17/01/2018 Wednesday in Parliament

In

Hello and welcome to

Wednesday in Parliament.

On this programme:

Jeremy Corbyn

attacks the Government's handling

of Carillion's collapse.

But Theresa May says

the Labour party has turned

this isn't one isolated case of

government negligence and corporate

failure.

It has a broken system.

But Theresa May says

the Labour party has turned

its back on investment,

growth and jobs.

A Labour Party that will always put

politics before people.

Peers demand answers

about why so many nurses

are leaving England's NHS.

And MPs hear about the

children as young as 12

being used by drug gangs.

They are trafficked to remote areas

and forced to deal drugs in squalid

conditions.

But first, Jeremy Corbyn,

has accused ministers of negligence

for continuing to award contracts

to the construction firm Carillion,

after it issued

profit warnings last year.

The firm went into liquidation

at the start of the week.

Carillion has around 450

public sector contracts,

from NHS cleaning to

school dinners, and prisons.

It's also involved in the

HS2 high-speed rail line

and maintenance for Network Rail.

Jeremy Corbyn thought ministers

had some explaining to do.

In the last six months, the

government has awarded more than £2

billion worth of contracts to

Carillion. It did so even after the

share price was in freefall, and the

company had issued profit warnings.

Why did the government do that?

If

it was the case that the government

pulled out of contracts, or indeed

private-sector companies pulled out

of contracts, whenever a profit

warning was issued, that would be

the best way to ensure that

companies failed and jobs were lost.

It looks like the government was

handing Carillion public contracts,

either to keep the company afloat,

which clearly hasn't worked, or it

was just deeply negligent of the

crisis that was coming down the

line.

I am very happy to answer questions,

when the right or gentleman asks

one.

He didn't. Carillion went into

bankruptcy with debts we understand

to be 1.29 billion, and a further

pension deficit, and at this time,

this country is paying out

ever-increasing shareholder

dividends wildly excessive bonuses

to directors

dividends wildly excessive bonuses

to directors, and today, workers on

private sector Carillion contracts

will no longer be paid. However, the

chief executive will be paid for

another ten months. One rule for the

super-rich, another for everybody

else. Can the Prime Minister assure

the house today that not a single

penny more will go to the Chief

Executive or the directors of this

company?

He has raised the issue of

bonuses, and of course, people are

concerned about this issue and are

rightly asking questions about it.

That's why we are making sure that

the official receiver's

investigation into the business

dealings of the company has fast

tracked, that looks into the conduct

not just of current directors but

also of previous directors and their

actions, and that the official

receiver does have the powers to

ensure that, in reviewing payments

to executives, where those payments

are unlawful or unjustified, he can

take action to recover those

payments.

The Right Honourable gentleman said

earlier on one of his questions it

was the government's job to ensure

that Korean was properly managed. We

were a customer of Carillion, not

the manager of Caribbean, and that

is a very important difference, --

Carillion was properly managed. It

is also important that we have

protected taxpayers from an

unacceptable bail out of a private

company.

This isn't one isolated case of

negligence and corporate failure. It

is a broken system.

Under this government, Virgin and

Stagecoach can spectacularly

mismanaged the East Coast Mainline

and be let off a £2 billion payment.

Capita and Atos can continue to

wreck the lives, through damaging

disability assessments, of many

people with disabilities, and win

more government funded contracts.

G4S promised to provide security at

the Olympics, failed to do so, and

the army had to step in and save the

day. These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door. We need

our public services provided by

public employees with a public

service ethos and a strong public

oversight. As the ruins of Carillion

lie around her, will the Prime

Minister act to end this costly

racket of the relationship between

government and some of these

companies?

I might first of all remind the

Right Honourable gentleman that a

third of the Carillion contracts

with the government were let by the

Labour government. What Labour

opposed isn't just a role for

private companies in public

services, but the private sector as

a whole. The vast majority of people

in this country in employment are

employed by the private sector, but

the Shadow Chancellor calls

businesses the real enemy. Labour

wants the highest taxes in our

peacetime history, they have

policies that would cause a run on

the pound. This is a Labour Party

that has turned its back on

investment, on growth, on jobs, a

Labour Party that will always put

politics before people.

The SNP Westminster group

leader turned to Brexit.

Can the Prime Minister tell the

house what official advice she has

had on the impact on the UK economy

from leaving the EU single market,

and when she requested any such

advice?

Well, I have to say to the

honourable gentleman that of course,

as we go through the Brexit

negotiations, we are constantly

looking at the impact of the

decisions that are taken and what

impact it will have on our economy.

We want to make sure we maintain

good access, good, COBRA hints of

free trade agreement with the

European Union, while also, as

leaving the EU, we will be able to

ensure we get good free trade

agreements with other parts of the

world.

Well, the effect of leaving

the single market

and the customs union came up

in the last day of Commons debate

on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

As it entered its final stages,

a number of MPs put down amendments

trying to make further changes

to the bill.

In a debate heavily

dominated by remainers,

Labour's Ian Murray proposed

that the government must publish

an impact assessment

on both staying in

and leaving the single

market and customs union.

And those assessments should be done

before MPs held their final vote

on the overall deal.

We need the government to put this

house, so both houses, a full,

independently assessed analysis of

the impact on the economy of the

United Kingdom, comparing two

conclusions to this debate - staying

in the single market and the customs

union, or coming out and looking at

the deal the government proposes.

The reason the government will

resist this new clause is not

through any principle, it is because

they know that a negotiated deal

they come back with, the deal will

not be as good as the one we have

today. That will be saying to the

public, they will be bringing back a

deal that makes a country poorer.

Some of my right honourable and

honourable runs on the side of the

house seems positively relish the

prospect of the negotiations

collapsing and our leaving the EU

with absolutely no deal at all. I

happen to believe it would probably

be the single most catastrophic act

perpetrated by any government on

this country in modern history. So I

don't intend to allow that to

happen. So, I simply make the point

to my friends on the front bench who

have this difficult task of taking

this project forward, that the point

that is raised in new Clause 17 may

not be the right place to amend a

piece of legislation which is not

particularly germane to it, but my

goodness, it is a relevant point to

make. Because at what point can this

house, and indeed, the public, have

a proper understanding of what the

government has in fact succeeded in

negotiating? At the moment, it

reminds me so much of that company

set up during the South Sea bubble

in the early 18th century which

said, a company of great and

innocent -- inestimable value to

shareholders, nobody to know what it

is. And that is what we are being

asked, regularly and on a daily

basis, to sign up to, while the

negotiations proceed.

The government

has ruled out membership of the

single market and Customs union.

Everyone recognises that the single

market issues are complex, link as

they are two issues around

immigration and also to questions

around how we deal with future

rules. But that makes more important

for Parliament and the public to be

able to scrutinise the government's

decisions on those complex issues,

and to do so, we need to know the

facts and the impact on the economy

and on our constituencies.

56% of Scotland's international

exports are either to the European

Union or two to countries which have

a free trade agreement. This could

increase to 90% by the time we leave

the single market and a customs

union. How much of that is

absolutely unconditionally

guaranteed to still be available

after we leave? Right now, Mr

Speaker, the answer is nil, or very

close to nil.

Were we to say to the British people

that their express will in a binary

choice to leave the European Union

were to be frustrated, through

obfuscation, prevarication, delay,

confusion, that the trust between

this house and the people would be

broken in a way that would be very

hard indeed to mend, so the cost

would be not only to everyone here

but to the system as a whole for a

very long time indeed.

Well, summing up the minister

didn't address those demands

for an impact assessment directly.

There then followed

a series of votes,

all of which

the Government won,

meaning the bill

was able to go on

for its final reading

in the Commons.

A former cabinet minister argued

Brexit had to work for everyone.

And so the Brexit Secretary

came to the chamber

to make one final speech on the bill

before it went to the House of Lords

to be scrutinised by Peers.

Mr Speaker, we are sending an

improved piece of legislation

onwards to the other place, and I

hope that that house will

acknowledge the substance and spirit

of the debate and scrutiny this bill

has received thus far, and that

debate there will unfold in the same

constructive way that it has in our

house.

But his Labour opposite

number disagreed.

This Bill has never been fit for

purpose. It was not fit for purpose

when it started its life last year,

and after 64 hours at committee and

ten hours at report, it is still not

fit for purpose.

It is fit for purpose, however, for

implementing the greatest festival

of democracy that we have ever known

in this country!

Where in June 20 17 million of our

citizens voted to leave the EU.

The SNP put down an amendment,

saying the bill shouldn't

get its final third reading

in the Commons,

in effect wrecking it.

Ian Blackford argued the bill

was incompatible with devolution.

In declining a third reading this

evening, we send a clear signal to

the government that this has cannot

allow the commitments made and

broken to pass. It is the last

chance for Scottish Tory MPs to join

us and to stand up for the devolved

settlement.

But that SNP amendment was defeated

by 322 votes to 295,

But that SNP amendment was defeated

by 322 votes to 295.

The bill went on to

get its third reading

and will now go off

to the House of Lords.

You're watching

Wednesday in Parliament

with me, Alicia McCarthy.

And if you want to keep up

with events in Parliament

as they unfold you can find live

coverage of the day's debates

on our website -

bbc.co.uk/parliament

MPs have been told that children

as young as 12 are being used

by gangs to traffic drugs

across the country

Known as "county lines",

the gangs use the youngsters

to transport drugs, weapons

and money between cities

and smaller towns.

The National Crime Agency says

there are at least 720

of these lines in England

and Wales, with 283 coming

out of London alone.

The Labour MP, Joan Ryan, raised

the wide reaching criminal activity

in a Westminster Hall debate.

Vulnerable children as young as 12

are being groomed by county Lions

goings with promises of money,

companionship and respect. But in

reality they are often forced to go

missing from home for long periods

of time, they are used as drug

mules, with orifices plugged with

class A drugs, predominantly heroin

and crack cocaine, they are

trafficked to remote areas and

forced to deal drugs in squalid

conditions. At all times, they are

at great personal risk. Risk of

arrest by the police, which is in

fact probably the only time they are

really safe, or from physical or

sexual abuse from older gang

members, local drug users or rival

gangs.

A Labour MP said she first found out

about the problem when a mother came

to her about her son,

who'd been arrested for trafficking

drugs between London and Portsmouth.

Her son was involved in running

drugs from Lewisham to the south

coast. There are currently 317 under

25s from Lewisham believed to be

involved in that activity, of which

about 200 or of school age. They are

supplying drugs in 19 different

counties. That is 200 school-aged

children from one London Borough out

of 32. This is not an insignificant

problem. In my first term as a

member of Parliament, I visited the

parents of three boys who had been

stabbed to death in my constituency.

I never want to do that again. I

fear is that the post wars of seven

or eight years ago, where gangs were

defined by territory, violence

escalated through revenge stabbings,

this is being replaced with gangs

running drugs down to different

parts of the country. The outcomes

of people being stabbed and poor

kids living in fear, are exactly the

same.

Drug gangs targeted vulnerable

young people, including, sadly, as

we have heard from the Honourable

Member for Stockport, children in

care and those that have had very

difficult times at home. They

deliberately target those children

because they know that they are

susceptible to peer pressure, they

are susceptible to the influence of

these adults. They beguile, they

entice, they flatter and they

befriend them. When they have

ensnared them, they put them to

criminal work. It is exploitation,

pure and simple, and this is why I

am so pleased that we are beginning

to see these cases prosecuted under

the modern slavery act, so that we

give them the stigma that they

deserve, as well as tackling their

criminality.

Victoria Atkins.

Under changes made three

years ago the Probation

Service was split in two.

High risk offenders were supervised

by the state run service.

While low to medium

risk cases were handed

to Community Rehabilitation

Companies.

New rules were also imposed

so anyone sentenced to under 12

months in prison had to be

supervised on release.

That meant the number of cases

has risen by a fifth.

Labour member of the Public Accounts

committee Shabana Mahmood

could barely believe that this

increase hadn't been anticipated.

I can tell you for nothing, I am no

expert in this area, but four times

a month in my surgery I see people

who fall into this category and they

are the hardest to help. They have

chaotic lives. All of the things

that you said in your answers about

an hour ago. I can tell you that for

free. Your department does not

appear to have anticipated that

level of change. I am worried that

this level of expertise and basic

common sense appears to desert

officials in the department that the

point where you negotiate contracts.

That it is not right. The new code

was anticipated and custard for.

It

was clear from the outset, the

providers knew they would have a

higher caseload because they were

taking on short sentenced prisoners

that were not on the system before.

Community orders have reduced,

suspended sentence orders have gone

up, but they also have a higher

caseload because of the people

coming out of prison. Those

individuals, through those services,

the ones least paid for the service

because they are the ones where we

pay less upfront because the

expectation is that if they are

successful with that group they will

gain income from the payment by

results. So, they expected that.

What they didn't expect was the

reduction in community sentences

and, specifically, the change in

activity requirements on the

community sentences from the

activities that got greater income

towards that got less income on

contracts.

My point was referring to

the fact that this is an ecosystem

of types of prisoner, sorts of

things we can expect from types of

prisoner, the behaviour of the

ports. This is something that is the

bread-and-butter of your department.

Also, the sort of organisations that

are providing the services by way of

CRCs and the charity sector. You

don't have too delve into the sector

very much to work out where the

pressure points out. I'm concerned

that time and again, and we have

this before when we talked about

economic monitoring, the expertise

that should be inherent within the

operational capacity of the ministry

seems to desert the officials at the

point at which contracts are

negotiated. You would agree that are

simply not good enough?

I think this

demonstrates the complexity of

trying to their service like this,

the contracts which we are adjusting

reflect complexity. I cannot argue

with the fact that the changes are

much greater than we anticipated,

anybody anticipated, us or those

that are going to deliver the

services. That demonstrates the

degree of volatility that there can

be in a system where we are reliant

on demand being determined by

others.

New figures show that one in ten

nurses are leaving the NHS

in England every year.

And last year more than 33,000

nurses gave up their jobs -

that's 3.000 more than

joined the service.

When Labour raised the issue

the Lords a Health Minister insisted

nursing numbers had

increased since 2010.

Including 11,700 more nurses on

hospital wards. In order to retain

more of these hard-working staff,

and to build a workforce fit for the

future, the Government is increasing

the number of moves trading places

by 25%, supporting new, flexible

working arrangements in the NHS and

delivering a new homes for nurses

programme.

Even for the minister,

that is remarkably complacent. The

overall number of nurses might be

rising, but that has not kept pace

with the increasing number of

patients. For years, the Government

has failed to recruit new recruits

coming through, while failed policy

decisions like the NHS pay cap, the

ending of the NHS bursary,

contribute to a growing crisis.

There are now more than 100,000

vacant posts in the NHS. My Lords,

will the Minister accept the need to

lift the pay cap, fund proper rises

for nurses, restore bursaries and

support this precious profession,

who have been so unappreciated by

this government EU?

The noble Lord

is quite wrong to say that they are

underappreciated, they are deeply

appreciated by everybody in this

country, including members of this

Parliament. Of course we want to

reduce the number of nurses leaving

the profession. It is important to

point out that they are down onto

two years ago, the peak, in number

or proportion. The number of nurses

has risen over that period.

Can my

noble friend tell me how many of the

nurses that have left the NHS are

now working for agencies and are

still in the same hospitals, the

same wards, doing the same work, but

costing the taxpayer rather more

money?

Well, in the last few years

there had been an increase in agency

spend. It does tend to be more

expensive. We have managed to reduce

agency spend by reducing the

availability of what are called

nursing banks, the people employed

on flexible contracts. That is very

welcome for many nurses looking for,

they say this in staff surveys,

looking for more flexible

conditions. Cyber-criminal of those

leaving the profession are new

recruits, many of them --

Many of

them are leaving the profession and

they are new recruits, but I ask, it

costs £20,000 to trade a nurse. Any

employer with sense would want to

retain them, and when they have

left, would like to know why they

have left, where they have gone and

how we can get them back.

We know

that pay is important, that is

lifting the cap makes an important

difference to show how we value

these staff.

Lord O'Shaughnessy.

Later in the Lords, the Government

suffered a heavy defeat

after a former head of the judiciary

criticised plans to give

ministers the power to create

new criminal offences.

Lord Judge, who is a former

Lord Chief Justice of England

and Wales, told peers,

proposals to allow ministers

to create new money laundering

offences without having to get

a new bill passed by parliament

were "constitutionally troublesome".

The amendment won cross party

support and the Government

was defeated by 264 votes to 184,

a majority of 80 votes.

Finally there was a warm welcome

at PMQs for one bit of Euronews.

The revelation that the the Bayeux

Tapestry is set to be

displayed in the UK.

The tapestry tells the story

of the future William I's

conquest of England,

culminating in the Battle

of Hastings and the defeat

of Harold in 1066.

It is on permanent display

at a museum in the town of Bayeux,

in Normandy, and has very

rarely been moved.

The tapestry is unlikely to be

transferred before 2020.

But at PMQs one MP was putting

in an early bid to host it.

I understand London has been

mentioned as a potential host to the

Bayeux Tapestry. Given that visitors

to London who wish to see two size

chucking things at each other are

already catered for by the gallery

in this chamber, code the Prime

Minister put in a good word for

Battle Abbey in Sussex, where

viewers can not only see the

tapestry, but look through the

window and see the rolling east

Sussex countryside, where sadly the

Normans gave the Saxons six of the

best?

I bid that he put in. From a

sedentary position on the front

bench, my right honourable friend

the Home Secretary and member for

Hastings is also putting in a bid

for this particular issue. I am sure

we will be looking very carefully to

make sure the maximum number of

people can take benefit of seeing

this tapestry.

Theresa May.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for another round up

of the best of the day

here at Westminster.

But for now from me, goodbye