11/02/2016 Thursday in Parliament

Hello there, and welcome to Thursday In Parliament.

Coming up:

There's anger in the Commons as the Health Secretary announces

he is to impose new contracts on junior doctors in England.

Does the Secretary of State not feel a sense of shame?

It wasn't me that refused to sit around the table and talk

until December, it was the BMA.

Google executives say they understand why the public

is angry about its tax bill.

And an SNP MP agrees with a report criticising the Government's

procedure for English Votes For English Laws.

The current standing order and procedure is a guddle,

a boorach and in short, a complete mess.

But first, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has announced

that the Government will impose a new contract on junior

doctors in England.

Doctors have staged a series of protests and launched industrial

action in their long-running dispute with the Government

over new contracts.

In the week, the doctors' union, the British Medical Association,

rejected a final take it-or-leave-it offer.

The Government's chief negotiator Sir David Dalton then advised

ministers to do whatever was necessary to end the deadlock.

The Health Secretary came to the Commons and explained why

change was needed.

Under the existing contract, doctors can receive the same pay

for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours.

Doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do,

and if one doctor works just one hour over the maximum shift length,

it can trigger a 66% pay rise to all doctors on that rota.

He set out what the new contract would do.

Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract,

the maximum number of hours that can be worked in one week will be

reduced from 91 to 72.

The maximum number of consecutive nights doctors can be asked to work

will be reduced from seven to four.

The maximum number of consecutive long days will be reduced

from seven to five.

And no doctor will ever be rostered consecutive weekends.

Because we do not want take-home pay to go down for junior doctors,

after updated modelling, I can tell the House these changes

will allow an increase in basic salary of not 11%,

as was previously thought, but 13.5%.

Three quarters of doctors will see a take-home pay rise,

and no trainee working within contracted hours

will have their pay cut.

Jeremy Hunt also announced a review into ways to improve doctors'

morale, but the opposition was scathing.

This whole dispute could have been handled so differently.

The Health Secretary's failure to listen to junior doctors,

his deeply dubious misrepresentation of research about care at weekends

and his desire to make these contract negotiations

into a symbolic fight for delivery of seven-day services has led

to a situation which has been unprecedented in my lifetime.

Can the Health Secretary not see that imposing a new contract

which doesn't enjoy the confidence of junior doctors will destroy

morale, which is already at rock bottom?

She feared many doctors would head for countries like Australia.

A poll earlier this week found that nearly 90% of junior doctors

are prepared to leave the NHS if the contract is imposed.

How does the Health Secretary propose to deliver seven-day

services with one tenth of the current junior doctor workforce?

How can it possibly be right for us to be training junior doctors

and the consultants of tomorrow, only to be exporting them en masse

to the southern hemisphere?

It's quite obvious that after three years, the BMA were prepared just

to let the whole thing drag on with talks and days of action

until he either abandoned the seven-day service or gave them

an enormous pay settlement in order to buy them into doing it.

The problem around recognition of unsocial hours might increase

the difficulty we already have in recruiting people

for the acute specialties: A, maternity and acute medicine.

They are already struggling.

This may well make that worse.

What we now need is to move forward in a positive spirit that actually

brings this dispute to an end, takes the temperature down

and actually recognises that we all want the same thing,

and that is safety for patients.

Will he entertain the idea of a commission, as advocated

by my right honourable friend, the member for North Norfolk,

and indeed others on both sides of this House,

to find a long-term consensual solution to the growing health

and care challenges we face?

I think the trouble with commissions is that they tend to take rather

a long time to come up with their conclusions,

and we need to sort out these problems now.

I spent 30 years in the world of work representing employees,

conducting negotiations and solving disputes.

I have seldom seen a sense of grievance so grotesquely

mishandled, insulting the intelligence of junior doctors

by telling them that they do not understand what is on offer.

Does the Secretary of State not feel a sense of shame that his handling

of this dispute should have so poisoned relationships

with junior doctors, the backbone of the National

Health Service?

Mr Speaker, he can do a lot better than that.

We have been willing to negotiate since June.

It wasn't me that refused to sit around the table and talk

until December, it was the BMA, who before even talking

to the Government, balloted for industrial action.

What totally irresponsible behaviour, and if Labour

were responsible, they would be condemning it as well.

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

Google executives have told the Public Accounts Committee

that they understand public anger at the firm's ?130 million UK tax

bill, but they maintain that it was a fair amount of money,

reached after an audit by Her Majesty's

Revenue and Customs.

MPs asked why it took six years to come up with the figure

and challenged them on their tax arrangements.

The session started with enquiries about the salaries of senior

Google staff.

Can you confirm reports that your Chief Executive was paid

?138 million last year?

I don't have the exact figure in front of me...

$199 million.

In the last few days, a new stock-based compensation

was announced four our recently appointed Chief Executive.

That is an amount which is based on stock.

The value of the stock depends on the performance in the future

and it invests over multiple years.

Well, it's a lot of money. That's true.

Yes.

And your tax settlement that you announced a couple of weeks ago

with HMRC, covering a ten-year period, was ?130 million.

That's correct.

OK, we will get into what that involves maybe later.

Mr Brittin, I'm just here...

We are here for taxpayers in Britain.

Do you hear the anger and frustration out there that

with those huge figures, you settled for a figure

of ?130 million?

Absolutely.

And I welcome the chance to come and talk to you about this.

I understand the anger and indeed it...

Do you really understand the anger, Mr Brittin?

What do you get paid, Mr Brittin?

If that's relevant, I will happily disclose that to the committee.

What I understand is... I'm asking what you get paid.

I will happily disclose that if that is a relevant

matter for committee. It is a relevant matter.

I am asking you, so it is a relevant matter.

Can you tell me what you get paid, please?

I don't have the figure, but I will happily provide...

You don't know what you get paid, Mr Brittin?

Well...

Chair... Let me...

You tell us you want a transparent system, and yet with the system

that is here, you used the double Irish, you used the Dutch sandwich

and you used Bermuda, and your argument so far...

We will come onto Bermuda.

Your argument so far that I have heard is everybody else does it,

so we do.

Matt Brittin explained why Google set up its HQ in Dublin.

We have people speaking over 40 languages there, serving

customers across the region.

The reason we do that is we believe we can provide a better service

by having expertise that is concentrated and shared.

And many of our UK customers export to multiple markets,

and having that resource that can speak multiple languages and help

them reach those customers...

We assemble our operations for business reasons,

not for tax reasons.

Just to be quite clear on that point, because it is an important

one, the evidence you have given us today is that you have set up

in Dublin because of the ability to get lots of linguistic

skills in Dublin?

But it has nothing to do with the tax rates?

No...

LAUGHTER

That's what you just said. No, I said that...

To be clear, we set up our operations...

No, we love beingin London and we have hired 1000 more staff

since I last appeared. Multilingual?

Why did it take you six years, which is as long

as the Second World War, to explain your activities

adequately to HMRC?

This is a process that HMRC drives and runs,

and one of the things they did in that process is they did take

an extended period of time to look at the nature

of an internet business.

So one of the things they did was slow down the process in order

to ask us, other tax authorities and look at the nature

of the internet.

So they went back and looked at the detail of how

our products operate.

But the timetable of the process is driven by HMRC, according

to their published and fairly detailed and rigorous standards.

Tom's team was fully involved in answering their questions

throughout that period.

So basically you are saying that it's HMRC's fault for being so slow.

They run the process according to their published standards

and the requirements the Government puts on them as their

independent tax experts.

Well, our committee is charged with looking at the effectiveness

and efficiency in economy, and if it takes six years

to investigate something, either you are very bad

at explaining or they are very thick at understanding.

Next up was senior tax officials from HMRC,

who were confident that they had got the full tax due from Google.

What I hope the public will see is that HMRC has done a thorough

and professional job and got the amount of tax that they can get

from Google under the law.

And indeed, over the period of 2010-2015 from large

businesses generally, ?38 billion in additional tax

from large businesses.

It is impossible to get that large amount from large businesses

without doing a thorough and professional job.

That is what I want the British public to believe.

Whether they believe that the amount of tax that Google has to pay under

the law is fair or not is a matter for them to debate,

but it is not a matter for which I can account to.

And HMRC insisted it was not outmanoeuvred by large corporations.

Now, there has been a furious reaction in the Commons

to the Government's attempt to justify proposed cuts to short

money, the payments given to opposition parties to help them

perform their parliamentary functions.

In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor George Osborne

announced a 19% cut in funding, to be followed by a freeze

for the rest of this Parliament.

In opposition, the Conservatives banked ?46 million a year in short

money, yet in Government, they want to cut short money

by 20% for the opposition.

There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it's not

parliamentary.

How can it be right for the Government to cut the policy

development grant of political parties by 19% when it's not cutting

the amount of money spent on special advisers its own?

Unlike the impression given by his remarks,

short money has actually risen very substantially over the course

of the last five years.

It has gone up, Mr Speaker, by more than 50%.

It is more than 50% higher than it used to be and if we make no

changes, Mr Speaker, over the course of the next few

years, it will continue to rise still further.

The country will not understand why politicians should be exempt

from having to deal with their...

To deal with the effects of the financial deficit,

which we were bequeathed by the last Labour Government.

The only reason why we have to tighten our belts as a nation,

Mr Speaker, is because of the whopping financial deficit

which we were bequeathed by the last Labour Government.

And it cannot be right that politicians should argue

that they should be in some way exempt, a special class,

and not have to do their bit.

The chair of the Public Administration and

Constitutional Affairs committee voiced his concerns.

It is quite clear from these exchanges that the Government...

If the policy is as reasonable as he insists, then the Government

have handled this matter in a clumsy manner.

The opposition feels unconsulted.

Or is it that there is an agenda behind this change which is rather

more political in its intent?

Government is growing. Special advisers are growing.

The house of Lords is growing.

But our ability to hold the Government to account

is being stripped back.

One rule for Tory cronies, one rule for everyone else.

Can the Minister reassure me that all the parties in this house

will be fully involved in every stage of

all the consultations?

And will he bear in mind that a flat cut in short money and policy

development grant money has a disproportionate effect on smaller

parties, particularly regional parties?

These are important matters in allowing us to function properly.

Does the Minister agree that this is public money and that the public

will deeply resent this being spent on politicians to do more politics?

Does he agree that the rules on short money need to reflect

the fact that the cost of doing politics, of doing policy,

of doing research and of communication have come down?

We live in a world where Google is at

our fingertips.

We don't need an army of researchers.

We live in a world of Twitter and blogs.

We do not need a whole department

of press officers.

Does he agree that the public will resent money used to pay

for Spads, special advisers and shadow special advisers who have

watched too much of The West Wing to sit in Portcullis House

at public expense.

This government and the party opposite have form when it

comes to reading the electoral playing field.

The party opposite may have broken the -

the law by spending above the legal limit at by-elections.

They're ramming through

one-sided changes to the funding of political parties while leaving

in place their ability to raise huge sums from hedge fund managers.

Now they intend slashing short money which ensures opposition parties can

hold government to account.

Can the Minister guarantee that these cuts

will not be the final chapter in our transition from a multiparty

state to a one-party state Robert Mugabe would be at home in.

Mr Speaker, I don't know where to start.

In trying to rebutt some of the absurd

assumptions in that question.

I think the short answer is to all of them, no.

You're watching Thursday in Parliament.

Here on BBC Parliament with me Alicia McCarthy.

Housing associations should ensure that large cash surpluses are spent

in a way that results in more homes being developed if there's housing

shortage in their area.

The call came from the chairman of the communities

and local government committee as he delivered its report

on the government's plans to let housing association tenants buy

their homes.

The comment comes amid concerns about salaries paid to some top

housing association executives.

In its report, the committee also questioned the funding model

the government was using for this latest right to buy scheme.

They warn that suppliers of social housing could be reduced

unless action was taken to make sure they

were replaced on an at least one-for-one basis.

Throughout our investigations we've found a great

deal of uncertainty, that's a key point.

A lack of detail about the robustness of the funding

model for the right to buy is extremely questionable.

We call on the government to cost the programme

fully as a matter of urgency.

We feel there are unresolved issues and

we remain concerned that the government's policies

could have a detrimental effect on the provision

of accessible and affordable housing across all tenures but in particular

affordable rental homes.

We found that large numbers of homes sold through the statutory

right to buy for council tenants had in a relatively short

space of time become rental properties in the private sector.

This is a concern to is because private rented sector

is often more expensive than social housing.

The quality of homes can, in some cases

be lower.

Selling much-needed social assets at a discount only for them

to become more expensive in the private rented sector

is therefore a significant concern for the community.

The success of the extended right to buy largely

depends on homes sold being replaced and housing supply maintained.

We appreciate the size of the challenge

of building more homes to meet demand but we seek more details

from the government how it will meet its

objective, at least one-for-one replacement of the homes sold.

I was interested in conclusion number 96, which says

it is important that housing associations which generate

surpluses apply them to delivering new housing.

In his report he highlights the fact that the department has identified

the housing association sector as having a surplus of ?2.4 billion

which it could make use of.

Does he share my concern that there is actually

tremendous scope for more efficiencies within housing

associations and is he is concerned as I am that some of the Chief

Executives of these housing associations receive very large

salaries indeed.

I think this was an issue which the committee were mindful of.

I think that wording is very clear.

Where there those large surpluses, where there are housing

shortages to be met, Housing associations should be

looking to spend those surpluses in way that delivers more homes.

The housing minister thanked the committee for its report

but made no promises.

The new system of English votes for English laws is overly

complicated and may not last long, MPs have warned.

The Public Administration select committee said

the arrangement could end up as a short-term experiment

due to levels of opposition in the Commons.

Legislation deemed to affect England, or England and Wales,

is now subject to an extra layer of scrutiny involving only

MPs elected there.

Minister said it was an important balance to devolution

elsewhere but a senior MP disagreed.

Our main conclusion is that while there is evidence

that the principle behind Evel commands

popular support, we have significant down that the current standing

orders are the right answer or represen a sustainable

solution to the English question.

They may be unlikely to survive the election of a government that

cannot command a double majority of both

English and UK MPs.

The government should use the remainder of the

12-month period in the run-up to the review of the standing orders

to rethink the issue and to develop proposals that are more compostable,

more likely to command the confidence of all

political parties represented in the House of Commons

are therefore likely to be constitutionally durable.

The ad hoc approach to change in the constitution of the union

which only dates back to the devolution reforms

initiated by the then Labour government in 1997,

and which has treated each of Scotland,

Wales, and Northern Ireland and, indeed, England in different ways

at different times has been characteristic of constitutional

reform since the 1990s.

The government must abandon this ad hoc approach.

Labour's front bench said that Evel in its current form was not

coherent, transparent, or sustainable.

And the government should go back to the drawing board.

A view echoed by a Labour backbencher.

This is a worthwhile report which identifies this as

a foolish piece of legislation.

That will perversely live up to its acronym

and accelerate the process

of the break-up of the United Kingdom.

By putting barriers between the four countries.

Of course, in the SNP, we have never objected to,

in principle, to the concept of English

votes for English laws, not least because it's the logical

of independence for Scotland but the committee's report confirms,

as we said all along, that the procedure

is in short a complete mess.

MPs have called on ministers to increase

the compensation available to people who lost money

on their pension investments with Equitable Life.

When the insurance company came close to collapse in 2000,

it was one of the UK's biggest financial scandals.

A compensation scheme was set up in 2010 for the 1.5 million

people who suffered losses.

A Conservative Bob Blackman heads the all-party parliamentary group

on Equitable Life.

There is no doubt that this was a scandal which has

been absolutely outrageous.

For the length of time it has gone on and

for the repeated failure of governments of all persuasions

to actually adequately compensate those people who are victims

of a scam.

Mr Blackman urged ministers to speed up the compensation payments

and boost the amount of money available.

He was supported by Labour.

There must be understanding from the government's side that

when compensation packages are devised

that the mechanism to deliver that is done properly

and that all the calculations are done appropriately

and where money is promised, money is delivered.

So government needs to ensure that regulation of these

industries is robust and be quicker to compensate those who lose out

in the future.

It seems to me that the point the government must also grasp

in this is what happens from here on in.

Specifically, as we are now asking people to make greater provision

for their own pensions,

that will only work if there is confidence

that they will get the pension they are investing in.

Equitable Life and other such scandals have undermined

that a great deal.

The Treasury Minister's said there was no more

money available for the compensation scheme.

I do, of course, appreciate that there are many policies holders

not now receiving the income they expected but by already paying

over ?1 billion to over 900,000 policyholders we've taken action

to solve the government's parts in the Equitable Life issue.

We've been able to pay in full the losses of the most trapped

policyholders and double the payments to the vulnerable

non-annuity policyholders as well as providing a one-off

payment to the pre-1992 annuitants, although

who - although, unaffected, by government maladministration

are recognised to be suffering as a result.

Damian Hines.

The signing of an anti-cuts petition by the Prime

Minister's mother indicates the severity of the financial

situation now facing local authorities across

England and Wales.

That was the claim of a Labour member of the house of lords

as peers debated reductions in library services.

In Lancashire, which is where I live,

the budget which is being recommended to the county council

this very afternoon involves a reduction in the number

of libraries across this large county from 74 to 34.

In other words, 40 libraries to be closed.

Is this really an acceptable situation, as far as the government

is concerned.

My Lords, decisions for library services are,

of course, a local authority matter and Lancashire Council has completed

a consultation seeking residence views on the service design,

needs and use.

Libraries are changing all across the UK and we understand

a further period of deep consultation

will be taking place between now and May.

I would encourage residents to make the Council aware of their specific

library needs and their ideas for the future.

My Lords, would my noble friends accept that it isn't just libraries

but it is also museums and galleries

that are under great pressure.

She'll remember that in the financial statement

in November, which was a very favourable one for those of others

interested in heritage and the arts, the Chancellor talked

about cutting Heritage, galleries, museums as being a false economy.

Can we do something to ensure that what is good for the nation is good

in local government.

I entirely agree with my noble friend about the importance

of funding for these areas and, indeed, as he said, the settlement

was very reasonable.

The Prime Minister's mother has done what the Minister asked and sat down

and wrote a very serious

letter to her local authority complaining about local authority

cuts, does that not indicate that we have reached a very serious

situation indeed and the Prime Minister and his government need

to do something about it if they are to

maintain the social fabric of our local communities.

My Lords, the settlement means that every council

will have for the financial year ahead, at least the resources

allocated by the provisional settlement and, in addition,

those councils with a sharp fall in grant

money will now receive transitional funding as they move from dependence

on central government grants to greater financial autonomy.

Lady Neville Rolfe.

That's it for now.

Do join me on Friday night at 11 for a

full round-up of the week at Westminster.

Until then, from me, goodbye.