:00:20. > :00:26.Welcome to Monday in Parliament. The menus from Westminster. Fears over
:00:27. > :00:29.job losses after the sale of Vauxhall to a French car
:00:30. > :00:34.manufacturer. Our employment laws make it easier to sack workers in
:00:35. > :00:41.the UK compared to those who work in France and Germany which puts them
:00:42. > :00:45.at an immediate disadvantage. Advice for the Culture Secretary after she
:00:46. > :00:51.raises concerns about a takeover of sky by 21st Fox. A company that
:00:52. > :00:57.should not be persecuted because the left doesn't like it. Office dress
:00:58. > :01:06.codes for women such as high heels have objected and ridiculed. Working
:01:07. > :01:11.in flat shoes does not make me reach for the smelling salts. I imagine
:01:12. > :01:15.clients will be spectacularly unbothered by the heel height of
:01:16. > :01:21.anyone in attendance. The House of Commons was today dominated by two
:01:22. > :01:26.begged business deals, the first the sale of Vauxhall. General Motors is
:01:27. > :01:38.selling its American arm for ?1.9 billion. The buyer is a French firm,
:01:39. > :01:41.PSA, which owns Peugeot. They have promised to return Vauxhall to
:01:42. > :01:47.profit but workers are concerned to secure their jobs will be especially
:01:48. > :01:51.after leaving the European Union. That the company will honour the
:01:52. > :01:56.agreement they have with the Vauxhall workforce. That Vauxhall
:01:57. > :02:00.pensions will be in at least as good a position as they are today. That
:02:01. > :02:06.the treatment of the UK division will be equal to those of other
:02:07. > :02:09.countries within the Vauxhall group. That the identity of Vauxhall will
:02:10. > :02:14.continue to be distinct and prominent. That the strategy of the
:02:15. > :02:20.new company be one of the building on existing strengthss and not
:02:21. > :02:25.closures. Taking opportunities to increase sales in the world.
:02:26. > :02:28.Although I welcome the promise to one of existing contracts, I am
:02:29. > :02:32.deeply concerned about the 40,000 currently employed in Luton and in
:02:33. > :02:37.the wider supply chain who will be worried about the future of their
:02:38. > :02:41.jobs today. Can be Secretary of State confirm what assurances he has
:02:42. > :02:45.personally received of the future of Vauxhall's plants and the wider UK
:02:46. > :02:51.workforce beyond existing contracts? Can the Minister confirm what
:02:52. > :02:57.support has been offered to PSA following Britain's exit from the
:02:58. > :03:01.European Union? We welcome Nissan's decision to stay in the UK as a
:03:02. > :03:06.result of assurances provided by this government, has PSA been
:03:07. > :03:10.offered the same deal? Would not make sense for the government to set
:03:11. > :03:16.out its strategy for the sector as a whole than enlightening businesses
:03:17. > :03:22.one crisis at a time. I am grateful for the questions. These have been
:03:23. > :03:28.worrying times for the workforce over the last two weeks and I think
:03:29. > :03:33.the statements made by both parties today have been welcomed, not just
:03:34. > :03:36.by me but by the speed unions as being very much steps in the right
:03:37. > :03:41.direction. It is very important that we should hold the company to
:03:42. > :03:45.account for this. In terms of the points mentioned, the company has
:03:46. > :03:50.said that it will honour the agreement they have with the company
:03:51. > :03:58.and with the unions. The extent to at least 2021. I have constituents
:03:59. > :04:03.in the Ellesmere Port plant who are reliant on the local supply chain,
:04:04. > :04:11.so this is causing huge worry in the area. What can you say to reassure
:04:12. > :04:15.my constituents about the future, particularly given that our
:04:16. > :04:19.employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the UK compared to
:04:20. > :04:24.those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an
:04:25. > :04:27.immediate disadvantage? And what can he say to reassure them about the
:04:28. > :04:33.fact that we are leaving the European Union and the single market
:04:34. > :04:41.and that again puts them potentially at a disadvantage in the competition
:04:42. > :04:46.that is to come. What I would say is first of all the reason that we have
:04:47. > :04:51.a successful record in this country is that our car plants and their
:04:52. > :04:54.workforces are highly efficient and we shouldn't forget that. I can't
:04:55. > :05:00.help feeling the Minister being little complacent. Much of the
:05:01. > :05:07.exporters left for Europe. Would it really makes sense for Peugeot to
:05:08. > :05:13.continue left-hand drive production outside the EU? The minister doesn't
:05:14. > :05:16.seem to be answering the questions on Brexit head-on and many of my
:05:17. > :05:22.constituents are worried about this. Given the thousands of high skilled
:05:23. > :05:25.jobs in the future and the importance of the risk of them going
:05:26. > :05:31.and the importance to the economy, what is he going to do to ensure
:05:32. > :05:37.future EU market access for this and other very important industries? The
:05:38. > :05:40.head of PSA said today that Brexit offers some opportunities, but she
:05:41. > :05:46.can have my assurance that I will do everything within my power to make
:05:47. > :05:52.sure that the terms of trade that we have through negotiations are as
:05:53. > :05:57.advantageous as possible. After those exchanges on Vauxhall, MPs
:05:58. > :06:02.turned their attention to the attempt by 21st-century Fox, owned
:06:03. > :06:07.by Rupert Murdoch, to take over the broadcaster Sky. At the end of last
:06:08. > :06:12.year Fox and Sky announced they had reached a deal. Rupert Murdoch has
:06:13. > :06:18.agreed to pay nearly 12 billion to gain full ownership. The Culture
:06:19. > :06:22.Secretary came to the Commons to up date MPs about hard position on the
:06:23. > :06:25.bed. I can confirm formal notification for the proposed merger
:06:26. > :06:31.was lodged with the European Commission on Friday to March. I, on
:06:32. > :06:35.Friday, wrote to the parties to inform them that I am minded to
:06:36. > :06:43.issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believe there
:06:44. > :06:47.are public interest considerations, that may be relevant to this
:06:48. > :06:53.proposed merger that warrant further investigation. She said she was
:06:54. > :06:57.concerned about media plurality. My concern is the merger will bring
:06:58. > :07:04.under common of increased control a number of significant News and News
:07:05. > :07:08.Corporation's newspapers. As a result I have told parties I am
:07:09. > :07:12.minded to ask for a report from off, the impact of the merger on media
:07:13. > :07:15.plurality before considering the matter further. She also said she
:07:16. > :07:21.had concerns about broadcasting standards. I am concerned about the
:07:22. > :07:26.number of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st-century Fox as
:07:27. > :07:28.well as the behaviour and corporate governance failures of News
:07:29. > :07:32.Corporation in the past. In light of those matters I am minded to
:07:33. > :07:36.intervene on these grounds and to ask of com to investigate them
:07:37. > :07:40.further. Robert Murdoch attempted to take over Sky five years ago but it
:07:41. > :07:46.was derailed by the outcry over phone hacking at one of his
:07:47. > :07:50.newspapers. The company names may have changed since the previous bed
:07:51. > :07:54.for sky was withdrawn in 2011 but we are still dealing with media
:07:55. > :07:59.plurality, misconduct and the Murdochs. The Secretary of State has
:08:00. > :08:02.said that she is minded to intervene first on media plurality grounds.
:08:03. > :08:08.The bed would put an even greater amount of media power in the UK in
:08:09. > :08:15.the hands of the Murdoch family. It makes the Murdoch empire even
:08:16. > :08:21.better. We might call at Empire 2.0. The most troubling issues raised are
:08:22. > :08:26.not about the content of James Martin's programming but about the
:08:27. > :08:29.content of his character. The Secretary of State has rightly
:08:30. > :08:33.referred to feel years of corporate governance during the phone hacking
:08:34. > :08:37.scandal but it is not clear that these failings all strictly speaking
:08:38. > :08:41.under the heading broadcasting standards, even though they are
:08:42. > :08:45.central to whether this merger should be approved. The measure is
:08:46. > :08:51.likely to increase the influence of report Murdoch and his family on the
:08:52. > :08:58.media in the UK, and Fox already have a controlling interest in Sky.
:08:59. > :09:02.News Corporation runs newspapers throughout UK and radio stations. At
:09:03. > :09:06.a time when smaller titles are struggling with poor circulation
:09:07. > :09:11.numbers, and established newspapers are having to rethink their business
:09:12. > :09:14.models to survive, giving yet more power to the already dominant media
:09:15. > :09:22.giant seems counterintuitive. What I want to ask is whether she will be
:09:23. > :09:28.certain not to involve herself in the socialist witchhunt against
:09:29. > :09:35.Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, Fox News, which has done so much,
:09:36. > :09:41.both through newspapers publishing and through the launch of Sky News,
:09:42. > :09:44.to increase plurality in the media in this country, a wonderfully
:09:45. > :09:48.successful company that should not be persecuted because the left
:09:49. > :09:53.doesn't like it. We already know that under James and report
:09:54. > :09:57.Murdoch's readership, the companies they controlled bride and bullied
:09:58. > :10:01.their way around British politics. They poison the well of British
:10:02. > :10:07.political engagement. They used anti-competitive practices at every
:10:08. > :10:10.possible turn to try to destroy competitors and they made it
:10:11. > :10:14.impossible for media diversity to flourish in this country, so why on
:10:15. > :10:19.earth would anybody think they were fit and proper people to take over?
:10:20. > :10:22.They'd only excuse, when they like their way through evidence in
:10:23. > :10:26.parliament, was that their company was far too big for them to possibly
:10:27. > :10:29.know what was going on in some outpost in the United Kingdom? That
:10:30. > :10:35.doesn't suggest they would be any good at running this now. The
:10:36. > :10:38.honourable gentleman has been on the record on several occasions on his
:10:39. > :10:43.views on these matters and I am sure his points will be heard. Last week,
:10:44. > :10:48.the House of Lords faulted for the EU citizens to be given a guaranteed
:10:49. > :10:51.right to stay in the UK. Regardless of Brexit negotiations, and on
:10:52. > :10:56.Sunday, the Commons committee on exiting the EU also declare the
:10:57. > :11:00.government should get people from other EU countries a legal like to
:11:01. > :11:07.remain. The government is resisting such a move but at question Time
:11:08. > :11:11.some MPs apply further pressure. We can't even the port convicted
:11:12. > :11:16.criminals. The reality is that even if we wanted to, which we don't, we
:11:17. > :11:21.are not going to deport a single EU national. It seems to me we might as
:11:22. > :11:26.well acknowledge this fact now while reserving the right, if in the
:11:27. > :11:33.extremely unlikely possibility of our EU partners reporting in the UK
:11:34. > :11:37.citizens, which they want, we can change our minds, but let's at least
:11:38. > :11:39.reassure these people know. My honourable friend makes a very
:11:40. > :11:46.feared observation about the reality of the situation. I would however
:11:47. > :11:53.point out to him that as he seeks the assurance uncertainty that the
:11:54. > :11:57.EU citizens want, I see could also for the UK citizens and other parts
:11:58. > :12:02.of the European Union, because it is a priority. The Prime Minister has
:12:03. > :12:05.said she will move onto that as soon as negotiations begin. The Home
:12:06. > :12:10.Secretary talks about reciprocal arrangements but when she gets round
:12:11. > :12:14.to reading the report, she will see that representatives of UK citizens
:12:15. > :12:17.living abroad, to a man and woman, gave evidence to the committee that
:12:18. > :12:22.they want the British government to give a unilateral agreement to EU
:12:23. > :12:27.citizens living here because they think it will benefit them. Will she
:12:28. > :12:33.listen to the voice of UK citizens abroad and get that unilateral
:12:34. > :12:36.guarantee? There are over 1 million living in the European Union. They
:12:37. > :12:39.are not represented by the groups who gave evidence at the Brexit
:12:40. > :12:46.committee. I cared about every one of those and I repeat that I think
:12:47. > :12:49.it is incumbent upon this government to protect their possession as we
:12:50. > :12:56.protect EU citizens. You are watching Monday in Parliament.
:12:57. > :13:02.The sessions are being made to quickly and money is being wasted.
:13:03. > :13:06.That was the consensus of witnesses to the work and pensions committee
:13:07. > :13:10.which is looking at how outsourced companies are assessing people for
:13:11. > :13:16.personal independence payment. It is a benefit paid to people with
:13:17. > :13:19.disabilities. It was prompted by government plans to restrict the
:13:20. > :13:26.eligibility criteria. Currently the DWP are using policy. Their policies
:13:27. > :13:34.are continuously harming people and every time I approach the DWP in
:13:35. > :13:40.individual cases, our policy is this, I am then taken to tribunal.
:13:41. > :13:44.The policies are absolutely blown out the window. Until they start
:13:45. > :13:52.adhering to their own guidelines, adds to the letter of the law, which
:13:53. > :13:56.each tribunal represents, to prevent miscarriages of justice, this is
:13:57. > :14:00.never going to be conducive. I don't think it is the worst part of the
:14:01. > :14:04.process but it is where it says please provide contact details for
:14:05. > :14:07.your health care professionals, the impression is given to claimants
:14:08. > :14:11.that the DWP will contact those health care professionals and get
:14:12. > :14:14.evidence, and in all the cases we have worked on we have never seen a
:14:15. > :14:18.case where the assessment provider has actually requested evidence from
:14:19. > :14:23.the health care professionals. The committee chair suggested there was
:14:24. > :14:29.an element of self selection going on. One thing when somebody comes to
:14:30. > :14:37.my surgery, nobody says actually this is working really well. It is
:14:38. > :14:40.not working well. It is impossible that the government does sometimes
:14:41. > :14:45.check up on those health professionals but they are not the
:14:46. > :14:50.people who come to us or to you. Because it went well in the proper
:14:51. > :14:54.decision was made. I can see I went for the very first time to an
:14:55. > :14:58.assessment last week and there was a combination of both mental and
:14:59. > :15:02.physical disabilities, it was somebody who was previously on
:15:03. > :15:07.disability living allowance. They thought they had it for life but
:15:08. > :15:10.unfortunately they were at two years too young for that, but I have to
:15:11. > :15:16.say that the examination was really good. I went there thinking it was
:15:17. > :15:20.going to be absolutely appalling but I was surprised how they took two
:15:21. > :15:25.hours and there was also a physical examination, because one of the
:15:26. > :15:29.issues we have is that when we see the appeal papers comes through,
:15:30. > :15:36.there is a very detailed muscular skeletal report and it says this
:15:37. > :15:39.person can move their arms 50, 60 degrees or whatever, and people tell
:15:40. > :15:45.us there is no examination, it doesn't happen. We have challenged
:15:46. > :15:50.them about that, and Atos have said that the best of the observation is
:15:51. > :15:55.that it is a casual observation, which is not an examination that can
:15:56. > :15:59.give you such specific results. We checked about it with the local
:16:00. > :16:02.surgeon and they said it would be impossible to actually get that
:16:03. > :16:03.level of detail unless it was a guided and instructed formal
:16:04. > :16:12.examination. We need a place in the system that
:16:13. > :16:18.requires the DWP to look at a decision. Before, you would get
:16:19. > :16:22.appeal papers which was DWP looking at their decision. Mandatory
:16:23. > :16:27.consideration gave us some hope that stage of the process would be given
:16:28. > :16:31.more time and attention, but on the ground that's not consistent. We
:16:32. > :16:39.don't see when it's successful, we see when it goes wrong, but I would
:16:40. > :16:44.say it goes wrong too often. We go to appeals regularly. What's really
:16:45. > :16:48.frustrating is that the DWP have the right to send a presenting officer.
:16:49. > :16:53.We never see them. There were announcements made in Parliament and
:16:54. > :17:01.we saw somebody wants the next day. I honestly think that if the DWP
:17:02. > :17:04.observed the tribunal 's, and had to some way justify their decisions,
:17:05. > :17:08.they would feed that back up the line and we may get better quality
:17:09. > :17:14.decisions. The government has called on employers to look at their dress
:17:15. > :17:19.codes to make sure they don't discriminate against women. It
:17:20. > :17:24.follows a petition calling for a ban on firms making women wear high
:17:25. > :17:28.heels at work. 15,000 people signed the petition set up by Nicola Thorpe
:17:29. > :17:33.after she was sent home for refusing to wear high heels. MPs heard
:17:34. > :17:39.similar stories from hundreds of women. We found attitudes that
:17:40. > :17:46.belonged more, I was going to say in the 1950s, but probably the 1850s
:17:47. > :17:51.might be more accurate, fan in the 21st-century. Women, especially
:17:52. > :17:54.young women in vulnerable employment, were exported at work.
:17:55. > :18:01.Threatened with dismissal if they complained. They were forced to bear
:18:02. > :18:05.pain all day, or to wear clothing that was totally unsuitable for the
:18:06. > :18:11.tasks they were asked to perform, or to dress in no way that they felt
:18:12. > :18:18.sexualised their appearance and was demeaning. It was time for action.
:18:19. > :18:22.We are calling on the government to start a campaign particularly
:18:23. > :18:26.targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, like in
:18:27. > :18:30.hospitality, to inform both employees of their rights and
:18:31. > :18:33.employers of their obligations. I recognise that some women will
:18:34. > :18:37.choose to wear high heels of their own volition and I will not
:18:38. > :18:43.criticise them. We should be free to wear whatever we like. What I cannot
:18:44. > :18:46.tolerate is employers trying to force women into an ideal of what
:18:47. > :18:52.constitutes professionalism or power dressing by insisting that
:18:53. > :18:58.particular items such as cripplingly high heels must be worn. The site of
:18:59. > :19:04.a woman in flat shoes does not usually send me reaching for the
:19:05. > :19:08.smelling salts. I imagine that clients coming to meetings will be
:19:09. > :19:12.spectacularly unbothered by the heel height of anyone in attendance and
:19:13. > :19:18.rather more focused on the business at hand. I must of course their
:19:19. > :19:21.meeting is being held in the 1970s. Ahead of International Women's Day
:19:22. > :19:25.on Wednesday, every member of this house should be doing their utmost
:19:26. > :19:32.to hear directly from women and understand what it is they
:19:33. > :19:36.experience. When we do hear from women, it's not enough just to
:19:37. > :19:41.recognise their experiences of sexism and... Women have a choice on
:19:42. > :19:45.whether to wear high heels or not. I'm five foot ten so I've never
:19:46. > :19:52.needed a few extra inches. Whether they wear high heels or not should
:19:53. > :19:57.be up to them, not to some outdated, dodgy 1970s workplace ticked that.
:19:58. > :20:03.Employers, she said, it should review dress codes. The government
:20:04. > :20:06.utterly condemns such dress requirements whether Fx is
:20:07. > :20:13.discriminatory. We support the existing legislation that affects
:20:14. > :20:17.men and women. It's clear that this legislation must be more widely
:20:18. > :20:22.understood and it should be better in forced. A joint committee of MPs
:20:23. > :20:27.and peers has questioned the Home Secretary about who is responsible
:20:28. > :20:30.for cyber security. Members of the National Security strategy committee
:20:31. > :20:38.said the lines of accountability were not clear. All ministries must
:20:39. > :20:42.be facing up to the threat from cyber, as we've seen in the examples
:20:43. > :20:51.in the Baltics. The traffic lights went out first and so on. Everyone
:20:52. > :20:55.must be affected. Can you advise us which minister we ought to call to
:20:56. > :21:01.give evidence to this committee on the whole question of cyber
:21:02. > :21:06.security. At risk of volunteering myself for another session, I also
:21:07. > :21:10.have strong interest in cyber from a Homeland security point of view,
:21:11. > :21:14.particularly through the National Crime Agency that does a lot of work
:21:15. > :21:18.on the dark web to track organised crime. The answer is that it does
:21:19. > :21:23.have a lot of ministerial cover because it is an area that crosses
:21:24. > :21:27.over to so many different departments, as you rightly said,
:21:28. > :21:34.culture, media and sport through the Digital agenda, the Chancellor
:21:35. > :21:38.through the prosperity agenda, and the Cabinet Office, who are
:21:39. > :21:43.coordinating it. The Chancellor does chaired the subcommittee, but I
:21:44. > :21:48.think I would humbly suggest that depending on where your focus is
:21:49. > :21:52.going to be, because it covers so many different areas, defence,
:21:53. > :21:57.organised crime, sexual exploitation, digital element, I
:21:58. > :21:59.would focus on the different ministers responsibilities and
:22:00. > :22:06.perhaps everybody could have the opportunity. I produced the most
:22:07. > :22:09.cyber strategy in 2008 and most people couldn't spell cyber. I had
:22:10. > :22:14.difficulty in getting some departments to accept they would
:22:15. > :22:20.even be a cyber strategy. When the cyber strategy came out, I was made
:22:21. > :22:24.cyber security minister. I hear what you say about working out which area
:22:25. > :22:28.we are interested in, but bearing in mind the all embracing nature of
:22:29. > :22:34.cyber now, it seems there should be a minister who sees their role is
:22:35. > :22:40.absolutely making sure this is co-ordinated across to parliaments.
:22:41. > :22:42.It is a crowded place in terms of different ministerial
:22:43. > :22:49.responsibilities and it is a reasonable suggest you're making.
:22:50. > :22:54.It's something that perhaps a number of us can reflect on. The
:22:55. > :22:58.implications on Brexit of various aspects of life are being thoroughly
:22:59. > :23:03.aired, but here's one possible ramifications you probably hadn't
:23:04. > :23:07.thought of yet. Will we need more allotments after Brexit? The private
:23:08. > :23:12.landowners are often well placed to make land available for allotments.
:23:13. > :23:18.Would he encourage Defra to promote discussions between councillors and
:23:19. > :23:23.the NFU and other representatives of landowners to see if they can
:23:24. > :23:27.promote such private provision? My noble friend makes an important
:23:28. > :23:31.point. Haven't spoken with the National allotment Society, they are
:23:32. > :23:35.discussing and bringing to fruition a plan with British Telecom making
:23:36. > :23:42.available a lot of land that has previously been disused telephone
:23:43. > :23:48.exchanges. 1200 will be used for allotments. I take on board what the
:23:49. > :23:55.noble Mordt has said and Echo it. 100 years ago last month, the
:23:56. > :23:59.Germans cleared unrestricted U-boat action on this nation and almost
:24:00. > :24:03.starved us to death and allotments became very important. Whilst
:24:04. > :24:08.allotments are wonderful things, does the Minister not feel that
:24:09. > :24:15.protecting our merchant fishing with enough warships might be more
:24:16. > :24:19.important? My Lords, it's like around of Mornington Crescent. He
:24:20. > :24:24.always succeeds in bringing it in. I agree about the importance of
:24:25. > :24:29.allotments, not just for a healthier lifestyles, but ensuring we have
:24:30. > :24:34.appropriate food supplies. Once we've left the European Union, we
:24:35. > :24:39.will probably have to grow a lot more of our own food. Therefore we
:24:40. > :24:44.will need many many more allotments, in which case we need to look at the
:24:45. > :24:51.law again. Can he tell me whether the Department for exiting the EU
:24:52. > :24:56.has this on its agenda? My lords, as I've indicated in relation to an
:24:57. > :25:00.earlier response to the noble Lord, Lord West, growing our own food is
:25:01. > :25:05.of importance anyway. I don't know if we are looking at this through
:25:06. > :25:09.the Department of exceeding the EU, but it is of extreme importance, as
:25:10. > :25:14.are all the other benefits from allotments and why they are so
:25:15. > :25:19.important. More allotments, one of the more offbeat predictions about
:25:20. > :25:22.life after Brexit. That's it from Monday in Parliament. Keith
:25:23. > :25:25.McDougall will be here for the rest of the week. From me, Christina
:25:26. > :25:27.Cooper, goodbye.