19/12/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up...

Three social media

giants face a grilling.

We sat in this committee,

in a public hearing,

and raised a clearly vile

anti-Semitic tweet with your

organisation, it was discussed,

and it is still there.

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello,

what's all this then?

As someone who was Police Minister

when we had 21,000 more

police officers than now,

the minister needs to go back

to the drawing board.

Hear, hear.

And the Lords talk about...

..the Lords.

To put it mildly, my

Lords, we are not loved.

But first, Twitter has been strongly

criticised for repeatedly failing

to remove abusive tweets.

The company was appearing before

the Home Affairs Committee,

alongside Facebook and Google.

The MPs they faced were clearly

angry and frustrated

at what they saw as the failure

of social media giants

to deal with offensive

and inflammatory content.

The statistics are quite amazing.

Half the world's population use

these sites every day.

It's thought that 400 hours of video

are uploaded to YouTube every minute

and every minute 6,000

tweets are sent.

The committee chair began

by asking about abuse sent

to the Shadow Home Secretary,

Diane Abbott.

If I sat and did a search

on Twitter with Diane,

are you telling me I would not find

a huge series of Twitter abuse

at Diane because you have got

these systems in place?

No.

Right now I can't say

what you would find at this minute.

It is like anything.

If you are cleaning a street,

you can clean a street every

morning, you can't guarantee

it is still going

to be clean at 10am.

Would I only find abuse, say,

for the last 48 hours

and nothing before that?

No, I can't guarantee that.

Yvette Cooper quoted some graphic

anti-Semitic abuse posted in October

last year which had been raised

with another Twitter

executive by the Committee.

That tweet is still

up on your platform.

Why is it?

I don't know the answer

to that question.

I'm kind of wondering

what it is we have to do.

So we sat in this committee,

in a public hearing,

and raised a clearly vile

anti-Semitic tweet

with your organisation.

It was discussed,

and it is still there.

And everybody accepted, you have

accepted, your predecessor accepted,

that it was unacceptable,

but it is still there

on the platform.

What is it that we have to do to get

you to take it down?

I think that all of these

discussions, I have already laid out

the number of measures that we have

taken, fuelled by conversations

around this table and in many other

countries across Europe.

We are constantly looking

at these policies, looking

at these processes.

I will take that tweet away

and I will come back

to you with a definitive answer

as to why it is still there.

Part of the problem is it's like if,

even when we raise it

in a forum like this,

nothing happens, it is very hard

for us to believe that enough

is being done when everybody else

across the country raises concerns.

There is another one

that James also raised,

from the 15th of November 2014,

attacking Luciana Berger

with the same phrase

and that was the second time that

one had been raised

because it was also raised

by the committee previously as well.

And it is also still

up on your platform.

Again...

I don't know how many times I have

to ask you to come and put

the same things to you.

My reading of our policies,

my reading of policies as we have

changed them is that that tweet

would be in violation

of our policies so I will come back

to you with an answer as to why

it is still on the platform.

The Committee also wanted to know

about the recommendations made

by the websites pointing people

towards similar material.

You are linking people once they go

on one slightly dodgy thing,

you are linking them to an awful lot

of other similar things,

whether that be racist extremism,

Islamist extremism, your technology

is doing that job and you are not

stopping it from doing so.

I am happy to take that,

given what others have said.

I disagree that that's

what the technology

is doing but I do recognise

we have a problem, which is a shared

problem with the police, yourselves,

civil society organisations.

How do we address that person

who may be going down a channel

which can lead to them

being radicalised either

on the left or right,

and ultimately become extremists?

That is one of the reasons we have

established our online civil courage

initiative in the UK to really

understand that phenomenon

and to see what we should be doing,

using our technology and our people

and our expertise, but also how

we can support other organisations

as they use our platforms.

A Conservative MP quoted

from Twitter posts under

the hastag "kill a Tory".

"Just think of the benefits

of each family in the UK

were to kill just one Tory."

That is on Twitter.

Your code says you will not

tolerate violent threats,

wishes for the physical harm,

death or disease of

individuals or groups.

How does that comply with your code?

Simple hashtag, simple search,

simple takedown, or even better

simply don't allow them

there in the first place.

I think there are a couple

of elements to this.

At its most practical level,

we have 500 million tweets per day

and 330 million users.

Twitter is used in multiple,

multiple languages.

So we can sit here in London

and talk about one hashtag relating

to one political party,

but if you are to proactively have

technology that is proactively

searching for the kind of words that

you're talking about across

all political parties

in the world in all languages,

that is a much more

significant task.

Tim Loughton then turned his

attention to Facebook.

You are now providing technology,

very advanced technology,

so when I walk into a shop,

it will scan my face and then

analyse what buying mood I am

in and pass that information

to the very helpful sales

assistant to make sure I go

and buy various things.

That is quite advanced technology

and yet you can't even collectively

come up with technology for these

now 10,000 reviewers who are not

going to do anything proactive

to stop the sort of blatant,

clear abusive stuff

which we have all quoted.

Just to be clear, our reviewers,

the 10,000 refers to YouTube,

so our reviewers are involved

in some proactive work.

As we have explained extensively,

I believe, there are certain types

of content we focus on initially.

The most extreme child abuse imagery

is something which has been

addressed for many years

in a proactive way.

We have all talked about

terrorism and extremism.

Some of the other areas you're

talking about are more difficult.

It doesn't mean we are going to stop

- of course we are going

to try to do more work

on our own initiative but I think

when it comes to political speech

this is much more difficult

and you as politicians I'm sure

would also be concerned

about the prospect of us restricting

political speech in an automated way

without anybody ever seeing it.

That is a big step to take.

A Labour MP didn't think

Twitter could cope with

the situation it faced.

How many staff in Twitter

are dealing with these issues?

How many?

I have already said that in terms

of the figures that you have heard

from the other companies

that our whole population is 3,500.

No figure I'm going to give you is

going to sound like it's enough.

What were your revenues

in the last quarter?

Pardon?

What were your global revenues

in the last quarter?

I don't have that figure off the top

of my head but I can tell you...

It was 574 million in the last

quarter and you say

you only have 3,500 staff.

Do you not think that you ought

to be spending just a little bit

more money on proactively searching

for some of this content?

I can tell you that there is

a significant percentage of staff,

not just the agents who review

content, but the people who devise

and implement our policies,

and huge swathes currently

of our product and engineering teams

working on safety issues right now,

and off other projects,

they are working on safety issues.

Sinead McSweeney of Twitter.

A potential £450 million in extra

funding for police in England

and Wales in the next financial year

has been announced

by the Home Office.

Police and Crime Commissioners

are to be given the power to raise

the portion of council tax

which goes towards policing,

by £12 per household annually.

That would raise £270 million,

while more than £100 million

for national priorities,

such as firearms, would come

from central government.

It is clear that there is a shifting

pattern of demand on the police.

There are more victims of high harm

so-called hidden crimes

such as domestic abuse,

modern slavery, child

sexual exploitation,

as well as more victims of cyber

crime coming forward.

The willingness to come forward

is to be welcomed but it does put

pressure on policing,

which we have to be sensitive to.

Alongside this, Mr Speaker,

terrorist attacks in London

and Manchester have served

as a reminder of the very real

and changing threats

that we face from terrorism.

The public is increasingly conscious

that austerity is as damaging

to policing as it is to other public

services because you cannot keep

people safe on the cheap.

A 35% increase in crime according

to my Chief Constable,

an 18% reduction in staff

and £30 million worth

of savings already met.

This settlement is simply not good

enough and from someone

who was Police Minister when we had

21,000 more police officers

than now, the minister needs to go

back to the drawing board.

Hear, hear.

I suggest the former Police Minister

goes and talks to his his PCC

because they will explain why

actually a flat cash grant

from the centre is an improvement

on what he or she was expecting.

One former Police and Crime

Commissioner said he wouldn't have

been able to maintain the level

of policing on this budget.

The reality is, with inflationary

pressures in general terms,

with the need to fund a police pay

rise, a legitimate police pay rise,

with, on top of that,

the increasing demand for policing

services, it simply isn't possible

to maintain public safety,

and the minister really has got

to stand up and tell

the public the truth.

This is not a fair settlement.

Again, I hesitate to correct someone

who knows what he's talking

about but what I would refer to,

he is talking as if this

is something that is a settlement

proposed in complete isolation.

What he and the front bench

are ignoring is that we work closely

with police chiefs and the PCCs

and their independent review

that the PCCs and chiefs did

independently of government,

came to a very similar conclusion.

What hasn't changed is the need

for front-line policing.

What can my honourable friend be

doing to make sure that more

of the money that he has talked

about today gets to the front line

to increase the sort front-line

policing that constituents so badly

want to see?

The short answer to that question

is, it is the local Police

and Crime Commissioner

who is accountable for how

resources are allocated.

If it is the local view that more

resources need to go into front-line

police officers then

that is something that the Police

and Crime Commissioner

has to respond to.

The Home Office Minister.

Well, just before the police funding

statement, another Secretary

of State had news about council tax.

The Communities Secretary revealed

that councils in England would be

allowed to increase council tax

by an additional 1% from next year.

At the moment councils

must get the approval

of residents in a referendum

if they want to raise council

tax by more than 2%.

Ten councils would also be allowed

to retain 100% of the business rate

raised in their areas.

While we all want to ease

growing pressure on local

government services,

I'm sure none of us want to see

hard-working taxpayers saddled

with ever higher bills,

so this settlement needs to strike

a balance between those two aims -

giving councils the ability

to increase their core council tax

requirement by an additional 1%

without a local referendum,

bringing the core principle

in line with inflation.

While today's announcement offers

some additional support,

it pays merely lip service

to many of the problems

facing our local councils.

Mr Speaker, this Secretary of State

has today presented himself

as Santa, but the details of this

announcement really shows

him to be the Grinch.

Will the Secretary of State confirm

the figures given to me

by the Local Government Association

that, even if that flexibility

is fully used, it will raise just

£250 million next year?

That compares with the LGA's

estimate of the shortfall in funding

for social care of over £2 billion,

even after the measures previously

announced by the Government

are taken into account.

Northamptonshire County Council

might be the local highways

authority, but I have to tell

the Secretary of State

it's run out of road.

It will set a legal budget

for 2018-19, but it's making it

clear that it won't be able

to finance its statutory functions

in 19-20 unless something changes.

Sajid Javid said his decision

would allow councils to raise

a further £1 billion.

You are watching Tuesday

In Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

The Government's been accused

of stringing the steel industry

along with warm words and no action.

Ministers have asked various sectors

to come up with ideas on how

to work with government

to boost productivity.

The steel industry submitted

its plan in September,

suggesting state investment

in research and measures

to reduce energy costs.

MPs were debating the future

of the steel industry

in Westminster Hall.

Steel is too important a product

for our economy and our security,

for our communities and standing

as a nation, for us to have

to rely on others for it.

He said that, after submitting

a so-called sector deal,

the steel industry didn't meet

a minister until November.

The sad reality is the trust

between the Government and the steel

industry has been shot to pieces.

Warm words are no good

to anyone if they are matched

only by frozen actions.

An industrial strategy...

I will give way.

I must correct him

on a factual point.

One of my very first acts

as the Minister was to go and visit

the steelworks in his constituency

and close by.

I have met with the council formally

to announce the shape of the sector

deal and subsequently

after the presentation

of the sector deal three times,

plus I have met with and spoken

to the companies on numerous

occasions, so he must

correct the record.

That is simply not true to say that

I have only engaged with them

after the sector deal was submitted.

I thank the Minister for giving way.

I think conversations and visits

and meetings are excellent,

but the fact remains that the sector

deal was submitted on the 7th

of September and that no meeting

was granted with the steel industry

until the very end of November and,

as the clock is ticking,

the decisions about investment next

year are drying up.

He said steel workers knew how

to take bad news on the chin.

Steel communities are a hardy bunch,

forged in the white heat

of our industry, and from parts

of the country that are well

used to being forgotten,

neglected and ignored by successive

Tory governments.

So they know how to take

bad news on the chin.

And they certainly prefer to be

treated like adults,

with honesty and clarity,

as opposed to the obfuscation that

has become the hallmark

of this government.

I would therefore urge the Minister

today to stop taking us for a ride.

All the indications

are that the Government really

could not care less about the future

of the British steel industry.

The constituency of one Conservative

MP was affected by the closure

of the SSI Redcar steelworks

two years ago.

We all know the consequences

which were felt in Redcar

and which obviously also had massive

impacts in Middlesbrough South

and East Cleveland,

but there is real, constructive

action, money and hope now

flowing into our area.

I think it's really

important we get that part

of the equation on record as well.

He thought the cost of energy

was a pressing issue.

The simple fact is it is difficult

for the industry to compete

when its energy costs are 55% higher

than Germany and 51% higher

than France, so we are looking

for bridging solutions,

lower costs in the short to medium

term while we wait for longer term

solutions to take effect.

A Labour MP said the steel workers

had turned round their industry

the last two years.

It is now time for government

to act with the industry

to help create a strong,

innovative business that is needed

to help build Britain's future,

as it moves into a world

outside the EU.

The sector steel deal bid

from the industry shows

the necessary commitment to deliver

for the future.

The Government has welcomed this.

Both sides must now

forge a future together.

All I want for Christmas, Sir Henry,

is a sector steel deal.

The Minister said the Government

was committed to solving

the industry's challengers.

And I have every intention and every

expectation that we will bring

forward an attractive sector deal -

and, indeed, we have

held many meetings -

when the deal is in a good enough

place, where we have commitments

on both sides to actually

drive the transformation.

These deals are not,

"Give us some money".

These deals are, "What can we do

together, government and industry

and unions and apprenticeships

and education institutions,

and our brilliant academic

institutions, to really create

the industry of the future?"

If I may have one Christmas wish,

Sir Henry, it would be

that we have an end to the outdated

party politics around

what is such a vital foundation

industry for the UK,

we build a cross-party partnership,

we work with the industry,

who are in a transformational place,

to protect and grow these vital

industries, not for the next

12 months or two years

but for the generations to come.

Claire Perry.

Now, peers had to set their alarm

clocks a little bit earlier

than usual on Tuesday,

because the main debate

was scheduled to begin

at the ungodly hour of 11am,

a full three-and-a-half hours

before their usual start time.

Why?

Well, one of their favourite

subjects was up for discussion.

Yes, themselves.

Nearly 100 ennobled names

were on the list of speakers.

Fixed terms are the only solution

which is going to provide a steady

stream of vacancies in a way

which is fair to all groups.

Therefore, a key pillar

of our recommendations is that

all new members should serve

a single, nonrenewable

fixed term of 15 years.

They would be offered a peerage

on that basis and they would make

an undertaking to retire after 15

years when joining the House.

House of Lords reform is a complex,

difficult and constitutionally

significant area, into which anyone

must be advised to tread

with caution, having learned

the lessons of history

and unintended consequences.

I believe that this is our best shot

at reform for a generation,

and we need to grasp this

opportunity, despite it not

being everyone's perfect vision.

Until we do that, as Lord Burns has

said, the Prime Minister,

Number Ten, the Government,

the leadership of the political

parties in the country will not

hear their prompt to step

onto the stage with us and be part

of our reform future.

We should be proud of the detailed

scrutiny we do in this House,

yet that is often not as the public

and the media see us.

To put it mildly, my

lords, we are not loved.

They produced an elegant set of

proposals which fulfil their remit,

and have done so by proposing a very

British way forward -

constitutional form

by informal agreement.

They deserve our thanks.

Weight Watchers has shown

that the best way to tackle

a problem of excess is to combine

personal responsibility

with collective resolve

and mutual support.

The alternative of drastic surgery

involves unnecessary risk,

no guarantee of success

and an unpredictable outcome.

I confess that I would like to see

a cap on this house of about 400.

I shall be content to go, my lords,

when the time comes,

but I shan't go alone.

I intend to take others with me.

And neither shall I go to make way

for another tranche of prime

ministerial appointments

for services rendered to Number Ten

or payments to party funds.

I see no reason why we couldn't

have an automatic clear-out

at the end of every parliament

of every member who is

over 80 years of age.

I see no difficulty

about doing that.

The House of Commons has a clear-out

at a general election.

Why shouldn't this

House have a clear-out?

While consensus dominated

the House, not everyone

supported the proposals.

I fear, my lords, this is yet

another piecemeal effort to tackle

the fundamental issue of Lords

reform as, following

strictly their remit,

they have reported on the size

of the House, while ignoring

its functions as a legislative

assembly for the whole

of the United Kingdom,

and the points made by Lord Hope.

The House is, of course,

much too large, with 798 peers.

How did this come about?

It is substantially

through the political incontinence

of prime ministers Blair and Cameron

in their exercise of patronage.

I disagree that the problem

is overcrowding in this House.

At some key moment,

particularly at question time,

it feels overcrowded,

but that has been true for most

of the last 40 years.

Our daily attendance is about 480.

There have only been three divisions

in the entire history of the Lords

where over 600 members have voted.

Lord Strathclyde.

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt,

has admitted there is a very big

problem with the number

of GPs in England.

The NHS has lost 1,300 full-time GP

equivalents in the last two

years and 200 GP partners

during the same period.

Given that 20% of the GP

workforce is aged over 60,

it is clear there is a retirement

time bomb looming.

What steps does the Secretary

of State intend to take to address

the growing workforce crisis

in general practice,

because his efforts so far have

failed and patients are waiting

longer than ever for

a surgery appointment?

Well, I would respectfully say

I think the figures that she's

pointed out don't actually take

account of locum doctors,

but there is nonetheless a very big

problem and she is right to draw

that the attention of the House.

I think there are two things.

First, we need to encourage more

medical school graduates to go

into general practice

as a specialty, and our objective

is that half of all medical school

graduates should choose general

practice as their specialty, and we

are making good progress on that.

But retention is also

extremely important,

and that's why we are putting

in place a number of programmes that

will make it easier for GPs

who want to work a limited period

of time to work flexibly,

and make it easier for people

who have family responsibilities

to potentially work from home,

and those programmes, we hope,

will make a difference.

Our research today has revealed

there are vacancies for 100,000

staff across the NHS.

There is a national

crisis in workforce.

Not my words, but the words

of the Royal Surrey Hospital trust

in his own constituency.

So, with bed occupancy

at Royal Surrey hitting a peak

of 98.7% this winter already,

and across the NHS bed occupancy

already at an average of 94.5%,

can he tell us how he expects

the NHS to cope this winter,

when it's understaffed,

overstretched and underfunded?

Mr Speaker, if you decide

you want more nurses,

following Mid Staffs,

that creates vacancies.

If you want to transform

mental health provision,

that creates vacancies.

That's why we announced a workforce

plan, which I notice the Government

in Wales hasn't had time to do yet,

but I would like to finish

by wishing you a Merry Christmas

and, if he wants to take a bit

longer off and stay away

for January, we are

happy to hold the fort.

A lovely festive spirit there.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for another round-up

of the day here at Westminster,

including highlights from the final

Prime Minister's Questions

of the year.

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.