12/04/2016 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello there and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament.

Coming up: MPs ask, just what is the government doing

There's drama on the committee corridor as a Whitehall

witness is kicked out of a committee hearing.

Mr Robbins, I need to excuse you from this committee.

Your evidence so far has been unsatisfactory.

The government's defeated in the Lords over part

And a Conservative MP stirs up confusion over the sugar tax.

You are in the rather splendid position that if

you mix your own gin and tonic, you will pay a tax on the

But first: The Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, has signalled

that the government is likely to announce new ministry

of Defence orders for UK steel in the coming days.

He was responding to an emergency debate about crisis

plans to sell its loss-making UK plants in the next few months,

On Monday, Sajid Javid also said the government was working hard

to find a buyer for the Port Talbot works in south Wales -

and was prepared to "co-invest" to smooth the path to a deal.

What exactly that government intervention would

But in the Commons, his Labour shadow, hoped

Mr Speaker, call it what you like, co-investing,

part nationalisation, temporary public

stewardship or sheltering assets, it is clear that circumstances may

Up until now this is a government and Secretary of State

They have been behind rather than ahead of events.

Their response to the biggest crisis in steel making for a generation has

been warm words but little effective action.

There has been what can only be described as an ideologically

driven reluctance to get involved as the crisis deepened.

It's a mixture of indifference and incompetence.

Is it the policy of the opposition that

the steel industry should now be nationalised?

And it should remain in public hands for as long as

is necessary and then go back into private hands successfully?

Mr Speaker, I think what needs to be done is what is necessary to

preserve, restructure and ensure the survival

of our steel industry for the future.

When we talk about job losses in the abstract it is easy to

forget each of them represents a person.

Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe uses almost

exclusively British steel for its 26 miles of tunnels.

96% of Network Rail spending on steel goes directly

Every year they buy 1500 miles of it from Tata Steel

in Scunthorpe, enough to build a two track line from London to Edinburgh.

He has the Minister for Defence procurement

sitting next to him saying the MoD did not even

have a full records of

where it was getting steel from for UK defence

sure about him following through on procurement

keeping records and so many UK projects are being made in China,

I think he may hear more about that from the

The crisis the steel industry faces is

global but I am fighting for British steelworkers every hour of

I was fighting for them long before this crisis hit the

headlines and I will go on fighting as long as it takes because

Britain's steelworkers are the best in the world and they deserve no

Will he publish details of the meetings, phone calls and

correspondence that he and the Prime Minister

Cabinet have made to members of the EU and trade counterparts.

If he has indeed strained every sinew for the

steel industry he can have nothing to hide,

indeed it would help to show if he really had the grip on

If we have to have a partial ownership of the

steel industry for a period, that makes sense.

This is a strategic industry but there is no point in

doing that if you cannot solve the overall problem

which is the dumping of steel in this country.

You have to cut the cancer out first.

What we needed from the government was the

announcement that all options were on the table.

We needed the government to announce they would put down their pom-poms

and give up their role as chief cheerleader for China in Europe.

End their market championing of China.

End their campaign against trade defence

reform but what we got was more of the same.

Yesterday the Secretary State confirmed what we knew, that

the government approach has been characterised by a dangerous

combination of indifference, incompetence and rolling out the red

No minds were changed as four prominent figures faced

the Foreign Affairs Committee to talk about the case

for and against the UK's membership of the European Union.

The Conservative Dr Liam Fox and Labour's Gisela Stuart argued

in favour of leaving the EU - the SNP's Alex Salmond

and the Conservative ex-MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind argued

Among the subjects raised - democratic accountability,

migration, asylum, defence and free movement across borders.

on and on a 65 and the world is and we are not getting benefit from

being part of the European union. We want to do what is in Britain 's

national interest. We took note of what is said in the United States,

that is no shortage of American political opinion telling us we

should remain in the United # European union. All of our friends

around the world are entitled to their view, especially the United

States, perhaps when they have an open border with Mexico and have to

listen to a body which would override federal law, perhaps we

would listen to them off. For Scotland, Europe is a bit like the

weather, everyone moans about it but we do not want to abolish it. We do

not say it is a perfect institution but we have one which delivers more

prosperity and war security and more ability to influence the world

environment as a member of the European union. I think it applies

to an independent Scotland and I think it applies to the United

Kingdom as well. I think this is a once in a generation fought and I

arrive at the conclusion it is no best long-term interest to leave.

What about the remarks by the IMF today which said a British exit

would cause severe local and collateral damage, how do you

respond to that? Yet again they are undermining and underestimating the

United Kingdom. There is a fair amount of Group E sentiment amongst

world leaders of just supporting each other. We have negotiated

treaties with 40 other countries on trade issues so there will be a

whole series of treaties, none of which we know how they will work

out. We will get agreements in the end but in any agreement the secret

of a good -- negotiation is to get what you want. Every other country

will be applying the same criteria. The European union will say they

will let us into the single market and I am sure the well but they will

determine the terms. The Prime Minister of Norway has said that it

would not work for the United Kingdom, wider you think she holds

that view? Because Norway is not the fifth-largest economy and

fifth-largest defence budget. It does not have a permanent seat on

the UN and other things. If you have heard me talk about Norway, in the

sense that if you did a blind test on integration you would find on

many levels normally is more integrated. It does not have the

Schengen agreement. It does. Sorry it does and we do not. My point is

when you make the comparison is you have to be careful because this is

an occasion when size does matter. How easy will it be to implement

the sugar tax, the surprise measure unveiled in the Budget aimed

at tackling childhood obesity? and will be imposed in two bands,

a lower one for sugar content above 5 grams per 100 millilitres

and a higher one for content with more than 8 grams

per 100 millilitres. Paul Johnson, of the Institute

for Fiscal Studies, told the Commons Treasury committee

he hoped the effect of the new tax would be closely watched by HM

Revenue and Customs. I think what is crucial here is that

because this is a new thing in this country that we evaluate and learn

from the policy as it's put in and then determine future policy

on the basis of what we learn about the effectiveness

of the current policy. One is about how

broad you make this. And the decision, I do not think

it is unreasonable, that of a narrow one

about soft drinks because there is no additional nutrition benefit

to having a sugary drink so that is Keeping an eye on effectiveness

and making sure this is one tax which we can

actually evaluate would be helpful. Do you think retailers will pass

on the cost to consumers That would be the normal

starting point. On average, retailers do

pass on alcohol taxes to consumers but not always

in the same circumstances. Clearly there are some

new situations. It is quite a close

analogy so it is worth thinking how we see

alcohol taxes working. On average most alcohol taxation

gets passed on to the and not in all circumstances where

retailers want to have particular sales points or ways of attracting

people into their stores. I don't know if you know this

answer because I don't. If you have premixed alcoholic

drinks where the sugar in alcohol is

exempt but if it is put in the fizzy drink it

is included so if you have a premixed

glass of Pimms which I believe you can buy in little cans,

where do you think My understanding

is this only applies to soft drinks so that would not

count as an alcoholic drink but I don't

know for sure. So you are in the splendid position

if you mix your own gin and tonic you will pay the tax

on the tonic but if you buy I do not know if that is true,

but this is only soft drinks so that You're watching Tuesday

in Parliament, here on BBC Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy. A top Whitehall mandarin has been

kicked out of a hearing with MPs because its chairman said

the answers he'd given Oliver Robbins was threatened

with being held in contempt by the Home Affairs Committee

chair, Keith Vaz. The exchanges began with questions

about the budget of the Border Force is tasked with protecting

the UK's borders. Does the head of the Border Force

know what his budget is? he would know before the start

of the business year. The Border Force is trying

to manage a whole series No, Mr Robbins, this

is very unsatisfactory. I'm surprised that you cannot answer

a question about whether or not someone who is reporting

to you knows what their budget is. Because my next letter will be

to Sir Charles Montgomery, and will ask him to appear in

front of us next week if necessary. This is a select

committee of the House. Our duty is to scrutinise

the Home Office. You are the second

permanent secretary. The Home Secretary has

written to Mr Burnham No, I'm not asking about

Mr Burnham, I'm asking It's got nothing to

do with Mr Burnham. I don't think you understand

the role of the select committee. We are asking you specifically

on an issue that has been raised by this committee with

Sir Charles Montgomery. Does Sir Charles Montgomery know

what his budget is? It is either a yes or a no,

Mr Robbins. And if you don't answer

the question, The exchanges continued

in much the same way for a further 20 minutes,

before the chair of the committee Mr Robbins, I am going to excuse

you from this committee, because I think your evidence so far

has been unsatisfactory. I'm going to give you

the opportunity to go back to the Home Office and respond

to this committee by six o'clock. I'm not asking you what the budget

of Sir Charles Montgomery is. I'm asking you to tell me

whether he knows what it is, because he has given

evidence to this committee, when members asked him,

the last time he was here, whether or not he knew

what his budget was. He said he expected to have that

information by the start of the business year,

which is the 1st of April. So I would be grateful

if you could let me know by six o'clock today

whether he knows what it is. That is all this

committee is asking. Mr Burnham is not a member

of this committee, so what goes on between him and the Home

Secretary is entirely different. Mr Thompson, let us proceed and talk

to you about the Passport Office. With those words ringing in his

ears, Mr Robbins left the committee. Well, an earlier part

of the committee hearing, on a different subject,

had been held in an altogether calmer manner when the committee

looked into police diversity. A police chief pledged to rectify

"unconscious bias" that's prevented non-white police officers

from reaching the higher The session heard that forces

in urban conurbations weren't reflecting the ethnic

mix of the communities they were policing and in the last

five years there'd been just a 0.9% rise in police numbers from black

and minority ethnic - Why is there still this woeful

lack of representation? We have heard no chief constables,

only one out of the MPCCs. In the senior ranks

of the forces we will be looking at today, there

is still a lack of representation. Everyone comes before this

committee and they say, From a national perspective,

there is a crisis of confidence around fair treatment for black

and Asian minority ethnic officers. and have seen a dismantling

of staff support associations, which has led to a perception

of a conspiracy that black and Asian

minority ethnic officers We need to get over some

of the myths that there are, And I think, once they join,

it is about understanding how you acquire the necessary

skills to get promoted. The challenge is,

there are greater problems There is a real challenge

in accessing courses Do you agree with

former commander Babu? Should it be the chief

constables themselves? Think there should be an element

of chief constables, but it is who is holding

them to account? When we're talking about diversity,

when we're talking about performance,

then we get that accountability. Do you think there is still racism

within the police service? I believe that there

is institutional racism in the police service,

given the policy and practices that are written, which have hidden

biases which are not always visible until you overlay the lived

experience of members Isn't the problem

the selection panels? You tend to find that

people select people Therefore, if the selection panels

have no BME people on them, you're never going to get

any BME people, are you? I think that the buzzwords at

the moment are "unconscious bias". A lot of forces are looking

into that and training selection panel members to go

through that sort of training. But there have historically been

perceptions among the BME staff that, if you don't fit in,

you are not part of the network, we don't share their values,

you're not going to get promoted. The requirement the Met have had

for recruitment within London I think it has delivered

some positive results. I have spoken at length,

in fact at this committee, about the fact that the

importance of language, If we have officers who can speak

different languages, they are able to engage with victims

of domestic violence and support those individuals,

they are able to help us So this is not about being nice,

it is about real qualities that individuals need to be able

to deliver a better service The session then heard

from a Chief Constable. There is an issue here about looking

attentively and carefully, not just in terms of the values

I set for the force, in which diversity

is very strongly set in them, but actually we look very

carefully at the processes. My sense is that it is not

that we are engaging in directly

discriminatory activity, but there is definitely unconscious

bias running in processes in forces. We have talked about

unconscious bias. What assurances can you give this

committee today about what you're going to do personally to address

that issue within the police force? I set out a number of issues around

people's responsibilities One of those responsibilities

relates to unconscious bias, which is, six months

from my appointment, there will be no interviews

for any job selection in the force where staff are not

unconscious-bias trained. The first group of people who we've

had trained are the command team, We will also be doing an assessment

on unconscious bias at those levels. We do a senior leaders training

day on the 19th of May. We will not do appointments

in our force, because I don't think it is safe and appropriate to do

that without that training. The Government has suffered a defeat

in the House of Lords Peers backed an amendment

from Labour's Lady Lister that would prevent pregnant women

facing deportation from being held in

deportation centres. Lady Lister said the Government had

pledged to look again at the issue. Current Home Office policy already

states that the only exception to the general rule that pregnant

women should not be detained is when removal is imminent and medical

advice does not suggest that the women concerned

will go into labour In spite of this clear presumption

against detention, in 2014, 99 pregnant women were detained

and, in 2015, 69. Of the 99 pregnant women detained

in Yarl's Wood in 2014, 30 - that is nearly a third - were held

between one and three months. Just nine were actually

deported from the UK. The Royal College of Midwives,

my Lords, says that the detention of pregnant asylum seekers

increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk

the health of the unborn baby. In his review that the noble

Baroness has referred to, Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons

and Probation Ombudsman says this, "Detention has an incontrovertibly

deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women

and their unborn children." Having visited Yarl's Wood three

times myself over the years whatever the rights or wrongs

of their situation, they are often very distressed,

very worried about being returned, whether they have a right

to remain here or not. And to have mothers

who are pregnant in that situation As the noble Baroness said,

there is no evidence that one returns mothers in these

circumstances by detaining them. is that it is much more effective

to build a relationship so that they can be returned

in a good way. But the Government

was not backing down. While the Government agrees

that it is not right to detain pregnant women

unless there are exceptional circumstances, it does not

consider that an absolute As has been explained in this House

and indeed in the Other Place, it is important that the Government

is able to detain, for a short period, those with no

right to be in the United Kingdom, For example, if there

is an immediate removal planned, a short period of detention may be

appropriate to facilitate a safe departure, where there

are absconding risks or other public protection

risks to be considered. But when it came to the vote,

peers backed an outright ban on the detention of pregnant women

by 274 votes to 215 - Finally, festival and concert-goers

should be banned from setting off fireworks

and flares during performances. The call came from a Conservative

MP, Nigel Adams, who told the Commons that in 2014

there were more than 250 incidents at live music events -

both indoors and outdoors. Flares can burn add up

to 1,600 degrees Celsius, and fireworks even hotter,

up to 2,000 degrees Celsius. Not to mention the added danger

from an unexpected projectile. Smoke bombs are also hot and pose

particular risks in indoor venues, and for fellow audience

members with asthma or other such breathing

difficulties. Gigs and festivals are particular

popular among young people, and both they and their parents

have the right to feel safe in attending

or sending their children. Unfortunately,

this was not the experience of an 18-year-old girl who attended

an Arctic Monkeys concert and required three dressings

to burns on her arms Or the 17-year-old girl

at the Reading Festival, who suffered a panic attack

after being burned by a smoke bomb He stressed he was not calling

for a complete ban at such events. Venues and artists would

still be able to use pyrotechnics in their acts and stage setups

as the currently do. I certainly don't want to curtail

the ability of trained professionals At the end of that speech,

Mr Adams won the right to take his bill forward,

but this close to the end of the parliamentary session,

it stands no chance of becoming law. And that's it for now, but do

join me at the same time tomorrow, when among other things,

we'll have the highlights