10/01/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament.

Coming up:

After resignations and recriminations in Northern Ireland,

MPs are told divisive new elections could be on the way.

The clock is ticking.

If there is no resolution, then an election is inevitable.

MPs hear not enough is being done to tackle hate crime.

And a Transport Minister calls for an end to the strike saga

on Southern Rail.

So, I say to the unions, as the Secretary of State has done,

not on one occasion, but twice, come and meet him,

call off the dispute and let's resolve this dispute.

It has gone on far too long.

But first, a political crisis is threatening the future

of the power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland.

On Monday night, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness resigned

as Deputy First Minister and in effect brought down

the devolved administration at Stormont, because his decision

meant the First Minister, Arlene Foster of the Democratic

Unionist Party, could no longer stay in her role.

The Northern Ireland Secretary came to the Commons.

As things stand, therefore, an early Assembly election

looks highly likely.

I should add that once an election has been held,

the rules state that the Assembly must meet again within one week,

with a further two week period to form a new Executive.

Should this not be achieved, then, as things currently stand,

I'm obliged to call another election.

So, right honourable and honourable members should be in no doubt,

the situation we face in Northern Ireland today is grave

and the Government treats it with the utmost seriousness.

Martin McGuinness resigned after Arlene Foster refused

to temporarily step aside during an investigation

into her handling of a controversial green energy scheme,

which could end up costing taxpayers almost half a billion pounds.

Businesses and other nondomestic users were offered a financial

incentive to install renewable heat systems on their premises.

The scheme was finally shut down to new applicants

in February last year, when it became clear that the lack

of an upper limit on payments, unlike the GB equivalent,

meant that the scheme was open to serious abuse.

He said there needed to be an enquiry into the scheme,

known as RHI, as soon as possible.

While the RHI might have been the catalyst for the situation

we now face, it has, however, expressed a number

of deeper tensions in the relationship between parties

within the Northern Ireland Executive.

This has led to a breakdown in the trust and cooperation

that is necessary for the power sharing institutions

to function effectively.

The clock is ticking.

If there is no resolution, then an election is inevitable.

Despite the widely held view that this election may deepen

divisions and threaten the continuity of

the devolved institutions.

He said Northern Ireland's politicians had won international

plaudits for overcoming differences and working together, and that had

required courage and risk.

Political stability had been hard gained and should not be

lightly thrown away.

Labour said it would support the Minister's efforts to keep

stability in Northern Ireland.

With is so much at stake, not least

the institutions themselves, Surely it is time for moderation.

Lines in the sand are not what are needed.

I do not believe, from the feedback we are

getting from the people on the ground in Northern Ireland, that

the population wants the election, let alone one so soon.

Is it really what the people want?

It should be possible to come up with a rigorous,

transparent and comprehensive way to investigate the overspend

on the RHI, which does not have to involve the break-up

of the coalition or an early election,

or the First Minister standing down.

The DUP accused Sinn Fein of having its own agenda.

We share the deep regret at the highly irresponsible decision

of Sinn Fein to single-handedly caused the collapse of the present

Executive, and precipitate what the Secretary of State

has rightly called this threat to the continuity

of the devolved institutions.

And it is clear from what Sinn Fein have said in the resignation letter,

it is not about RHI, because had this continued,

we would have had the investigation and proposals to mitigate costs,

but it is because, according to them, they are not

getting their own way on a whole series of demands, including

rewriting the past and putting more soldiers and security forces

in the dock.

Fundamental to the political institutions in Northern Ireland

were the principles of power-sharing, partnership and

respect for political difference.

In the last number of weeks, we have seen the disappearing

and the withering away of the principle of power-sharing.

Formerly by the DUP.

Will the Secretary of State ensure, in his discussions

with the political parties in Northern Ireland,

that those principles are adhered to and that everybody comes back

to the principle of power-sharing?

I think...

I think the important part of the political settlement

within Northern Ireland is that fact that it works for all communities

across Northern Ireland.

James Brokenshire.

Some schools and police forces have been turning

a blind eye to hate crime, MPs have been told.

Representatives of the Polish community in the UK told

the Home Affairs Committee that there was an "explosion"

of incidents after the vote to leave the European Union.

In one incident, a few days after the referendum,

xenophobic graffiti was scrawled on the doors of a Polish

community centre in London.

We at the Polish Centre, as you may be aware,

have experienced an example of that, in that we had this graffiti

across the front of our building.

Which was definitely a first for us.

We had never had anything like that at the centre and we're very much

part of the local community.

So, that was a big shock to us and to the staff,

and to the people who come to the Polish Centre.

I would like to say that, and again, you may be aware that we have had

the most amazing outpouring of response from the community,

the British community, you know, masses of flowers and messages

and cards and so on, which was really, really nice for us.

But she had further examples of hate crime.

Lots of people who come to our centre do tell us about...

Some of it is quite casual, you know, a waitress

in a cafe will be told, "Why haven't you packed

your bags and gone home?"

That sort of thing.

Quite a lot in schools, to children, you know,

they will presumably hear it from home, you know,

"You should be going home now."

We had some bad cases of abuse in the workplace, where,

for example, in one of the local councils in South England,

a Polish citizen, a Polish worker at the council,

was abused on the night of counting the votes,

she was on the vote counting committee, and that was...

She was told essentially that in this situation,

she would need to pack and go away, finally.

And we had many, many reports in schools,

where there was physical abuse and violence towards

Eastern European, broadly speaking, children, with very little response

from the schools, as institutions, which is our concern.

Some schools are exemplary, in how they deal with tensions,

post-Brexit referendum.

Some, however, we feel, are still turning a blind eye,

and that is a big concern for the future of communities.

The problem, in our experience, is deepened by the mixed

response from the police.

So, when people do want to report hate crime, or hate speech,

or just have concerns and go to the police about

whether they should be doing something about it,

um, I'm afraid, I'm sorry to say that not all Police Services

are ready to respond to hate crime.

Sometimes it is being, um, waved away as an employment issue

that is not a police matter, that it is discrimination,

for example, or harassment.

The abuse, discrimination and hate crimes that you have described

are clearly appalling, and we obviously note

what Ms Mludzinska said about this still being a minority,

and it is welcomed that you had other support.

Nevertheless, that minority abuse and hate crime

persecution is still appalling and deeply un-British, and should

have no place in our country.

One committee member questioned the link

between Brexit and hate crime.

What do you think might have happened if the vote

had gone the other way?

Who knows?

Well, you see, that is quite an important question,

because I think what is difficult is attributing that spike

in hate crime to the way that the referendum went.

And the sort of people who commit these hate crimes,

let's admit it, are morons.

It is helpful just to stick to the facts, in terms

of what actually is the cause of these hate crimes,

rather than just attribute it to because people voted

in a certain way.

Well, I think we have talked about...

Sorry, if I may reply.

But we have talked about that, and I think, personally, I think...

Because, Chair, you asked about what is likely to happen

in the future and what is happening now, and I think that there

may be another point where things get worse,

when those people who, for whatever reason,

thought everything would be resolved by Brexit, their own particular

situations might improve and so on, when they find that doesn't

miraculously happen.

Tim Loughton told her that one aim of the committee enquiry was

to make sure that didn't happen.

Plans to close dozens of local tax offices should be immediately

scrapped after a spending watchdog found costs have spiralled,

according to the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell.

His comments came after the National Audit Office, the NAO,

revealed that HMRC has had to rethink its plans after

underestimating the costs and scale of disruption involved.

But called to the Commons, a Treasury Minister

defended the scheme.

The size of HMRC's estate has been reducing since 2006,

and the NAO report published today shows that HMRC have made some

effective changes since 2010 whilst reducing staff numbers by a quarter

and saving the taxpayer over ?350 million.

But HMRC wants to keep up the momentum to provide better

service at a reduced cost.

As they announced in 2015, that means taking forward big

reforms to how the estate works, which will see over 170 small

offices consolidated into 13 larger regional offices,

an approach which is used across government.

This brings with it a whole range of advantages,

from efficiently sharing resources and quality digital infrastructure,

to better support and career opportunities for the staff who can

more effectively share expertise.

And for the public, what this really means is a better,

more modern service, run by fewer staff, costing around

?80 million a year less by the time these changes take effect.

She had accepted the costs of the programme

were likely to be higher than forecast.

There are a wide range of factors behind that,

from rising property costs and changes made to the programme,

for example to help staff adjust and to ensure a smooth transition

for customers, and so the programme costs are of course

updated to reflect this.

I therefore thank the NAO for their timely report.

But this strategy to modernise the service HMRC provides

to taxpayers is the right approach and reflects the way taxpayers

now interact with it.

It is a plan to say goodbye to the days of manual processing

of tax, that can be done more easily with today's technology.

But Labour argued the real situation was much worse.

In reality, Mr Speaker, the report is damning

of the Government's plans to close 170 offices.

We have warned consistently on this side that the Government's proposals

will have a detrimental impact on HMRC's ability to provide advice

and also to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance.

The NAO report has confirmed our fears.

First of all, it calls the original office closure plan unrealistic.

The estimates of the costs of the moving increase by 22%,

?600 million extra.

It forecasts a further 5000 job losses.

It finds that the costs of redundancy and travel

have tripled, from 17 million to 54 million.

It says HMRC cannot demonstrate how its services can be improved.

It has not even produced a clear programme business case

for the planned closures.

As we predicted, this is an emerging disaster.

Given how clear and stark the warnings actually are,

would it not simply make more sense to pause this,

rip it up and start again?

Hear, hear!

Minister.

No, I don't think that's right.

I really can't agree with that.

Because the reasons that are driving this programme,

the reasons that we want to transform HMRC into the most modern

digital tax authority in the world, all still stand.

And it is right that of course, in any major programme, and

there are a number of them running at the same time, we have always

been open, this is an ambitious transformation programme, and it is

right that it is looked at regularly, and of course,

HMRC will respond in detail to the NAO's report.

But the principle that drives this stands absolutely good,

for all the reasons I've talked about.

Better for customers, better for staff, better for the taxpayer.

Jane Ellison.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament,

with me, Alicia McCarthy.

Financial jobs in London are bound to be affected by Brexit but a lack

of knowledge about the Government's plans will make the situation worse.

That was the message from leading financiers, including the head

of the London Stock Exchange.

They called for the City to have its own transitional arrangements,

known as grandfathering, meaning new rules wouldn't apply

to the City institutions for around five years.

There are four periods.

There is a period between now and triggering Article 50,

where it would be helpful to get an idea as to what policy objectives

are in the negotiation, there's the period during Article

50, where there's the possibility of having a discussion

with our counterparts in Europe as to the likelihood of,

where is the common ground in relation to where

we might get to?

Then there's the period from the end of Article 50 to the new world,

for however long that takes, the standstill that you described.

And then there's the implementation period for whatever is agreed

for the future relationship because it will take

time to configure.

An economic impact, in terms of, of course, the jobs that

power this industry, and I'm not just talking, of course,

about the clearing jobs themselves, which number into the few thousands,

but the very large array of ancillary functions,

whether it's syndications, trading, treasury management,

middle office, back office, risk management, software,

which range into far more than just a few thousands of jobs,

would then start migrating.

And last but not least, Mr Chairman, we are talking

here about the largest financial asset classes in the world.

We are talking about numbers that are almost unimaginably large,

hundreds of trillions, that would have the quickly be

innovated, migrated.

The systemic or potential systemic impact normally would have

reverberation if mishandled, if handled too quickly without,

of course, the benefit of anticipation and preparation.

For some of the American banks, for example, Citibank,

have a licensed bank in Ireland.

Some of the other banks already have operations in the Continent.

But the majority of them have their principal operation

in London and passport into the whole of Europe from here.

They are looking at how they would replace that

by setting up operations, regulated operations, in Europe.

And the challenge they've got, more than firms like us that already

have operations in Europe, is they would need to go and get

the licenses that they don't have because today they rely

on passporting from their UK licence.

I'm sorry, just to clarify, your point is, to do that,

they would leave London?

Yes.

They would need to leave London?

And they would need to relocate at least part of their activities

in order to secure that licence?

That's exactly right, and part of the uncertainty

and the planning, if you like, is how much would you have to move?

Clearly, you would need to move the front part of the business,

the relationship managers that talk to customers, because

that is the line.

But the question would be whether the negotiation would allow

the middle and back office the settlement, the risk management,

the accounting and so on, to be done outside of EU 27

or whether EU 27 is part of the negotiations, say, no,

if we are going to give you a license, we want

everything in our country.

That's apolitical negotiation as much as a technical negotiation.

Are there any scenarios after Brexit where you could expand your

operation in London?

I think there are scenarios where the business can grow, certainly.

And I think, particularly given the attractiveness

of the United Kingdom in which to do business, there's no

reason why we wouldn't do.

I mean, we happened to be a German company but we have a significant

and growing business here in the UK because we can find talent

and the right environment.

So there's no reason why that shouldn't continue.

I mean, the freedom of finding the right people, putting

them in the right place, a good regulatory environment,

a predictable tax regime, all of that makes the UK a very,

very attractive place to do business.

But Elizabeth Corley said complexity in doing business could chip away

at that attractiveness.

The Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, who's just

returned from Washington, says there's "a huge

"fund of goodwill for the UK on Capitol Hill".

Mr Johnson held talks with some of Donald Trump's top aides

and leading Republicans and told MPs there was "a very large measure

"of understanding that now is the time to do

"a free trade deal".

His comments came during Question Time, when MPs tried

to tease out details about the talks and the UK's future relationship

with Donald Trump's administration.

In relation to talks with the incoming US administration,

what talks specifically with regard to security and trade did my right

honourable friend have with congressional leaders?

I'm grateful.

I have to say to the House that there was a huge fund

of goodwill for the United Kingdom on Capitol Hill and a very large

measure of understanding that now is the time to do a free trade deal.

They want to do it, they want to do it fast,

and that understanding was most vivid and most urgent on the part

of the incoming administration.

On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary met with Steve Bannon,

Donald Trump's chief strategist, a man whose website is synonymous

with anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia,

hero worship of Vladimir Putin and the promotion of extremist

far-right movements across the world.

Can I ask the Foreign Secretary, how did he and Mr Bannon get on?

I don't wish to embarrass any member of the incoming administration

by describing the friendliness or otherwise of our relations,

but what I can say is that the conversations

were genuinely extremely productive.

There is a wide measure of agreement between the UK and the incoming

administration about the way forward and we intend to work to build

on those areas of agreement.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary what agreement there will be

on policy towards Russia between the British government

and the new administration, given the new administration's

indebtedness to President Putin through the leaking and hacking

of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's

campaign chairman's e-mails?

Well said!

May I first of all say I make no comment on the efficacy,

the electoral efficacy, of the hacking of the DNC e-mails

except to say that it's pretty clear that it did come from the Russians.

And the point that we've made to the incoming administration

and indeed on Capitol Hill is just this, that, as I said earlier on,

we do think that the Russian state, the Putin Kremlin, is up

to all sorts of very dirty tricks, such as cyber warfare,

but it would be folly for us further to demonise Russia or to push

Russia into a corner.

So a twin track strategy of engagement and vigilance

is what is required.

The Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson.

They've endured months of misery and there's no end in sight

for commuters on Southern rail.

The latest action by staff hit on Tuesday, with more scheduled

for later this week.

Southern wants to bring in driver-only operated trains,

where the driver rather than the conductor opens

and closes the doors.

But unions have safety fears and, so far, there's little sign

of an agreement between Southern or its parent company,

Govia, and the unions.

Months of action have led to reports of commuter misery and even of job

losses as people fail to get to work.

In the Lords, one peer had clearly had enough.

There is chaos on our railways and it's estimated that the Southern

dispute alone has cost the government ?65 million

and counting with huge costs, of course, to the economy

as a whole.

But it's the passengers who are taking the real pain on this

with their daily struggle to get to work.

Does the noble Lord, the Minister, accept that this simply cannot be

allowed to go on and that things are now so bad that it would be very

difficult indeed to restore trust between Southern and its workforce

and that therefore Southern should be relieved of their franchise?

And I would suggest that it should be passed to Transport for London,

who have a very good proven track record.

I'm sure the noble lady can read into the reaction of your lordship's

House on her final comment.

Let's put this dispute in the context.

There is no basis left for this dispute.

First of all, the conductors, who have become train supervisors.

222 of the 223 have signed new contracts.

The one remaining one is leaving, so that's 100% compliance.

As far as the drivers are concerned, they were concerned rightly,

as we all are, about safety on the railways.

Well, the Office of Rail and Road, the actual independent office,

has adjudicated that driver-only operated trains are safe,

yes, in the context of the Southern network.

They put out a report on the 5th of January.

So I say to the unions, as the Secretary of State has done,

not on one occasion but twice, come and meet him, call off

the dispute and let's resolve this dispute.

It's gone on far too long.

Could the noble Lord, the Minister, say what financial penalties have

so far been incurred by the train operator Govia as a result of first

poor performance and second days of industrial action?

Because, if no financial penalties have been incurred by the operator,

then what is the incentive first for the train operator to address

issues of poor performance and second to resolve the current

industrial relations issues if neither matter

is affecting them financially?

As I've said, the government has stood behind the particular company

in ensuring that they can provide compensation where necessary,

and we've called and implored upon both the franchisee

and the unions to come together to resolve this dispute.

The Transport Minister, Lord Ahmad.

And that's it from me for now, but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for another round-up of the best of the day

here at Westminster, including the highlights

from Prime Minister's Questions.

But until then, from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.