:00:00. > :00:00.Hello, and welcome to Monday in Parliament,
:00:00. > :00:00.our look at the day in Westminster.
:00:00. > :00:09.The Energy Secretary promises an investigation,
:00:10. > :00:13.after a nuclear clean-up contract ends early and ?100 million
:00:14. > :00:19.with significant financial consequences.
:00:20. > :00:23.And I am determined that the lessons to be learned should be exposed
:00:24. > :00:26.and understood, that those responsible should be held
:00:27. > :00:28.to account and that it should never happen again.
:00:29. > :00:31.Technology companies are asked how they see themselves assisting
:00:32. > :00:44.What's more important, privacy or protection? I don't think there's
:00:45. > :00:45.necessarily can either/ or answer. I suppose the response is that we want
:00:46. > :00:46.both of them. And A Labour MP calls
:00:47. > :00:48.for a suspension on hunting with hounds because of concerns over
:00:49. > :00:50.Bovine TB. But first, Energy Secretary
:00:51. > :00:52.Greg Clark has promised lessons will be learned,
:00:53. > :00:55.as he told the Commons details of how a multi-billion pound
:00:56. > :00:58.contract to decommission Magnox nuclear power sites has
:00:59. > :01:01.to be scrapped. The tender process for the jobs
:01:02. > :01:05.was described as "flawed" and ?100 million has been paid out
:01:06. > :01:09.in compensation and costs. The Shadow Energy Secretary,
:01:10. > :01:11.Rebecca Long-Bailey, put down an urgent question,
:01:12. > :01:14.which summoned Mr Clark The inquiry will take
:01:15. > :01:19.a cradle to grave approach, beginning with the NDA's
:01:20. > :01:21.procurement and ending The inquiry will set out the lessons
:01:22. > :01:26.learnt and recommend any further action it sees fit,
:01:27. > :01:30.including any disciplinary investigations of proceedings
:01:31. > :01:34.that may be appropriate. The inquiry will report jointly
:01:35. > :01:37.to me and the Cabinet Secretary and the report will be
:01:38. > :01:40.available to this house and the Mr Speaker, this was
:01:41. > :01:46.a defective procurement, with significant
:01:47. > :01:48.financial consequences. And I am determined that the lessons
:01:49. > :01:53.to be learned should be exposed and understood, that those
:01:54. > :01:57.responsible should properly held to account and that it should
:01:58. > :01:58.never happen again. The Shadow Energy Secretary
:01:59. > :02:00.condemned the conduct of the Nuclear Decomissioning
:02:01. > :02:03.Authority, or NDA. Two other companies had taken
:02:04. > :02:06.the government to court over the way The judgement confirmed that the NDA
:02:07. > :02:21.had not acted properly in the tender process
:02:22. > :02:23.and that it was acutely aware that an unsuccessful
:02:24. > :02:26.bidder may challenge the outcome of The court also stated that the NDA
:02:27. > :02:32.had fudged the evaluation, to What is more worrying
:02:33. > :02:35.is that the judge also confirmed that the NDA also
:02:36. > :02:38.attempted to get rid of information which might have been
:02:39. > :02:40.detrimental to it. That included reference
:02:41. > :02:47.to shredding notes. Given the serious nature
:02:48. > :02:50.of the judgement, will the Secretary of State assure the house
:02:51. > :02:52.there will be full public disclosure of investigations
:02:53. > :02:54.and a public hearing? Does the secretary also agree
:02:55. > :02:56.that the future operation of the NDA has been called into
:02:57. > :03:08.question as a result of this case? She raises some important questions
:03:09. > :03:13.about the procurement. That is exactly why it seems to me we have
:03:14. > :03:16.to have an independent figure, independent of government and
:03:17. > :03:22.independent of the NDA to report to this House, make his report
:03:23. > :03:27.available to this House to me and the Cabinet Secretary, to make sure
:03:28. > :03:34.that things cannot happen again stop if there is fault and an error has
:03:35. > :03:37.been made, then the recommendation of disciplinary action can follow
:03:38. > :03:52.from that. MRI double friend join me in
:03:53. > :03:54.thanking the workforce? Will he also listen to their real concerns about
:03:55. > :03:59.the effect on their pension entitlements with certain changes
:04:00. > :04:15.being made regarding the cap on payments?
:04:16. > :04:18.The UK government's nuclear obsession will do nothing to lower
:04:19. > :04:21.the next generation with unprecedented economic,
:04:22. > :04:22.environmental and security instability and risk.
:04:23. > :04:24.The Tories should do the responsible thing and
:04:25. > :04:27.scrap their nuclear obsession in favour of investment in renewable
:04:28. > :04:31.energy and carbon-capture technology.
:04:32. > :04:33.Scottish Renewables recently reported that one in six
:04:34. > :04:36.energy jobs in Scotland is under threat within the next year.
:04:37. > :04:38.Will the government had knowledge that
:04:39. > :04:40.its energy policies have to be reviewed, to allow the Scottish
:04:41. > :04:44.government to continue with its competent and ambitious
:04:45. > :04:50.vision of a prosperous, green future?
:04:51. > :04:53.I think the honourable lady should maybe show more humility here.
:04:54. > :04:54.The Scottish government provided oversight of this
:04:55. > :05:00.procurement as part of the NDA competition programme board.
:05:01. > :05:04.I am sure that the lessons to be learned
:05:05. > :05:11.will be applied by the government in Scotland, as well,
:05:12. > :05:16.Can I ask if the enquiry will be confined to the procurement process
:05:17. > :05:21.Can I ask that other contracts, such as that to decommission Dounreay,
:05:22. > :05:23.essentially awarded to the same consortium that won
:05:24. > :05:29.I think he may have already confirmed this, but could he come
:05:30. > :05:32.from that the enquiry will be broad enough to consider of the governance
:05:33. > :05:35.and management arrangements of the NDA have always been, and will
:05:36. > :05:38.The Energy Secretary said that was the case
:05:39. > :05:43.and the head of the inquiry was free to go where the evidence took him.
:05:44. > :05:46.Cyber security has been brought to the fore following the
:05:47. > :05:48.revelation that the man involved in the Westminster attacks last week
:05:49. > :05:53.used encrypted messaging on his phone just before the killings.
:05:54. > :05:55.This digitally scrambles users' messages in transit,
:05:56. > :06:01.so that even the company running the service cannot see its content.
:06:02. > :06:04.The Home Secretary Amber Rudd has summoned a number of tech companies
:06:05. > :06:07.to a meeting to discuss ways of making sure security officers
:06:08. > :06:12.On Monday, the joint committee on the security strategy asked
:06:13. > :06:17.security experts if the government was right to be,
:06:18. > :06:20.as one put it, bullying those companies.
:06:21. > :06:21.I think it is an interesting question
:06:22. > :06:27.and one which goes way beyond cyber security.
:06:28. > :06:30.I think it is an ethical and moral question.
:06:31. > :06:33.I have been to conferences where questions have been posed to
:06:34. > :06:37.the audience about what is more important - privacy or protection?
:06:38. > :06:41.I don't think this is necessarily an either/or answer.
:06:42. > :06:45.The response is, we want both of them.
:06:46. > :06:48.Sometimes, we want more of one than the other, I guess.
:06:49. > :06:55.That relationship was really driven by the last security threat.
:06:56. > :06:57.In Israel, for example, they are much more willing
:06:58. > :07:02.to sacrifice privacy for security. Are we willing to do that?
:07:03. > :07:06.The view is that the digital marketplace is very fluid.
:07:07. > :07:11.If you ensure WhatsApp or Signal cannot use encrypted messaging,
:07:12. > :07:15.consumers will move to another platform.
:07:16. > :07:18.Without wishing to scaremonger, what is the
:07:19. > :07:21.worst case scenario for a cyber attack on this country
:07:22. > :07:29.You can see a likely scenario, where our ability for
:07:30. > :07:41.for our health systems, our electricity,
:07:42. > :07:42.our critical national infrastructure to function could
:07:43. > :07:46.Interestingly, many of the adversaries who might
:07:47. > :07:52.want to do that up until now, there are other
:07:53. > :07:55.geopolitical bounds on them which may cause them not to
:07:56. > :07:59.But as capability becomes more and more accessible,
:08:00. > :08:02.then I think we could see criminals and terrorists becoming more capable
:08:03. > :08:05.and then you have less of the diplomatic and political
:08:06. > :08:12.The problem is you cannot make policy based
:08:13. > :08:16.You have to make policy based on probability and what is most
:08:17. > :08:19.Aggressors have had this technology for over 30 years.
:08:20. > :08:21.They have generally been restrained from using it
:08:22. > :08:27.Terrorists are not so restrained, but they do not
:08:28. > :08:30.necessarily have the capabilities of a nation state.
:08:31. > :08:39.There are real differences between who the
:08:40. > :08:42.aggresso is, what is the target and what are the goals?
:08:43. > :08:44.The thing we need to worry about is a general
:08:45. > :08:46.societal programme to promote resiliency within the state to
:08:47. > :08:51.The probability of a real major cyber attack is probably more likely
:08:52. > :08:53.in the context of a major war with Russia or China.
:08:54. > :08:55.That is not necessarily on the table.
:08:56. > :08:58.That is really something out of the imagination.
:08:59. > :09:00.And it is not how we should really govern.
:09:01. > :09:03.We should govern based on what is likely to happen.
:09:04. > :09:11.The prospect of our TVs being a Trojan horse, to spy on us.
:09:12. > :09:22.It will be a thing. You are seeing smart meters and other benefits. Now
:09:23. > :09:29.that your boiler can report that it is starting to degrading
:09:30. > :09:34.performance, so with the engineer comes out, they replace the part
:09:35. > :09:37.proactively, those are the upsides that company 's will see from the
:09:38. > :09:42.Internet of things. Autonomous vehicles, again we are seeing a
:09:43. > :09:46.proliferation of these. All of these functionalities. We have to accept
:09:47. > :09:50.that our lives and if a structure and cities, in our buildings, will
:09:51. > :09:55.be connected to the Internet for telemetry purposes at the braid
:09:56. > :09:58.lease. Consumers go out and buy these devices and they buy them
:09:59. > :10:05.based upon their functionality, not based upon the security that should
:10:06. > :10:08.be built into them. What we have is a disconnect. You have manufacturers
:10:09. > :10:12.that are trying to produce something as quickly and cost effectively as
:10:13. > :10:17.they can. You have users that Karabakh functionality and security
:10:18. > :10:21.as an afterthought. So what you see is the risk is passed on from the
:10:22. > :10:26.manufacturer to the consumer. One of the things we as an industry and
:10:27. > :10:32.government need to look at is to work out how we can manage that
:10:33. > :10:33.risk. The Work Pensions Secretary
:10:34. > :10:36.has promised to look at cases raised by MPs over
:10:37. > :10:39.Personal Independence Payments claimants having their
:10:40. > :10:40.claims turned down. In one case, because the person
:10:41. > :10:43.was in hospital and by MPs in another, because the claimant
:10:44. > :10:46.was told the payment was not meant for people suffering
:10:47. > :10:47.from mental illness. At Work Pension Questions,
:10:48. > :10:50.the quertion of women born in the 1950s facing hardship
:10:51. > :10:52.because oif a delay in claiming But the minister said there would be
:10:53. > :11:08.no concessions for the Former Sergeant William Bradley, who
:11:09. > :11:14.is one of my constituents, developed severe PTSD and depression after the
:11:15. > :11:20.Gulf War. He was discharged from the Army. Having been on the enhance PIP
:11:21. > :11:25.rate, he was cut to the lower rate last year. It is now been removed
:11:26. > :11:29.completely. The reply from the hotline was that someone with mental
:11:30. > :11:34.health issues can work, and this is a benefit for people with severe
:11:35. > :11:39.physical disabilities. What the honourable lady has told me has
:11:40. > :11:44.happened is truly shocking. I would be incredibly surprised if somebody
:11:45. > :11:49.manning that hotline said those things to the honourable lady. I
:11:50. > :11:55.have no reason, I'm not saying I doubt her story, but I would like to
:11:56. > :12:00.know that and find out the exact time that that conversation took
:12:01. > :12:02.place. That is quite wrong. Last week, I had to deal with a
:12:03. > :12:07.constituent whose benefits were stopped because she missed an
:12:08. > :12:11.appointment to be assessed for PIP. She missed that because she was an
:12:12. > :12:17.inpatient in-hospital in Aberdeen. Even after evidence of that was
:12:18. > :12:19.exhibited to the minister's Department, they twice refused to
:12:20. > :12:24.reinstate her benefits because they said they had done nothing
:12:25. > :12:31.procedurally wrong. Is the Minister content that that is how the system
:12:32. > :12:36.is supposed to work rest and muck? He will know that is not Howard is
:12:37. > :12:40.supposed to work. If there is a reasonable reason why someone has
:12:41. > :12:43.not attended an appointment, then that should not count against them.
:12:44. > :12:53.I would be quite happy to look at the honour roll polls -- honourable
:12:54. > :12:57.gentleman's case. One of the recommendations came out of the
:12:58. > :13:01.select committee talked about allowing the women the chance to
:13:02. > :13:07.claim their pensions early, at a reduced rate. That is cost neutral
:13:08. > :13:11.and fits in other areas where other pensioners have been able to take
:13:12. > :13:17.their pensions at a reduced rate. The proposal is not cost neutral, I
:13:18. > :13:20.must make that clear. It is impractical and it possible to do in
:13:21. > :13:30.the time concerned. I have made it clear that the transitional issues
:13:31. > :13:38.are all that will be provided. What was the minimum notice facing those
:13:39. > :13:52.with the changing age? You two acts apartment that where these changes
:13:53. > :13:58.came in. I would like to make it clear that after the 1995 one, for
:13:59. > :14:03.18 months, it was the maximum time for change since that Bill.
:14:04. > :14:09.You're watching Monday in Parliament, with me, Joanna Shinn.
:14:10. > :14:13.A Labour MP has suggested that hunting should be suspended
:14:14. > :14:19.the scale of bovine tuberculosis among fox hounds.
:14:20. > :14:21.Paul Flynn said there was a substantial danger
:14:22. > :14:24.He was speaking in a Westminster Hall debate
:14:25. > :14:26.on a petition signed by more than 100,000 people,
:14:27. > :14:30.calling for an end to the badger cull.
:14:31. > :14:34.Mr Flynn said the Kimblewick Hunt had had to put down 25 hounds
:14:35. > :14:39.after they contracted the disease and another 120 were tested.
:14:40. > :14:43.The danger does seem to be a very substantial one.
:14:44. > :14:50.I believe that there is evidence here for a new investigation
:14:51. > :14:56.into the prevalence of bovine TB among foxhounds,
:14:57. > :15:00.and a case for saying that hunting should be suspended.
:15:01. > :15:05.I would urge my honourable friend to keep on with these trial areas.
:15:06. > :15:07.That is what my farming constituents want.
:15:08. > :15:13.The proof will be in the pudding, when the results are evaluated.
:15:14. > :15:17.But anecdotally, so far, they believe that they work.
:15:18. > :15:20.Culling, as practised in the last four years,
:15:21. > :15:32.It has no basis in science, as the science has been distorted,
:15:33. > :15:35.then twisted and then, in the end, utterly abandoned.
:15:36. > :15:37.The very least the Government could do is furnish Parliament
:15:38. > :15:41.with a full evaluation of the impact of culling in the two pilot areas,
:15:42. > :15:44.West Gloucestershire and West Somerset,
:15:45. > :15:47.where four years of culling are now complete.
:15:48. > :15:51.The Minister, back in the debate in September 2016,
:15:52. > :15:57.about whether or not an evaluation would be commissioned.
:15:58. > :16:03.But it is hard to imagine that this policy can do anything other
:16:04. > :16:09.than lose the last desperate shreds of its credibility.
:16:10. > :16:24.If it worked, if it eliminated TB in badges and in cattle, then I could
:16:25. > :16:27.probably live with the fact that it was necessary because in the long
:16:28. > :16:34.run it would be the kindest thing to do. But we don't know how many of
:16:35. > :16:38.these 15,000 sort of badges have even had TB, because they haven't
:16:39. > :16:45.been tested. So where was the science in that? We don't know
:16:46. > :16:49.whether it's cattle giving him a macro to badgers, or vice versa, or
:16:50. > :16:55.both, because that hasn't been proven. I would not sanction this
:16:56. > :16:58.cal unless it was necessary to combat this terrible disease and the
:16:59. > :17:02.advice we have from chief veterinary officers is clear, that we cannot
:17:03. > :17:05.eradicate this disease unless we also tackle the reservoir of the
:17:06. > :17:12.disease in the wildlife population, and that is, while contentious, it
:17:13. > :17:16.is the right policy, and sometimes you have to do the right policy even
:17:17. > :17:23.if it is not popular. The honourable gentleman for Newport West raised
:17:24. > :17:27.the issue of the Candlewick hunt and dogs, and I would say this and that
:17:28. > :17:31.veterinary advice is clear, that dogs are not a major contributor to
:17:32. > :17:36.the spread of the disease, incidence of TB in dogs is rare, we do because
:17:37. > :17:43.we get incidence of in dogs and cats, and we recently in three years
:17:44. > :17:47.had a outbreak in cats, but this is not a key contributor but in the
:17:48. > :17:51.case of the Candlewick hunt I can tell him that an epidemiological
:17:52. > :17:54.investigation into the incident is under and until this is completed it
:17:55. > :17:56.would be wrong since stagnate. The Government
:17:57. > :17:58.has been defeated in the Lords over financial support for students
:17:59. > :18:00.undertaking apprenticeships. The defeat came
:18:01. > :18:02.during detailed debate on the Government's Technical
:18:03. > :18:03.and Further Education Bill, which aims to boost high-quality
:18:04. > :18:05.technical education. Labour's spokesman, Lord Watson,
:18:06. > :18:07.accused ministers of treating apprentices
:18:08. > :18:08.like "second-class citizens" compared to students
:18:09. > :18:23.in "approved education or training". Yet in addition to the ineligible to
:18:24. > :18:28.learn childcare grant unlike further education students, some miss out on
:18:29. > :18:33.cancer that exemptions and student care packages, and because
:18:34. > :18:36.apprenticeships are not classed as approved education or training by
:18:37. > :18:40.the Department for Work and Pensions. The apprentices must spend
:18:41. > :18:44.at least 20% of their contracted work hours off the job or at least
:18:45. > :18:49.will do after the 1st of April, which means that the college with a
:18:50. > :18:53.training provider. What does an apprentice in supposedly do in such
:18:54. > :18:55.situations if he or she is not receiving approved education or
:18:56. > :19:01.training course to mark these families could lose out thousands of
:19:02. > :19:02.pounds a year in child benefit. Families receiving universal credit
:19:03. > :19:03.could lose more than ?3000. A Lib Dem peer said
:19:04. > :19:18.parents were losing crucial support. When that happens, there are
:19:19. > :19:22.financial support goes, so that is a disincentive to actually carry on an
:19:23. > :19:26.apprenticeship. Now, there is evidence to show that quite a number
:19:27. > :19:31.of students because of this disincentive haven't taken that
:19:32. > :19:36.opportunity, and I think this amendment will help to ensure that
:19:37. > :19:39.we protect the very people we want is to encourage to take on
:19:40. > :19:45.apprenticeships. I do not think it is correct to being on an
:19:46. > :19:48.apprenticeship, to being an higher education where it's due and is
:19:49. > :19:51.making a substantial investment in their education, and has appropriate
:19:52. > :19:56.access to student finance apprenticeships by contrast are real
:19:57. > :20:03.jobs, and those undertaking them are employees who earn a wage and
:20:04. > :20:05.students are treated as such by the benefit system, and although
:20:06. > :20:09.apprentices spend generally a fifth of their time in training, it is
:20:10. > :20:13.part of the minimum wage regulations that they are paid whilst
:20:14. > :20:17.undertaking that training, so I can't share the noble Lords's
:20:18. > :20:21.suggestion that while they are doing a training this equates to being in
:20:22. > :20:23.higher education because they are still being paid.
:20:24. > :20:27.But peers voted by 244 to 190, majority 54, for the proposal
:20:28. > :20:29.ensuring the parents of young apprentices would still qualify for
:20:30. > :20:35.The Government is likely to try to overturn the decision
:20:36. > :20:37.when the legislation returns to the Commons.
:20:38. > :20:40.Concerns have been raised in the Lords about a government
:20:41. > :20:45.experiment using technology behind the virtual currency, Bitcoin.
:20:46. > :20:48.A small number of benefit claimants taking part in a trial
:20:49. > :20:51.to help them better manage their money.
:20:52. > :20:53.But critics fear sensitive data could be accessed
:20:54. > :21:06.The initial independent assessment of the small-scale trial has been
:21:07. > :21:09.positive. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to work with
:21:10. > :21:13.the industry to explore a new and innovative products such as this
:21:14. > :21:16.which helps the potential to support people with their personal budgeting
:21:17. > :21:20.and reduce the overall cost of welfare administration. My Lords,
:21:21. > :21:25.would my noble friend agreed that initial findings offer real
:21:26. > :21:29.potential in this area not least in greatly empowering the relationship
:21:30. > :21:33.between benefit recipients and a government, while at the same time
:21:34. > :21:38.the potential to realise significant savings for the taxpayer. To this
:21:39. > :21:42.and we urge noble colleagues in the department to push ahead with a
:21:43. > :21:47.full-scale trial to see how we can fully deployed this technology, not
:21:48. > :21:52.only DWP, but across government? Certainly we want to look very
:21:53. > :21:56.carefully at this particular trial. It was a very small trial, only
:21:57. > :21:59.involving some 20 to 30 people. It is more I think what was termed a
:22:00. > :22:04.proof of concept rather than a trial full stop it has certainly produced
:22:05. > :22:08.encouraging results and we would like to look at those in due course.
:22:09. > :22:13.Concerns have been raised including I understand members of the
:22:14. > :22:19.government digital services, that this technology could be used in
:22:20. > :22:22.future to my daughter or even control Social Security claimant
:22:23. > :22:28.benefits spending. Can he give a categorical assurance that this will
:22:29. > :22:32.not happen in the interest of claimant's privacy and freedom of
:22:33. > :22:36.choice? I can give the noble Baroness that categorical assurance.
:22:37. > :22:41.The Department for Work and Pensions has absolutely no access to any
:22:42. > :22:49.claimant information, will have no access to claimant information, in
:22:50. > :22:52.the future, in further trials. This initiative however welcome is 1's
:22:53. > :22:56.very small step in tackling the much larger problem of financial
:22:57. > :22:59.exclusion, and could the Minister give me assurance that the dominant
:23:00. > :23:01.will carefully consider the recommendations of the select
:23:02. > :23:05.committee on financial exclusion who just bought was published on
:23:06. > :23:08.Saturday and I have the privilege of sharing that is missing.
:23:09. > :23:15.Particularly those that ensure that fewer people are on banked in the
:23:16. > :23:20.first place. I was wondering whether she would like to get into highlight
:23:21. > :23:27.that report on Saturday. I haven't yet had the opportunity, only having
:23:28. > :23:30.come out recently beyond the embargo until Friday, I haven't had the
:23:31. > :23:37.opportunity to read it, I have glanced, but I can give an assurance
:23:38. > :23:40.to the noble Baroness the and will look and give it the opportunity.
:23:41. > :23:51.Will trade as signing up to this scheme be able to offer discounts to
:23:52. > :23:57.people on the skin? I thought the next try was for 1000 people. I
:23:58. > :24:06.love, there is no trial planned,. Dealing purely in cash means that
:24:07. > :24:08.certain people find life more expensive, and people prefer to pay
:24:09. > :24:09.by other more advanced means at times.
:24:10. > :24:10.A Conservative wondered if there were wider uses
:24:11. > :24:18.The block chain technology in general has abnegation is far beyond
:24:19. > :24:22.this trial, indeed across government and society, and is the government
:24:23. > :24:27.studying the phenomenon to check it where it might be useful? My noble
:24:28. > :24:30.friend is absolutely right, there are very interesting ideas that come
:24:31. > :24:34.from block chain and other things. I don't want to expand further on that
:24:35. > :24:40.in this particular question. We are dealing just with a small-scale
:24:41. > :24:43.trial here signed to make life here easier for certain benefit
:24:44. > :24:48.claimants. Make it easier for them to manage their money. My noble
:24:49. > :24:52.friend asked about the need for an ethical framework, underpinning the
:24:53. > :24:57.use of the sort of technology. Obviously the government's decided
:24:58. > :25:01.to go ahead with the trial in absence of such remote but does the
:25:02. > :25:02.government agree that such a framework is needed?
:25:03. > :25:04.Lord Henley said during the recent trial,
:25:05. > :25:06.that the Department for Work and Pensions
:25:07. > :25:08.could not see how their money was spent.
:25:09. > :25:13.Kristina Cooper's here for the rest of the week.