29/01/2018 Newsnight

Tonight, a £4 billion U-turn

is underway as the government

accepts it may have acted unlawfully

on disability benefits.

Everyone on PIPs payments

will have their claim reviewed

after a High Court ruling.

The regulations were blatantly

discriminatory and it begs the

question, what is any government

doing introducing regulations that

are blatantly discriminatory?

We'll hear from a father whose

autistic son had his payments cut

overnight and a campaigner.

What does the government

say to that?

Are May's wobbles getting worse?

As Europe sets out its rules for

Brexit, we ask if the Prime Minister

is still trusted by her own party.

We'll be joined by two

senior Tory backbenchers.

Also tonight - why did the French

government move thousands

of children from their home

in the Indian Ocean to rural France?

Some never saw their families again.

What happened to them next?

We're with Marlene as she finally

returns home half a century later.

Good evening.

Every single person

on the government's main disability

Personal Independence Payment

benefit programme will have

their claim reviewed

after what is being seen as a major

U-turn tonight.

A total of 1.6 million people

will be part of the review

which ministers have admitted

is necessary after a High Court

judge ruled the changes "blatantly

discriminate" against people

with mental health issues.

Last week Work and Pensions

Secretary Esther McVey confirmed

the government would not

appeal the judgment.

This evening Sarah Newton,

the disabilities minister,

went further, confirming details

of the massive review, which could

cost £3.7 billion by 2023.

Here's Nick Watt.

Storm clouds never appear to be that

far away from Theresa May

these days.

But in welfare, an area that has

bedevilled this government for

years, the Tories hope they may be

moving to calmer climes.

Today's announcement

that every single person

receiving Personal Independence

Payments will have their claim

reviewed, was not of course,

born out of government thinking.

Ministers are simply complying

with a High Court ruling

and I understand the Treasury

is unamused about the

potential cost.

But, Tory backbenchers

do hope that today's

announcement will allow

the government to tell a more upbeat

story about welfare reform.

I think it is unfair

to say that all Tories

ever want to do is cut,

because I wouldn't be a member

of the Tory party if I thought

that was what

they were about.

But do I think we are seeing,

I guess a more balanced approach?

We had some tight fiscal

decisions to make to keep our

debt and deficit under control.

We've done a lot of the hard

lifting on that and

now it's time perhaps

to be a little bit more

reflective and think

about

the smaller detail in government

that makes a difference in

people's lives and that's

what we are doing with

this decision today.

So what is PIP?

Personal Independence Payments

are paid to people with

disabilities to help meet extra

costs they may have.

PIP is replacing

the disability living

allowance.

In March, the government said people

who could not travel

independently on the grounds

of psychological distress, were not

entitled to a higher PIP payment.

In December, the High

Court ruled the

government regulations

were blatantly discriminatory.

Last week, the new Work

and Pensions Secretary,

Esther McVey, said the government

would not challenge the court

ruling, leading to

today's announcement.

A former minister responsible

for PIP acknowledges the

policy was designed

to save money, but,

policy was designed to save money,

but, in its original form,

it was meant to help people

with mental health conditions.

Let's not beat about

the bush, there are savings

that was made when PIP

was introduced.

There are people perhaps

in the lower area that only just

about qualify for DLA,

don't qualify now for PIP.

I don't deny that,

but what is absolutely undeniable is

that when I was working and bringing

PIP through, I wanted a complete

level playing field for people that

had physical disabilities,

psychiatric and mental health

issues, to be treated exactly

the same.

What happened with this

is the government

challenged it saying

they didn't fit the criteria.

I think that was wrong

and I think the

judge's decision is right and we're

now somewhere close to where I

wanted PIP to be.

For us, we are pretty

appalled and outraged the

mess the government have found

themselves in and this is all of

own doing.

From introducing these regulations

last February which actually was

going to restrict the numbers of

individuals that would qualify for

PIP and specifically those with

psychological distress, and it begs

the question what is any government

in doing introducing revelations

that are blatantly does good

military to particular groups and

also what quality impact assessments

were carried out. We are pretty

outraged at it.

Theresa May has a

reputation for being something of a

plodding Prime Minister but on

Personal Independence Payments, the

government has shown rare fleet of

foot. Tory backbenchers hope that at

the very least ministers are making

a virtue out of necessity.

Joining us now, Alistair Rolfe,

who's son Nick is autistic.

Chris Philip, Conservative MP

who works for the Communities

Secretary and is a strong supporter

of the government's welfare policy,

and Ellen Clifford, a campaigner

from the organisation Disabled

People Against Cuts.

I will come to you a bit later. With

Nick, how does the autism show

itself, what Bercy struggle with? --

what does he struggle with.

It is a

social and communication disorder

which means he struggled in any

social situation to act like another

normal child. He finds all kinds of

things difficult we would take for

granted around the house, going out,

public transport, and the chance of

him earning a living wage at the

moment are very slim.

And during his

school years, he was fully

supported, statement did, had

learning assistants?

That's correct,

he was diagnosed at the age of three

with full-blown autism. We put in

place and early intervention

programme which enabled him to go to

mainstream school and at that point

he had a statement of special needs

which enabled him to have the full

amount of support with a learning

support assistant. He was then

assessed and reviewed, reassessed

every year for the next 15 years by

experts who knew what the problem

was and it time they came back and

said they needed to continue with

the same level of support. About the

same time when he went to school, he

started receiving visibility living

allowance which was a small amount

but enough to help with certain

things. As he left school around the

time that the disability living

allowance change to become the

personal independence payment and he

had to be completely reassessed from

scratch. After 15 years of being

reassessed and acknowledged by the

government that he had this need for

financial support, in an interview

with 15 minutes, the government

decided that he deserved absolutely

no money whatsoever.

What was he

asked in the interview?

The

questions that were asked in the

interview were completely inadequate

and not designed to capture the

issues that lie behind his autism.

He was asked questions like, can you

dress yourself? Can you cook a meal?

Can you go on a bus journey? His

answers were yes, I can do all of

those things, but the amount of work

that goes behind just getting him to

the point where he can make a bus

journey is enormous on our part and

he might get on the bus and then he

would lose his ticket or forget

where to get off, there might be

noise on the bus.

So he should not

have answered yes but he was trying

to say the right answer?

That's

right he did not possibly understand

the question, can you dress yourself

or cook a meal, it was to tick a

box. But if they have come to the

home and watched him, he might cook

a meal but leave the cooker on and

start a fire. We have to be very

careful.

The assessment itself was

flawed?

It was completely inadequate

and when we got the news back that

he was no longer entitled to any

form of payment, we concluded that

this was prejudicial against people

with mental health disabilities.

I'm

really sorry to hear the problem is

that Nick experienced, nobody should

be without support that they clearly

need. I am not sure how closely that

case relates to the PIP position we

heard about any piece but I'm

pleased the government has responded

to the High Court decision not by

trying to challenge it in the Appeal

Court or Supreme Court but excepting

it.

You put your hands up and say

this was badly wrong and badly

judged and despite everybody saying

to the contrary, you went ahead with

it and it was the wrong decision?

Clearly there was a difference of

opinion on this measure, the High

Court judge made a ruling in

December.

What do you mean a

difference of opinion?

The

government felt that the mental

health limits of Tabernacle were

covered separately. The High Court

had said they were wrong and the

government had accepted that

immediately and it will not appeal

and it will backdate the claims to

the beginning. And it will write the

people concerned...

Why should

anybody trust your government to get

it right if you have done so much

damage? Listen to this case, going

from being completely helped through

his childhood and left with nothing.

There are clearly individual cases

like the one we heard about when the

assessments need to be improved but

the allowance has gone from

13,000,000,020 ten at 216 billion so

when people say there have been cut

to payment that is not true from £13

billion to £16 billion. There are

600,000 more disabled people in work

now than there were four years ago.

That is a real success in addition

to spending more money.

I'm sorry I

have left you to the end but give us

the broader picture as you see it,

is it a good thing that more people

with disabilities are in work?

There

are a lot of barriers that disabled

people faced at work and anecdotally

we are seeing less people in work,

people who are struggling because

they're not getting out of work

benefits. But in terms of the PIP

ruling, we are happy that the

government has decided not to appeal

it but they should never have got to

this situation in the first place.

Disabled people and organisations,

we support of the claimants in the

court in 2016, it was their ruling

the government try to overturn in

2017, our organisations,

parliamentarians all spoke out

against bringing these regulations

and the government did.

Parents and

campaign is putting this points to

you, why was the government not

listening to this?

The point we were

hearing is about the assessment

itself and those cases have to be

this Ducab belief. It is different

to the court ruling point.

It is the

same larger point that people with

behavioural disabilities or mental

health disabilities or psychological

disbelief were being ignored.

But

the answer the point, the proportion

of people on PIP with mental health

conditions who get the highest level

is 66%. Under the old DLA it was

only 22% so there is a three-time

higher recognition of mental health

problems under PIP.

There are 1.6

million cases to be reviewed.

On

this very specific point about the

mobility allowance component, but as

I said already, the total amount

paid under DLA has gone up to £16

billion which is a big increase.

There was a decision taken a year

ago that the High Court was found to

be wrong and the government has

accepted that and will not appeal it

and is putting it right.

Are we on

the right track now in terms of what

happened here wrong?

I don't think

we should be here anyway. This is

going to cost untold sums, those

people are going to go through more

anxiety and distress having been

through enough as it is. The bigger

picture for disabled people in the

UK is it that the government is

failing them, the UN has made a

binding of great and systematic

violations against this government.

They talk about spent on disability

benefits but as a share of national

wealth it has heart and we see

people suffering, with nowhere to

turn -- it has halved.

I don't

accept that because we spent more

than any other G-7 country apart

from Germany on supporting people

with disability and health problems.

There are of course problems to be

fixed but we are spending more than

every other G-7 country apart from

Germany.

If you compare

like-for-like it is difficult to

compare what is spent on disability

figures. The amount spent is not

comparable in the way you are

saying.

Thank you very much.

Theresa May flies to China tomorrow

on a trade mission seeking to secure

the sort of deal the government

is hoping to land after Brexit.

It's possible she might never have

been as happy to leave these green

and pleasant lands, after yet

another weekend of torrid

headlines and a growing chorus

of criticism from across her party,

not least from a band of Brexiteers

who seem to feel distrustful

of the Prime Minister's

ability to deliver.

Today Europe's foreign

ministers made a point

of showing their own unity

on the issue by taking just two

minutes to agree the hardline terms

on which negotiator Michel Barnier

can approach the next

round of Brexit talks.

The EU position is very clear.

The transition will last

for 21 months, until

the 31st of December 2020.

During this limited period of time,

the whole of the EU acquis

will continue to apply to the UK.

So how does the state

of Brexit talks affect

Theresa May's leadership,

despite the growing noise?

Is there any sense anything

has really changed?

Nick Watt is here.

A little bit more movement, what is

your sense?

An interesting interview

by Liam Fox in the Sun newspaper

tomorrow. He is saying to

Brexiteers, you will have to learn

to live with disappointment because

we do not command a majority in the

House of Commons. But he said the

core Brexit will be delivered out of

the single market and out of the

customs union. But there are three

people who wanted to remain who said

the Prime Minister needs to set out

a domestic vision for Britain after

Brexit. What is going on? I think

what is happening is two forces are

colliding. The legacy of the recent

reshuffle, lots of resentful

ex-ministers. Then you have

Brexiteers who are thinking, is this

Prime Minister going too far in a

soft Brexit direction.

But she's

going to survive?

You are reminded

of Harold Wilson who said, you ask

what is going on, I am going on. The

quiet ones are still quiet, at the

noisy ones are noisy. Iain Duncan

Smith that was in trouble when the

quiet ones stopped been quiet. I

have been talking to other Tories. I

spoke to one former minister who

said they believe there will be a

challenge, there should be a

challenge against Theresa May in the

summer to give a new leader a long

time to bed in the 2022 election and

this person said

this person said Theresa May really

isn't working. They say you

journalists have the wrong end of

the stick. You're looking for these

48 letters we need for the

no-confidence vote. We are after the

149 votes we need to get to oust

Theresa May.

A quick word on labour?

There will be an interesting new

face on the Labour front bench when

the withdrawal bill stars its

journey and that will be Lord Peter

Goldsmith. His advice as Tony

Blair's Attorney General meant the

action was authorised for the UK

forces. What is interesting about

this, the defining moment Jeremy

Corbyn's career was opposing the

Iraq war. You could save that is how

he managed to bury New Labour in the

Labour ship contest for the Labour

Party. But he doesn't represent the

front bench in the Lords, but I am

told this is more of a guest on the

front bench, not an actual

frontbencher, so Jeremy Corbyn is

living with it.

With us from Westminster

is Nicky Morgan, a former

Education Secretary

under David Cameron.

And Jacob Rees-Mogg who now leads

the European Research group

of Tory Eurosceptics.

Now, two backbenchers,

if there are grumblings coming

from both your wings of the party

that probably suggests the PM

is doing something right.

Let me start with you, Nicky, Nick

said forget about the letters to

Graham Brady. Are you hearing of

anyone voicing their unhappiness in

letter form at the moment or is it

gossip?

Nobody is going around

saying we have signed this, or sent

this in. I certainly haven't done

that. It is important. We have seen

the EU talking about the negotiating

stance. We have a critical nine

months ahead of us and everybody in

the Conservative Party realises we

will be judged by the success or

otherwise of these Brexit

negotiations, the final deal we get

to. The Conservative Party has a

strong reputation for economic

competence and we must not

jeopardise that in these

negotiations. The noise about the

leadership doesn't help.

Where do

you think the instability is coming

from? When you hear Johnny Mercer

saying the window is closing for the

Prime Minister to meet the

challenges. Is he right to speak

out, is it a non-helpful

intervention?

There are the

stations, inevitably. Some of my

other colleagues are talking about

the need to focus on domestic

legislation. We have seen a focus on

the environment, for example, it is

possible to talk about other things

than Brexit. We have just had a

piece talking about mental health

and personal independence payments.

We would like to be talking about

that than about Europe.

She got that

one badly wrong, didn't she?

Actually, a fast reaction from the

government saying we will not appeal

this, it hasn't been handled right

in the past, we will get it right

now. Broadly supporting people with

mental health challenges, looking at

the NHS, rising educational

standards in our schools. But Brexit

will be central for the next nine

months. We cannot fall out with each

other, the country doesn't need

that.

The way you are talking, you

are happy to see her fulfil her

parliament for five years. You are

happy that she has a game plan, a

series of things that she is, not

just talking about, but doing, do

you believe that?

I believe when she

took out the Premiership, she laid

out a plan, speech...

But is she

doing it?

There is action, but

trying to get attention on anything

other than Europe at the moment is

difficult. The Treasury Select

Committee, we know things like the

budget, productivity and things like

growing the economy are incredibly

important, but of course the Brexit

negotiations will be influential in

all of that. It is important, it is

not just about the Prime Minister,

there is a whole cabinet. If the

Prime Minister is the person going

to be setting out a plan, the

Cabinet have got to do within their

own areas, agri- and end state for

Brexit. They have got to stick to

those lines. But falling out with

each other is not the right thing

for the country at this particular

time in our history.

Jacob Rees

Mogg, do you trust the Prime

Minister has your best interests at

heart, your party, Brexit?

Of

course, I completely trust the Prime

Minister and I agree with what Nicky

Morgan was saying, in relation to

the need for unity and the

government to set out what it end

state is going to be. There may be

bits of the end states I don't like,

there may be bits of the end states

Nicky Morgan doesn't like, but we

need a proper discussion rather than

the Chancellor saying one thing and

the collective Cabinet view being

another.

Why does your group in the

Times tomorrow said they give her a

50-50 chance, it is not a real

endorsement.

That is not me, I have

not said that.

Is there descent?

There are always people with

different views in a party.

It is

not the party, it is the group you

had.

The ERG doesn't have a single

view. We are interested in the

Lancaster House speech and the

manifesto and we want to back the

Prime Minister in that. Whether

individual members speculate on the

party membership or not, is nothing

to do with me.

When you talk about

the basis of Lancaster House and the

basis of what she has said, were you

happy with what Michel Barnier had

to say to the Prime Minister today?

Will you continue to support her if

she lets that transition deal go

ahead?

The terms laid out today in

the transition deal are very

bullying from the European Union.

They are very harsh and they would

continue as to allow free movement

of people and we would take, for the

first time since 1066, laws imposed

upon us from a foreign power without

any say on it from ourselves. That

might be acceptable if we had a

clear idea of what the end point is.

You would put up with it the two

years if you had an idea of what was

coming afterwards?

We had talk about

staying in a customs union and not

get the benefits of Brexit. It means

remaining end EU law taker. Not

removing tariffs, 21% of the

household economy, had the chance to

make the country better. It is an

exciting opportunity if we grasp it.

Your support will remain qualify?

My

support for the Prime Minister will

remain qualified. I want her to

implement what she has already said.

As the Prime Minister is a

forthright and clear person, I

expect she will implement the

policies she has set out.

Let me

tell you about this story breaking

on bus speed, they have seen the

impact of Brexit from the

government's own analysis. They say

under the government's own

assessment, a comprehensive free

trade agreement with the EU, UK

growth would be 5% lower over the

next 15 years if there was no deal

scenario and it was WTO rules, it

would reduce by 8%. They say from

what they have seen, the UK would be

worse off outside the European Union

under every scenario modelled in

every part of the UK.

The key

phrases every scenario modelled and

it depends on the base of the model.

If they use the gravity muddles the

government used prior to Brexit,

they were wrong. It predicted an

increase in unemployment just by

voting to read, to 500 to 800,000.

On the basis of these gravity models

and the key is the assumption of the

tariffs you apply to goods coming

into the EU. I don't know about

these models, but the one done

before the Brexit vote assumed we

would apply the common external

tariff to EU trade with the UK. That

sort of thing makes these models

speculative and so far, very

inaccurate.

A quick word from you

Nicky Morgan on the Brexit study and

do you think the Prime Minister will

be there to see us through Brexit?

Yes, it is too important to worry

about leadership contests at this

time. We have to focus. What those

models do, we can argue about the

underlying basis. What they show is

there is a risk and this is why I

wanted to remain and our

constituents will not thank us and

nor will the country if we have

weakened their economic security and

jobs and livelihoods as a result of

negotiation. It is critical we make

sure we don't undermine the economy

any more than we are going to bike

actually leaving in the first place.

Thank you both very much.

Next month, a French

Government-appointed commission

will outline what happened to more

than 2000 children at the hands

of the French state

between 1963 and 1982.

These children, from

the Indian Ocean island of Reunion,

a French overseas department,

were resettled in rural

parts of France where

populations were in decline.

With France facing up to a scandal

that robbed these children

of everything they knew,

Katie Razzall travelled to Reunion

with one of those involved,

in search of the family she lost

more than five decades earlier.

Marlene is on her way

home for her first visit

to the Indian Ocean island

she was taken from as a child,

her first trip back in 52 years.

Marlene is in ill health

after a difficult life.

She has never been able

to afford the long journey

back to Reunion before.

Now she's leaving France courtesy

of the French government

which is paying her airfare and some

expenses, an acknowledgement

of the state's moral

responsibility for what happened

to her and 2000 others.

We first met Marlene in central

France where she has lived

since she was in her teens.

Before that she was

in care in Reunion.

Her mother had died of TB.

Marlene was persuaded

to resettle across the world.

Did you ever see your sister again?

Once a French colony,

Reunion became one of the country's

overseas department in 1946.

By the 1960s, with an exploding

birth rate, this desperately poor

island found its orphanages filling

up with children, many

of whom were not orphans at all.

Their families simply

could not provide for them.

The island's French MP,

Michel Debre, introduced a policy

he believed would solve the problem.

From 1963 until 1982,

social services oversaw

the resettlement of children

to rural parts of mainland France

where populations were in decline.

Some were adopted, others put

into children's homes

and religious institutions.

Marlene was amongst them,

featured here in a TV report

which portrays the children as lucky

to be given a new life.

But in the four years

before this was filmed,

she said she had minimal schooling.

Instead she had worked

the land at a convent,

done factory labour and even been

put in solitary confinement

when she complained.

Marlene's story is not a one-off,

as we discovered at a meeting

near Toulouse in south-west France.

Marlene is a member of a group

battling to find out what happened

to 2150 children from Reunion

at the hands of the French state.

Not everyone had a bad experience

but many suffered terribly.

There was racism, sexual abuse

and violence, as well as the loss

of their culture and identity.

Jessie Moenner and her younger

brother and sister were in the first

resettled group from Reunion

to arrive at this children's

home in rural Gers in

south-western France in 1967.

Jessie has spent years trying

to discover the background

to her family story but her care

files from the children's

home have disappeared.

Do you think you can judge

what happened back then

through modern eyes?

Jessie and her siblings

are traumatised by what happened

to them in France.

She said they were adopted

into a violent family and she holds

Michel Debre responsible

for their suffering.

I came to Paris to find out how

the French government

views the scandal now.

Those who were exiled hope

President Macron will apologise

for what happened once

the investigating commission

delivers its report.

It's a big moment for

Marlene, arriving on her

island after 52 years.

She has brought her daughter,

Aurore, for support.

Marlene has had 52 years

to dream of this moment,

and now she is here with a fanfare.

The French media has increasingly

been covering the story.

The publicity, mixed in with five

decades of expectation,

means Marlene hopes a long lost

family member might be

at the airport to greet her.

But there's nobody there.

But they are searching for Marlene's

other sister, Marianique,

who she last saw as a child.

Marlene is not giving up.

She does not know if Marie-Annique

is alive or dead but finding her

is the focus of this trip.

The next day we went to the town

hall looking for information

and came away with good news.

So you have an address

for your sister?

Their fortunes were changing.

After we left, the town hall

official got in touch with Marlene's

sister and two hours later came

the phone call they had longed

for from Marie-Annique herself.

So what is it like to see her now?

But the joy of finding

Marie-Annique is bittersweet.

Marlene is returning to France

knowing she may not see her sister

again until the next time

the government funds a trip.

In March, after a two-year

investigation, a commission

will present its 500-page report

to the French government

detailing what happened

to Marlene and 2000 others.

Many are demanding an apology

from the French president.

Katie Razzall there.

Her film was produced

by Maya Rostowska and you can see

a longer version on Our World,

this Saturday and Sunday at 9:30pm

on the BBC News Channel

and also on iPlayer.

That's it for tonight.

But before we go, if you happen

to be passing the Bruce Museum

in Greenwich, Connecticut,

you could do worse than pop

in and see their exhibition

of patriotic posters

from the First World War, and

witness how the American government

used to handle its communications.

As you can see, unlike now,

sensitivity wasn't

a big part of the sell.

Goodnight.

MUSIC: "Creep" by Radiohead.