20/03/2018 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up,

there's anger on the Conservative

benches over the Government's

Brexit fishing deal.

That there is no way I can sell the

still in a transitional period as

anything like a success.

Two basic

amenities and Murray, Stalin or the

UK.

The Environment

Secretary sympathises.

I feel their disappointment.

And, the BBC comes under

fire for its treatment

of some presenters.

I feel like I've been hung out to

dry. I feel betrayed and I asked

this, where is their duty of care

towards me.

But first,

For many MPs it felt like a slap

in the face with a wet fish.

The European Union will continue

to set fishing quotas

during the transition

period following Brexit.

That was what was decided on Monday

in an agreement the Government

hailed as a success,

a step forward.

But fisherfolk are furious that EU

trawlers will still have access

to UK waters until the end of that

transition period in December 2020.

A Liberal Democrat MP

had an urgent question

for the Environment Secretary.

The mood in fishing communities is

one of palpable anger. This is not

what we were promised. And the basic

question that the Secretary of State

has to answer today is this, if they

can't let us down like this over the

deal for a transitional period, how

do we know they will not do it again

when it comes to the final deal?

When it comes to it, well they trade

away access or water for access to

markets, or anything else?

The first

thing I will happily acknowledges

that there is disappointment in the

basic amenities. I know as somebody

whose father was a fish merchant and

whose grandparents went to sea to

fish. I understand how fishing

communities feel about the

situation. I shared a

disappointment.

I'm sure the

Secretary of State will understand

that there is no way I can sell this

still in the transitional period of

them and think like a success to

basic amenities and Murray, Scotland

or the UK. But can the Secretary of

State confirm that when we leave the

policy in 2020, we will have full

control over this and vessel access

because the fishing communities that

feel let down and angered at this

government at the moment the debt

guarantee?

I understand my

honourable friend's want and it will

be the case across the Northeast of

Scotland and the United Kingdom,

people will be disappointed that the

proposal that we sought to assure

that would apply for it to the other

19 to apply for that year. It is

also important to recognise that

this is a 12 month additional

extension to the maintenance of the

EU belt and we accept that in order

to secure the greater prize which he

is quite the right to remind the

House. Only available if we ensure

that we leave the common fisheries

policy, take back control and make

absolutely clear to other countries

that access and causes will be in

our hands.

But several

Conservatives weren't convinced

that the Government wouldn't use

that control to allow EU

fishing in UK waters once

the transition period was over.

Bring forward, with companies are

guaranteed can't you give the

control of ICs will not be

sacrificed in the Brexit?

Does my

friend agree that we owe a debt to

our fishing communities? And that we

must not guarantee to the EU any

level of access in favour of a

longer-term trade deal?

Yes.

But while many Conservative

MPs were disappointed

with the Government's deal,

they still reserved some

anger for the SNP.

I share the disappointment of

Northeast this submit and the

transition to fall short with a hope

for, so can the Secretary of State

guarantee that on the 1st of

January, 2021, we will leave the

common fisheries policy, take back

control over our waters comes at our

own fishery management policies, and

hard quotas, and look at including

that in the history built in if he

should be concerned that I have in

the Scottish fishermen Federation

have that the SNP Scottish

Government will keep us in the

policy and perpetuity and that would

sell Scotland's measurements out!

For their

part, the SNP were up in arms.

With concern is always somebody

else's's file for the Conservatives.

When we joined to the common

fisheries policy, Scotland's

measurements were described as

expendable. So there were use to

Scottish tourist sell-outs, given

the matter of days out even

Scotland's measurement will be

surprised at how quickly that one

was turned around. Will the Minister

tell me at what point are fishermen

became a bargaining chip or has that

been the case all along and does he

agree with me that there are now in

the worst of all worlds that were in

the common fisheries policy but no

say, and Willie also tell me why

over the years, the SNP has proposed

changes to bring greater control

over fishing policies, but they have

been rejected and Jessica grew with

me that that is because there's a

big industry in Scotland imported to

the Scottish Government that means

nothing Westminster?

-- nothing to

us Mr. Mr Speaker, I production

means we discussed somebody else are

talking about yourself. It is

interesting that the Scottish

National Party spokesman to talk

about always blaming somebody else.

And always make somebody else's

fault. For a party that has raised

grievance to an art form, they have

a damn chick making a case.

Given

the assurances I and others over the

last year were given right friend

the Prime Minister down that we

would leave the common fisheries

policy at the end of March 2019, who

actually was negotiating debts and

did they really care about fishing?

The truth that the Tories are

treating this industry as

expendable. The Secretary of State

talked about were viable.

But

industry cannot revive based on the

status quo that the Government has

delivered on the CFP. Does he

understand what my constituents will

see this as a total sell-out? Would

not even a say at the table for the

next two years.

I'm slightly

concerned by my routable friend's on

in relation to the negotiations that

the European Commission would not

allow us something. Surely, it is a

question of what importance we put

on something as to whether we get

it. Therefore I ask my right

honourable friend what did we get in

return?

The bid price that we have

secured is an implementation period

that allows us to prepare for the

benefits. That's what the price that

we got.

But the Lib Dem who raised

the question warned Michael Gove

against taking

fishermen for granted.

It was reported that the Government

Chief Whip today or yesterday told

his backbenches that it is not like

the fishermen are going to vote

labour. If that is true, every

phrase a certain attitude in the

Secretary of State should not be

complacent, he should not take it

for granted in the future that they

will be voting Tory either.

The draft deal about the transition

period is expected to be signed off

at an EU summit later this week.

And the Prime Minister will make

a statement to MPs on Monday.

People with advanced dementia

are being evicted by some care

providers in England,

on the basis it's too costly

too look after them,

according to Labour.

The accusation came

at health questions.

We have a care system where the hot

hot process that is not sustainably

funded, with the CQC says that one

quarter of care facility in not say

for now. -- where the audit office

says. And when providers cherry pick

an event people with advanced

dementia on the grounds of cost. Can

the care Minister tell us what she

is doing to address these issues and

the sharp decline in which there has

been an public satisfaction with the

social care system?

Mr Speaker, we

know that this sector is under

pressure because of the ageing

population but the Government has

given councils accessed 291 £4

billion more dedicated funding over

the three years.

A Conservative thought the answer

might be working together.

Given that the arithmetic of this

place is so tight, it's clear that

they'll need be some form of

consensus for Crossbar party for

reform. Given that the opposition

appeared to favour a wealth tax, and

are on-site have mooted the idea of

individuals pay more for their own

care,, surely cross party consensus

is within reach. Can I ask the

Secretary of State his view on cross

party consensus?

I think it is very

important in your sixth Earth Offaly

on this matter but it is important

to the social care issues are

something that are going to

continue. -- he always speaks

truthfully on this matter. Unless we

find a solution of both parties will

have to deal with this. In truth,

both parties have made things worse

by politicking in the past whether

it was discussion about a death tax

and 2009, or a dementia tax in 2017.

A Labour MP thought

the problem was simple.

Not much sign of a cross-party

consensus yet then.

The problem is simply this, not

enough money, or quality stuff and

not in a place of. The Government

should be ashamed of itself.

It's

Fardy CBSN of itself are living as

with the financial crisis ten years

ago. That's right it is his party

that should be a shame to miss out.

It has created pressure and health

and social care system. Let me say

to him that yes, in 2010, there were

some cuts in the social care system

but does have changed out and over

this Parliament, the budget is going

up by nine points of additional

resources, which is an increase in

real terms.

Not much sign of consensus yet.

You're watching Tuesday

in Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

The BBC has come under fire from

some of its senior broadcasters.

They believe they were forced

into employment arrangements that

could leave them facing huge

and unexpected tax bills.

The Culture committee

is investigating a decision to make

some presenters use personal

service companies or PSCs.

Before the hearing, the MPs released

a dossier showing how some of those

pursued for unpaid taxes suffered

mental health problems and in some

cases considered suicide.

The BBC has established a process

which means the Corporation

could pay a share of bills.

This is an incredibly serious issue

and I think we've all been concerned

to read about the personal

predicament people have been placed

in and the effect that has had on

themselves on their families.

This

isn't the sort a well played

presenters. Training to companies to

attack. This is the story of the BBC

forcing Asher evidence has shown

hundreds of present is to form

companies and treat them as

freelancers because that gave the

BBC Plex ability. The effect of that

meant the BBC plate last insurance

contributions. Except that was not

its purpose and we accept that but

it did have that effect. And save

millions of pounds a year. The BBC

have avoided other implement cost.

Sickness payments, Secretary pay,

pensions... So on. It could get rid

of any of us on a whim. No

employment rights and assets. The

price was paid by presenters who

were exposed to the risk that when

David HMRC will come to them and

decide it would not freelancers but

were employed in claim that tax

including employers national

insurance. That risk has become

real.

The BBC ended the use of PSCs

because the law changed last year.

It's done in such a candid way that

many people have been faced to the

financial. Double taxation, no pay,

direct of the work and that has led

to that dossier of despair shall I

call it, which was presented to you

and it is sad to us that it took the

publication of that to arouse the

BBC to what say we said last night.

-- to say what he said last night.

Mr Lewis said he'd refused

to set up a company.

But others had.

The BBCpoint of view was nobody was

forced and the evidence is that you

didn't do it, it didn't work. That

was being forced in my view and

people suddenly felt they had no

choice to agree to that.

The MPs then heard from presenters

who felt they had been

compelled to set up a PSC.

I think it is a tragedy that this

mismanagement will lead to millions

of pounds possibly being taken to

the coffers, to rapidly compensate

people who been taken into account

its game or gone to hell, to the

point of nearly taken her own life.

Or have been blotted with the tax

bills. It is not something I want to

be a poster girl. Let's take the

money off of the licence plate. I

resent that. None of this is of our

making.

Another said all her worst

fears had come true.

Not long after I went freelance my

stepdaughter died suddenly, I was

unable to pay per remit leave and I

went back into the show before her

funeral because I had to get money.

-- unable to take bereavement leave.

Two years after that, how was

diagnosed with cancer. I had

surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy,

I work the whole way through. I

entered into this whole arrangement

in good faith. I trusted the BBC and

was proud to be part of the BBC. And

I feel like I've been hung out to

dry. I feel betrayed and I asked

this, where is the duty of care

towards me?

The people in this

situation and our people, not pounds

of beans, which people seem to

regard the mass, they are stacked to

the local committee and stars, not

being betrayed in some sections of

the media. They trust the BBC

because it is the BBC. They trusted

to look after them in the BBC has

done anything but that. On the eve

of this meeting, where the BBC

decided to take some sort of

modifying action, and come out with

very nice words, I'm sorry but nice

words do not heal broken minds. They

did not heal broken people and that

is with the BBC is dealt with and

they must face up to it.

The government's drawing up plans

to make boardrooms more accountable

when firms go under.

Ministers say the proposals

will give regulators stronger powers

to tackle those who make

irresponsible decisions.

We are determined to learn the

lessons from things like really. We

think we can do more teaching than

the Government's framework

insolvency situations.

He told MPs the consultation

would focus on three areas.

Firstly, the selling

on of businesses that were near -

or in - insolvency.

Secondly...

The Government will consult on

measures to get insolvency

practitioners the additional

necessary powers to claw back for

the benefit of creditors money which

has been siphoned off through

complex financing arrangements.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, concerns have

also been raised, including by a

number of honourable members, about

the difficulties raised when a

company has been dissolved but is

then found to have outstanding debts

or allegations of directive

misconduct. Often these dissolved

companies will reappear, phoenix

like in a slightly different form in

a slightly different name and start

operating again. At present is,

insolvency services to not have the

powers necessary to investigate

these cases. We are determined that

they will.

But Labour argued many of these

powers already existed

and it wasn't clear what these

proposals added - what was on offer

was meaningless platitudes.

The Government is certainly not

known for being proactive rather

always mopping up after the event.

The minute these problems are new.

Companies going insolvent and

leaving pension deficits or assets

strip are not novel. Look at the

case of a DHS. These are problems

the Government should have already

anticipated. I ask the Minister why

hasn't taken the Government till now

to begin to act and only make

tentative steps?

The House can be

reassured that this is just the next

step in a robust, detailed, fulsome

review of our corporate government

regime.

These proposals are a range

of options available to accompany

becoming insolvent. The proactive

approach can prevent this happening

in the first place. Would he agree

that one way to ensure this would be

for organisations to take profit

warnings seriously and not continue

to hand out contracts to firms who

issue them?

Can ask the Minister

which currently can do and will in

future be able do with respect to

companies like Toys "R" Us where we

had a management team led by a man

who over a long period of time were

able to loop the company with debt

using complex is written tax havens

and leaving behind the legacy of 580

million pension fund and 3000

redundancies? What can he do?

In

relation to Toys "R" Us, of course

he recognises, as I said previously,

that that some businesses will

always fail, but this government is

very clear that these sets of

measures, in particular the putting

the emphasis on the

responsibilities, not just of

directors, but also of shareholders,

and I think this is a very important

point, the sharp holders,

institutional shareholders, have a

voice in the way these are run.

Andrew Griffiths.

A Conservative MP has called

for the introduction of new measures

to make sure residents of high rise

homes are given information

about fire safety,

following the horrific blaze

at Grenfell Tower in London.

Maria Miller said one

of her constituents who lived

in a privately-owned building wasn't

able even to see the fire

risk assessments.

Eventually, when I secured a copy of

the fire risk assessments and sent

to my constituent, he was very

concerned. He was concerned to find

out that a number of fire risks had

been raised within the report,

including serious faults on defence

control panel which the report

identified as a hazard for escape

routes and evacuations.

Maria Miller said residents

had a right to know

what the fire risks were.

My bill would make sure that the

responsible person holds it a

residence meeting to go to the fire

risk assessment and review and

report on the measures being taken

to address any risks identified.

She said that after

the Grenfell Tower fire

there was an urgent need

to improve fire safety.

Everyone who lives in a high-rise

building has the right to know if

there are fire issues that have been

identified, how they are being

tackled and most important of all,

what they should do in the event of

a fire. At the moment, there is no

transparency. Patchy at this,

residents deserve better.

The bill cleared its first

parliamentary hurdle,

but without Government support,

it's unlikely to become law.

There were calls from across

the Commons for the restoration

of power sharing at Stormont.

MPs were debating a bill to give

civil servants in Northern Ireland

the legal authority to carry out

day-to-day spending in the absence

of a devolved government.

Power sharing collapsed

14 months ago.

The Northern Ireland Secretary said

the bill represented the minimum

intervention to ensure public

services could function and it

contained no new money.

I take these measures with the

greatest reluctance. I have deferred

action here until it was clear it

would not be possible for executive

to take this legislation forward. As

we approach the end of the financial

year, it is important we proceed now

to give certainty as the Northern

Ireland civil service was to

continue to protect and preserve the

public services.

All of these

places, Northern Northern Ireland's

servants are in a position. They're

taking responsibly for providing

services, making now increasingly

autonomous decisions about services

without really having a political

master to serve for a political

backstop to watch their back if

there is a crisis in any of the

services they're providing.

Of

course we want devolution and of

course average mice to continue to

make sure there is devolution in

Northern Ireland, but in the

meantime, there are communities and

people suffering from a lack of

decision-making and as he has

rightly said, in the meantime, we

must ensure that decisions are made

for the good of everyone.

The DUP's Nigel Dodds.

The Government's been defeated

in the Lords as peers insisted

the UK should not withdraw

from the European nuclear

agreement, Euratom,

until a replacement deal

was in place.

The Euratom arrangement covers

issues such as the transport

of radioactive materials,

including those used

in medical treatments,

or in nuclear power stations.

The government was defeated

by 265 votes to 194,

a majority of 71 votes

on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill.

Earlier the topic exercising their

lordships was rubbish - literally.

One Conservative former minister

thought it would be a good idea

to add litter-picking

to the National Curriculum.

And he wasn't mincing his words.

The shocking and disgusting

proliferation of litter in our towns

and countryside frankly seems this

nation. Whilst my proposal might

need some opposition and some people

would understandably be very

concerned about safety and some

teachers might not like it very

much, if it where enacted that all

children spent a couple hours

clearing litter, I believe it might

have a gradual effect on attitudes

are not only that, but it might, in

the long term, have a positive

educational impact. Would my noble

friend please go back and look, in a

very serious matter, at this

proposal or something similar and

take radical action, so we no longer

need to be shaved at the state of

our highways? Tonight at the shape

of our highways?

I agree with my

noble friend with the scourge of

litter which is why the Government

washed it with your strategy last

year. It sets out our aim to clean

up the country and to deliver a

substantial reduction within a

generation.

I'm wary of criticising

the noble blood work -- the noble

lord given his service. I'm sure

there are not a few children who are

quite relieved their are left in the

country. I wonder if the noble lord

is aware that it is extreme and

balanced your six curricula and to

not include data that is not a

problem?

Given the high rate of

illiteracy and many of our primary

schools and the low rate of humour

and see him as 11 euros, which

really affects the subsequent

education, does the noble would not

agree with me it would be far better

to concentrate on the essentials of

a good education and not expose our

children to unnecessary danger doing

foolish things which are naturally

part the curriculum?

In two weeks'

time, today, it will become a

penalty of £80 on the owner of any

vehicle from which litter is thrown.

This is a big advance because

previously they could ever be

prosecuted. We have now, the

Government has now made it a civil

penalty. Will he equally except that

the penalty for flights if they

aren't completely inadequate and the

enforcement against fly-tipping is

also inadequate?

I think it comes

back to my earlier statement that it

is about public responsibility and

duty. I am delighted that the fines

for littering from cars have been

increased and also be aware that

from January of this year, we banned

the use of microbeads in cosmetic

substances, so the whole thrust is

to improve the protection of our

environment and I applauded the most

recent action you referred to.

Lord

Agnew.

And that's all we've got time for.

So from me, Mandy Baker, goodbye.