09/02/2017 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursday In Parliament,

our look at the best of the day in the Commons and Lords.

On this programme, Labour describes as shameful the government's

decision to wind down a scheme allowing vulnerable refugee

children into Britain.

Where does it say that instead of the 3000 that Parliament debated,

we will only help a tenth of that number?

Where does it say that when we get the chance we will somehow

turn our backs once again?

Egging on their Lordships.

An SNP MP encourages the House of Lords to delay the Brexit Bill.

For us it is very much a win-win whatever the outcome

is here because I say to their Lordships, reach

for these barricades and take on this government.

And are they really the future?

Smart energy meters are criticised for not being very smart.

Last year, The Telegraph reported that over 130,000 smart meters

were now operating in this dumb mode as a result of switching.

But first, the government is insisting it's not abandoning

vulnerable refugee children despite winding down its scheme,

which allows unaccompanied youngsters into the UK.

350 children, mostly from Syria, are to be offered sank

350 children, mostly from Syria, are to be offered --

sanctuary under the project.

Campaigners had hoped that more than 3000 youngsters,

some of whom have already made their way to mainland

Europe, would be accepted.

Answering an urgent question in the House of Commons,

the Home Secretary Amber Rudd described how the

scheme had operated.

Within Europe in 2016, we transferred over 900

unaccompanied asylum seeking children to the UK.

This included more than 750 from France as part of the UK's support

for the Calais camp clearance.

And I am proud that as Home Secretary the UK played such

a key role in supporting the French to safely and compassionately

close the camp.

Yesterday, the government announced that in accordance with section 67

of the Immigration Act, we will transfer the specified

number of 350 children pursuant to that section who reasonably meet

the intention and spirit behind the revision.

-- the provision.

She said the scheme was not being closed.

The government has always been clear that we do not want to incentivise

perilous journeys to Europe, particularly by the most

vulnerable children.

That is why children must have arrived in Europe before the

20th March 2016 to be eligible under section 67 of the Immigration Act.

The section 67 obligation was accepted on the basis

that the measure would not act as a pull factor for children

to Europe and that it would be based on local authority capacity.

The government has a clear strategy and we believe that this

is the right approach.

This week the government cancelled the Dubs scheme after it had been

running for less than six months.

She said it hasn't closed, but will she confirm what it said

in the statement yesterday that once those 350 children are here,

that's it, it is closed.

Where does it say in the Hansard debate that I have here

from our debates on the Dubs amendment that we will only help

lone child refugees for six months?

Where does it say that instead of the 3000 Parliament debated,

we will only help a tenth of that number?

Where does it say that when we get the chance, we will somehow

turn our backs once again?

It doesn't because we didn't say that at the time.

She said the Home Secretary had acted shamefully.

And there are still so many children in need of help.

She knows there are thousands in Greece in overcrowded

accommodation or homeless, or in Italy, still at risk

of human trafficking.

Or teenagers in French centres, which are being closed down now

and they have nowhere left to go.

She talked about clearing Calais, they are heading back to Calais,

back to Dunkirk, back to the mud, back to the danger, back

into the arms of the people traffickers and the smugglers,

the exploitation, the abuse, the prostitution rings and back

into the modern slavery that this parliament and this government

has pledged to end.

These are children who need looking after over a period.

When we accept them here it is not job done.

It is making sure that we work with local authorities,

that we have the right safeguarding in place and that's why we engage

with the local authorities, why we make sure that they have

sufficient funds, which we have increased,

to look after those young people.

I completely reject her attack.

The UK has a strong reputation in Europe

and internationally for looking after the most vulnerable.

That will continue.

We have a different approach to where those most vulnerable are.

We believe that they are in the region.

That's why we have made a pledge to accept 3000 children

from the region and we are committed to delivering on that.

And how does she live with herself leaving thousands of people,

leaving thousands, and members opposite can jeer,

how does she live with herself, leaving thousands of children

subject to disease, people trafficking,

squalor and hopelessness?

She describes how she doubts that the children in

France are looked after.

And I can say to the right Honourable Lady, the children

who are most vulnerable are the ones in the camps out in

Jordan, out in Lebanon.

These are the ones who are really vulnerable and those are the ones

that we are determined to bring over here.

It seems that the government tried to sneak out what they knew would be

a very unpopular announcement when they were avoiding

scrutiny in this House about the Brexit deal.

Is this the shape of things to come and is this what comes of cosying

up to President Trump?

I think many in this House have listened to what she has said

with total disbelief.

We cannot understand, given the intensity of the discussion

and debate around the Dubs, an amendment that was put

and accepted by this House, that the Home Secretary has come

forward with what essentially is a closure of that scheme

at a number well below what any of us would have expected.

Does she not agree with me that the reality will be that many

children across Europe in desperate need will be left with no hope?

I am glad to hear there is going to be another 150 children

coming to the UK under this scheme before it closes but can

the Secretary of State tell the House, is she able to look

the 151st child in the eye and say no?

Well, I want to know how the Honourable Lady

feels about the children

who are from the region, the children who are in the camps,

they are not in France, they are not in Italy,

they are the ones in the camps where the conditions

are much, much worse.

How would she feel about looking them in the eye?

Amber Rudd.

Well, the scheme for giving sanctury to unaccompanied children has always

been associated with the name of the 84-year-old

Labour peer Lord Dubs.

He himself first arrived in Britain from Czechoslovakia in 1938 as part

of the Kindertransport fleeing the Nazis.

In the Lords, Lord Dubs gave his reaction to the latest developments.

He said to him it seemed the scheme was being closed.

My Lords, I must confess I'm slightly puzzled

because if the government says that there is a specified number

of children, then after that total has been reached,

the scheme has been closed.

My Lords, it was not long ago that I remember the Prime Minister

when she was Home Secretary told me that the government was prepared

to accept the amendment.

It was on the same day that the then Immigration Minister said to me

that the government would accept the letter and the spirit

of that amendment.

I believe in arbitrarily closing down the scheme without any good

reason for doing so, the government is in breach

of its own commitments.

My Lords, the scheme is not closed.

As the noble Lord said, we will be accepting up

to the limits of 350 at at this point in time, the

scheme is not closed.

What I think, well, more children will come,

the scheme is not closed.

What I think we have to appreciate, and I think noble Lords

generally have appreciated, is that the capacity of local

authorities is limited.

Noble Lords might rubbish that, but the capacity of local

authorities is limited.

We have relied on their goodwill, it has been an entirely voluntary

approach from the local authorities and of course I would encourage

more local authorities to come forward who think

that they might have places.

There are many people who have expressed an interest

to help but the government, both the churches, the other

place, local authorities,

I myself know several people who have indicated their willingness

to help their local authority but have had little response back.

Obviously the government is quite disinterested in taking any more.

My Lords, that is absolutely wrong.

Yes, we have had expressions, we have had informal expressions

of interest and I would encourage the noble lady if she has the names

of those individuals, the names of those community groups

and the names of those church groups to please contact us so that we can

get matters in train.

Lady Williams.

Now, it's not been the best 12 months for the game of football.

The England manager had to resign when he was filmed making covert

deals behind the backs of football Association officials,

story surfaced about incidents of historical abuse on youngsters

by scouts and coaches, and there was the little matter

of a humiliating international knockout for the England

national team at the hands of Iceland last summer.

So, is part of the solution for football's varied problems

better governance of the sport?

The Commons has been holding a special debate.

The Premier League, its primary job is to promote its competition

and it does so brilliantly all around the world.

However, it exerts an enormous amount of influence over football

because of the vast amount of money that it raises and it

funds back into the game.

So therefore we do need a strong Premier League,

that is good for football, but we need a strong national

governing body for football that is ultimately responsible

for the sporting and ethical decisions that football has to take.

It is necessary to reform the structure of the FA board

to make the FA more independent, to give it the power to act.

We have been calling for this for years, the select committee

has been calling for it in previous reports.

We believe now that legislation is the only way

in which this can be delivered.

That was the recommendation of the last three chairman of the FA

to the select committee, to say the FA cannot reform itself,

the turkeys would not vote for Christmas, there has to be

external pressure and external action through

legislation to achieve it.

What I am asking in this debate today is that if the government

is unsuccessful in getting reform from the FA that a Bill is prepared

to be introduced into the next session of parliament

after the Queen's speech to deliver the reform the FA so badly needs.

Club ownership, safe standing, 20 is plenty, kick-off times,

disabled access, tackling homophobia are all issues that need to be

addressed by a reformed FA and with more support or input,

I hope that will now happen.

I hope this debate will show that we are serious about reform.

In the end you look at the situation where an ordinary Premier League

player in two months can earn more than Sheffield City Council can

spend on its junior football pitches in a whole year.

There's something wrong with that.

It shows that there is a wrong balance of money in the game.

So, if we are going to have that reformed board,

it has to be able to divert more money into grassroots football

and actually stop the cliff edge between the Premier League

and the English Football League as well.

But we should not belittle everything the FA does.

It has done some great things.

It has done really well on the women's game at local

level and at professional level and it has tackled racism.

Many fans would want to see, for instance, the FA have more

influence over the number of home-grown players that

are developed in our league.

It is woefully inadequate.

We have far too many of these 'pret a porter' players that are imported

on the basis of the fact that there is so much wealth

knocking about in the Premier League that rather than develop and take

a chance on a youngster, they buy someone off the peg

and bring them in and we don't impose the rules that should be

applied in terms of how those players contribute and add to this

game and many fans would like to see an FA that can deal

with issues like that.

What is most shocking in my view is not that the governance of the FA

is in need of fundamental reform, that is a settled point, Mr Speaker,

but that the leadership of the FA has been so grossly ineffective

in bringing forward these reforms in the face of criticism

from the cross-party culture, media and sport select committee.

At best they are dragging their feet, at worst they're

wilfully failing to act.

We know that the FA are failing to regulate the power

of football agents.

They have a football agents' exam, which I'm told can be

passed by an 11-year-old.

They are failing to regulate correctly the transfer negotiations

and there is still the potential for a bung culture within

those considerations.

-- negotiations.

The structures aren't right and so the management below isn't

right and the enforcement below isn't right.

The FA's current model does not, in my opinion and clearly that

of other colleagues, stand up to scrutiny.

Reform is therefore required.

But I repeat the governing body has every opportunity to bring

that about themselves.

While I believe a vote of no-confidence in the FA today

is six weeks premature, they and other governing bodies

should be fully aware that the clock is ticking fast and failure

to reform will lead not just to the withdrawal of public money

but further consideration of legislative, regulatory

and financial options to bring about this change needed.

If we want to see better governance of football across the world

then let it begin here.

The Commons debate on football.

You're watching our round-up of the day in the Commons and the Lords.

Still to come...

Could the House of Lords frustrate the Brexit process?

MPs have called on the Government to consider formally recognising

a Palestinian state.

The suggestion was made during a debate on a backbench

motion demanding an immediate halt to the planning and construction of

Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Given the investment that we have made in a two-state solution,

my question to the Minister is, aside from standing

on the touchlines watching the players on the field

and shouting advice,

what more can we do whilst our friend and ally pursues a policy

on settlements which is bound, so proceeding, to deliver

a situation where the two-state solution becomes actually

geographically and economically unworkable.

He might consider giving effect to this House's instruction

that we should recognise the Palestinian state.

Now, I have heard my honourable friend say that we can only do this

once and therefore we need to choose the moment where that

will make the maximum impact, and I agree with him,

but he needs to consider this.

It would be truly absurd if we were to delay that recognition

till after the point at which the reality of any

such Palestinian state could actually be delivered.

So will the Minister agree with me that when the two-state solution

that we all support is now under threat like never before that now

is the time to act on that bilateral recognition?

We have to ask ourselves, if not now then when, and if not now,

aren't those Palestinians who believe that we talk

a good story but we do nothing to end their misery

are actually right?

Supporters of Israel argue that settlements are not the sole barrier

to peace or indeed the main one.

As supporters of a two-state solution we should commit

ourselves to building trust with and between both

Israelis and Palestinians.

We should do that in both our words and our actions.

In our words we should seek to avoid emotive language which feeds

a narrative of victim and villain.

We should recognise and encourage the need for compromise

and we should never fail to acknowledge the complexities

of a conflict which has endured for decades and whose

roots run deep.

It's often said that Israeli settlements are illegal,

but stating this repeatedly does not make it true.

Please bear with me, because I realise that's quite

an inflammatory comment, so bear with me for a moment.

The West Bank and Gaza remain, as they have always been,

disputed territories under international law.

There has never been a Palestinian state.

So the territory remains ownerless, and that's

a strong argument for some.

I am deeply disappointed that this government continues to fail

to recognise the Palestinian state.

Now is the time and I would ask him to give some comment on that.

Secondly, what thought has the Government put into how it can

be that settlement goods can be separated from other Israeli goods?

There are many people who do not wish to buy settlement goods,

and is the Government doing any further work on that,

and how can we persuade British companies not to invest

in settlement areas?

But most importantly I hope that when President Trump

and the Prime Minister Netanyahu visit London later this

year our Prime Minister will have the courage to set out

those views in no uncertain terms.

The Foreign Office Minister, Tobias Ellwood, voiced concern that

territory for a Palestinian state was being eroded by settlement

building, but he said the Palestinian leadership needed

to do more to prevent the incitement of violence.

President Abbas condemns certain aspects of it

but we are still seeing schools and squares being named

after terrorists.

This is not the confidence-building measures that we need to see.

There is no relationship with Hamas at all.

These are the steps that will allow us to move forward so there can be

a recognition in the long term of the state of Palestine,

but they are not there yet.

A younger generation has given up on their own leadership,

choosing instead to try and take a fast track to paradise by grabbing

a knife and killing an Israeli soldier, and that is a very terrible

state of affairs to be in.

The latest debate on the Palestinian territories.

"Don't mess about or you'll get abolished."

That was reported to be the blunt warning issued to members

of the House of Lords on Wednesday night by government supporters

shortly after the moment when the so-called Brexit bill

finally cleared the Commons.

So could peers delay the whole process of triggering

Article 50, the legal means by which the procedure is started

for the UK to leave the EU?

The Scottish National Party is normally fiercely critical

of the Lords but the SNP's Pete Wishart appeared to be

supportive of peers finding fault with the Brexit bill.

The bill now goes on its way to our friends down the corridor

and what we've seen is that the unelected friends

have been threatened with abolition if they dare mess

with this government's bill.

I am sure they are now quaking in their ermine if they don't

do their patriotic duty, as the Secretary of State said.

Can I just say I offer nothing other than encouragement to these fine

tribunes in ermine who will now pick up the case.

For us it's very much a win-win, whatever the outcome is here.

So can I say to their Lordships, reach for these barricades

and take on this government.

On the question of the House of Lords, the House of Lords

has a valued function under our constitutional

arrangements in terms of scrutinising and reviewing

legislation coming up from the House of Commons,

as I am sure they will do that on the bill we've been debating

this week, as they do on every other bill,

but that they will also bear in mind the reality of the referendum

and the popular mandate that lies behind the Article 50 decision.

Would the Leader of the House accept that this Parliament works

because we have two houses, and sometimes the Other Place

doesn't agree with this House and annoys the Government.

That is no reason whatsoever to threaten it with abolition.

Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House confirming that?

I mean, the Government's position is that we respect completely

the constitutional role of the House of Lords, and as I said earlier

the House of Lords itself accepts that as an unelected house it needs

to abide by certain conventions.

David Lidington.

Now, how smart is smart metering of gas and electricity?

The idea is that your handy smart meter device sends automatic

messages to your gas and electricity supplier so you don't need to.

No more estimated bills.

And you can see how much energy you're actually using.

The Government is in favour of large-scale introduction of smart

meters but in a debate in Westminster Hall

several MPs had doubts.

One spoke about his own experience.

The smart meter was fitted.

Now, once a month I have to go outside and take a photo of my smart

meter and send that photo over broadband to the supplier

because I don't have connectivity.

My smart meter isn't connected to anything because I don't

have the mobile-phone signal.

Now, that is a challenge if we're going to provide

20 million smart meters, or however many we're supplying,

it's quite a lot, by 2020.

Now, the interesting thing is, I'm the local MP.

The local BBC reporter recently e-mailed me to say that he had had

a smart meter fitted.

He has to do exactly the same thing.

So it's a bit worrying in terms of winning public support for this,

if the local MP and the local BBC presenter actually have smart

meters that don't work.

Now, clearly this was a private meeting, so I'm not telling

the world that my smart meter doesn't work, but I do

enjoy telling the story.

The idea of having complete knowledge of the energy you're

consuming is a desirable objective.

But we are not doing it in a way that will be appreciated

by the consumer and will probably be at a cost to the consumer.

There is a great variety in the meters that are

being installed just now.

Again I'll say the ones I saw at Scottish Gas were all-singing

and all-dancing, probably could make your cup of tea for you as well.

The meter I've got is far less interactive,

and there is a real danger, in fact we've seen this

with a lot of people, that the meter, after a short time,

or certainly the display unit, ends up getting tossed in a draw

or a cupboard somewhere.

And a Conservative MP also saw some limitations.

One of these relates to interoperability

between suppliers.

That is, customers who switch their energy supplier

after installation run the risk of losing the meter's

smart functionality.

Depending on who they are switching from and to.

It could revert to being a dumb, or perhaps more kindly

a traditional, meter.

Last year the Telegraph reported that over 130,000 smart meters

were now operating in this dumb mode as a result of switching.

What we are talking about here is an upgrade of a very significant

part of our infrastructure, very significant part

of our infrastructure.

An upgrade of a technology that is 100 years old.

An upgrade of a technology, at the moment far too many people,

means that people are looking at bills where their

consumption is estimated.

We don't tolerate that in the supermarket, why on earth

should we tolerate it at home in the modern age, in 2017?

That people should continue, and our energy system,

absolutely functional to a smart and prosperous economy,

should continue to be dependent on a technology

that is so out of date.

Nick Hurd.

And that's it for this programme.

Do join me for the week in Parliament, when we analyse

the contribution to Parliament made by the Speaker

of the Commons, John Bercow.

Until then, from me, Keith McDougall, goodbye.