28/03/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday In Parliament,

the main news from Westminster.

There is a sombre mood in the Commons as MPs debate

the prospect for a workable deal in Northern Ireland.

The solution to the current impasse is crucial to the economic

and social, as well as political, welfare, of the children

of Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Parliament voted in favour of a second

referendum on independence.

The First Minister says Brexit has changed everything.

Much that we have come to take for granted over, certainly,

most of my lifetime, the freedom just is one example

to travel easily across Europe is now for negotiation,

with outcomes that are at this point deeply uncertain.

And Tobias Ellwood, who tried to save PC Keith Palmer's life,

responds to the many tributes he's received.

Can I make it clear that I was one of many that stepped forward on that

dark day and our thoughts and prayers remain with those

families and friends of the victims, including our own PC Keith Palmer.

But first, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly

were held at the start of the month.

The idea was for the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein to form

a governing coalition.

But the talks failed to produce a deal by Monday's deadline.

The Northern Ireland Secretary, James Brokenshire, said

it was a source of deep disappointment and regret.

Following the passing of yesterday's legal deadline,

in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has no

devolved administration.

This also means that other elements of the Belfast agreement,

including the North-South bodies cannot operate properly.

The consequences of all of this are potentially extremely serious.

And the most immediate is that we're rapidly approaching the point

at which Northern Ireland will not have an agreed budget.

From tomorrow, a civil servant, the Department

of Finance Permanent Secretary, will exercise powers

that allocate cash to Northern Ireland departments.

But let me be very clear, the situation is not sustainable,

and beyond a short period of time, will have an impact

on public services.

What we're talking about here is the health service,

schools, voluntary groups, services for the most

vulnerable in society.

This isn't what people voted for on the 2nd of March.

He said he was hopeful of a positive outcome from the talks.

If these talks are successful, it would be my intention, quickly,

to bring forward legislation after the Easter recess,

to allow an executive to be formed, avoiding a second assembly election,

for which I detect little public appetite.

Brexit negotiations in Northern Ireland are the most

sensitive in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Michel Barnier, the European Commission's lead negotiator,

has identified the implications for the peace process as one

of the three priorities for him in entering these negotiations.

And we don't even have properly elected spokespeople attending

the talks under the GMC.

And in the background to all this is the worry that any vacuum

could be filled by those for whom the bullet

is preferred to the ballot box.

The parties on the ground need to take a long hard look

at themselves and stop saying, this is what we want,

no matter how legitimate they believe those demands to be,

and start saying, what can we give, to move forward.

It's not easy but it's the only chance we have to resolve this.

There appears to be a presumption against having another election

but that would seem to be where this is headed.

What preparations is he making for that election?

Considering too that the election is going to come in the middle

of Brexit's early negotiations, can you tell us what measures

he is discussing that will allow Northern Ireland's politicians

to play a proper part in those negotiations?

And has he discussed with the Prime Minister the possibility

of delaying the Article 50 trigger?

Although, given the way that Scotland has been

treated on Article 50, I'd advise against anyone

holding their breath on that.

Yesterday, the Democratic Unionist Party was at Stormont, ready,

willing, along with other parties, to form a Government

and set up the executive.

Neither during the election, nor previously, nor now,

have we set preconditions or set down red lines.

We worked in the executive previously, up until November,

and are determined to continue to try to make devolution work

in Northern Ireland.

Because we need a budget and we need functioning devolution.

When Sinn Fein walked away and collapsed the executive

in January, they left us without that budget

and without a functioning executive at a very challenging time.

They did the same yesterday.

Because of its bloody recent history, I think Northern Ireland

has earned the absolute right to have a decent future.

Would my right honourable friend agree with me that a solution

to the current impasse is crucial to the economic and social,

as well as political welfare, of the children of Northern Ireland?

Most, if not all of whom, have never known the dark

days of the third half of the 20th century.

Yes, I do, in terms of that positive outcome, but I think we should be

looking for for young people growing up in Northern Ireland.

That's what Government should be delivering on,

fulfilling their hopes, dreams and aspirations.

We have seen increases in employment, increases

in prosperity in Northern Ireland, and I think that is at the heart

of what everyone would want to see continue.

To the Scottish Parliament now, when the debate on a second

Independence Referendum was concluded.

A vote had been scheduled for last Wednesday afternoon.

But proceedings in the Scottish Parliament

were suspended in the wake of the Westminster terror attack.

Resuming the debate, the Scottish First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon, harked back to the events of last week.

Last week this debate came to a halt in the worst of circumstances.

Almost one week on, our thoughts remain with those affected

by the London atrocity.

It is worth reflecting today on how we all felt last week.

In our shock and sadness, we were reminded of our common

humanity and the core values that unite us.

And we came together to proclaim our commitment to that

most cherished principle of all - democracy.

Today's debate - at its heart - is about democracy.

It is about the right of people in Scotland

to choose our own future.

And she said the debate didn't need to be divisive.

Let us recognise and accept that we are all sincere

in the opinions we hold.

Let us always remind ourselves that the person on the other side

of the debate is not an enemy - simply someone with a different

and valid point of view.

None of us come to this debate with anything other than the best

of intentions and motivations. We all want the best for Scotland.

She said that when Article 50 was triggered, change

for Scotland was inevitable.

The change will be significant and profound.

It is change that will impact on our economy -

not just in the here and now but for the long term.

Indeed it was the UK Treasury - ahead of the referendum last year -

that said Brexit would make the UK 'permanently poorer'.

There will be an impact on trade, investment and living standards,

and on the very nature of the society we live in.

Much that we have taken for granted over, certainly

most of my lifetime - the freedom to travel easily

across Europe, for example, is now up for negotiation,

with outcomes that are at this point deeply uncertain.

If this debate has so far served one purpose, it has been tissue by most

If this debate has so far served one purpose, it has

been to show why most

people in Scotland don't want the Government and this

Parliament to be sidetracked by the division and rancour of yet

another referendum campaign.

Despite some honourable speeches from all sides of the Chamber,

this Parliament last week added precisely nothing to

the sum of human knowledge on Scottish independence.

LAUGHTER.

The First Minister says she wants the UK could to get a good Brexit

deal but no matter how good it is, she still wants to push

for independence anyway.

Whereas our view and the UK Government's view remains this,

at a time of enormous uncertainty, where it is only three years

since the last vote, when we were told it would be once

in a generation, that the decision of the Scottish people would be

respected by both sides.

There would be no rerun without there being overwhelming

change in public opinion, and that the people in Scotland

have the right to see the Brexit process play out,

they need to see it operating, to see it working in practice

and that, at this moment, we should be pulling

together, not hanging apart.

I welcomed the First Minister's remarks about the opportunity we had

to have this debate and discuss it with civility and decency.

And can I urge Ruth Davidson to reconsider her approach

when we have a chance to reset this debate?

APPLAUSE.

Because last week, we came together to remember those

who lost their lives or were injured in the Westminster terror attack,

we united in our condemnation of a barbaric act and reaffirmed our

commitment to the values of tolerance and integration,

freedom and solidarity.

She said the Conservative Party had caused a lot of division.

That set Scotland against England in the General Election

and whose reckless Brexit gamble brought us to this point,

where leaving the EU just provide the SNP with the latest excuse

it was looking for to push for another referendum.

So, some humility from the Tories and a genuine desire to properly

engage with this place wouldn't go amiss.

After a few hours of debate, members of the Scottish Parliament

voted by 69 to 59 in favour of the SNP motion.

The motion authorises the Scottish Government to seek

permission for a referendum from the UK Government.

Theresa May has previously said, however, that now is not the time.

Back to Westminster now, where Labour has secured an

emergency debate on Government plans to introduce restrictions on who can

claim the disability benefit personal independence payments.

The House of Lords has agreed a motion,

calling on ministers to reconsider the changes.

The Shadow Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams,

complained there had been no debate in the Commons.

I seek leave to propose the House should debate a

specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration,

namely changes to Personal Independence Payment regulations.

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, on the 23rd of February,

the Government introduced new regulations to change

the way disabled people or people with a chronic mental health

condition, would be assessed for eligibility to personal

independence payments.

The Government's own analysis estimates the change will

affect more than 160,000 people, the majority of whom have

mental health conditions, who will not be able to

access the full support, they would have been

entitled to under the tribunal's ruling.

An effective cut of ?3.7 billion.

These regulations were laid down without any

consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and

despite repeated efforts, without any debate in this Chamber.

I am satisfied that the matters raised by

the honourable member is proper to be discussed, understanding order

number 24.

Has the honourable member leave of the House?

ALL: Aye!

The honourable member has obtained the leave of the House.

I am most grateful to honourable members for their voluntary

stand-up.

However, it was in fact superfluous. LAUGHTER.

Required only in the event of indications of opposition.

Nevertheless, the position is extremely clear, the debate will be

held tomorrow, Wednesday 29th of March, as the first item of public

business.

Voters in Manchester Gorton will elect a new MP on

Thursday the 4th of May, following the death

of Sir Gerald Kaufman.

Sir Gerald was the longest serving member of the Commons or Father of

the House.

The Labour Chief Whip, Nick Brown, moved the writ for

the by-election at the start of the day's business.

I beg to move that Mr Speaker do issue his warrant for

the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ

for the electing of a member to serve in this present

Parliament for the borough constituency of Manchester Gorton,

in the room of the Right Honourable Sir Gerald Bernard Kaufmann,

deceased.

Nick Brown starting the process for a by-election in

Manchester Gorton.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament with me Christina Cooper.

The Foreign Office minister, Tobias Ellwood, has received

widespread tributes for coming to the aid

of PC Keith Palmer, who was

killed in the terror attack at Westminster last week.

He was among several people who rushed to attend

to PC Palmer after the attack.

He said he was heartbroken that PC Palmer died.

This session of Foreign Office Question Time was the

first occasion since the attack on which Tobias

Ellwood has appeared on

the frontbench.

Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornbury, took the

opportunity to praise his actions.

May I start by paying tribute to the minister,

the honourable member for

Bournemouth East, for his extraordinary courage last week.

As PC Palmer's family said this weekend to the minister

and to others who rushed to help, there was nothing more you could

have done.

You did your best and we are just grateful that he was not

alone.

I'm very grateful for her kind remarks.

I make it clear that I was one of many that stepped forward

I want to pay my own tribute, if I can, to my right honourable

friend and ministerial colleague, the member for Bournemouth east,

and of course, also to all those innocents who lost their lives

or were injured last week.

Over the centuries, many people has tried to attack this Parliament

and none has shaken our faith in our values of freedom and

democracy which inform our policies.

And talking of policies, the Foreign Secretary was questioned

over claims that the British intelligence gathering centre,

GCHQ ,carried out surveillance on Donald Trump during the US

presidential election campaign.

Boris Johnson called the allegations absurd and ridiculous and insisted

they would not undermine the relationship between the UK

and US intelligence agencies.

What damage, Mr Speaker, is done by fantastical

and ridiculous outbursts like those of President Trump levelled at GCHQ?

And can the Foreign Secretary assure this House that the invaluable

intelligence relationship between us and the United States is not

compromised by the current incumbent of the White House?

The damage done by such remarks can be likened to that of a gnat

against a rhinoceros or an elephant.

It is not something that will make any difference

to a fundamental relationship that, as I say, is of great

international importance.

As for the assertion that there was some sort

of collusion by GCHQ to bug the presidential candidate,

I think that has been accurately described as absurd and ridiculous.

THE SPEAKER: Keith Simpson.

Can I just bring the Foreign Secretary down to earth.

The core element of the Anglo-American relationship is based

upon Five Eyes and intelligence.

President Trump's allegation, repeated from Fox News,

was not a gnat at a rhinoceros.

It was deeply damaging and I would be grateful

if the Foreign Secretary would tell the House exactly what comments

he made to refute that with the president or senior members

of the White House?

I must respectfully disagree with my honourable friend's

characterisation of the episode.

I believe it has certainly done no lasting damage to our relationship,

certainly not to the special relationship, and not

to intelligence sharing, which will carry on between our

countries and as I say, a relationship that is of huge value

to the security of the West.

As for the allegations themselves, let me repeat, they are utterly

ridiculous and should be ignored.

Now as the Government was poised to trigger talks

on the UK's exit from the EU, several Brexit-backing MPs

were reported to have politely walked out of a private meeting

of the Commons Brexit committee.

Those MPs are said to have refused to back a proposed report,

because it was too gloomy.

Following the walkout this morning by members

of the Brexit Select Committee, does he agree with me that

far from being gloomy, we should agree with Marcelle Lamme

and Wolfgang Shauble that it would be more damaging to Europe

than to the UK if there wasn't a success made out of Brexit?

May I congratulate my right honourable friend on the spirit

he has taken, which is very much the spirit the Prime Minister is

going to adopt in the negotiations.

I believe she'll be absolutely vindicated,

because I think our friends and partners on the other

side of the Channel understand exactly that.

I'm worried about the Foreign Secretary as to whether he's now

excluded from Cabinet decision making, as to when he told

Robert Peston, a week past Sunday, that no deal from Brexit would be

totally OK, while his Cabinet colleague was simultaneously telling

another station it would be really bad for Britain in Europe.

What estimates, what forecasts, official, has he seen or any,

which led him to believe and to say to Robert Peston that no deal

from Brexit would be perfectly OK?

I think that the right honourable gentleman

will recognise the Prime Minister is going into these negotiations

in a spirit of optimism and positivity that I think

he could learn a little bit from.

I've absolutely no doubt that there will be a great

deal for this country, because a great deal for this

country is what is finally in the interests of the rest

of our friends and partners on the other side of the Channel,

who have a huge amount to gain.

Now the head of a recruitment agency has accused the tax authorities

of failing to crack down on scams using his industry to exploit

staff and avoid tax, even when they're told about them.

Adrian Gregory of the Extraman Agency in West London was giving

evidence to the Business Committee, which is investigating

employment practices.

The chair, Ian Wright, read out a statement

Mr Gregory had submitted.

...suggest that my particular part of recruitment industry,

that dealing with unskilled industrial staff currently

operates with little regard for the law, and none whatever

for any ethical considerations.

A pernicious cocktail of inadequate, impractical and muddled legislation,

combined with a complete disregard for the rights and welfare

of the very people, the temporary staff,

who earn agencies their money, has led to mass exploitation coupled

with huge tax avoidance.

That's an astonishing statement.

Adrian Gregory explained that rival agencies had developed scams

to avoid paying staff.

You have to be available for work at all times.

So the agency had a system whereby you could get a text at 2am saying

we have work available.

You would be expected to get up and say yes,

I'm available and in theory, go to work.

Obviously, it was evident there was no work actually available.

They had to keep giving the invitations to work just

so that they could say to the temporary worker, we didn't

pay you between assignments because you didn't respond

to our text at 2am on Saturday morning offering you work, therefore

you're in breach of contract.

They even had a belt and braces clause whereby if you did reply

to every single text, you got during the course

of the week, they would offer you six hours cleaning in Blackpool,

which was 50 miles away and take two buses and two trains to get

to and therefore you'd spend more money than you would earn.

He said Her Majesty's Revenue Customs was a standing joke among

employment agencies because it kept allowing the biggest

culprits off the hook.

I was going to say, it shouldn't be underestimated the fact

that HMRC has a very, very culpable role in

allowing the agency world to develop as it has.

It does absolutely nothing, or nothing visible, to curtail

the use of the most outlandish schemes that man has ever devised.

Also giving evidence was Jennifer Hardy from

the recruitment agency Transline.

There was investigations by BuzzFeed and by BBC

about annualised contracts, about flexing, about workers

possibly being disciplined if they couldn't commit

to short-term announcements on work.

Has that changed?

The ASOS warehouse, I believe, is a very -

is a good example of a warehouse, in my opinion.

It's not somewhere that I frequent that often,

so I would need to see - I would need to gain

evidence from someone who actually is frontline.

However, yes, I do think that if those instances did happen,

then I do believe that process is better than having engaged

with the union as I said.

So they are making very positive steps in that direction.

So things have changed?

I'm not saying that there was anything, from what I know of,

yes, I would say if there was something there found in

the first place, yes, it's changed.

I'm not in a position to answer that question really.

But that's a bit curious.

You're the representative of Transline here who

provide agency workers.

I would expect you to have a flavour ever was going on there.

That would be a question, I do believe my team on the ground

work very closely with the ASOS team on a day-to-day basis and high

level within - ASOS - our customer isn't actually ASOS.

You have been before us before, Jennifer.

You sort of know what we're like.

Didn't you do any checks with your representatives at ASOS

to say what's happened since the summer?

Of course.

Can you tell us what they are.

That's not something I would necessarily be party

to on a day-to-day basis.

We have an infrastructure, a operational team

that deals with that.

I don't think it's particularly - I'm happy to come back

and answer that question.

OK.

I do find it astonishing that you didn't do the prep,

the homework beforehand in respect of that.

We end in the House of Lords, where a Labour peer was taken aback

at the Government's reaction to her proposals to change the law

on money held by letting agents.

Lady Hater conducted a review into how best

to protect people's money.

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name

in the order paper.

My Lord's I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord, Lord Palmer,

for their time and commitment to the client money

protection review.

I'm pleased to announce that the Government intends to make

client money protection mandatory in line with the recommendation

of the review chaired by the noble Baroness and noble Lord Palmer.

This will ensure that every agent is offering the same level

of protection giving tenants and landlords the financial

protection that they deserve.

The Government, my Lords, will protect on how manneder

to client money protection should be implemented and enforced.

That's taken the wind out of my sail!

LAUGHTER

Will the noble Lord, the minister, accept my thanks.

The House will recall that we put into the housing bill

the reserve power to do this, but at that point the Government

weren't quite convinced.

We did the report along with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer,

we made the recommendation, only published yesterday.

So today's news is really good for tenants and for landlords,

because it means that if any letting agent goes bust or makes off,

their money is safe.

So I hope he will accept my thanks.

My Lords, I certainly will.

If I may say, so that was a typically gracious response

from the noble lady.

It was a very well reasoned report and called on many,

many people to give evidence.

It was very strongly evidence based.

As I say, we will be consulting on implementation and enforcement

and I'm sure that we can talk about it in the meantime.

The spirit of cooperation on display there in the House of Lords.

An uplifting note on which to end Tuesday in Parliament.

I'll be back at the same time tomorrow.

Until then, from me, Christina Cooper, goodbye.