23/01/2018 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello there, and welcome

to the programme.

Coming up in the next half hour:

the government confirms it

won't appeal a high court ruling

on benefit payments for people

with mental illness.

Labour reckons it's good news

for hard pressed claimants.

The cuts that have been brought on

disabled people by this government

is an absolute disgrace.

Also on this programme: the former

chair of the social mobility

commission says ministers weren't

willing or able to "put

their shoulders to the wheel"

to tackle the problem.

And an MP says it's time

to put an end to rip off

rickshaw rides in london.

Charging 2- £300 to go the half-mile

from Oxford Circus.

But first: the work

and pensions secretary has confirmed

that up to 220,000 people

could have their benefits

restored to a higher level,

following a high court ruling.

Ministers announced on Friday

that they would not appeal

against a high court judgment

on disability benefits.

The row is over those

with mental health conditions

and whether they should qualify

for higher rates of

personal independence

payments, known as pips.

An SNP MP asked the new work

and pensions secretary to come

to the commons and explain

what would happen now.

Esther McVey said the government

would write to those affected

and payments would be backdated.

We are not appealing the outcome of

the recent High Court judgment in

order to provide certainty to our

climate. Our next steps will build

on the positive work this government

is already undertaking, including

spending on main disability

benefits, pip, DLA and attendance

allowance has risen by four points 2

billion cents Ted 2010. Real

spending on disability benefits will

be higher every year to 2010 Dan in

2010.

How long will it take to carry

out the review? Out what longer will

these people have to wait to receive

the money that they rely on and the

money that rightfully unlawfully is

theirs. Can the Secretary of State

explain why her apartment as

amassing such an appalling that...

Doesn't that tell the Government

something about these cuts? Finally,

will she not come to the... System

its most fundamental principle is

not to upgrade the budget but to

protect the respect and dignity of

those who rely on it rather than

continuing think to punish people

for having disabilities.

Hear, hear!

When you are trying to expand

support it is not always going to be

easy, so we knew at the time we were

taking on a very difficult change

and it would no doubt be legal

challenges. But do you know what?

When there is legal challenges, Mr

Speaker, we've got to look at them,

take a true and fair judgment, and

carry on that path. And on this

instance I do believe I made a fair

judgment. I have to say the

Secretary of State's statement, to

any disabled

person watching this

will be absolutely gob smacked.

Hear, hear!

And to say there is a commitment to

disabled people when the human

committee on the rights of disabled

people has said it is a human

catastrophe, the cuts that have been

brought on disabled people by this

government is an absolute disgrace.

And she asked, how many people

would be affected by the decision.

How many people could this be

effecting? It could affect up to

220,000 people. And that's why we

are taking this process very

seriously and we as a department

will be reaching out to those people

once we know exactly what we are

doing.

As for the UN, how did he

figures that she has given compare

internationally?

Again, and other

good point raised by my right

honourable friend. The UK is one of

the most generous countries in the

world when it comes to supporting

its disabled people.

Hear, hear!

Only Germany in the G7 spends more.

We disband what is deemed

appropriate, available and that we

have -- we do spend. Which is over

£50 billion. But as I say, and I

will reiterated, we are one of the

most generous countries in the

world.

And other colleagues at last

year we should listen to the message

that the courts were giving us,

accepting their ruling would be a

significant step forward... Booker

the Select Committee were about to

publish an article... Please will

the Secretary of State commit to

seriously considering our

recommendations for what we can do

to improve both of those benefits it

comes?

The Secretary of State talks

of the unnecessary vilification of

her policies. When it was her given

to a responsible for the

vilification of so many mentally

disabled people by presenting them

as applying for benefits for which

they are not entitled.

Hear, hear!

And I have seen the misery these

decisions have cost us so many of my

constituents, including those

suffering from host dramatic stress

syndrome as a consequence of sexual

abuse. So we'll she now guaranteed

to them the maximum amount of time

that they will have to wait to have

their cases reviewed?

Hear, hear!

Thank you. It is unfortunate when

members of the opposition try and

ratchet the level of the motion up

in the Chamber. Especially when it

is very emotional as it is. Nobody

has ever sought to vilify anybody.

Hear, hear!

And I think if we could get that on

the record now, this is not about

vilification about anybody. It's not

about vilification. It is about

giving the right support to those

people who need it.

The work and pensions

secretary, Esther McVey.

The former head of the social

mobility commission, alan milburn,

says the government lacks

the willingness and ability

to deal with the "social

crisis" facing the country.

The commission's four board members

quit in December in protest

at a lack of action on the agenda.

Giving evidence to the education

select committee, Alan Milburn said

there had been "disengagement"

about the watchdog's status,

which had seen its membership shrink

from ten commissioners to four.

We had an independent -- independent

department and I was it. ... We then

made recommendations to government

about who was avoidable. It took

almost a year for the Government to

decide -- who was avoidable. That

none of the people that we

recommended work suitable for

appointment. And in that time by the

way, none of the candidates heard

anything. And effectively and I

insisted a letter of apology be sent

to candidates and a the other

applicants.

If the Government is not

going to renew our position, then we

will be left with three. We know

this is my sense. If it requires ten

people it requires ten people. And I

felt that it was an intolerable

position for staff and it was not in

a position to be working in the way

it had been intended.

Good

initiative, good Ministers that try

to do the right thing, but overall I

think the conclusion was that it

didn't seem that the Government had

the either ability or willingness to

put their collective shoulders to

the wheel... Why was that? It is

pretty obvious in a sense. Ashley is

understandable. Brexit is fiercely

complex, probably the most complex

international negotiations and has

ever been. And the conclusions I

reached was that unfortunately. The

Government left then with to really

match the rhetoric with the reality.

I said that as a matter of regret, I

really do.

I think also with Brexit

actually that there may well be

quite a lot of turmoil one way or

another. And a lot of change to cope

with which means that social change

will become even more important.

Former education secretary,

Gillian, now Lady Shephard.

The culture secretary has come under

pressure from opposition MPs

to "prohibit" Rupert Murdoch's

£11 billion bid to take full

control of the broadcaster, Sky.

The demands came after the

competition and markets authority,

the CMA, said the takeover was not

in the public interest as it

would give the Murdoch family trust

too much influence over public

opinion and the political agenda.

But Sky could end up owned

by disney if Mr Murdoch's

proposed sale of Fox,

which owns 39% of Sky, goes ahead.

In a statement the culture

secretary said that the CMA's

findings were provisional.

A final report is expected in May.

I hope the House will understand

that I cannot comment successively

on the original report before us

anonymously for the final report

before commenting commenting. I am

however aware of the keen interest

across the House on this important

matter. And I know that members will

be closely scrutinizing the

provisional findings and will have

views on them. In

November, sky has

threatened to shut down Sky News if

it lived to be a plurality obstacle

in their bid. Will be reject any

attempt by the Murdochs to blackmail

him or the regulator by threatening

sky's staff.

Hear, hear!

.

I will follow the process by

taking into consideration the final

report once it is published by the

ECMA. I will consider what it says,

I will consider all the relevant

evidence and information --

published by the CMA. And then make

a decision.

Mr Speaker, we hear

reports that owners of Sky would be

willing to close down Sky News if it

becomes an impeachment in the Bill,

with a possible loss of 500 jobs.

Can the Secretary of State confirm

that he will not allow employers of

Sky to be used as pawns in any

takeover in this final decision

coming to vote? ... What impact will

this have on his final decision on a

given that Disney's reported lack of

interest in news broadcasting.

Thank

you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it

is a matter of law that whilst

consideration of this proposal is

ongoing, sky news cannot be shut

down in advance of a decision.

When

it comes to plurality, and he just

bear in mind that the greatest

disaster that could befall plurality

of media in this country would be

from sky News which is after all a

lossmaking enterprise, although

extremely good. If that enterprise

were to be closed.

First applied it

is very important that he and the

CMA should not allow back door

attempt by the Murdochs to get

control of Sky from the so-called

remedies process. The simple way to

stop this deal going ahead is to

prohibit it, not to have some carved

out or some complicated process.

This is personal. This is basically

leftist, particularly the party

opposite who don't like Murdoch. If

this involve any other media

organization, the shadow Secretary

of State in the party opposite would

have nothing at all to say. This is

something that is personal. You

should bear that in mind.

You're watching tuesday

in parliament, with me,

alicia mccarthy.

Tuesday is cabinet meeting day.

Cabinet arrivals and apart

from these sorts of pictures

of all the senior figures striding

up downing street, there's

generally not much to say.

But this tuesday was different

because it'd been widely reported

that the foreign secretary,

boris johnson, was planning to pitch

for £100-a-week boost

for the nhs in england,

as a "brexit dividend".

Well, we don't know exactly

what transpired at the meeting

but theresa may did make a plea

for discussions about future

funding to remain private.

In the afternoon, jeremy hunt

was appearing before

the health committee

and the subject came up.

In the run-up to today's events. You

supported the foreign secretaries

cause for the NHS. How did that go?

I don't think any help section

secretary, resources for his or her

department. Obviously, you

understand been telling you about

the precise content of the Cabinet.

Is the Foreign Secretary, making

these comments public in getting his

people to brief them today's

running?

I am not able to comment

about what happened, but I would say

that there was a Brexit debate and

then NHS debate, and indication of

those two debates coming together.

There is not going to be any money

flowing, so where's this money going

come from? Will have to ask the

Foreign Secretary.

In addition to touching

on cabinet tensions,

the health committee was chiefly

concerned with what might happen

to the provision of medicines

after the uk leaves the eu.

Jeremy hunt was asked

about a transition deal.

Jeremy hunt.

We need one now. The Business

Secretary could, based on, the

status -- status quo, again today.

No, the reality of these things, no,

these communications of the EU and

the...

The EU could agree now?

I

think that is a question you have to

address to David Davis, but we have

made it very clear that the

transition deal, that was agreed

with the EU in December, and I think

a pretty imported moment in the

negotiations, also moving onto

discussions in the future

relationship. There are going to be

some eyes to be dotted and send

feedback need to be crossed, it was

a broad agreement, as far as the

sectors concerned is along the lines

that we would all... I am very

confident that we can add the

transition deal.

We've heard from a

number of people in different trade

associations, that British patients

will receive new medicines more

slowly than they do at the moment.

And that obviously can be critical

for patient's treatment. How are we

going to deal with that issue after

Brexit?

I think the first point to

make is that, British patients

currently receive medicines to

slowly. -- too slowly. And part of

the catalytic effect of Brexit was

for us to look much harder. And one

of those is the fact that when they

develop new drugs in the UK, it

takes too long to get picked up by

the NHS. And that is a significant

negative as far as we are concerned.

So we are looking more broadly, for

patient's safety, it is an absolute

priority to make sure that things do

not slow down as a result of Brexit.

The justice secretary says the "most

stringent" licensing conditions must

be placed on the black cab rapist,

John Worboys when he is

released from prison.

Worboys is believed to have carried

out more than 100 rapes and sexual

assaults on women in London

between 2002 and 2008.

He was transferred from HMP

Wakefield in West Yorkshire to HMP

Belmarsh, south-east London,

at the weekend ahead

of his expected release.

David Gauke said that

while the "precise conditions"

for parole are decided

at an "operational level",

he had written to the authorities

stressing the need to ensure

that the concerns of victims were

put at the heart of this process".

The case was raised

by a conservative MP.

They propose to release him, and it

is terrifying. And like his victims,

they are appalled to learn that he

is been moved to the new prison, he

will do absolutely everything in his

power to ensure that Worboys is

released to keep him out of Greater

London.

What I say to my honourable

friend who has been tireless on this

matter in recent weeks. Is that

first of all, when it comes to the

precise conditions, those are

operational matters that are not

this -- are decided and operational

level. Stressing the needs that the

concerns of victims at the heart of

this process and ensuring that the

most stringent measures are taken in

place in terms of the conditions

will stop

and the review of public

safety, the victims of Worboys, can

they confirm that the government

will at least co-operate with the

judicial review now being brought by

victims?

Well, I've been, and I

think my honourable friend for her

question? I set out that I would not

be pursuing a traditional review on

behalf of the government in this

case. But I also made it very clear

that I would not say or do anything

that would stand in the way of

others who may have different

meanings into a traditional review.

He has not been prosecuted for the

vast majority of his crimes, how is

the government working with victims,

to make sure that they are

prosecuted for their crimes?

It is

troubled us all. It has troubled me

personally. Of course it has. In

this particular case, the state is

investigating the review from a

probation point of view. As the

Secretary of State has already said,

there are operational

responsibilities here and response

to where she is transferred to and

his directions -- he.

The government's been accused

of 'playing games' by not setting

out its preferred plan

for the post-Brexit relationship

between the EU and the UK's

financial services sector.

The issue was raised in the House

of lords by a liberal democrat

who chairs a Lords committee

on financial affairs.

What is lacking is a paper, telling

the financial services

Senator. What it should implement

and plan for when the transition

period is over. This is an industry

that, more than 1 million jobs are

at stake, and has huge strategic

importance for the United Kingdom.

But none of the long promised

financial service sectors.

Replying the Minister quoted

the Minister in the Commons.

We shall continue to review it, and

we will set it out as appropriate.

And as we continue to be.

It is over

a year since they reported on the

financial services and Brexit are

produced. We have no clear view of

what the government thinks, if it

had to does not know? And not

talent? Or is it really just not up

to the task?

If you did not come

from the benches opposite, where the

labour parties position can only be

described as, let me just reminded

the lady of this cutting I precisely

what has been happening. There has

been an extensive, she knows that we

are seeking a good trade agreement

between the UK and the EU. A

detailed technical talk which she is

well aware. There is an ongoing

dialogue, this is a delicate sense

of time, and to the government must

be the arbiter of what is

appropriate in particular areas.

A conservative former chancellor,

said the Government had

made clear it wanted

the maximum possible access.

And wasn't it absurd to ask

for more detail than that.

And to ask a government that is

trying to negotiate a deal, that is

not realistic.

I should not need to

remind the noble Baroness that this

is only a small part of the United

kingdoms financial services

industry. And a large part of it is

in Scotland, Bristol, Leeds, these

jobs are at risk and this is not the

time to be playing games. My neck I

think she's being a bit harsh in her

terminology. We are not playing

games, and let me tell you in

Brussels

these are complex

challenging negotiations and be very

nature of them, are very sensitive,

and that involves the need to

observe the degree of

confidentiality.

Lady Goldie.

Finally, in the Commons

there was a call for people

using cycle rickshaws,

or pedicabs to be protected

from huge rip-off fares.

The conservative Paul Scully

introduced a bill, enabling

transport for London

to regulate the industry.

He said because pedicabs weren't

regulated there was no requirement

for the estimated 1,400 drivers

to have insurance, or for vehicle

condition or driver

quality to be assessed.

Paul Scully said his bill

was "simply ironing out an anomaly",

as London was the only part

of the UK where cycle rickshaws

weren't already regulated.

And he argued the change

would protect customers.

An undercover film-maker revealed in

2016, examples of rickshaw drivers

charging Chinese tourist £300 each

for a three-minute ride. And

charging two to £300 to go half a

mile,, pedicabs increased traffic

delays and pollution, obstructing

legitimate business. Many play loud

music. Clearly not all, but on many

occasions, there are enough to ruin

the reputation of those simply

trying to earn a living in a

conscientious way.

Well Paul Scully won the right

to take his bill forward.

But unless the Government backs it,

it won't become law.

And that's it from me for now but do

join us on BBC Parliament at 11:00

on Wednesday night for a full

round up of the day

here at Westminster,

including Prime Ministers Questions,

and the Brexit secretary,

David Davis, in front

of the Brexit committee.

But for now from me, AM goodbye.