23/11/2017 Thursday in Parliament

Hello, and welcome to our round up

of the day at Westminster.

Coming up in the next half hour.

The government sets out the changes

it's making to Universal Credit,

but Labour urges ministers

to go further.

This is a comprehensive package

which response to concerns raised

inside and outside the house.

These

measures are not enough. They must

be brought forward amended and added

to.

The Chancellor's accused

of missing an opportunity

to tackle air pollution.

And the Shadow Chancellor says

Wednesday's budget shows

the government's a shambles.

But, first, the Work

and Pensions Secretary,

David Gauke has set out the details

of the changes the government's

making to its controversial welfare

payment, Universal Credit.

After weeks of pressure from MPs

across the house the Chancellor

announced in his autumn budget that

he'd be tweaking the system.

Universal Credit combines six

working age benefits into one

and is meant to make the system

simpler, whilst helping claimants

move more easily into work.

But critics said a six week wait

for payments is leading

to debt and rent arrears.

We are now offering a balanced

package of improvements which puts

more money into claimants hands

earlier ensuring support for those

who need it most.

So, housing benefit claimants

would be able to have the benefit

paid direct to the landlord

and larger advances could be claimed

and repaid more slowly.

This is a comprehensive package

which response to concerns raised

inside and outside the house. We

have a clear objective, to ensure

that has many people as possible get

the opportunity to work and to

maximise their potential to better

their circumstances. We will

continue to roll-out Universal

Credit in a steady and considered

manner and in doing so deliver a

welfare reform that will positively

transform lives.

We welcome any

steps to improve the programme, not

least these small reduction in

so-called Long hello or those on

lowest incomes waiting only five

weeks for sport to arrive compared

with the six under current design.

Before I addressed the detail of

today's announcement, let's step

back and look at the big action. The

government introduced Universal

Credit with three promises. To

reduce child poverty by 350,000, to

simplify the Social Security system,

and to ensure work always pays. As

the mounting evidence has shown, Mr

Speaker, Universal Credit isn't

living up to these ambitions.

She argued many of the waiting times

for payments were still too long.

These measures are not enough. They

must be brought forward, amended and

added to. We stand ready to work

with the government to make the

necessary changes. Failing that,

they should stand aside and let a

Labour government get on with the

job.

Where to start? Let's start

first or forward this point about

people having to wait five weeks.

People do not have to wait five

weeks. They can get a payment within

five days. And this dismissal of an

interest-free advance as being

immaterial, I'm afraid it is just

completely unreasonable.

I thank the

Secretary of State to listening to

colleagues across the house and this

very welcome packet of changes to

Universal Credit, and scrapping the

seven working days and the packaging

has introduced to improve the loans

that are available, the advances up

front and the changes to housing

benefit.

May I congratulate him also

in applying the financial armlock

that he loaned to the Treasury to

his boss to such good.

Universal

Credit is supposed to be improving.

Will he respond to my concerns and

those of the Child Poverty Action

Group and others who claim the

government is knowingly putting 200

thousand children into poverty as a

result of the two child cap, and

having a disproportionate impact on

religious minorities as a result of

that cap and it is stigmatising

women putting them in danger?

Of

course, we have transitional

protection. She represented Scottish

constituency and of the Scottish

government wants to provide support

for third, fourth and fifth

children, they can provide exactly

that.

David Gauke.

MPs have demanded answers

about a potentially massive data

breach by the taxi-hailing

firm Uber.

The company concealed a hack

that affected 57 million

customers and drivers.

The incident happened in 2016,

but was not revealed and the firm

paid hackers $100,000,

around £75,000, to delete the data.

The minister told MPs the first he'd

known of the hack was on Tuesday

when he'd found out from the media.

The breach appear dated back over a

year and appears to have involved

Uber paying criminals money to try

to prevent further data loss. We are

told some UK citizens data is

affected. We are verifying the

extent and the amount of

information, and when we have made

the assessment we will publish the

details of the impact on the UK

citizens, and we plan to do this in

a matter of days.

He said the hack didn't seem

to have come from the UK.

At this stage, our initial

assessment is that for Uber

customers, the stolen information is

not the sort of information that

would allow direct financial crime

but we are working urgently to

verify this further and we rule

nothing out. Our advice to Uber

drivers and customers is to be

vigilant, to monitor accounts,

especially for fishing activities,

and, if you think you are a victim,

contact the actual fraud

The MP who'd put down the question

reckoned action should

be taken against Uber.

Uber apparently paid criminal

hackers $100,000 to delete the data

and keep it quiet. What assurances

do we have that the data of Uber

customers and drivers isn't in the

hands of hackers or criminals today?

UK authorities have acted swiftly

since the security breach came to

light. Will the government therefore

push for the toughest penalties to

punish Uber for this outrageous

dereliction of their ethical and

legal obligations to the public?

Isn't it time the government stopped

cosying up to this grubby and

unethical company and started

standing up for the public interest?

Replying the minister said

legislation currently

going through parliament would allow

for higher fines, and mean

that the authorities would have

to be told about data breaches

within 72 hours.

Delaying notification is not

acceptable, unless there is a very

good reason for it. As I said, it is

an aggravating factor in how the

information Commissioner looks into

this sort of case.

When transport

for London announced they would not

be renewing Buber's license and 22nd

of September, Uber e-mailed its

customers to ask them to protest

against this decision the very same

day. Does the Minister agree that if

any e-mail was sent them, it should

e-mail them now and begin that

communication with an apology?

People across the UK will be shocked

Uber failed to give this information

to anyone. Given the current

climate, covering up this breach and

paying hackers could actually

stimulate the growth of cyber crime.

Drew Hendry wanted to know

what would be done to hold Uber

to account, the minister

Matt Hancock said he

ruled nothing out.

You're watching Thursday in

Parliament, with me Alicia McCarthy.

Don't forget you can find

more editions of this

programme on the BBC iPlayer.

A leading clinical professor

specialising in air pollution has

condemned the Chancellor for not

targeting "white van

man" in the Budget.

Medical experts say air pollution

can be a contributory factor

in cases of heart attacks,

lung cancer, asthma,

pneumonia and stroke.

There's also concern that pollution

may affect the developing organs

of babies in the womb and contribute

towards conditions such

as diabetes and dementia.

Four committees joined forces

to take evidence on the issue.

Professor Stephen Holgate laid out

the scale of the problem.

We are affecting people will who are

at the extremes of life, we are

affecting people who are

disadvantaged with diseases that put

them at increased risk, and we are

affecting people who live in

disadvantaged communities to a

greater extent. So, there is an

equality issue in all of this and it

is preventable because we now have

such strong evidence that we

demonstrate not in this country is

yet but in other countries that if

you start reducing pollution, he

will improve the health of the

nation.

It was interesting the

figure you gave about the danger

inside a car. It seemed quite

counterintuitive that you breathe

then around ten times more.

Up to

ten times.

If you are sitting in a

car than if you are cycling behind

or walking on the street. Explain

how that works.

This is research

shown in other parts of the world

now. What happens in all modern

cars, we have these ventilators

which draw in air and as your

vehicle stops right in front of an

exhaust pipe, you just venting the

fumes, the fresh, most toxic

pollutants coming right out of the

tower back straight into your car

into your child sitting in the

back-seat. It is the same with buses

and taxis, not ten times but two or

three times higher than walking on

the street.

So, the parent who

drives their child to school

thinking they are protecting them

with this nice, clean, enclosed

environment is actually poisoning

their child ten times worse than

they would if they walked or cycled

them to school?

Correct.

One MP asked about

Wednesday's Budget.

The Chancellor explicitly heralded

the fact that he's not going to

target white van man, white van

woman as if it was a good thing

going forward.

It is a lost

opportunity, I'm afraid. Mr White

Van, I'm afraid. If you look at our

Graaf, it is the one area that is

increasing as people become... This

is a big issue.

Environmental lawyers, Client Earth,

took the government to Court

of over pollution levels.

If Brexit happens, how are we going

to enforce all this stuff?

You've

hit on a very important point and

one that keeps me awake at night. At

the moment the understanding is that

the current standards under the air

quality directive and the

regulations will transfer across

through the withdrawal bill. But it

is a big but, we are very concerned

that the enforceability of standards

will decline post Brexit. There are

a few aspects to that. Number one is

we are unsure of the role of the

European commission in the future.

Alongside this case, they've also

been a very important factor in

this.

Later MPs heard from the Mayor

of London, who called

for a new Clean Air Act.

It's about nitrogen oxide. Half of

the noxious air comes from

transport. The other half comes from

construction, it comes from the

river, it comes from builders.

So,

in terms of if there was new

legislation of the type described,

what are you asking for it to do?

We

hope it would give mayors and

regions the powers and will

resources powers to tackle the other

half, in relation to emissions

standards, in relation to who is in

charge of it and how we can move

forward with the clean air that we

desperately need.

Sadiq Khan.

MPs spent most of the afternoon

on their second day

of debate on the budget.

It's the first opportunity

for the Shadow Chancellor

to have his say in the chamber.

John McDonnell reckoned

the Government was a shambles.

What this budget showed was just how

out of touch and cut off from the

real world and the economy and the

real lives of people the Chancellor

and this government really is. No

government in modern times has ever

presented a set of growth forecasts

where growth and every year is less

than 2%. Productivity growth is

forecast to have ground to a halt

this year and Bailey increase next

year.

He said Labour would borrow

to invest and grow the economy.

I accept his point that he wants to

borrow to invest, borrow more to

invest. The problem is we are

already paying interest more than we

spend on defence and police just in

paying the interest so what I want

from him as I understand where he is

coming from but whatever spend it on

the interest will still accrue so

how will he deal with that?

Debt

under his government has gone up and

it is bit to pay for a failure. To

pay for a failure rather than to pay

for investment, because if you

borrow to invest you grow the

economy and on that basis you put

more people to work with more

skills, higher wages, they pay more

taxes and it pays for itself. That

is the lesson they still haven't

learned.

He attacked the budget's most eye

catching announcement,

the end of stamp duty

for the majority of first time

buyers, he quoted the Office

for Budget Responsibility.

The main gainers from the policy are

people who already own property. The

problem is simple. Maybe perhaps it

needs explaining. You can't solve a

problem of housing supplied by

driving up housing demand.

He argued not enough money had been

given to England's NHS,

and attacked ministers

approach to Brexit.

This was he said a government no

longer fit for office.

Replying for the government was

the housing minister, Sajid Javid.

He defended the government's

record on home building.

Last year, 217,000 net additions to

the housing stock was the highest

such figure in almost a decade but

we are under no illusions that there

is much more to be done. Labour's

answer to the housing crisis and in

fact everything is simply to throw

more of someone else's money at the

problem and hope that it goes away.

The last time they tried it, we

ended up with a house-building at

its lowest level since the 1920s and

an economy that was on its knees.

He said the country Labour described

was not one he recognised.

We have one of the world's biggest

and most successful economies and we

speak the language of global

business and of the World Wide Web

that we invented. We are home to

more Nobel prizewinners bar one. Our

legal system is the most respected

in the world and we are unrivalled

in art and culture in the creative

industries. The NHS is the envy of

countless nations. We have given the

world everything from steam engines

that Shakespeare and even cricket.

We may not be the biggest, we may

not be that, but Britain is without

doubt the best country in the world

to work, to play and learn and live.

A country what an incredible history

and an amazing history still yet to

come.

The SNP called for a new approach.

If the Chancellor was conveyed yet,

if you consulted on measures and

approach this year like stamp duty

and small tanks duty and then

contacts with the tension to review

the whole system we would see much

better policy decisions being made.

We need more coherence from

government and less drama from

chancellors. They should not be

trying to pull rabbits out of hats.

They should be trying to create a

system that works rather than a

system that will give them a big

headline.

The former Defence Secretary

made his first commons appearance

since his resignation

and focussed on trade.

Outside the single market, we are

going to live or die by what we can

sell to the world in goods and

services. We now need to hard-wire

exporting into every British

business, exporting should be a

condition of all our major

government support schemes, our

grants and loans.

Sir Michael Fallon.

The former head of the Nuclear

Decommissioning Authority,

John Clarke, has taken "full

responsibility" for the handling

of a botched contract

to clean up 12 former

nuclear sites in the UK.

After a complex two-year bidding

process, the contract

for the "Magnox" sites was won

by Cavendish Fluor Partnership.

The task turned out to be

much bigger and more

expensive than anticipated.

We are here today to look at the

report on the botched Magnox

contract which had a value of £6.2

billion, one of the largest ever

contracts let by government and the

report shows a catalogue of failures

which played the contract from the

start.

When you bid for a vessel

process, how far was known what the

state of the various sites were?

When you first started

investigating, did you are NDA know

what the state of these sites were?

The bid documentation was what we

had to rely on. At the time of the

bidding, that was the only

information we had available to us.

We had no other knowledge that he

could bring to bear.

Knowing what

you know now, wasn't it more or less

set up to feel? Not deliberately but

wasn't it almost impossible for you

at any body else to have actually

really succeeded in little process?

Had the bed documentation been an

accurate reflection of what was on

the sites then the style of contract

that was put in place would have

worked.

The companies that lost out to CFP

successfully sued the NDA over

the bidding process last year.

The High Court agreed

that the process had been flawed.

The mistakes cost the government

more than £122 million

in compensation and legal costs.

The NDA also terminated

the contract with CFP,

saying that a "material change"

to the required work rendered

the contract "illegal."

Hull is the relationship and do you

think they now have sufficient staff

with sufficient skills in place to

be able to manage this contract, the

whole decommissioning contract going

forward?

I think it is a very

professional relationship and we

have been through a pretty torrid

time together, on either side of the

contractual boundary. It is a solid

professional relationship. The new

team under the new chief executive

are looking to recruit and looking

to recruit the right areas.

Next, the committee heard

from the former boss at the NDA.

Who do you think was responsible for

the failure of this contract?

I am

the chief executive of the NDA for

the duration of this contract and I

accept full responsibility for the

actions during that period. We set

out with the intent to do the best

job we could and we did work hard,

but it is clear that didn't go

according to plan.

It is a shared

responsibility and although John is

the accounting officer, the

principal accounting officer, I have

ultimate responsibility.

I have two

except it was our responsibility to

understand the state of the sites

and we believe their level of

understanding was somewhat better

than it was.

I accept your candour

on this but isn't it extraordinary

when you had lots of technical

people working for you that you

didn't at least have an idea, given

the scale of what was discovered

during the consolidation process,

that he didn't have some idea of the

difference between your

understanding at the time and what

actually proved to be the case?

Two

factors. First of all we have a

small organisation with over 200

people, not an army. We are

deliberately set up to be a small

organisation and we rely on auditing

performance of contractors.

He said the NDA had been aware

of significant differences,

but not HOW big they were.

Finally, what next for Zimbabwe,

following the resignation

of its 93-year-old President Robert

Mugabe?

He had been in power since 1980.

The Zimbabwean army stepped in last

week, saying people were angered

by the way the country was being run

and the possibility that Mr Mugabe's

wife Grace was being lined

up as his successor.

After the news that he had finally

quit, Zimbabweans took

to the streets to celebrate.

In the Lords, Peers wondered

what would happen now

and what the UK could do to support

the country.

My Lords, the resignation of Robert

Mugabe provides Zimbabwe with an

opportunity to form a new path, free

from oppression and misrule. The

only wafers and bubbly to achieve a

legitimate government is through

free and fair elections. As the

oldest friend we will do all we can

to support a legitimate government

to rebuild the country, working with

international and regional partners,

addressing economic, human rights

and constitutional issues including

free and fair elections.

My Lords,

in thanking my noble friend for the

answer, can now recognise that we

should not intrude on an independent

country but given that we have tens

of thousands of Zimbabweans resident

in the UK, would it not be possible

to bring together the expertise to

help Zimbabwe, particularly given

the IMF has identified the problems,

the dramatic problem is that the

country faces. Examples of which

include the issuance of $100

trillion notes, which were in

general circulation.

The government

doesn't wish all intents to

interfere in the affairs of Zimbabwe

but there are approximately 113,000

Zimbabweans living in the UK. The

Foreign and Commonwealth Office has

a regular programme of positive

engagement with the Zimbabwean

diaspora and we will meet with

representatives diaspora tomorrow to

discuss issues including the need

for deep and lasting economic

reform.

Effective election

monitoring will be key to the

holding of free and fair elections

in Zimbabwe. What support can the

government gives to the churches and

other civil society organisations in

the work they do on the grounds of

successfully in Africa because that

belongs to Africa, is rooted in

Africa and can be owned by the whole

community in Africa.

We are putting

together the potential package of

measures to support a credible

election process and encourage

economic recovery to be delivered

alongside international partners. I

emphasise in exchange for a

meaningful political and economic

reforms.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me on BBC Parliament

on Friday night at 11pm

for the highlights of

a busy Westminster week.

But for now, from me, goodbye.