24/01/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to choose day in Parliament. The main news in

Westminster, the judges have spoken. It's up to Parliament to make a

decision on triggering Brexit. I can announce today that we will shortly

introduce legislation allowing the Government to move ahead with

invoking Article 50, which starts the formal process of withdrawing

from the European Union. Some MPs want to be clear about what they are

voting for. I would like a white Paper which we can debate. It will

bring us together, I would say to my right honourable friend. What does

my right honourable friend have to lose with a debate on it? Also on

the programme, the Government is refusing to talk about a failed

Trident missile test, but there are other sources. I could phone up Mr

Putin can I did a favour for him once rescuing his submariners when

they were drowning and I'm sure he would tell me. I surely would know

the date... But first, the Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament

would need formal approval before leaving the European Union.

Explaining the decision of a 96 page judgment, the president of the

Supreme Court said withdrawal from the EU would effect a fundamental

change and altar legal rights. He said that such changes to the UK's

constitutional arrangements should be clearly authorised by Parliament.

Having lost the court case, the Government was quick off the mark

with its next move. Brexit secretary David Davis said a bill would be

introduced within days. This Government is determined to deliver

on a decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom in the referendum

granted by this house to leave the European Union. So we will move

swiftly to do just that. I can announce today that we will

introduce legislation allowing the Government to move ahead with

invoking Article 50, which starts the formal process of withdrawing

from the European Union. He said the bill would be straightforward. It's

not about whether or not the UK should leave the European Union,

that decision has already been made by the people of the United Kingdom.

We will work with colleagues in both houses to ensure this bill is passed

in good time for us to invoke Article 50 by the end of March this

year. This is a good day for Parliamentary sovereignty. The

Supreme Court has ruled that we shall have a say in this house on

the Article 50 issue. Given the issues involved, that is quite right

and the Prime Minister was wrong to have attempted to sideline

Parliament in this process. This bill is only to be introduced

because the Prime Minister has been ordered to do so. He said it was a

question of substance, not process. Last week the Prime Minister

committed herself to swapping the known benefits of single market

membership of the customs union for the hoped-for benefits of a

agreement. With a fallback position of breaking our economic model. --

of the free trade agreement. That is high risk. There are big gaps in

consistency is an unanswered questions in the Prime Minister's

approach. Mr Speaker, if the Prime Minister fails in her endeavour, the

cost will be borne by families, working people and communities

throughout the UK. The stakes are high and the role of this house in

holding the Prime Minister and the Government to account throughout the

process is crucial. The Supreme Court ruled that the administrations

in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do not need to be consulted

before Brexit is triggered, but the SNP is still welcomed the main

judgments. There was a time when the Secretary of State himself was a

great champion of parliamentary sovereignty, in the distant past...

I'm sure that deep down inside he will be welcoming this judgment as

well. And I'm wondering why they fear parliamentary scrutiny? Is it

because they will be found out? Is it because we will find out the

emperor has no clothes? Because we talk of democracy but let me remind

the Secretary of State of this. When it comes to Scotland, the

Conservatives got their worst ever result at the general election since

1865. You have one MP! Will the Secretary of State now agreed to

accept the unanimous recommendation of the Brexit Select Committee and

in the process, agree with himself before he got this job? And now

publish a White Paper on the Government's objectives, so that

these can be considered alongside the legislation that he has just

announced. Because if the Government does not do so, then I have to say

to him it will be showing a lack of respect for this House of Commons. I

don't often disagree with myself but let me say this to the honourable

, The Right Honourable gentleman. The speech given last week by the

Prime Minister was the clearest exposition of a negotiating strategy

I have seen in modern times. It laid out very clearly what we judge the

national interest to be, how we intend to protect it, what we want

to do, what we hope does not happen, how we're going to go about avoiding

that too. So I don't see that this Government has avoided answering any

question, either from his committee or indeed the front bench. Does the

Minister accept it my view that the public want us to get on with this

and actually carry out what they voted for? Does he also accept too

that the public will not look kindly on amendments brought in by parties

who want another referendum to delay unnecessarily, but do want perhaps a

member and is that clarify and make us all more aware of the

Government's intentions? If someone votes against sending the Article 50

ladder, aren't they voting against restoring the very parliamentary --

Parliamentary sovereignty that they called in aid? Doesn't the British

public want the pattern and answering to Brussels? I would like

a White Paper which we can debate. It will bring us together, I say to

my right honourable friend, what does my right honourable friend have

to lose with a debate? Let me say this, do the honourable lady. She

holds passionately a very well formed a view on the matter, that

firstly in terms of bringing people together, a large part of the Prime

Minister's speech was aimed at creating the sense of this country

which everybody can get behind. David Davis. And later in the

programme, we will hear what the House of Lords had to say about the

Brexit judgment. Now, MPs have been told that the Government's refusal

to confirm reports of a failed Trident missile test may be due to

pressure by the United States. Defence Secretary sur Michael Fallon

refuses to discuss any details of a test reportedly carried out in June.

He told MPs that the Government had absolute confidence in the UK's

nuclear weapons system. Appearing before the defence committee, an

expert suggested there had been a problem with the missile's guidance

system. American sources only now reporting in the American press on

CNN that the missile, quote "Had to be diverted into the ocean to

self-destruct", which suggests that it may have been heading for land if

it had to be diverted into the ocean, if that statement is

technically correct. So it does suggest, if that is true, that there

was a fairly major telemetry failure that the missile may have not just

been uncertain in its flight but may have genuinely been going on the

wrong track. Professor Clarke said the missiles were made by the US

firm Lockheed Martin. There have been 161 successful tests since

1989. There were five failures before 1989, when the missile was in

a bigger testing phase. So in total, there have been six failed tests,

five of them before 1989 and one of them since then, which is the 162nd

test failure. Lockheed Martin are certainly, I think, embarrassed

about this. There has been a certain amount of journalistically reported

pressure from the United States on the UK Government not to say too

much about this because clearly it must worry the Americans as well.

One failure out of 162 is very small but the fact that it has never

failed before may raise questions about the adequacy of the checking

of the manufacturer. Also appearing before the committee was a former

head of the Royal Navy, who has also been a security minister. He said

missile tests were not carried out in secret. First of all we have to

inform all of the aviators, civil airline people. Also we have an

agreement when we do these firings, that we warn Russia so that we don't

-- they don't think we're starting world War three. They are very aware

this is what is to happen. We don't even know what date the tests took

place on but I have heard a suggestion that it was on the 20th

of June. Are you in a position to know... I absolutely don't know. But

I see no reason, I personally can see no reason whatsoever... I could

probably phone up Mr Putin, I did a favour for him once rescuing his sub

Mariners when they were drowning and ask him what it is about sure he

would tell me. He certainly would be able to know the date. Would you

have thought it at all likely that if a missile firing had gone wrong,

as this one apparently did, that such a matter could be kept secret,

given number of observers who would have seen what happened? I think

anyone who thought that could be done was being very stupid and

foolhardy. It's all very well being upfront and transparent about these

things but we have agreed that there is a sort of relative scale of

transparency, certain things that you cannot be transparent about...

Absolutely. All the trials we did with the type 45s, you don't tell

anyone about that, of course you don't. But this is quite a comedian

no, this is a big bonanza occasion, we do this once every four years, it

was inevitably going to come out. If anyone thought it wasn't going to

come out, they were in cloud cuckoo land. And back to Professor Clarke.

Do you think that anything we have discussed in our two sessions today

has in any way undermined the secrecy or security Britain's

nuclear deterrent? Can you think of any good reason why a similar

discussion couldn't have been held before yesterday? Absolutely not,

chairman. There is an old rule in politics that it is not the failure

that does the damage, it is the cover-up or the perception of a

cover-up. In this case I agree with Admiral West, this whole issue is

not in anyway undermining the deterrent. It may be doing damage to

the Government because it has not been handled particularly well. Now,

violence in prisons is an old problem but it has escalated in

recent months. The prison service is on a major recruitment drive,

including a new graduate scheme. Some jails are experimenting with

novel ways to tackle the violence, such as paying some inmates to

monitor the behaviour of others. Violence in prisons has been a

problem for decades. Was it really wise to cut the number of prison

officers by a quarter in the last six years, given these problems? I

would be delighted to have a conversation with my honourable

friend about his experience looking at these issues, because he is aptly

be right. They have been a problem for a number of years and it will

take time to build up the front line and recruit those 2500 additional

officers. But we have faced recently is new challenges, with psychoactive

substances, with drones, with mobile phones. We are taking action to deal

with those but it is vitally important we have staff on the front

who can rear -- reform offenders and also keep

our prisons save. The level is unprecedented in the years I've been

in this house. Following on from the honourable gentleman from

Gainsborough, would she confirmed that the figures to September meant

a loss of 417 prison officers, and when she says she has to recruit

2500, does she not mean that in the next 12 months she has to recruit

4000 to make those 2510 she do that? The honourable gentleman is

absolutely right, we do need to recruit 4000 officers over the next

year. I announced initially that we were recruiting officers for ten of

the most challenging prisons and we have already made job offers to

almost all of those 400, so we are making good progress. We've recently

launched a graduate scheme, Unlock. Within 24 hours of announcing that

scheme, we had expressions of interest from over 1000 candidates.

It is challenging to recruit those numbers of officers but we are

absolutely determined to do it because it is what we need to do, to

be able to determine -- turn our prisons round and make them places

of safety and reform. Some prisons including Her Majesty 's prison in

Birmingham, they are using prisoners who are paid to monitor other

inmates. The stakeholders we have spoken to suggest that somewhere in

care and compliance, themselves meeting out violence and troublesome

inmates, what assessment has she made of their use?

The honourable lady refers to those violence reduction programmes and I

have seen them in place in a number of prisons where they can be very

effective. Because, often it is peer to peer support that can help turn

prisoners around. However, they need to be carefully managed and

monitored and my expectation is that that is the role of the prison

governor to make sure those systems are in place. You are watching

Tuesday in Parliament. Coming up, what may happen if Parliament blocks

Brexit. They'll be no option for those of us who voted to Leave other

than to take to the streets probably breaking things. The home affairs

committee is continuing its investigation into one of the big

factors in the Brexit vote, migration. One Labour committee

member said there was no point in setting net migration targets which

could not be met. Take -- I think there is broad consensus, however

you voted last year, that there is a desire in all parts of the UK for

more control over immigration system. But does not to undermine

the sense of control to persist with a target you continually fail to

meet? Lord Greene, you are asked about that in the past tense. You

supported it when it was introduced. How can you carry on supporting a

target, which, even if you take EU citizens out of the equation, the

Government is not going to meet? Has not met. Yes, we certainly have

supported it and we continue to for these reasons. One is that it is a

very effective means of focusing public opinion on an issue we think

needs attention. Secondly, it introduces an element, if you like,

of democratic accountability. This is now firmly in the public mind.

I'm not sure it can be helpful for a Government to abandon it. With the

greatest respect, Lord Greene, what it is is an effective means of

undermining the confidence of people in the system. It is ludicrous to

suggest that somehow it has helped achieve the targets, because the

target has never been met thus far. Well, it it certainly underline the

failure to reach the target, that is clear. What organisation sets itself

up to fail year after year, surely that is stupid? Yes, if that's was

the case, which I'm not sure it is. So they haven't failed? I'm saying

in the future that may not be the case, for a number of reasons. One

is the proposal we make to reduce net migration by 100,000 a year for

a start. Please explain why the Government maintains this ludicrous

target. I'm not the position to do that, because we've criticised the

target ever since was introduced. We acknowledge the fact that, you know,

it helps public accountability and the Government understand the

objective. However, it's created a whole set of quite perverse

incentives. A Conservative said Poland had one of the best education

systems in the EU and received EU funds. We have the observed

situation in which we are paying money to the Polish people to

educate to a high level their students in order for a lot of them,

the high skilled ones, to then leave Poland in a brain drain and come to

the UK, where, by and large, they are employed below their skill

level. That may be good for us, although having somebody picking

turnips in Norfolk with a Ph.D. Is a huge waste of human skills, but it

is a net detriment, surely, to Poland? So free movements from

Labour -- of labour from Poland, surely this is completely

unsustainable for that country? I think what you've described is

pretty accurate. It was entirely this European fixation with free

movement of goods, capital and labour that they were not prepared

to shift. I'm particularly not prepared to shift they were certain

the British were going to stay anywhere. They were wrong. The child

poverty unit was set up some 20 years ago by the previous Labour

Government. It was run across three Government departments, work and

pensions, education and the Treasury. Now it is part of the

Department for Work and Pensions, prompting claims the political focus

on reducing child poverty has diminished. The abolition of the

cross departmentally unit is widely seen as downgrading and weakening.

The Government machinery dedicated to the eradication of child poverty.

The Minister explain how the abolition of a cross departmentally

unit, co-sponsored by the Department for Education is consistent with the

Government's own analysis of the root causes of poverty as parlour

lying in children's education and achievement? Surely it is -- a's own

approach to reject what it calls a narrow, income -based approach

strengthens rather than weakens a case for a cross departmental unit.

The purpose of the child poverty unit was to measure those income

related target set up by the previous Government. Those targets

are a waste of time and we got rid of them. We have now set up

something better, and that is the social mobility commission, based on

the Department for Education and as I said in my original and so, the

appropriate measure for these things should be parental responsibility

and children's educational attainment and those of the two we

will look out. The last Labour Government lift the 1 million

children out of poverty and that record is unarguable. The resolution

foundation has estimated that in 2060 alone, 1 million children extra

will be forced into poverty, mostly from working households. How on

earth can any Government be proud of such a record? Particularly one that

says it is in favour of those who were just about managing? On the

measures the previous Labour Government sets forth, we found that

in a recession, the number of children in poverty went down and

when incomes are rising, it went up. It wasn't measuring the correct

thing. We end where we started, with the Supreme Court's ruling that

Parliament must give formal approval before the UK Government can start

the Brexit process. The Government will soon be producing a Bill which

must be approved by the Commons on the laws. This was a completely

unnecessary legal procedure. If the Government are brought forward a

bill which the court has forced upon them shortly after the referendum,

it would now be safely enacted, and much time and effort and cost would

have been saved. It is of course a sign of the robustness of our

constitutional arrangement, that a private citizen can require the

Government against its will to play by the rules. But it's greatly to

the Government's discredit that this was ever necessary. He explains what

action the Lib Dems would be taking. We will therefore be seeking to

amend the bill to provide for a referendum to be held and we know

the terms which the Government has been able to negotiate. The

Government may have a mandate to stop Brexit negotiations, it

certainly does not have a mandate to impose harsh Brexit terms on the

country. In referring to the Government's commitment to work with

the devolved administrations, there's an opportunity arising from

the white paper published here in London yesterday morning by the

Welsh First Minister, with support from Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems,

based on the possibility of a single market. This may well be the

difficulties being faced in both Scotland and Northern Ireland and

will he give a firm assurance that the details of these proposals will

be carefully considered. It gives me an opportunity to say yes, if he

would like to meet, he can, I can also take this opportunity to say

the proposals issued by the Scottish Government also been giving careful

consideration and we will continue to cooperate and consult with those

representatives of the Northern Irish Assembly and devolved

administrations in Scotland and Wales. Does my noble friend except

that if the Parliament accepted the advice of the labour Lord, Lord

Harris and trees of the referendum as adviser and decided this country

should not leave the EU, And that advice from the Archbishop

of Canterbury on how to achieve a peaceful Brexit brings us to the end

of Tuesday in Parliament. Join us again for another round-up of the

news in Westminster. Until then, from me, Christina Cooper, goodbye.