06/03/2017 Monday in Parliament

Welcome to Monday in Parliament. The menus from Westminster. Fears over

job losses after the sale of Vauxhall to a French car

manufacturer. Our employment laws make it easier to sack workers in

the UK compared to those who work in France and Germany which puts them

at an immediate disadvantage. Advice for the Culture Secretary after she

raises concerns about a takeover of sky by 21st Fox. A company that

should not be persecuted because the left doesn't like it. Office dress

codes for women such as high heels have objected and ridiculed. Working

in flat shoes does not make me reach for the smelling salts. I imagine

clients will be spectacularly unbothered by the heel height of

anyone in attendance. The House of Commons was today dominated by two

begged business deals, the first the sale of Vauxhall. General Motors is

selling its American arm for ?1.9 billion. The buyer is a French firm,

PSA, which owns Peugeot. They have promised to return Vauxhall to

profit but workers are concerned to secure their jobs will be especially

after leaving the European Union. That the company will honour the

agreement they have with the Vauxhall workforce. That Vauxhall

pensions will be in at least as good a position as they are today. That

the treatment of the UK division will be equal to those of other

countries within the Vauxhall group. That the identity of Vauxhall will

continue to be distinct and prominent. That the strategy of the

new company be one of the building on existing strengthss and not

closures. Taking opportunities to increase sales in the world.

Although I welcome the promise to one of existing contracts, I am

deeply concerned about the 40,000 currently employed in Luton and in

the wider supply chain who will be worried about the future of their

jobs today. Can be Secretary of State confirm what assurances he has

personally received of the future of Vauxhall's plants and the wider UK

workforce beyond existing contracts? Can the Minister confirm what

support has been offered to PSA following Britain's exit from the

European Union? We welcome Nissan's decision to stay in the UK as a

result of assurances provided by this government, has PSA been

offered the same deal? Would not make sense for the government to set

out its strategy for the sector as a whole than enlightening businesses

one crisis at a time. I am grateful for the questions. These have been

worrying times for the workforce over the last two weeks and I think

the statements made by both parties today have been welcomed, not just

by me but by the speed unions as being very much steps in the right

direction. It is very important that we should hold the company to

account for this. In terms of the points mentioned, the company has

said that it will honour the agreement they have with the company

and with the unions. The extent to at least 2021. I have constituents

in the Ellesmere Port plant who are reliant on the local supply chain,

so this is causing huge worry in the area. What can you say to reassure

my constituents about the future, particularly given that our

employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the UK compared to

those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an

immediate disadvantage? And what can he say to reassure them about the

fact that we are leaving the European Union and the single market

and that again puts them potentially at a disadvantage in the competition

that is to come. What I would say is first of all the reason that we have

a successful record in this country is that our car plants and their

workforces are highly efficient and we shouldn't forget that. I can't

help feeling the Minister being little complacent. Much of the

exporters left for Europe. Would it really makes sense for Peugeot to

continue left-hand drive production outside the EU? The minister doesn't

seem to be answering the questions on Brexit head-on and many of my

constituents are worried about this. Given the thousands of high skilled

jobs in the future and the importance of the risk of them going

and the importance to the economy, what is he going to do to ensure

future EU market access for this and other very important industries? The

head of PSA said today that Brexit offers some opportunities, but she

can have my assurance that I will do everything within my power to make

sure that the terms of trade that we have through negotiations are as

advantageous as possible. After those exchanges on Vauxhall, MPs

turned their attention to the attempt by 21st-century Fox, owned

by Rupert Murdoch, to take over the broadcaster Sky. At the end of last

year Fox and Sky announced they had reached a deal. Rupert Murdoch has

agreed to pay nearly 12 billion to gain full ownership. The Culture

Secretary came to the Commons to up date MPs about hard position on the

bed. I can confirm formal notification for the proposed merger

was lodged with the European Commission on Friday to March. I, on

Friday, wrote to the parties to inform them that I am minded to

issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believe there

are public interest considerations, that may be relevant to this

proposed merger that warrant further investigation. She said she was

concerned about media plurality. My concern is the merger will bring

under common of increased control a number of significant News and News

Corporation's newspapers. As a result I have told parties I am

minded to ask for a report from off, the impact of the merger on media

plurality before considering the matter further. She also said she

had concerns about broadcasting standards. I am concerned about the

number of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st-century Fox as

well as the behaviour and corporate governance failures of News

Corporation in the past. In light of those matters I am minded to

intervene on these grounds and to ask of com to investigate them

further. Robert Murdoch attempted to take over Sky five years ago but it

was derailed by the outcry over phone hacking at one of his

newspapers. The company names may have changed since the previous bed

for sky was withdrawn in 2011 but we are still dealing with media

plurality, misconduct and the Murdochs. The Secretary of State has

said that she is minded to intervene first on media plurality grounds.

The bed would put an even greater amount of media power in the UK in

the hands of the Murdoch family. It makes the Murdoch empire even

better. We might call at Empire 2.0. The most troubling issues raised are

not about the content of James Martin's programming but about the

content of his character. The Secretary of State has rightly

referred to feel years of corporate governance during the phone hacking

scandal but it is not clear that these failings all strictly speaking

under the heading broadcasting standards, even though they are

central to whether this merger should be approved. The measure is

likely to increase the influence of report Murdoch and his family on the

media in the UK, and Fox already have a controlling interest in Sky.

News Corporation runs newspapers throughout UK and radio stations. At

a time when smaller titles are struggling with poor circulation

numbers, and established newspapers are having to rethink their business

models to survive, giving yet more power to the already dominant media

giant seems counterintuitive. What I want to ask is whether she will be

certain not to involve herself in the socialist witchhunt against

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, Fox News, which has done so much,

both through newspapers publishing and through the launch of Sky News,

to increase plurality in the media in this country, a wonderfully

successful company that should not be persecuted because the left

doesn't like it. We already know that under James and report

Murdoch's readership, the companies they controlled bride and bullied

their way around British politics. They poison the well of British

political engagement. They used anti-competitive practices at every

possible turn to try to destroy competitors and they made it

impossible for media diversity to flourish in this country, so why on

earth would anybody think they were fit and proper people to take over?

They'd only excuse, when they like their way through evidence in

parliament, was that their company was far too big for them to possibly

know what was going on in some outpost in the United Kingdom? That

doesn't suggest they would be any good at running this now. The

honourable gentleman has been on the record on several occasions on his

views on these matters and I am sure his points will be heard. Last week,

the House of Lords faulted for the EU citizens to be given a guaranteed

right to stay in the UK. Regardless of Brexit negotiations, and on

Sunday, the Commons committee on exiting the EU also declare the

government should get people from other EU countries a legal like to

remain. The government is resisting such a move but at question Time

some MPs apply further pressure. We can't even the port convicted

criminals. The reality is that even if we wanted to, which we don't, we

are not going to deport a single EU national. It seems to me we might as

well acknowledge this fact now while reserving the right, if in the

extremely unlikely possibility of our EU partners reporting in the UK

citizens, which they want, we can change our minds, but let's at least

reassure these people know. My honourable friend makes a very

feared observation about the reality of the situation. I would however

point out to him that as he seeks the assurance uncertainty that the

EU citizens want, I see could also for the UK citizens and other parts

of the European Union, because it is a priority. The Prime Minister has

said she will move onto that as soon as negotiations begin. The Home

Secretary talks about reciprocal arrangements but when she gets round

to reading the report, she will see that representatives of UK citizens

living abroad, to a man and woman, gave evidence to the committee that

they want the British government to give a unilateral agreement to EU

citizens living here because they think it will benefit them. Will she

listen to the voice of UK citizens abroad and get that unilateral

guarantee? There are over 1 million living in the European Union. They

are not represented by the groups who gave evidence at the Brexit

committee. I cared about every one of those and I repeat that I think

it is incumbent upon this government to protect their possession as we

protect EU citizens. You are watching Monday in Parliament.

The sessions are being made to quickly and money is being wasted.

That was the consensus of witnesses to the work and pensions committee

which is looking at how outsourced companies are assessing people for

personal independence payment. It is a benefit paid to people with

disabilities. It was prompted by government plans to restrict the

eligibility criteria. Currently the DWP are using policy. Their policies

are continuously harming people and every time I approach the DWP in

individual cases, our policy is this, I am then taken to tribunal.

The policies are absolutely blown out the window. Until they start

adhering to their own guidelines, adds to the letter of the law, which

each tribunal represents, to prevent miscarriages of justice, this is

never going to be conducive. I don't think it is the worst part of the

process but it is where it says please provide contact details for

your health care professionals, the impression is given to claimants

that the DWP will contact those health care professionals and get

evidence, and in all the cases we have worked on we have never seen a

case where the assessment provider has actually requested evidence from

the health care professionals. The committee chair suggested there was

an element of self selection going on. One thing when somebody comes to

my surgery, nobody says actually this is working really well. It is

not working well. It is impossible that the government does sometimes

check up on those health professionals but they are not the

people who come to us or to you. Because it went well in the proper

decision was made. I can see I went for the very first time to an

assessment last week and there was a combination of both mental and

physical disabilities, it was somebody who was previously on

disability living allowance. They thought they had it for life but

unfortunately they were at two years too young for that, but I have to

say that the examination was really good. I went there thinking it was

going to be absolutely appalling but I was surprised how they took two

hours and there was also a physical examination, because one of the

issues we have is that when we see the appeal papers comes through,

there is a very detailed muscular skeletal report and it says this

person can move their arms 50, 60 degrees or whatever, and people tell

us there is no examination, it doesn't happen. We have challenged

them about that, and Atos have said that the best of the observation is

that it is a casual observation, which is not an examination that can

give you such specific results. We checked about it with the local

surgeon and they said it would be impossible to actually get that

level of detail unless it was a guided and instructed formal

examination. We need a place in the system that

requires the DWP to look at a decision. Before, you would get

appeal papers which was DWP looking at their decision. Mandatory

consideration gave us some hope that stage of the process would be given

more time and attention, but on the ground that's not consistent. We

don't see when it's successful, we see when it goes wrong, but I would

say it goes wrong too often. We go to appeals regularly. What's really

frustrating is that the DWP have the right to send a presenting officer.

We never see them. There were announcements made in Parliament and

we saw somebody wants the next day. I honestly think that if the DWP

observed the tribunal 's, and had to some way justify their decisions,

they would feed that back up the line and we may get better quality

decisions. The government has called on employers to look at their dress

codes to make sure they don't discriminate against women. It

follows a petition calling for a ban on firms making women wear high

heels at work. 15,000 people signed the petition set up by Nicola Thorpe

after she was sent home for refusing to wear high heels. MPs heard

similar stories from hundreds of women. We found attitudes that

belonged more, I was going to say in the 1950s, but probably the 1850s

might be more accurate, fan in the 21st-century. Women, especially

young women in vulnerable employment, were exported at work.

Threatened with dismissal if they complained. They were forced to bear

pain all day, or to wear clothing that was totally unsuitable for the

tasks they were asked to perform, or to dress in no way that they felt

sexualised their appearance and was demeaning. It was time for action.

We are calling on the government to start a campaign particularly

targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, like in

hospitality, to inform both employees of their rights and

employers of their obligations. I recognise that some women will

choose to wear high heels of their own volition and I will not

criticise them. We should be free to wear whatever we like. What I cannot

tolerate is employers trying to force women into an ideal of what

constitutes professionalism or power dressing by insisting that

particular items such as cripplingly high heels must be worn. The site of

a woman in flat shoes does not usually send me reaching for the

smelling salts. I imagine that clients coming to meetings will be

spectacularly unbothered by the heel height of anyone in attendance and

rather more focused on the business at hand. I must of course their

meeting is being held in the 1970s. Ahead of International Women's Day

on Wednesday, every member of this house should be doing their utmost

to hear directly from women and understand what it is they

experience. When we do hear from women, it's not enough just to

recognise their experiences of sexism and... Women have a choice on

whether to wear high heels or not. I'm five foot ten so I've never

needed a few extra inches. Whether they wear high heels or not should

be up to them, not to some outdated, dodgy 1970s workplace ticked that.

Employers, she said, it should review dress codes. The government

utterly condemns such dress requirements whether Fx is

discriminatory. We support the existing legislation that affects

men and women. It's clear that this legislation must be more widely

understood and it should be better in forced. A joint committee of MPs

and peers has questioned the Home Secretary about who is responsible

for cyber security. Members of the National Security strategy committee

said the lines of accountability were not clear. All ministries must

be facing up to the threat from cyber, as we've seen in the examples

in the Baltics. The traffic lights went out first and so on. Everyone

must be affected. Can you advise us which minister we ought to call to

give evidence to this committee on the whole question of cyber

security. At risk of volunteering myself for another session, I also

have strong interest in cyber from a Homeland security point of view,

particularly through the National Crime Agency that does a lot of work

on the dark web to track organised crime. The answer is that it does

have a lot of ministerial cover because it is an area that crosses

over to so many different departments, as you rightly said,

culture, media and sport through the Digital agenda, the Chancellor

through the prosperity agenda, and the Cabinet Office, who are

coordinating it. The Chancellor does chaired the subcommittee, but I

think I would humbly suggest that depending on where your focus is

going to be, because it covers so many different areas, defence,

organised crime, sexual exploitation, digital element, I

would focus on the different ministers responsibilities and

perhaps everybody could have the opportunity. I produced the most

cyber strategy in 2008 and most people couldn't spell cyber. I had

difficulty in getting some departments to accept they would

even be a cyber strategy. When the cyber strategy came out, I was made

cyber security minister. I hear what you say about working out which area

we are interested in, but bearing in mind the all embracing nature of

cyber now, it seems there should be a minister who sees their role is

absolutely making sure this is co-ordinated across to parliaments.

It is a crowded place in terms of different ministerial

responsibilities and it is a reasonable suggest you're making.

It's something that perhaps a number of us can reflect on. The

implications on Brexit of various aspects of life are being thoroughly

aired, but here's one possible ramifications you probably hadn't

thought of yet. Will we need more allotments after Brexit? The private

landowners are often well placed to make land available for allotments.

Would he encourage Defra to promote discussions between councillors and

the NFU and other representatives of landowners to see if they can

promote such private provision? My noble friend makes an important

point. Haven't spoken with the National allotment Society, they are

discussing and bringing to fruition a plan with British Telecom making

available a lot of land that has previously been disused telephone

exchanges. 1200 will be used for allotments. I take on board what the

noble Mordt has said and Echo it. 100 years ago last month, the

Germans cleared unrestricted U-boat action on this nation and almost

starved us to death and allotments became very important. Whilst

allotments are wonderful things, does the Minister not feel that

protecting our merchant fishing with enough warships might be more

important? My Lords, it's like around of Mornington Crescent. He

always succeeds in bringing it in. I agree about the importance of

allotments, not just for a healthier lifestyles, but ensuring we have

appropriate food supplies. Once we've left the European Union, we

will probably have to grow a lot more of our own food. Therefore we

will need many many more allotments, in which case we need to look at the

law again. Can he tell me whether the Department for exiting the EU

has this on its agenda? My lords, as I've indicated in relation to an

earlier response to the noble Lord, Lord West, growing our own food is

of importance anyway. I don't know if we are looking at this through

the Department of exceeding the EU, but it is of extreme importance, as

are all the other benefits from allotments and why they are so

important. More allotments, one of the more offbeat predictions about

life after Brexit. That's it from Monday in Parliament. Keith

McDougall will be here for the rest of the week. From me, Christina

Cooper, goodbye.