20/11/2017 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to our look back

at the day here at Westminster.

Coming up: The humanitarian

situation in Yemen could get worse,

the Foreign Office minister warns.

Concerns are raised

about the company that

administers student loans.

And during a debate

on the TV licence

a bit of appreciation

for one BBC channel.

The BBC Parliament channel, of

course, is worth an entire licence

fee on its own!

But first, the dire situation

in Yemen could get immeasurably

worse, according to the Foreign

Office.

The Saudi-led coalition,

which is supporting the Yemeni

government in its war with the rebel

Houthi movement, has

tightened its blockade of Yemen's

borders in response to

a ballistic missile attack on the

Saudi capital, Riyadh.

It's reported that water

and sewerage systems in major cities

have stopped working because fuel

is so scarce.

The war in Yemen has gone

on for two years

with nearly

9,000 people killed.

Over 20 million people are in need

of humanitarian assistance

and the conflict has led

to a cholera outbreak.

In the Commons, the minister set out

the latest situation.

We understand why the Saudi-led

coalition felt obliged

to temporarily close Yemen's ports

and airports in order

to strengthen enforcement

of the UN mandated arms embargo.

It is critical that international

efforts to obstruct illicit weapons

flows are strengthened.

But at the same time

it is vital that commercial

and humanitarian supplies of food,

fuel and medicine are able

to reach vulnerable Yemeni people,

particularly in the North,

where 70% of those in need aid.

Even before the current

restrictions, 21 million people

were in need of humanitarian

assistance and 7 million were only

a single step away from famine.

90% of food in Yemen is imported.

Three quarters of that comes

via the ports of Hurgada and Salif.

No other ports in Yemen

have the capacity to

make up the shortfall.

Let me quote this weekend's joint

statement by the world

health programme, the World Food

Programme and Unicef.

They say be tightening

of the blockade, "Is making

an already catastrophic

situation far worse."

They say that supplies the Saudis

are blocking are essential to stave

off disease and starvation and,

without them, untold thousands

of innocent victims will die.

They estimate that if nothing

is done over the coming months,

150,000 already malnourished

children could starve to death.

And they conclude that,

"To deprive this many

from the basic means of survival

is an unconscionable act

and a violation of humanitarian

principles and law."

The Minister of State has already

said he shares those concerns

and is urging the Saudis to open up

humanitarian access,

but at what point will he admit that

strategy isn't working?

At what point will he warn

the Saudis that Britain

will withdraw its support

if they carry on with this blockade,

and at what point do we say

that this is no longer a question

of diplomatic persuasion,

it is a matter of international law?

There is an awful lot

of concentration on the Saudis

and the coalition, very little

attention paid to the activities

of the Houthis and their

supporters and those

who have been involved in human

rights abuses on their side.

It does take two sides.

And the efforts that

the United Kingdom has made both

at the UN and through our ambassador

in Yemen and through the work

going on has been significant,

but I share his concern with him

and agree with him.

We are dangerously complicit in

a policy which is directly promoting

a famine and the collective

punishment of an entire population.

Are we not on the brink, Mr Speaker,

of witnessing in Yemen

a totally preventable,

massive humanitarian catastrophe,

the likes of which we have not

seen in decades?

Save The Children report 150

children in Yemen will die today

and tomorrow and the next day,

until this conflict ends.

Will the Minister tell us

how he will stop this?

Again I come to the last point

of the honourable lady's remarks,

how will this conflict

come to an end?

This conflict will come to an end

when both sides are brought together

by those who make it clear

that there is no military solution

to this and there has to be

a political solution.

Can I express some surprise

that the Minister has been reluctant

about using the word "blockade"?

When the United Nations is warning

fuel will run out in a month,

and when you know that

within a month, 150,000 children,

already malnourished will die,

and Save The Children are saying

that 130 are dying every single day

now, as well as pushing

for the political solution

which he is right is absolutely

necessary, is he giving any

indication at all to Saudi Arabia

that they could be in any way

accountable for the deaths

of what could be millions of people?

Again, I think the term

described is less

material than the impact.

The impact of these

restrictions are very clear.

It has led to what the agencies have

said about running out of food

and fuel and water and it is one

of the reasons why

the United Kingdom has called,

as we did in a statement last week

and again today, for an immediate

lifting of these restrictions,

subject to what we believe

is reasonable controls

by the coalition authorities

to protect themselves.

Now, most students heading off

to university will need to borrow

a great deal of money

to cover their costs.

The Student Loan Company administers

more than £100 billion

in loans held by six million

students and graduates.

But the chief executive

of the company, Steve Lamey,

was suspended in July and then

sacked in November.

Labour's higher education spokesman

Gordon Marsden wanted to know

about reported problems

at the organisation

and the decision to

get rid of Mr Lamey.

Mr Speaker, over the November recess

this announcement was snuck out,

the same day as the Secretary

of State for International

Development resigned.

Since last Monday two articles

have raised questions

about the process in the Times.

Can I ask the Minister why in his

letter to me on 17th of October,

six weeks after I wrote to him

on the SLC, the Minister

referred to the suspension

of the Chief Executive as a neutral

act that did not imply wrongdoing

when he was actually made aware

of the allegations

against Lamey in June,

as his written reply has told me.

Will we also publish the performance

review from the SLC given two

months before the suspension,

where, as the Times says,

Steve Lamey was rated outstanding,

and in that report was the minister

aware at the time that the Jenkins

report on Steve Lamey had concluded

he was making a real and positive

difference to the Student Loan

Company and was a popular

and effective leader

supportive before the decision

was made to sack him.

The lack of proper cooperation

between the SLC and HMRC has

led to significant over

payment of debts.

Can the Minister tell us how many

overpayments there have been over

£10,000 since 2015-16,

and, given that this

is the situation, I have just been

told the government is tacitly

admitting their failure in this area

by saying that from 2019 onwards

the HMRC and SLC will co-operate

on these matters.

However, it doesn't address

the question of Mr Lamey

and the Permanent Secretary

at the HMRC blaming each

other for the issue.

Mr Lamey has claimed already

he asked for real-time updates

and HMRC wouldn't share.

Who is telling the truth?

In addition to these ongoing issues

BBC Panorama raised issues

about private providers

where students have fraudulently

enrolled in courses in order

to claim student loans.

How much money has been paid

to students of private providers

who have subsequently turned out

to be ineligible in

the last few months?

What began Kansans are in place to

reclaim the missing taxpayer money?

He asked about the investigation

that led to the dismissal of Mr

Lamey from his position as chief

executive of the Student Loan

Company. The concerns were brought

to the SLC board in May and to the

attention of the Department for

Education and we learn about this in

May, and I learned about it in me,

as I have just said. In the two

investigations which were

immediately set in motion, to get to

the bottom of the allegations which

the SLC board had received, one was

led by the government internal audit

agency and the other led by Sir Paul

Jenkins, formerly Treasury Solicitor

and head of the government legal

services. They concluded Mr Lamy had

not shown the leadership that would

be expected of someone in that role,

and accordingly, the SLC board took

the decision that he should no

longer continue in that role, and

the Department for Education, as a

consequence of the SLC decision took

the decision to relieve him of his

responsibilities as accounting

officer of the SLC.

MPs then asked

about the problems with the loans

themselves.

The Minister will know

about the value for money inquiry

into universities, but as well as

looking at the management of the

Student Loan Company can he use this

opportunity to look at reducing the

rate of interest rates for students,

which is much higher than many other

countries in the developed world?

Wiki all aspects of the student

finance system under review to

ensure that it is fair and

effective, that it is meeting our

core objectives of removing

financial barriers to access,

funding university system fairly and

sharing the cost of doing so

equitably between individual

students and the general taxpayer.

At a time when graduates pay up to

6.1% in loan interest, student debt

in England has almost trebled to

what it is in Scotland. Does the

Minister not think that whilst SLC

could use a radical shake-up and

reform, his policies could also. The

budget is just round the corner.

While the Minister wants to clear up

the managerial problems why doesn't

he clean up the mess of his policy

and stop saddling English students

with a mouse and orbit around our

necks? Pau I'm not sure that we need

lessons in Scotland on higher

education policies. They are, or a

successive administrations,

resulting in levels of access from

people from disadvantaged

backgrounds that should, be the envy

of members on that bench rather than

a source of criticism of them.

You're watching Monday in Parliament

with me, Georgina Pattinson.

Don't forget, if you want to catch

up with all the day's

news from the Commons,

Lords and Committee rooms online,

you can go to bbc.co.uk/

parliaments,

where you'll find reports

from Westminster, Holyrood

and the European Parliament too.

Now, with the Budget fast

approaching, ministers have faced

renewed demands for increased

spending on the police

and fire services.

The Government is looking

at changing the way money is shared

between police constabularies.

Last week the Labour Leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, used

Prime Minister's Questions to press

Theresa May over police funding.

And Labour kept up the demands

at Home Office questions,

but the subject was initially raised

by a Conservative MP.

Derbyshire has been particularly

badly affected by the current

formula. In the meantime please

assure my local police force that

there will be an inflationary right

in their funding for the year.

I

have spoken directly to both the

Police and Crime Commissioner in

Derbyshire and the chief, to get an

update on the performance of the

service and the demand on it and

that will feed into the review that

I have signalled and that in turn

will feed into the decisions about

the 18-19 funding settlement which

he will not have to wait too long

for.

The Minister wants evidence,

how about the document that every

Chief Constable and PCC and the

country signed up to this month

warning that without the investment,

up to 6000 police officers could be

lost by 2020 and that usable

resources are back a fraction of the

figure the Minister keeps quoting.

If the Minister thinks the UK two

most senior police leaders are

wrong, will he commit today that

there will be no further cost a

police officer numbers during this

Parliament?

I can confirm the

decisions about responding not been

finalised but being done shortly and

an announcement will be make to

their House as part of the draft

grant settlement for 2018-19 in the

usual way. To the report that she's

sites, but there's a report that the

work closely because the Home Office

and the police system do want to

understand and do a proper job on

updating our understanding of the

pressures that the police are under,

which are real.

There was concern too over

Fire Service funding and pay.

The National Audit Office figures

show that 30% of central government

funding has been cut from the Fire

and Rescue Service since 2011. With

a further cut of 20% by 2020, basic

pay for firefighters is nearly £3000

less in real terms than it was in

2010. Isn't it time government stop

hiding behind cash-strapped

authorities and stump up the cash

that these vital public servants

deserve?

I say with respect, there is a

reason why we have fewer in the

country. He talks about a cash

strapped service. He will be aware

that single fire authorities like

his own have had multi-year

settlements and they are part of a

system that is sitting on £616

million of reserves, a number that

has grown by 153% since 2010.

Concerns about strains on the border

after the UK leaves the EU

were raised in a report

by the National Audit Office -

the UK's spending

watchdog - last month.

The report warned of a significant

increase in workload for border

forces following Brexit.

MPs on the Public Accounts Committee

had some questions for senior

representatives from customs

and border teams, about

whether Britain's borders

were ready for Brexit.

Did I just you use save that there

is no evidence to suggest that when

we come out of the EU, if we come

out with or without a deal is

immaterial, they would not be an

increase in freight from non-EU

countries, did a key you say that?

Well, that would be on... On day one

hour assumption would be that we are

resuming the same levels of freight

from the EU and non-EU.

How on earth

can you be planning that in mind?

Isn't the point to come out of

Europe.

I agree with your

proposition that ultimately the aim

is a shift of traits to rest of the

world countries from the EU. What I

was really trying to say is that

from the EU there is no reason to

assume there will be a reduction in

freight is from the EU. There is no

change to the composition of that

freight to the EU, and no change to

the physical risk associated with

that freight. For the container

freight...

I think you are wrong.

I'm just going to have to say, as an

observation, I don't hear any theme

and figure from any of you. It feels

to me that the world will change at

all. I will not hear any dynamic

response to the various scenarios

that might be. Everything I'm

hearing is that it will be the same.

No, no.

We are taking this very

seriously. We have about 85,000

systems. There are white papers

legislation to be done. We are

trying in a controlled way to make

sure that we can advise ministers

that we can get through either April

19 with no Deal, or around two years

in 2021 with a deal.

The Prime

Minister has already recognised they

need a transition period. Others

that will crash out with no Deal.

How is your planning from 1-5, one

not important, five very important,

to have those additional two years

post-2019 to manage our exit and all

the different outlines you have made

this afternoon.

Agyei some very

extended evidence to the Treasury

slick committee, said to be

directing answering your question,

if the Government reaches an

agreement with the EU to implement

the highly streamlined customs

agreement, then the answer to your

question is five. We would need the

two years, that policy change is a

basket of changes, some of which are

the continuance of existing

arrangements. Some take a year, some

take two, some take three. Depending

on the basket of elements that make

up the customs agreement.

I will

answer a slightly different

question...

Perhaps you could answer

the question I asked!

I'm scenario

planning on the basis of a deal and

no Deal transition, that is what

scenario planning as is. I would

give it a four or five in terms of

smooth transition. We can deliver a

much better streamlined and

effective move if we have a

transition period, then we can if

we...

And would we save money by

having that transition period,

rather than trying to achieve

something with no Deal?

Yes, we

would.

Sticking with Brexit -

will British tourists heading

to the airport for a holiday have

trouble getting off the ground

after the UK leaves the EU?

The EU Open Skies agreement

provides consistent rules

for airlines and airports -

and means British holiday-makers

can fly to hundreds

of destinations on the continent.

And the deal between the EU

and the US means airlines located

in the EU or the United States can

fly to any airport in either area.

In the Lords, the Lib Dem peer

Lady Doocey wanted to know

whether the UK's exit

from the agreement would

have an impact on tourism.

My Lords, the airport operator's

Association, and all of the major

United States airlines, have all

said that it is essential to have

new deals in place by spring of next

year. But given the speed of the

Brexit negotiations, that is perhaps

being a little bit optimistic. What

is the Government doing to mitigate

the devastating impact that any

disruption or interruption to

flights is likely to have on to

risen which contributes £127 billion

to the UK economy and provides

employment for 3 million people?

My

Lords, the UK already has 111

bilateral agreements with air

services with other countries and

they will continue after we leave

the EU. But we do understand the

need for early reassurance for

flights to the EU and that will be a

consideration when negotiating our

future relationship. Airline

representatives made clear last

month that they will continue to

sell tickets and are confident that

we will get a good agreement in

place after Brexit.

Can the Minister

guarantee to the House that there

will be no disruption to air traffic

as a result of Brexit in March 2019?

My Lords, the Government recognises

the need for UK air traffic

management arrangements to remain

with the rest of Europe. And

efficient traffic management is a

priority. We are considering or

potential implications for the UK

and working so that there is no

disruption.

Could she tell the House

whether it was possible before 1972

to fly across the Channel? Because I

seem to render doing it when it was

rather easier than now?

I can

confirm that yes it was indeed

possible to fly between the Channel

and we look forward to continue

doing so.

No guarantees were given

in response to the question. And I'm

sure notice has been taken of that

fact. In light of the cancer by the

noble lady at -- answer. Will the

Government at least do what the

aviation industry wants and give a

commitment now to deal with aviation

separately and in advance of the

main negotiations with the EU on

Brexit?

I am afraid I am not to give

that commitment today. It will be of

course a matter for negotiations as

to how sectors will be discussed.

But we do recognise that

traditionally aviation agreements

have been negotiated separately. For

our part we are ready to move on

with these negotiations.

Longer

queues at the airport are likely to

be another exciting bonus Brexit.

Could my good minister please tell

us what plans the Government have

got to deal with the likely increase

of Turing at the airports?

My Lords,

of course we are mindful of this

possibility and we are planning for

the border in order to maintain

security and flow at all ports of

entry and exit. The Department for

Transport is working closely with

the Home Office in order to minimise

delays after Brexit.

Now, Monday afternoon is often used

by MPs to discuss e-petitions -

issues which have proved popular

on the government's website.

This time, it was the TV licence fee

which came under scrutiny.

But there was a bit of support

from a Tory MP

for one BBC channel in particular.

The other petition, to 00239, says

that it is unfair that you need the

licence fee to watch the free view

channels. But the free view channels

include BBC One, BBC Two, DD three,

BBC Four, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC news

channel and BBC Parliament, with of

course the entire licence fee on its

own.

There was criticism

of the BBC from some MPs.

An independent, impartial and fully

accountable public service

broadcaster sounds like a very good

idea. Could we have one please?

Because I am afraid I disagree with

much of what has been said today. We

have £3.8 billion of public finances

going into the BBC. And producing

some very good programmes, and I pay

my licence fee, somewhat

reluctantly, very reluctantly,

because of issues I will come onto

the moment. They produce good

programmes, and they produce some

not so good programmes. But I don't

have a choice.

A recent poll said

that 49% of people are in favour of

funding the BBC through the licence

fee, compared to 27% who want funded

by advertising and 23% who want it

to be a subscription service.

When

you look at the current licence fee

system, you realise they're obvious

flaws. When you look at the

alternatives, you realise that what

we have now is best described as the

least worst option.

I think the

honourable gentleman is right. It is

like what church my church will set

about democracy, it is the Western

to see all the others.

And that's it, but do join

Alicia McCarthy at the same time

tomorrow for another round up

of the day here at Westminster.

For now from me, Georgina

Pattinson, goodbye.