21/01/2016 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursday In Parliament,

our look at the best of the day in the Commons and the Lords.

MPs react to the inquiry report saying President Putin "probably"

approved the murder in London of Alexander Litvinenko.

And it is a kleptocratic state that uses assassination

Her refusal to act strongly in response to this,

including taking this to the United Nations Security Council,

will be seen as a sign of British Government weakness.

It focuses attention on the consumer,

rather than on the manufacturer, who should be reducing sugar

And, Mock The Week - a Shadow Cabinet minister

taunts his opposite number again over Europe.

And we learned that the leader is going to be out-outed by

who is not only an outer as far as the EU is concerned,

that he wants to be out of the two Out campaigns.

But first, the Home Secretary Theresa May has described as

"deeply disturbing" the probable involvement of the Russian state in

the killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

Mr Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, died at the age of 43,

after drinking tea laced with radioactive

He'd claimed asylum in the UK six years before.

An inquiry, led by Sir Robert Owen, has found that the Russian president

Vladimir Putin probably approved the killing of Mr Litvinenko.

In the Commons, the Home Secretary said the Government took

The inquiry, which in the course of its investigations,

has considered an abundance of evidence, has found

that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrei Lugovoy

and Dmitry Kovtun, who he had met at the Millennium Hotel

There is a strong probability that they were acting

under the direction of the Russian domestic security service -

And the inquiry has found that the FSB operation

to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev,

the then-head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The conclusion that the Russian state was probably

involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing.

It goes without saying that this was a blatant

and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets

of international law, and of civilised behaviour.

But we have to accept this does not come as a surprise.

The inquiry confirms the assessment of successive governments that this

She said the police investigation into Mr Litvinenko's death

Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrei Lugovoy

In light of this most serious finding, Russia's continued failure

to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be

This, as the Home Secretary said, is one of the most shocking

and disturbing reports ever presented

It confirms that the Russian state, at its highest level,

sanctioned the killing of a British citizen on the streets

of our capital city, and in so doing,

exposed thousands of Londoners to unacceptable levels of risk.

The Home Secretary has indicated today

that there will be new diplomatic pressure, and I welcome it,

but I have to say, and I listened carefully to her, I am not sure it

goes anywhere near enough in answering

the seriousness of the findings in this report.

Indeed, it could send a dangerous signal to Russia that our response

is too weak, and what has been announced today cannot be the end

of what the British Government is prepared to do.

Given what we know about the way the Russian state

operates, isn't there a case for a wide-ranging review

of the nature and extent of this country's

relations with it - diplomatic, political,

Given the proven FSB involvement, will the Government consider

expelling all FSB officers from Britain immediately?

Sir Robert points out that not only has Lugovoy not been extradited

to the UK, he has been lionised in Russia, become a member

of the Duma, and indeed was awarded an honour by President Putin

during the course of the inquiry's hearings.

This is a calculated snub that adds insult to injury,

and is it not clear that while this position is maintained

and the suspects are not extradited, that the Putin Government can never

and should never be treated as an equal and full partner

Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster,

who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know,

on the streets of London, and nothing announced today

is going to make the blindest bit of difference.

We need much tougher measures to target Putin

And those calling for a US-style Magnitsky Act are completely right,

so that we can target the crooks and murderers involved in murders

and corruption, prevent them from coming to the UK,

prevent them from keeping their money in British banks

and prevent them from buying property here in London.

But I am very concerned about people up who are currently living in this

country who have spoken out against the regime of Putin,

We already knew they were in a dangerous

they are in a proven dangerous position.

I'd like to know if she is going to look

at security arrangements for those people, and also the thought

that this polonium-210 was just wandering

Is she reviewing how that has come in and how secure we are living

in a city with the threat of that just

What is a certainty is that the Russian state under

President Putin has killed over 100 opponents -

lawyers, accountants, journalists, and politicians.

And it is a kleptocratic state uses assassination as a policy weapon,

so can I ask her what we intend to do

Because we cannot tolerate them ordering

assassinations on the streets of our country.

The Government at the time took a number of measures,

and some of those measures remain in place

today, in relation to our relationship with the Russian state.

So it is in no sense business as usual, as regards to the sort

of relationship we would have with most states.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that her refusal to act

strongly in response to this, including taking this

to the United Nations Security Council, will be seen as a sign

of British Government weakness by Putin?

Can I say to the honourable lady, that I am not quite sure what action

she thinks the United Nations Security Council,

of which Russia is a permanent member,

would take in relation to this matter.

MPs on all sides have urged the Government to introduce a tax

on sugary drinks to help tackle what has been dubbed

The treatment of obesity and its consequences is currently

thought to be costing the National Health Service

Last November, a Health Committee report called for a sugar tax,

as part of a bold and effective strategy to combat the problem.

We have a situation, and we know this from

the Child Measurement Programme in our schools, that around

one in five children are entering into reception class either

By the time they leave, in Year Six, we find that one third of children

But perhaps even more worrying than that is the stark data around

the health inequality of obesity, and that is to say that one quarter

of children from the most disadvantaged groups

in our society are leaving school not just overweight but obese,

and that is more now than twice the rate

of those children from the most advantaged families.

Any strategy, she said, would need to look at the marketing

Do I want to have a kilogram of chocolate for almost nothing

Please don't make me walk past the chicanes of sugar

at the checkout or while I'm queueing to pay for petrol,

because we know that 37% of all the confectionery we buy

It doesn't matter how much you are intending not to buy it,

if it is presented to you on impulse,

we know that is an extraordinarily powerful tool.

I am aware I am rather overweight myself, and some may say I should

practice what I preach, and I do try, but this is why I am

so passionate about this agenda, as I

know how much harder it becomes as you get older.

As I was allowed to adopt bad habits that are hard to break,

and that is why we need to educate the next generation

Maybe a 20% sugar tax on soft drinks isn't very much to celebrity chefs

like Jamie Oliver, and some of those individuals that are pushing an idea

of a sugar tax, but around 12p per can, 37p per two litre bottle,

for some of those on the lowest incomes,

who we know proportionally buy these products, is a massive

Mary Poppins, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, as you have,

I'm sure, shown the film to your children

at some stage, felt that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

or nine teaspoons of sugar in a Coca-Cola can,

Yet, in many schools, up and down the country,

we have a situation where lunches provided by schools are generally

very healthy, yet the foods children themselves,

or provided by their parents, bring in to schools,

Now we can only imagine how frustrating

this is for teachers, and indeed, everybody who works in schools,

when they see children filling themselves with junk food,

knowing there is little they can do about it.

Of course, we need more cooperation between schools and parents

and teachers, and I back the committee's proposals that

nutritional guidelines should be published for packed lunches,

and that, where necessary, teachers should be able to have,

perhaps, robust conversations with parents,

so that these guidelines are followed.

Any debate about how to make our children healthy must

avoid finger-wagging at parents who are doing the very best

they can, often in very difficult circumstances.

It is important to support people to make

healthy choices where possible, as opposed to shaking our heads

The position from these ventures has always been that we have a concern

that a sugar tax, in itself, could be regressive,

and that it focuses attention on the consumer, who is often

addicted to sugar, rather than on the manufacturer,

who should be reducing sugar in their products,

but, that said, I want to assure the Minister that it is right

that we look at the emerging evidence from

other countries, which has shown, where similar taxes have been

introduced, that they have had a positive effect.

You are watching our round-up of the day

Still to come - the Culture Secretary is pressed over

the future of both Channel 4 and the BBC.

An extra ?100 million is to be given to people who received

contaminated blood during NHS treatment in the 1970s and '80s.

Around 6,000 patients were infected with Hepatitis C,

Hundreds more are living with the serious consequences.

Last year, David Cameron apologised to victims for what's been called

The system for making payments to victims has been condemned

The Health Minister announced a consultation on how

I recognise that, for some, this will come too late.

I can't right the pain and distress of 30 years,

and the truth is that no amount of money could ever make up

for the impact this tragedy has had on people's lives.

For legal reasons I should be clear in the majority of cases it is not

appropriate to talk about compensation, I have made that point

before, I would like echo what has been said for in this House, sorry,

on behalf of the government, for every person affected by this

tragedy. Reform is a priority for myself and the government and I can

announce today that the Department of Health has identified ?100

million for the proposals set out in the consultation. This is in

addition to the current spend and the ?25 million already announced in

March 2000 15. She said that she had received

many letters from people. One letter that struck me ask

simply, please make me well. My intention through this new scheme is

to provide an opportunity to enhance access to treatment, especially for

those falling just short of current criteria for the NHS.

Labour welcomed the Minister's announcements.

She was right to apologise about the government and I would echo that

because successive governments of all colours have failed to respond

adequately to this scandal. In many ways this failure has only deepened

the injustice felt by the victims. This scandal saw thousands die and

thousands of families destroyed through the negligence of public

bodies. Whilst the minister was absolutely right to say that no

amount of money ever make up for the impact of the tragedy on peoples

lives, we all owe it to those still living with the consequences, the

dignity of a lasting settlement. We should never forget that this is

a simple matter of justice. It is time, after all the apologies, that

those affected, should feel that we are doing justice to that injustice.

I hope she will agree with me that one of the important needs of any

scheme is to be simple, comprehensive, predictable, and

consistent. It is absolutely essential that the bewildering

variety of provisions at the moment is resolved into that single, clear

scheme. Will she concede that for those of

us who worked closely with individual victims for a number of

years the resolution has to go as far as possible, financially, to put

them in the position they would have been, but for the grievous harm that

has been done? That maybe, in some cases, a bespoke solution for

individual victims. We are not dealing with numbers of people. --

unlimited numbers. In the Republic of Ireland,

there's a compensation Victims in Northern Ireland share

the frustration but feel more pointedly the contrast with their

friends in the south of Ireland who have had a path of justice available

to them over a long number of years. I know that the Minister is sincere

in her commitment to treatment, but will she give and is Europe's --

give an assurance that the effort she is making will not distract from

the effort we still have to make good this travesty that people have

suffered? I recognise there may be aspects of

the proposals that the honourable gentleman does not fair meet his own

aspirations. So I again invite him to respond to the consultation,

these are the proposals we are putting forward, the questions are

very open and people can give us their views. Direct my something

different happened in -- I recognise something different happened in

Republic of Ireland but the circumstances were different.

The founder of Lastminute Dot Com Martha Lane Fox has said

in the House of Lords that the internet is controlled ,

run, funded and used predominantly by men.

She was speaking during a Lords debate on the contribution of women

to the country's future economic growth.

If we look through any cut of the numbers it is profoundly upsetting.

About 4% of the world's software developers are women. The people

controlling who think the Internet. 9% of businesses found that on the

Internet are run by women. 10% of venture capitalists in the Internet

space are women. Why can't we take one of the 800,000 women currently

unemployed in this country and train them to fill our skills gap? How

much more imaginative could we be, by matching some of the challenges

we have? I have worked on projects recently, taking woman, with no

understanding of computer science, just basic mask, and is six months

they are Java ready, able to go into work. -- ASIC -- basic maths.

It is incumbent on us to lay the foundations. And provide the right

environment. We need to improve career

preparation for woman. Whether in the humanities or not, even as early

as primary School, because by the time women are exposed to inspiring

role models, if at all, they tend to have already decided on their exam

choices and their ambitions are potentially curtailed.

We have heard some awesome statistics this afternoon but my

favourite is from the woman's business Council which estimates

that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men that would be 1

million more businesses in Britain today.

The as yet undetermined future of Channel Four television has

Channel Four, which began broadcasting 33 years ago,

is a publicly owned, not-for-profit corporation.

But there's been speculation that it could be privatised.

And some politicians fear an adverse effect on programme-making

At Culture question time, a former Culture Secretary took

Discussion then turned to the future of the BBC.

Will he join me in congratulating Channel 4 on their record number of

O and BAFTA nominations of this year? And does he agree that Channel

4 will not be able to deliver its unique and invaluable agreement if

it had to turn a profit to shareholders?

As I said to the Right Honourable gentleman my concern is to guarantee

the continuing success and viability of Channel 4 and that is why we are

looking at a number of options, as indeed I understand the last Labour

government did, also considering privatisation.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer

and now believes that Channel 4 privatisation will bring the

Conservatives much public opprobrium for a relatively small financial

return, and that the Conservatives are now backing away from the idea

of privatising this much loved institution?

I hate to disappoint the honourable gentleman but as I said earlier no

decisions have been taken. I have not yet had the opportunity to

discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because

we have not yet reached our own conclusions on this matter but I

look forward to doing so in due course.

Discussion then turned to the future of the BBC.

This government has flogged off more national assets than any other, can

we really trust them with the BBC? The charter expires at the end of

this year and does provide an opportunity to look at all aspects

of the BBC, in what is a very fast changing media landscape. That is

the purpose of the review. 97% of the adult population of the

UK use BBC services for an average of 18% every week and perceptions of

the BBC have improved over the past ten years. His consultation on

charter renewal) it over last year and he has now spent more time

considering responses to the consultation than he allowed the

public to respond. So when will he get his act together publish the

results? Can you just have is a date, today, please?

May I begin by welcoming the honourable lady to this position? I

have been doing this job for a relatively short time, just eight

months, but she is the third holder of opposition spokesperson position,

I hope she survived longer than her apprentice. In relation to the

question, I am keen to publish proposals but we did not anticipate

an hundred 92,000 responses. She will understand that if I work to

give up and publish conclusions in a short period she would be at the

dispatch box claiming we had not done proper analysis and this was a

cosmetic exercise. It is not a cosmetic exercise and we are reading

them carefully. I am afraid he sounds like he is

procrastinating. The charter expires at the end of this year but he has

not even got around to publishing the White Paper yet because the

consultation is taking so long to reply to. Can he guarantee that his

department's time wasting will not result in some kind of debilitating,

short-term charter extension beyond the end of the year? Can he be clear

today that the next charter will be for a minimum of ten years?

Charter review comes around once every ten years, I am determined to

get it right. That means we will take however long it takes in order

to fully consult and consider the options.

The Shadow Commons Leader Chris Bryant and his opposite number

Chris Grayling have once again exchanged barbed comments

as the parliamentary week nears its end.

Mr Bryant taunted Mr Grayling about the different positions

of senior Conservatives on the coming EU referendum.

While Mr Grayling focused on internal battles

As we were debating psychoactive substances in this House the

American Republican campaign seemed to be on psychoactive substances

with Sarah Pailin endorsing Donald Trump, the ultimate case of

Tweedledum and dumber. Two MPs have confessed to taking poppers in the

chamber, well, not in the chamber, but they made their confession in

the chamber? One is so determined to be out of that he wants to be out of

the outcome pain! Talk of two bald men fighting over a comb! If men

were dominoes, he would be the double blank.

He did not ask me for a debate on his party's extraordinary new

defence policy of sending out submarines to see with new missiles.

He did not ask me for a statement on Syria so his party leader can settle

out plans for negotiations with brutal murderers in that part of the

world. He did not ask me for a debate on his party's new policy of

reopening discussions on the future of the Falkland Islands with

Argentina. But I am certainly willing to look for extra time and

debate about the backbone, or lack of it, of members of the Shadow

Cabinet, not brave enough to put their own jobs on the line when it

comes to standing up to a Leader of the Opposition whose policies pose a

real threat to this country. He has left the church of England because

he believes its policies are unacceptable, but he will not do the

same for a Shadow Cabinet, even though its policies are clearly

unacceptable. But do join me for the 'Week

in Parliament', when we not only look back over the last few days

in the Commons and the Lords, but also look at the problems

in trying to achieve accurate opinion poll figures,

and look at the growing number of top political jobs now

being done by women. But for now, from me,

Keith Macdougall, goodbye