily the rest of us.

The European Court of Justice has forced Her Majesty is Customs and

revenue to hand back almost ?8 billion in tax paid by big British

companies, overruling tax laws made by our government and our

Parliament. That is good for big business but not public services?

There are areas where we share sovereignty, in order to have a

level playing field across Europe for businesses overall. We are not

always going to like all of the rules. It is a question of whether

the benefits outweigh the costs The benefits to your members are clear,

they are paying a billion less in tax. The independent office of

budget responsibility expected HMRC to pay another 8 billion back by the

end of the decade. This is about lowering tax regimes and not

allowing HMRC to get the proper tax. That is not fear to ordinary people?

To be clear, the CBI can businesses overall do not support aggressive

tax avoidance. We support the moves that have been taken at the OECD

level to sort this out. This is not something we support. Your members

will be 16 billion better off. British schools, hospitals, public

services, will be 16 billion worse off. If the HMRC goes down in all

these cases, we could be 40 billion worse off. Good for big business,

but not local hospitals? I do not know the exact details of those

numbers, but I would say that the moves to improve tax policy are

absolutely supported by members The CBI has been wrong about Britain in

the EU in the past. Why should we listen to you now? This is becoming

a distraction. You are right that when the euro was debated at the end

of the 1980s, in principle, the CBI had a principle of support with

caveats. You supported the principle of the European exchange mechanism.

That ended in recession. Many people lost their homes and jobs. You then

became enthusiastic about UK membership of the monetary union,

the euro. I ask again, if you were wrong then, why should we listen to

you now? Two important points, if you had continued to scroll down,

you would seem that there were caveats, conditions that had to be

met. Conditions around harmonisation of inflation and the economy. They

were never met. By 2000 the CBI had moved its position to neutral. The

discussion we are having now is about something very different. It

is about the experience that we as an economy have had the European

Union for 43 years. We have thrived. We have gone from being the sick man

of Europe to being the strong man. His Mrs are doing well. The benefit

from being in a single market. The euro was about something which

people were imagining in the future, a different debate. Let's come to

the current debate. We saw your stance on the euro then. You know

think we would be better off if we remain. That is the clear fight --

the clear-cut view of the CBI. You commissioned an organisation to

assess the impact of leaving the EU. That is the result of the survey. If

we remain, they think the economy will grow by 41% by 2030. Even if we

were to come out, the economy would still grow by 39%, even if we did

not have any free trade against it would grow by 36%. It is hardly game

changing either way? We have deliberately taken optimistic,

balance and areas of the future You're right, economies recover and

adapt. You have not shown the short-term impact of several years

of uncertainty. What we believe and many others believe as well, is

there could be significant short-term impacts, no sunlit

uplands. You can get to 39%. Your own study shows are economy would be

almost 40% bigger by 2030, even if we were to leave. That is if we do a

trade deal with the US, if we are able to form new relationships with

the EU. These are optimistic assumptions. Take the non-optimistic

on, the World Trade Organisation. We just trade on existing rules. It is

36%, it is still a massive rise Of course we would continue to grow. No

one has ever said we would not continue to grow. But will we be

more prosperous? We would be 36 more prosperous. In the short-term,

by 2020, we estimate there would be a million fewer jobs and 4-5% hate

to GDP. Do we want to do that to school leavers? We've just come out

of recession. You accept that the difference is not massive? It is

entirely possible the economy would adapt. But only with significant

short-term impact, and particularly an impact on the next generation of

school leavers. The CBI claims that each household benefits to the tune

of six -- ?3000 a year. Observers have condemned that as a dishonest

figure. Do you stand by it? We do. It was a literature sturdy of

existing studies. We wanted to put together a figure that was easy to

understand. -- literature study Estimates like that are difficult to

do. There was a range good around it. To be clear, standards of living

have doubled. That is since the UK joined the European Union. They have

gone from ?20,000 household income to about ?40,000. We are seeing a

proportion of that has been a result of membership of the European Union,

and independent studies would support that. You did no original

research for this at all. We never claimed to. I have explained that to

our viewers. You simply did a survey of research papers. But when you

look, you cherry picked the research papers that had pro-union-mac

inclusions. That is not true. I have got the ones that you did not use,

you omitted the IUD, you omitted the National Institute for economic and

social research. Even omitted the US Trade Commission survey of what it

meant, or to get this ?3000 figure. You know tell me it is not accurate.

That is not true. The evaluation we did of the different surveys, we

omitted as many on one side as the other. There is a 20 page paper on

this which anyone can go and read. It sets out the methodology

accurately. You seem to be biased against those that did not come to

the conclusion you want. Channel 4's respected fact checked included the

figure is not based on any real evidence. The chairman of the

Treasury Select Committee described it as a scandalous misuse of data

and intellectually miss honest. We went to him and we set out the

facts. I do not think he had read the paper. It is not intended to be

anything other than an assessment of consensus views over the last ten

years. You did not include other papers. The important thing is to be

focusing on what this would mean for the decision for the country. You're

telling people that households would be ?3000 a year worse off if we were

to leave? That is not what we are saying. Are you saying that we are

?3000 better off by remaining? As a result of having joined, about 5%

of the increase in living standards over the time since joining is a

result of being part of the European Union. That is a reasonable thing to

have said. Is the CBI still keen on principle to join the euro?

Absolutely not. Would you welcome a further

expansion of the EU to include the five countries already in the queue?

I think it has to depend on the conditions at the time. The thing

that is clear is we have a sovereign choice over those additional

countries. Turkey is a huge market, it could be good for British

business, would you welcome it? We have not had that discussion with

our members. We would have a discussion at that time and have a

point of view at that time. The CBI welcomed both the Nice Treaty and

Lisbon Treaty. Would you welcome a further transfer of powers if we

voted to remain? No. I think one thing which is clear is we pool

sovereignty when it is in the benefits of our economy and we don't

wear it is not. I would say one thing, in terms of the opt out from

the working Time directive, a very important part of our special

arrangement, if you like, of the European Union, the CBI was fully

part of and helped to negotiate Thank you.

Depending on which polls you look at, Britain is either scoffing

at the idea of leaving the EU or it's marching swiftly

One telephone poll this week gave Remain an eight point lead.

An online poll, meanwhile, gave it to Leave by four points

The problem is that both those polls were done

Our society and our electorate is made up of unique individuals,

every one of them different and yet they share many attributes:

gender, age, race, religion, economic background, education,

political views, and social attitudes.

Pollsters, therefore, can only ever try to tell us

terms of a specific question, but it's only ever going to be

a snapshot of wildly interpretable data.

That snapshot is simply a moment in time, and is always,

inevitably, slightly inaccurate to varying degrees,

and what makes political polling even harder

is it is like trying to hit a moving target

from a moving platform in the

And you would think in this EU referendum the simplicity

of the question would help, should we leave

It makes the whole thing much more complicated.

The problem is a slew of polls giving very different signals.

Given the problems pollsters had getting the

general election right, and some of them didn't, this matters.

Some have it neck and neck, some Remain ahead, others ahead

It is a minefield in terms of working out

When I apply different technical methods to my raw data,

I can move the Remain or Leave lead in both directions.

I tell you what, if I do not know having done this

opinion polling lark for 21 years, I am not sure who does.

Some of this is down to how the polls are done,

how they get a truly representative sample of

society in the first place, either by phone or online panels.

Which is best is a bone of contention that in

recent days has even spilt onto social media,

The problem is it has become harder and harder to get

Online samples are by their nature self-selecting so have biases

Phone samples used to be considered far more representative,

but in recent years, the response rates to phone

polls have dropped so low it is hard now to consider them to be

So both modes have an element of self-selection.

Can I ask you a few questions about about yourself?

Would you say you are likely to vote or will definitely vote?

Fewer of us use landlines or want to be cold called,

thus more calls then ever before have to be made just to get

But you do avoid those who, with online polling,

And phone contact through persistence is better

at eventually reaching those who are harder to get hold of.

Would it be all right if we call you back later?

There is a growing narrative amongst some pollsters

that phone polling is probably the more accurate,

which, given recent phone polling

We look at samples and try to check them to see we have the right

number of people who vote, do we believe

that all the people in our sample who tell us they're

going to vote actually will, are we missing

people who really just do not care about the referendum

referendum and aren't going to vote, are we missing the great

unwashed who do not have degrees?

All those things, when we make adjustments

for all of those things, Remain is still ahead.

We would have to be very, very wrong indeed for

Remain, at the moment, on the polling so far, not to win this

Online pollsters, who use panels of signed up people,

are perhaps not surprisingly pointing to weaknesses

So much so that the online pollsters YouGov have conducted

some phone polling about phone polling.

What we found from that comparison, both to the national picture

and to our online polls, was that telephone polls

were underestimating the people who are

not university educated, and that is hugely important in the EU

referendum because we know that is one of the great

social cleavages, in other words, one of the great things that divides

So phone polls are missing potential Leave voters.

Online are accused of overstating them,

there are two other that vital: are are you going to vote?

Turnout will be crucial on June 23rd.

The higher it is the more it favours Remain, and what happens

when the mass of "don't knows" make up their mind?

With more questions and mixed answers,

and four weeks to go, most pollsters might

reasonably fear the result of a poll

that asked us all, "Do pollsters really have a

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Coming up later today: An estimated 400,000 Commonwealth citizens

in London have the right to vote in the EU referendum.

What are the indicators of which way they'll go?

With me this week, Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay,

John Baron, and Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North

Let's start first with the centrepiece of the government's

programme outlined in the Queen's Speech,

which was prison reform, with the focus

Prison governors will be given unprecedented freedom

and they will be able to ensure prisoners receive better education.

Old and inefficient prisons will be closed, and new institutions built

where prisoners can be put more effectively to work.

IPads for prisoners, more flexible visiting hours,

perhaps working during the week and just in prison at weekends?

I do not agree with everything but good proposals overall.

We've got to address this reoffending cycle.

50% of prisoners who are released go on to reoffend.

We have got to have greater investment in our prisons.

We've got to encourage better rehabilitation because if we do not,

all we are going to do is continue to turn young prisoners,

inexperienced prisoners, into experienced ones,

and that is why 1.3 billion on extra prisons, new prisons,

greater devolvement of powers to governors, to introduce

initiatives that best suit their intake,

greater emphasis on education, transparency, and yes,

mixing in with the community, so they do not feel alienated

There is a lots of devil in the detail.

We will be picking over this, but broadly speaking,

it has got to be the right way of approaching it,

because we have got to clamp down on this fact that 50% of prisoners

What has happened is a growing crisis, we have lost 7,000 prison

staff, we have seen self-harm instances rise by a third,

we are seeing riots in prisons, we are seeing 22,000 emergency

Frankly, unless we get a grip of this, some building

of new prisons further down the road is simply not grappling with

Places like Wandsworth, which is one that will be

in the reform programme, 600 prisoners more than its supposed

It is not just this government, it is governments over the decades.

I'm not making a party political point.

We've got to combat the overcrowding.

We've got to recognise that a lot of people in prison

Many of them have seen domestic violence,

Half of the prison population do not have one

We've got to put the greater effort in to try to realise the potential

of the prison population while recognising we have a duty

Rehabilitation is key to that, but it does require investment

and looking for the best in people without being naive.

John is right in saying that overcrowding has been systemic

That is not a party political point, but what is a party political point,

I am afraid, is that we are now into a sixth year of major cuts

Unless we do something about that, if prisoners are locked up 22 hours

a day, if there are not the staff to make sure

that prisoners are safe, either from each other or self-harm,

then an argument for rehabilitation and work and education is fine,

Two British expats were this week trying and failing to win the legal

All Commonwealth citizens living here

That's potentially nearly half a million votes to play for

in London alone from people who aren't citizens here,

Britain's place in the world is set to be decided in exactly

Not just by British citizens, but by voters from all 53 members

Along with the Brits, obviously, that means two

other EU member states, Malta and Cyprus, 18

African countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,

parts of south-east Asia, Australasia, a whole

host of Pacific Islands, Canada, and a whole

The Commonwealth makes up about a quarter of all the countries

in the world, and a quarter of the world's population,

some 2.3 billion people, who, if they happen to be

in the UK on June 23rd, and are registered, are entitled

to vote and decide the future of the United Kingdom.

In London alone, that is up to half a million votes.

At the moment, the polls show absolutely neck and neck.

Some show Leave ahead, some show Remain ahead.

If it comes down to a 50.1% to 9.9% vote, every one will count

and therefore the Commonwealth citizens could indeed tip it.

And here is one of them now, Chloe Westley, an Australian

from a group called Aussies For Britain,

On a personal level, the EU might does affect me.

As a non-EU immigrant I found it quite difficult to get a visa.

If I had come from an EU country, that would not have been the case.

I feel that this kind of discrimination does not

It is not only Australians who do not like it.

We have had groups starting such as Australians For Britain,

Kiwis For Britain, Bangladeshis For Britain,

and I think it is because of this issue of immigration.

- Chloe introduced us to some fellow campaigners of mixed

Some with dual citizenship, some British, but all came

Let's be honest, it is blatant discrimination

against the Commonwealth, because fundamentally,

anybody with an EU passport, and that is 28 countries,

28 countries, anyone can just rock up to the UK.

My grandfather was in the British Indian Regiment.

They fought for an independent United Kingdom.

But with so many votes up for grabs, it is little surprise

that the Remain camp are getting in on the act too,

trying to win Commonwealth voters over in all sorts of places.

We are holding meetings in churches, in temples, in school halls.

People are having them, I am encouraging people

to have coffee parties, open house, that is what

It is about people talking to each other.

Turn up to one of those and you may be given one of these flyers,

focusing on prosperity and peace rather than immigration.

The Leave campaign are pretending that, you know, if we stop the EU

migrants coming in, we will be able to get the Commonwealth

citizens to come in, doctors from India,

nurses from the Caribbean, but this is not true.

When you talk about immigrants coming in from the Commonwealth

and the European Union, you need to think about the benefits

It is about what the vision of Britain outside of Europe looks

like and how that impacts on people in all aspects

The European Union does not stop us from doing trade externally.

It does not stop us from exporting to Commonwealth countries.

Whichever side of the debate, both agree that one if not

THE salient issue this June for the capital's Commonwealth

In some cases, felt all the more strongly

because they are immigrants themselves.

Simon Woolley is here, director of Operation Black Vote.

Why should Commonwealth citizens have a right

I think it is great that they can because it adds to the debate,

We are saying, ensure you're registered to vote,

because that is critically important and get involved in this debate

There is a lot at stake in terms of who we are,

what we stand for, and what we are saying to both

the Remain and Leave campaigners is where does equality,

and specifically race equality, lie in this debate,

Some people say, should the last vestiges of empire have a role

If you're here and paying your taxes, if you're

part of the discussion, you should be able to

exercise your franchise and have a say in this debate.

We have got until 7th June to make sure you're registered to vote.

It takes about five minutes to do so, but it is important that you do,

because otherwise you have no voice in this debate.

What is the rate of Commonwealth citizens...?

Commonwealth citizens have a record of registering to vote that's less

They do not actually feel that enfranchised anyway?

We are saying that you are enfranchised,

you are part of the community, you are paying your taxes,

so get involved and have a voice, but in the first instance,

Karen Buck, what do you think about this, whether they should

The franchise for the referendum is broadly, with small amendments,

the general election franchise, based on precedent.

Different from the local election franchise.

It's different from the local elections where EU citizens

Does this trouble you, this difference between this?

I think it would be very hard to justify having a referendum

on a different franchise to the general election.

It would open up quite a different set of political problems.

I think it is right we are doing it in this way.

But I absolutely agree with Simon, the critical thing here is,

well, two critical things, one is registration.

We've seen 800,000 people drop off the electoral register

with the move towards individual electoral registration.

Probably David Cameron may be regretting pushing individual

We need to make sure that everybody uses their vote, but particularly

younger voters, who are less likely to vote in all elections.

I agree the franchise should stay the same.

I cannot see a good reason for changing it.

If anything, Simon is doing a good job in getting the message out.

We have an immigration policy at the moment that discriminates

We can say "welcome" to any EU citizen who comes through our border

but we cannot stop or control immigration

That is discrimination in any other language.

Why not keep the franchise as it is, and let everyone have an equal say?

It seems fair and the right thing to do.

What do you say to those people who say, why don't people who have

lived here from an EU country, been settled here for a long time,

maybe had children here, who've been working,

paying taxes, why do they not have the same rights?

We are keeping the franchise as it is when it comes

I do not see the argument as to why that should be changed.

If those citizens want to take up dual nationality,

We are very open in that respect as a country,

Certain countries on the Continent, such as Austria,

As a dual nationality citizen, you would be entitled to vote.

Simon Williams, do you have any concerns at all?

We get a sense of it in the film, of the feelings about immigration

from the different groups here, and how much you think

In short, are Commonwealth voters feeling resentful of the EU?

Some people say they want their families to come here a lot

We feel like we're British and European, and we want

On both sides of the argument, there is this diversity

We were just talking about a bloc of Commonwealth countries,

but presumably within them there is huge diversity.

Is there any sense in which we can stereotype

I think that might be quite an interesting angle.

The critical issue, for many people, particularly black and minority

ethnic communities, is about race equality.

Will I be afforded housing, good education, and not

The question for these two, Remain and Leave,

is what is the agenda for race equality?

How will it be best delivered, whether we are in or out?

We have heard lots about prosperity, lots about immigration,

but less about equality, and about people feeling

What I would say is we would start by saying, look, we're not

going to discriminate against people from India, people from Pakistan,

people from the West Indies, the Caribbean, in coming to this

Time and time again I hear complaints, why is it we are finding

it so difficult to get visas into the UK?

The reason is we are discriminating against them because we are members

of the EU, we are favouring EU members coming in.

That is a real issue for a lot of people.

It is sending a very negative message out

There is lots of discussion about this, people saying,

if we stop the Europeans, we will welcome those

I am not saying we stop it, I'm saying we have a fair system.

It does not discriminate between one region or the next,

That is the point about equality, not that we will stop everyone

Let's have equality and fairness across the immigration system.

Immigration is not the only issue that Simon is referring to in terms

I am extremely clear, that within Europe, a number

of the achievements that have been made in terms

of employment protection, in terms of the rights that people

are concerned about, at work, and indeed,

although not part of the EU, people think it is, but the European

Convention On Human Rights legislation, it has very much been

On the Remain side, people worry that, black people,

minority communities, worry about the rise of the far

Some say, why should we be involved in Europe

when there is so much racism on there?

We say, these are the discussions that we have got to face.

The first step is to register to vote, get involved and put

Simon, thanks very much for coming in.

London's new mayor this week turned on the old one.

Sadiq Khan claimed Boris Johnson had left the cupboard bare in terms

of plans for new affordable housing, and had failed to release research

on the effect of air pollution on school children.

What we have seen is that some of the reports,

if you like, the good stuff, was published,

but the full report was not, so Londoners were not aware

that there are 430 schools in areas where the nitrogen dioxide breaches

Londoners were not aware that four-fifths of the schools

in the most deprived areas, which means some of the most

vulnerable communities in London suffering the worst air quality

Clearly, because of the mess Boris Johnson has left,

It sounds like an excuse to not build the 50,000 homes that

you promised that you would be building every year?

The first thing I did when I got to City Hall was to ask City Hall

officials to do an urgent audit so I could see how things are.

Does that mean you will have to re-evaluate your targets?

I am quite clear in my mind, half of new homes have to be

affordable, but I also need to be clear it will not happen overnight.

Karen Buck, are you now clear about whether he can achieve 50 000

homes in this first term, sorry, the 50,000 a year

He has a great plan for doing it, he has got a great team that he s

If anybody can do this, it will be Sadiq.

As he rightly said, when we look closely,

we can see that Boris Johnson, in his last year,

What should we read into the fact he seems to be having difficulty

saying it now he is elected, yes, I will do 50,000 a year?

He is saying that you're not going to start building 50,000

These are things that involve the assembly of land packages,

He is clear that the 50% of development target is to stay,

We have no choice but to turn around from a lamentable record

on affordable house building and achieve that for Londoners.

Zac Goldsmith and others pointed out in the campaign, 50%

You have got to get the numbers up, then 50% of those being

Developers have an interest in developing.

They are in that job in order to be able to make money

They have an interest in making sure this is going ahead.

We are now also seeing something of a chill creeping into the top end

That obviously means we will have to look very hard at how we can work

closely with developers to ensure we are building

not just luxury homes, but the homes that

ordinary Londoners want to have to buy and rent.

John, Sadiq Khan has a look, he has a word

with the officials at City Hall says, this is the promise I have

made, I hope you will help me be able to deliver that,

and he is told there are fewer than 5,000 affordable homes

Has he got a point, the cupboard is bare?

I think that last year was a special case in point.

It was the end of the spending review, as Karen well knows.

If you look at the eight years in total, I think the figure

is claimed to be 100,000 affordable homes were actually built.

I think the figures substantiate that.

Let's put the figures to one side for a second.

You get politicians throwing figures at each other all day long.

I hope he builds more than 50,0 0 affordable homes, because that is

What I want Sadiq to do now, instead of having a pop at everybody

from Donald Trump and everybody else, to roll up his sleeves

and concentrate on the job of being mayor.

Yes, let's deliver 50,000 affordable homes and more.

He also revealed there had been a report into 430 primary schools

in the London area, nearly a quarter, that were in

areas which exceeded nitrogen dioxide levels.

Is that OK, for a mayor to selectively put out parts

of a report, Boris Johnson, but not this key figure?

I have always believed in being open and honest in my time in politics.

If there is a case to answer, I am sure Boris will answer it.

I understand the report was making the point that the air is getting

Whether there has been concealment about certain areas,

It might look like a cheap political point from Sadiq Khan given that,

as John said, the indications, the projections were that things

were getting better, albeit those 430 schools

Dozens of them are in my constituency.

It is an issue I have been taking up over recent years.

In the end, people are breathing in foul air now and they are dying now.

Whatever progress is being made is very slow.

We were criticising Boris Johnson, and I think Sadiq is still doing it,

for going much more slowly than we needed to do.

We need to get that ultralow emissions zone in,

and as Sadiq has said, expand it, bring it

in earlier and make some real progress.

Now for the rest of the news in 60 Seconds.

Lea Bridge station in East London, which was closed to passengers

Passengers will be able to reach either Stratford or Tottenham Hale

in five minutes, with northbound services continuing to Bishop

A 24-hour strike by Southern Rail conductors caused hundreds of trains

to be cancelled on one of the busiest routes in the UK

The walkout was part of a dispute over the role of guards.

A second 24-hour strike is being solidly supported,

Sadiq Khan has lent his support to the Garden Bridge,

so long as it is more accessible to all Londoners.

The newly elected London mayor said the planned ?175 million footbridge

linking Temple with the Southbank must be a genuinely public

The mayor, who had previously questioned the project's

transparency, insisted on amendments in exchange for his support.

Not an awful lot of time, Karen but do you think this bridge

If there is going to be public money in it, it needs to open

itself up to the public, that is absolutely right.

If it was up to me, it would not be my top priority.

If it was up to you, would you do it?

If I ruled the world, I am not sure that I would do.

Why do you think Sadiq Khan likes the concept?

It has been assembled, it has got planning permission,

What Sadiq appears to be doing, and I think that is right,

is to say, if there is public money, that leverage has to be applied now

to make sure it is opening up more than was originally planned.

Do you accept that as well, this question is about public money,

If it is going to cost more, we should not do it?

If I had money, if I was mayor, I would be looking at affordable

If the bridge is going to go ahead, the key issue is public access.

It would not be my top priority, I would put money

If that is going to go ahead and public money is involved,

public money equals public access, and you've got to make sure

it is therefore the public as well as serving a useful purpose

of actually being able to get across.

To you both, thank you very much indeed.

And with that, it is back to you, Andrew.

Treasury warnings on Brexit, is Labour on course for 2020,

and are there enough women in the referendum campaign?

And joining me and my panel of so-called experts,

is the former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman.

Wellcome, it is nice to see you again. The Treasury has already told

us how bad the economy will be in 2030, but nobody really knows. This

is about, in their view, the immediate impact on interest rates,

mortgages, jobs, house prices, before the autumn is out. This I

would suggest is politically more significant? Yes, and it is

absolutely the Remain campaign's biggest howitzer which is why they

are firing it now. This is the last time they can deploy the full mast

ranks of the government's resources into the campaign. Most people

disagree passionately in this campaign about whether over the

long-term the British economy will prosper or not outside the EU.

Pretty much everybody, I think apart from Boris Johnson has admits it

there might be some short-term problems. It is the same with

retail. We have heard from the Prime Minister today. And mortgages,

smacking people as hard as they can in their pockets. Even Boris Johnson

said there would be a fall because he hopes it will go up. People may

be nervous that when they get onto that tick it does not stop falling.

It will be a difficult one for the Leave campaign? Guess, and I am

picking up a lot of concern in the various Brexit camps. They look as

if they have conceded the argument on the economy. Of course, they

emphatically argue the opposite direction is that we can do even

better out, but there is a lot of concern among those who want to

leave, that those who are representing them in these

campaigns, are not putting the argument strongly enough and are

almost backing of it which is why we are hearing arguments about Turkey

and immigration and other things. I think Leave has to come out really

strongly and rebut what the Treasury is saying point by point, whether it

is on food prices, and there is a compelling argument that the Common

Agricultural Policy example massively distorts prices. Food may

not be more expensive when we come out so we need to rebut it line by

line. -- they need to rebut it. The polling suggests if you are worried

about the economy you will more likely to vote Remain, if you are

more worried about public services, you will be more likely to vote

Leave. This will create a sense of economic uncertainty? Yes, and it

will be interesting if they make a GDP prediction. We are talking about

food prices and employment but will they predict a technical recession

in GDP which I imagine will happen if we vote to leave. The Bank of

England has admitted that is a possibility. I can think of people

who are very high up in British public life who are downplaying

their view about how bad the GDP crisis will be in the short-term. I

agree with Isobel, it is strange to concede the short-term economic

argument. You cannot say here is the reality of a short-term recession.

In return, there is the prospect of a longer-term economic benefit which

realises in 2030. Labour does not normally think very much of Tory

forecasts. Will you accept this We are very concerned about jobs and

prices and we are very concerned about the cavalier sense that it

might be a bit of a problem in the short-term but it will be fine in

the long-term, two reasons. Obviously, the Treasury forecasts

will be very well worth picking through and looking through and will

be very persuasive. As far as the short-term is concerned, we are

trying to find our way out of a global financial crisis, and the

idea that it would not cause major uncertainty and instability to leave

an economic union that we have been part of four decades, it is a

no-brainer even before tomorrow You think the short-term is a problem if

we vote to leave? It will be a problem about jobs, a problem about

prices. Why on earth would we want to try and distance ourselves from

this biggest trading block of 5 0 million people. Why would we want to

struggle for keeping our head above water in the longer term when we are

in the EU as we are? I think it is cavalier from people who are not

worried about prices and to feel happy that their jobs are fine,

let's make this bid for freedom I think it is reckless. Reckless? I

think there is an accession among the Remain camp and it is

interesting that Harriet brings this up, constantly bringing up trade

associations. We can trade without trade deals. We talk about the

Remain camp focuses highly on the importance of the trade deals have,

but we are a service economy run airily, and those trade deals do not

cover the service sector. We can trade but if you look without trade

deals, that means paying tariffs, for example. If you look at the food

in our supermarkets which comes in from Europe, they can put tariffs on

that to make it cost more, and why wouldn't they, if we opt out of that

free trade area? They would not put tariffs on food coming into Britain.

We might do that, but they would not do that. We would take off the

tariffs from the food that comes from America, Australia and New

Zealand. We are in an established range of trading which has been

going on for decades and has seen food prices going down. That is a

big issue if you are on a low income. Why would we take that risk?

The former chief executives of supermarkets, and they have not got

any skin in the game because they are former chief executives, they

have said because of these established arrangements, prices are

likely to go up. We will hear more of that this week with the Treasury

report which is coming out tomorrow morning. Talking about the economy,

let's hear a word from John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor

about Labour in the economy. This is what he had to say yesterday.

Our whole society could do so much better than we are at the moment.

What we have attempted over the last eight months is to lay out

the framework by which Labour can win the next election,

and then set about the fundamental business of transforming capitalism.

We should aim at nothing less than that.

So, socialism in one parliament that must excite you? He is talking

about a new economic policy which will talk about fairness and

investment and he says we will be on a listening exercise as they put the

flesh on the bones. He is talking about remaking capitalism, not

reforming it, not liberalising it, remaking capitalism. Is that

realistic? I think there is a bit of remaking to be done, for example,

remaking the responsibilities of big businesses to repay their taxes do

we think it is all sorted? It is certainly not. Every government

tells me they will put more apprentices and you look carefully

and they don't really. This government, a lot of the apprentices

are not what the Germans or Austrians would regard as

apprentices. Chasing that tax seems to be in a never-ending chase as you

try and close the loopholes. Because it has not necessarily been done so

far, and all credit to Margaret Hodge and the Public Accounts

Committee in exposing all of this, does not mean it cannot be done We

could have lots more investment if people paid their tax and we could

have much more prosperity in the economy, but he is recognising we

have to convince people that they can trust us on the economy. Are you

happy with the direction he is taking you? I think the principles

he is setting out is right. We got the wrong answer in the general

election last time and we got to be the opposition rather than the

government, and we have to get a different answer next time and that

means convincing the public. It is about setting up a framework that

also making sure we are listening to what the public's concerns are about

us, not what we want to hear but what they are saying. You don't

think there are enough women involved in the referendum campaign?

Would it not be fair to say that it is really the Remain side which has

the female problem. The Leave site has Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, pretty

Patel, Penny Mordaunt and so on It is your side which is lacking the

women -- pretty Patel. There is hardly anything between either side.

Really? Could you do a list like that? One of the things we are

saying is actually, being in the EU has helped back-up women at work. It

is paradoxical, and it might seem unlikely, but the EU has been a

strong friend to women at work and these directives which governments

always do not like, either Labour or the Tories don't like the idea of

directives from Europe, but they have been backing up part-time

workers... I understand that but I am looking at the fact that you have

said there are not enough female voices in the campaign. Do you agree

with that? I would agree with you. The Leave women are pretty loud

Where is Theresa May? She is the single biggest female voice and she

is almost mute. The idea that the Leave side is in some post feminist

political nirvana is for the absolute birds. And I think of the

Leave side I think of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and I cannot bear

to think about it. I just gave you a list. And Iain Duncan Smith. Five

prominent women campaigners. Are you saying they are a post feminist

haven? No, I don't think they would know what that is. I am trying to

work out if your side has more of a problem, but let's move on. You say

the EU is a beacon of gender equality. I would like you to look

at this. These are all the top jobs in the European Union. Something

probably strikes you about that Where is the gender equality in the

EU in the top seven jobs? That is why it is an irony that actually,

the directives and European court judgments have backed up women at

work. Except in the EU itself? But if you look at the Treaty of Rome,

which was very much ahead of its time, saying you have to pay women

equally and treat women equally .. It is do as I say, not as I do. It

looks like a boys' club up there. And the other thing that strikes me

about this row of men. Who are these people? Could you recognise all

those people? Could you even recognise one of them? I do know who

they are and I don't like the fact they are all men... That tells you

about the EU and our sovereignty. No, it does not. The directives from

Europe have backed up women at work, part-timers, low-paid women, women

having babies. If our own government would have done it, more better Why

haven't they read the directives? I don't know who they are. That speaks

for itself. They are the people you think should be running us and you

don't know who they are! I am talking about the facts of the

impact for women at work about us being in the EU and our rights on

maternity and equal pay. The directives have helped us even when

our own government have not. They do not seem to have got the message.

You have picked them at random! No, they are not! Bayard the top seven

jobs in the EU. Ranks to all our guests, good to see Harry it back.

-- thanks to all our guests, good to see Harry it back. Remember, if it

is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics, unless it is the Whitsun

bank holiday.