15/01/2018 Monday in Parliament

Hello and Welcome to Monday

in Parliament, our look at the best

of the day in the Commons

and the Lords.

On this programme:

Questions follow the liquidation

of construction firm Carillion.

Candy has been told what the

Government knew about Carillion's

financial health when the awarding

of a £1.4 billion contract for a

chest quite recently. -- HS2.

So where does the crisis

-- HS2.

at Carillion leave the use

of private companies

to run public services?

I think the project has delivered

many projects for Government.

And, how to get the military

to recruit from ethnic minorities?

Not everyone's convinced the Army's

going about things the right way.

The new advertising campaign, rather

less than robust, will be able to

successfully do that with the good

old-fashioned Be the Best.

But first, the Cabinet

Office Minister

David Lidington says

the Government will keep services

going following the

collapse of Carillion.

Early on Monday morning

came the announcement

that the Midlands-based construction

company, that also provides

services for schools,

prisons and hospitals across the UK,

had gone into liquidation,

so threatening thousands of jobs.

Carillion had been losing money

on its large public sector

contracts - its debts are totalling

around £1.5 billion.

In a statement in the Commons,

David Lidington said the Government

would step in to pay employees

and small businesses working

on the company's public contracts.

He said Carillion's shareholders

and lenders would bare the "brunt

of the losses".

It is regrettable Carillion has not

been able to find suitable financing

options with its lenders and I am

disappointed the company has become

insolvent as a result. Taxpayers

should not and will not bail a

private sector company for private

sector bosses or a low rewards for

failure. I understand that members

of the public and particularly

employees of companies in the

Carillion group will have concerns

at this time and the Government is

doing everything possible to

minimise any impact on employees.

Let me declare that all employees

should continue to turn up to work

confident in the knowledge they will

be paid for the public services that

they are providing. Carillion

delivered a range of public services

across health, education, justice,

defence and transport and most

coasters the contracts had been

running successfully. Since its

first profit warning we have been

monitoring and since then had

planned extensively and had robust

contingency plans in place. This was

to protect the public service

delivery.

I have been asking

questions for three months about

Carillion. Why was it apparent to

everyone except the Government that

Carillion was in trouble? The

Transport Secretary in particular

has questions to answer. Can the

Government be told about what --

House be told what the Government

knew when they awarded a £1.4

billion contract recently. For HS2.

Reckless with taxpayers' money, help

is on public services, isn't it time

the Government made way for an

administration which cares and will

exercise due diligence?

If we look

at those Carillion contracts which

are steel, until this morning, still

active, roughly one third, yes, were

awarded by the Conservative

Government. Roughly one third were

awarded by the Coalition Government,

when the honourable member was...

And the other third by Labour

governments in which as the right

honourable gentleman knows he was

actually working in the office of

the then Prime Minister, so I would

suggest that the right honourable

gentleman when he returns to their

subject treat it with the

seriousness that it deserves.

When

bail collapsed at the weekend they

had debts of £900 million and a

pension deficit of £600 million. And

yet year after year after year

Carillion paid dividends out of

their shareholders. After the chief

executive Chris jettisoned after the

profits warning last July he is

still being paid a salary in

excess... Until this coming October.

Will the Government confirmed that

the payments to the former chief

executive.

As of today? Can my right

honourable friend confirm he will

not fall into the labour trap of how

to do with corporate failure, and

the last Labour Government who lets

bank investors pocket profits for

many years but when the sheet hit

the rocks the taxpayer picked up the

bills.

20,000 people across the UK

including employees at sheet hit the

rocks headquarters at risk of using

their jobs, it seems senior

management have changed the rules so

that they can keep hold of their

exorbitant bonuses. Does he think

this is fair and if not what of the

Government going to do about it?

I

can certainly well understand and

appreciate that sense of unfairness

on the part of the honourable lady's

constituents. I think it would be

wrong of me from the dispatch box to

pre-empt the enquiry that the

official receiver will carry out

into the conduct of both present and

previous members of the board of

directors. But I can say to the

honourable lady that the official

receivers not only has power to

investigate but to impose severe

penalties as he finds the conduct

has taken place.

When the Carillion issue

was debated in the Lords,

one Labour peer said his chief

concern centred on smaller companies

caught up in supply chains

to the company.

These companies employ

fewer than ten people.

Given the payment structure

which Carillion adopts,

there are now many

companies in the supply

chain who have completed

the

work but are still

waiting to be paid.

There is a 120 day period

between the completion of work and

the payment for the work done.

And these people, from what has been

said today, seem to have been

forgotten about.

They have done their duty

under the contracts to

Carillion and they have now been

left hanging without any

prospect of payment and any prospect

of getting any kind of money.

It is a serious issue that there may

be circumstances where Carillion is

paid but the money has not filtered

down the supply chain.

I have made enquiries about this.

The priority of the

official receiver is to

maintain continuity of service.

I gather that there is provision

within the resources available to

the official receiver

and the circumstances that the noble

the official receiver

in the circumstances that the noble

Lord has just mentioned for those

payments that have not filtered

through to be made in order

to ensure the continuity of services

provided.

There is of course anger by many of

those working for and with the

company that is the warning signs

were not followed up very quickly by

the Government after their alert in

July. Not least the fact that a

crown representative was not

appointed when good practice and the

ministerial guidelines set it should

not happen.

May I say it is time for

a further independent enquiry into

the Private Finance initiative

process? This idea I think

originally... It came to me when I

was transferred some 30 odd years

ago. My Treasury officials working

on it. I refused to have anything to

do with it.

Will the Minister chavvy

has whether he plans to chair the

investigation? To investigate the

cause of failure in any company but

that will not cover the action of

ministers and ministers have their

fingerprints all over this debacle.

As someone who has worked in the

contraction industry, it was fairly

common knowledge 12 months ago that

Carillion was in considerable

difficulty. I ask the question

whether my noble friend will look at

who is it within Her

Majesty'sGovernment that is there to

keep a watch on these major, major

contracts across departments. It

seems to me that is a question that

does not need to be asked.

-- does

need to be at. Underlining a point

which I certainly take to heart the

method of assessing the financial

viability we have to undertake when

we award, in light of the review.

So has the Carillion case

demonstrated possible risks

when private sector companies

are awarded contracts

to run public services?

At a committee session,

a senior civil servant has been

defending the Government's

use of private firms.

Four years ago John Manzoni

became chief executive

of the Major Projects Authority

in the Cabinet Office.

A Conservative MP took up with him

the case of High Speed 2.

After the contracts were signed,

there were question marks over a

large number of the company signed

up to HS2. I asked on that occasion

whether due diligence had been

carried out on all the countries and

in reality transferring unacceptable

risk to the taxpayer?

Successfully

delivered many projects for

Government.

Through PFI. By the same companies,

good ones and bad points was of the

structure of what we do in that

particular case, the joint venture

of three companies. In particular

for this reason, the risks are

shared, and in this case one company

has said, we will cover this. That

is why we structure it that way.

This is of course a much bigger

debate and of course there are

various better companies and worse

companies, but I think in general

the use of private infrastructure,

this country is actually very good

at building infrastructure through

the private sector and various

financing constructs, delivery

authorities.

There are successful.

The point he makes is right, one of

the things we have learned over the

years, I have certainly learned

space following the G4S saga. Over

the last three format years we

prioritised building the quality of

our commercial profession. Making

sure everyone in it is of the right

standard through an assessment

centre. And just having much more of

a grip, better information about

contracts. And also people are

likely moving over this, the fact is

the team have done weeks and weeks

of contingency planning against the

worst-case scenario, which is what

has happened today. No doubt a bad

outcome for the country but the work

we have done in the commercial

trying to understand across 450

public sector contracts,

understanding what would happen. Ten

years ago, we wouldn't have known

where to start. A total

understanding of why the contracts

are, the ability to actually really

interrogate, learn from each other.

Ten years ago, five years ago, which

are not impossible. I think you have

seen a change in the maturity of

that commercial function, and stays

this remind us why it is so

important.

You're watching our round-up of the

day in the Commons and the Lords.

Still to come.

Are new cycle lanes causing too many

congestion problems for cars,

lorries and vans?

Now, is it well-targeted

advertising?

Or could it be barking

up the wrong tree?

The latest Army recruitment campaign

was unveiled last week.

It's costing £1.5 million

and it's aimed at addressing

concerns that potential soldiers

might have over signing

up to the Army.

"What if I get emotional?".

In the Commons, MPs have given

the new approach a mixed reception.

A Labour MP started the exchanges.

Having a more diverse Armed Forces

clearly add to that effect on this,

but unfortunately, the latest

figures show that the number of

regular personnel has only risen

0.5% since 2015, so what specific

initiatives does the Ministry of

Defence have to improve on this?

Well, the honourable lady will be

aware of the latest advertising

campaign that is going through. She

is right, that if we are to reflect

society, then we must be able to

recruit from right and crossed

society, that includes B AME, and

also women as well. We have got this

target. We hope we will achieve

them.

Speaker, I strongly support

the minister's ambition to encourage

more BME people to join the Armed

Forces, but what has led to this new

campaign which is rather less robust

in my own view then the good

old-fashioned, Be The Best

he will

be aware that the Be The Best

campaign continues, but we must. We

must recruit from a diverse

footprint.

Of course the Armed

Forces should be welcoming to

everybody irrespective of their

gender, race or sexuality, but is it

not best to state this in general

terms, because we are all part of a

minority, I am part of many

minorities in my views, and the

Armed Forces should be

representative, and represent the

whole nation.

They should do, and

that is why, in the time frame of

this Government, we have seen the

number of women, for example, in one

star postings and above, increase

from ten to 20, and it is one that

we have opened up every single role

in the Armed Forces as well.

Tobias Ellwood.

Meanwhile, MPs have urged

the Defence Secretary,

Gavin Williamson, to do more

to protect the armed forces

from further cutbacks.

Included as part of the Government's

wide-ranging National Security

Capabilities Review,

or NSCR, is a study

of current defence spending.

Answering an urgent question,

the Defence Secretary insisted "hard

work" was taking place to ensure

the "right resources" were in place

to combat the threats facing the UK.

I can assure the House that as long

as I am Defence Secretary, we will

develop and sustain the capabilities

necessary to maintain continuous at

the nuclear deterrence, a carrier

force able to strike anywhere on the

globe, and the Armed Forces

necessary to protect the knot at

frantic, protect Europe, and makes

that we continue to work with our

Nato allies. The Prime Minister,

Chancellor and myself will be doing

all we can to insure that we have a

sustainable budget go forward, so

that they can deliver the right

capabilities for our Armed Forces.

Its new threats have intensified,

isn't more money needed, and less of

course, previous conventional

threats of seriously diminished.

Yet, if previous conventional

threats have diminished, why did the

National Security adviser claim to

the defence committee in a letter,

and I quote, because the main

decisions during the 2015 DSR, this

review is not defence focused.

Is it

the case that the defence element of

the review is to be hived off, and

if so, when can we expect the

defence part of the review to be

published? Weasel live in a time of

deep global uncertainty, and the

risks that we face continue to grow

and evolve. Can you confirm that the

review will carry out a thorough,

strategic analysis of those risks,

and make a full assessment of the

capabilities required to deal

effectively with those risks.

We all

recognise on this side of the House

the importance of making sure that

we maintain conventional forces.

Side of the House, we recognise the

fact that we have got to have been

continuous at the nuclear deterrent,

but you cannot have one and not the

other, you have got to make sure

that you have the ability, if we are

in a point of conflict, that there

are deterrence at many levels. That

is why having a robust Armed Forces,

in terms of our Army and Navy and

air force is so incredibly vital.

Gavin Williamson.

"Disastrous traffic management"

in London is leading to increasing

pollution and mental stress

for those living and

working in the capital.

That's the view of a Conservative

member of the House of Lords,

who asked at question-time

what the Government was doing

to try to reduce levels of pollution

from vehicle emissions in London.

Why is pollution still so bad?

According to King's College London

and thousand 400 people died the

year and thousands more suffer lung

diseases caused by traffic

congestion.

Average speed has slowed down

from 12 mph to seven miles per

hour.

Hardly progress.

Would the Minister

agree that disastrous

traffic management is causing not

only pollution but also mental

stress and loss to

for and of business?

Perhaps despite the worthiness,

there is need for better

qualified planners on TFL and local

councils.

My lords, air pollution poses

the biggest environmental

threat to public health

and it is a particular

threat to the elderly,

the young and those with existing

health issues.

My noble friend makes a very

sensible proposal to have a

black cab driver, expert in roads

and routes on the TLF board.

I will certainly pass

that suggestion on to

the new Minister for London.

I know he is looking

forward to working

closely with the mayor on many

issues including how to tackle air

quality.

Will my noble friend herself

meets with some black cab

drivers?

And if she does will she listen very

carefully to what they

say has been the result

of reducing the mains

on our major roads

in

London, caused very largely

by the creation of cycle lanes?

The construction

of bike lanes and bus

lanes and indeed the

pedestrianisation of many roads have

reduced the available space.

Of course, cycle

lanes are welcome to

protect cyclists and encourage

cycling but I do understand that

they have caused increased

congestion, but we do want to

encourage people to cycle.

The reduction of things

that traffic and

travel and means there are more cars

taking longer journeys than ever

before at slower speed and

the evidence is of course that the

internal combustion engine is less

efficient and pollute more at slow

speed particularly

when it is waiting.

Can we have some Government

figures for the evidence of

pollution being greater

than for the bike lanes

and afterwards, because this

is an important issue in future

planning of our cities

in this country?

I am afraid I do not have those

figures to hand. I will write to the

noble Lord.

The Government is being

sued for the third time over the

failure of its plans on air quality

to tackle the issue in the fastest

possible time. The current plan

requires no action in 45 of the

local authorities which have illegal

identified levels of air pollution.

Does the Minister except that every

local authority with an pollution

problems needs to be required to

take urgent action to reduce the

pollution caused by traffic?

I do

agree that every local authority

must do what they can to reduce

pollution caused by traffic, and the

noble lady is right, whilst we meet

the vast majority of targets, we are

one of 17 EU member states that are

not meeting the nitrogen dioxide

limits. The reason for that is the

lower than expected reduction in the

diesel vehicles. We have got plans

which we published last year, and we

have issued directives to 28 local

authorities outside of London. They

have already been drawing on the

£250 million fund which were made

available in order to try and bring

improvements with was possible.

Lady Sugg.

Now time for the final frontier.

Is Parliament boldly

going where no-one has gone before?

MPs have been debating the

Government's Space Industry Bill -

legislation which is part

of the process to introduce

commercial spaceflight activities

from launch sites in Britain.

The Industry Minister Jo Johnson

told MPs there was nothing

like space to galvanise interest

in science and technology.

Satellites, a speciality of

the British space industry, play a

crucial role in our economy,

supporting more than £250 billion of

our GDP.

In the future, tens of thousands

of new smaller satellites

are planned, creating a global

launch opportunity worth £10 billion

over the next ten years.

This is an opportunity

the UK is well placed to

pursue.

Our long coastline, aviation

heritage and engineering capability,

thriving space sector and business

friendly environment make the UK

attractive for new commercial

launch services.

While we have already an licence

space activities that are

carried out by UK companies

from other countries,

we could carry out space activities

from our own

shores.

If it is correct my understanding

that this Bill will

open the way for commercial space

flights within the next 20 years,

and if that is correct,

does the Minister realise

that commercial space

flights will arrive

in many years quicker

than the proposals

in transport for the North's

improvements for transport including

the rail electrification to Hull?

We want to move forward

on many fronts and this

bill will enable us to capture

This is about the commercial

potential of things like

space tourism,

microgravity research.

And eventually hyperbolic

fight over a distance.

Obviously reaction

engines and air breathing

-- have been mentioned.

That could see us flying to Japan

or Australia in literally ate few

hours.

Simply by using going up to touch

the edge of space and back down.

A look at space travel.

And that's it for this programme.

Alicia McCarthy will be

here for the rest of the week.

But for now, from me,

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.