16/01/2018 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello there, and welcome

to Tuesday In Parliament,

where the government faces more

questions over the collapse

of the construction firm Carillion.

At this stage, there are real

suspicions that the government

was too close to this company,

and to wedded to its

was too close to this company,

and too wedded to its

privatisation role.

The government is dealing with this

in a responsible and measured

way, rather than making

cheap political shots.

MPs resumed debate on the bill

that transfers EU laws

on to the UK statute book,

and focus on the environment.

And there are calls for celebrities

to way into the fight

And there are calls for celebrities

to weigh in to the fight

against childhood obesity.

It is not just a coincidence

of scheduling that these type of ads

are run alongside some

of our biggest TV shows,

such as The X Factor,

Britain's Got Talent,

I'm A Celebrity, Hollyoaks,

or The Simpsons.

But first, the government has

ordered a fast-track investigation

into directors at the failed

construction giant Carillion.

The company went into liquidation

on Monday after running up losses

on contracts and struggling

with heavy debts.

The Business Secretary has asked

for an investigation by the official

receiver to be broadened

and speeded up.

Facing questions in the Commons,

the Chancellor was asked

about the effect of Carillion's

collapse on the taxpayer.

But yesterday, the Treasury approved

a minute providing for a contingent

liability on Carillion,

for which we've had no estimate,

so could the Chancellor please

explain to the House what sort

of expenditure is

going to be covered?

I see he's given an indemnity

to the receiver.

And how he's going to report

to the house on how much

money the government

is going to be liable for?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

The government has given

an indemnity to the official

receiver in order to take

on the role of special manager

of the assets of Carillion to ensure

continuity of public services

in the many schools,

hospitals, local authorities,

that have contracts with Carillion.

And what the Treasury has done

is provided the official receiver

with a line of credit that enables

the official receiver's office

to operate the company's

public sector contracts,

recovering the cost in due course

from the department that would have

paid fees for those services anyway,

but the official receiver is only

able to step in and do this

with the Treasury's underwriting,

and we deemed it appropriate

to give that underwriting.

Neil Gray.

Mr Speaker, clearly,

there is an element of risk,

not just from government borrowing,

but from the borrowing of companies

against the UK Government.

Can the Chancellor therefore advise

the House what exposure his

government has from lending

to Carillion via the likes of UK

Export Finance or George Osborne's

direct lending scheme?

I'm not aware of any direct exposure

of HMG as a creditor of Carillion.

I put it no stronger

than this, Mr Speaker.

At this stage, there are real

suspicions that the government

was too close to this company,

and too wedded to its

privatisation role.

We need full transparency

of the meetings and discussions

that took place between government

ministers, civil servants,

and representatives of Carillion,

and what warnings were given

to ministers, and what actions

recommended implemented or not.

We now need the Treasury to start

playing its proper role,

and provide an independent

assessment of the potential costs

and risks facing the taxpayer.

It's already been referred to.

The SCA Cabinet Office minutes

was published after the statement

establishing a contingent liability.

We urgently need to know

from the Treasury,

what is the potential range of costs

now facing the taxpayer?

Chief Secretary.

Well, first of all, we publish

all of those minutes,

all of those details

of meetings already.

We are a transparent government.

We make decisions in

an objective fashion.

Those decisions are signed off

by the Treasury and they are signed

off by the Cabinet Office,

and recent decisions on Carillion

contracts have been made

on the basis of joint and several

liability to make sure

the taxpayer is protected.

We always look for

value for money in the way

that we set up our contracts,

and I think that the government

is dealing with this

in a responsible and measured way,

rather than making cheap

political shots at a time...

At a time when people's

jobs are in question

and we are working to sort that out.

Liz Truss.

Now, after a break for Christmas,

MPs returned to the debate

on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill,

the legislation that moves European

rules and regulations on to the UK

statute book to start a legislative

rules and regulations on to the UK

statute book to stop a legislative

black hole opening up after Brexit.

MPs are now holding their final

debates on the bill before it goes

off to the House of Lords.

The Green Party MP Caroline Lucas

made another attempt to transfer

the idea of animal sentience

into UK domestic law.

EU treaty law says governments must

have regard to animal sentience,

in other words, their awareness

of their feelings or pain.

The government here says

it wants to transfer

that into UK law later,

in a separate bill.

But Caroline Lucas did not

want to wait for that.

I don't have confidence -

maybe those on the other side do -

but I don't have confidence

that this new bill, brought forward

by the Secretary of State,

is likely to be on the statute books

by the time we leave the EU,

if that's what happens.

I simply want to make sure

that there is legislative certainty,

belt and braces, by making sure

that we have my amendment

in that EU bill as well.

Would she not agree with me that

perhaps a bird in hand,

in other words, her proposal,

is much better than two in the bush,

and of course, would it be cruel

of me to remind the house

that the Secretary of State

for DEFRA, of course,

is on record having made a solemn

pledge to support, in this case,

the Foreign Secretary

in his bid to be leader,

but then ended up stabbing him

repeatedly in the front?

We can do better on animal

welfare than the EU

currently allows us to do.

Foie gras, for example,

is prohibited in this country,

but we can't stop it being imported

in from those who make it,

such as Belgium, France, etc,

in the EU, because it's against free

movement of goods.

And wouldn't she agree that it's

this side of the house that actually

is now putting in tougher sentencing

on animal welfare breaches,

and that's where we should be

focusing on, rather than looking

at the past?

Well said.

Well, I thank him

for his intervention.

I think I would certainly agree

that the new laws on sentencing

are certainly to be welcomed,

but I don't see why we have

to have an either/or.

What I am simply trying

to do is to make sure

that there isn't a legislative gap.

But Caroline Lucas failed

to get her amendment through.

Earlier, a Labour MP

put forward her amendment,

preserving all environmental

protections currently

provided by the EU.

This new clause seeks only

to properly realise the government's

stated ambition for this bill,

which it has repeatedly assured us

of during this process,

that the same rules and laws

will apply after we leave

EU as they did before.

will apply after we leave

the EU as they did before.

We have been promised a green

Brexit, and told that leaving the EU

will not threaten the health

of people or nature.

So why is their opposition

to amending this bill to make those

promises legally binding?

Another Labour MP pointed

to what he said were lower welfare

standards in the United States.

What I find very perplexing is,

honourable members opposite who say

that their salvation is going to be

a trade deal with President Trump

and with the United States,

but of course, we all know

that the United States'

primary goal, their driver,

will be to have a treaty

in respect of agriculture.

If we do a deal...

I will give way in a moment.

If we do that deal on agriculture,

the Americans will want to sell

products in, animal products,

that have come under

low welfare standards,

and lower regulatory standards.

lower welfare standards,

and lower regulatory standards.

That will be the nature

of the deal they are seeking.

If the Secretary of State

for the environment,

though, has said, no,

no, that is absolutely not the case,

we're going to have exactly the same

regulatory standards that we have

now, he is effectively telling

the Americans, "no trade deal".

On the subject of animal welfare,

you know, at Dover and at Ramsgate

in East Kent, we have to put up

with the evil and wicked trade

of live animal exports,

and we have to do that

because of European law, and we see

an opportunity for our area,

for our communities,

for animal welfare,

in stopping that evil trade,

by leaving the European Union

so we will be able

to take back control.

But Caroline Lucas argued that

ministers could have stopped live

animal exports already.

They could have done it if they had

the political will, but secondly,

if the government wants to persuade

us that they care as much

about animal welfare as they claim

to, then why on earth

would they oppose this amendment?

It simply makes sure that we do not

have a gap when we leave the EU

and before the new bill,

if it happens, comes in.

We have here a problem which ought,

in fact, to unite both sides

of the house as to how we best go

about retaining what

is best of EU law.

And though we have made some steps

in the right direction,

I have to say that I regret that

I don't think we have yet got

anywhere near enough to the point

where I can feel really comfortable

that we've done this

as well as we should.

You're watching

Tuesday in Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Now, more whiplash and personal

injury cases in England could be

dealt with by Small Claims Court,

if the government gets its way.

Ministers wants to increase to £5000

and £2000 respectively the value

Ministers want to increase to £5000

and £2000 respectively the value

of the claims which can be

dealt with in this way.

Small Claims Courts deal with

lower value cases for a lower

cost, but there are caps

on the compensation that can be

awarded, and many claimants

represent themselves.

Lord Keane explained

the government's thinking.

As regards what are sometimes

termed whiplash claims -

it's a somewhat misleading term,

whiplash is a cause,

a soft spinal injury or soft neck

injury is the effect -

most of these are relatively

straightforward in the context

of causation, for example.

In other words, liability is not

normally a significant issue.

The issue is the extent of injury

and any consequent loss

in the context of wage loss

and other things, and these can,

we believe, be adequately dealt

with under the small claims

procedure, particularly

as it is being further developed.

And that is why we consider it

appropriate to increase

that limit to 5000,

which would cover

about 95% of all claims.

He explained why he thought

there was a problem.

The safety of vehicles in this

country has improved enormously

in the last ten years.

The Thatcham assessment

of safe car seats, and this

is relevant to whiplash injury,

has moved from a new car number

of about 12% in 2006 to 88% in 2016.

So there has been a vast improvement

in safety of vehicles.

In the same period, the number

of road traffic accidents has

dropped by more than 25%.

In the same period, the number

of claims for whiplash-related

injury has not moved

in a downward direction at all.

It remains at about 85-90%

of all road traffic claims,

and the numbers remain at a very

high level, and that is regarded

as indicative of the fact

that there is a claims culture

with regard to whiplash injuries,

and part of that is,

you term it fraudulent,

exaggerated claims, set up

claims - these exist.

It was the limit on personal injury

claims for employer liability

and accident at work to £2000 that

caused the most debate.

The question really is not so much,

in my opinion, the value

of the small claims limit,

it is a question of...

The degree of complexity in personal

injury claims and at what point

the claim is capable

of being handled by an individual

by themselves, and at what point

they need legal representation.

If you remove the ability of injured

workers to pursue claims

against their employers,

which is what these changes

will effectively do,

the threat of litigation is now

the main driver for maintaining

health and safety in the workplace,

and that is with cuts to the HSE,

and also with lack of

local government inspections.

And what this will mean,

it will be particularly bad for

low-paid workers with unscrupulous

employers and working

in non-unionised premises.

And what we believe these changes

will do is that they will render

low-paid workers more vulnerable

to injury because they will be less

focused in terms of austerity

by employers on health and safety.

But then it will be the double

whammy of them being less

able to seek redress

after they have been injured.

With regard to employers' liability

claims and public liability claims,

rather different issues do arise.

Because you are dealing with issues

of health and safety.

And that can lead to complexity.

And that is why we have retained

a lower limit of £2000

for that type of claim.

Lord Keen.

Now, we have all heard

the messages warning

about the dangers of obesity.

There is particular concern

about the impact of being overweight

on the health of children.

Too much fast food and too many

sugary drinks have led to a rise

in the number of youngsters

who are obese.

But what can be done

to tackle the problem?

A Conservative MP opened a debate

in Westminster Hall and called

for the stars of prime-time

television programmes,

such as Britain's Got Talent and I'm

a Celebrity, to take a stand

against junk food being advertised

to children watching their shows.

The poorest UK households

are exposed to double the amount

of television food adverts compared

to the most affluent viewers.

This exposure is problematic.

With food advertising in the UK

disproportionately featuring

unhealthy food items,

and young children especially

vulnerable to marketing techniques

that promotes unhealthy food,

the pervasive harms of adverts

placed puts pressures

on the poorest in society.

It is not just a coincidence

of scheduling that these type

of adverts run alongside some

of our biggest TV shows

such as the X Factor,

Britain's Got Talent,

I'm A Celebrity,

Hollyoaks or The Simpsons.

If we are truly to affect change,

as Jamie Oliver has already

demonstrated, we need some of that

star magic on this issue.

The power of celebrity can

never be underestimated.

With this in mind, I am

calling on those household

names like Simon Cowell,

Ant and Dec, Dermot O'Leary

and Amanda Holden to take some

corporate responsibility,

stand up to the broadcast and say

that they will no longer be used

as a hook to sell harmful junk food

to our children, their own children.

A DUP MP told how he had been

diagnosed with type two diabetes

after living on a diet of takeaways

and fizzy drinks.

He had since last four stone.

11 years ago, whenever

I was diagnosed as a type two

diabetic, food management for me

at that stage was important.

But more important for me ten years

or 15 years previous.

Because the lifestyle I had

grossly affected by health.

I say that as an adult,

and I look at my grandchildren,

Katie and Mia, and I

don't want them to be

in the same position as me.

And a life changing illness

that was preventable.

There is a wealth of evidence

worldwide to prove the facts

that we are arguing about.

The American psychological

Association to studies

from Deakin University in Australia.

The most recent contribution

at Cancer Research UK further

confirms further that children

who are exposed to junk food

advertising on television each more

unhealthily than those who are not.

So TV advertising works,

and that is exactly why so much

money is spent on it.

It is also why Ofcom's broadcast

restrictions on junk

food advertising came into effect

ten years ago.

Following, as I understand it,

a report commissioned

by the Government's office

for science, which identified

that same link.

Further action by the Government

is now necessary and ease

Further action by the Government

is now necessary and

restrictions need to be extended

to what is considered as family

viewing or stop content such

as soaps and game shows and those

programmes broadcast

before the watershed.

Products with fat, salt and sugar

are often found to sponsor sporting

events or teams of which children

are a key part of the audience.

For example, Cadburys

in the official snack partner

of the Premier League.

The current restrictions do not

encapsulates these areas,

and in our digital world

it is important that

restrictions advance in order

to protect children.

I see this as presenting a huge

challenge and cost to the health

and well-being of the individual,

of course, but obviously to the NHS

and the country with overweight

and obesity-related ill-health

estimated to cost the NHS -

and again I suspect

this underplays it -

some £5 billion a year.

Now, there is no denying that

obesity is a complex

and far-reaching problem.

This will not, sadly,

be solved by one action number.

This will not, sadly,

be solved by one action alone.

As all pretty much have said in this

debate today and my honourable

friend the Member for Erewash said

in opening the debate.

Neither, I have to say,

will it be solved overnight.

This is a tanker to turn round.

But action was being taken.

As part of the plan,

we introduced two key measures

to challenge the food and drink

industry to improve

the healthiness of the food.

the healthiness of the food

children eat everyday and these

policies are already

showing positive signs.

The soft drinks industry levy,

which is set to become law in April,

has already seen almost half

the soft drink market

reformulate their sugary soft drinks

to include less sugar.

Companies such as the makers

of Lucozade, who I will be visiting

myself later this week to see

in more detail, and Ribena,

and Tesco, have been leading

the way removing millions

of tonnes of sugar.

I think this is a

crucial step forward.

I think this is a

crucial step forward

towards our children's health.

As data shows us that sugary soft

drinks are the main contributor

of sugar in our children's diets.

Steve Brine.

The Government has been challenged

in the Lords over the protection

of women's workplace rights

after the UK leaves

the European Union.

The Minister said there had

been a clear commitment

to protect those rights.

Other peers were more sceptical.

I am not sure I am convinced

with his re-branding

of the Government as a champion

of equality and workplace rights.

Their lukewarm response

to the recent House of Commons Women

and Equalities Committee report

on this very subject

speaks volumes, my lords.

Will the noble lord the Minister

accept that British women

facing discrimination

in accessing their maternity rights

for instance at work,

and his own Government figures bear

this out, that there are thousands

of women who do face

discrimination in this area.

discrimination in this area?

Would they have a better future

if we align ourselves as closely

as possible to EU legislation

and European of justice case work

in this area post-Brexit?

My lords, obviously, we will take

note of what the EU does,

but I think one of the important

things about Brexit is that we can

make our own decisions about this,

and we do not have to be part

of the EU to have high

standards in the workplace.

We already go way beyond the EU

minimum standards in a number

of important areas such as annual

leave, maternity leave

and flexible working.

But I think it is a matter

for the United Kingdom Parliament

to consider these matters,

and not the EU.

I am very glad to hear the Minister

say that the Government

will not roll back on EU rights

for women in the workplace.

The European Commission this year

introduced proposals for a directive

which would provide,

on work-life balance

for parents and carers,

which would provide,

for four months, paid,

nontransferable leave for fathers.

Will Her Majesty's Government commit

to keeping pace with the EU

regarding equality and employment

rights, including this directive?

My lords, whilst we are in the EU,

we will obviously continue to take

a constructive approach

to the various council working

groups, and particularly that

that the noble Baroness refers

to, the new work-life balance

directive, and we will seek

to ensure that the text

is appropriately clarified.

And we look forward

to continuing discussions under

the Bulgarian presidency.

I am not going to make any

commitments as to what we decide

to do about different parts

of that work-life...

It is called the work-life

balance directive.

Certainly, we will continue those

discussions and if we are part

of the EU we will sign up

to it if appropriate.

If not, these are

decisions for ourselves.

One eminent equality lawyer has said

that the failure to bring

across the Charter of fundamental

rights into UK law means

that the freestanding right

to equality will have no equivalent

in domestic law.

So we would lose one of those

fundamental standards underpinning

the other regulations

that we are bringing

across in the withdrawal Bill.

Given that we have heard

the new Brexit Minister in the other

House anyway wants to get

rid of such rights,

what comfort can this

Minister offer to women

that their right to equality

will not be weakened?

Well, my lords, one eminent lawyer

has made that statement,

but not all eminent lawyers agree

with that statement.

We are fully signed up to human

rights and we will continue to be

fully signed up to all other aspects

of human rights.

And leaving the EU does not make

a difference in this matter.

An SNP MP says that consumers

are being ripped off

by mobile phone companies.

Patricia Gibson said many consumers

were continuing to pay

for their handset after they had

covered the cost of buying it.

Having a mobile phone today

has pretty much become

a necessity to all of us.

Even though we may often wish

we didn't, we rely on them

all to a certain extent.

It is just the modern way

that we live our lives.

And I am sure, like me,

the Minister is deeply concerned

to hear about the report

from Citizens Advice that too many

loyal mobile phone customers

are being ripped off

by their providers.

And I use the term advisedly,

Mr Chair - ripped off

by their providers.

Most people pay for their

handset over two years

of their phone contract.

She pointed to research

by Citizens Advice.

It seems that 36% of mobile handset

customers stay on their previous

contract after the

24 month fixed period.

On average, people stay

on their contract for

an extra seven months.

However, the chances are,

that if you are a customer with one

of the bigger mobile phone providers

who dominate the market,

the price consumers are charged each

month will not change.

Meaning that consumers continue

to be charged for their handsets

even though they have already paid

for them over the course

of their two year contract.

The fact is, Mr Chair,

that most providers don't tell

the customer how much

of their monthly bill goes

towards the mobile phone handset

and how much is paying

for data and calls.

The Minister said there

was a competitive market

and that the Government

was determined to make billing

easier to understand.

In my opinion, this

means more transparent.

It includes making it clearer

when a customer has paid off

the price of their handset

and is in a position

to switch to a cheaper

deal, saving them money.

And, in future, it

would be easier to move

to a different phone provider.

Consumers will be able

to send a free text

to their current provider

to request a switching code

that they give to their new provider

in order for switching to be very

timely and seamless.

The change will make switching much

quicker and easier for consumers

and will go some way towards helping

to address the issue

that the honourable lady has raised.

Margot James.

And that is 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 the highlights

from Prime Minister's Questions.

But for now, from me,

Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.