11/07/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello there, and welcome to the programme.

The Health Minister confirms there's to be an inquiry

Nearly 2,500 people are thought to have died after being given

products that were infected with hepatitis C or HIV.

A Government-commissioned report on employment says

all work in the UK should be "fair and decent".

And David Davis says there's unity at the top when it comes to Brexit.

You will find in terms of public statements, it is very hard to put a

cigarette paper between the Chancellor and myself.

But first - Theresa May has ordered a UK wide enquiry into the use

of contaminated blood products in the NHS, stemming from the 1970s.

2,400 people have died as a result of the scandal.

Many of them were haemophiliacs who died from hepatitis C

It has been called the worst treatment disaster in

Many of those affected and their families say they were not

told of the risks involved and believe there was a cover-up.

In an emergency debate, the Labour MP Diana Johnson,

who has campaigned for an enquiry, said the victims needed answers.

They deserve to be told what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who is

responsible for what happened. The story of the injustice they have

suffered also needs to be set out and told to the wider public. Their

voices need to be heard. Apologies, compensation and other forms of

support are essential, but if their right to answers is not also

satisfied, I feel that they will be denied true and meaningful justice.

She said successive governments of all colours had sidestepped

She turned to the questions that needed to be answered,

such as why the Government had not acted sooner.

Because the UK was not self-sufficient in blood supplies,

profit-making American companies played a considerable role in

supplying factor concentrates to haemophilia patients. This plot was

sourced from much riskier patients, including prison inmates, who were

much more likely to have infections and had a financial incentive to be

less than honest about the risks of infection. The dangers of American

products were being discussed in public, not from the 1990s, nor the

1980s, but from 1970. A Conservative turned his fire

on one of the five charities set up In my experience, I have to say to

the minister, the McFarland trust has done anything but help my

constituent. They have behaved in an utterly despicable way. They refused

to take meetings with my constituent or with me. I have requested

meetings for the past six years. And they always come back with a reason

why they can't have a meeting. They have bullied my constituent. The

trustees of the McFarland have bullied her. And they have fed her

scraps. Labour called for a

Hillsborough-style enquiry The previous two enquiries have not

been sufficient in seeking justice and this is the reason why a

Hillsborough style enquiry must be actioned and secondly the evidence

presented so far is clear that if we are to have the truth and

reconciliation of the murky covering up of this scandal, then the

strongest of daylight must be shone on every aspect of this scandal,

leaving no stone unturned. I am pleased to be able to confirm to the

house that the Government intends to call an enquiry into the events that

led to so many people being infected with HIV and - or hepatitis C

through NHS supplied blood and blood products. We have heard already

today that there have been calls for an enquiry based on the model that

was used to investigate the Hillsborough tragedy, a so-called

Hillsborough style panel. This will allow for a sensitive investigation

of the issues, allowing those affected and their families close

personal engagement with an independent and trusted panel. There

have also been suggestions that only a formal statutory enquiry, led by a

senior judge, under the enquiries act 2005, will provide the answer is

that those affected want. The Government can see that there are

merits in both approaches. And to ensure that whatever is established

is in the interest of those affected, we will engage with the

affected groups and interested parties, including the all-party

parliamentary group, before taking a final decision on the type of

enquiry. Will he confirm that in terms of drawing up the scope of the

enquiry, you will be careful not to do anything that would endanger any

future trials and also will he also further emphasise that anyone with

information must make sure it is made available to the police? My

honourable friend will recollect from the recent Hillsborough enquiry

that it gave rise to certain information which was made available

to the police, which led to certain charges being made. We would

envisage that any enquiry that is established would have the ability

to do the same thing if that is appropriate.

An MP who was a former surgeon turned to one of the former reports.

She wondered why there had not already been a public enquiry.

I remember a criticism in response to Penrose in 2015, saying they were

surprised that clinicians showed so much trust in the quality of blurbs.

But a clinician was using hundreds of drugs and implants and machines

and blood products must be able to trust them. We have no mechanism

personally to check them. That is the role of Government and all the

agencies of Government. That is why we have licensing and inspections

and why when there is suspicion of harm action must be taken.

Theresa May has said flexible working practices

should not be an excuse to exploit employees.

But she also called flexibility "the British way" -

The Prime Minister was responding to a report on modern working practices

The author, Matthew Taylor, recommended sick and holiday pay

for workers in the gig economy and a new employment status

When the report was debated in the Commons, opposition MPs

Labour said that after seven years in power, the Conservatives had done

They have inflicted hardship on public sector workers with a pay

which has been confirmed yesterday by the Department for Education for

yet another year. They promised workers on board, but rolled back

scared when powerful interests said they were not particularly keen on

the idea, and they have introduced employment tribunal fees, which has

made it much harder for workers to enforce their rights. So today, with

the publication of the Taylor review, although there was a real

opportunity to overhaul the existing employment system in a way that

would protect workers in a rapidly changing world of work, but in the

words of the general secretary of Unite, the biggest union in the UK,

instead of the serious programme the country urgently needs to ensure

that once again work pays in this country we got a depressing sense

that insecurity is the inevitable new normal.

The Minister said the Government would be considering

He does criticise Government's record and so I would like to remind

her that it is this Government that has introduced the National Living

Wage, that it is this Government that has presided over the minimum

wage being at its highest rate in real terms since it was introduced,

and the facts remain that the wage increase we have seen in the last

year have been at their highest amongst the lowest paid thanks to

the National Living Wage. Today's response in the Taylor review for

the Government tells us everything we need to know about their frailty

and their approach to work's rights. A weak set of proposals that

probably will not be admitted that the set of talking bout that leads

the power with the businesses. It was interesting that the Prime

Minister did not mention the role of the trade unions in securing fair

rights at work. If the news reports are right, Matthew Taylor goes for

flexibility rather than always implementing the National Minimum

Wage. Can we have an undertaking from the Government that they will

always abide by the National Minimum Wage, even if there is a loss of

flexibility? I congratulate the honourable gentleman for all the

work he did sharing the work and pensions Select Committee in the

last parliament. And I can assure him that minimum wage rates are

absolutely sacrosanct. There will be no trade-off with regard to ensuring

that everybody is paid at least the minimum wage.

One MP - a former actor - is a fan of flexible working.

I have spent 45 years in the deep economy and what I liked about the

Digital economy is that it was very flexible and in order to big build a

career, I found myself delivering bacon across north London from

Smithfield market. I became a removal man and many things. But

does my Right Honourable friend agree with me that it is very

welcome that this report supports a flexible labour market and is not in

favour of restricting that flexibility were individuals wanted?

Someone who has done a few gigs in his time. Can I urge the Minister to

reject this think tank the jargon of the phrase depended contact? Work is

work. Workers are workers. Depending contractors of the world unite, you

have nothing to lose but your chains is not going to change anything.

The Speaker explained to new MPs that when Mr Brennan mentioned gigs,

he was talking about his involvement in Parliament's rock band.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament,

The Foreign Secretary has told MPs the European Union can "go whistle"

for any "extortionate" final payment from the UK on Brexit.

And Boris Johnson said that the Government had "no plan"

for what to do in the event of no deal being agreed.

The Prime Minister has said that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

However, Number Ten has played down suggestions that Theresa May

could walk away from the Brexit talks over the EU's demand

for a settlement worth tens of billions of pounds.

The subject was raised with the Foreign Secretary

Since we joined the Common Market on the 1st of February 1973

until the date we leave, we will have given the EU and

its predecessors, in today's money, in real terms,

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the EU that

if they want a penny piece more, they can go whistle?

I'm sure that my honourable friend's words will have broken

like a thunder clap over Brussels and they will pay attention

to what he has said, and he makes a very valid point,

and I think that the sums that I have seen that they propose

to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate and I think

"Go whistle" is an entirely appropriate expression.

In March, the Foreign Secretary said that

leaving the EU with no deal would be perfectly OK.

However, last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer

said that that would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.

Since the two positions are clearly completely contradictory,

who should the British public believe?

I think what the British public can take from both the Chancellor

and myself and indeed from the vast majority of Labour members opposite,

as I understand their position, that we all want to get on and do

the deal and do the best deal possible and to leave the EU.

With the Chancellor and the First Secretary of State,

they were going to need at least a transitional period of three years

during which we will remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Neither the Chancellor nor the First Secretary of State

Other European leaders were making it clear that they would not

accept a deal on any terms and does he share my view that what is sauce

for the goose is sauce for the gander?

He makes a very good point about the negotiating stance of

our friends and partners across the Channel.

They do sound at the moment as though they're pretty hard over,

But I have no doubt that in the fullness of time, a subtle

mist will descend and a willingness to compromise, because after all,

a great Brexit deal, a great free trade deal, a deep and special

partnership is in the interest of both sides of the Channel.

Can he explain what that no deal option

would mean for the people and businesses of Great Britain?

As I have said before, I think that the chances

of such an outcome are vanishing and unlikely since it is

manifestly in the interest of both sides of the Channel to get a great

free trade deal and a new deep and special partnership between us

and the European Union, and that is what we

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer,

but unfortunately it leaves us none the wiser.

After all, it is the Prime Minister, at least the Prime Minister for now,

who decided to put the deal of the no deal option

couldn't stop using the phrase during the election campaign.

Given that a plan for no deal would be

worse than a dereliction of duty, can the Foreign Secretary spell out

publicly what no deal would mean and can he reassure

us that if he is not prepared to tell us publicly,

at the very least he has a detailed private plan to manage that risk?

There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get

Just for the sake of example and illustration, I would remind

the honourable lady that there was a time, and I am

old enough to remember it, when Britain was not in what we now

Given that the Prime Minister has appealed to these

benches to help out today, where does the Foreign

Secretary think there are areas for compromise?

As I have said before, I think the striking thing

about this debate is how much unanimity there really is between

the two sides of the chamber on these fundamental questions

and I have been very struck by the Right Honourable

gentleman that was the leader of the Labour Party who seems to me

very much on all fours with the objectives of the Brexit...

He very much agrees with the position that we are

taking and I hope to see him in the lobbies with us.

Well, later, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, laughed off those

comments by Boris Johnson about the "extortionate"

As we saw, Mr Johnson said the EU could "go whistle"

Appearing before a Lords committee, David Davis was asked

The Foreign Secretary this morning says that, um,

the money that it looks like the EU is asking for is "extortionate"

and it is quite appropriate to say that "go whistle"

The truth is, we all read this, the Europeans read this...

He is not the only one, other members of Government say

things which absolutely blow the strategy off-course.

You'll have to get the Foreign Secretary here to explain his views,

if you really want to, I'm not going to comment

But in terms of the tone, you'll find two levels

of knowledge when you go to our continental partners.

You'll see local knowledge in Brussels, in which, frankly,

They read all the British newspapers, you're quite right,

and they take them, if anything, to seriously, is what I say to them.

It was the reason of humorous exchange between Jean-Claude Juncker

But more importantly, in the context of the 27,

actually very little of what happens here percolates across.

I remember talking to the Austrian Foreign Secretary,

who is turning into a very good friend of mine,

This was about two months ago, and we were talking about the issue

of the citizens' rights, and I explained what we wanted

to do, and he said, "Well, you'd better come to Austria

and say that, because nobody in Austria knows this."

Lady Armstrong turned to what she saw as another area

The discussion that we have heard within government around

a transitional agreement, or implementation period,

whatever you like to call it, has varied enormously.

Between the Chancellor talking about no cliff edge,

and therefore really raising the question of single

market and Customs union membership continuing,

whereas others say something very different.

I mean, leave aside the briefings which I can't speak for,

but you'll find in terms of public statements, it's very hard

to put a cigarette paper between the Chancellor and myself

on the transitional or implementation agreement.

Because we have discussed it at length, virtually

You will similarly find, on another controversial area,

in terms of issues of migration policy, we have both said,

time and again, bringing back control of migration policy

in the UK is not the same as slamming the door.

The session ended with a question from another Labour peer.

May I ask the Minister, how many women are on the negotiating team?

The photo in the Times was a disgrace.

Being taken to task by Lords committee.

Many pundits have suggested that there was an obvious and

gaping hole in the general election campaign last month.

There was little discussion about the economy and the state

Well, a Conservative MP thought it was a subject worthy of debate

and led a discussion in the alternative chamber

He attacked Labour's public spending plans.

If they had carried on spending at the rate they were when they left

office, there would be an extra ?1 trillion added to the public debt

And we saw their manifesto at the last general election

was just spend, spend, spend other people's money with

And that way, I suggest, Ms Ryan, is not the route

And the fact that so few of them are here to defend their plans,

I suspect, tells us everything we need to know.

He turned to the spending demands facing ministers.

There are many pressures on public spending.

There is public sector pay, funding for our National Health Service,

funding for social care, colleagues want more money put

into schools, there are many, many pressures on public spending,

and part of the challenge of being in government is that

you cannot say yes to everybody, you have to make choices

Would he also agree with me that our public services are under

real pressure at the moment, and I think we have to recognise

that, and I speak as someone who works in those public services,

and I see that in my working life there.

According to the latest forecast, the target, a structural deficit

of less than 2% of national income in 2020-21 will be comfortably met

by sticking with the current tax and spending plans.

So there is about ?25 million worth of leeway to invest a little bit

more in those very important public services, whilst at the same time

paying down the deficit in a responsible manner.

When the Chancellor looks at the public finance

position in his Budget, he needs to look at the grade

forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility,

so he needs to look at what tax revenues he is likely to have,

he then needs to look at the pressures on our public

servants, on our public services, he needs to look across the piece,

look at all of the pressures he faces, then he needs to come

to a balanced budget judgment, weighing up all of those things,

and then we need to back him in those decisions.

What we cannot do is each week, have a particular story

that's running around, we then decide that happens to be

the flavour of the month, then when we get to the Budget,

we discover we have run out of money.

Ms Ryan, I feel somewhat like Custer at the Battle

of Little Bighorn at the moment, as the Comanches come running

towards me, and I want to apologise to Tories present for pouring water

on some of the more political points that the honourable member

Over the past seven years, the Government, I believe,

has been very good at one thing, that is patting themselves

on the back and congratulating themselves on what a great job

Even though some many families are more pessimistic

than ever about the future, the Government still trades

on a myth they are overseeing a strong and robust economy.

When they were elected in 2010, they were given a mandate alongside

the Liberal Democrats to bring about real change.

Intentionally, I believe, Ms Ryan, allowing people to believe

that the deficit and the national debt were one and the same thing.

They told the British people in 2010 they would pay off the debt

and bring the Budget into surplus by 2015.

I'm really frustrated at this debate, because I cannot believe

that people are able to spill this nonsense.

The Chancellor, when he stood up in the Spring Budget,

mentioned that inflation was going to be 2.4% in 2017.

Actually, inflation, in May, over the last 12 months,

The OBR's forecast for earnings growth over 2017 was 2.6%.

If inflation continues to grow at 2.9% and wages

continue to grow at 2.6%, then we very quickly

Particularly for those households that are struggling with increasing

The Bank of England are concerned at the increases in household debt.

Household debt is at its highest level since 2008.

Now, this is a real problem for families, especially

when they are going to see their real wages eroded.

And I don't think there is a case in modern political history

of a British Government so regularly failing to meet

There are many ways the Government can balance the books,

and there were very many difficult decisions that had to be taken over

the past seven years, no-one doubts that one.

That being said, the Government chose the path of austerity

of long-term prosperity for everyone in the country.

But surely, Ms Ryan, the cruellest cut of all

is when a politician struts the stage, telling the audience that

which they most dearly wish to hear but knowing in his heart he has

Knowing in his heart that what he is suggesting will lead

Finally, there were more than 80 new MPs elected in June.

Each of them have to make a first, or maiden, speech.

Making hers, the new MP for Oxford East reflected

on the housing crisis in the South of England.

Renters of homes have fewer rights than if they were renting

The rules for housing benefit have been changed so people whose

families have lived in Oxford for generations are being forced out

of the city for the crime of merely owning an average,

And to pay for the right to buy and Housing Association properties,

up to a third of Oxford's remaining council stock could vanish.

As far as I'm concerned, people doing their best to bring

up their children on low incomes in Oxford are today's

Often running between more than one job to make ends meet.

I must say, it comes as a slap in the face to them when they hear

politicians refusing to admit there is such a thing as in-work

poverty, and I was disturbed to hear that in this House

Britain, and especially Oxford, urgently needs more

The new MP for Oxford East bringing us to the end of this

edition of the programe, but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for a Prime Minister's Questions with a difference,

as Damian Green and Emily Thornberry fill in for Theresa May

But for now, from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.