09/01/2018 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up:

Questions continue about

the release of serial sexual

offender John Worboys.

Final decisions as to whether

somebody is a danger or not should

rest with those who may be held to

account, not with unaccountable

bureaucrats.

The Equality Commission comes under

fire in the BBC pay row.

The HRC failed to intervene on the

BBC and has been placated by our BBC

internally funded review that has

clearly not tackle the problem.

And what is the American

president intending to do

when he visits the UK?

Trumpalise the queen.

I have literally no idea what that

means.

We hope to find out, but first...

Westminster awoke on Tuesday

still ruminating on how Theresa May

had reshuffled her Cabinet pack.

The changes may have

been rather limited,

but that didn't mean there weren't

several ministers getting to grips

with new departments and new briefs.

And there was no

gentle warm-up either.

Two new ministers were straight up

at the despatch box.

Less than 24 hours into the job,

the Justice Secretary,

David Gauke was answering questions

about the decision to

release the serial sexual

offender, John Worboys.

Worboys was convicted of 19 offences

and is suspected of attacking

more than 100 women.

But the decision by the Parole Board

to free him, nine years

after he was jailed,

has raised concern

among his victims.

David Gauke explained that

he'd decided to look

into the transparency surrounding

decisions of the parole board.

I should be absolutely clear that I

think the parole board should remain

an independent body, responsible for

making decisions about the ongoing

risk that individuals pose after

serving their tariffs. But I agree

with my predecessor 's assessment

that there is a strong case to

review the case for transparency in

the process, for parole decisions

and how victims are appropriately

engaged in that process, and

consider the case for changes in

policy, practice, or the parole

board -- parole board rules or other

guidance and procedures including

the victims code.

It is all too

clear that the victims of the vile

crimes committed by John Worboys

feel that the process has failed to

do so and such failings undermine

public trust in our wider justice

system. Many women, both the victims

and many others more widely, will be

very anxious indeed about Mr Worboys

being freed and the current legal

restrictions on the parole board

mean that we do not know why this

decision has been taken.

Some of the

victims still have heard nothing

from victims liaison officers and

still don't know what the parole

board terms are and whether this man

may end up living near them. Given

that he had their addresses, will he

urgently ensure that all of the

victims are contracted -- contacted

by liaison officers before this man

is released and given that some of

them also had no opportunity to put

statements to the parole board, is

he confident that due process has

been followed in this decision.

There will be cases where people do

not want to be informed, there will

be places -- cases where people want

to receive a great deal of detail.

We need to have a system that is

sensitive to what victims want.

Given that the tariff is a minimum,

why does the sum test applied by the

parole board appeared to be simply

whether the criminal still poses a

risk to others. What has happened to

the concept that the punishment

should fit the crime?

Is he going to

look explicitly not at the

transparency about how decisions

were being made by how victims are

being heard as part of that process,

and if he is not satisfied, as it

seems many of these victims were not

told how they could have their say

on this situation, Willie uses power

for a judicial review of this

decision.

In order that victims

voices are heard I think it is

important that we look at the whole

process to ensure that this is

working for victims in the way that

we want it to.

The public want to be

confident that the parole board is

making a balanced assessment of

risk. Will the Lord Chancellor

review how the parole board assesses

the risks presented by offenders and

consider the role of independent

psychologists on advising on

offender risk, especially when such

advice conflicts with that probation

professionals.

It seems to me that

it would be better if final

decisions on whether somebody is a

danger or not should rest with those

who would be held to account, not

with unaccountable bureaucrats. It

is not a scientific decision, it is

a matter of opinion, and I would

trust my right honourable friend 's

opinion more than that of an

unaccountable bureaucracy.

Since the

privatisation of probation in the

West Midlands there was one victims

officer for an area with 3 million

people in it. In this review, can I

ask the very welcome new Justice

Secretary to look at what was taken

away and potentially why, and e-mail

to evict him is not enough when a

relationship is what we used to

have.

Worboys was a prolific sex

attacker for upto ten years and

there are likely to be hundreds of

victims and yet in court he showed

no remorse and dismissed his actions

as banter and two years ago he was

claiming he had done absolutely

nothing wrong, so it is impossible

for people, impossible for people to

understand how the board could

possibly have deemed this man to be

safe. Would my right honourable

friend agree with me that unless and

until the board publicly explains

the rationale behind the decision it

took, people cannot possibly have

confidence in our criminal justice

system.

I completely understand the

point that my honourable friend is

making, as presently stands the

parole board is not able to provide

in public the reasons for their

decision. The chair of the parole

board has made it clear that he

wishes that they could.

The new Justice Secretary,

David Gauke.

And another newly-appointed minister

was also called into action early.

The new Culture Secretary,

Matt Hancock, told the Commons

the BBC must act on the issue of pay

equality between male

and female staff.

His comments come in the wake

of the resignation of the BBC's

China Editor Carrie Gracie,

who accused the corporation

of "unlawful pay discrimination".

Responding to an urgent

question on the issue,

Matt Hancock told MPs that the BBC

had a duty to ensure the highest

standards of fairness were applied.

This is not just a matter of

levelling women's pay up, it is a

matter of pay equality. Working for

the BBC is public service and a

great privilege and yet some men at

the BBC are paid far more than other

equivalent public servants. The BBC

have begun to act and I welcome

that, but more action, much more

action is needed, especially when

BBC foreign editors can earn more

than Her Majesty 's ambassadors in

the same jurisdiction.

The BBC is

accountable to the public and we

know more about the pay gap there

than we do at other organisations.

If the secretary of state confident

that female staff at other

broadcasters and media companies are

paid as highly as their male

colleagues, and will be called men

to encourage them to be as

transparent as the BBC? What will he

do to ensure that this story is not

just used as a way to criticise our

national broadcaster, as other media

organisations might wish, but as a

way to highlight pay inequality

across-the-board?

The select

committee has decided this morning

to invite the director-general of

the BBC to account for the actions

of the BBC on gender pay since the

publication of salaries last summer.

It is important to see what progress

they have made a lot of progress

needs to be made. Does he agree with

me that this whole thing underlines

why we were right to insist on full

disclosure of top pay not just for

executives but for on-screen talent

as well.

I strongly agree with the

chair the select committee and I

welcome his scrutiny of this. I

would say this, the BBC resisted

these transparency measures and now

we are starting to see why.

The laws

need the equality and human rights

commission to act and to act

quickly. Why is it that despite

overwhelming evidence that has been

in the public domain for more than

six months has the EH RC failed to

intervene on the BBC and has been

placated by a BBC funded internal

review, which has clearly not

tackled the problem.

As a publicly

funded institution the BBC has to be

both transparent and accountable and

that the existence of this secret

gender pay gap within the

corporation shows that it has been

anything but. Perhaps that would

explain why the BBC management were

so vehemently opposed to having to

publish how much it pays its top

earning presenters.

It is not good

enough for the BBC to say that their

performance in this area is better

than in many other sectors. Does he

share my view that it is because the

BBC is funded by public money that

we are entitled to expect them not

just to adhere to the requirements

of the law but to set a higher

standard which others can then

follow?

Carrie Gracie says in her

letter that she refers to the BBC

often settling cases out of court

and demanding nondisclosure

agreement, habit unworthy of an

organisation committed to truth.

This issue doesn't just apply to the

BBC but to other broadcasters and

other companies right across the

country. If there were serious

problem if we are trying to get

transparency over equal pay if so

many employers pursue nondisclosure

agreements when it comes to pay

claims?

We should use what ever

tools are at our disposal to ensure

we get the right level of

transparency and, of course, we want

to make sure that this works across

the board at the BBC and other

places and making sure that every

case is looked at rather than just

individual cases is important. There

may be individual circumstances

where an an DA is appropriate but

you have to be very careful in there

used to ensure that a systemic

problem is not hidden by their

overuse.

Matt Hancock, the new

Culture Secretary.

You're watching Tuesday

In Parliament, with me, Mandy Baker.

If you want to catch

up with all the news

from Westminster on the go,

don't forget our sister programme,

Today In Parliament,

is available as a download

via the BBC Radio 4 Website.

Now, if you're concerned that

I haven't yet said the word

Brexit in this programme,

fear not - here it comes.

The Government's been

accused of using Brexit

legislation as a power grab.

That charge from opposition parties

came as MPs held their first debate

on the Government's Trade Bill,

which will allow ministers

to install a new system for the day

after Brexit next year.

The International Trade Secretary

defended the powers in the Bill.

We want to protect the access to

global markets that are so vital to

thousands of British businesses. We

want to abide by our obligations to

those economies that have already

negotiated free trade agreements and

other trade agreements with the

European Union. This bill grants

pass the powers necessary to achieve

these aims.

But Labour accused the minister

of taking power from Brussels

bureaucrats and giving

it to the Government

rather than Parliament.

No need for a debate, no need for a

vote, that is simply not good enough

in a modern democracy. Honourable

members hold this House's dignity

very cheap indeed if they vote

tonight to govern ourselves in a

dictatorship.

Barry Gardiner.

Universal Credit is discouraging

private landlords from letting

their properties to benefit

claimants, according

to one Lib Dem MP.

And many landlords are reporting

that tenants on Universal Credit

are in rent arrears.

MPs were debating the issue

in Westminster Hall.

I checked the records again and

again and again and I said this was

going to be a car crash on this

article issue and it was ignored so

we move on to 2015, bit of context,

we had numerous examples as my

colleague has indicated and others

have experienced in this room over

the last two years without that

default, fewer and fewer private

landlords are actually letting the

people on Universal Credit and those

he worked were falling into arrears.

Just utter madness.

I had a landlord

come to my surgery with 20 tenants

on Universal Credit of whom 18 were

in arrears and nine had to be

evicted, that is at this very early

stage of the roll-out when the full

service hasn't yet come to my area.

Does he agree with me that those are

the sort of facts that don't fit

into the theory of Universal Credit?

In Northern Ireland we have

glaciated that but it has not led to

an increase in terms of rent

arrears, there are other problems

but rent arrears is not a big one

and we have negotiated twice per

month payments which also helps with

the landlords and tenants to know

that their rent is being paid to the

landlord and that he or she not

going into arrears.

At the time I am

reliably informed by a colleague in

Northern Ireland that the DWP and I

think it was then the secretary of

state didn't want to budge and was

insistent that this would collapse

the entire thing but as the

colleagues opposite have discovered

and my friends at the DUP, when they

did their heels in, they did their

heels in so I pay tribute on this

one because the DUP and I think the

SDLP said no, we are not nudging. It

must be a default payment and do you

know what, it worked, it's the same

computer system.

The main Rob is the

way that the delays in the paying of

Universal Credit led to rent arrears

building up. This triggered a

downward spiral of events, with

landlords serving eviction notices

albeit reluctantly, which led to an

increase in homelessness, added

pressure on local authorities and

housing associations to House those

who were evicted and then

subsequently the reduction in

housing as private landlords decided

not to let the Universal Credit

claimants.

While bad and greedy

landlords have given the sector a

bad press, it'd start of landlords

in the private sector are and often

they only have one property let out

as a contribution to their pension

or way to save for the future. Two

thirds of landlords are basic rate

tax payers and not on high incomes

but why they are sympathetic to

tenants, they know that they would

fall into debt of the rent is not

paid.

The need for a roof over your

head, home way you can bring up a

family is a basic human need. By

2021, it is estimated there will be

around 7 million people claiming

Universal Credit, over half of whom

will be in work. Where will they

live if wages don't cover their rent

and housing support does not make up

the shortfall? It is time the

government to heed the warnings from

landlords, the voluntary sector and

this side of the House and fixed

Universal Credit.

The safeguards we

have in place with the improvement

in Universal Credit and the personal

budgeting in place, these concerns

should be groundless, they should

pay more attention to the evidence

and the and helpful scaremongering

from the opposition benches, I can

only evidence the fact that in Prime

Minister's Questions, the Leader of

the Opposition claimed that

Gloucester city homes had evicted

one in eight, 12% of tenants due to

Universal Credit, that would have

been 650 tenants, in actual fact it

was eight.

And that was Caroline Dinenage's

last appearance in that role -

she's been reshuffled

to the Department of

Health and Social Care.

Now, if you were watching this

programme on Monday you'll have seen

that some MPs were up in arms

with the then universities minister

Jo Johnson about the appointment

of the journalist Toby Young

to the board of a new higher

education watchdog.

Well, now Mr Young's resigned.

The man may have gone

but the story rumbles on.

Toby Young was appointed

to the Office for Students board -

but he has been criticised

because of his past comments

about women, gay people

and the disabled in newspaper

articles and on Twitter.

The issue came up at

question time in the Lords.

I'm sure the minister would agree

with me that there is no place for

cronyism in public appointments.

Given that public appointments are

based on principles and given the

fact that somebody was appointed to

this position who had posted on

social media the most appalling

comments, do those principles need

to be strengthened?

Can I say at the

outset that this is very much a time

of reflection following the

resignation this morning.

LAUGHTER

And we want to learn from this and

it is regrettable that the offensive

tweets were not picked up on before

the appointment.

The job

specification required candidates to

have good judgment, high levels of

integrity, inspire confidence with a

wide range of stakeholders and, my

lords, demonstrate high standards of

personal conduct. Is the noble

Viscount saying that these

objectionable tweets were not known

to his department and indeed the Mr

Jo Johnson bestial Mark isn't it the

case that Jo Johnson imposed this

wretched man on the board of the O P

S and can heat now tell me as Jo

Johnson has been removed that the

independence of the OAS, which the

government guaranteed during the

passage of a higher education

research bill fairly recently will

now be established?

First of all,

there is no imposition of candidate

into this particular position and

can I say that the current make-up

of the office for students is a

broad church, broad range of people,

which is what we set out to do in

the first place and can I say that

in terms of the noble Lord's

question, no, we did not know about

the obnoxious tweaks that came out

and this is the reason why I said at

the outset we need to do better with

50,000 tweets, some of which were

completely obnoxiously this is

something which we should have known

about and we need to learn the

lesson from this.

Since the Minister

has recognised there was a process

in these appointments, it follows

there must be a record of those who

were involved in the process. Can he

tell the House, other than the

minister directly responsible, which

other ministers were involved in the

process, either formally on the

record or informally?

The due

process was gone through. The launch

was made in July and the closure

after the advertising is was made

closed in August and the Secretary

of State is responsible for the

appointment so the process went

through. Can I also say, which I

would like to say to the noble Lord

as well, that Mr Young was appointed

on merit in terms of what he had

actually done and this is very

separate from the obnoxious tweaks

that we know about.

Last week the Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, defended

Toby Young's appointment.

Labour's Lord Campbell-Saviours

wasn't beating around the bush.

Was there a conversation that took

place between Boris Johnson and his

brother Jo Johnson?

I certainly

can't answer that and I will be

drawn into that particular one. -- I

won't be drawn into that one.

Lord Younger giving short shrift.

A new book about Donald Trump

has caused shock waves

in the United States and beyond -

with explosive claims

about his mental health

and fitness for public office.

The US president has dismissed

the book as a work of fiction,

insisting that he is in fact

a "very stable genius".

The author, journalist

Michael Wolff,

has defended his work,

predicting that it will bring down

the Trump presidency.

At question time, a Labour MP raised

revelations in the book

about Mr Trump's approach

to foreign affairs.

President Trump's biographer has

said that the President's only

interest in a state visit is the

opportunity to, and I quote,"

Trumpalise the Queen. " Trumpalise

the Queen. I have no idea what that

means but can I ask the Minister to

please save Her Majesty from that

unpleasant sounding audio and cancel

this wretched visit.

Well, I think

Her Majesty the Queen is well

capable of taking this American

president or any American president

in her stride, as she has done over

six remarkable decades. She has seen

them, and she has seen them go. If

she seeks advice on whether or not

to invite the president of the

United States to visit this country

and we are very close allies, might

high invite her to ask the person

next door to her who said last year

I think we have two welcome the

American president to Britain, we

have to work with him. Those were

the words of the Right honourable

lady.

Can he confirmed that United

States remains our closest ally and

the special relationship rest is on

more than just personalities, on

trade, close military alliances and

a share viewed of the world.

I could

not have put it better myself and I

commend again to the House the wise

words of the Shadow Foreign

Secretary when she said that it was

the bright thing to invite the

president of the United States to

visit this country.

I never said

that!

In response to the North

Korean leader, who is apparently

really smart and a stable genius

tweeted I have a nuclear button that

is bigger and more powerful than his

and my button works. What does

President Trump have to say for any

wedding or any visit to be

withdrawn?

I think that, if I

understood the honourable

gentleman's question correctly, he

wishes to receive and the invitation

to the president of the United

States. I don't believe that is

sensible. The United States is our

closest, most important security and

economic partner and will continue

to be so.

After question time,

Emily Thornberry took

issue with Boris Johnson.

Rather than erupting, it is in order

to correct the record to say I never

thought it was a good idea to him by

the president of the United States

to the UK, in fact I thought the

invitation was issued with undue

haste at once it had been issued on

behalf of Her Majesty is very

difficult to withdraw it.

He is

beetling into the box, if he wishes

to stand up at the box and offer a

product of his work, we are happy to

hear them.

I'm not sure what is in

order, guide me on this point but I

must redirect the honourable lady

and the House to her words on the

14th of May 2017 on the Andrew Marr

programme when she said, "I think we

have two welcome the American

president to Britain, we have to

work with him, I rest my case.

I

think the honour is served. The

Shadow Foreign Secretary has offered

House her thoughts and the Foreign

Secretary with some alacrity has

Beatles back to the box in order to

respond and I think we should at

least for today leave it there.

And that's it.

I'm off to learn the names

of all the new junior ministers,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for another round up

of the day here at Westminster,

But for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.

Mandy Baker, goodbye.