13/09/2016 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and Welcome to Tuesday in Parliament, our look at the best

of the day in the Commons and the Lords.

On this programme.

The Brexit Secretary tells MPs no constitutional problems have been

raised by the decision of the British people to vote

for a UK departure from the EU.

A proposal that could put parliament in opposition to the people

over something as simple as this is extraordinary...

The Culture Secretary speaks out about how to stop youngsters viewing

pornographic images on the internet.

The NSPCC report that children as young as seven are being treated

for addiction to pornography.

The links between Libya and weaponry used by the IRA.

Is it time to compensate victims?

The victims have waited long enough for answers.

They are sick and tired of the

dilly-dallying and delays.

But first.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union says Britain has

'nothing to fear' in any of the outcomes to the negotiations

on Britain's departure from the EU.

David Davis faced two and a half hours of questioning on different

aspects of Brexit from members of the Foreign Affairs committee.

He said his 'Brexit' department contained 200 people,

and he made clear that there would be no second referendum,

following the decision of the British people

in June this year.

Parliament will either be supporting the referendum or refusing the

referendum.

What you would get to is Parliament versus the people.

That is the key point.

We can have some noise about elections but I would

not want you to go away and me not answer the constitutional question.

But the Lords Constitutional committee has published

a report today which

contradicts what you just said.

It disagrees with what I said and that

is the point.

That's why I thought you might ask about it.

The simple truth is that a proposal that could put Parliament in

opposition to the people over something as simple as this is an

extraordinary one.

But was it an advisory referendum rather than?

If you look at the wording...

No.

Where does it say advisory?

The reason you haven't been asked about this - I rather

thought you had made your position clear

in a statement you gave to the

House of Commons last week...

He is entitled to challenge.

I do not think the position of the government

and your position is in any doubt.

The point is, go back to the debate.

Go to Hansard.

The Foreign Secretary said this is a matter for decision

by the British people.

The government in its manifesto said it would respect the

result of this referendum.

The British people did not think they

were being asked their opinion.

The Prime Minister did not resign because he did not like their

opinion.

You have to take this seriously.

The referendum did not say we will trigger Article 50 the day

after the referendum.

You might note that that it was not the position in

the referendum.

It did not say it would be done in March or May.

It surely has to be for Parliament to debate and decide

under which circumstances the article is invoked.

It is not for Parliament to gainsay the view of the

British people.

One does not want to compromise your position in this process but many of

us believe if access to the simple market

gained on both sides

reasonable to both sides then certainly for those who are subject

to tariffs, we should not be afraid to fall back to...

Is there any reason we should not be doing that?

Does that hold any fear for you?

Let me offer a philosophical approach to

negotiation, it is a very bad idea to go into

negotiations fearing the

outcome because that weakens you.

It is one of the areas we will assess.

I was speaking to someone about the calculations that will go on.

We will assess not just what the costs

if you like of a given strategy is but what they are.

-- what are the policies with it.

One of the things we can do which would be legally

ok to do that shows we are symbolically going in that

direction for instance one example is new

passports which are going to be issued from now on will go back to

the traditional British blue passport rather than the pink

things.

Could we do a symbolic gesture such as that to show the British

people we had absolutely serious about leaving the EU?

Attractive as the idea is, we are not in the

business, at least I am not in the business

of symbols, I am in the

business of delivering on this.

David Davis. Protests about inadequate

broadband speeds from angry

constituents are one of the most regular complaints that

come the way of MPs, especially those in the more rural

parts of the UK.

In fact, it's estimated that five percent of the UK

population is coping with substandard broadband.

The issue was uppermost in the minds of MPs

considering the Digital Economy Bill.

As well as getting the right internet speeds -

members of parliament considered how to deal with the wide availability

of online pornography.

The rate of jobs created in digital industries is

nearly three times as fast as the rest of the economy with 1.56

million in 2015 and growing.

The government will not ally people to

be left behind when it is running a business, staying in touch with

distant family, watching catch up television

are helping children with

homework.

Everyone should have the right to decent connectivity.

She raises quite rightly the impressive

programme of roll-out of superfast broadband.

Does she share my concern that too many new homes are being

built without that as standard?

Will she work with her colleagues across government make sure that

situation changes?

The bill seeks to regulate access to adult content online.

The culture secretary, Karen Bradley, explained that

children were spending more time online than watching TV,

and many were accessing pornograph.

We have an incredible problem of pornographic

images being available to children.

The NSPCC report that children as young as seven are being treated

for addiction to pornography.

This is not something which can be addressed

through one measure alone.

The measures in this bill will help but

this is not a silver bullet.

There has to be a joint approach across

the whole of government to deal with this.

We age classify films, we

restrict age-appropriate broadcasts after the

watershed, we keep children out of sex shops.

Equivalent measures are

needed online.

The National union of farmers and the Countryside Alliance

have been vocal in highlighting this government's shortcomings so I will

only add that it is an absolute disgrace that in 2016 there are

still people who cannot even download an e-mail.

Ms Onwurah pointed out that plans for the BBC to pay for TV Licenses

for the over-75s would have paid for the Great British Bake-off to be

retained 30 times over - prompting a reassurance

from a minister.

On the crucial issue of the Great British Bake Off,

Mr Speaker, of which I am an enormous fan.

I should correct what she just said and acknowledge that

the Bake-off after today's announcement will remain on free to

air terrestrial TV on Channel 4.

As we move into the next generation of

5G services, these will require a huge number of very small

transmitters which may need to be attached to lamp posts in cities.

We do not want to have individual planning applications for every

single one.

It may be when we come to 5G that we will need to look

at planning laws again.

That is something I will leave with the Minister.

I worry that sometimes the government always wants to pat

yourself on the back in relation to this and actually

it is constantly striving difficulty to ensure that

everyone is able to participate.

There are people who only have 2 megabits per second.

There are people who will have 10 megabits per

second who will have difficulty using an iPlayer.

I hope the ministerial team will not keep

congratulating themselves.

In many rural areas, including my constituency,

70% of people have no access to 4G whatsoever.

A Minister has accepted that "for too long" action has not been

taken to address "deep concerns" around the laws on dangerous driving

and the sentences available.

The admission, from the Justice Minister, Sam Gyimah,

came in a debate in Westminster Hall when an MP raised the case

of a 25-year old man, James Gilbey, who was killed on a pedestrian

crossing after a night out in Leeds.

The car driven by Majid Malik hit him.

It hit him so hard his body travelled 70 metres.

While he lay on the road, the drivers of both cars stopped.

The driver reversed and went back to the scene

but only to try and retrieve his number plate which had been wrenched

off the car along with the bumper

by the force of the impact.

He then drove off.

He hid the car and burned his clothes and

he went to ground.

It was only after very substantial efforts by the

police he finally turned himself in.

He pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, a charge

impossible to avoid as he was seen on CCTV and the car was registered

to him.

His friend did not plead guilty to causing death by dangerous

driving or indeed to racing his car despite the fact that his Audi car

was so close to the vehicle that hit James it was splashed with

James's blood.

After a long and painful trial which James's

parents had to sit through, they received

an eight-year sentence for

what they had done.

It was clear the judge recognised the severity of this crime and his

inability to charge them with more.

A Labour MP spoke of a case in her constituency.

The killer got six years of which he

will probably only serve three.

When he comes out at the age of 21 he

will be younger than Joseph was when he took his life.

It seems to me perverse even if we cannot try more cases as

manslaughter the maximum penalty for what is clearly manslaughter,

these gentlemen killed James Gilbey as surely as if they'd thrown

a knife or fired a gun.

Their weapon of choice happened to be two tonnes of steel.

Surely the maximum tariff for the worst kind of

dangerous driving should be lifetime imprisonment.

I can only end by reading out what James's

father said, I want my son, to shake his hand, laugh and chat with

him over a pint.

But I cannot.

All I can do is kiss the earth, hold his

ashes, talk to pictures and light candles.

That

That is

That is not

That is not enough.

The Justice Minister, said the independent sentencing

council would review motoring offences involving

death or serious injury.

As the Prime Minister made clear last week, there are deep

concerns around the law of dangerous driving and the sentencing powers

currently available to the courts.

For too long, these concerns have not been acted upon.

So I would like today reaffirmed this government's

commitment to consulting on the penalties for dangerous driving

offences.

This consultation will begin before the end of the year.

Blameless victims and their families must total confidence in our

criminal justice system.

To those people our message is clear, this

government is committed to making sure sentencing for those who kill

or seriously injure on our roads fit the crime.

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

Still to come...

Should we be welcoming Chinese input in the building

of a new nuclear power station?

It's too early to say whether the ending of hostilities

in Syria will be maintained, following the brokering

of a temporary deal by the US and the Russians

in Geneva last weekend. The monitoring group -

the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights - said it had

recorded no civilian deaths in the first 15 hours of the truce.

And the Syrian Army says it is implementing the truce.

Residents in the embattled city of Aleppo reported calm.

Humanitarian groups are hoping to make aid deliveries

to the worst-hit areas, including Aleppo.

In the House of Lords, a LibDem peer wanted to know

what the UK's involvement would be over the next few days.

Can I enquire about the British contribution in making

sure that this does move beyond the initial ceasefire

into humanitarian aid and positive diplomacy?

Do we expect that RAF aircraft from Cyprus will play a role

in monitoring who is using Syrian airspace during the ceasefire

and in providing the humanitarian aid that is so desperately needed?

In relation to air strikes, as he is aware, the United Kingdom

has made air strikes against Daesh in the context

of the global coalition.

Our relationship with that global coalition continues, but we, along

with all parties to the coalition, will be watching very closely how

the cessation or ceasefire proceeds and, very particularly,

in the hope that it remains stable and enduring, that further

progress can then be made as outlined in the agreement

between the United States and Russia.

It is only appropriate to regard the leadership and governance

of Syria as a matter entirely for the Syrian people

and therefore to ignore the call for President Assad's removal

as a precondition of negotiations, which one occasionally hears

from Saudi Arabia and, indeed to some extent,

the United States, just as one hears opposition to that

from Iran and the soviet Union.

from Iran and the Soviet Union.

There's no question he is a barbaric dictator,

one who's acted unspeakably, but Northern Ireland,

amongst other experiences, shows that you do not set

preconditions for negotiations and, if you do,

those negotiations never occur.

Why would the government of Syria actually come to the negotiation

table if a precondition from the UK and others

is their president could not be present?

Well, I didn't say he should stand down now.

What I did say was that the view of the United Kingdom government

has been consistent - that we do not consider

he can be part of the long-term future in Syria.

Will Her Majesty's government take account of the fact that he has

presided over the use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons?

Weapons of course which are essentially

of indiscriminate destruction.

In those circumstances, I hope Her Majesty's government

will give very careful attention to the extent to which he may be

thought to be a suitable part of any lasting peace settlement.

May I say to the Nobel Lord that the Assad regime is responsible

for the crisis in Syria?

I mean, over 400,000 Syrians have died so that Assad can

hold onto power and, um, his tactics and the tactics

of his regime do include, in my opinion, appalling conduct -

sieges, chemical attacks, indiscriminate attacks

on civilian areas - and that is why the United Kingdom

government considers that President Assad cannot be a part

of the long-term future in Syria. He must step down.

Lady Goldie.

"He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon."

A Tory backbencher alluded to the familiar proverb

when the Commons considered the news that the Government was delaying

the final decision on Hinkley C.

If approved on this site on the North Somerset coast,

the Hinkley C project would be the first new nuclear plant

to be built in the UK in 20 years.

Construction will provide 25,000 jobs.

Contracts were due to be signed in late July, but at the last

moment, the Energy Secretary said the Government was reviewing

the Hinkley plan.

The ?18 billion cost is being financed by the French

energy firm EDF and the Chinese.

And it was the Chinese input that was causing most concern

to one MP.

May I say how strongly I support the Prime Minister's decision on this?

Given that China persists in trying to hack, not only state agencies,

but our commercial companies, and has put two fingers up

to the Arbitration Court in the Hague, which has ruled

that their development for military purposes of uninhabited atolls

in the South China Sea is unlawful.

These are people with whom we should sup with a long spoon and may

I commend to my right honourable friend the paper written by

the Intelligence Security Committee under Sir Malcolm Rifkind

three years ago.

Well, I'm grateful to my right honourable friend for his comments.

He will know that the commitment we've made is to look at all parts

of all components of the proposed deal and to make our decision

very shortly and, of course, I'll report back to the House

when we've done that and the reasons why we've taken

whatever decision we do.

Sir Edward Leigh.

The government is very wise to take a deep breath before committing

itself to the massive costs of Hinkley.

Evidence is mounting all the time in terms of new technology.

In particular, fusion rather than fission.

Mini reactors, battery storage.

So I do commend the government for considering this decision

very slowly indeed.

After putting 25,000 highly-skilled jobs at risk,

after jeopardising 500 much-needed stem apprenticeships,

after offending the Chinese government and risking ?18 billion

of investment in the nuclear industry that is a vital part

of our energy mix, after sending shock waves through the investment

community, who now think the Prime Minister doesn't

understand the meaning of fine investment decision,

does the Secretary of State agree with those in the industry,

who say that the Prime Minister's cautious approach now looks

more like dithering?

Well, Mr Speaker, I prefer the Prime Minister's cautious

approach to the approach of the honourable gentleman,

which is completely inconsistent as far as I can see.

He criticises the government for reviewing, quite rightly,

this important decision, but said, at the same time,

that we should take two to three months seriously

to review the decision.

So there is a contradiction in his position.

On my recent summer surgery tour of my constituency of Lanark

and Hamilton East, a number of constituents raised concerns

about the cost to the taxpayer of the Hinkley Point C development.

Barclays estimated that, even if EDF delivers four years late

and 25% over budget, it would still make a profit

on the deal, with the deficit being picked up over the next

35 years by ordinary people.

Does the Minister think that such a gratuitous public subsidy

provides value for the taxpayer?

I do think it is a responsible act on the part of the government

to consider our energy supplies for the future in the long-term.

I know the Scottish Government has turned its face against new nuclear.

We regard that as an important part of a diverse energy mix that gives

resilience to UK consumers.

Greg Clark.

Crticism has been made in Parliament about the lack of any compensation

given to victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA attacks during the years

of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

It's long been known that, during the regime of the former

dictator Colonel Gaddafi, the IRA was supplied

with Semtex explosives and other weapons from Libya.

In Westminster Hall, claims were made that British

victims of Libyan-backed violence had been treated differently

from American victims.

Victims have waited long enough for answers.

They are sick and tired of the dilly-dallying

and the delays.

Many of them are coming to, let's face it, their latter years

Many of them are coming to, let's face it, the latter years

of their lives and they need answers before they pass the immortal tide,

and I think we need to face up to that and face up

to it pretty darn fast.

We in the SDLP support the victims of violence by the IRA using Libyan

weapons and believe that these claims should be worked

through by the Libyan and British governments,

because what happened by Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan

government, in supplying those weapons to the IRA, was both

immoral, unacceptable and wrong, because it created unnecessary death

and destruction, which was never, ever justified.

On Friday, the House of Representatives in America voted

unanimously, as did the Senate in May, to pass into law a bill

known as JASTA - Justice Against State Terrorism -

the Justice Against State Terrorism Act, known as JASTA,

which will empower private citizens of the United States to sue those

involved in state-sponsored terrorism.

In my view, the fact that that was passed unanimously

in Congress throws open the whole issue of state-sponsored terrorism

and its relation to individuals and their ability to seek redress

through the courts.

The big question is the moral case.

We here, in the chamber, are here not just to talk

about legalities and talk about court cases

and precedents and so on.

What we care about is fairness for victims, because so many

years now have elapsed and we are desperate

to get a solution on this.

Were we ever to get anything, any form of compensation from Libya,

I suspect we need to get our heads around the idea

that it will be a single sum.

It would be slid across the table and it would be for the victims'

organisations to actually assess how that is then divided up.

Libyans themselves, those in authority, would not want to be

involved in the detail of how that would then be divided up.

I just share that now, because these are very awkward,

difficult questions to raise.

Tobias Ellwood.

On the day that more details were announced

about the planned reduction in size of the House

of Commons - down from 650

to 600 MPs - the House of Lords increased its size once again.

One of the new peers introduced into the Lords

was the former director of the civil liberties organisation Liberty.

Shami Chakrabarti is a regular panellist on the BBC's Question Time

programme, but her elevation to the Lords proved controversial.

Earlier this year, she led an inquiry into anti-Semitism

in the Labour Party.

Questions were asked about her independence

when it was revealed she'd joined Labour and was being nominated

for a peerage by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

She swore her oath of allegiance in the customary way.

I, Sharmishta, Baroness Chakrabarti, do solemnly, sincerely and truly

declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance

to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors,

according to law.

Lady Chakrabarti. And that's it for this programme.

Do join me for our next daily round-up.

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.