Hilary Benn MP The Andrew Neil Interviews: Leave or Remain?

It's the biggest decision for the British people in a generation.

Over the next few weeks I'll be talking live to leading campaigners

Should the UK remain in or leave the European Union?

Just 17 days until voters go to the polls in the referendum

on our membership of the European Union.

Welcome to the first of four live programmes in which I will be

putting the claims of politicians on both sides of the

Tonight, I'm joined by one of the Labour Party's leading

campaigners for Britain to remain in the EU -

Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn.

Welcome to the programme. Good evening, Andrew. Starting with a

quote from your leader, Jeremy Corbyn, coming back from 1992, but

it turns out he's a bit of a profit. He said in a Commons debate about

the Maastricht Treaty, the treaty that set Europe on the road to

economic and monetary union, he said it would take away from...

Jeremy Corbyn, 24 years ago. Which bits did he get wrong? The Jeremy of

today is campaigning for us to remain in the European Union,

because a lot of things have changed since the Maastricht Treaty was

passed, including the biggest global crash since the 1930s that has been

very hard for families and affected peoples incomes. But Jeremy is

clear, we are clear, the Labour Party and the trade unions are

campaigning for us to remain in the European Union. Membership has given

us jobs, investment and growth, and we have the best economy in Europe

for attracting foreign investment. The best workers' rights. It gives

us security influence in the world and it has helped secure peace. They

are all strong arguments to remain. You have not answered question of

what he got from there. It would seem to me that he got a lot right.

The core project of the European Union is the arose on. We are not in

it, but it's the central tenet. I'm puzzled why, wide as Labour want to

be in the union that is prepared to inflict such pain and misery on

ordinary people? You answered the question in part when you reminded

us that we are not in the euro. The last Labour government took that

decision, it was a wise choice to make at the time and it's even more

wise in hindsight because we have an economy where unemployment is

falling, a record number of people in work, and it's true other

countries in the Eurozone, and it was their decision, are facing a

tough time. It is the core project of the European Union. The crash

happened to countries inside and outside the European Union. None

more so than the Western world and in the Eurozone. I'm puzzled why you

want to be allies with people in a union and institution that wishes to

and has been prepared to inflict such pain. Because it has given us

jobs, investment and growth. And if we leave, as you know, nine out of

ten economists, every bit of analysis done by the IMF, the OECD,

the World Bank... This isn't what I asked. Why would we want to be

allied with people who have been prepared to impose mass unemployment

among young people across the Eurozone? Because we would have a

weaker economy if we left European Union. If we took ourselves out of

the single market, which gives us access to a market of 500 million

people, which is really important for our economy. It would raise

prices. The governor of the Bank of England says it might lead to

recession. We have just been through the most painful recession since the

1930s. Why would we want to run the risk of going through that again?

That's why Jeremy Hunt all of us are campaigning to remain in the EU,

Andrew. -- that's why Jeremy and all the others. You have argued that the

EU safeguards British workers' rights. Why are we incapable of

doing it ourselves? We are capable of doing both. The Leave campaign

suggests we could have workers' rights in Britain or in Europe, or

we could trade with Europe and the rest of the world. We could do both.

If there were not common rights, and the European Union protects workers'

rights across the EU, limits on working time, paid holiday, fair

rights for women at work, protection for agency and temporary workers,

the Leave campaign described them as red tape and bureaucracy. Let's take

paid holiday. Everybody counts on that. Are you saying that if we left

the EU we could no longer count on paid holiday? We have had paid

holidays since 1938, a bit before joining the European Union. What we

didn't have in this country until the working Time directive was

passed, was a statutory right for paid holiday for every worker in the

United Kingdom, and we did not have limits on working terms. Priti

Patel, a prominent Leave campaign, said she would like to halve

employment rights. Boris Johnson said the Prime Minister didn't get

to grips with this problem in the renegotiation. Iain Duncan Smith was

on your programme and asked about the bureaucracy he didn't lie, and

he referred to health and safety legislation. I worked for the trade

union movement for several years and I know how hard it was to win those

rights. What rights will they seek to take away, and it's about time

they came clean to the British people. There is a second reason...

I'm going to ask now, how much of a paid holiday does the EU guarantee?

It guarantees less than currently applies in the UK because it is a

floor. In Britain we are guaranteed more paid holiday than EU law. Why

would we lose that if we came out? It shows we can build on the basic

rights the EU provides. We had it before the EU. We didn't have

statutory paid holiday. It was Europe that won for women part-time

workers access to pension schemes. We have a single market with single

rules. If there were not common employment rights across Europe, it

allows the bad employer to undercut the good, and the worst employer to

undercut the bad. If one European country said that they would weaken

workers' rights and jobs started disappearing in Britain towards that

country, the first thing Britain would say is that we need common

rules across the European Union. Those workers' rights protect

workers across all 28 states. There is no prospect of a British

government being elected that would abolish or reduce paid holidays or

reduce maternity and paternity leave. That will not happen. It's

scaremongering. It isn't scaremongering. I'm taking the Leave

campaign is at their own words. On maternity leave, how much does EU

law guarantee on maternity leave? We have better provision now because we

have chosen to do that. It's British law, why would it change if we left?

It's not a competition between the two. But in the Leave campaign,

significant figures have said that one of their targets if we leave the

European Union would be to weaken workers' rights which they describe

as red tape and regulation. A lot of people go to work who were protected

by health and safety regulation. Chris Grayling, a member of the

government and a prominent Leave campaign regards it as bureaucracy

and regulation. We are perfectly entitled to ask them... The trouble

is, we have a Conservatives government who has not reduced

paternity leave, paid holiday, and you could strengthen these

protections in 2020 if we had a Labour government. And we have a

better record of doing that. So why leave the EU? It provides protection

across the EU and prevents this race to the bottom. It helps workers in

Britain and across the continent. But Norway, Switzerland, they are

outside the uber and they score better when it comes to workers'

rights. It's the matter of a democratic decision of the country.

My argument is you can have both. You can have a floor of basic rights

across that protects workers and events a race to the bottom, and you

can top it up as decisions you make as a sovereign nation. You get the

best of both worlds. On immigration, people feel that a lot of conditions

and pay has been affected by uncontrolled immigration. How would

you control immigration? There are pressures, but workers coming here

from the European Union contribute to our economy, and they have paid

in ?20 billion more in... I didn't ask about benefits, I asked if you

would control it or not? Just and see your question. One factor is the

availability of work in the British economy. There jobs that need to be

done and those workers make an important contribution and paid

taxes which contributes to public services. Secondly, changes have

been negotiated, meaning people coming here to look for work, if

they haven't achieved that in six months, they could be asked to

return. The key is, being asked to leave, could you give me an example

of an EU citizen job-seeker who has been asked to leave because they

couldn't find work in six months? Can you give an example? In the

renegotiation a new agreement was reached which will come into effect

if we vote to remain. The other thing on controlling the impact, you

have on the cutting of wages, people not paid the minimum wage. That's

mainly for illegal immigrants. I'm talking about the 2.2 million EU

migrants working in Britain who are legal, have national insurance

numbers. Asking you again, since that number has gone up millions

since 2010, just from the EU alone, how would you control immigration if

we remain in the EU? The truth is, there will continue to be

immigration if we remain in the EU, and this week the Leave campaign

announced they would like to have an Australian style points system. You

know what the points system as done in Australia, it has increased

immigration. That's because the Australians want more immigration.

They want to control the quality but their policy is that they want more.

Asking for a third time, how would you control immigration if we

remained? Part of the deal of being part of the European Union is free

movement of workers. 1.2 British workers exercise that right in other

European countries. We have a need of people coming in. One in five of

our care workers, looking after our parents and grandparents, come from

outside the United Kingdom. As long as their jobs available and we have

an economy that attracts people and they pay tax, most people would say

to me, if they pay tax and are working, then good luck to them

because they are contributing to our economy. A perfectly fair point of

view for you and others to take. But in your mind and Labour's mind,

there is no level of immigration that is unacceptable, there is no

upper limit. The upper limit would in the end be determined by the

availability of jobs in the economy. By the market? Unlike other

countries who have high levels of unemployment, we have jobs that have

been created in our economy, in part because we are in the single market.

If we lose access to that, we will not deal with immigration by

trashing and undermining the economy and raising prices by running the

risk of having another recession. Net migration from the European

Union was about 185,000 last year, just from the EU. Eurozone economies

still have mass unemployment among the young. If net migration was to

rise to a quarter of a million, would that be fine by you? We would

have to see what happens. It depends on the strength of the British

economy. It's part of the deal. You have to weigh the argument you are

putting against the damage that would be done to the British economy

if we were to leave the European Union, and, as the Leave campaigners

want, walk away from the single market which is really important in

attracting investment into Britain and continuing to create jobs and

the incomes families have. 2.2 million EU migrants are working

legally in Britain. It has doubled in six years. It's a big number. Are

you claiming that has had no impact whatsoever on the pay and conditions

of British workers? Studies have shown there is an argument among

economists on this. There always is! Which is why getting nine out of ten

of them to agree that leaving would be that is such a marker. Studies

have shown there is a relatively small impact, but it is far

outweighed for those who have had a tough time in recent years by the

global crashed caused by behaviour of bankers.

Many people think wages would go up if we left the EU because the boys

have to pay higher wages because there would be less immigration.

This is what Stuart Rose from your own side said.

He is a businessman, so it is not necessarily a good thing but it is

clear that wages would rise, particularly for the lower paid and

maybe, I would suggest, you would think that's a good thing. Of course

I want to see people earning more money. That is why the Labour

government brought in a national minimum wage which incidentally,

Iain Duncan Smith, who wants to leave the EU, voted against. But

we're not going to help people on low incomes, median incomes and any

incomes, we are not going to help them by undermining arrow economy,

Andrew, by leaving the single market. I'm not arguing about the

single market. It may well be that is the price... It will be bad for

jobs... That might be the price you have to pay for uncontrolled

immigration from the EU if you want access to the single market but I'm

trying to get the impact on those who are already here. Of that 2.2

million, 1.25 million come from the poorer parts of the European Union,

the East, including Romania and Bulgaria and so on. Are you really

claiming that the influx has not made life tougher for those already

in low paid jobs in Britain or for the 1.7 million Britons who have

been looking for work and can't find it? Well, it's had an impact on

communities. When we were in government, we had a special fund,

the migration impact fund, that paid money to communities affected by

high levels of migration. I'm asking about wages. Come to that but one of

the first things the Conservative government did was to get rid of it.

Studies show there is a small impact but that is far outweighed by

firstly, the impact of the global crash and secondly, it would be far

outweighed by the economic costs, running the risk of having another

recession, of leaving the European Union and all that would mean for

investment and jobs in our economy. What about housing and the impact of

immigration on that? The last Labour governor and this Tory government

have both presided over huge increases immigration but you have

both failed to build enough new homes to accommodate this increase

in the population. There's now a huge shortage. Young people can't

afford to get the housing ladder. That is a consequence of

uncontrolled immigration. No, Andrew, it is a consequence of the

failure to build enough homes. That is entirely in our hands. It is

nothing to do... It was in your hands for 13 years and you did not

build enough. We built a lot of homes during our time in government.

You did not build anything like the number needed. We can have a

discussion about house-building and I'm happy to do that. We're going to

do it by communities taking responsibility for giving

planning permission, to give councils more powers, one of leaving

Jeremy Corbyn has argued for, to lift the borrowing cap on councils

so they can build more council houses. I have many constituents who

can't get an affordable home, they are in the private rented sector and

it is down to us. It's nothing to do with immigration? We've had a huge

influx of people and the housing shortage is nothing to do with it?

It's down to our failure as a nation to build enough homes and ruining

the economy, which is what is at stake in this referendum, how will

that help us build the houses we need? It is not going to help. The

last Labour government did not build enough homes as this can serve mid-1

is not. What would a future Labour government do? If you stay in the

EU, you will be unable to fulfil your promise to renationalise the

railways, wouldn't you? No, that's not true. Would you like to tell us

what is said about this? If you are talking about the Forth Railway

package, as it is described, it does not present -- prevent member states

having a publicly owned and run railway system and if you want to

look at evidence of that, Andrew, look at the railway systems in other

European countries. A lot of them are publicly run. It does not stop

the state owning the railways themselves but it makes it

compulsory to have cross-border competition on the lines and for

other companies to bid against state or private companies for these same

lines as well. It does not allow a return to British rail. It involves

competition, including the private sector. Even the Germans, two of

their regions have had to open their state owned lines up to the private

sector competition. You could not nationalise. I disagree with you and

I have looked carefully... It is still a draft and being negotiated

and I've spoken to our colleagues working on this in the European

Parliament... It has been approved by the Council of ministers. It does

allow, and the European Parliament still have to finish the process, it

allows the direct awarding of contracts which is what we seek to

do if we win the election. We spoke to... The directive means that you

have to allow the private sector to bid for lines. It is as clear as it

is. And to open up a national passenger markets to cross-border

competition. That is what the directive says. We spoke to the RMT

today and they said there's no way that Labour could really nationalise

the railways if we are covered by the 4-star rated. -- renationalise

the railways. If we are still in the EU. I disagree with their

interpretation and if we are elected in 2020, that is exacted what we

want to do. You won't be able to change the directive if you are

elected in 2020 because it would be European law and you would need the

other 27 member states of the EU to agree and they won't. It does not

stop us doing what we want. We shall see. Moving on to free trade,

another part where you might not get what you want, a key part of the

Remain case is the advantage it says we get when you negotiate free-trade

deals to boost jobs, investment, trade and so on with other countries

and regions. There's a huge one currently being between the EU and

the US, the transatlantic trade agreement or Ttip that they are

trying to reach. I would like you to see what Jeremy Corbyn said about

it. A few weeks ago, the French president Francois Hollande de would

veto the deal as it stands, and to become law, any deal would have to

be ratified by each member state. So today, we give this pledge, as it

stands, we, too, would reject TTIP and veto it in government. Do you

agree with that? TTIP is not finalised, there are two concerns,

one is about protecting the NHS and we need to be sure, the British

public want to be sure, that there is a copper bottomed guarantee that

it will not affect the NHS. You have said there is. We need to be sure.

Rachel Reeves says... All of that is covered and the second issue with

the investor state dispute mechanism when there is a disagreement about

the way the scheme works but in the end, we will have two agree it and

the best protection to ensure that we have a good trade deal, because

the right kind of trade deal with the USA would be good for the

economy, the best way to ensure that it is to stay within the European

Union because I would not really want to see David Cameron

negotiating a trade deal with the United States on our own if we were

to leave the European Union. But hold on, let's be clear about this,

Gabi Maine has highlighted President Obama's threat couple of weeks back

who said that if we left the EU, we would be at the back of the key when

it comes to trade deals but when it comes to the biggest ever trade

deal, Jeremy Corbyn is not even in the queue, he wants to quit it

altogether. It would not matter whether we were in or out of the EU

on this trade deal. He does not want to do it. He has expressed concern

about two particular aspects of the deal which are concerns which are

shared by others. If we get the right deal, then that would be good

for the British economy and we can support it but we won't support the

wrong deal. He said we would veto it. Would you agree with that? If

it's not the right deal for Britain, then we should not support it but

there's a long way to go, as you know, Andrew, in these negotiations.

What this brings us back to is the fundamental choice that we are

facing in this referendum. You know, Andrew, today is the day. -- D Day.

72 years ago, British forces, our franchise and the Americans set out

from the south coast to beat fascism, supported by all of those

nations that had been occupied. I understand that we have not got much

time and I think we know what it is. Guess but the point I'm making is

this, the centuries, Europe was mired in conflict. European leaders

came together and said, "We can do better than this", and they built

the European Union, as it is today, the corporation free democracies

which acted out of -- as a beacon to Eastern European states as they

escape from the Soviet empire. My argument and our argument in the

referendum is this, this is not a vote about the past, it's not a vote

about the change I've seen in my lifetime, it is how we're going to

ensure that our children and grandchildren have the best of

managing the change and the challenges they are going to see in

their lives and the truth is... No, no, you've had enough, you've made

your point. I want to show you a quote from Jeremy Corbyn because

he's not convinced that all would be doom and gloom if we left. He

attacked George Osborne's prophecies of doom. This is what he said about

the Chancellor's predictions of how bad it would be. He said:.

Is the Chancellor into it in, as Mr Corbyn Binks, the to leaving? -- is

the Chancellor exaggerating, as Mr Corbyn and. He's right that George

Osborne has got a lot of things wrong. I think the risk... Jeremy

Hill self and we've published a letter today, signed by the vast

majority of Labour MPs, pointing out that this would damage the economy

and the lead signatories Jeremy Corbyn. I understand that but let me

try with the third question, is the Chancellor, as Mr Corbyn clearly

indicates by that quote, he's talked about prophecies of doom and

histrionics and exaggerations, is the exaggerating, the Chancellor,

the risks of leaving? The Treasury study that was published showed that

there would be damage to the economy. How big would be recession

be? Well, that depends... How big did the Treasury report said would

be? It talked about the loss of wealth generated by the nation and

the impact it would be. The governor of the Bank of England... I'm asking

you about the Treasury report. How deep did the Treasury said the

recession would be? If we left the EU next year. The person I'm quoting

on the risk of recession is the governor of the Bank of England. The

Treasury warned of damage to the national wealth and income. The

Governor of the Bank of England has warned and Christine Lagarde of the

IMF has said the outcomes could range from bad to very bad. Every

single study that has done... Said it would be bad for the economy. The

central forecast was that it would be the shallowest recession since

1956 and it may not even be that. Are we sitting here discussing

whether it would be a good idea to have a recession by leaving the

European Union? I'm talking about the exaggeration, that was my

question. The point is, there's a great risk... I'm only quoting

Jeremy Corbyn, your leader. But there are two facts in the

referendum, the fact of our membership, we knows the benefits it

gives us, jobs, benefits, security, peace and influence with the world,

and peace in Europe is an astonishing achievement for many

people in the lifetime of this country and over here is the honest

answer to most of the questions about what will happen if we leave?

The answer is, we don't know and I don't think the British people are

going to take a risk on that uncertainty and damage it would do

to the economy when we know the benefits that being part of a

partnership with our neighbours in Europe has been. One more question,

if Leave wins the referendum, will the Labour Party not bear some of

the responsibility? It will have failed to inspire and motivate

traditional Labour voters to vote Remain? I'm not contemplating that.

We are campaigning hard every single day. You have a struggle. To

encourage people to vote remain on the 23rd of June and for me, the

strongest and most inspiring argument of all is that if you are

weighing centuries of conflict and death and co-operation which we know

is the future for the world, that is the most powerful argument. I will

have to stop you there but you have made the point. Thank you for

joining us. That's it for tonight, but I'll be

back on Wednesday for the second I'll be joined by the

Chancellor, George Osborne. That's at 7.30pm again

here on BBC One. On Friday, my guest will be Ukip

leader Nigel Farage. And then the following Friday -

that's June 17th - Leave campaigner and former

Tory Cabinet minister I hope you can join me for them all.

Until then, goodbye. Hello, I'm Alice Bhandhukravi

with your 90 second update. Richard Huckle abused up to 200

children in Malaysia. Today he was given twenty

two life sentences by