21/03/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello, there, and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament.

Coming up on this programme...

The Government's accused of not doing enough to tackle

money-laundering after a national newspaper claims millions of pounds

have run through British banks.

So we might as well go from here, go to Heathrow and put up

a welcome sign for Russian murderers and money-launderers.

MPs condemn a ticketing website after its representatives failed

to turn up to give evidence to a Commons committee.

And the Health Secretary dismisses fears that Brexit is triggering

a flight of EU doctors from the NHS.

The number of doctors joining the NHS from the EU

was higher in the four months following the referendum

result, than the same four months the previous year.

But first a Treasury minister has told MPs that allegations that UK

banks have been involved in a Russian money-laundering scam

will be assessed closely to see if they need investigating.

High street names, including HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland

and Barclays, are among those accused of processing

around ?600 million, according to the Guardian newspaper.

All have insisted they comply with the relevant regulations.

Called to the Commons to answer an urgent question,

the Treasury Minister, Simon Kirby, said the

Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency took

the allegations seriously.

The Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency take

any such allegation seriously, and will investigate closely

whether recent information from the Guardian newspaper

regarding money-laundering from Russia, or indeed

any other media source, would allow the progression

of an investigation.

But beyond that we need to ensure sophisticated

criminal networks cannot exploit our financial

services industry.

Since 2010, we've already seized 1.4 billion in illegal funds and put

hundreds of millions more beyond the reach of criminals.

We've set up the Panama Papers task force, we've hosted the global

anti-corruption summit last year, and now we are preparing

the most significant changes to our anti-money laundering

and terrorist finance regime in over a decade.

Could I say that I don't believe the Minister recognises the immense

gravity of the situation that we're facing, and that statement

reflected, I believe, a complacency on the part

of the Government itself.

It's obvious from today's revelations that the current

arrangements are not working, Mr Speaker.

There is widespread organised and sophisticated criminal activity.

Where the Government owns major stakes in banks involved,

particularly RBS, and since it's no longer able to off that stake,

there's an immediate need for the Government to reassure

taxpayers that publicly-owned banks are not indirectly involved

in criminal activity.

What steps will the government be taking, as a major shareholder

in RBS, to investigate the allegations against RBS

and reassure taxpayers?

Yet again, our banks have been found to be wanting.

Urgent action is needed by the Government to protect

the standing of our finance actor, and indeed protect our economy.

Complacency and inaction is not good enough.

The Government is far from complacent.

We have, as I outlined earlier, we've been updating the UK's

money-laundering regulations.

The criminal finance bill in the other place will, I hope,

receive Royal Assent in the near future, and will create

new powers for enforcement agencies.

Surely when one looks at the outcome of the extent of this,

it's just too much to believe that we're the world leader

in money-laundering regulation in general.

Surely if time to have another look at this.

And thirdly one of the key concerns many in this House have had

about the banks over recent years is the way in which they have not

had a supportive regime for whistle-blowing.

Surely we need to encourage, not inhibit whistle-blowing?

In order to counter the impression that is being promoted

beyond his competence, could the minister tell us

which British banks have been convicted of money-laundering over

the last five years, and what specific individual

thing he's learned from reading those judgments?

The FCA has carried out a number of enforcement actions,

both large and small, over a number of different

financial services.

It is right and proper that the balance between fairness

and responsible behaviour is struck at all times.

It seems to me, and I think many others, that there

is an unwritten deal here, which is essentially that Russians

and others of dubious or legal means come to this country.

They send their kids to our schools.

They buy our real estate, or our sports clubs,

and get involved in this country on the basis, and this

is the other side of the deal, that whilst they are here,

they do no wrong.

That is not an acceptable way on which to go forward.

If it ever was, it no longer is.

And I put it to my honourable friend, is it not now the time

to have a rethink about this issue?

How many money-launderers have been sent to prison

in the last five years?

A very sensible question!

Minister!

I thank my honourable friend for that question.

I'm not aware of the exact answer to that, but I will write to him

with all the information that I have.

The home affairs committee estimate that 100 billion is laundered

through London every year.

But only 0.17% of that has been frozen.

So we might as well go from here, go to Heathrow and put up

a welcome sign for Russian murderers and money-launderers.

Can I ask the Minister why the Chancellor's not here?

Because, frankly, his answers have been appalling today.

Some ?80 billion worth of money could have been laundered,

according to this story.

Does he not think that we should think again about the powers

that the FCA and other regulators have to prevent this happening?

Can he please answer some questions?

Minister.

I'm very sorry, Mr Speaker, I have been doing my very best

to answer the questions that have been asked.

Sadly, I can't be held responsible for the quality

or content of the question.

What I would say is that I'm the Minister responsible

for financial services.

The FCA, and indeed through our legal legislation here in this place

and the other place, we are responsible for legislating

the criminal finance bill.

It's an example of what we're doing to improve things.

That is answering your question.

It's an example of what we're doing now, as we speak, to improve things.

And the FCA are in constant dialogue not only with the banks,

but with government to make sure that they move with the Times.

The online ticketing site viagogo has come under fire from MPs

for failing to turn up to a hearing on ticket sales abuse.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been taking evidence

on the issue a week after viagogo was accused of "moral repugnance"

over the retail of concert tickets in a teenage cancer patients.

The MPs heard from Ed Sheeran's manager, and music and theatre

figures, about vastly inflated figures being asked for tickets that

in some instances did not exist, or would not be honoured.

The chair opened the session highlighting viagogo's empty chair.

It is a considerable disappointment to us that viagogo have decided not

to send a representative, despite the fact that they have

a substantial office in Cannon Street in London.

They do not believe that they have adequate representation in the UK

in order to assist the committee with its enquiry.

Can I share your frustration, Chair, about viagogo not

being present today.

If not contempt of Parliament, this clearly shows a lack of respect

to parliamentarians and, by extension, the British public.

I think we all need to be very angry at that.

If we had a tub of lard or a handbag available,

I'm sure we would have put it on the chair today.

A great deal of care has gone into trying to ensure that tickets

for Hamilton go to people that are buying the tickets legitimately.

But some have ended up on secondary sites,

for sale sites like viagogo, for ?2500 a go.

What action do you feel you can take, do you feel

that is the action of touts, or just opportunistic fans?

Well, first of all, it's more than ?2500.

They were originally listed between the ?350-7500.

And they only appear on viagogo.

Looking at those listings, I can prove that some

of them don't exist, that the speculative.

In fact, I don't know how many people have a copy

of the letter I wrote to Nigel and to Trading Standards,

and to the CMA.

But I've included in there examples of at least 40,

maybe 50 tickets I know don't exist that they're selling on their sites.

You observed these tickets for sale.

You've told viagogo...

Well, they were aware of the terms anyway.

Of course they were.

They know the tickets were not supposed to be resold.

It was in the national press.

And you've warned them of what will happen.

Effectively, they are virtually party to a fraud, aren't they?

They're making money out of fraudulently selling tickets.

I would say so.

They're certainly making fraudulent sales on the ticket we don't have.

The more we hear about viagogo, it strikes me these people make

Stan Flashman look like Mother Teresa.

I was fairly horrified when I heard about tickets for a charity gig that

Ed Sheeran was doing for Teenage Cancer, going on resale

well for over ?1000.

Could you just tell the committee...

It was a lot more than that.

Was it a lot more than that?

Yeah, last Tuesday we were playing a Teenage Cancer Trust show

at the Royal Albert Hall.

I think top ticket...

Tickets ranged from I think it was ?40 to 110.

And there were tickets going for over ?5,000 on viagogo.

Knowing that we were going to have such demand for the show,

we wrote to all four sites, the main secondary sites,

first of all asking them not to list the show, and secondly informing

them that as part of our terms

and conditions of the show, that re-sale was not allowed

and if we were able to find anyone that had purchased tickets

in the secondary market, they would not be allowed

admittance to the show.

All four sites ignored our request, and all four sites listed tickets

and inflated prices knowing that it's our intention to cancel

those tickets and not admit their customers.

Similar action had already been taken at other concerts.

Catfish And The Bottlemen at Wembley Arena was one such example.

We literally had a queue 100 yards long, 450 people,

half of which were in tears.

The other half didn't have another credit card,

so they couldn't go to the box office and repurchase.

We applied some element of humanity to it.

But to actually stick to the point, we turned away

a good 80% of that queue.

Their advice?

Buy from a primary seller.

Our fan relationship is what our career is built on.

And the fact that a lot of people don't even know the difference

between secondary and private, which is the harshest thing,

and that's the thing that really annoys us.

So it's just about people not being ripped off.

I just took up Missy Elliott's challenged to see how you would buy

a ticket to Ed Sheeran just by googling.

And viagogo just pops up right at the top.

And it's interesting, given what you've said, viagogo,

world's largest ticket market based, all tickets for Ed Sheeran

100% guaranteed.

Well, that's fraud.

Yeah.

Because you're saying to us and the committee today that

you don't guarantee the tickets.

In fact, the absolute opposite.

Tickets are not guaranteed and tickets are invalid.

Right.

So let's call it out for what it is.

Viagogo is lying to the public here.

Yes.

A Labour peer is calling for a change in the rules

on the pensions payable to the partners of police officers

killed in the line of duty.

Lord Bach argued the current system was unfair and he had an example.

On the 15th of August 2002, two Leicestershire police officers,

police constables, were brutally killed by a criminal

driver on the A42.

They not only both died in the same incident,

they both left young widows and small children.

One widow remarried seven years later in 2009 and lost her

police widow's pension.

The other widow remarried in 2015 and because of a change in the law

has kept her police widow's pension.

How in all conscience can it be right that two women,

both of whose husbands were killed while bravely fighting crime

and in the line of duty on the same case can be treated so differently

by the country that owes so much to both of them?

Could I ask the minister whether she would please look

at this case again and doesn't she agree that such obvious

unfairness offends against every principle this House believes in?

Absolutely, without talking about individual cases,

it is tragic that police officers are killed in the line

of public duty.

When it does happen it is right we should honour

the officers' memory

and sacrifice and that is why this Government has changed the rules

so all survivors of police officers who died on duty do not now face

the prospect of losing their pension on remarriage.

That is a change that no previous Government has felt able to make.

But we must continue to have regard to the wider implications of changes

to public service pensions.

It is the duty of Government to ensure that any police changes

are legally and financially sound.

And I don't pretend that the judgment is always an easy

one but it is one we must make.

And on the aspect of retrospective changes, my lords, successive

governments have maintained a general presumption

against retrospective changes to public service pensions,

and I'm afraid that remains in place.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Nicola Sturgeon has insisted

Scotland's future should be decided by the people who live there rather

than being imposed upon us.

The First Minister was speaking as she asked Holyrood

to back her call for a second independence referendum.

Ms Sturgeon wants a vote to be held in the autumn of next year

or the spring of 2019 but the UK Government

has already said it would

block the move until after Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon said she understood why many people didn't relish

a second referendum - but she said the alternative

to planning now was to drift through the next two years.

It would mean accepting now that at the end of this process

we would not even have the option of choosing an alternative path,

but the direction of our nation would be decided for us.

I do not consider that to be right or fair.

The future of Scotland should not be imposed upon us.

It should be the choice of the people of Scotland.

But the call was rejected by the Scottish Conservative leader.

Most people in Scotland are sick to death of the games.

Most people in Scotland don't want another referendum any time soon

just three years after the last one.

And most people in Scotland see the plain common sense

in our own position, that Brexit is going to be a major

challenge for this country, and none of us know how it

will play out.

None of us know how we will come through it and none of us know

what the impact will be for our country.

Which is exactly why we question how can we make a decision on our future

constitutional path at a time of such uncertainty?

Why start an independence referendum campaign now at this very moment

when the process of leaving the EU is only just beginning?

And that debate concludes on Wednesday when MSPs will vote

on whether or not to back that referendum call.

The deputy speaker of the House of Commons has warned that

parliamentarians risk becoming "virtual MPs" because of increasing

fears for their safety following the murder

of their colleague Jo Cox.

Lindsay Hoyle was giving evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Committee

whose enquiry into hate crime was set up in the wake

of the MP's death in June.

But the Committee Chair, Yvette Cooper, started off

by asking him whether the number of online attacks against MPs,

on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, had also increased.

In 1997, social media wasn't there as we know it.

The fact is that most constituents came to a surgery

or contacted you by letter.

Now the whole game has changed and the fact is we are more exposed

in a way we never expected to be previously.

From '97 to now, it is light years apart.

And the fact is that there are people out there who feel

that we are there to be attacked.

The keyboard warrior in the middle of the night feels

that it is acceptable to encourage and inflame other people

to then come on board.

And it is how it grows from someone who passes their comments

and their views, and then we get a fixated person who takes up that

issue, and that is where I think we have a problem and that is where

it is difficult.

We have got a lot, each week, the numbers grow.

And the evidence continues to grow.

Would you agree it is an important part of our democracy

that we all of us as MPs live in our constituency,

work along with people we represent on a daily basis,

go to different events all of the time, without having

to fear for our safety or for threats, and that it

is immensely important

to try and continue that rather than have something where you end up

being separated, instead of being embedded in democracy?

Yes.

If we become virtual MPs that would be the last

thing any of us want.

We are elected to serve our constituents, not only in London

but in our constituencies as well.

And the fact is if we cannot carry out the job we have lost democracy.

Democracy has to be protected.

There is not a price to be put on democracy,

democracy has to continue.

We have to continue that MPs feel they have got the support

and the back-up and what we have got to be able

to do is carry out the duties that our constituents elect

us to do.

That is not only to speak on their behalf but also to be seen

and to listen to them at surgeries.

Maybe we change the way we do surgeries but the bottom line

is I believe basic politics is that that a Member of Parliament

in that constituency that leads from the front,

and in the end if you can't carry that out we have

lost, and we must not lose, whatever happens.

Our constituents matter and carrying out my duties as a member

of Parliament is so important to me as it is for all of us.

If you are a young woman, a young man of colour,

a Muslim woman, or a Jewish woman, why would they enter politics

today if all they read about is the threats that

parliamentarians face, especially female parliamentarians?

Very good question.

The danger is that we go back to where we were were with white,

male, middle-aged MPs.

And as you look at it, I am ticking myself as that box.

What I would say is male and stale is what we want to get away from,

and we have to reflect society, and that is what I am saying to you.

We have to reassure people that it is not the easiest job

in the world but it is a great job.

We are very lucky to be Members of Parliament.

I want to make sure that everybody has a chance to be an MP.

And nothing should put them off from becoming an MP.

Whatever or whoever you are, all should have the same

ability to be an MP.

There should be no fear in there and if people feel

that they don't want to do this job we will have failed.

There should be no barriers, he said, which was why it was vital

to get MPS' security and protection right.

Meanwhile in Westminster Hall a Labour MP was moved to tears

as she paid tribute to Jo Cox and urged MPs to unite

and end discrimination.

Dawn Butler was leading a debate calling on the Government to mark

UN International Day for the Elimination

of Racial Discrimination.

Dawn Butler said MPs must unite together in one

voice and build bridges, not walls as she paid tribute

to her friend and former Labour MP.

And even after this hateful, despicable crime from this

terrorist her family wanted us to love like Jo.

To repeat her mantra, that we are far more united and have

far more in common with each other than that which divides us.

This is why acknowledging this day, with the rest of the international

community, is important.

We must unite together in one voice and build bridges, not walls.

She recited the words of the song she said was her theme tune

when she faced discrimination.

It was written and recorded

by a British singer-songwriter, Labi Siffre, inspired

by a television documentary on apartheid in South Africa,

where they showed the filming of police killing black people.

And the words are this.

Something inside so strong.

The higher you build your barriers, the taller I become.

The farther you take my rights away the faster I will run.

You can deny me, you can choose to turn your face away.

No matter, because there's something inside so strong.

Chair, I hope the Government commits to marking this day annually each

year so that we never forget to remember those who gave

their lives for equal rights.

Although work remains to be done, in Britain today we can

credibly claim to be a successful multiethnic country.

Members of our African, Caribbean, Asian and other ethnic minority

communities are represented in every area of British society,

in business, academia, sport, the arts, and in politics.

And the UK also has some of the strongest equality

legislation in the world.

But we know that on its own that is not enough.

We have got to recognise and challenge racism and discrimination

whenever they occur.

And he said the Government was committed to standing up

to injustice and inequality.

The Health Secretary has dismissed fears that Brexit could produce

an exodus of doctors who are EU nationals from the health service.

The fear was raised when a Conservative asked

what could be done to increase the numbers of family

doctors in the NHS.

In Taunton Deane we are short of trained professionals

from dermatologists to nurses, but one of the worst shortages

is for GPs with some practices not even able to get locums.

So I know that the minister is working on this but could my

right honourable friend update me on what the Department is doing

to encourage more medical students to become GPs?

It is hard to believe they don't want to come to Somerset,

but what are we doing to encourage them?

I would say to her what I would say to all medical students

which is that general practice is going to be the biggest area

of expansion for the NHS over the coming years.

And in fact we are planning to have the biggest increase in GPs

in the history of the NHS.

It will take many years for those doctors he has just talked

about to come on stream and we have a workforce

crisis in the NHS now, partly because of the cuts

the Government made in the last Parliament, but also

because of their irrational pursuit of the hard Brexits.

He could do something very simple today in terms of addressing this

crisis in the short term and that is to announce that all EU

nationals who do vital work in the NHS will be able to stay

when we leave the European Union.

The one simple thing we are not going to do on this side

of the House is refuse to listen to what the British people said

when they voted on June the 23rd.

And we will do what they said.

It is the right thing to do.

But he is absolutely right to highlight the vital

role that EU doctors, around 10,000 doctors in the NHS,

do in this country.

But I can reassure him that the number of doctors joining

the NHS from the EU was higher in the four months following

the referendum result than the same four months the previous year.

Jeremy Hunt.

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

for another round up of the day at Westminster including

the highlights of Prime Minister's Questions.

But for now

from me, goodbye.