07/02/2018 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up, the Brexit

debate gets a bit shouty.

Standup! Let's get on with leaving

the EU.

Labour mocks Government plans

to help gig economy workers.

We see the creation of a website

about and be self-employed to talk

to each other. Well, bravo.

And who just can't

wait for his birthday?

I don't celebrate things like that.

I don't think you should celebrate

age.

I know this isn't the first time

I've said this and it won't be

the last, but it's a big

week for Brexit.

Theresa May has chaired the first

of two key meetings with her senior

Ministers as the Government faces

more calls to clarify

the UK's position.

On Wednesday the Brexit cabinet

committee sketched out

what the future relationship

between the UK and EU

might look like.

What conclusion they came to,

we don't know but the issue came up

several times in the Commons.

First, in a spirited

intervention by one DUP MP,

echoing of the words of his father

during the Troubles.

Does the Minister agree with me that

it is about time the Government

demonstrated a no surrender attitude

to the European bureaucrats who try

to blackmail us and over -- standup

for stand up to the EU and let's get

on with leaving the EU!

Well, that plea came

moments before the start

of Prime Minister's Questions

during which the chair

of the Brexit Committee

raised the matter again.

The prime Minister will be aware

that all free trade agreements

involve some customs checks and

therefore infrastructure at

frontiers which would be completely

incompatible with maintaining an

open border between Northern Ireland

and the Republic. As the Cabinet

subcommittee is finally getting

around to discussing this, could the

Prime Minister explain to the House

why she is so opposed to the UK

remaining any customs with the EU

when not only would this be better

for the British economy, but what

also helped to ensure that that

border remains as it is today which

is what all of us want?

The United

Kingdom is leaving the European unit

that means we are leaving the single

market, the customs union because if

we were full numbers of the customs

union we would not be able to do

trade to the gas trade unions around

the rest of the world. We will have

an independent trade policy and do

those deals. He asked about those

originals, I suggested he will at

the paper that was published by the

Government last summer.

And from the other end

of the Brexit spectrum,

a different question.

I want her about ultimatums from the

EU last summer. Again last week,

which she'd be good enough to be

very robust when discussing these

messages in the committees. I'm sure

she will be in order to ensure that

we repudiate any of these EU

threats?

As a separate from the very

beginning we will hear noises off

and also to things being said about

positions being taken. What matters

is the positions we take in

negotiations as we sit down and

negotiate the best deal. We're shown

we can do that. We did it in

December we will do it again.

The head of the Parole Board has

said action is needed to make

the reasons for its decisions public

and its judgements

easier to challenge.

Nick Hardwick's comments come

in the wake of controversy over

the decision to release John

Worboys.

Worboys was jailed

indefinitely in 2009

with a minimum term of eight years

for drugging and sexually

assaulting women.

Two of his victims have

been given the go-ahead

to challenge his release

at a judicial review next month.

The Government has ordered

a review of the transparency

of Parole Board decisions.

Professor Hardwick told

the Justice Committee that people

didn't really understand

what the parole board did:

We could do much more than we do at

present to explain individual

decisions. There are risks to doing

that. And they need to be carefully

explored and considered stop with

its an awareness and education

programme. For proposals can you

second yourself? There are number of

different steps that we are in the

process of taking. I think there

I think we need to have accessible

information about the process and

the number of different formats and

the number of different platforms.

We can't do and we're absolutely

printed

is explaining anything about

an individual case. Even the most

basic of things. Talking about

completely different cases, you will

have victims ask for information

about licence commissions. We have

information about licence

commissions that would reassure

them. They would find comforting.

And we can't tell them. We can go

much further, much further in

explaining our decisions to people

so that they have a real sense of

what we're doing. They may like what

we are doing, they may not agree

with us. But at least they will have

some basis to know. As related thing

about there could be a change and it

can make a challenge to the process

puzzle. You can judge you because

they don't know how to -- they deny

we make decisions.

we make decisions.

That he said needed to change:

It seems to me that it is

undignified things and go and find a

review. That is our situation. But

we can't do is make every decision

twice.

twice.

But victims needed

better information:

One of the things we should look at

his victims getting... Victims who

wants to get one, getting a summary

of the parole board's decisions. And

I think they should get that. Let's

may change, but think big change but

let's think it through carefully and

not do it in a hasty gut reaction.

in a hasty gut reaction.

A report by the Chief

Inspector of Probation

found the correct procedures had

been followed, but victims found out

about his release from the media.

It was critical of the "victim

contact scheme":

To my mind of every victim whether

they opted in or not should know

what the parole board hearing is

happening. Know if the decisions are

made and given a chance to observe

that before it becomes general

release. We need to set up this

principle speaking with those who

represent victims to get this right.

Had even given a time frame?

We are

comfortable that we can give a

report by Easter. We will specific

-- we will focus on four specific

issues, whether we should ask to

reconsider one of its decisions we

will be doing some work around that.

We will be looking at transparency

and parole Board decisions that need

to have a more transparency system

so that victims know more about

licence conditions and knowing about

whether we can create an online

register or some ways and that we

can... This is only the came across

very strongly from the report is how

we communicate with the victims. We

need to use the latest technology to

make sure that happens in a much

more reliable and expedient and

high-quality way.

You're watching Wednesday

in Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

Now Jeremy Corbyn's battleground

of choice for this week's

Prime Minister's Questions

was crime figures.

Last month the Office

for National Statistics said

the number of violent crimes and sex

offences recorded by police

in England and Wales has risen

sharply over the past year.

But the separate Crime Survey, based

on people's experiences, suggested

crime was continuing to fall.

And with that in mind,

battle commenced

with a particularly pithy question.

With crime rising, does the Prime

Minister regret cutting 21,000

police officers?

What we have

actually seen from the crime survey

is that crime is not down at record

low levels. That is what has been

achieved and it has been achieved by

conservative government that at the

same time has been protecting police

budgets.

Mr Speaker, recorded crime

is up by one fifth since 2010,

violent crime up by 20%, and during

the period that the premise or was

home Secretary, £2.3 billion was cut

from police budgets. Her Majesty

posited Inspectorate of constabulary

was at neighbourhood policing rest

of being eroded and the shortage of

detectives is at a national crisis.

Does the Prime Minister think the

inspector is scaremongering?

The

right honourable German pages the

issue about crime. -- gentlemen. One

of the things we're seeing in recent

years is ensuring we get a proper

recording of certain types of crime

and I am pleased to say that we have

seen improvements over the last

seven to eight years in the recorded

types of crimes. He also talks about

the issue of police budgets. As I

have said this is a government that

has detected police budgets.

At the

chief Constable of Bedfordshire says

we do not have the resources to keep

residents safe, the position is a

scandal. Too many people don't feel

safe and too many people are safe.

We have just seen the highest rise

in recorded crime for a quarter of a

century. The chief counsel of

Lancashire says the Government's

police cuts have that much more

difficult to keep people safe. Is he

wrong?

Can I say to the right

honourable gentleman, he mentions

the constabulary because what I was

hoser Jerry I asked H MIC to look at

the recording of these crimes. To

make sure that police forces were

doing it properly. And indeed some

changes were made as a result of

that. We now see the better

recording of crime. We also see £450

million extra being made available

to the police. But what have we also

seen over the last two years? The

creation of the national crime

agency, our police forces taking

more notice of helping the support

vulnerable victims, doing more on

modern slavery, doing more on

domestic violence. Taking issues

seriously that they weren't taking

seriously before.

Mr Speaker, if you

ask the instructor to look at

unrecorded crime and they tell you

what is going on in the least you

can do is act on what they tell you.

Jeremy Corbyn.

One study but two very

different verdicts.

The Taylor review examined

modern working practises,

especially the employment rights

of people in what's known as the gig

economy, where workers are paid

for each job they do.

The Business Minister set

out the government's

response to its findings.

We will support employers to give

individuals the correct employment

rights. But we will prevent

undercutting who try to game the

system by clearly defining who is

employed and who is not. We will

extend the rights to receive a pay

set to all workers including stating

the hours that they work, to set a

written terms, and extending us to

all workers. We are taking forward

this or Speaker 52 of the figure

three recommendations in the Taylor

review. For workers on zero our

contrast, we are creating a right to

request a simple contract. For the

first time, Mr Speaker, for the

first time, the state will take

responsibility for enforcing a wider

set of employment rights including

sick pay and holiday pay for the

most vulnerable of workers.

But Labour's shadow business

secretary was scathing

about the government's plans.

Many of these workers

faced a precarious and

unstable working life.

They needed to do something bold

today but it appears

that they are simply papering over

these weak realities with rhetoric.

Launching four consultations,

merely considering proposals,

and tweaking the law

here and there is not good enough.

We need clarity on workers

being paid when they are logged

into apps waiting to receive jobs.

As well as clear and urgent

direction on the legal

status of gig workers.

Why was there not even one mention,

not one mention of trade unions?

And on the genuinely self-employed,

we see the creation of a website

allowing the self-employed

to talk to each other.

Well, bravo!

Why was there no system

of support, no recognition

of the precariousness

of the situation?

Mr Speaker, this is

simply window dressing.

As a result of the actions set out

in our response to this review,

as a result of those actions,

millions of workers

will get greater rights.

The access to more protection.

Indeed, I would argue that we can

rightly claim to be leading

the world in improving the quality

of work for our constituents.

One of the issues that was not

contained within the scope

of the Taylor review

was that was that of

unpaid work trials.

That is regrettable.

However, one member from Glasgow has

brought forth a bill on the 16th

of March to end exploitative,

unpaid work trials.

Will the Government

the supporting that?

I think the honourable

gentleman for his question.

I am very happy to meet with his

colleague and discuss his Bill.

A Labour MP turns to the issue of

bogus self-employment.

The DWP and various select

committees have produced a bill

that the Government can take

through Parliament with cross party

support to sort this out.

The country are crying

out for change.

Can I urge the Government to be

a little bit more ambitious?

I can reassure the honourable lady

that we are hugely ambitious.

These proposals will help

millions of workers,

but she will understand,

because I think Matthew Taylor said

this in relation to when he gave

evidence to the committee,

that this is hugely complicated.

That this is complex,

and we do need to consult further.

We are not consulting

about whether we should do this.

We are consulting about how

we do it, so I thank her

for her contribution

and I reassure her that

our ambition is strong.

The Business Minister,

Andrew Griffiths.

The Northern Ireland Secretary has

struck an optimistic note

about the restoration

of power-sharing at

the Stormont Assembly,

saying it could happen imminently.

Northern Ireland has been

without a functioning administration

for over a year after

the DUP/Sinn Fein-led

coalition collapsed in a row

over a controversial

green energy scheme.

Over the past weeks,

the political parties,

particularly the DUP and Sinn Fein,

have engaged in discussions

on the key issues,

which remain to be resolved.

They have done so with continuous

support of the UK Government

accordance with the three-stranded

approach,

the Irish government.

Those discussions were built

on the progress that was made

in previous talks to introduce

further gaps between

them and accommodation

between the parties,

Mr Speaker, is yet to be reached,

but there is no doubt

as to the parties' collective

commitment to restore

the devolution.

I firmly believe that

agreement in the coming days,

while not certain, is achievable,

and and this remains my focus.

Every party in Northern Ireland says

they want a deal but that

significant gaps remain.

Could she outline to the House

what those gaps actually

are and what she is doing

to try to resolve them

and bring people together?

Mr Speaker, can I gently say

to the honourable gentleman,

who I know is greatly distinguished

in this area and knows

Northern Ireland politics very well,

that we are we are at a very

sensitive stage of the discussions,

that I have been committed to no

running commentary on the talks

while they are ongoing,

and there have been very intense,

very detailed discussions?

I believe we can reach an outcome

but I am not going to do

anything that might jeopardise that.

Can she at least confirm that one

of the big sticking points

in the talks right now is rights?

Not just language rights,

but marriage equality rights,

and can she tell us

whether she would consider taking

that issue off the table

by legislating for equal marriage

rights in Northern Ireland

as they enjoy in Staffordshire?

The Minister said equal marriage was

a devolved issue. The question moved

the budget will

a devolved issue. The question moved

the budget will.

Would she give a clear commitment

to the people of Northern Ireland

and this House that the budget

for Northern Ireland will be set

as soon as possible,

given that the head of the civil

service said we cannot go much

beyond the beginning of February

with that clarity about how much

departments and public

bodies are going to have

to spend next year.

The lack of a budget

is affecting services, including

health and social care.

The current position is intolerable.

We need a budget and we need it now.

Karen Bradley assured him she had

had discussions about that issue.

If you were watching this

programme on Tuesday,

you'll have seen MPs grilling senior

executives from the failed

construction company, Carillion.

Well, on Wednesday it was

the turn of the Government.

The Liaison Committee, which is made

up of the chairs of all the other

committees, had summoned

the Cabinet Office Minister.

But he was being very

cautious in his answers.

This exchange was typical.

When we had the directors

of Carillion, past and almost

When we had the directors of

Carillion, past and almost present,

in front of our Select Committees

yesterday, one of the things

we questioned them about was the

changes in the rules

about the claw-back of bonuses.

Many of the people

we had in front of us

yesterday had a big

bonuses in the period

leading up to the collapse

of the business, the company

changed its own rules,

which make it harder

to claw back those bonuses.

One of the lessons from the global

financial crisis was to have tougher

rules about being able

to claw-back bonuses

go wrong at business.

Do you think we need to look

again at the claw-back

arrangements for bonuses

so that we can get some

of that money back?

Again, sitting here today,

I am open-minded on not

but there have been serious

allegations of misconduct

by the board and former board

members of Carillion.

Those are being independently

investigated by the official

receiver, and it would be wrong

for a Minister to make any comment

that could be prejudicial

of the official receiver's

findings on that.

David Lidington.

Now, at the weekend the Conservative

MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

went to the University of the West

of England to give a speech.

But then, this happened.

Masked protesters disrupted the

event and there was some pushing.

Police launched an investigation

into the scenes at the campus in

Bristol, but no arrests were made.

The Human Rights Committee

is investigating freedom

of speech in universities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg told them

that he wasn't alarmed by the fact

people were protesting.

The only thing I think was odd

was that they turned up wearing

masks, and I think wearing masks

is the one bit that ought

not to have happened.

I think people coming along

and charging at you,

people heckling you is part

of political life and to be

perfectly honest, as a politician,

a bit of heckling can

make your speech.

It can actually be very

good for the Speaker,

rather than damaging.

But masks is just

a little bit sinister.

Suppose that if somebody was 67

with brown hair and had

been an MP for 35 years,

do you think she would actually be

prepared to speak at meetings

if somebody was going to come

bursting in and then she had to go

back on a train on her own?

I don't think anybody

would ever suggest that

you weren't quite brave,

but I think there's a really serious

point and I'm actually much more

concerned about the online

abuse that particularly

female MPs receive.

Will people want to go and speak

if there are going to be protests?

I mean, I'm going to carry

on regardless, but I can see that

some people would think,

"Is it worth the hassle?"

and politicians don't have to go

and speak at universities.

It may be a very good thing

that they do, I happen

to think that it is.

But we could just go home

on Thursday nights and Friday nights

and that can sometimes

be quite tempting.

Earlier the Universities Minister

told the committee

there was a "creeping

culture" around censorship.

What is hard to measure

here is the larger number of events

that do not happen at all,

either because organisers

were worried about obstruction

or because of the overzealous

enforcement of rules made them seem

more trouble than it is worth.

In my view, these restrictions

and disruptions, are unacceptable.

On some US campuses,

we've seen a cultural censorship

that is restriction of free speech

and I do not want

that to happen here.

The Universities Minister.

Over in the Lords,

it was the Government's plans

for handling the the winter crisis

in the NHS which came under attack.

Labour wanted to know how it

could be that in some

hospitals, every bed was full.

Can I ask the noble lord, the

Minister if that was part of the

winter plan, or will the Minister

accept that the winter plans have

now been compromised in the light of

pressure on beds, lack of staff, and

the fact that at least 23 trusts are

now on black alert, which means they

are under very severe pressure?

I do

agree with the noble lady that bed

occupancy is higher than we want to

be and in some particular hospitals

it is far too high. The question

about what we do about that did

necessitate the difficult decision

for which the premise or apologised

which is cancelling elective

surgery. We think a particular with

flu, at the situation has hopefully

stabilised and that will start to

relieve the pressure. I do

understand the hard work that staff

are having to put in under

tremendous pressure and we all

appreciate that.

Since its inception

in 1948, the NHS spending has arisen

by an average of 4% each year in

real terms -- has risen. Does this

government took over in 2010, that

4% increase has fallen to an average

of between one and one and a half

percent will stop in real terms,

will the Government and cannot

government accept that some of this

meanness is one of the causes for

the crisis the NHS find itself in?

I

totally reject the accusation of

meanness. If you look at the

spending on a NHS, not only hasn't

gone up in real terms every year

while a massive retrenchment has had

to take place in order to deal with

£150 billion of barring bequeathed

by the previous government, NHS

spending now accounts for the

highest standard of public spending

that has ever been the case. We have

found the money, in difficult

circumstances. We all agree that

more was needed and more was found

in the budget and I'm sure more will

be found in the future.

Lord O'Shaughnessy.

Nobody quite fits the

description of "veteran"

like Labour's Dennis Skinner.

And with veteranship

comes privilege.

Few backbenchers would be permitted

to go on for nearly one and a half

minutes at Prime Minister's

Questions.

But before he got underway,

the Speaker had a special

message for him.

In offering him best wishes

for his birthday on Sunday,

I call Mr Dennis Skinner.

I didn't know about that.

I don't celebrate things like that.

I don't but you should

celebrate age.

Anyway.

And he was off.

He said the last Labour government

delivered a golden era

for the health service.

How?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

put 1% on the National

Insurance and that went directly to

the Health Service and it is called

long-term stability.

Under this government,

they don't know whether they

are coming or going.

It is high time this

government did the same as

we did between 1997 and 2010.

Get weaving.

And the words "get weaving" bring us

to the end of the programme.

So for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.