:01:31. > :01:36.Hello and welcome to Monday in Parliament. The main headlines:
:01:36. > :01:42.labour accuses the Home Secretary of complacency after a terror
:01:42. > :01:49.suspect goes missing over Christmas. The reason he was in London was
:01:49. > :01:55.because he gave him -- she gave him a travel pass. People will hold her
:01:55. > :02:00.responsible. And accusation family have rejected by Theresa May.
:02:00. > :02:04.is no complacency whatsoever. The Government is ensuring that the
:02:04. > :02:09.police are doing all that they can to apply hand this particular
:02:09. > :02:16.individual. The more questions for the Government over the mistakes
:02:16. > :02:22.over the West Coast Main Line franchise. I am in no way trying to
:02:22. > :02:27.deflect from the very bad position this leaves the Government in force
:02:27. > :02:32.and the lack of women holding senior positions in business.
:02:32. > :02:40.Accord for politicians to get their own house in order. Just 22 % of
:02:40. > :02:45.the current members of this House and just 18 % of the Cabinet are
:02:45. > :02:49.women. This is disgraceful. It was back to business in the Commons
:02:49. > :02:55.after the Christmas recess kicking off the first Parliamentary day of
:02:55. > :03:00.2013 was Home Office Question Time, but any new year cheer was short
:03:00. > :03:07.lived. Labour blamed a change in government policy of the
:03:07. > :03:13.disappearance of a terror suspect on Boxing Day. He was subject to a
:03:13. > :03:20.terrorism and prevention measure. Authorities believe him to be a
:03:21. > :03:26.risk to the public but he cannot be deported or brought to court. He
:03:26. > :03:36.was last seen in north London. Labour MPs say the measures they
:03:36. > :03:39.
:03:39. > :03:45.introduced were much tougher than prevention measures. He absconded
:03:45. > :03:49.on Boxing Day. This is someone that the Government has attended terror
:03:49. > :03:53.camps in Australia and is significantly dangerous. He
:03:53. > :03:58.disappeared for the last 12 days. In the final four years of control
:03:58. > :04:04.orders when relocations were used, the Home Secretary will know that
:04:04. > :04:08.no one absconded. The Independent reviewer has asked could he have
:04:09. > :04:14.absconded so easily from the West Country where he was made to live
:04:14. > :04:19.when under a control order? What is the Home Secretary's answer?
:04:19. > :04:23.National security is our top priority and the police is doing
:04:23. > :04:28.everything they can to apprehend this individual but the honourable
:04:28. > :04:37.lady has been careful in her use of statistics. She has quoted a period
:04:37. > :04:43.when there were no ABS bonds from control or does. Of course winner
:04:43. > :04:46.there were seven abscondeds that took place so I am afraid she
:04:46. > :04:52.cannot argue that control orders were stopping people from
:04:52. > :04:57.absconding. But the Home Secretary is not dealing with the crucial
:04:57. > :05:02.issue of relocation. No one has absconded since 2008 and the
:05:03. > :05:08.extensive use of relocations. The Home Secretary took the decision to
:05:08. > :05:13.rule out a relocation for this terror suspect. Even though the
:05:13. > :05:19.judge who reviewed the Control Order said specifically that it was
:05:19. > :05:24.too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period.
:05:24. > :05:29.The Home Secretary told the House she was confident that her policies
:05:29. > :05:35.an extra surveillance would be sufficient. They clearly have not
:05:35. > :05:40.been. Will she admit that she got it wrong on relocations? Will she
:05:40. > :05:44.instigate an urgent review into how he absconded and in the interest of
:05:44. > :05:50.public protection, or will she now changed course and that the
:05:50. > :05:54.legislation right? Just to be clear because the right honourable lady
:05:54. > :06:02.has put this case the uncertain terms which do not reflect the
:06:02. > :06:06.reason why the prevention or do was put in place which was to prevent
:06:06. > :06:13.fund-raising and overseas travel. We do not believe his disappearance
:06:13. > :06:22.is linked to any terrorist plan against the UK. The Prevention
:06:22. > :06:27.order regime introduced rigorous measures to manage the terror
:06:27. > :06:36.suspects we cannot yet deport and the new regime was complemented by
:06:36. > :06:41.funding to the Security Service in the police. The regime is a package
:06:41. > :06:48.as the right honourable lady knows and as I return to there were a
:06:48. > :06:54.number of absconding is under control orders. Ordinary people
:06:54. > :06:58.will be staggered at the Home Secretary's complacency on this.
:06:58. > :07:04.The difference between the first two years and the last four years
:07:04. > :07:11.on control orders is the reason that no one absconded was the power
:07:11. > :07:17.of relocation was used. That is the power she got rid of. She gave him
:07:17. > :07:24.a travel pass. Three or hope he does not do any harm but if he does,
:07:24. > :07:28.people will hold him responsible. say there is no complacency
:07:28. > :07:32.whatsoever. The Government is ensuring that the police and law
:07:32. > :07:36.enforcement agencies are doing all that they can to apprehend this
:07:36. > :07:41.particular individual and it is right that that should be the case
:07:41. > :07:47.and they are doing their road. Home Secretary may recall that
:07:47. > :07:52.Stuart Osborne, when he gave evidence to the committee, he said
:07:52. > :07:56.the relocation power has been very useful for us. Without that and
:07:56. > :08:00.depending on where people choose to live it could be more typical
:08:00. > :08:06.Forest to monitor and enforce the orders. Does the Home Secretary
:08:06. > :08:14.regret the deal she did with the Lib Dems to abolish the power of
:08:14. > :08:18.relocation? What I say to the right honourable lady is that during the
:08:18. > :08:22.transition both the police and security service made clear there
:08:22. > :08:28.was no increase in risk and that appropriate arrangements would be
:08:28. > :08:31.in place to manage an effective transition. Of course we take the
:08:31. > :08:36.absconded meant that has taken place seriously. The police are
:08:36. > :08:41.doing their work to try to apprehend the individual who has
:08:41. > :08:47.absconded but the Prevention orders were put in as measures together
:08:47. > :08:53.with the package that went to extra funding to the police. The police
:08:53. > :08:57.were clear there would be no risk increase. The mistakes made over
:08:57. > :09:02.the awarding of the West Coast rail franchise will be used as a
:09:02. > :09:08.textbook example in civil service training of how not to do things.
:09:08. > :09:12.That is according to the Transport Secretary. He told MPs that lessons
:09:12. > :09:17.would be learnt from the fiasco. Transport operator First Group had
:09:17. > :09:22.been chosen to run services on the West Coast main line. Head of the
:09:22. > :09:27.current operator Virgin above the decision were scrapped when the
:09:27. > :09:35.process had been flawed. Patrick McLoughlin had acknowledged that
:09:35. > :09:40.his department was to blame. More what we need to do is the truth of
:09:40. > :09:45.the matter is this will form part of civil service training for many
:09:45. > :09:50.years to come as to the mistakes that were made and the way in which
:09:50. > :09:57.escalations should be referred up and are taken up the chain. One of
:09:57. > :10:02.the problems we see from this is that that was not done as
:10:02. > :10:08.effectively as it should have been. If you think Ministers were
:10:08. > :10:13.deliberately misled? No, I hope that was not the case and I hope it
:10:13. > :10:18.was not the case. One has only got to go through the late report to
:10:18. > :10:23.see that some of it was not the proper workmanship that one would
:10:23. > :10:28.expect from the Civil Service. That needs to be taken on board. Is it
:10:28. > :10:36.possible for us to agree that there were profound government problems
:10:36. > :10:42.involved in this process? De then the outcome I am not going to
:10:42. > :10:47.defend the governance of this process. You said if they only had
:10:47. > :10:53.someone escalated the issue so what I am hearing his managerial
:10:53. > :11:00.difficulties. It is a long time I have been involved in -- since I
:11:00. > :11:06.have been involved in civil service processes but they are there to
:11:06. > :11:11.insure that the best people are put in the right roles. Involved in
:11:11. > :11:21.this process, how many people would you say were involved who were paid
:11:21. > :11:24.
:11:24. > :11:31.a six-figure salaries? Might answer will be off the top of my head but
:11:31. > :11:40.it involved in the, in franchising and in the franchise award, it will
:11:40. > :11:45.be a small knots number of single figures. From a member of the
:11:45. > :11:49.public's point of view they would expect a high degree of managerial
:11:49. > :11:59.competence from someone paid a six- figure salary. When tens of
:11:59. > :12:07.millions of Pounds of public money is lost under Ministers, where does
:12:07. > :12:17.the ministerial responsibility begin and end? Short answers.
:12:17. > :12:21.will try and give a short answer. If there had been ministerial
:12:21. > :12:26.culpability or an attempt to ignore advice then I think there is
:12:26. > :12:31.ministerial culpability but I do not think anybody is saying that
:12:31. > :12:37.Ministers ignored advice all failed to ask questions. Serious lessons
:12:37. > :12:45.to be learnt from this - of course. This is a serious incident. In no
:12:45. > :12:50.way would I try to deflect from the very bad position this leaves the
:12:50. > :12:54.Government in or indeed the fact that the rail industry rightly
:12:54. > :12:59.wants some guidance as to make sure incidents like this do not happen
:12:59. > :13:03.in the future. Can you agree with the statement that David Cameron
:13:03. > :13:09.gave that Ministers must take responsibility for serious
:13:09. > :13:15.systematic failures and Ministers must not be allowed to shop off
:13:15. > :13:18.responsibility for flawed policy in their department. Do you agree?
:13:18. > :13:25.Every Secretary of State always agrees with the statements of the
:13:25. > :13:31.Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is absolutely right but the Prime
:13:31. > :13:35.Minister was right in that statement. It does rely on the
:13:35. > :13:40.Secretary of State being given the for information and as was clear in
:13:40. > :13:44.certain parts of what happened in this, the Secretary of State were
:13:44. > :13:52.not given that assurance. Indeed the Prime Minister asked for
:13:52. > :13:56.assurance. Days are actually referred to in the report.
:13:56. > :14:00.first day back after the Christmas break was upstaged by David Cameron
:14:00. > :14:05.and Nick Clegg unveiling their mid- term review. Just as the common
:14:05. > :14:07.started work at half-past two, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime
:14:08. > :14:13.Minister were kicking off their press conference on the coalition's
:14:13. > :14:17.aims. They declared that the coalition was a serious five-year
:14:17. > :14:21.commitment to give Britain's strong and stable determined leadership.
:14:21. > :14:26.They announced a few new initiatives on childcare costs and
:14:27. > :14:36.on the care of older people. Back in the Commons, some MPs complained
:14:37. > :14:37.
:14:37. > :14:44.The Cabinet Office have today tabled a writ and Ministerial
:14:44. > :14:47.statement entitled coalition Government mid-term review.
:14:47. > :14:52.Together in the national interest, there is nothing like starting with
:14:52. > :14:57.comedy. The television coverage has been pretty poor in comedy terms.
:14:57. > :15:02.Can you give me some advice? There has been a press conference in
:15:02. > :15:06.Downing Street today when the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
:15:06. > :15:11.answered questions on this, but nobody in this House has had the
:15:11. > :15:15.opportunity to ask any question about this document, supposedly a
:15:15. > :15:19.father relaunch of this Government. Why isn't there a government
:15:19. > :15:24.Minister answering questions on the failure of this coalition to
:15:24. > :15:30.implement policies in its first two-and-a-half years? And why no
:15:30. > :15:35.one here answering on this document? I am grateful for the
:15:35. > :15:41.Honourable Gentleman for his attempted point of order, which may
:15:41. > :15:50.find some resonance with the Telfer Bugle or some similar prevailed of
:15:50. > :15:55.information. What I would say, or the Shropshire Star, an extremely a
:15:55. > :15:59.lustrous newspaper. Thank you for pointing that out. You will have an
:15:59. > :16:04.opportunity for questions to the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow and
:16:05. > :16:07.questions to the Prime Minister on Wednesday. It is a review document.
:16:07. > :16:12.If there are some stance of policy announcements to make flowing from
:16:12. > :16:17.it, individual responsible ministers will doubtless make them
:16:17. > :16:25.to the House. If they earn or father points of order, but there
:16:25. > :16:33.is. Further to that, could you give advice to the House how the leaking
:16:33. > :16:38.of that document in television studios by ministers, or indeed to
:16:38. > :16:43.the Prime Minister, is in order what announcement of new policy to
:16:43. > :16:46.this House fast? I think my response to the honourable
:16:46. > :16:52.gentleman is since than simply the same to my response to the
:16:52. > :16:56.honourable member. -- is sub- standard play similar. I do not
:16:56. > :17:02.wish to disappoint you, but I have not yet read it and have no
:17:02. > :17:07.immediate plans to do so. If there are sub-standard new policy
:17:07. > :17:12.announcements flowing from it, then of course ministers must make them
:17:12. > :17:17.to the House. -- if there are substantial new policy
:17:17. > :17:22.announcements. You seem to have a cheeky grin, which suggests you
:17:22. > :17:26.know you were slightly pushing your luck.
:17:26. > :17:31.You are watching Monday in Parliament here on BBC Parliament.
:17:31. > :17:34.The number of women holding influential positions in British
:17:34. > :17:39.companies remains low and the poor representation of women in business
:17:39. > :17:44.is an issue across the European Union. So the European Commission
:17:44. > :17:50.wants to set a target for all major EU companies to have at least 40%
:17:50. > :17:54.of female non executive directors on their boards. MPs have been
:17:54. > :17:58.debating the promotional and asking whether it is an issue for the
:17:58. > :18:04.European Commission at all. -- debating the proposal. We are
:18:04. > :18:09.committed and it is saying that coalition agreement, promoting
:18:09. > :18:19.gender equality on boards. Historically, proportion of women
:18:19. > :18:20.
:18:20. > :18:28.on boards has been too low. In 1990 night, -- 1999, making 6%. In 2010,
:18:28. > :18:33.it was 12.5%. In 2010, there were only five female Chief Executive
:18:33. > :18:39.officers of companies. We published the report by Lord Davies in 2011.
:18:39. > :18:43.We have been working to implement its recommendations. That review
:18:43. > :18:47.identified several barriers preventing women reaching senior
:18:47. > :18:53.roles and business. Research shows that people have an unconscious
:18:54. > :19:03.bias to reward and promote people like themselves. Informal networks
:19:03. > :19:07.of highly influential and -- informal networks are highly
:19:07. > :19:11.influential in how decisions are made. He said Lord Davies thought
:19:11. > :19:16.business should be leading the way. We think a business-led voluntary
:19:16. > :19:20.approach is right for the UK and we think it is making progress.
:19:20. > :19:25.Central to it is a change in culture and the heart of business.
:19:25. > :19:34.That is the only way that progress is going to be sustainable and long
:19:34. > :19:37.term. The message needs to come from Government itself. I had many
:19:37. > :19:41.conversations with previous prime ministers about trade delegations
:19:41. > :19:46.to companies like India, for example, where there was no
:19:46. > :19:50.diversity of people going on those visits. Can you give the House an
:19:50. > :19:55.undertaking, understanding why we should go down the voluntary
:19:55. > :20:02.approach, that a clear message should be sent that innate
:20:02. > :20:07.appointments the Government makes with delegations that they will be
:20:07. > :20:11.representative of the country? Mort ethnic minority people, more women.
:20:11. > :20:18.I do agree, but these things have to be done on merit. Later this
:20:18. > :20:26.month, I am leading myself a delicate, a trade delegation to
:20:26. > :20:30.India, and the business side of that will be led by a woman. One of
:20:30. > :20:35.the ways of making progress is the voluntary approach, but Lord Davies
:20:35. > :20:39.made clear in speeches that he feels that there has to be progress
:20:39. > :20:43.and that, if progress is not made, we should look at and on voluntary
:20:43. > :20:48.approach. Is he arguing that the Government would be willing to look
:20:48. > :20:55.at that as something the UK would do rather than something the EU
:20:55. > :21:00.would do? Our position is clear, we think voluntary approach is best. I
:21:00. > :21:04.wrote a book saying that this needs to happen and we should hold open
:21:04. > :21:09.the proposition of legislation. The Government's position is clear that
:21:10. > :21:14.we should approach this on a voluntary basis. As for Europe's
:21:14. > :21:18.role... We should try to get there without the legislation. And there
:21:18. > :21:24.does not need to the EU level legislation, but something is highs
:21:24. > :21:29.can do on its own. More women on boards is right and is good
:21:29. > :21:34.business. But it should be the responsibility of this House.
:21:34. > :21:39.we debate the need for greater gender balance for those in
:21:39. > :21:43.leadership and business, but in so doing, this House and Government
:21:43. > :21:51.should acknowledge its own failings in this area. Just 22% of current
:21:51. > :21:56.members of this House, and just 18% of the Cabinet, are women. This is
:21:57. > :22:01.disgraceful in 2012. We are proud on these benches that 33% of the
:22:01. > :22:06.Parliamentary Labour Party, and almost 40% of the Shadow Cabinet,
:22:06. > :22:09.are women, but we all need to do better. By all means, debate, but
:22:09. > :22:13.in this House we are in no means to lecture.
:22:14. > :22:17.And more should be done to increase the representation of people from
:22:17. > :22:21.ethnic minorities. How can we inspire young black and
:22:21. > :22:25.Asian Britons to reach for the top when seeing so few people who look
:22:25. > :22:29.like themselves in boardrooms, never mind of Parliament?
:22:29. > :22:33.Staying with corporate life, appeals for an urgent clampdown on
:22:34. > :22:39.tax abuse by and large companies have been made by all sides of the
:22:39. > :22:42.Commons. MPs spent three-and-a-half hours discussing the extent of tax
:22:42. > :22:45.avoidance in the business sector and ways it might be tackled.
:22:45. > :22:49.Starting the debate, a Liberal Democrat member of the Public
:22:49. > :22:54.Accounts Committee called corporate tax dodging a growing crisis.
:22:54. > :23:00.stories of tax avoidance appear almost every week. Private Eye
:23:00. > :23:07.magazine deserves special mention for their investigation work.
:23:07. > :23:12.Bookmakers, care Homes, professional services, for example,
:23:12. > :23:22.and American Bobby mutts such as Amazon and Facebook and Starbucks.
:23:22. > :23:24.
:23:24. > :23:28.Just a few examples. -- American behemoths. Now News International
:23:28. > :23:35.has 150 companies in tax havens. Transfer pricing, management fees,
:23:35. > :23:39.royalties, some ways to move money. Moving whole businesses and
:23:39. > :23:45.headquarters to new jurisdictions is also becoming much more common.
:23:45. > :23:50.Let us also remember that companies prepared to go to major lens to
:23:50. > :23:56.avoid corporate tax, may avoid other taxes, too. -- to go to major
:23:56. > :24:03.lengths to avoid corporate tax may avoid other taxes, too. The UK
:24:03. > :24:09.should take a look at its own role such as with tax havens, for
:24:09. > :24:14.example, the Isle of Man and Travolta. This has been described
:24:14. > :24:18.as sunny places for shady people. - - Gibraltar. We should look at why
:24:18. > :24:24.we support these places as tax havens and what benefits they are
:24:24. > :24:28.bringing to the UK. It is urgent work takes place at EU level to
:24:28. > :24:33.ensure companies cannot exploit sweetheart tax deals and countries
:24:33. > :24:40.such as the Netherlands. Isn't it the case that, for physical goods,
:24:40. > :24:49.Amazon would have to account for VAT. The differences electronic
:24:49. > :24:53.goods. I would suggest that we look at the Private Member's Bill which
:24:53. > :24:58.talks about the importance of a general avoidance principle, rather
:24:58. > :25:03.than rules, because those can be bent. A principle is much harder to
:25:03. > :25:07.get around. That is the root the government should go down. Norway
:25:07. > :25:12.has to pay to trade within the European Union. Why can't we say to
:25:12. > :25:17.companies, if you wish to trade with them this country, like the
:25:17. > :25:23.countries the honourable member listed, then you have to pay a fee.
:25:23. > :25:28.That will be more than we would gain from your turnover in taxes if
:25:28. > :25:35.you honestly paid corporation tax. If we started with those companies
:25:35. > :25:40.who could well find that other companies could substitute for them
:25:40. > :25:43.there would be no diminishing of the public good, if we actually
:25:43. > :25:47.couldn't go to Starbucks. The whole country would not come to a
:25:47. > :25:52.standstill, we wouldn't have breakdowns if we could not buy
:25:52. > :25:57.Starbucks coffee, having other alternatives. We might even begin
:25:57. > :26:02.to turn the tide has stop that would be unfair -- that would be a
:26:02. > :26:06.favour of honest taxpayers. I do believe that the solution to all
:26:07. > :26:12.this must be much greater simplicity. I do mean radical
:26:12. > :26:16.simplicity. The time for a tinkering is over. Einstein said
:26:16. > :26:20.the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again
:26:20. > :26:26.and expect different results. It is time we got different results and
:26:26. > :26:29.can only get that by taking different action. Starbucks are
:26:29. > :26:37.playing -- paying voluntary tax, not for more reasons, but to
:26:37. > :26:43.protect their brand and profits. Surely if accompany is making a
:26:43. > :26:47.voluntary contribution of �10 million per year, it must also
:26:47. > :26:51.surely be making very much more than that and its only doing that
:26:51. > :26:57.because it hopes to get off the hook. That is something we must
:26:57. > :27:00.legislate about. And finally, back to Home Office questions where
:27:00. > :27:04.Labour MPs claimed that police stations were being shut and that
:27:04. > :27:10.cuts were being made to the number of police officers and Community
:27:10. > :27:14.Support Officers. Just over 18 months ago, you will be aware of
:27:14. > :27:18.widespread arson, looting and violence that emanated from my
:27:18. > :27:24.constituency and spread across the country. Do you view with alarm the
:27:24. > :27:28.mayor's decision to shut half of all London police stations and
:27:28. > :27:32.particularly the concern to close Tottenham police station and see a
:27:32. > :27:41.withdrawal of police officers stationed within it? Isn't this an
:27:41. > :27:45.open season to Londoners bags and gang members and hoodlums? -- thugs.
:27:45. > :27:50.I do not accept that characterisation and maybe draw
:27:50. > :27:55.your attention to a court recently from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, who
:27:55. > :28:01.said, if we end up with less people and better technology, I would say
:28:01. > :28:05.that would not be a bad thing. You will note that, in London, the
:28:05. > :28:10.Metropolitan Police report that serious road violence has fallen by
:28:10. > :28:16.34% since the launch of the new gang command that took place in
:28:16. > :28:21.February 2012. Two other Laima MPs raised similar
:28:21. > :28:28.concerns with the Home Secretary. - - Two other Labour MPs raised
:28:28. > :28:32.similar concerns with the Home Secretary. We have seen crime rise
:28:32. > :28:38.in the same period as cuts were made. The question as to how many
:28:38. > :28:43.police and crying -- Police Community Support Officers will be
:28:44. > :28:47.made will be taken by that police force. It has been said that the
:28:47. > :28:54.number wants to be changed, but in order to increase the number of
:28:54. > :28:57.police constables available. In May 2010, the Met had over 32,600
:28:57. > :29:06.police officers. Last April, the mayor promised he would maintain
:29:06. > :29:09.this. Yet in November, the latest figures show just 30,939. Last year,
:29:09. > :29:14.the deputy mayor told the Home Affairs Select Committee that it
:29:14. > :29:19.was a doomsday scenario for London to have only around 31,000 officers.
:29:19. > :29:25.Do you agree with this assessment and, if so, what you intend to do?
:29:25. > :29:27.I suggest you look at the plans the Metropolitan Police have and that
:29:27. > :29:32.they published just before Christmas, which is to maintain
:29:32. > :29:36.numbers at around 32,000, to introduce a flatter management
:29:36. > :29:39.structure and book more constables on they beat. I would have thought
:29:39. > :29:42.the opposition would welcome the fact that the commissioner and
:29:42. > :29:48.deputy mayor and Mayor of London want to ensure there are more
:29:48. > :29:52.police officers on they beat in London. That is surely good news?.