tv Thursday in Parliament BBC News November 2, 2018 2:30am-3:01am GMT
immigration — saying he's planning to deny asylum to people who enter the united states outside legal ports of entry. it comes as thousands of central americans continue to make their way towards the us's southern border. a series of protests have been held by staff at google offices around the world. employees in various cities left their desks to show their anger at the technology firm's treatment of women and ethnic minorities. two former goldman sachs bankers and a fugitive malaysian financier have been charged in the us over a corruption scandal that helped bring down malaysia's former government. authorities say billions of dollars were embezzled from the state development fund, 1 mdb, to buy art, property and a private jet. now on bbc news, thursday in parliament. hello and welcome to monday
in parliament, our look at the best of the commons and the lords on a day dominated by the chancellor's budget. don't give me more words. gives me action. april 2019. we cannot lose any more lives because of this dreadful machines. i never spent the money in the forecast because all economic forecasting at any time is extremely fallible. and could brexit spoil your summer holiday? my advice would be that many people will look forward to the holidays and some holidays will be one enjoyed by the front bench on this side i'm sure.
all that to come and more but first, the sports minister has resigned after the government refused to rethink one of its budget announcements. tracy crouch quit after the chancellor said plans to cut the maximum sake of fixed odds betting terms would not be introduced until october next year. she had been in charge of the policy. there's been a long campaign to change the rules on the machines which have been called the crack cocaine of gambling. earlier this year, ministers agreed to produce the stakes from £100 to £2. many mps expected the new stakes would be in place in april 2019. tracy crouch was threatening to resign in protest at the delay, labour asked an urgent questions in the commons. the shadow culture secretary said everyone had been led to believe the cut will take place in april next year. what this amounts to, mr speaker, is a betrayal of the promise made by his two predecessors, the secretary of state,
it is a betrayal of the government's three year review that was meticulously conducted by the member for chatham and elmsford. and when the government itself has admitted this blight, it seems to me incomprehensible and inconceivable that the government would delay a policy supported by many people on both sides of this house and in both chambers. so i would like to ask the secretary of state has the minister resigned? if not, why is she not here answering this important question? the culture secretary said there's been no change in government policy. and that the reduction, it would happen sooner than some mps had expected. i've heard language twisted to various uses in this place. but the idea that a move from april 2020, to october 2019 is a delay, it is going a little far. it is not a delay. but that failed to convince
many on his own side. i'll say to my honourable friend, it is not too late. for the sake of those people, whose families and lives had been destroyed and it may yet be more to follow them, i urge my right honourable friend to think again and to bring forward the date that so that we may end this scourge. i have tried in the course of my response to set up the logic for how we balanced out a number of different factors in making this decision. none of those factors include consideration of the profits of the betting companies. none of those considerations include that, there are considerations to be made about the livelihoods of those who work in betting shops and it's perfectly proper for the government to consider those too. but my right honourable friend will know that if we did what the betting companies wanted this change would not
be made at all. every day we hesitate, results in an additional debt and increased gambling harm and tragically the possibility of more suicides relating to these machines. this is not a place worth paying bookmakers or a handful of backbenchers. fobts are not the most dangerous form of gambling. they are the fifth most dangerous forms of gambling. and can i suggest that he does take into account the losses that will be suffered on the high street in ofjobs with men, women and young people who also will suffer property and also the losses to the horse racing industry and can i therefore suggest that he does allow both the bookmaker industry and horse racing industry sufficient time to make the changes which might mitigate against those losses? i understand what my
honourable friend said. i would argue that we are allowing sufficient time for those industries to adapt. to say i am an incandescent along with other members across this house including i would argue the minister for sport, or if she does resign, will be a great loss to the front bench, because her integrity and bravery surpasses anybody else i see in here today. what is happening to the families who are losing children? what is happening to the children who don't get christmas presents because of an addicted parent? what happens to the people who go to food banks because they have an addiction to these machines? don't give me warm words! give me action! april 2019, we cannot lose any more lives because of these dreadful, dreadful machines! she asks for action. she will have action. this change will be made.
she deserves a large amount of the credit for it. but i hope she will not overlook the fact that it is this government that is making it happen at herurging. in all the circumstances, does my right honourable friend think he's engaging in pure semantics when he says that a period of time from april next year to october next year it is not a delay when every member of this house concedes that it is a delay! i don't accept that. i don't believe these are semantics. later, there was an 11th hour call for compromise. there is an issue of the start time, starting date, for the fixed odds betting term reduction to £2. it is clearly not something we can deal with this evening, but i do say to my right honourable friend that i wonder if she'd given undertaking that in time for the finance bill, we will certainly return to this. i thank my honourable friend for his point. we have brought the date forward for the fobts by six months.
i don't believe it's an issue for the finance bill, but i'm certainly happy to discuss it with my honourable friend about what more we can do. but the comments failed to convince tracy crouch, who then left the government. mps did go on to approve the budget after a four—day long debate. among the speakers on the closing date, some big beasts on the politicaljungle. 0ne conservative former chancellor struck a cautious note about optimistic economic forecast. personally, i never spent the money in the forecast because all economic forecasting at any time is extremely fallable and extremely difficult and i don't think i know a time when it is more impossible than now. it is a positive step that the government has lifted the local authority cap and indeed that they are providing money to housing associations to build.
the government says that the measure on council house will mean that 10,000 council homes are built each year and housing association measure will build 13,000 over three years. but the question at the heart of any analysis of this budget on housing is that enough? and i want to argue that is not nearly enough! the assumption in the treasury forecast is that the government lands a deal, notjust a deal but a good deal with a smooth transition to a trading arrangement not different from the present. it might happen and pigs might fly, but it is optimistic. and if that expectation is not realise, the economy has very little resilience. in the budget, the chancellor found more money for the nhs in england and increased tax threshold. taking advantage of those better—than—expected forecast. in response to him trying to loosen the purse strings, the head of the fiscal studies said the chancellor had taken a gamble
with the public finances. he was questioned about his remarks when he appeared before the treasury committee. it is not tax raises, it is not the nhs that mr hammond is willing to gamble on. it is public finances. and i think he also said any idea that there is a serious desire to eliminate the budget by mid—2020 is surely for the birds. i take it from that is that you believe the borrowing is therefore the only key component. am i right to conclude that? the story of the budget was at the very highest level. which was the 0br said there's 18 billion more money knocking around in five year's time and he would will take all of that and put it in the nhs and that was essentially what happened. he didn't say it was a bad thing
considering the position the chancellor was in. it would have been quite difficult for us to provide the money for the nhs and for obvious political reasons, getting tax rises through. the political economy of this is given the lack of majority in the house, i think the economy will take the strain. the tax policy decision is basically a £5 billion giveaway. over the next two years. in the public spend policy is more like £90 billion spending increase. are you saying that is something we don't need to be concerned about all? it's fine in the short run, that is a perfectly plausible choice in the short run. but it is not something you clearly can keep doing it. the risk that everyone's in the medium is that the debt is falling very very slowly other fraction over this period. once you strip out
the bank of england, 3%, that is a small reduction in debt from what is a level much more than twice where it was previously crisis. as ministers continue to increase the deficit, it would become a problem. you don't absolutely have to get to zero deficit in 2025. the world will not fall apart if you don't. but if you keep increasing the deficit, at some point it will clearly become a problem. i can not tell you one that will be, but i would be... i wouldn't panic over this. if we get this every year for the next ten years, then i will start to panic. do it increase the risk of tax increases being necessary? my view is that the tax increase over the next decade will be necessary. because the amount that we are spending on health
is rising very fast. and unless we are going for a different health service, it will continue to rise, social care on pensions and so on. if you look at the performance for most of the public services, genuinely big cuts over the last seven or years, it will not be much scope for reducing spending there. you're watching thursday in parliament. if you missed our daily show, or want to watch it again, you can find it on the bbc iplayer. the government's move to reassure businesses they would have to carry —— won't have to carry out rigorous checks on eu citizens in the event of a no—deal brexit. it contradicts a warning from karen bradley... —— caroline 0akes. she suggested employers would have
to complete digital right to work checks to assess whether eu nationals applying forjobs has the right to be in the uk. and she said employers would have to be able to differentiate between those eu citizens who had settled status and those arriving in the uk after brexit. the home office has now issued a statement, saying employers will not be expected to differentiate between resident eu citizens and those arriving after brexit. the subject came up at question time in the commons. the immigration minister appeared before the home affairs committee earlier this week. she was questioned about the rights of eu citizens in the event of a no deal. can the minister confirm whether it's true that in the event of a no deal, eu citizens that have not applied for settled status for find it impossible to distinguish themselves from new eu arrivals? i can confirm that will not be the case. can the attorney general confirm that, in fact, eu citizens should have no concerns about their legal rights, especially given the prime minister's commitment, in all circumstances, they'll be guaranteed? yes, i agree with him entirely.
is it not the case that the european union withdrawal act only copies eu law until the moment the uk government decides to adopt different provisions, which as far as immigration issues are concerned, are likely to be soon after brexit. does he agree with me that this would leave eu citizens in a precarious legal position, especially without any agreements regarding pensions, social security aggregation and access to health care? the arrangements under the withdrawal agreement as so far agreed would allow for comprehensive protection of all the rights of eu citizens, both on pensions and social security. the foreign secretary yesterday told the foreign affairs select committee that the foreign office is doing work on what will happen if uk citizens are trapped after brexit in other parts of europe because there are no flights. could the attorney general tell us how many people this is going to affect, and what circle of hell we'll be in? i regret, mr speaker, it i'm not able to give him that he can. it's not my sphere of ministerial responsibility. much as i'd like to answer for every aspect in every part of the government, it's not one that i can answer now.
but i will, if the honourable gentleman wishes an answer, write to him about it. should chris bryant resign? the honourable gentleman, member for rhondda isn't being asked by anybody else to resign, and that's not going to happen. mr kevin foster. thank you, mr speaker. woukd the attorney general agree with me that the eu citizens can take great comfort from the clear commitments that have been given in the case of a no deal, and they should therefore ignore the scaremongering done by the separatists opposite? —— would. attorney general! i can quite understand why, at a time of national uncertainty, those affected by this situation might be worried. but let me say from this despatch box here this morning on behalf of the government, they should not worry. the fact is that their rights will be protected. this government is determined and committed to that. shortly afterwards, the leader of the house tried to make
things even clearer. what i do want to make absolutely clear to the house is that the government has said and confirmed that in the unlikely event of not reaching a deal with the eu, the uk will honour its commitment to all eu citizens and their family members resident by the 29th of march, 2019, that they will be able to remain here. and the honourable lady raises a question about what was said in an inter—select committee, and i can simply confirm that employers already need to carry out right to work checks on eu citizens, and that will not change. eu citizens need to provide their passport or id card. andrea leadsom. over in the lords, a former military chief accused china of annexing large chunks of the high seas. there are continuing tensions over beijing's territorial claims in the south china sea, which is a major international shipping route. lord boyce, chief of the defence staff and a previous head of the navy, said its approach was completely unacceptable. would she not further agree that,
as a nation depends on 90% of our trade by sea, we should exercise freedom of the seas wherever it is challenged? and therefore, would she also agree that the royal navy's endeavours in that respect should be applauded? yes, i can say to the noble lord that the uk's long—standing position on the south china sea remains unchanged. we take no sides in the sovereignty disputes. but our commitment is to international law, and it is to upholding existing arbitrations and to freedom of navigation and overflight, and we encourage all parties to settle the dispute peacefully through the existing legal mechanisms, including the united nations convention. a former first sea lord widened the debate. the noble lord, the minister, will know that we're the largest european investor in southeast asia and the pacific rim. and the $3 trillion worth of trade passes through the south china sea.
it is absolutely crucial. we cannot let any nation stop having freedom of navigation through there, and we cannot allow china to make that, effectively, an inland sea. however, today is the 104th anniversary of the battle of... where, in the pacific, i fear a british squadron was not just beaten but almost annihilated, with the loss of several thousand sailors. and what it brings home to us is if you are going to show presence — and presence, ithink, is important for stability out there — you have to have back—up, and you need to have sufficient ships and capability to do it. does the noble lady, the minister, not believe we really do need to put some effort into getting some more ships? why am i not surprised, my lords? i do realise there is no navy in the world big enough to satiate the noble lord's insatiable appetite, insatiable
appetite for frigates. but can i say to him that it is still the government's intention to order eight type 26 frigates, but also — i think as the noble lord knows — to order several of the new type 31 e frigates. now that will, we believe, to fill a multi—purpose role. the royal navy is a very, very important part of our defence capability, and this government is committed to doing everything it can to support the navy in its endeavours. lady golding. one of the ideas announced in the budget was a sales tax on technology giants. the new digital services tax would be introduced from april 2020. the chancellor said it would target established tech giants rather than startu ps. companies such as amazon and facebook have been criticised for the amount of tax they pay in the uk. at question time, labour wanted to know the impact of the new tax would be. can the minister tell us what percentage of sales will be
paid from the new tax introduced by the chancellor by the big five tech giants next year? well, my understanding of what the chancellor announced in the budget on monday was that he would be introducing a digital sales tax approximating to 2% of digital turnover. so i think the honourable gentleman can make his own calculations. i can tell the minister that based on last year's sales, next year that the big five will be paying 0.1% of their sales and tax. that is the treasury forecast in the red book. even the 0br says that is high uncertain, and it will be outweighed by the cut in corporation tax to 17%. isn't it true that the minister has conspired with the treasury to give a free pass to some of the wealthiest companies on earth? the minister, ie me, i've had no discussions
with the treasury on that matter. no, i have not. he has alleged i've had discussions which i haven't. now, if i can answer his substantive point, the treasury expects to raise 1.5 billion over the next four years. 2% is a start, and the honourable gentleman should know that other countries are planning to take action. no country has yet taken action. and therefore, i would suggest that the uk is taking the lead on this. margotjames. have you booked the next year's summer holiday yet? by then, the uk should have left the european union. we don't know on what term,s or what that could mean for travel plans and things like health care and insurance when away from home. a point raised at question time in the lords.
airlines and ports are warning that there could be disruption, delay, cancellations and gridlock, and that could cause uncertainty over health and travel cover. so does the minister acknowledge this could lead to people finding themselves on the continent without compensation for travel delays or cancellations or health cover, and that that could be especially serious for vulnerable patients, such as kidney patients, who may be prevented from travelling? can the minister guarantee, can he guarantee that the ehic card, of which 27 million are in circulation in the uk, driving licenses and car insurances, will continue to be fully valid after the 29th of march, and that losses arising from cancellation and disruption will not be deemed force majeure by insurers, leading to denial of claims or big increases in premiums? i mean, what i think the noble lord set out there is exactly what we would wish to see. that is... well, that is what we have set out in the future relationship white paper, where we said that the government wants the uk and eu nationals to continue to be able to use the european health insurance card to receive health care.
the noble lord, the minister, said that health insurance would remain valid. however, of course, without ehic, people with pre—existing conditions may not be covered. and then suddenly after the 29th of march, those insurance premiums may not be valid. so maybe he could just check and clarify on that, because without ehic, of course, a lot of other insurances do not cover existing conditions. the noble baroness is absolutely right. and of course, that's one of the reasons why we always advise people to take out comprehensive travel insurance, even when travelling within the eu, because the ehic card only covers the basic elements of it. we've been very clear that that's what we want to see. that's what we are proposing to legislate for, to allow and continue, and that's what we expect. but we do encourage all people to check with their insurers about what cover is provided.
the only safe and responsible thing for the government to do, is to advise people not to book holidays which involve travel and accommodation after the 29th of march. but with all the chaos going on, i can't believe that that insurance will cover every eventuality. i completely reject that. i think that our advice will be that many people will look forward to their holidays. i have to say that next summer's holiday will be one particularly enjoyed by the front bench on this side, i'm sure. and we want to take advantage of the... laughter. take advantage of the wonderful holiday opportunities that there are in the european union. we expect that to continue, and we believe that it will continue. my lords, before scaremongering, should not the lord berkeley realise that too many visits to his lovely scilly islands would ruin them? but the point which i was making, in answer to an earlier question, was, of course, it's 50 million from the uk who travel on non—business flights abroad. but there's also 20
million who come here. we want those good trading relationships, friendship relationships, family relationships, to continue unhindered after brexit. that's the reason why we're putting in place the technical notices, that's the reason why we are putting forward the proposals, and that's what we're bringing for the legislation. lord bates putting us all in the holiday mood, as we end our look at thursday in parliament. thank you for watching. join me, if you can, for the week in parliament on bbc parliament at 11pm on friday. bye for now. hello. friday starts with the last widespread frost of this cold spell before things turn milder over the weekend. but windy, too. here is a look at things then
for early risers on friday morning. quite a bit of blue. the cold spots will be down to —5 or —6. one or two mist and fog patches, so nothing widespread. there's still one or two showers dotted about western parts of the uk early on. when you have these, you will not be as cold as elsewhere. for most, it's a sunny start to the day, and the sunshine will continue throughout. the sun will turn increasingly hazy across western parts of the uk on through the day. higher clouds spilling in ahead of this area of rain, which will be knocking on the door of northern ireland by the end of the afternoon. top temperatures around 9 or 12 degrees, and some sunshine, a gentle breeze. that will not feel too bad. as we go through friday evening and night, clearly the weather is changing. a system moving in from the atlantic, it will be turning wetter through scotland and northern ireland. the winds are picking up as well. gales developing through irish sea coasts. not as cold, but still quite chilly for the coldest parts of east anglia and south—east england. this weather system coming in is this deep area of low pressure, ex—hurricane 0scar.
it is going to pass us well to the north—west, but still produce strong winds the closer you are to it on saturday, especially in the western isles. lots of rain, especially in western scotland. a soaking day here. some outbreaks of rain pushing through the rest of scotland. it's there in northern ireland as well, though it is going to clear later in the day. it starts to edge into western wales and the west side of england, which means further in the east of england, it will be staying dry with some sunshine. windy across the uk, this is where we get gusts in excess of a0 miles an hour, and towards 65 miles an hour in the western isles. gales for parts of scotland, northern ireland, irish sea coasts. some winds could be disruptive,
but the air coming in from the south—west, it is going to be a much milder day. and of course, it's a fireworks bonfire weekend. we're expecting on saturday evening for the rain to have cleared through belfast but still be there affecting parts of scotland, wales and western england. if you're going out on sunday evening, still the chance of seeing some rain around, particularly through wales and western england. east anglia and the south—east look like staying dry as well. and it's still mild, not quite as mild as saturday. welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: the us mobilises thousands of troops — as president trump continues his crackdown on immigration ahead of the midterm elections. at this very moment, large and well—organised caravans of migrants are marching towards our southern border. some people call it an invasion.
it's like an invasion. google's global walkout: staff show their anger at the tech giant's treatment of women and ethnic minorities. the us imposes new sanctions on venezuela. we meet some of the millions left homeless and hungry by the country's economic crisis. and the new sound of south africa: we meet the djs setting a course from the street to stardom.