tv Tuesday in Parliament BBC News July 12, 2017 2:30am-3:01am BST
about a meeting with a russian lawyer last year, who was apparently offering to help his election campaign. she's said to have offered donald trump junior official documents that would incriminate his father's election rival, hillary clinton. the un say as many as 3,000 civilians remain trapped in the iraqi city of mosul, despite government forces declaring victory there over the weekend. most are young or elderly, who've become separated from theirfamilies. skirmishes continue between iraqi troops and fighters from so—called islamic state. governments and private foundations have pledged more than $2 billion to family planning projects to make contraception more widely available. at least 200 million women don't have access to contraception, now it's time for tuesday in parliament. hello there, and welcome
to the programme. coming up: the health minister confirms there's to be an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal. nearly 2,500 people are thought to have died after being given products that were infected with hepatitis c or hiv. a government—commissioned report on employment says all work in the uk should be "fair and decent". and david davis says there's unity at the top when it comes to brexit. you will find in terms of public statements, it is very hard to put a cigarette paper between the chancellor and myself. but first — theresa may has ordered a uk wide enquiry into the use of contaminated blood products in the nhs, stemming from the 1970s. 2,400 people have died as a result of the scandal.
many of them were haemophiliacs who died from hepatitis c and aids—related illnesses. it has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the nhs. many of those affected and their families say they were not told of the risks involved and believe there was a cover—up. in an emergency debate, the labour mp diana johnson, who has campaigned for an enquiry, said the victims needed answers. they deserve to be told what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who is responsible for what happened. the story of the injustice they have suffered also needs to be set out and told to the wider public. their voices need to be heard. apologies, compensation and other forms of support are essential, but if their right to answers is not also satisfied, i feel that they will be denied true and meaningful justice. she said successive governments of all colours had sidestepped the issue for too long. she turned to the questions that needed to be answered, such as why the government had
not acted sooner. because the uk was not self—sufficient in blood supplies, profit—making american companies played a considerable role in supplying factor concentrates to haemophilia patients. this blood was sourced from much riskier patients, including prison inmates, who were much more likely to have about their risks of infection. the dangers of american products were being discussed in public, not from the 1990s, nor the 1980s, but from 1970. a conservative turned his fire on one of the five charities set up to help those affected. in my experience, i have to say to the minister, the mcfarland trust has done anything but help my constituent. they have behaved in an utterly despicable way. they refused to take meetings with my constituent or with me. i have requested meetings for the past six years. and they always come
back with a reason why they can't have a meeting. they have bullied my constituent. the trustees of the mcfarland have bullied her. and they have fed her scraps. labour called for a hillsborough—style enquiry into what went wrong. the previous two enquiries have not been sufficient in seeking justice and this is the reason why a hillsborough style enquiry must be actioned and secondly the evidence presented so far is clear that if we are to have the truth and reconciliation of the murky covering up of this scandal, then the strongest of daylight must be shone on every aspect of this scandal, leaving no stone unturned. i am pleased to be able to confirm to the house that the government intends to call an enquiry into the events that led to so many people being infected with hiv and — or hepatitis c through nhs supplied blood and blood
products. we have heard already today that there have been calls for an enquiry based on the model that was used to investigate the hillsborough tragedy, a so—called hillsborough style panel. this will allow for a sensitive investigation of the issues, allowing those affected and their families close personal engagement with an independent and trusted panel. there have also been suggestions that only a formal statutory enquiry, led by a seniorjudge, under the enquiries act 2005, will provide the answer is that those affected want. the government can see that there are merits in both approaches. and to ensure that whatever is established is in the interest of those affected, we will engage with the affected groups and interested parties, including the all—party parliamentary group, before taking a final decision on the type of enquiry. will he confirm that in terms of drawing up the scope of the enquiry, you will be careful not to do anything that would endanger
any future trials and also will he also further emphasise that anyone with information must make sure it is made available to the police? my honourable friend will recollect from the recent hillsborough enquiry that it gave rise to certain information which was made available to the police, which led to certain charges being made. we would envisage that any enquiry that is established would have the ability to do the same thing if that is appropriate. an mp who was a former surgeon turned to one of the former reports. she wondered why there had not already been a public enquiry. i remember a criticism in response to penrose in 2015, saying they were surprised that clinicians showed so much trust in the quality of blurbs. but a clinician was using hundreds of drugs and implants and machines and blood products must be able to trust them.
we have no mechanism personally to check them. that is the role of government and all the agencies of government. that is why we have licensing and inspections and why when there is suspicion of harm action must be taken. philippa whitford. theresa may has said flexible working practices should not be an excuse to exploit employees. but she also called flexibility "the british way" — that should not be weakened. the prime minister was responding to a report on modern working practices that she commissioned last year. the author, matthew taylor, recommended sick and holiday pay for workers in the gig economy and a new employment status of "dependent contractor". when the report was debated in the commons, opposition mps gave it a lukewarm reception. labour said that after seven years in power, the conservatives had done very little for working people. they have inflicted hardship on public sector workers with a pay which has been confirmed yesterday by the department for education for yet another year.
they promised workers on board, but rolled back scared when powerful interests said they were not particularly keen on the idea, and they have introduced employment tribunalfees, which has made it much harderfor workers to enforce their rights. so today, with the publication of the taylor review, although there was a real opportunity to overhaul the existing employment system in a way that would protect workers in a rapidly changing world of work, but in the words of the general secretary of unite, the biggest union in the uk, instead of the serious programme the country urgently needs to ensure that once again work pays in this country we got a depressing sense that insecurity is the inevitable new normal. the minister said the government would be considering matthew taylor's proposals. she does criticise government's record and so i would like to remind her that it is this government that
has introduced the national living wage, that it is this government that has presided over the minimum wage being at its highest rate in real terms since it was introduced, and the facts remain that the wage increase we have seen in the last year have been at their highest amongst the lowest paid thanks to the national living wage. today's response in the taylor review for the government tells us everything we need to know about their frailty and their approach to work's rights. a weak set of proposals that probably will not be admitted that the set of talking bout that leads the power with the businesses. it was interesting that the prime minister did not mention the role 0 the trade unions in securing fair rights at work. if the news reports are right, matthew taylor goes for flexibility rather than always implementing the national minimum wage. can we have an undertaking from the government that they will
always abide by the national minimum wage, even if there is a loss of flexibility? i congratulate the honourable gentleman for all the work he did sharing the work and pensions select committee in the last parliament. and i can assure him that minimum wage rates are absolutely sacrosanct. there will be no trade—off with regard to ensuring that everybody is paid at least the minimum wage. 0ne mp — a former actor — is a fan of flexible working. i have spent 45 years in the deep economy and what i liked about the digital economy is that it was very flexible —— gig economy. and in order to big build a career, i found myself delivering bacon across north london from smithfield market. i became a removal man and many things. but does my right honourable friend agree with me that it is very welcome that this report supports a flexible labour market and is not in favour of restricting that
flexibility were individuals wanted? someone who has done a few gigs in his time. can i urge the minister to reject this think—tankeryjargon of the phrase depended contact? work is work. workers are workers. depending contractors of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains is not going to change anything. the speaker explained to new mps that when mr brennan mentioned gigs, he was talking about his involvement in parliament's rock band. you're watching tuesday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. the foreign secretary has told mps the european union can "go whistle" for any "extortionate" final payment from the uk on brexit. and borisjohnson said that the government had "no plan" for what to do in the event of no deal being agreed. the prime minister has said that "no deal is better than a bad deal". however, number ten has played down suggestions that theresa may
could walk away from the brexit talks over the eu's demand for a settlement worth tens of billions of pounds. the subject was raised with the foreign secretary at question time by a conservative. since we joined the common market on the ist of february 1973 until the date we leave, we will have given the eu and its predecessors, in today's money, in real terms, a total of £209 billion. will the foreign secretary make it clear to the eu that if they want a penny piece more, they can go whistle? i'm sure that my honourable friend's words will have broken like a thunder clap over brussels and they will pay attention to what he has said, and he makes a very valid point, and i think that the sums that i have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate and i think "go whistle" is an entirely appropriate expression. in march, the foreign secretary said that
leaving the eu with no deal would be perfectly 0k. however, last month, the chancellor of the exchequer said that that would be a very, very bad outcome for britain. since the two positions are clearly completely contradictory, who should the british public believe? i think what the british public can take from both the chancellor and myself and indeed from the vast majority of labour members opposite, as i understand their position, that we all want to get on and do the deal and do the best deal possible and to leave the eu. with the chancellor and the first secretary of state, they were going to need at least a transitional period of three years during which we will remain under the jurisdiction of the ec]. neither the chancellor nor the first secretary of state has said any such thing. other european leaders were making it clear that they would not accept a deal on any terms and does he share my view that what is sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander? he makes a very good point about the negotiating stance of our friends and partners across the channel. they do sound at the moment as though they're pretty hard over, as we say in the foreign office. but i have no doubt that in the fullness of time, a subtle mist will descend and a willingness to compromise, because after all, a great brexit deal, a great free trade deal, a deep and special partnership is in the interests of both sides of the channel. can he explain what that no deal option would mean for the people and businesses of great britain? as i have said before, i think that the chances of such an outcome are vanishing and unlikely since it is manifestly in the interest of both sides of the channel to get a great free trade deal and a new deep and special partnership between us and the european union, and that is what we are going to achieve. i thank the foreign secretary for that answer, but unfortunately it leaves us none the wiser. it is slightly baffling.
after all, it is the prime minister, at least the prime minister for now, who decided to put the deal of the no deal option on the table and she couldn't stop using the phrase during the election campaign. given that a plan for no deal would be worse than a dereliction of duty, can the foreign secretary spell out publicly what no deal would mean and can he reassure us that if he is not prepared to tell us publicly, at the very least he has a detailed private plan to manage that risk? there is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal and i would... i would just... just for the sake of example and illustration, iwould remind the honourable lady that there was a time, and i am old enough to remember it, when britain was not in what we then called the common market. given that the prime minister has appealed to these benches to help out today, where does the foreign
secretary think there are areas for compromise? as i say, i think... as i have said before, i think the striking thing about this debate is how much unanimity there really is between the two sides of the chamber on these fundamental questions and i have been very struck by the right honourable gentleman the leader of the labour party, who seems to me very much on all fours with the objectives of the brexit... i don't wish to... he very much agrees with the position that we are taking and i hope to see him in the lobbies with us. borisjohnson. well, later, the brexit secretary, david davis, laughed off those comments by boris johnson about the "extortionate" demands of the eu. as we saw, mrjohnson said the eu could "go whistle" for an exit pay—off. appearing before a lords committee, david davis was asked about the foreign secretary's tone. the foreign secretary this morning says that, um, the money that it looks like the eu is asking for is "extortionate" and it is quite appropriate to say that "go whistle" is an appropriate expression. he laughs
the truth is, we all read this, the europeans read this... they definitely do. he is not the only one, other members of government say things which absolutely blow the strategy off—course. you'll have to get the foreign secretary here to explain his views, if you really want to, i'm not going to comment on other ministers. but in terms of the tone, you'll find two levels of knowledge when you go to our continental partners. you'll see local knowledge in brussels, in which, frankly, i think they take an awful lot of... they read all the british newspapers, you're quite right,
and they take them, if anything, too seriously, is what i say to them. and it was the... it was the reason of humorous exchange between jean—claude juncker and myself when i last saw him. but more importantly, in the context of the 27, actually very little of what happens here percolates across. let me give you an example. i remember talking to the austrian foreign secretary, who is turning into a very good friend of mine, and we were talking about... this was about two months ago, and we were talking about the issue of the citizens‘ rights, and i explained what we wanted to do, and he said, "well, you'd better come to austria and say that, because nobody in austria knows this." lady armstrong turned to what she saw as another area of disagreement within government. the discussion that we have heard within government around a transitional agreement, or implementation period, whatever you like to call it, has varied enormously. between the chancellor talking about no cliff edge, and therefore really raising the question of single market and customs union membership continuing,
whereas others say something very different. where do you think that stands? you'll find... i mean, leave aside the briefings, which i can't speak for, but you'll find in terms of public statements, it's very hard to put a cigarette paper between the chancellor and myself on the transitional or implementation agreement. because we have discussed it at length, virtually weekly, for the last... well, since christmas of last year. you will similarly find, on another controversial area, in terms of issues of migration policy, we have both said, time and again, bringing back control of migration policy in the uk is not the same as slamming the door. the session ended with a question from another labour peer. may i ask the minister, how many women are on the negotiating team? how many women? the photo in the times was a disgrace. shameful. i didn't, er, i didn't look... how many women are on the team? i can't remember. i'll write to you. are there any? i'll write to you. david davis, being taken to task
by a lords committee. many pundits have suggested that there was an obvious and gaping hole in the general election campaign last month. there was little discussion about the economy and the state of the public finances. well, a conservative mp thought it was a subject worthy of debate and led a discussion in the alternative chamber of westminster hall. he attacked labour's public spending plans. if they had carried on spending at the rate they were when they left office, there would be an extra £1 trillion added to the public debt by the end of this parliament. and we saw their manifesto at the last general election wasjust spend, spend, spend other people's money with no credible plan to pay for it. and that way, i suggest, ms ryan, is not the route that our country should follow. and the fact that so few of them are here to defend their plans, i suspect, tells us everything we need to know. he turned to the spending demands facing ministers. there are many pressures
on public spending. there is public sector pay, funding for our national health service, funding for social care, colleagues want more money put into schools, there are many, many pressures on public spending, and part of the challenge of being in government is that you cannot say yes to everybody, you have to make choices and you have to set priorities. would he also agree with me that our public services are under real pressure at the moment, and i think we have to recognise that, and i speak as someone who works in those public services, and i see that in my working life there. according to the latest forecast, the target, a structural deficit of less than 2% of national income in 2020—21 will be comfortably met by sticking to the current tax and spending plans. so there is about £25 billion worth of leeway to invest a little bit more in those very important public services, whilst at the same time paying down the deficit in a responsible manner. when the chancellor looks at the public finance position in his budget, he needs to look at the grade forecast from the independent office for budget responsibility,
so he needs to look at what tax revenues he is likely to have, he then needs to look at the pressures on our public servants, on our public services, he needs to look across the piece, look at all of the pressures he faces, then he needs to come to a balanced budgetjudgment, weighing up all of those things, and then we need to back him in those decisions. what we cannot do is each week, have a particular story that's running around, we then decide that happens to be the flavour of the month, then when we get to the budget, we discover we have run out of money. ms ryan, i feel somewhat like custer at the battle of little bighorn at the moment, as the comanches come running towards me, and i want to apologise to tories present for pouring water on some of the more political points that the honourable member for the forest of dean raised. over the past seven years, the government, i believe, has been very good at one thing, that is patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves on what a great job they are doing on the economy. even though some many families
are more pessimistic than ever about the future, the government still trades on a myth they are overseeing a strong and robust economy. when they were elected in 2010, they were given a mandate alongside the liberal democrats to bring about real change. intentionally, i believe, ms ryan, allowing people to believe that the deficit and the national debt were one and the same thing. they told the british people in 2010 they would pay off the debt and bring the budget into surplus by 2015. we are now in 2017. they have failed. i'm really frustrated at this debate, because i cannot believe that people are able to spill this nonsense. the chancellor, when he stood up in the spring budget, reckoned that inflation was going to be 2.4% in 2017. actually, inflation, in may, over the last 12 months, was sitting at 2.9%. the 0br's forecast for earnings growth over 2017 was 2.6%. if inflation continues to grow at 2.9% and wages continue to grow at 2.6%, then we very quickly have a very serious problem. particularly for those households that are struggling with increasing levels of household debt.
the bank of england are concerned at the increases in household debt. household debt is at its highest level since 2008. now, this is a real problem forfamilies, especially when they are going to see their real wages eroded. and i don't think there is a case in modern political history of a british government so regularly failing to meet its own economic targets. objection. in a moment, if i may. there are many ways the government can balance the books, and there were very many difficult decisions that had to be taken over the past seven years, no—one doubts that one. that being said, the government chose the path of austerity over long—term prosperity for everyone in the country. it was a choice. but surely, ms ryan, the cruellest cut of all is when a politician struts the stage, telling the audience that which they most dearly wish to hear but knowing in his heart he has no way of delivering it.
knowing in his heart that what he is suggesting will lead to financial and economic ruin. mel stride. finally, there were more than 80 new mps elected injune. each of them have to make a first, or maiden, speech. making hers, the new mp for oxford east reflected on the housing crisis in the south of england. renters of homes have fewer rights than if they were renting a sofa or a fridge. the rules for housing benefit have been changed so people whose families have lived in oxford for generations are being forced out of the city for the crime of merely earning an average, not above average wage. and to pay for the right to buy and housing association properties, up to a third of oxford's remaining council stock could vanish. as far as i'm concerned,
people doing their best to bring up their children on low incomes in oxford are today's heroes and heroines. often running between more than one job to make ends meet. i must say, it comes as a slap in the face to them when they hear politicians refusing to admit there is such a thing as in—work poverty, and i was disturbed to hear that in this house last week, repeatedly. britain, and especially oxford, urgently needs more genuinely affordable homes. the new mp for oxford east bringing us to the end of this edition of the programe, but do join me at the same time tomorrow for a prime minister's questions with a difference, as damian green and emily thornberry fill in for theresa may and jeremy corbyn. but for now, from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. good morning. yesterday was one of those days for the southern half of the uk. yes, the covers were on the court at wimbledon. the rain was heavy at times and the umbrellas were out. it wasn't just across the south—east
of england where we saw rain. further west in the south of wales it was hammering it down for a time. extensive rain in the southern half of the uk, as you can see from yesterday's radar. the brighter colours indicate heavier downpours. that rain is on the move overnight, moving southwards and eastwards. so it is the far south—east that first thing still has some rain to be had. temperatures about 14—15 degrees. a little bit lower than recently and dipping into single figures in northern scotland, so a relatively chilly start here. the rain clearing away pretty quickly. it leaves behind a fair bit of cloud in east anglia, through the m4 corridor and south of that. despite the cloud it is mostly dry. when we break up the cloud we see sunshine through mid—wales, the midlands, up in the northern england. and it should be a dry and bright start with sunshine for much of northern ireland and much of scotland. maybe the odd shower and some mist and cloud in scotland. the cloud we seer in southern counties will slowly move away through the morning and by the afternoon we will see a lot of dry weather and bright weather, good spells of sunshine
and patchy cloud here and there. all in all a pleasant afternoon, with light winds out west. pleasant, into the low 20s. always more fresh to the north sea coastal areas, 16—18 degrees. looks like a pretty decent day at wimbledon. it will be dry and bright, with sunshine. temperatures into the low 20s, not particularly windy. should be a full day's play. high pressure building in through wednesday. it will stick around into thursday. notice the weak weather front creeping towards the north and west. but ahead of that there's a lot of fine weather. some cloud building and a shower or two dotted around parts of england and wales, but most places will be fine and dry. there will be some thicker cloud into the west of scotland, a bit of a breeze and rain. for the eastern side of scotland, 18 in aberdeen. 20—211 in cardiff and london. then the weak weather front slips south thursday night, into friday. behind it we have this region of high pressure building in. so friday looks decent. it will be dry, bright for most places and not too windy either, so a pretty decent day to end to the week.
welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: donald trumer defends his meeting with a russian lawyer last year who was apparently offering to help his father's election campaign. for me, this was opposition research that had something... maybe concrete evidence to all the stories i was hearing about for years,
so i wanted to hear it out. he says he didn't tell his father about the meeting, but democrats say it is deeply disturbing. all of the campaign denials of whether we knew this was going on, or whether the russians had any involvement, whether the russians wanted to help his campaign, obviously now have to be viewed in a completely different context.