28/11/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up in the next half hour:

Labour accuses the Government

of treating Parliament

with contempt.

Transparency and accountability are

two words this Government does not

understand.

There's a cross-party welcome

for new measures to protect

babies during childbirth.

Anyone who has been involved in

birth knows that even the healthiest

pregnancy can go wrong at the last

minute.

And deja vu for one

former party leader.

I must say, I noticed one or two

policies in the budget that looked

somewhat familiar.

But first,

how will leaving the EU

affect the economy?

That's the question

behind the controversial

Brexit impact statements.

The history of these is a bit

tortuous, but in a nutshell,

the Government prepared a series

of papers setting out how Brexit

would affect 58 different sectors.

MPs wanted these papers to be shown

to the Brexit committee,

and voted accordingly.

So ministers said

they'd hand them over.

And they have done.

But not in their complete form.

Cue the Shadow Brexit Secretary.

Transparency and accountability are

two words this Government does not

understand. On the 1st of November,

after a three-hour debate, this has

voted in favour of a humble address

requiring all 38 sectoral analysis

is to be passed to the Brexit Select

Committee. Not some reports, not

redacted report, the full ones. The

Government did not seek to amend the

humble address, nor did it vote

against the motion. After your

advice, the Government accepted that

the motion was binding. It is simply

not open to the Secretary of State

to choose to ignore it and to pass

to the Select Committee the

documents that he chooses. Whether

he is in contempt of Parliament is a

matter we will come to at some later

date, but he's certainly treating

Parliament with contempt.

We have

not edited or redacted reports. At

the time the motion was passed and

subsequently, we were clearly

documents did not exist in the form

requested. We have collated

information in a way that doesn't

include some sensitive material, but

the documents which he admits he

hasn't seen do not contain

redactions. It is noticeable that

the original suggestion of

redactions in the debate on the 1st

of November came from him. He also

said in the debate that he had

accepted all along that the

Government should not put into the

public domain any information that

would undermine our negotiating

position, and there is a level of

detail and confidential issues and

tactics that should not be

discussed. Statements that the Right

Honourable and learn it gentleman

made during the debate itself.

If

the wished to resist the publication

of the paper as it had, it should

have voted against the motion. If it

wished to qualify or to edit the

papers that it had, it should have

sought to amend the motion. And we

cannot allow post-Brexit to start

reducing the parliamentary

sovereignty to a slightly ridiculous

level.

In June, the Secretary of

State said on the Andrew Marr show

that we have nearly 60 sectoral

analyses already done. In September,

this was reiterated in the response

to my Freedom of information

request. In October, the Secretary

of State confirm this to our

committee and said that the reports

were in excruciating detail and the

Prime Minister had seen the

summaries. In November, we heard

that they never existed. On what

basis, Mr Speaker, that completed

reports be uncompleted and on what

basis is it right that the

Government do anything other than

did the reports in full to the

Select Committee in line with the

resolution of this house?

The

Government has provided the report

covering 58 sectors to the Select

Committee and I look forward to the

Select Committee being able to

scrutinise those in detail, but I

say to the honourable lady, she has

been resisted in pressing for as

much of this information as possible

to be put in the public domain. Her

front bench have also been

persistent in recognising, but not

all of the information subject to

negotiations could possibly be done

without damaging our national

interest.

Can remind the minister

that the question of what the

Government will provide to the

Select Committee is not for the

Government or indeed for the Select

Committee to decide. This Parliament

has decided, and there is no

discussion, no debate, no

negotiation, as to the extent to

which that decision will be complied

with. It must be complied with in

full.

I made it very clear to the

Secretary of State what procedure

the Select Committee would use to

consider the reports, and I may put

it like this, do object to any

suggestion that the Select Committee

of which I was chair cannot be

trusted to do that job.

But one or two MPs wondered

if select committees

could in fact be trusted.

Does the Minister share my concern

as to how a letter sent by the

Secretary of State to the committee

managed to reach journalists at the

daily Mirror? Does that encourage

him or discouraging when it comes to

sharing confidential information.

My

honourable friend raises a very

interesting point and of course all

leaks should be taken extremely

seriously.

Several Conservative Brexiteers came

up with a suggestion.

It was a mistake not to amend the

opposition motion, and as a result

the Government is now skating on

very thin parliamentary ice. The

issue can be solved next week if the

Government would come back with a

sensible motion which every member

in this house really ought to

support.

As with other honourable

friend, I take his suggestion very

seriously.

And after that debate,

the Speaker suggested

in quite a forceful way

that the Brexit Secretary should

have a chat with the Brexit

Committee as soon as possible.

Now, the Chancellor has been accused

of favouring London and neglecting

other parts of the country

in the measures

outlined in his Budget.

The criticism came at Treasury

Questions at the start of the day.

The Chancellor will know that even

after the budget that the Southeast

and London will still have a

disproportionate share of the

infrastructure spending. Could the

Chancellor undertake to give an

annual report to Parliament which

will detail both be spending but

also the likely economic impact of

that spending across different

regions?

It is a legitimate

question. Much of this

infrastructure investment will have

impact across the country, for

example investment in HS two will

benefit parts of the North of

England far more than it will

benefit many of the area through

which the railway will run.

Mr

Speaker, what specific impact of the

Chancellor think a 1 billion

two-year grant that is equivalent to

the one he gave to Northern Ireland

would have on regional economic

growth in, for example, my

honourable friend for Barnsley

Central, Sheffield city region?

There are many things that we can

invest in every region of the

country and I am pretty confident

that I could take £1 billion to any

region of the UK and invest it in a

way that would enhance productivity

and stimulate economic growth.

The

Bank of England deputy governor

recently argued that Brexit could

lead to a sharp step down in the

UK's productivity growth. This is

likely to hit regions in different

ways and today the social mobility

commission talked about the widening

geographic divide. What impact does

he believe his extra resources,

talked about in light of preparation

for Brexit, will have on tackling

regional productivity issues and

social mobility?

Well, Mr Deputy

Speaker, we know some of the things

that drive our low productivity

performance, regional difference is

one of them, low levels of capital

investment in private business is

another. Relatively low levels of

public infrastructure investment and

poorer skills. And what we set out

in the budget is a raft of measures

that will address all of them.

Today's state of the nation report

made very clear the issues of social

mobility that are facing many young

people in England today. Given the

Government's record of cuts to

social funding, school funding,

raising tuition fees, high youth

unemployed and a failure to provide

affordable housing for families and

young people, these findings are not

surprising. I would like to ask what

action the Minister will take to

combat the intergenerational divide

for young people right across the

country?

Under this Government, we

are increasing the number of

apprenticeships. We have improved

the school curriculum, brought in

new academies and free schools, and

use unemployment is at its lowest

level for over 13 years.

This

Speaker, in the budget, over £1

million of the so-called extra money

for Scotland was in the form of

financial transaction money. That is

money that the Scottish Government

has got pay back. The block grant

for spending on front line services

is down £230 million in real terms.

How can the Chancellor suggest that

£230 million of a reduction for

Scotland is a good deal for our

country?

Scotland's spending power

has been increased by £2 billion in

this budget, including financial

transactions which support fantastic

schemes such as help to buy. But

what we need to see is the SNP

Government using their powers to

deliver for Scotland, such as

improving their appalling results in

English and maths education.

Liz Truss.

You're watching Tuesday

in Parliament, with me, Mandy Baker.

Don't forget you can find all our

programmes on the BBC iPlayer.

Has told his staff they were

involved in setting exams by the

pupils. The head of economic 's had

left the school amid allegations he

had leaked practice questions to

other teaching staff.

MPs on the

education committee are looking into

the integrity of the exam system.

Detection of malpractice is of

importance and we go about it any

number of. One way we did and detect

malpractice is that all schools that

hold our examinations are subject to

unannounced examination. Before the

examination to ensure that

confidential material has not been

opened during the exam to make sure

that the exam has been supervised.

That is one thing we do. We actively

encourage whistle blowing by anybody

with valuable information. In these

cases it was whistle blowing that

let us catch it, not by the media

but whistle-blowing directly to the

organisation. We also carry out

statistical and other examination of

the exam scripts after we receive

them in order to spot improbable

performance or copied scripts.

A

Labour MP worried how big the

problem was.

Is it systemic? Is

historic? Is it happening now in the

press have got on to it?

Can I and

Sir? I agree with the idea of

integrity. I say to my pupils is

they have to do the right thing when

no one is looking. In this case, it

was our own teachers in the

economics department who had

concerns about the head of

Department. They reported it to me

and I reported it to the examination

board. It had all been dealt with.

The teacher had been dismissed three

weeks before the matter hit the

public domain.

Do you think the

high-stakes accountability of the

examination system, it does not

condone malpractice, but do you

think in the state sector as well it

could lead to teachers feeling under

pressure to get those results by any

means?

That is a question I have

asked myself. In the case of my

school, I do not believe that to be

the case. We pride ourselves that

the education we offer is more than

examination results. We do not enter

league tables in August, or release

our results at that point because it

is not a metric that we are

prioritising. Certainly, in our

schools when I meet annually with

heads of department we have an

annual review of the departmental

performance and there is no

discussion about a drive to improve

examination results. Each of the

committee asked about teachers being

in teaching and setting exams.

I

have teachers who are involved in

setting exams and know in advance

what are coming up in the exams for

ten separate exams because two of

them set for two separate boards.

Seven of those ten exams are papers

that pupils will set, three are not.

We have brought in additional

safeguards following this case.

Are

the parents made aware of what

teachers are setting the exams?

No,

we do not. We caught the other way

and have now said that teachers are

not to disclose to pupils and they

are involved in examining because we

think that perhaps put them at a

risk if pupils know they are

involved in setting. We have a

register that sits with me. It is

not publicly discussed with other

colleagues or pupils.

Jeremy Hunt said the NHS in England

must do more to learn from mistakes

because each year 1000 babies die

unexpectedly or are left with brain

injuries.

Still birth rates are

falling but still lag behind many

countries in Europe and when it

comes to injury, brain damage

sustained at birth can last a

lifetime with about two

multi-million pound claims settled

against the NHS every week. This

year 76% of the 1000 cases of birth

related deaths or serious brain

injuries that occurred in 2015 might

have had a different outcome with

different care. From next year,

every case of you still worth

neonatal death, suspected brain

injury or maternal death that is not

aside to the -- that is notified to

the programme, when thousand

incidents annually will be

investigated not by the trust at

which the incident happened, but

independently with a thorough

learning focused investigation

conducted by the health and safety

investigation Branch.

Labour

welcomed the plan. The survey this

year showed 57% of women having a

baby have a red flag event,

dangerously low staffing levels,

women not receiving one to one care

during labour. We believe that the

NHS remains underfunded and

understaffed. Can the Secretary of

State tell us today what action he

intends to take so that maternity

services are funded and the staff

shortages are addressed as part of a

strategy to improve safety across

the board.

If we are to put more

money into the NHS, we need to have

the doctors, midwives and nurses to

spend that money on. That is why in

the last year the Government has

committed to a 25% increase in the

number of nurse training places and

25% increase in the number of

medical school training places.

It

is easy to spot the women who has a

past history of difficult birth. It

is easy to spot the women with

obesity and diabetes, but anyone who

has been involved in birth knows

that even the healthiest pregnancy

can go wrong at the last minute. For

us, and in rural parts of the north

of England and west of England, the

issues of transport and how someone

is identified quickly during labour

and transported if higher specialism

is required, something that has to

be looked at.

As every parent who

has lost a child knows, what they

want most is answers. Can I

congratulate the Secretary of State

on bringing forward the health and

safety investigation Branch because

that independence will be crucial

for the buy in of parents to know

what has happened in that particular

case. How will learning from those

investigations be shared?

I want to

thank her for her extraordinary

campaigning on this issue and so,

yes, we want parents to get the

answer more quickly but we also want

to be able to answer the question

that every parent asks, can you

guarantee this will not happen

again? These investigators will have

a dual remit, get the bottom of what

happened but spread that message

around the system so that same

mistake is not repeated. That is the

whole objective about setting up a

team of people to do this.

Even

after all these years, when my wife

and I hear news this morning takes

us back to our baby daughter who

died at birth. We had four children

and healthy grandchildren but we

still look back to that awful time.

Our baby was sickly, it was not

clear, but the fact of the matter is

we care very much about the children

who lose their child and I as a

member of Parliament and getting

worried about rationalisation and

units are getting further away from

where the population live and we are

worried when we do not give the

midwives and doctors the full

support to do their difficult job.

We must give doctors, nurses and

midwives all our full support

because they do an extraordinary

job.

The government's been challenged

by members of the House

of Lords over its plans

to improve air quality.

Earlier this year a report

from the United Nations accused

the UK government of "flouting"

its duty to protect the lives

and health of citizens from illegal

and dangerous levels

of air pollution.

A Labour peer cited

findings from the UN.

Air quality in 44 of our towns

and cities is such that it is too

dangerous to breathe.

According to the Royal College

of Physicians, last

year the health impact of poor air

quality was £20 billion and it is

estimated that 50,000 people

per year die because of poor

air quality of whom

9,000 are in London.

Surely we have to more

than the minister said

the Government is going to do?

My Lords, the Government

does take this

seriously because we are well aware

of the health issues.

This is an issue which is

affecting many countries.

As the noble Lord will know,

17 other EU member states have this

problem with nitrogen dioxide.

It is why we are working closely

with local authorities so we

can escalate particularly

those local authorities

where we need to make my rapid

progress.

We are well aware of

the health consequences.

It is very serious.

Will the Minister explain

to the House whether there are

ongoing discussions with motor

manufacturers in the UK,

particularly those

who only off vehicles with diesel

engines whilst exporting to other

parts of the world

with petrol engines

in exactly the same vehicles?

Isn't it clear,

particularly after what my

noble friend has said,

that oxides of nitrogen and other

particular matter from diesel

engines is the biggest single

threat to health in this country

and particularly among children

who are going to and from school

and playing

and shopping at street level

and risking damage to the health?

A lot of what the noble

lord has said I agree

and it is why this country intends

and why we have had investment

in the ultra low emissions

vehicle regime.

It is very important

that we are in discussions with the

manufacturers and the most

important thing, and one

of the problems we have

had with nitrogen

dioxide is the driving

emissions test had been

on a

laboratory basis, not

a real driving basis.

From September this year,

all new cars will have

to meet emission limits

in real driving conditions.

The last Labour Government

cut the duty on

diesel and encouraged

us to buy diesel cars.

Will my noble friend not take

lectures from then on what

we should be doing?

My lords, we now have to deal

with what is a serious issue.

We are only now not compliant

in nitrogen dioxide.

We are compliant in all other

areas of air quality.

This is one we need

to address and my noble

friend is right, this problem is

because we dashed for diesel and it

is the diesel vehicle that has

caused the problems with nitrogen

dioxide that we are now addressing.

It was the final day of Commons

debate on the Budget measures.

And one former party

leader was experiencing

a sense of deja vu.

I noticed one or two

policies in the budget that

look somewhat familiar.

The energy policy, the energy price

cap used to be parked of a Marxist

universe, now it is

Government policy.

The use it or lose it policy on land

banking was described

by the foreign secretary as Mugabe

style land expropriation.

Now it is on the way

to becoming Government policy.

The former head of

Theresa May's policy unit

I welcome the easing of the pay cap.

so that those on the front line

of our public services,

the heroes who run into burning

buildings and bullets for us get

the pay rise that they deserve

that is appropriate and affordable.

But the signal also that those

in the public services

who are responsible for management,

for delivering productivity,

are rewarded for that productivity

and on the basis of it.

The SNP turned to the cutting

of the growth forecasts

and the level of government debt

in the budget.

The target set by the Government

since they came to power,

the Tory chancellor in 2010,

they have failed to deliver.

That means...

Yes, of course I'll give way.

I am grateful to the honourable

gentleman for giving way.

Does he agree with me that the real

story behind the budget

was the growth forecast that

will impact not just the borrowing

that he's talking about but public

spending and the whole shape

of the British economy and society

in the years ahead?

Don't we need an urgent debate

on how we really raise that growth

rate and the industrial

strategy was not up to that

job, which is tricky?

The first part I agree

with entirely.

The big story from the budget

was growth figures marked down

over the period and the

productivity per head almost

halved for the period.

And pay growth marked down,

which impacts on real people.

As to a debate, we have been having

debates on the productivity

conundrum on growth since before

I was an MP.

Given I am now about 110,

that was some time ago.

The veteran Stewart Hosie.

And at the end of that

debate MPs this happened.

Order.

The question is as

on the order paper.

As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye"...

Aye...

LAUGHTER.

You are not in very good form.

Well, they had another go

and although the response

was still a bit lacklustre,

the Speaker decided that it

did amount to approval

and the Budget was passed.

So that's all for now,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for a roundup of,

amongst other things,

Prime Minister's Questions!

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.