07/01/2013 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday in Parliament. The main headlines:

labour accuses the Home Secretary of complacency after a terror

suspect goes missing over Christmas. The reason he was in London was

because he gave him -- she gave him a travel pass. People will hold her

responsible. And accusation family have rejected by Theresa May.

is no complacency whatsoever. The Government is ensuring that the

police are doing all that they can to apply hand this particular

individual. The more questions for the Government over the mistakes

over the West Coast Main Line franchise. I am in no way trying to

deflect from the very bad position this leaves the Government in force

and the lack of women holding senior positions in business.

Accord for politicians to get their own house in order. Just 22 % of

the current members of this House and just 18 % of the Cabinet are

women. This is disgraceful. It was back to business in the Commons

after the Christmas recess kicking off the first Parliamentary day of

2013 was Home Office Question Time, but any new year cheer was short

lived. Labour blamed a change in government policy of the

disappearance of a terror suspect on Boxing Day. He was subject to a

terrorism and prevention measure. Authorities believe him to be a

risk to the public but he cannot be deported or brought to court. He

was last seen in north London. Labour MPs say the measures they

introduced were much tougher than prevention measures. He absconded

on Boxing Day. This is someone that the Government has attended terror

camps in Australia and is significantly dangerous. He

disappeared for the last 12 days. In the final four years of control

orders when relocations were used, the Home Secretary will know that

no one absconded. The Independent reviewer has asked could he have

absconded so easily from the West Country where he was made to live

when under a control order? What is the Home Secretary's answer?

National security is our top priority and the police is doing

everything they can to apprehend this individual but the honourable

lady has been careful in her use of statistics. She has quoted a period

when there were no ABS bonds from control or does. Of course winner

there were seven abscondeds that took place so I am afraid she

cannot argue that control orders were stopping people from

absconding. But the Home Secretary is not dealing with the crucial

issue of relocation. No one has absconded since 2008 and the

extensive use of relocations. The Home Secretary took the decision to

rule out a relocation for this terror suspect. Even though the

judge who reviewed the Control Order said specifically that it was

too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period.

The Home Secretary told the House she was confident that her policies

an extra surveillance would be sufficient. They clearly have not

been. Will she admit that she got it wrong on relocations? Will she

instigate an urgent review into how he absconded and in the interest of

public protection, or will she now changed course and that the

legislation right? Just to be clear because the right honourable lady

has put this case the uncertain terms which do not reflect the

reason why the prevention or do was put in place which was to prevent

fund-raising and overseas travel. We do not believe his disappearance

is linked to any terrorist plan against the UK. The Prevention

order regime introduced rigorous measures to manage the terror

suspects we cannot yet deport and the new regime was complemented by

funding to the Security Service in the police. The regime is a package

as the right honourable lady knows and as I return to there were a

number of absconding is under control orders. Ordinary people

will be staggered at the Home Secretary's complacency on this.

The difference between the first two years and the last four years

on control orders is the reason that no one absconded was the power

of relocation was used. That is the power she got rid of. She gave him

a travel pass. Three or hope he does not do any harm but if he does,

people will hold him responsible. say there is no complacency

whatsoever. The Government is ensuring that the police and law

enforcement agencies are doing all that they can to apprehend this

particular individual and it is right that that should be the case

and they are doing their road. Home Secretary may recall that

Stuart Osborne, when he gave evidence to the committee, he said

the relocation power has been very useful for us. Without that and

depending on where people choose to live it could be more typical

Forest to monitor and enforce the orders. Does the Home Secretary

regret the deal she did with the Lib Dems to abolish the power of

relocation? What I say to the right honourable lady is that during the

transition both the police and security service made clear there

was no increase in risk and that appropriate arrangements would be

in place to manage an effective transition. Of course we take the

absconded meant that has taken place seriously. The police are

doing their work to try to apprehend the individual who has

absconded but the Prevention orders were put in as measures together

with the package that went to extra funding to the police. The police

were clear there would be no risk increase. The mistakes made over

the awarding of the West Coast rail franchise will be used as a

textbook example in civil service training of how not to do things.

That is according to the Transport Secretary. He told MPs that lessons

would be learnt from the fiasco. Transport operator First Group had

been chosen to run services on the West Coast main line. Head of the

current operator Virgin above the decision were scrapped when the

process had been flawed. Patrick McLoughlin had acknowledged that

his department was to blame. More what we need to do is the truth of

the matter is this will form part of civil service training for many

years to come as to the mistakes that were made and the way in which

escalations should be referred up and are taken up the chain. One of

the problems we see from this is that that was not done as

effectively as it should have been. If you think Ministers were

deliberately misled? No, I hope that was not the case and I hope it

was not the case. One has only got to go through the late report to

see that some of it was not the proper workmanship that one would

expect from the Civil Service. That needs to be taken on board. Is it

possible for us to agree that there were profound government problems

involved in this process? De then the outcome I am not going to

defend the governance of this process. You said if they only had

someone escalated the issue so what I am hearing his managerial

difficulties. It is a long time I have been involved in -- since I

have been involved in civil service processes but they are there to

insure that the best people are put in the right roles. Involved in

this process, how many people would you say were involved who were paid

a six-figure salaries? Might answer will be off the top of my head but

it involved in the, in franchising and in the franchise award, it will

be a small knots number of single figures. From a member of the

public's point of view they would expect a high degree of managerial

competence from someone paid a six- figure salary. When tens of

millions of Pounds of public money is lost under Ministers, where does

the ministerial responsibility begin and end? Short answers.

will try and give a short answer. If there had been ministerial

culpability or an attempt to ignore advice then I think there is

ministerial culpability but I do not think anybody is saying that

Ministers ignored advice all failed to ask questions. Serious lessons

to be learnt from this - of course. This is a serious incident. In no

way would I try to deflect from the very bad position this leaves the

Government in or indeed the fact that the rail industry rightly

wants some guidance as to make sure incidents like this do not happen

in the future. Can you agree with the statement that David Cameron

gave that Ministers must take responsibility for serious

systematic failures and Ministers must not be allowed to shop off

responsibility for flawed policy in their department. Do you agree?

Every Secretary of State always agrees with the statements of the

Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is absolutely right but the Prime

Minister was right in that statement. It does rely on the

Secretary of State being given the for information and as was clear in

certain parts of what happened in this, the Secretary of State were

not given that assurance. Indeed the Prime Minister asked for

assurance. Days are actually referred to in the report.

first day back after the Christmas break was upstaged by David Cameron

and Nick Clegg unveiling their mid- term review. Just as the common

started work at half-past two, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime

Minister were kicking off their press conference on the coalition's

aims. They declared that the coalition was a serious five-year

commitment to give Britain's strong and stable determined leadership.

They announced a few new initiatives on childcare costs and

on the care of older people. Back in the Commons, some MPs complained

The Cabinet Office have today tabled a writ and Ministerial

statement entitled coalition Government mid-term review.

Together in the national interest, there is nothing like starting with

comedy. The television coverage has been pretty poor in comedy terms.

Can you give me some advice? There has been a press conference in

Downing Street today when the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister

answered questions on this, but nobody in this House has had the

opportunity to ask any question about this document, supposedly a

father relaunch of this Government. Why isn't there a government

Minister answering questions on the failure of this coalition to

implement policies in its first two-and-a-half years? And why no

one here answering on this document? I am grateful for the

Honourable Gentleman for his attempted point of order, which may

find some resonance with the Telfer Bugle or some similar prevailed of

information. What I would say, or the Shropshire Star, an extremely a

lustrous newspaper. Thank you for pointing that out. You will have an

opportunity for questions to the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow and

questions to the Prime Minister on Wednesday. It is a review document.

If there are some stance of policy announcements to make flowing from

it, individual responsible ministers will doubtless make them

to the House. If they earn or father points of order, but there

is. Further to that, could you give advice to the House how the leaking

of that document in television studios by ministers, or indeed to

the Prime Minister, is in order what announcement of new policy to

this House fast? I think my response to the honourable

gentleman is since than simply the same to my response to the

honourable member. -- is sub- standard play similar. I do not

wish to disappoint you, but I have not yet read it and have no

immediate plans to do so. If there are sub-standard new policy

announcements flowing from it, then of course ministers must make them

to the House. -- if there are substantial new policy

announcements. You seem to have a cheeky grin, which suggests you

know you were slightly pushing your luck.

You are watching Monday in Parliament here on BBC Parliament.

The number of women holding influential positions in British

companies remains low and the poor representation of women in business

is an issue across the European Union. So the European Commission

wants to set a target for all major EU companies to have at least 40%

of female non executive directors on their boards. MPs have been

debating the promotional and asking whether it is an issue for the

European Commission at all. -- debating the proposal. We are

committed and it is saying that coalition agreement, promoting

gender equality on boards. Historically, proportion of women

on boards has been too low. In 1990 night, -- 1999, making 6%. In 2010,

it was 12.5%. In 2010, there were only five female Chief Executive

officers of companies. We published the report by Lord Davies in 2011.

We have been working to implement its recommendations. That review

identified several barriers preventing women reaching senior

roles and business. Research shows that people have an unconscious

bias to reward and promote people like themselves. Informal networks

of highly influential and -- informal networks are highly

influential in how decisions are made. He said Lord Davies thought

business should be leading the way. We think a business-led voluntary

approach is right for the UK and we think it is making progress.

Central to it is a change in culture and the heart of business.

That is the only way that progress is going to be sustainable and long

term. The message needs to come from Government itself. I had many

conversations with previous prime ministers about trade delegations

to companies like India, for example, where there was no

diversity of people going on those visits. Can you give the House an

undertaking, understanding why we should go down the voluntary

approach, that a clear message should be sent that innate

appointments the Government makes with delegations that they will be

representative of the country? Mort ethnic minority people, more women.

I do agree, but these things have to be done on merit. Later this

month, I am leading myself a delicate, a trade delegation to

India, and the business side of that will be led by a woman. One of

the ways of making progress is the voluntary approach, but Lord Davies

made clear in speeches that he feels that there has to be progress

and that, if progress is not made, we should look at and on voluntary

approach. Is he arguing that the Government would be willing to look

at that as something the UK would do rather than something the EU

would do? Our position is clear, we think voluntary approach is best. I

wrote a book saying that this needs to happen and we should hold open

the proposition of legislation. The Government's position is clear that

we should approach this on a voluntary basis. As for Europe's

role... We should try to get there without the legislation. And there

does not need to the EU level legislation, but something is highs

can do on its own. More women on boards is right and is good

business. But it should be the responsibility of this House.

we debate the need for greater gender balance for those in

leadership and business, but in so doing, this House and Government

should acknowledge its own failings in this area. Just 22% of current

members of this House, and just 18% of the Cabinet, are women. This is

disgraceful in 2012. We are proud on these benches that 33% of the

Parliamentary Labour Party, and almost 40% of the Shadow Cabinet,

are women, but we all need to do better. By all means, debate, but

in this House we are in no means to lecture.

And more should be done to increase the representation of people from

ethnic minorities. How can we inspire young black and

Asian Britons to reach for the top when seeing so few people who look

like themselves in boardrooms, never mind of Parliament?

Staying with corporate life, appeals for an urgent clampdown on

tax abuse by and large companies have been made by all sides of the

Commons. MPs spent three-and-a-half hours discussing the extent of tax

avoidance in the business sector and ways it might be tackled.

Starting the debate, a Liberal Democrat member of the Public

Accounts Committee called corporate tax dodging a growing crisis.

stories of tax avoidance appear almost every week. Private Eye

magazine deserves special mention for their investigation work.

Bookmakers, care Homes, professional services, for example,

and American Bobby mutts such as Amazon and Facebook and Starbucks.

Just a few examples. -- American behemoths. Now News International

has 150 companies in tax havens. Transfer pricing, management fees,

royalties, some ways to move money. Moving whole businesses and

headquarters to new jurisdictions is also becoming much more common.

Let us also remember that companies prepared to go to major lens to

avoid corporate tax, may avoid other taxes, too. -- to go to major

lengths to avoid corporate tax may avoid other taxes, too. The UK

should take a look at its own role such as with tax havens, for

example, the Isle of Man and Travolta. This has been described

as sunny places for shady people. - - Gibraltar. We should look at why

we support these places as tax havens and what benefits they are

bringing to the UK. It is urgent work takes place at EU level to

ensure companies cannot exploit sweetheart tax deals and countries

such as the Netherlands. Isn't it the case that, for physical goods,

Amazon would have to account for VAT. The differences electronic

goods. I would suggest that we look at the Private Member's Bill which

talks about the importance of a general avoidance principle, rather

than rules, because those can be bent. A principle is much harder to

get around. That is the root the government should go down. Norway

has to pay to trade within the European Union. Why can't we say to

companies, if you wish to trade with them this country, like the

countries the honourable member listed, then you have to pay a fee.

That will be more than we would gain from your turnover in taxes if

you honestly paid corporation tax. If we started with those companies

who could well find that other companies could substitute for them

there would be no diminishing of the public good, if we actually

couldn't go to Starbucks. The whole country would not come to a

standstill, we wouldn't have breakdowns if we could not buy

Starbucks coffee, having other alternatives. We might even begin

to turn the tide has stop that would be unfair -- that would be a

favour of honest taxpayers. I do believe that the solution to all

this must be much greater simplicity. I do mean radical

simplicity. The time for a tinkering is over. Einstein said

the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again

and expect different results. It is time we got different results and

can only get that by taking different action. Starbucks are

playing -- paying voluntary tax, not for more reasons, but to

protect their brand and profits. Surely if accompany is making a

voluntary contribution of �10 million per year, it must also

surely be making very much more than that and its only doing that

because it hopes to get off the hook. That is something we must

legislate about. And finally, back to Home Office questions where

Labour MPs claimed that police stations were being shut and that

cuts were being made to the number of police officers and Community

Support Officers. Just over 18 months ago, you will be aware of

widespread arson, looting and violence that emanated from my

constituency and spread across the country. Do you view with alarm the

mayor's decision to shut half of all London police stations and

particularly the concern to close Tottenham police station and see a

withdrawal of police officers stationed within it? Isn't this an

open season to Londoners bags and gang members and hoodlums? -- thugs.

I do not accept that characterisation and maybe draw

your attention to a court recently from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, who

said, if we end up with less people and better technology, I would say

that would not be a bad thing. You will note that, in London, the

Metropolitan Police report that serious road violence has fallen by

34% since the launch of the new gang command that took place in

February 2012. Two other Laima MPs raised similar

concerns with the Home Secretary. - - Two other Labour MPs raised

similar concerns with the Home Secretary. We have seen crime rise

in the same period as cuts were made. The question as to how many

police and crying -- Police Community Support Officers will be

made will be taken by that police force. It has been said that the

number wants to be changed, but in order to increase the number of

police constables available. In May 2010, the Met had over 32,600

police officers. Last April, the mayor promised he would maintain

this. Yet in November, the latest figures show just 30,939. Last year,

the deputy mayor told the Home Affairs Select Committee that it

was a doomsday scenario for London to have only around 31,000 officers.

Do you agree with this assessment and, if so, what you intend to do?

I suggest you look at the plans the Metropolitan Police have and that

they published just before Christmas, which is to maintain

numbers at around 32,000, to introduce a flatter management

structure and book more constables on they beat. I would have thought

the opposition would welcome the fact that the commissioner and

deputy mayor and Mayor of London want to ensure there are more

police officers on they beat in London. That is surely good news?.