12/06/2016 Sunday Politics London

With just 11 days to go until the EU referendum,

we get two campaigners to interrogate each other.

Tory Chris Grayling for Leave and Labour's Mary Creagh for Remain.

We'll hear from two Labour MPs who have recently

declared their positions on In or Out.

And is the EU putting controversial legislation on ice and pushing it

off the agenda until after the referendum is out of the way?

Everything difficult, everything contentious has

been put in the fridge until the 24th of June.

If we vote to stay in, it will all come tumbling out.

In the capital: Is this the most Eurosceptic part of Britain?

So we are gauging the mood in the borough of Havering.

So, all the highs and the lows, the ups and downs.

The European Football Championships started this weekend and I'm

joined by the France, Germany and Spain of political

commentary, Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley Brewer

and Anushka Asthana, who'll be tweeting

So a series of stark economic warnings from David Cameron who says

he might not be able to protect spending on pensions,

the NHS and defence if the UK votes to leave the EU.

The Prime Minister said the strain on public finances caused by Brexit

would even threaten the "triple lock" which guarantees

Here is David Cameron talking to Andrew Marr earlier.

The fact is, if we did face a 20-40 billion black hole

in our public finances, we would have to make

Our pensions promise is based on a growing and succeeding economy,

and all of the experts, and I agree with them,

most people in business agree, if we leave the single market,

if we cut ourselves off from the most important market,

our economy will be smaller and that has consequences.

Cabinet minister, Leader of the House Chris Grayling

If the Prime Minister is saying we voted to leave, he cannot, in fact,

implement key parts of the 2015 manifesto, what legitimacy would

your government have to continue? Well, I don't buy the argument. I

have to completely disagree with him on this, it's only six months since

he was telling us if we chose to leave the European Union we would do

fine and well. This figure, 20 billion or 40 billion, it is based

on analysis by the National Institute Of Economic And Social

Research, it assumes the pound goes down, making exports cheaper, but

people buy fewer, which makes no sense, and it assumes we lose the

ability to sell within Europe, when the reality is that we buy far more

from Europe than they do from us. It would cost French, German, Spanish

and Italian jobs if they don't continue trading normally. He might

be right or wrong, but is it not remarkable that he should say, if

you vote to leave, all the things I promised I would do if you elected

me, the key things, defence, the NHS, the triple lock on pensions,

that is all of the agenda? I'm very surprised he has chosen to use those

examples. I don't believe that is right, I don't believe we would back

away from manifesto promises and I don't believe we would need to. I

think the economic statistics behind the figures he has quoted do not

hold up. They include some inherent contradictions and assumptions of

doom and gloom. We buy more from the rest of Europe than they do from us,

they are going to want to continue trading in the UK market. If we do

leave, there was a downturn, because of uncertainty, it might not be long

or deep, but if there was, it would hit public finances? It would mean

tax rises, more public spending because of the extra welfare due to

unemployment, or a, nation or both and more borrowing? Well, the

question is if. If you look at what some of the international bodies

have been saying, we heard from the IMF, that got the figures so wrong

to matter years ago it had to apologise to the Chancellor. The

chief economist at the World Bank says he thinks our trade situation

would improve if we left the European Union. What you make of the

Prime Minister's strategy? There is a certain level of sheer panic in

his eyes, if you look very closely. Amid the tiredness, because we

learned today he did 357 media appearances as part of this

referendum campaign. I think what he is trying to do is to take on the

argument that Chris and the Leave campaign are making around

migration, saying, we know you are really worried about your borders

and you want to close them, you want to do it because it is affecting

your livelihood. The Prime Minister is saying, actually, there is

something else here that might affect your livelihood and are

really trying to get into the idea that it is going to affect people's

lives. Even to the extent of saying all the things I promised you, key

things on defence spending, extra money for the NHS, the triple lock

on pensions, all of these things that probably got him elected, or

were a key part, he is prepared to say I can't do any of that? He's

just breaching even more of the trust of the British people. Another

key pledge he made was that he was going to get immigration down to

tens of thousands. He knows he has broken that because of the EU and

other failings in immigration policy. The reality is that they are

so desperate in Downing Street now because they thought they would be

ten points ahead at this point. It is still very close, if you would

still say that Remain would edge it on the day. He has even deployed his

own wife, she was never that Keane at even turning up at party

conferences and kissing on stage. He has got someone at Downing Street to

write an article from some Cameron. That is how desperate they are,

which is telling. When I spoke to the Chancellor on Wednesday night in

the interview and I raised the issue of pensions, I said, why would the

state pension be hit either way in or out, because we have the triple

lock. By definition, it cannot fall in real terms, in or out. He didn't

really dispute that. He went along with that. Today, we have the Prime

Minister, only a few days later saying we might not even be able to

afford the triple lock if you voted to leave. What is happening? What

makes it doubly confusing is that it was Cameron, above anybody else

that was incredibly possessive over the pension commitment and the

pension benefit commitment in the previous parliament. Even when he

came under internal lobbying to soft in the policy, to create fiscal room

to maybe soft and cuts elsewhere, he resisted it. So he deserves

criticism now for seemingly weakening the position. In many

ways, Cameron himself is the least important Remain politician for the

next 11 days. They need Labour voters to vote by a margin of 2 1,

if not 3-1, four Remain to win the referendum. You don't do that with a

Prime Minister they do not like and voted against. For the remaining 11

days, I think that Remain need to push Cameron less and Jeremy Corbyn

more, if he is willing to do it It's not that, Gordon Brown, who we

saw do a video, Harriet Harman, a few other Labour figures. I think

that is where it hinges, the Labour voters, especially in the north of

England. If it is down to Labour to Pollitt off, some of the leave

campaign should be opening the champagne early? -- pull it off The

vast majority of Labour MPs want people to vote to Remain. Some

people were apparently in tears when they saw the latest poll. The Labour

problem in heartlands goes deeper than this. I don't think it is

whether or not David Cameron is campaigning or Jeremy Corbyn. In

some of those seats, there are the biggest fears about immigration and

they wanted to see Labour talking their language. For all that said, I

think Chris and his colleagues also have questions to answer. You can't

just dismiss all of these reports like the IFS report, saying there

might be a ?40 billion black hole. I think only 15 Labour MPs have come

out for Leave, but 40% of Labour voters are Eurosceptic, and they

will be switching straight to Ukip, the next set of elections. They are

already the second party in the north of the country. If you are a

sensible Labour MP, you should be keeping quiet about Remain. Is the

biggest danger, in most referendums there are swings to the status quo

in the final days, it has a built-in advantage. The Scottish referendum,

the alternative micro referendum. Don't you risk that? We have to make

sure that doesn't happen and campaign relentlessly over the last

ten days. We have to keep getting messages across. We have new

revelations about the discussions taking place between the European

Union and Turkey. You will be dealing later in the programme with

this wave of more Europe due to come. There are all kind's of

different things that are going to hit the airwaves the moment we voted

to remain, if we do. I hope people realise that more Europe is on the

way and they have to votes to leave. You are not going away yet.

Last week we had campaigners for In and Out interrogate each other.

And we're going to repeat that today.

The Conservative Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling,

who wants to Leave and the Labour MP Mary Creagh, who's

They will put each other on the spot.

I'll mostly just be sitting back to watch.

Maybe I'll have a cup of tea. A short while ago they tossed a coin

to see who goes first. Mary was the winner, or loser, depending on your

point of view. She has chosen to cross-examine Chris. So, before we

start, let's see Chris's pitch to undecided voters as to why they

should vote to leave. In ten days' time, we are going to

be taking the biggest decision of this country has taken for a

generation. Should we remain or leave? What would be our future

relationship with Europe, given the fact we are already the biggest

customer for European products like these ones? When you take your

decision, I want you to ask yourself one simple question. Do I want to

live in a country that is free to take its own decisions in the

interests of its people? Or am I happy to be in a country that has

given up control over key decisions that affect all of our futures? We

have already given up control over a whole variety of areas of crucial

importance to us. We are not allowed to forge our own free-trade

agreements with Commonwealth partners, we are not allowed to set

limits on the number of people that come and work here and is

immigration pressures. All of that has happened already. There is more

to come. At the same time, we are spending a fortune on being part of

the EU. Our contribution is ?35 million overall every week. We only

see half of that money back, money that could be spent on our

priorities like the National Health Service and cutting fuel bills. If

you have any worries that if you vote to leave on the 23rd of June,

the Germans are still going to sell these cars, the French will still

sell us our wines and cheeses. What we will have done is taken back

control of our country. We will be in charge of the key decisions that

matter to all our futures. We will be a properly independent country

again and that is what I want for all our children and grandchildren.

Here are risk Grayling and Mary Cray. Mary has seven minutes to

interrogate Chris. Vote Leave have claimed that EU

regulations cost businesses ?60 million a week. It doesn't take into

account the benefits of the regulations, does it? The key issue

for most businesses in this country, you have to remember that most

businesses do no trade at all within the European Union, most operate

just in the United Kingdom. They are all subject to the regulations that

international businesses have to deal with. Typically, they are small

businesses, they don't have the staff, the compliance to do it. It

places a huge extra cost on small business. I've talked to small

businesses up and down the country. Again and again, they tell me they

have to do box ticking and form filling. It is nothing to do with

the environment they are operating in, it takes a huge amount of time

and money that could be spent on hiring more people. The same report

shows that these measures have a net benefit to the UK, so we will not

save ?600 million a week if we leave? There is not a cash saving of

?600 million a week. What you do is free of business to do new things,

to take advantage of new opportunities. On day one, you don't

just save ?600 million on the spot. As we gain the freedom to reduce the

regulation on small business, not to reduce worker rights, not to make

workplaces more dangerous, but to end some of the box ticking and form

filling that comes from Brussels, those businesses have more time to

sell... The figure includes the cost of rights at work, the rights of

four weeks paid holiday, paid maternity leave and equal pay for

fixed term and agency workers. Which would you scrap? We've always been

better than the rest of the European Union on workers' rights. One of the

things I would not do, after the gulf of Mexico oil disaster, even

though we have the best safety standards in the North Sea, they

decided to rewrite them. No benefit to safety or businesses, at a time

when jobs are being lost in the North Sea, companies have had to

deal with extra costs, to no benefit at all except to keep bureaucrats

happy. You've been clear we would not save ?600 million from leaving

the EU. Hundreds of thousands of women lost tens of thousands of

pounds when you changed the state qualifying age for the pension. Why

should they rely on you to protect their rights? You changed the

goalposts. It was the Labour Party that started changing the retirement

age, we've both chosen to do that because the life expectancy of

people in this country is rising. Inevitably, as retirement years

become longer, it becomes more of a challenge, and both we and the

Labour Party have said because of that we need to raise the state

retirement age. You would surely agree as a champion of equality it

is sensible for men and women to retire at the same age. I want to

move on to what you said about the Commonwealth. We do more trade with

Ireland than 53, Love countries put together. Europe puzzles would mean

we'd need to have a land border between Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I will that help? I don't buy that. We had the Common travel

area since 1923, before the European Union was streamed off. There's no

reason for that to change. -- dreams. The issue is about living

and working in the UK, getting a national insurance number,

registering for state support. That creates a back door for EU migrants

to coming to Northern Ireland and Ahern has decided Theresa Villiers,

because he says we are talking about EU citizens and non-EU nations

seeking a way into Britain. He says smuggling would undergo a revival,

endless profit-making opportunities for criminals. You're talking about

illegal immigration, I'm talking about a situation where we have

77,000 people a year arriving just looking for a job. I'm talking about

Northern Ireland. We've got 200 roads between the countries. Are you

going to have an army of bureaucrats checking passports? We never have

and we will not. If you are a European citizen crossing the border

and seeking to get a job, if you don't have the right to work year,

there will be set rules in place so you demonstrate you have a job

before you come to the UK. You will not be able to work legally. What is

your alternative economic plan? Do you want the UK to be like

Switzerland? I want the UK to be like the UK. The reason we will do

trade deals with the EU, Carry On trading freely, is because we buy

more from them than they buy from us. I buy more from Lidl than they

buy from me but I would say the economic power in that relationship

is on Lidl. They sent 8% of exports to us. Where is the power in that

relationship? I think the power is with you, the consumer, because you

can go to another supermarket. In what world would the French say to

their farmers, we are going to endanger your livelihood by taking

away your ability to sell your products to the UK? We represent 17%

of exports. Why would they put that in danger? Millions of EU jobs

depend on British consumers. One of your economists have said about to

leave would mostly eliminate Britain's manufacturing centre and

Michael Gove cannot guarantee people would not lose their jobs. Are you

happy with 18% of the British economy is stopping happening? He is

one of your economists. I don't accept that. So your saying he is

wrong? On this, I think he is. Is Michael Gove wrong when he says he

cannot guarantee jobs? Look at Patrick Bamford. Your colleague

Michael Gove, said he cannot guarantee jobs. He said he could not

Darren T the jobs of the British members of the European Parliament

-- could not guarantee. On manufacturing, look at James Dyson,

these are people who are captains of industry, saying we should leave.

Have you ever join the gym? I never have. I see from your register of

interests you are an honorary member of the RSC club. If a member

cancelled their membership on Monday and turned up expecting to use the

swimming pool, what with the other members say? What would they say? We

will need to leave it there. It is now the turn of Mary to be cross

examined. Let's look at her pitch as to why voters should vote to remain?

In 1940, Churchill urged towns and cities to fund raise for the war

effort. These towns outside Wakefield he did that call and

raised enough money to buy a Spitfire. This Polish pilot flew

that plane in the Royal air force. He shot down four German planes

before losing his life over France. His bravery and that of thousands of

other service men is commemorated at this memorial. In 1000 years of

European history we've had 70 years of peace, largely because of the

European Union. Billions of pounds of British exports and millions of

jobs and on our membership of the EU. The pressure on the NHS, schools

and housing is not caused by European immigration but I had right

Tory Government failing to and staff the NHS, cutting budgets for schools

and overseeing the lowest house building since the 1920s. When you

thought on June 23, remember this pilot, Polish immigrant, shot down

over France, for the freedoms we enjoy today. Remember as well that

the people that want us to leave are not friends and allies in the USA,

but right wing politicians, Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir

Putin. Ask yourself, is that a risk you are willing to take with your

children's futures in this battle for Britain? As before, you've got

seven minutes to question merely. The trade figures show we have the

biggest ever trade deficit in the EU. Why do you think are trading

position has become so much worse in the single market? I think it is

important we stay in the EU, it gives us the largest domestic market

in the world, a market of 500 million people, and as I said to

you, it is important that we stay because 80% of the economy depends

on services freely traded and 2 % of the economy is manufacturing. Those

sectors will be put at risk if we leave. You did not answer my

question. Why do you think the trading position has got worse over

the years? I think our economy is changing, we've had a big recession,

and we've had six years of Conservative government. I think

Britain is better off, safer and more secure as part of the European

Union. The issue around trading figures, do we create more jobs and

growth by remaining or should we take this leap in the dark with

security and prosperity? The trade position was getting worse even in

the Labour years. Why is that? The trade position is that we do more

trade with Ireland than with 53 members of the Commonwealth. That is

something your campaign wants to put at risk and I don't think that is a

risk we can take. It is important we stay in, we work on closing that

deficit, but we must not wreck the economy and have a new recession by

voting to leave. That is what every single economic forecaster has said

will happen. We will check recession, the economy will shrink,

and the trade deficit will get worse. We would be outside the club

and they would tell us what rules we would abide by. Why did they help

make the position worse by moving the production of Ford transit vans

from Southampton to Turkey. I don't know about that, but what is

clear... They gave grants to Turkey to move production from Southampton

to Turkey. It helped contribute to making it worse. I don't accept they

did that, I don't know about the details, but in a globalised world,

big companies are looking at this referendum, making decisions, we got

investment in the north-west, they think, if we are no longer the

Gateway to the European market we will not receive foreign direct

investment into the economy, harming jobs, growth, and the economy of the

UK. In that market, why do you think unemployment fell and is 50% in

Spain? Unemployment in those countries is unacceptably high and

in some cases that is because of structural factors at work. When I

was working in Brussels, the unemployment rate was always double

and there has been structurally higher levels of unemployment. There

is also the austerity policies that have been pursued by the European

Union. There have been imbalances in those markets, Spain had a market

based on selling houses, Greece had an economy where nobody collected

taxes properly. These have been shown up by the recession, leading

to consequences. Are you in favour of the UK having the ability to set

limits on the number of EU citizens who come and work here? What I want

us to do is have access to the single market. We are outside of the

passport free Schengen zone, we are not part of the asylum policy. We

choose the number of asylum seekers that come to this country. Your

government has control over who comes here from outside the EU.

There is more migration from outside the EU than from within the U. The

question is, that free movement of people is one of the factors that

gives us access. People have concerns. Do we throw the baby out

with the bath water and wreck the economy with a vote to leave? You

did not answer my question. Are you in favour of having any ability to

set limits on the number of people from the EU who live and work here?

Your Prime Minister has negotiated an opt out so that people who come

here have to contribute to the economy for four years before they

can access housing, social benefits, except try. -- etc. I think that is

welcome and it is important that your government starts making

investment in the NHS, housing, and in schools, the investment we need

for those coming here. There are more people coming here from outside

than from inside. You have control of that. Why are you not stopping

it? Do you think people should be able to come from elsewhere in the

EU to look for a job? There are 77,000 people who turn up at

Victoria Coach Station or to near Port. Do you think that is OK? I

think we have over a million people living in Spain have chosen to

retire there, live and work there. We have 2 million British citizens

who have chosen to live, work and invest in other European Union

countries. When people come here to look for work, they look for work

and generally find it, and we know that they generally put more into

the economy than they take out. You are happy for people to come in

unlimited numbers to look for work here. I've said there are more

people coming from outside the EU, given visas from your government,

and people make a contribution. What we don't want to do is throw the

baby out with the bath water, wrecked the economy. That would mean

less money for public sector services, and a weaker economy.

You're happy that there should be no limits. More people come from

outside the EU than come from inside.

One of the main arguments of the Leave campaign is that the EU

But are there signs that several EU initiatives have been put on ice

or pushed off the agenda in an effort to avoid

stirring up controversy until after the referendum?

Critics have suggested that the Budget and proposals paving

the way for a so-called EU army are being kept secret.

Others suggest some awkward legislation like new eco-friendly

regulations banning some kitchen appliances like toasters could be

The familiar sights, things people expect to see in this

great European city, the administrative home of the EU.

But, underneath it all, there's something else.

A place only a few people know about.

The Musee des Egouts - The Sewer Museum.

Do you get to see them on a daily basis?

So, there are still some surprises lurking here in Brussels.

The EU's critics say it is doing the same thing, that there

is some nasty business still in the pipeline.

They are keeping everything back until after the 24th,

and then there's going to be a deluge, a tsunami.

There's going to be all sorts of problems that

on others, regulations they've held back, especially on things

This is things like the Port Services Directive, which is ruinous

Things like the licensing for art imports, which is a disaster

The banning of high-power electrical appliances.

And then, a little bit further down the line,

more bailouts, higher budget contributions and, ultimately,

the harmonisation of military capacity, what the European

Commission describes as the strategic necessity

Is the commission holding back on certain legislation that would be

The commission is not saving up proposals.

We are continuing to work on the basis of our

Now, as to the question about the EU army, yes,

I can also say very clearly that we have no plans

But there are those in the European Parliament who think

Britain's referendum is playing a role in delaying EU business.

That's exactly what happened to the EU budget, according

to the vice chair of the European Parliament's

We would normally have the budget by now.

It is being delayed, yes.

I think everyone knows that Brexit and the vote, the referendum,

There is certainly the migration reason for delaying it.

But then, on the other hand, in politics commuting to say

that this is the reason, then there are other things.

The Green MEP that works on regulation to make kitchen

appliances more eco-friendly says toasters were never

Is there a sense here that there is much business in the EU

being held up before the British referendum?

Of course, the EU commission is very cautious, some legislative proposals

We do that because we do not want to create negative stories

which often are completely out of the blue and without any proof,

because that is the reality of the British media.

The Toaster Unit is somewhere, hidden in a secret, locked corridor.

The Toaster Unit is what some journalists have called a special

task force set up within the EU commission to deal with issues

So called because of those stories in the British press that the EU had

decided to shelve plans to change our toasters.

It's led by the father of British Eurocrats,

He has been here since the 70s, plays cricket, drinks tea,

kind of understands some of what may explode in the UK.

But we do know there is a British task force that has been dubbed

Is that not evidence that you are at least prepared to hold

I appreciate the effort to introduce into the commission pressroom

tabloid terminology, there are issues to be addressed,

Parliamentary questions to be answered.

There is a whole internal work of coordination

between the services, advice to the commission.

So there is nothing special, extraordinary or toaster

related aspects in the work of our colleagues.

With less than two weeks to go until the referendum,

it's maybe not surprising those in Brussels are keen

the British public see the EU's best side.

But, for others, it belies a "selfie-interest" -

exactly what those wanting to leave say is wrong with the EU.

We are joined from Shipley by the Labour MEP Richard Corbett.

He is a former advisor to the President of the European

Council so knows the workings of the EU very well.

To your knowledge, is The Financial Times right to report that the EU

Commission has delayed a second eco-friendly assault on household

goods such as hairdryers and hostess trolleys until after the referendum?

You know, in general, it is one of those scare stories, isn't it? They

are about to spring proposals on us and they are holding them back. The

nastier and worse they are, the better it is for the story. When you

look into it, it is something as banal as the design of household

appliances, to save people money and make them more efficient, not

limiting their power but making them more efficient. Why were The

Financial Times, probably the most pro-EU paper in the United Kingdom

run a scare story? The Financial Times is also keen to ensure

balance, it gives a say to each side. This is a news story, not an

opinion piece? The question is, surely, so what? The European

Commission only proposes, it is not the side. The proposals have to come

to the Council of ministers, with a British minister around the table,

answer to the European Parliament, for a decision. We are part of the

decision taking process. It is not them telling us what to do, it is

sitting around the table with our neighbouring countries to work out

common rules for the common market to protect consumers, protect the

environment or whatever the subject might be. What is wrong with that?

What about the report in the Sunday Times this morning from diplomatic

cable traffic that it looks like the deal between the EU and Turkey on

controlling migration isn't going so well, and they are worried that

Turkey might just open the floodgates again, but they are

keeping it under wraps until after the vote on June the 23rd? Is that

another scare story? I think the ongoing negotiations with Turkey

have had their ups and downs for several months now. That is a very

difficult situation. It would be no easier if we were outside the

European Union or in. The flood of refugees coming out of Syria, going

through Turkey and other countries, some in, some outside the EU like

Macedonia and Serbia, that needs a cooperative effort at European level

to try to reach agreement to handle that better. It is far better that

we are in those negotiations than peripheral to them. It is in our

interest to our say. What about moves to an EU army? It's the,

quote, the framing of a progressive defence policy that might lead to a

common defence. Why would there not be moves to having a EU army? The

operational word is might. If you look at the procedure, it needs the

unanimous consent of every single member state. By the way, in law, in

Britain now, such a transfer of responsibilities to the European

Union would require another referendum. Nothing like that can

possibly happen without the British people agreeing with it. What I m

trying to find out, is the idea .. The idea has been around since the

early 1950s, the French national parliament rejected it in 1954.

Various people come out and say wouldn't it be a good idea? And it

has never happened. It may never happen, but it doesn't mean it

won't. Many things have happened that you would think would never

have happened 40 years ago. Jean-Claude Juncker wants a EU army,

that is one powerful voice in favour? So do various people, but

the commission can't decide it, it can only make suggestions. It is the

member states. Every single member state has to agree, so it's not

going to happen. Well, we don't know, do we? There are many things

we were told would not happen, but they do. I'm trying to work out why

people are not talking about these things at the moment. Not without

our agreement, Andrew. The German defence minister says that the

future belongs to a European army, it would strengthen Europe's

security. We are told a German white Paper on this has been postponed

until after the referendum. There is a second powerful voice in favour of

it? Maybe it would, maybe it would not be a strengthening of European

defence. The point is, for that to happen you would need a British

government to agree it and it is enshrined in our national law that

the decision, itself, would need a new referendum. Of course lots of

people think X, Y, Z would happen, but they could not happen without

our agreement. Officials in Brussels are talking about or preparing

papers on a new treaty, higher budget, a EU intelligence service, a

European army, more economic integration, new powers over health

policy, scrapping zero rate VAT mandatory sharing of gas, even a

common position on the IMF. We know that in the years ahead, some of

that, by no means all, some of that will happen, won't it? It is the job

of the European Commission to think of ideas, where it thinks it might

be a good idea for the whole of Europe to work together on those

subjects. But the commission does not decide. It puts that to the

member states, the Council of ministers, a minister from every

country around the table. Some of the things you have mentioned would

even need a treaty change. All of that needs the agreement of the

member states. The commission will come up with all kind of ideas,

weird and wonderful, or sensible. That is its job. It is up to our

ministers to accept or reject them. In many cases, it needs the approval

of parliament, or even a referendum, according to British law. We are

told this by people like you time and time again, it's not going to

happen, if it does it will need our approval and the rest of it. We were

told by a Labour minister... It might happen, if we were to agree to

it. We were told by a Labour minister that the Charter of

fundamental rights would have no more legal status than the Beano.

Now it turns out it is written into the European Court of Justice and

applies to Britain. It turned out to be a bit more important than the

Beano, didn't it? If you look into that, actually, what the charter

does is restrict what the European Union institutions can do. It more

or less binds them to follow the same rules that we apply in Britain

about human rights, which we negotiated in the separate deal on

the European Convention of human rights. It applies to Britain? The

fact is, it applies to Britain and we were told it didn't? What applies

to Britain is very different, it's nothing to do with the EU, the

European Convention On Human Rights. Churchill was a great champion not

of that. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the Charter of

fundamental rights and it is written into the European Court of justice?

We were told it wouldn't be? Yes. What it says very clearly, that was

clear when Britain ratified it, is that it binds the European

institutions and the field of European Union law, even when we are

applying it, to recognise and respect those fundamental rights

that we would expect everybody to follow, and now that is also binding

on the European institutions. It restricts them in what they can

propose and what they can do to make sure they respect the same rights

that we would want them to respect. Thank you for joining us today.

At this late stage in the EU referendum campaign,

the majority of MPs have announced their voting intentions.

But there are a few who are still making up their minds and some

This week, John Mann and Dennis Skinner put the number

of Labour MPs declaring they'd vote to leave the EU into double figures

And Labour MP Khalid Mahmood announced he's joining

the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union -

after previously backing the campaign to leave.

Khalid joins us from the Birmingham studio and John Mann

John Conner let me come to you first. You said you are going to

vote to leave. You told us that on Friday. Why did you leave it so late

to declare? I had to weigh up all of the issues, these are not

straightforward decisions. The big question for me is, the EU is

broken, fundamentally broken. Can it be reformed from the inside or not?

My conclusion is that it can't be. One of the reasons is that David

Cameron's negotiations, even on the absurdity of child benefits being

paid to children that have never been in this country, he could not

get agreement on that. It is because the structures of the European Union

do not allow that kind of common-sense change to take place.

It is there, in the rules, and it can't be changed. Khalid Mahmood,

you previously backed the campaign to leave, you now think we should

remain. You say you are worried about the threat to workers' rights

if we leave the EU. How have you only realise that now?

I wanted to look at the wider agenda and work to resolve that. A lot of

the debate has focused on issues that have frightened people,

particularly on the Leave side, and people trying to contextualise it

about immigration. The whole thing is about how we deal to it -- with

it. If you don't doctor Europe, it makes immigration far worse. We need

to look at how you to restrict borders,

stop people coming in. We've done that with an agreement with France

to put up fences to stop people coming onto the trains through the

tunnel. We've worked together to do that. What do you say to that? The

European Union has failed. Angela Merkel unilaterally decided on

behalf of Germany to have 1 million Syrians come to Germany. What was

less noticed was she a load huge numbers of Kosovans to come to

Germany. -- she allowed. The German economists said they needed 3

million workers. That has a huge impact on the rest of the European

Union. This concept of the European citizen rather than the British

citizen, the German citizen, is the fundamental fault line in the

European Union, that it cannot fix. If that was fixed it would be a

different proposition but it cannot be. That is why the issue of

immigration is so toxic. We don t know what will happen in ten, 2 , 30

years. We have no control over it. The only way we will know is if we

engage with it and make the decisions from inside. We are the

final destination. If we don't cooperate with Europe and France,

and the Borders are open, and the French have no incentive not to let

people come through, we have to work together to resolve these issues.

We've only got a couple of minutes. We are being told by a number of

Labour politicians on both sides of the argument that it is proving a

struggle to get the Labour vote out for remain. Have you found that The

reason I joined is we want to get the vote out more effectively. If it

is struggle? We are working hard to make sure we get people out. Yes,

that is why I wanted to join, push people forward. You think it's a

struggle. Most people are making up their own minds. The Westminster

bubble debate and the Leave campaign against the Remain campaign is not

the same as the debate going on in workplaces and households. There is

an entirely different debate going on. It is quite clear the Labour

Party is not entirely in touch with Labour voters on this issue. I thank

you both for joining us. It's coming up to 11.50,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20,

the Week Ahead. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. And let's say hello straight away

to Kwasi Kwarteng, the Conservative MP for Spelthorne,

who supports the Leave campaign and by Andy Slaughter

the Labour MP for Hammersmith, who supports the campaign to Remain

in the EU. Welcome to you both. What does

Jeremy Corbyn have to do to help you win the Remain campaign? He is

setting exactly the right note, emphasising the positive reasons

that will go down well with Labour voters about why we should stay in

the EU, to do with protection, environmental protection, social

protections, the same things we benefited from and which protect

ordinary people from the ravages of capitalism at its worst. At the same

time people know that Jeremy is sincere. It hit the right note.

You're on the other side from your leader. How do you think he's been

handling the campaign? I think the campaign is rattled. The edge is

still with Remain, to be honest but they are clearly very worried this

will not go their way. The Prime Minister has started saying, there

must not be any blue on blue attacks, then you saw quite strong

attacks on Boris Johnson. Clearly there has been a shift. I think the

Remain campaign is quite worried and therefore we are hearing more

personal attacks. Let's get into some of the detail. One of the areas

is, when you ask people whether strongholds are of the Leave

campaign, people suggest parts of Kent and their sixth.

As do northern towns full of disaffected Labour voters.

But according to research, the place with the strongest

yearning to leave the EU is the East London borough of Havering.

Andrew Cryan is there for us this morning.

While opinion polls tend to suggest that Londoners are leaning more

towards In than Out, according to one bit of research

east London's Havering wants to leave the EU more than any other

Earlier this year, the council even became the first in the country

to officially passed a motion that next EU backed Brexit.

So if this really is the most Eurosceptic place in the country,

First things first, much of Havering looks and feels much more

like the English countryside than its capital city.

Half the borough is protected green belt land and, until the 1960s,

it was officially classed as Essex, rather than London.

Many locals still feel that old identity.

I feel Essex because historically I think the boundaries

There are some super little villages are still left.

But whether London or Essex, Havering is most

In Romford market, flags were on proud

display, along with Vote Leave banners.

100% Out, yeah.

It's all the housing, benefits, I think we are losing control.

These criminals that are coming in, we've got no way of

controlling them, no way of knowing where they are.

I think it will put the Great back in Great Britain.

We've been in Romford market talking to people for probably about an hour

or so and there has been a couple of people that didn't know

which way they were going, one person said they weren't

going to vote, but apart from that everybody has said they want

Reasons as far afield as the price of houses, schools

the state of the NHS, the state of Romford market.

It's almost as if leaving Europe has become the answer to almost

Five generations of the Robins family have worked in

They are now joined by 15 Lithuanians.

Like many locals, this business started in the East End, but moved

According to matriarch June, that migration eastwards

explains why Havering people feel so strongly.

They have moved out of the area where they have been

living and brought up because they were

In Upton Park, where I was brought up, I'm very proud to be English.

This shop is very clean, as you've, you have

It's beautiful and clean, anyway you look,

They gut their fish, gut their chickens, it

If we control our borders - we can't get them people out now,

Of course, not everybody here feels the same way about immigration.

Others did tell us they were worried about a loss of British identity.

Everyone you talk to, they say it's not Britain now.

I wouldn't class myself as European at all.

There's no question that there's a lot of support on the ground

But we'll have to wait until the referendum results to find

out if it really is the most Eurosceptic place in Britain.

Do you think those concerns are widespread in London? I think he's a

ring has a particular character that came out in your video. -- Havering.

I was in my constituency, just outside the Greater London boundary,

we had a great Tea Party celebrating Her Majesty's 90th. About everyone I

spoke to was going to vote Leave. There were concerns in your

constituency about the levels of immigration? I don't think you will

have the same level of concern, because there are borrowers which

are much more at ease with the changes, the economy thrives on a

fast moving population so I don t think you will find exactly the same

sentiments but you do find in the suburbs, those sentiments are widely

held. Are you concerned about the levels of immigration? I was out

yesterday knocking on doors and I thought even what we've been told we

would concentrate on the core Labour areas, working-class areas, and

overwhelmingly for Remain. Even more so than wealthy middle-class parts.

A real understanding of issues. It was very gratifying. Still over half

of the immigration is from outside of the EU. Do you think there is too

much EU immigration, the levels of EU immigration are too high? About

15% of my constituents are EU nationals. Almost 50% were born

outside the UK. It is simply part of the cultural mix. The Polish

community but we've had that since after the Second World War. It is

honestly not an issue. For me and my constituents. I do understand it is

elsewhere and I will be trying to maximise the Remain thought. Nobody

has thought about it since the Second World War, but what has

happened is the free movement is hundreds of thousands of EU migrants

have come in. To say this is the normal state of affairs is simply

not true. The scale of immigration. I'm the son of immigrants and I know

about this subject. The scale is completely different to what was the

case in the 50 years after the Second World War. It is a completely

different order and to protect it is not different is to turn a blind

face against the voters. You are fighting against history. There are

millions of British people who've chosen to go and live in Europe

Sorry to interrupt the flow, let's try and get a bit more from

Havering. Our reporter is in a pie and mash shop.

We are in the pie and mash shop you saw in the film. Lawrence, the polls

suggest that London is leaning towards Remain, why is it different

here? Despite the best efforts of the government, we are still able to

think for ourselves and we want out, we will not be swayed by Cameron's

scare tactics. Is it as simple as that? In the film, a lot of people

said that they are old East Enders, they moved out here, partly because

of immigration, they didn't like what happened, we heard one person

in the film saying that immigrants had the tone of old East End. I did

not see the video, but we are voting for one thing alone, who governs the

country. That is the only thing we are voting on. When you speak to

people in Havering, ten different people will give you ten different

reasons, but it is basically who makes the laws that govern the

country. Lets get back to that, you talk to ten different people, you

get ten different reasons, it's to do with benefits, the NHS, the price

of houses, the state of the market. You cannot pretend that all of those

problems will be solved if we leave the EU? You mentioned immigration,

we like to call the free movement of people, that is what it is in the

EU. There is clearly an impact on the Health Service, schools,

housing, all of those things are driven by the numbers of people

coming to settle in this country. The Office of National Statistics,

their own figures show that last year 590,000 people from the EU came

to settle in the UK, or were given national insurance numbers, which

they need to live, work or claim benefits. If Havering feels so

strongly, what does that mean for votes, why does that not translate

into votes for Ukip? It's not translate into people wanting to

vote for you? The winning party only got 28%, we are not that far behind.

Things are progressively moving It's the first time we have fought

back hard in Havering. To win seven seats, from zero, it's pretty good.

Why do you think it is that the rest of London is leaning towards Remain?

You mention that yourself, there is a huge demographic change across

London, many people in the boroughs are EU citizens that have come here

to improve their lot in life, and nobody can blame them for that, but

they are probably not going to vote to leave. Thank very much. Next week

I will be in the London Borough of Lambeth, which according to the same

bit of research that said Havering wanted to leave, claims that Lambeth

is the place that wants to stay the most.

Kwasi Kwarteng, what is your calculation about the impact of

immigration? Is the pressure that they put on infrastructure

outweighed by the economic benefit? To say there are no benefits,

clearly immigration has been part of western countries, the world, for

many years. To turn your face against overwhelming evidence that

it poses pressure on services, certainly in my constituency, school

places are very difficult to find now as a consequence of the weight

of the population increase. If we don't plan for it, the problem will

not get easier, it will get worse. You must be seen that in Hammersmith

and Fulham? The guy from Ukip, he could not really answer the question

why London is a Remain city, the EU national don't even have a vote in

the referendum, that level of ignorance... Are there no pressures

on infrastructure in Hammersmith and Fulham? There are, there are

pressures on infrastructure because we are not building the houses we

should be, we are building luxury houses. In the areas where they are

building them, are they going to be affordable? You are demolishing the

major hospital when there is an increasing demand for A services.

Let's put the blame where it lies, with a Conservative government. How

can it be the Conservative Government? Who was in government

towards the end of the 2000s, when one had to make plans in preparation

for this influx of EU migrants? It began with Labour? Absolutely, can I

make a point? Yes, after I have answered the question. It's an

extraordinary thing to say. We are in the process now, we are beginning

to build homes. They are not the right kind of homes. The government

by Chris at the wrong target, and Boris Johnson as well, not building

affordable housing. This is typical of the Brexit misinformation that we

are having. Let's get this straight... Europe is responsible

for everything, let's put the blame where it lies, on our own

government. They miscalculated the effect of the expansion of the EU,

they said it would be 16,000 people a year, in 2004, they admitted, you

can read the memoirs, they said they got it wrong. Tony Blair, Gordon

Brown, Alistair Darling, they miscalculated the number of people.

If you miscalculate, you're not going to be able to plan. They

didn't know there would be 150, 00. When Polish people are coming over

here with education, graduates, their training, all paid for by the

Polish, we are getting that for free, often they are doubling up,

not living in particularly fantastic conditions, you have already

conceded that they are providing a net economic benefit which we are

going to lose? Forgive me, the point about this hard it is not if we are

having immigration or not, it is how we can control it. By near virtue of

having a Bulgarian passport, if you have the right to come into Britain,

and the minimum wage in Bulgaria is ?1 per hour, it is a huge incentive

for people to come and we don't have a choice. It's not like we can look

up their credentials and training, they have an automatic right to come

to Britain. That is where the tension is and that is where Vote

Leave will win. London is built on immigrant labour. Nobody denies

that! You set up a free enterprise group, famous for saying that

British workers were the most idle in the world. Prominent members are

the likes of Liz Truss and Sajid Javid, and are now in the Cabinet

and are now Remain! Maybe Boris will give you a job in the Cabinet?

It was a central pledge in his campaign manifesto -

to freeze transport fares for four years.

What did that mean? Well, not all fares. It emerged it would apply to

transport for London services for which he was responsible.

Sidiq Khan's manifesto could not be any clearer.

On page eight it says, Londoners won't pay a penny

more for their travel in 2020 than they do today.

Words which Sidiq Khan reiterated throughout

However, just above that was this line, which suggested it would only

I only have the power to set fares on TfL services.

Londoners who only use travel cards or who only use Network Rail

services will find the cost of their travel

For pay-as-you-go customers, weekly and daily caps will also

It attracted criticism from London assembly members who believed

He has been, at the very least, disingenuous in not

introducing caveats during the campaigns so people

actually understood what they were voting for.

The freeze is expected to cost ?640 million, higher

than Sadiq Khan's estimate of ?450 million but significantly

lower than transport for London s ?1.9 billion estimate.

So, after a short honeymoon, has Sidiq Khan's post-election

Has it? I think that he is a very skilful politician, he said lots of

things on the campaign trail and he even contradicted himself on the

campaign trail. If you look at his endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn to win

the nomination to beat Tessa Jowell, seen as the Blairite candidate, then

he turned on Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election because he

realised he was not particularly popular among swing voters. He

controls are some TfL fares, was it misleading? I don't know what was

going through his mind. Clearly there is some mismatch between what

he is saying now and what he said before the election. The public or

the Conservatives misunderstanding because nobody seemed to raise the

question? They should have done an oversight in our campaign. He

clearly backtracked or shifted his position from where he was before

the election. Can there be any doubt in Londoners' minds that they were

being promised a freeze and they would not pay a penny more when they

travelled within London for four years? The facts on this, we have

?640 million, it is higher than the estimate, but it is a third of what

Zac Goldsmith, he was going to put fares up by 17%, said it would cost.

That is helpful, but... That ?6 0 million will be coming through

better running. It might be helpful background, but could Londoners have

been in any doubt from Sadiq Khan they were not going to pay any more,

even if... So far, exactly what he said. Even if they were travelling

on the railways, even if they were paying by travel card, were they

entitled to believe that they were not going to pay any more? I don't

think this is being reported properly. Everything he can do

within his power, he is doing. And he will do more, provided that the

train companies and the government co-operate. Do you think he should

have clarified this? If you can transfer south-east and south-west

trains over to control of TfL, who I think we'll run it better, if the

government get tough with a train companies... Lots of ifs is Mark OK,

you have a go. EU you have spoken a lot, lot 's of

ifs, but there is clearly a mismatch between a freeze and the prices up.

A ten-year-old can see there is a mismatch. I'm not saying he lied,

but there is a mismatch between what he promised before the election

Presumably one reason why the Conservatives didn't point this out

is because it could have highlighted the fact that we would have all

asked, is the government not going to guarantee to freeze the element

of the rail fares coming in which are not owned by TfL? The Government

would not have done that. I don t want to rerun the campaign, I don't

know why we didn't say that. If a candidate says there will be a

freeze and then says there will not be, there is a problem, the voters

have been misdirected. Can I just say, you could be a bit too clever

by half in a campaign? We have had this suggestion with housing as

well, but it seemed pretty clear to people it was going to be all fares?

He's done everything in his power, he can do more if the Government

cooperate. The average family will save ?240. He's giving back ?64

million back to Londoners. Are you saying it is too complicated to

explain to Londoners? It was explained. A freeze is not

complicated, it is clear! For those people coming in from your

constituency into London, appealed to the Department for Transport now

to freeze it? We do that all the time. But a freeze is very

different. Thank you both. Just time to tell you about BBC

London's referendum debate tonight. Is London better

in or out of the EU? Politicians and leading business

people will debate the key issues affecting the capital in front

of a studio audience. That's Better In or Out,

A BBC London Referendum Special this Sunday night at 10.35

on BBC One. My thanks to my guests

Kwasi Kwarteng and Andy Slaughter. The House of Commons inquiry into

the collapse of the HS rumbles on. We're joined in the studio

by the Conservative member of the Business Select Committee

Richard Fuller. The former owner Sir Philip Green

has been summoned to face questioning by Richard's committee

on Wednesday but the retail billionaire yesterday declared

he was "not prepared to participate" unless the chair of the Work

and Pensions committee Frank Field My response is that the House of

Commons appoints the chairman. The select committees, because there are

two expect Sir Philip to appear on Wednesday. Sir Philip has a lot of

key questions to answer. He calls the shots, he is the person that can

actually answer. Parliament expects him to turn up on Wednesday.

Richard, nobody expects Frank Field to resign? No. Is full of green

looking for a way of trying to avoid appearing? -- Philip Green. He may

call the shots at British Home Stores, but no matter how big you

are, you don't call the shots on Parliament. Obviously he knows that,

he must be trying to express his own concerns. He thinks it is because of

the committee. But lots of the evidence against him has come from

the people he sold the company to, advisers to him on that transaction.

They are going against each other now, aren't they? Those that sold

and bought the company, it is like rats in a sack, isn't it? If I was

an employee had British Home Stores, I would be shocked at how little

regard was paid by any of these people in their employment, in their

stores, and if I was someone with a pension, I would be concerned why

somebody was taken out of the profits and the reserves, the

important thing is that Philip Green took the money out of the reserves.

There was a need to put money back in and he was found wanting. Can you

force him to appear? I think the force of public opinion will suggest

that he should come. I don't know that Parliament needs to send the

Sergeant at Arms to drag him, kicking and screaming. Why should he

be susceptible, a billionaire, who splits his time between Monaco and

Park Lane, where does he come face-to-face with public opinion? He

has his own reputation, he made assertions he was trying to do the

right thing, come and show that two us. Secondly, he relied on advisers,

that he was the director of the company and their response validity

needs to answer. -- there are respot abilities he needs to answer. If

it's so important, you talk about the pensioners, people who are

retired, they depend on their pension, 11,000 BHS workers who have

done nothing wrong at all apart from turn up every day and work hard for

their store, they now lose their job as well. Shouldn't Parliament, if

you were a US congressional committee, you would have the power

to subpoena him. We discussed on my committee with

Mike Ashley. In the end he decided to come. We did not need to take

further action. My understanding is opinion is divided on this, it is

not clear if a Parliamentary select committee can for somebody to give

evidence. Exactly right. It is not clear whether we have the ultimate

sanction of forcing someone to come under law. There has always been an

expectation that if people are asked to account for their actions they

would come. If Sir Philip Green wants to be the first person to

stand against that then so be it. VHS was sold for ?1. That puts a big

neon sign above the whole transaction. -- BHS. It was sold to

a man who was three times bankrupt. We don't know why the business

department or the regulators let this happen. If Parliament is to

matter it surely has to be able to force these people to come and speak

to it? The moral pressure had an excerpt is still fairly impressive.

We did see Mike Ashley, a billionaire. Rupert Murdoch was

forced to turn up by pressure. What happens if there is an empty seat?

Mike Ashley, we're not suggesting he did anything legally wrong. His

company was not paying the minimum wage. Even that moral pressure was

enough to get him to turn up, as a billionaire retailer. Parliament is

still pretty impressive. My understanding is it is a quasi

judicial event, and he can be dragged in front of the Speaker of

the house, and absolutely we should do that. It has been a terribly bad

week for business, it put them in a very bad light. The idea you can

have a knighthood and be a billionaire on your jot and put two

fingers up to the representatives of the British people, I don't think

so. What is your take on this? Thousands of jobs that they sold for

a poem, the allegations that have been made by the gentleman who

bought the business are eye watering. I'm sure the public would

like to see Sir Philip Green brought kicking and screaming. He can decide

not to come but that would tell everyone answers to the questions we

want him to answer. It is a chance for him to put the record straight

if there is a story for him to tell otherwise people will draw their own

conclusions. He can bring Kate Moss on his arm. What would we do if he

does not turn up, would that be grounds for being stripped of the

knighthood? I have always said we need to wait for him to come and

answer the questions and there are very serious concerns about his

behaviour if he does not come, and at that stage then within the rules

of how you can be stripped of an honour I think they would very

seriously look at that. Jeremy Corbyn's advisers

are sceptical of what they call Perhaps that's why, on Friday night,

the Labour leader appeared to explain his views on Europe,

not on a political analysis programme but on the Channel 4

comedy gig The Last Leg. And if you thought the great

Jezza was all allotments It seems he also does

Bentleys and bling. Why? To show that he's up for a

laugh. People will think that. There is a risk because other people might

open the newspaper and see the pictures. So it was all right to do

that? I think so. You never know? People might think he does that at

the weekend. Old jumpers during the week. Fake fire at the weekend? You

might be right. I find that a stretch. They wanted to show he had

a sense of humour. He came across very well. It was very witty. Unless

you want to be Prime Minister. People who want to be by Minister

cannot be the type of people who want to have a laugh? -- Prime

Minister. I do think people like to take seriously people who want to

become Prime Minister. Was it an attempt to put more humanity on him?

They must have thought long and hard about doing this. I'm not sure they

think long and hard about anything. Your initial question was why, I

think the answer is I don't think he wants to be premature and I don t

think he thinks he will ever be Prime Minister and therefore the

cost of this type of gesture is minimal. He is not missing out on

vote that he wants anyway. He said one thing during the performance

which the press interpreted as embarrassing, he said 70% Remain.

More than I thought he was. I think, perversely, might resonate with more

marginal voters than we think, people who will grudgingly consider

voting to stay in. I wonder whether he has arrived at a line which is

more persuasive than David Cameron. I thought he performed quite well,

this relief that he can open his top button, Showtime. He could have a

future with an acting career. We have the tooting by-election. Don't

mention any of the candidates or I need to go through the lot. It is

being overshadowed by the referendum. Is it significant? It

was reasonably tight at the last election and before Sadiq Khan one,

people said it could be lost for Labour. I would be surprised, in the

wake of the mayoral election, which gave a boost to Labour. The money is

on Labour to keep the seat. If the Tories when it will be very

significant, actually, by-elections are not very significant. You say

that but some of us needs to be up on the night to cover them. It would

be significant for the Tories to win it. A long shot while they are

knocking lumps out of each other. The most telling thing is even in

the current state they are three points ahead of Labour. Tooting is

trending long-term because there are more prosperous people in it. This

might be a bit too early to take advantage of that but you could

imagine it is one of those seats in 2020 that could

turn blue if Jeremy Corbyn is still leader. Thank you for being with us.

We will look with interest to see who is with you on Wednesday. Maybe

with the fur coat? If you would like to know the result, June in on ABC

one on Thursday night. We will bring you the live coverage of the result

from the tooting by-election. That's it from today. Remember, if it is

Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics. I work for the Serious Fraud Office.

Is that why you were there? What do you think this is,

some kind of conspiracy? ..or watch all of Case One

on BBC iPlayer now.