24/02/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week In Parliament.

The House of Lords weighs into the arguments over Brexit.

A Labour peer says colleagues must stand up

for the interests of the young.

This House should be urging a rethink on this whole project.

This House should be saying, not in our name.

But a Conservative offers peers this reassurance on Brexit -

even if there's no deal.

There is no greater nonsense than the claim that in the absence

of a trade deal with the EU we shall be falling off a cliff edge.

There is no cliff edge for the simple reason

that there is no cliff.

Also on the programme:

Some powerful speeches and surprising revelations

during a debate about Donald Trump.

Which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment

sometime in our past?

Well, in private, you know, let...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

All right?

But first, the bill authorising the Government to start the formal

process for leaving the EU has been approved by the Commons.

Now it's the turn of the House of Lords to chew over the legislation.

In a marathon debate over two days, there were 184 speakers.

To add to the sense of occasion, there was a surprise

visitor in the Lords.

In a very unusual move, the Prime Minister Theresa May went

to the Upper Chamber to listen to the start of the debate.

It was the second reading of the EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill.

Technically that means a general discussion

on the principles of the Bill.

But as the Bill is short and narrow in scope,

the debate ranged over wider territory - the pros and cons

of Brexit, possible amendments to the Bill and the role

of the House of Lords.

The Government is determined to trigger Article 50 by the 31st

of March in order to deliver on the decision of the British

people, the bill before us is a procedural part

of that withdrawal process.

I welcome the constructive tone we have heard from the opposition

that they will not seek to frustrate this process while of course

undertaking the scrutiny role we are here to perform.

We will not be threatened into not fulfilling our normal

constitutional role.

And neither will we be goaded into acting irresponsibly.

We have to have a serious and responsible debate.

In doing so, if we ask the House of Commons to look again

at an issue, it is not a constitutional outrage

but a constitutional responsibility.

There is a world of difference between blocking the bill

and seeking to amend it.

So, my Lords, if we clearly have the power were to amend

the bill, should we positively seek to do so?

My Lords, I believe that we should.

There is a respectable argument, which other noble and learned Lords

may say something about later in this debate, that only

Parliament by legislation has the constitutional authority

to authorise the concluding of an agreement with the EU

or the act of withdrawal if that is what the Government

decides that it has to do.

As is well known, I was a Remainer, not because of my pension rights

but because I am a patriot.

A patriot rather than a nationalist.

There is no greater nonsense than the claim that in the absence

of a trade agreement with the EU we shall be falling

off a cliff edge.

There is no cliff edge for the simple reason

that there is no cliff.

Absent of trade agreement with the EU, we shall continue

to trade with our former partners but on WTO terms.

Some Lords may be unaware that the UK already does far more

trade with the rest of the world than it does with

the rest of the EU.

And the gap is widening with every year that passes.

And the overwhelming bulk of our trade with the rest

of the world is on the WTO terms.

That was day one of the Lords debate on the Brexit Bill.

To accommodate everyone who wanted to speak,

the Lords had an early start the following day.

I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in 1972

in favour of our membership of the European Union

on the European Communities Third Reading Act.

I little dreamt that 45 years later I would be standing up and actually

advocating the reverse procedure, namely that we should withdraw

from the organisation I advocated joining.

But it's not me who changed but, I think, Europe

But it's not me who changed but, I think, Europe,

as was symbolised in its change of name from the European

Economic Community, to the European Community,

finally to the European Union.

It was only in 1965 that President Johnson gave

the African Americans the vote in America.

In 50-100 years' time, when people come to look at this

debate here they will be equally shocked and surprised that

until 2016 this country, Britain, was still contracting out its laws

to be made by people we did not elect, we did not

know and could not sack.

My lords, the time for pay and obey is done.

Not before time.

History will record what each of us does and our children

and grandchildren will ask, what did you do when

this was decided?

What did you do at this crucial, crucial junction?

Were you shackled by convention, fearful

you were going to be abolished?

Did you dance to the tune of the Daily Mail?

Or did you stand up for principal and posterity and the values

of tolerance and inclusion and for the interests

of our young and, in fact, for the neglected communities

in our midst?

I will support vital amendments and if they're not accepted I'm

going to vote against this bill.

This House should be urging a rethink on this whole project.

This House should be saying, not in our name.

Lord Pannick is the lawyer who led the Brexit case

against the Government in the Supreme Court.

It's for us to scrutinise a bill enormous importance

to the future of this country.

And I think that this bill requires amendment and it requires amendment

in particular to ensure parliamentary sovereignty

as the process of withdrawal occurs over the next two years.

One has to ask why those who base their arguments for Brexit

on the will of the people are now opposed to consulting the people

on the outcome of the negotiations.

One has to suspect that they fear that they will get

a different answer.

If so, we ought to know.

The Lords will now start debating amendments to the Bill.

They include proposals to give EU citizens in the UK

the right to remain, a legal commitment to

a parliamentary vote to approve any deal reached with the EU

and a referendum on any final deal.

I discussed these amendments - as well as the wider

challenges facing the Lords - with two former Members

of the European Parliament.

The Liberal Democrat Baroness Ludford and

the Conservative Lord Callanan.

I asked Lord Callanan if he could support an amendment

on rights for EU citizens.

No, I wouldn't support an amendment on that.

And the reason is that the Government have already tried

to get this agreed by the European Council.

Of course we want to be concerned about EU nationals here but we also

want to be concerned about the 2 million British

nationals that are living in other EU member states.

And there is a reciprocity here.

The Government already proposed this in the council,

saying, look, you know, can we get this agreed?

And a couple of member states, France and Germany, said, no,

we have to leave it for the start of the negotiations.

So a unilateral move from the UK side to say, well, actually,

we'll just grant this, without any converse

agreement for UK citizens, risks the whole thing

being forgotten about and shoved away and uncertainty

continuing for UK citizens.

Whereas if we say nothing about it, if we leave it for the start

of the negotiations, then I very much suspect it will be

the first thing agreed and everybody will be happy but a pre-emptive move

on this could disadvantage those of our own UK citizens

who are in other European countries.

That's not what the groups representing Brits in other

EU countries believe.

They believe it's important to kick-start the process,

to have a catalyst by the UK Government taking the first move.

It's perfectly reasonable for the other EU countries to say

that everything has to be actually negotiated under the same umbrella.

Of course it's unrealistic.

The Government is searching for a figleaf about why it

won't offer this unilateral guarantee and it does not

undermine Brits abroad.

Partly because the really politically difficult

argument is in this country.

You don't hear the same sort of noises against Brits exercising

their free movement rights in other countries.

Well, I don't think we have consensus on that front.

Could we get consensus on whether there should be

a parliamentary vote on any final deal?

People like Lord Butler, Lord Pannick have suggested that

might in fact be the legal route to go down, that that would protect

the Government from any legal challenge in future.

Lord Callanan, could you support such an amendment

on a parliamentary vote?

Well, the Government have already said that there will be

and indeed has to be a parliamentary vote on the final deal.

The argument is about when that will take place, which will depend

on the structure of negotiations and when everything is agreed.

The commitment that the Government have given is that they intend

that there will be a final vote before the European Parliament votes

on it, once everything is agreed, and I think that should be good

enough for other members.

I've got a nasty suspicion that this is all part

of the Liberal Democrats' attempt to refight the referendum,

to delay the whole process, to stop it happening

because they didn't agree with the result.

Well, this is true, isn't it?

You didn't agree.

I'm sure the crossbenchers who are among the Leavers.

Lord Pannick is no Liberal Democrat, as you know.

Lord Pannick is a crossbencher.

So are some of his other colleagues who are leading,

Lord Hope for instance, I mean, there are distinguished

lawyers on this.

What the Government is offering is a sort of take it or leave it

between this deal and no deal.

What I think people are looking for is a much more meaningful vote,

something that is more dynamic which would assess any deal

that the Government came back with and if it wasn't adequate

would send them back to have another go.

Is this a risky time for the Lords?

Is this the way you handle this bill going to be

crucial to your future, your reputation,

to your existence even?

There was a threat of abolition.

I hope not.

There have been a few noises off.

The Prime Minister demonstrated how seriously she takes the house

by coming for the opening speeches on Monday and nobody officially

has said there is any threat to the Lords.

The Lords has a proper constitutional role to look, review,

revise Government legislation, to ask the House of Commons

to think again if necessary.

I hope we won't do that in this case, given the importance

of the bill and the background of the referendum.

I suppose that's possible that one or two amendments might be passed,

ask the House of Commons to think again, if they do and we come back

again, I think we'd be really pushing our luck to pursue

it any further.

You could agree with some of that, didn't you?

Absolutely.

Yes, he's made the case, really.

There's been a lot of huffing and puffing, just as there

was over the tax credits, which eventually

absolutely collapsed.

The Government just...

The Lords knows its constitutional limits, it also knows

its constitutional duty and powers, which are to scrutinise, to call

the Government to account and, if amendments are passed,

to ask the Commons, hopefully with a rather persuasive voice,

to look again, to think again.

Are you saying that if the Commons reject any Lords amendments then

you will give in at that stage?

I can't predict what is going to happen in the process.

OK.

We are talking about reputation.

Next week, there will be a documentary, Meet The Lords,

in which Baroness D'Souza is making fairly serious claims about

allowances and how they claimed.

I wonder if we can have a look at a clip.

There is a core of peers who work incredibly hard who do that work,

and there are, sad to say, many, many, many peers

There is a core of peers who work incredibly hard who do that work,

and there are, sad to say, many, many, many peers

who do absolutely nothing but who claim the full allowance.

I can remember one occasion when I was leaving the House quite

late, and there was a peer, who shall be utterly nameless,

who jumped out of taxi just outside the peers entrance,

and left the engine running.

And he ran in, presumably, to show that he had attended,

and then ran out again while the taxi was still running.

OK, you both are hard-working peers.

Are you aware of other peers turning up briefly just to claim ?300

in allowance and then going home?

No is the answer to your question.

I think if that is the case, then Baroness D'Souza should name

the person responsible.

It's all very well to make allegations, but she said that

person should be utterly nameless, it should be named,

let's find out who it is, and find out if this is going on,

because I think it is unacceptable.

How do you feel, seeing that clip and hearing that allegation?

Well, obviously, I don't like anything that apparently brings

the Lords into disrepute, and I'm a little bit surprised

because Baroness D'Souza was Lord Speaker, and on quite

the prized if she felt that these things were happening

that they weren't followed up with the right

authorities or whatever.

Lord Callanan and Baroness Ludford, thank you for your time.

The ongoing debate on Brexit.

Also high on the agenda this week - the prospective State Visit

to the UK by the American President Donald Trump.

1.8 million people signed a petition objecting to the visit -

enough to trigger a debate in Parliament.

As MPs launched into a feisty exchange of views, there

was a protest outside in Parliament Square.

Protestors urged politicians to withdraw the invitation

to Donald Trump.

At times, their chants could be heard inside Westminster Hall.

The anti-Trump petition wasn't the only one on the table.

A counter petition supporting the visit

mustered 300,000 signatures.

And for three hours MPs argued the issue.

Only two residents of the United States have been granted

a state visit since 1952.

It is extraordinary that that is the situation

but here we have a position where seven days into his

presidency, he is invited to have the full pageantry

of a state visit.

Extraordinary.

Completely unprecedented.

The fact is that there was 61 million people

who voted for Donald Trump, and where do we stand up in this

country and condemn him for being racist, and I have seen no

evidence of that,...

I have seen no evidence of him being racist,

or that they attack him in an unseemly way.

They are actually attacking the American people.

The 61 million people who voted for Donald Trump.

I want to remind the chamber that there are many African-Americans

in America sitting at home in fear.

They are concerned about a president that has had the support

of the Ku Klux Klan.

They are concerned about a president that has

welcomed white supremacists.

It is a term that we hoped would almost fall into history.

Mr Trump is not my sort of conservative.

I really have nothing in common with him.

But I will say that let us look at one of his comments.

The charge of misogyny.

I mean, of course what he said, what he was reported to have said

in a private conversation was absolutely horrible

and ridiculous.

But which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment,

sometime in our past.

Well, in private, you know...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

All right?

Listen carefully and you will hear the thousands of people outside

right now, outside this House, saying they do not want on Trump

to becoming in to this country on the royal state visit.

We have a duty to listen to these people, to give them a voice,

and if people from the Trump administration are listening,

this is not fake news.

These people that are protesting outside, these are not alternative

facts, these are real protests from British people who do not

want to give him a royal visit.

The Commons Speaker John Bercow raised a few eyebrows

when he announced that he would oppose any attempt to allow Donald

Trump to address Mps in Parliament.

That intervention sparked a mini-campaign to oust the Speaker.

A Conservative, James Duddridge, has tabled a no confidence motion.

So far, five MPs have put their names to it.

Undaunted Mr Duddridge raised it with the Speaker.

Point of order, Mr James Duddridge.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for seeing me, and granting a point of order.

And notwithstanding, Mr Speaker, the underwhelming support

for my vote of no-confidence in you, has the government or indeed

the Backbench Business Committee contacted you in any way to allocate

time for this unresolved matter to be debated and indeed voted on?

The short answer is no, and there is absolutely no reason

why they should have done, a point which I can say

from my own head and heart, fortified in the knowledge

that it is also the sound advice of the experienced clerk

of the House who has been working in the service of the

House for 40 years.

Now, for a quick round-up of a few other stories in Westminster.

The Home Affairs Committee is investigating the Government's

decision to close a scheme giving sanctuary to lone child

refugees from Europe.

We are very disappointed that the Dubbs scheme has closed.

We would like the Dubbs scheme to remain open and to remain safe

and legal route for unaccompanied child refugees who are in Europe

to seek sanctuary in the UK.

I think the impact we have seen of the closure and some

of the confusion around what has been going on is quite severe.

The Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid said he understood how it felt

to face higher business rate bills.

He promised more support for businesses in next month's Budget.

Now, growing up above the family shop, I saw myself the impact

He promised more support for businesses in next month's Budget.

Now, growing up above the family shop, I saw myself the impact

He promised more support for businesses in next month's Budget.

Now, growing up above the family shop, I saw myself the impact

And, calls to limit investigations into claims against British veterans

who served in Northern Ireland.

MPs say cases should only proceed if new evidence is uncovered.

It is wrong that our veterans are sitting at home,

wondering if perhaps a third or fourth investigation is now

going to take place into their case simply because some hot,

fast-thinking, make-a-quick-buck human rights lawyer in Belfast

thinks it is a good idea to reopen this case.

A fortnight ago, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn sprang a surprise

on Theresa May at Prime Minister's Questions.

He read out leaked text messages which - he said -

indicated the Government had offered Surrey County Council a special deal

to fund social care.

His remarks were widely reported and the Department

for Local Government spent that day rejecting the assertions.

At the latest session of PMQs, Mr Corbyn returned

to the same territory.

Two weeks ago, we found out about the sweetheart

deal with Tory Surrey.

When will the other 151 social services departments in England get

the same as the Surrey deal?

SPEAKER: Prime Minister.

The right honourable gentleman refers to the questions he asked me

about Surrey County Council two weeks ago.

Those claims were utterly destroyed the same afternoon.

So, rather than asking the same question, he should

stand up and apologise.

Her government has put the NHS and social care

in a state of emergency.

Nine out of ten NHS Trusts are unsafe.

18,000 patients a week are waiting.

Mr Speaker, I repeat the figure.

18,000 patients a week are waiting on trolleys

in our hospital corridors.

We need a government that puts the NHS first

and will invest in our NHS.

First of all, I have to say to the right honourable gentleman

that he should consider correcting the record because 54% of hospital

trusts are considered good or outstanding.

Quite different from the figure he has shown.

Secondly, I will take no lessons on the NHS from the party...

From the party...

Oh, the deputy leader of the Labour Party says we should

take lessons for the NHS.

I won't take any lessons from the party that presided over

Mid Staffs hospital.

Jamal al-Harith - a British citizen -

was held as a terror suspect in Guantanano Bay in 2002

after the US forces seized him in Pakistan.

He was released in 2004.

The Daily Mail has claimed that the British Government gave him

?1 million in compensation.

His family has denied the claim.

Jamal al-Harith subsequently joined the so-called Islamic State group

and last week he carried out a suicide attack at

an army base in Iraq.

The Home Office was called to the Commons to make a statement.

But the Minister couldn't say very much about the case.

Everyone understands that there will be information

that cannot be revealed because of intelligence reasons.

However, he has provided far too little information

about such a serious case.

Can he confirm whether Mr al-Harith was made any payment?

And also notwithstanding subsequent welcome legislation which had

cross-party support to tighten the law, would he agree that people

across the country will feel sickened at the idea of large

payments being made to someone who may have been involved

in serious terrorist activity?

Like her and my constituents, we will be outraged and disappointed

by the sums of money that have been paid.

But the sums of money that have been paid and been

reported to have been paid, I can't comment on the individual

cases, and unlike former Home Secretarys, the government

is bound by its legal obligation that it has made, and we cannot

break those legal commitments.

But I can say that some of the vulnerability that led us

to have to pay those damages occurred when she was a member

of the Labour government, and when those individuals brought

claims against us.

Let's take a look at what's been happening in the wider world

of politics this week.

With our countdown, here's Julia Butler.

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson appeared to perform a dab at PMQs

this week to congratulate Jeremy Corbyn after his exchanges

with the Prime Minister.

The dance craze originates on the US hip-hop scene.

Former Employment Secretary Lord Tebbit was given a taste

of his own medicine as he lambasted cycle lanes in London.

Labour peer Lord Hunt gave the former Cabinet minister

a piece of his mind.

You can't even watch the BRIT Awards to escape from politics.

US singer Katy Perry's performance featured dancing white houses

and two puppets trust to look like Donald Trump and Theresa May.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson confessed it was the victim

of mistaken identity during a recent visit to Newcastle.

I was mistaken for Mr Trump in, I think, Newcastle.

A very humbling experience it was, as you can imagine.

And, next week, will have two new MPs in a double

by-election bill as Labour hold Stoke-on-Trent Central

while the Tories snatched Copeland.

Julia Butler reporting.

And that's it from me for now, but do join Alicia McCarthy

on Monday night at 11pm for a roundup of the day

here at Westminster.

But from me, Kristiina Cooper, goodbye.