27/02/2018 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello there, and welcome

to Tuesday in Parliament.

Coming up on this programme:

MPs and experts talk

trade after Brexit.

With the former head

of the World Trade Organization

predicting new deals

won't compensate for the loss

of business with the the EU.

The 1% you can gain their will be

comparable to the five, six or 7%

you would lose on the other side.

A committee of MPs asks

if there's enough information

for smokers about e-cigarette.

And the governments urge to act

to help end a hunger strike

of the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre.

One woman describes it as being

kidnapped. Not knowing when it is

going to end or what is going to

happen to her.

But first...

In a speech on Tuesday

morning, the international

Trade Secretary Liam Fox said

britain must be free

to make its own trade

deals outside Europe,

if it's to seize new opportunities

to sell to developing countries.

Labour wants the UK to form

a new customs union,

but Doctor Fox insisted that

would be a complete sell-out

of Britain's national interest.

His speech came as a former

permanent secretary

at the Department for

International Trade had described

described Brexit as,

"giving up a 3-course meal in return

for a packet of crisps,"

A comment raised by a Labour MP

at Treasury Questions.

Does he agree with the permanent

secretary that giving up the single

market and the customs Union is like

giving up a 3-course meal for a

packet of crisps in the future? If

he does not agree, then can he

identify specific evidence his book

whoa department has seen the future

trade agreements will outweigh the

damage of leaving the single market

customs union for businesses and

jobs across the country, but

reticulated the Northeast.

Hear,

hear!

.

Mr Speaker, it is the Government's

intention to maintain the highest

possible access for British

businesses to European Union

markets. And the honourable Lady is

right that we should approach this

on an evidence base is. We should

look for the evidence of value of

our trade flows with Europe, what

that generates in the UK in terms of

jobs, and we should look objectively

at the opportunities that lie with

third country trade deals and the

likely profile of new jobs and new

trade and new opportunities that can

be created come and we shall waive

those carefully.

But another quote appeared to have

the Chancellor a little stumped.

Labor's Stella Creasy

raised comments from

the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

He's used a BBC interview to dismiss

concerns that a hard

Irish border would emerge

after leaving the EU customs union,

suggesting the lack of border checks

between Camden and Westminster

did not stop motorists paying

the congestion charge.

Could the Chancellor set out the

benefits or otherwise of the

arrangements the Government appears

to have for a customs union between

the Camden, is lifting and

Westminster?

LAUGHTER

I'm sure, Mr Speaker, when I call a

home and reflect on the deep meaning

of that question will become clear

to me. But what I will say in

response to the honourable Lady is

that if we look at the way goods and

services flow freely between

different parts of our own economy,

and indeed it's a different parts of

the United Kingdom, we see at once

the huge benefit that it brings

having frictionless borders as we

move our goods and services.

Well, by coincidence, the former

general of the World Trade

Organization was giving evidence

to MPs on the Brexit committee,

and he was asked about the border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic.

Currently on this border, if we

resorted to WTO rules, how would the

WTO regard the border between

Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic? And what would they expect

to happen at that border between

Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic? Irish Republic, being a

member of the UN Northern Ireland of

course being outside the US the

Brexit.

Whatever option you take,

either a bilateral agreement or the

WTO option, UK exiting EU meaning

Northern Ireland exiting EU, this

will necessitate a border.

He suggested one possible model

like that of Macau and China.

In order to be a WTO member, you

don't need to be sovereign. You need

to have another member's customs,

which is something which Macau, Hong

Kong has, whereas in the case of mad

cow they are clearly belonging to

China. But they are members of the

WTO in their own right, because they

have an autonomous trade. And the

Macau option would be that you

should think it out, giving to

Northern Ireland. The same tray

capacity as China has given to

Macau, which doesn't mean that Macau

doesn't belong to China. And then

you have the single system. Apply

the same trade relations as Ireland.

Otherwise you have to have a vote.

Again, where is this border? Is it

north of us, is the East, West? That

is politically and extremely complex

question. But in my view, and I am

putting this very simply as an

expert, if it is not East and West

it has to be North and South.

So, what was his view

of our future trade prospects?

I'm not seeing the UK will not have

trade opportunities, which it may

not have today as part of the EU.

But I would very much doubt as an

expert, and again I am not entering

any politics, that the 1% you can

gain their will be comparable to the

five, six or 7% you will use on the

other side.

Pascal let me.

Now, the former chief executive

of the collapsed construction firm

Carillion has said he's perplexed

by the Government's decision not

to give the company financial help

when it reached a crisis point.

Carillion, one of the government's

biggest contractors,

went into liquidation last month

with debts totaling £1.5 billion.

The company had employed 43,000

people and had contracts to run

services in hospitals,

schools and prisons

throughout the UK.

As part of the investigation

into the firm's downfall on January

14, some of its former bosses have

been facing the questions

of a joint committee of MPs.

Did government or did anyone

individual and government give you

assurance that there would be a

potential cash support from

government to get you over what you

considered at that point to be a

hot, to get you through to the end

of the financial year?

The

insurance, we did not get, the

permit certainly did not see... We

would support you. What they did say

is please put forward a proposal and

we are prepared to consider and

contemplate that proposal. The key

point here is there was a number of

different ways that cash could have

come into Carillion. We could have

reached a settlement with government

on specific contract issues or

government that have given us a

short-term loan, which to be clear

what happened repaid out of the

financing of the structuring of the

result of the restructuring plan

that we were working for.

Mr Green,

what was your view on the

Government's response following

Carillion's downfall?

Right up until

the very end, we were optimistic

that they would be able to play a

positive role. And we were deeply

disappointed. And to an extent

surprised when that didn't happen.

The funding we were asking for those

two weeks in January, essentially 10

million to be matched, 2 million

from the banks and then some

guarantee bending for a supply of

change financing against which we

would, they would be tested for the

broader restructuring plan. And I do

find it somewhat perplexing when one

looks at the funds that government

is now having to spend on the

liquidation on Carillion, on the

guarantee arrangements that have

needed to be put in place to support

the supply chain. You know, I still

truly believe that the least cost

outcome for the taxpayer would have

been to support Carillion, as it

sought to restructure the business.

Did you ever have a conversation

with your colleagues, saying Ashley

the Government is ever going to let

us go to the war because we are too

big to fail and we got such major

contracts? For example a test to?

Because you expressed some surprise

that I feel as if you actually

really believed that the Government

was gone to Bellew out of what was a

poor situation. Would that be fair?

No, it would be fair. Let me be

quick, we were not looking for a

bailout. That is not how I would've

you government support. This was a

short-term loan to help us

facilitate a broader restructuring.

Company successfully delivered. Many

hundreds of contracts. To the

satisfaction of government and all

stakeholders. The reason the company

got into difficulties during 2017

was because it had too much debt and

its balance sheet wasn't able to

withstand the shock from

particularly for contracts that went

badly wrong in the middle of 2017.

Did you not have a naive belief

frankly and government being the

solution, taxpayers money coming

into frankly bailout Carillion? That

was eventually what you are hanging

it all on at the end, wasn't it?

As

we said, we don't accept or

recognize the bailout. We believed

we were trying...

But a loan to a

company in difficulty. Alan would

have only been a long if you had

been recovered enough to pay it

back. It would be a very big risk.

In middle of January it was £10

million for one week to take us to

the next stage.

So fine a point from

Sir Geoffrey.

The real answer that

you consider yourself to be to fail?

No.

That the Government would have

to bail you out because you are too

big to fail?

That was not the view

of the board, that was not what we

believed. We really didn't.

Well, I

think we may beg to differ on that.

But can I thank you for your time?

Black Hill year there, bringing the

session to a conclusion.

You're watching Tuesday

in Parliament here with

me, Alicia McCarthy.

Now the appointment

of the controversial columnist

Toby Young to the Board of England's

new university regulator

caused a storm last month.

After disparaging comments he'd made

about women and disabled

people came to light.

He then resigned.

Now a report by the Commissioner

for Public Appointments has found

serious shortcomings and political

interference in the

appointments process.

Weeks ago the Government told his

House be process was a fair and open

competition, and in accordance with

the code of practice. But the

commissioner has found that this is

not the case. One candidate was

rejected on the basis of their past

public statements. Incredibly, this

was not Toby Young.

LAUGHTER

It was a student Representative,

rejected due to the desire by

Ministers and special advisers not

to appoint someone with close links

to the student union.

Hear, hear!

The report also notes that, can the

Minister tell us why being elected

by students makes someone unsuitable

to represent them? And how could the

then Minister tell us that it was

not reasonable to that social media,

when they did so for the student

representative?

Hear, hear!

Clearly

it was not as extensive as it

could've been.

It was the previous higher

Education Minister Joe Johnson

who oversaw the appointments.

He came in for some stinging

criticism from MPs.

This report is absolutely damning.

Particularly in relation to the

former Universities Minister and his

role in this appointment. And there

are very serious questions that he

should be answering to this House

about claims that he made that it

was not appropriate to do due

diligence and Canada its? A

statement he made from despatch box

was postop yet his department and

him himself ordering the very same

due diligence against a Cabinet he

did not want to appoint. By Modi

come to this House and apologise. --

when will he come to this House?

The

same due diligence was carried out

by the same advices on all

candidates and as I've said in

response to an earlier question, did

due diligence could've been or

extensive.

Toby Young believed in

eugenics. He made terrible remarks

about disabled people. He made awful

remarks about women. This is a man

that his predecessor thought was

fine to be on the board of office

for students. I say to him, what

confidence now should working-class

young people across this country,

underrepresented groups and ethnic

minorities have in the office for

students if we have a government

where the Minister who did this

cannot come to the despatch box,

apologise or step down.

Does he

think it was a sound judgement call

to allow number ten and medical

advisers to essentially blacklist

anybody and then appoint somebody

who is age, by not following any

proper process. Was that a good

judgement call by his predisaster?

Every decision any Minister makes

involves a judgement. It's not a

scientific process. In terms of

making sure the process works

better, the department which has

ultimate responsibility to make sure

we have a much more robust and

stringent process next time.

The Government's come under fire

over a port showing the number

of people in England and Wales

being detained under

the mental health act has been

rising year on year.

Labor's Luciana Berger used

an urgent question to raise

the finding of the watchdog,

the Care Quality Commission.

This scathing report finds that too

many patients who are subject to the

Mental Health Act continued to

experience care that does not fully

protect their rights or ensure their

well-being. Despite repeated

government promises, we have seen

yet another year of inaction. Can

the Minister and her response except

that and 2018 here in England that

what is outlined in today's report

is completely on acceptable and

could she tell us exactly what she

is going to do this week to ensure

that no patient in our country and a

mental health unit is deprived

unnecessarily of their human rights.

The Health Minister welcomed

the CQC's report and said

the Prime Minister had already

ordered a review of the use

of the mental health

actby professor Wesley.

I do agree with her and indeed with

AC QC report that the review of the

Mental Health Act in itself is not

the entire answer. That's why we

have this annual inspection from the

sea QC and we will act on it.

Central to the work that Simon

Wesley is leading is identifying

exactly those things which are known

legislative that we can take action

and to make the system work better

and again we are involved in many

cross government initiatives to do

exactly that.

Meanwhile in the Lords,

peers demanded to know

what the Government was doing

about eight hunger strike

at the arts would detention center.

The Independent online says more

than 100 women at the immigration

removal center have gone on hunger

strike over inhumane

conditions at the facility.

They're said to be concerned

about health provision

and uncertainty over how long

they are to be held.

A liberal Democrat said

there were around 400 people

held at Yarl's Wood,

the majority of them women.

One Algerian woman came to this

country at the age of 11, has been

here for 24 years and it wasn't

until she applied for a passport and

found she was undocumented that she

was been detained and so far she has

been there for three months. What

the Minister not agree that one of

the main reasons for the hunger

strikes is that people are being

detained unfairly, unreasonably and

indefinitely? One woman has

described it as like being

kidnapped. Not knowing what it's

going to and are what's going to

happen to her.

He said one person had been detained

for four and a half years.

With the Minister not agree that it

is time to introduce a 28 day limit

on immigration detention?

The

reasons for refusing food and fluid

are not for just one reason, there

may be for a multitude of reasons.

They may be an protest against their

detention that they may also be for

other reasons such as dietary and

religious reasons. It's true. It is

not a simple issue. In terms of

indefinite attention, the noble lord

did point out that detention for the

particular case that he outlined was

not indefinite but in fact the lady

had been detained for three months.

Every four months a detainee is

reassessed for immigration bail and

is actually quite fair to say that

most people in detention, 92%, to

not stay and attention for more than

four months.

What the Government not

reconsider looking at the mechanisms

used in the Scandinavian countries

where workers done within the

community to encourage and

successfully to get people to leave

when they have no right to be there

and apply a more humane and frankly

more effective policy such as the

ones we see in those countries.

I

don't have concerns that the

Government's policy is not working.

The reason that someone may remain

in detention for longer than they

might have done... Is because they

made themselves... The reasons for

detention are many and complex but

the purpose for detention is for

swift removal.

Do you agree that we

need up bit of balance on this

subject? In particular does she

agree that the credibility of the

immigration system depends on being

able to remove people who no longer

have a right to be in this country?

Clearly there will be difficult

cases and clearly they must be dealt

with in the best possible way but

fundamentally, we have to be able to

remove or the entire credibility of

the system is removed.

The noble

lord is absolutely right. That is

the purpose of detention for

necessary removal and I do also take

his point that while we do need to

deal with people sensitively who

perhaps are traumatised or have

mental health problems or other

reasons for rich they may be

vulnerable, the ultimate aim at the

detention centre is for removal.

According to the Office

for National Statistics,

7.6 million people smoke in the UK

am and that number is falling.

2016 saw the highest

proportion of smokers who quit

since their records began.

Nearly 3 million people

now use e-cigarette.

But researchers and producers said

that number was battling.

The producers wanted to stress

the benefit compared with smoking.

The research is very similar to that

that the Public Health England have

reviewed and that you find far fewer

toxicants and emissions from that is

cigarettes, the toxicological impact

of those omissions is much lower

than with cigarette smoking.

The

results showed that the reductions

and exposure so exposure to harmful

chemicals comes close to that seen

in those who stop smoking altogether

for the duration of the study so

very encouraging.

But there were claims

from researchers of a dearth

of information about he cannot burn

products which contained tobacco

but have fewer risks

than traditional cigarettes

because the tobacco doesn't combust.

Interns of heeding not burn, 350

degrees down to 30 degrees, we know

in birth circumstances there is no

combustion but you will still be

releasing some potentially harmful

chemicals albeit in smaller amounts.

Actually does comparative studies

have been done or they have been

dubbed the methodology is so

desperate that it's very difficult

to compare one study with another.

What about the chemicals

and e-cigarette?

Compared to conventional cigarettes

the levels are much lower. We

haven't done an exact comparison but

they are much, much lower. It's that

those that's important. We don't

know at this stage, maybe others do,

I'm not sure there is a cut off we

can say this level will translate

into development of cancer. We don't

know over the longer term what kind

of levels of repeated exposure are

going to have an impact on health

risk.

Both researchers and producers agree

more long-term studies were needed

into exactly the potential risks

were, but all of them stress

the risks compared with traditional

cigarettes were much lower.

Finally, Tuesday cut off

to a slightly spiky start

with the Minister getting

into trouble with the

Speaker John Bercow.

The Treasury Minister Liz Truss

with the Chancellor Philip Hammond

sitting alongside her on the front

bench was answering a question

about funding for local councils.

And took the opportunity to give

examples of where she thought

they'd wasted money.

But as she expanded on her thing,

the Speaker John Bercow barely

reckoned she had strayed too far

from her job, talking

about government responsibilities.

So, for example, momentum

supported... Which cost the taxpayer

£40,000 per day. Reading...

Resume

your seat Minister. You answer for

government policy. You don't waste

the time of the House by launching

into rants about policies of other

parties. I've made the point. If the

Chancellor is confused about it, he

really is underinformed.

The Speaker John Bercow

delivering his on Arctic blast

at Treasury questions.

And that's it from us for now.

Do join me at the same time tomorrow

for another round up

of the day here at Westminster,

including the highlights

from my Ministers questions.

But for now, from me

Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.