08/02/2018 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up, MPs guilty of misconduct

could face a by-election under

new cross-party proposals.

Hopefully we'll signalled the

beginning of of the end of the

poisonous patriarchy culture that

has poisoned so many of the

relationships of this House.

The Government acknowledges that

patients at a Liverpool Hospital

suffered unnecessary harm.

On behalf of the Government, I want

to apologise to them, and I know the

whole House will want to extend our

sympathies to everyone.

And Matt Hancock suffers

an identity crisis.

I look at forward to communicating

with my constituents over Matt

Hancock for a number of years.

But first, MPs who are found to have

bullied or harassed their staff

could be suspended and voters

could force them to

face a by-election.

The Leader of the Commons announced

a package of measures to tackle

misconduct at Westminster.

The proposals were drawn up

by a cross-party group.

They include a new behaviour code,

an independent complaints

procedure, staff helplines

and mandatory training.

Complainants and those accused

will both be guaranteed anonymity.

Andrea Leadsom presented

the findings to MPs.

The working group was formed to

bring about change. It is a right,

not a privilege, that will be

treated with dignity and respect out

work. And this ambitious report is a

major step towards a safer and more

professional environment.

Everyone

and Parliament must be able to walk

together corporative flea,

respecting beat and expertise of the

House and balancing our

responsibilities as elected

representatives and a safe,... And

staff of this House can benefit for

working for the common good in this

extraordinary place.

This is a

significant substantial document

that has managed to secure all party

support and we'll signalled the

beginning of the end of the

poisonous Patri Arkle Coulter that

has characterised so many of the

relationships of this House. --

patriarchy. Independent of the

political parties, and that is

perhaps the key feature of what is

being designed and delivered today.

The media spotlight can be very

harsh, indeed, on a member of

Parliament on the basis of an

accusation made. I -- it can be

harsh on a complainant that we must

bring that to mind.

That might bring

forth operating evidence and what

otherwise might be one person's

worked against another. Where should

that to the cold balance like?

--

where should that difficult by

balance life. This has been an

incredibly difficult balancing act,

and what we all made clear, all of

us on the working group is that the

commitments to protecting the

interests of a complainant would be

at the heart of this, and that means

very often backed complainant does

not want and will not come forward

with a complaint if they then run

the risk of being hounded in the

media and effectively having a trial

in the full glare of the public

spotlight. But that was one of the

core areas that we sought to

address. But that does inevitably

mean that there are compromises.

Where it should become the right

balance between the public interest

to know about a perpetrator and the

interest of the complainants to have

their privacy and confidentiality

respected.

Which he agreed that not

only do we need the consent training

that you but it there needs to be

sanctions for those who might not be

persuaded to pick it up because

those numbers are mug likely to be

resisted and those that need it

most.

The training that we mentioned

in consent, unconscious by bias, how

to employ people and what

constitutes bullying and harassment,

all of these things are absolutely

vital. They will be available as

compulsory sanctions and will be

seeking means to encourage people

across a estate to take them up

voluntary is where we can make it

mandatory.

One of the worst forms of

bullying and a playground is when a

bunch of kids ganged up on another

child, and that is sort of what we

do every Wednesday afternoon and

Prime Minister questions, isn't it?

When somebody is called that we

don't like there are groves for

members across the chambers, it's

suggest that they are less important

from anybody else. And then all too

often the whips on either side are

you deliberately trying to shout

down people on the other side of the

chamber. If we're going to tackle

bullying, aren't they going to

tackle the whole culture in the way

that we do our business?

I'm very

sympathetic to what he's saying, and

what this procedure seeks to do is

to change the culture in this place.

We all have our own personal

opinions about different activities

and what's right and what's wrong.

What's very important and how the

complainant feels. And by having

this independent procedure, it will

be possible for an individual to go

and talk to somebody to receive

support and guidance and where

necessary to have an investigation

if it's felt that it something that

serious and needs to be addressed.

Once we see the impact that that

have on people, not necessarily

members of this place, could be

anybody who works in the

Parliamentary stage, once people

start to see that there are

consequences I think that will have

a change on the culture in this

place.

Andrea Leadsom.

The Health Minister has apologised

to patients and staff

at Liverpool Community Health NHS

Trust after an investigation

found that patients had

suffered unnecessary harm,

and cost-cutting had led to severe

staff shortages and bullying.

The Government found the Trust to be

dysfunctional from the outset.

What happened to patients of

Liverpool community is before

anything else a terrible, personal

tragedy for all of the families

involved. The report also makes

clear the devastating impact on many

of the front-line staff, as well. On

behalf of the Government, I want to

apologise to them, and I know the

whole House will want to extend our

sympathies to everyone.

Today's

reports as they suffered unnecessary

harm because the senior leadership

team was, I quote, out of its death.

What lies at the heart of this,

which directly led to patients being

harmed. The report exposes serious

problems about the scale of cost

cutting being imposed upon NHS

Trust. Indicate the Liverpool

community healthy motivation was...

The trust that the plan has

suspended staff who blew the whistle

about poor care and its

controversial plans to / staff in

order to save money. What guarantee

can the Minister offer that trusts

are no longer being allowed to

prioritise patient saving over

patient care? And what has been put

in place for those who raise

concerns about cost cutting?

The Minister said a new regime had

been put in place for hospital

inspections which put more emphasis

on staff and patient surveys.

The report also noted

that the health trust had set

an aggressive cost improvement

plan, as part of efforts

to save £30 million over five years

and achieve foundation status.

The chair of the Commons Health

committee wanted an assurance it

couldn't happen again.

But on the wider issues raised by

this report, clearly, where you

continue to cut staff and funding

from community services there are

terrible consequences for patient

care. Will the Minister assure the

House that he will be working

closely alongside the Care Quality

Commission to identify other trusts

and wish these kinds of issues are

likely to arise because of the

workforce and funding pressures that

are now being faced?

The report Dr Bill Kirkup follows

a long running campaign by one

Labour MP.

I'd like to thank Doctor Kirk up as

well, I'm paying tribute to his

thoroughness and independents and

thank him most sincerely on behalf

of the staff and the patients in

Liverpool who suffered really badly

at the hands of this. ... I want is

a dictatorship, regime, but it was

done and our name, done in the name

of the NHS and they do deserve

justice.

All organizations and

individuals make mistakes. Where

this is used as an opportunity to

learn and improve, we will do all we

can to provide support. Where,

however, there is any kind of cover

up or a blink of denial about what

has happened, members of this House

and the victims of that wrongdoing

have a right to expect

accountability. The Member for West

Lancashire has done that and just a

great service. I will place a copy

of the Kirkup review in the House of

Commons Library. The Government is

acting in form on the finding.

The financial watchdog,

the National Audit Office,

has been asked by the Government

to investigate the finances

of the charity, Motability.

The company provides vehicles

for disabled people.

The move follows reports that

Motability has reserves of nearly

£2.5 billion and pays its chief

executive 1.7 million a year.

The Work and Pensions Secretary

was concerned about the figures.

Whilst at the renumeration of its

directors and managers is a matter

for Motability to decide, one has to

question from the outside whether

this is really right. And if you

endorsed by the Charity commission

who said yesterday that the trustees

of Motability may wish to consider

the reputation of issues raised by

the salaries being paid to their

commercial partners executives. With

the current focus on corporate

governance issues and the use of

public money, I had today asked the

National Audit Office to give

consideration into an investigation

of matter. I will be keen for the NA

ode to look at how taxpayers money

is being used by Motability.

What we

are interested in Parliament, is it

not, is the finances behind it, and

the excessive profits, and the

scandal that a no risk scheme has

benefited so much and the charity

itself holding 2.4 billion and

reserves quite unnecessarily.

Not

only have the taxpayers been

overpaying over the years, but also

disabled people have been overpaying

from their benefits to pay for this

scheme and surely they could be

getting exactly the same benefits

for lower amounts of money per week

and that that money could be given

back to disabled people to help them

pay for their other living cost.

I

raised the issue yesterday of my

constituent and a toss-up who was in

receipt of lifetime DLA and that was

removed and she was threatened but

haven't her vehicle taken from her

on Boxing Day. Sorry, Mr Speaker.

This is particularly pertinent for

me. I would like to ask the

Minister, I'm grateful that she's

having an investigation. Will she

pay particular attention to the

conduct of the trustees?

The

honourable member is right to be

emotional, because for many people

this is an emotional matter

particularly just after Christmas.

And again, those are matters that

need to be pursued and those

trustees need to be held to account.

Esther McVey.

You're watching Thursday

in Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

Now, before Christmas,

the Commons passed a motion calling

on the Government to improve

transitional arrangements

for women born on or after

the 6th of April 1951,

the so-called WASPI women,

who've lost out because of

state pension changes.

The Government had 12 weeks

to respond - and on this,

the last day before the half term

recess, the Pensions Minister,

Guy Opperman, told the Commons that

revoking government pensions

legislation would carry a huge cost

to the public purse.

Any further transitional arrangement

would come at great cost. The

Government has considered many

options, and all of the proposals

will be wrought with substantial

legal problems as well as financial

ones. In the amendment to the

current legislation which creates a

new inequality between men and women

would unquestionably be highly

dubious as a matter of law, causing

younger people to bear a greater

share of the cost of the pensions

system in this way would be unfair

and undermine the principle of

intergenerational fairness that is

integral to our state and German

firm Das reforms.

This statement

Topley does nothing to help 1950s

born women. Action, not words are

needed if the Government is to

restore some of the faith and

dignity that many people feel they

have lost as a result of the

Government's refusal to act and

introduce proper transitional

procedures. These are women, the

women of Britain who built this

country. They deserve nothing less.

The original debate, in November,

had been called by the SNP.

There is a clear majority in this

House in support of the 1950s women.

Five conservative backbenchers, six

DUP members voted for the SNP motion

on the 29th of November. That's the

second biggest rebellion in this

Parliament, so perhaps rather than

just bluster and passing... The

Government should look forward to

bringing forward to proposals to

address what the this calls for for

women born on the fifth -- in 1951

and on, that is the will of the

House clearly expressed time and

again.

I can only assume the

Minister really doesn't get this,

because the consequences and the

strength of feeling, not just

amongst the 1950s women but amongst

colleagues is extremely angry. Maybe

I cannot for some help. Maybe if the

honourable gentleman was to meet

with myself and the honourable

member we could share with him the

findings of a consultation we

recently had to take on behalf of

the state pensions and accord for

women because maybe then, Mr Speaker

we could talk into the problem and

encourage him to do the right thing

and acknowledge the problem and come

up with the respectful answer.

All

the political parties are at fault

here. The Conservatives, labour who

for 13 years did very little for

dumping any of us have clean hands.

Secondly, I would urge the Minister

to address three possible options.

One, Lieber's cost neutral option,

too, gives some indication of

transition and number three, with

the Minister accept if the

Parliamentary ombudsman took some

WASPI cases and concluded the

communication had been shocking by

all the political government.

The

honourable gentleman walked through

the lobby with myself in about an 11

to pass the 2011 act when the

Liberal party was a party of

financial discipline -- in 2011 to

pass the 2011 act. So I will, with

respect I believe we did the right

decision at that particular time.

The so-called cost neutral option I

can assure the honourable gentleman

is far from that. It is neither

workable nor cost neutral and

certainly it is the case that on an

ongoing basis the Government is

sticking to the put this -- position

at the fourth since 1995. The Labour

government put forward 13 years and

the coalition government took in

2011.

The pensions Minister.

There were accusations in the Lords

that conditions in prisons have

never been worse than they are now.

There are currently more than 84,000

people in prison in England

and Wales compared with just under

45 thousand in 1991.

Peers demanded urgent action.

75 of the 119 prisons in England and

Wales have populations in excess of

the 35 normal accommodation

standard. The latest figures show a

12% rise in both assault and self

injury in prison. The chief

executive of the league tells me

that in 30 years in the sector she

has never known conditions so bad.

When is this Brexit paralyse

government going to treat prisoners

and prisons reform as a national

priority? How bad does it have to

get? And will the noble Earl tell us

when he last visited present to see

conditions for himself?

The demands

on our prisons are a long-term

issue, not a short-term problem, and

we do intend to address them a

programme of new prisons. I may say

that the question of capacity in our

prisons has been with us for well

over 15 years, and indeed we are not

quite at the same sort of ceiling of

use as we were even ten years ago.

This regards crowding level, I

regret to say that even since 2004

they have remained persistently at

about the same level on a measure in

percentage terms between 24-25%. As

I say we are seeking to address

these issues with our programme of

new establishments.

Is the

Government content that we have the

fifth highest incarceration rate in

the EU, exceeded only by Poland,

Hungary, the Czech Republic and

Slovakia, and if not, what does it

propose to do about it?

The

Government is not content with such

a situation it is addressing more

widely the issue of how and when we

can develop noncustodial sentences

to a greater extent. One of the

pressures on the existing prison

population has been the development

of sentencing with regard to

historic sex abuse where long-term

sentences had been imposed on a

large number of people and that he

has put further pressure on the

prison population.

There were also concerns

about the high turnover of staff

at the top of the Ministry

of Justice and the impact that

could have on the government's

ability to make improvements.

The Ministers have got to learn

about prisons, which is not an easy

task, and so we get a situation

where good reforms are overlooked

and mistaken reforms are

implemented. Does he have a solution

to this?

Speaking from a personal

perspective I hope that there is a

solution in the form of some

consistency and constancy in

ministerial appointments in certain

particular department. But I quite

understand the noble lord's concern.

But I would say is we are pursuing

within the Ministry of Justice A

persistent policy with regard to

prison improvement.

Lord Keen.

Gay marriage is being banned

in Bermuda, just six months

after it was brought in.

Officials in the British Overseas

Territory voted on Wednesday

to overturn the law.

The Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, has decided not

to intervene to block the move.

One Labour MP condemned

that as a backwards

step for LGBT rights.

Does the Minister not really worry

that when she tells the Russians to

respect LGBT rights in Chechnya, or

when she tries to convince India or

Pakistan or Indonesia to drink Talib

change the law and benefit LGBT

people, those countries will just

laugh at her -- to change the law,

and say look, the first territory in

the world to repeal same-sex

marriage is British Bermuda and they

did it with your express permission.

We are disappointed that the right

to marry has been removed, but we

also have to recognise that the act

does provide legal recognition of

same-sex relationships and the

recognition that is required under

the European Court of Human Rights.

I do respect the right of overseas

territories to set their own laws

but enter discussions with the

Bermuda government, will the

Minister communicate that there is

discomfort with the decision on both

sides of this chamber?

The first

slaves were brought to Bermuda in

1620. Oppressed, segregated,

discriminated against, and that is

why leaders like Nelson Mandela,

Desmond Tutu and Barack Obama have

not just fought for race riots, they

fought for rights of lesbian, Gay

and bisexual people. This country

has been one of the world leaders on

this subject. So, if this is not the

issue on which to refuse assent, I

don't know which is.

Ultimately,

isn't it the case that it would also

be a profound step is written work

to take this action in relation to

Bermudian democracy?

I do agree that

those are the issues which are

needed to be balanced in this

circumstance, and that to withhold

assent really requires a very

limited circumstances and obviously

would need to be based on a legal or

constitutional issue of not having

considered the circumstances very,

very carefully, the Secretary of

State is to lead and decided that

these circumstances it would not be

appropriate to use the power.

Harriett Baldwin.

And now for something,

well if not completely different,

a little bit different.

It's not compulsory for committees

to spend all their time

on the Committee corridor

of the Palace of Westminster.

They can travel around taking

evidence from other parts

of the UK or even abroad.

The Digital, Culture Media

and Sport Committee have been

investigating fake news

and they decided to take

a trip to a bastion

of the genre - Washington DC.

There, a huge cast had assembled -

among them representatives

of Google, Facebook,

the New York Times and CNN.

Youtube was asked about

the Brexit referendum.

We found no evidence of our service

is being used to interfere in the

Brexit referendum and we are happy

to walk -- to co-operate with any

further efforts.

And what about fake news?

Identifying and managing content on

YouTube is the number one priority

for us this year. Mission-critical

for the business. Critical to our

users, our creators, our advertisers

and to us as a company. So we invest

tremendous resources, both in terms

of technology and the people working

on these issues, our executive team,

is absolutely engaged. We meet for

hours every week to figure out how

we can improve our systems to make

sure that the policies on YouTube

are followed. That we are quickly

identifying content that violates

those policies and removing it. So

this is a top priority for the

business.

Juniper Downs of YouTube.

And finally, the recently-appointed

Secretary of State for Digital,

Culture, Media and Sport fully

embraced the Digital

part of his new brief

by launching his very own smartphone

app - the first MP to do so.

The Matt Hancock App

features picture galleries

and videos of the him.

It also allows users to sign up

as friends and chat with other fans

of the Matt Hancock app.

But there have been concerns

about the app's privacy policy

and whether it complies

with the Data Protection Act.

So the shadow Culture

Secretary had a question.

What action does the Secretary of

State and should be taken against an

app which breaches key provisions of

the data protection act and the

privacy of communication regulations

and is not GDP are compliant.

I

think that all should become client

with the law and I'm delighted to

say that the Matt Hancock app is.

Exactly because the app I'm talking

about is not just belonging to him,

it is named after him. The general

public need protecting, Mr Speaker,

from their privacy being invaded --

invaded by Matt Hancock -- Matt

Hancock, their personal information

being shared by third parties and

their private functions being

accessed by Matt Hancock. Lilly

undertake to make sure Matt Hancock

complies fully with all data

protection rest -- regulations in

future and explain why he thinks

other people should abide by their

legal obligations with regard to

take the protection if Matt Hancock

does not stop live of course he does

comply.

Were poorly I think we

should use digital communications,

Mr Speaker, to communicate with our

constituents in all their modern

form and I'm frankly delighted by

the response that the app has had

far bigger than I could possibly

have imagined and I look forward to

communicating with my constituents

over Matt Hancock for many years to

come.

Matt Hancock delighted with.

Matt Hancock.

And that's all we've got time for.

But do join me at the same time

tomorrow for a round up of the whole

week here at Westminster.

But for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.