18/07/2016 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday in Parliament.

The main news from Westminster.

On her first Commons outing as Prime Minister,

Theresa May declares she would be prepared to press

the nuclear button.

The whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies know

that we would be prepared to use it.

Several Labour MPs back the Prime Minister but the Labour

leader Jeremy Corbyn argues against nuclear weapons.

issues, have always argued for a nuclear free world.

Also on the programme...

A message to the people of France in the wake

of the attack in Nice last week.

Now, Theresa May has made her first appearance in the House

of Commons as Prime Minister.

I call the Prime Minister!

Since arriving in Number Ten last Wednesday there have

been two major events.

I am sure the whole house will join me in sending our deepest

condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the last

week's horrible attack in Nice.

Innocent people murdered by terrorists who hate the freedom that

we treasure and want nothing more than to destroy our way of life.

We will never be cowed by treasure.

Although the battle against terrorism may be long, the

terrorists will be defeated.

I also want to talk that the serious events

in Turkey.

We have condemned the actions of the military who in

Turkey.

The issue she chose for her first outing as Prime Minister

was the UK's nuclear weapons programme - Trident.

It's an issue around which the Conservative Party can unite.

That's not the case for Labour though.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is strongly opposed

to Trident while many Labour MPs are supporters.

There is no greater responsibility as Prime Minister than ensuring the

safety and responsibility of our people.

That is why I've made first responsibility in this House to move

this motion so that we can get on

with a part of our national-security for generations to come.

For almost half a century, almost every hour or

of every day, our Royal Navy

nucleus of Marines have been patrolling the oceans, unseen and

undetected - our ultimate defence against nuclear attack.

A Labour backer of Trident was quick to speak up.

Will she be reassured that was over she might hear from our front bench,

it remains stepped fastly Labour policy to renew the deterrent while

other countries have the capacity to threaten the United Kingdom and many

of our colleagues will do the right thing for the long-term security of

our nation and a vote to complete the programme that we ourselves

started in government?

Can I commend the honourable gentleman

Can I commend the honourable gentleman for the words he has just

said, he is right.

Keeping our nuclear weapons is necessary for our safety,

that she accept the logic

that every other country must seek to acquire them and does she think

the world would be safer if that was the case?

No,

I don't accept that.

She and members of the Labour Party seem to be the

first to defend the country's enemies and the last to accept...

She said the threats from Russia and North Korea remained real.

We must continually convince any potential aggressors that the

benefits of an attack on Britain are far outweighed by their consequences

and we cannot afford to relax our garden and put our country in

danger.

So is she personally prepared to authorise the nuclear

strike that could kill 100,000 men, women and children?

Yes.

And I have to say to the honourable gentleman,

the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that

we would be prepared to use it.

Unlike some suggestion that we could have a nuclear deterrent but not

actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour Party

front bench.

The Labour leader started by congratulating Theresa May -

and joking about Labour's leadership woes.

I wish her well in that position and I'm glad that her election was quick

and short.

As for replacing Trident, he said the funds involved were massive.

We must also consider the complex both moral and strategic issues of

our country possessing weapons of mass destruction.

There is also the question of its utility.

Do these weapons of mass destruction, because

that is what they are, act as a deterrent to the threats we face,

and that deterrent credible?

The motion, Mr Speaker, says nothing of the costs involved,

which are ballooning ever upwards.

We on these benches, despite our differences

have always argued

for the aim of a nuclear free world.

We might differ on how it can be achieved, but are united in our

commitment to that end.

Last year, party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour

of maintaining the nuclear deterrence.

So why are we not had

hearing that from the dispatch box now?

Party policy is to review our

policies, that is why we have reviews.

The SNP is also opposed to Trident renewal.

It is a poor indictment of the new administration that the first motion

in Parliament is to renew Trident, when there are so many other issues

facing the country in the context of Brexit.

It is obscene that the priority of this government and too

many people on the Labour benches, that at a time of austerity and

uncertainty, it is to spend the lives of pounds on outdated nuclear

weapons that we do not want, do not need and could never use.

With debt, deficit and borrowing levels

forecast to get worse after Brexit, and with more than ?40 billion to be

cut from public services by 2020, spending ?167 billion, or ?179

billion, or ?205 billion, or whatever the number, the government

is not prepared to tell us what it actually is, is an outrage.

After nearly six hours of heated debate, the Commons voted

to continue with the UK's nuclear weapons programme.

The police and intelligence agencies have launched a review of security

measures in the UK in response to last week's attack in Nice.

A Tunisian man killed 84 people by driving a lorry into crowds

celebrating Bastille Day before he was shot dead by French police.

Speaking in the Commons for the first time in her new post

of Home Secretary, Amber Rudd said action was being taken to make sure

large events planned in the UK would be as safe as possible.

On Friday, following the attack in Nice, the police,

intelligence and security agencies took steps to review our

own security measures and ensure that we have robust

procedures in place.

And I am receiving regular updates.

All police forces have reviewed upcoming events taking place

in their regions to ensure that security measures

are appropriate and proportionate.

Amber Rudd condemned the attack as brutal and cowardly and had

a message for the people of France.

What happened in Nice last Thursday was cruel and incomprehensible.

The horror and devastation is something many people will live

with for the rest of their lives.

We know you are hurting, we know this will

cause lasting pain.

So let me be quite clear.

We will stand with you.

We will support you in this fight and together, with our partners

around the world, we will defeat those who seek

to attack our way of life.

This was an act of indiscriminate and sickening brutality,

made all the more abhorrent by the targeting of

families and children.

Ten children and babies were killed, 50 more are still being treated.

Many more have been orphaned and left with lasting psychological

scars.

Unlike other attacks, this one was not planned

by a cell with sophisticated tactics and weapons.

A similar attack could be launched anywhere at any time.

And that is what makes it so frightening and so difficult

to predict and prevent.

He promised a united front against extremism but

questioned elements of the government's strategy.

In the wake of Paris, in her predecessor almost promised

to protect police budgets but that has not been honoured

and there are real terms cut to the police this year.

Will the new Home Secretary pledged today to protect police budgets

in real terms going forward?

She mentions the Prevent programme.

I have to say I do not share her complacent view

of what it is achieving.

In fact, some would say it is counter-productive,

placing a climate of suspicion and mistrust and far

from tackling extremism, creating the very conditions

for it to flourish.

There is nothing complacent on this side of the House about what we do

to address terrorism and dangerous ideology.

I accept that there is always more to do but he should not

underestimate what has been achieved so far by the Prevent strategy.

There are many people who have been deterred from going to Syria.

Michael Gove made his contribution from the backbenches

since his sacking as Justice Secretary last week.

There is a distinction between the ideology of Islamist

extremism that animate organisations like Daesh, and which is driven

by prejudice and hate, and the great religion of Islam.

Which is a religion of peace, which bring spiritual

nourishment to millions.

And is it not vital in the days ahead that while we focus

on countering extremism, we also underlines the benefits

that the faith of Islam has brought to so many.

Questioning turned to how the attacker had been radicalised.

Does she agree with me, whatever the truth of it as it emerges,

the Internet remains a key battle ground in our fight

against terrorism?

And will she do all she can to work with Europol and Interpol to make

the Internet companies do more to take down the subversive videos?

Amber Rudd said the government was doing all it could to stop

the internet being used to radicalise people.

As chair of our group d'amitie between the two parliaments,

may I just encourage my good friend the Secretary of State,

we served on the Council of Europe together on many of these issues,

de donner a nos amis Francais notre solidarite,

nos pensees, et notre encouragement.

Nous sommes avec vous maintenant et pour toujours.

Hear, hear!

My honourable friend is entirely right.

Nous sommes avec vous.

And then I will return to the English, I think.

But I was able to speak to my French counterpart this morning,

Bernard Cazeneuve, and I would also say in part response to the right

honourable gentleman, that of course we will continue our very strong

friendship and mutual support for the French,

whatever the outcome.

Amber Rudd, the new Home Secretary there.

Her appointment formed part of a drastic changing of the guard

last week when Theresa May hired, shifted and fired a host

of Government Ministers.

Several Cabinet Ministers were given new jobs and there were a lot

of changes in the junior ranks, too.

One surprise appointment was Andrew Percy, who has

a reputation for speaking his mind.

Andrew Percy.

Thank you.

I share the House's surprise...

With permission Mr Speaker, I will answer questions

13 and 17 together.

This government remains committed to growth

This government remains committed to growth and infrastructure

While the UK

While the UK remains a member of the EU, current

funding remains unchanged and it will be for the government

to work out the new arrangements for new funds.

There wasn't such a warm welcome, though, from a Labour MP.

He was part of a campaign which not only promised ?350 million a week

for the NHS if we left the European Union.

They also said that any funding would be matched.

Can you confirm that the ?115 million for

the EU is destined for Stoke is underwritten

by this government.

Tell the pottery they are going to get their money!

I am pleased the honourable gentleman

took such an interest in my campaigning.

We have made it clear that while the EU funds have

delivered some important support for growth and jobs, they have only been

a small part in a much larger investment by this government.

It will be for the government to set out in times when we exit the

European Union, the funding arrangements and the guarantees that

we hope to get to get the certainty across government once that process

begins.

Here's another new Minister - Gavin Barwell - answering a question

on the green belt.

The government is committed to strong protection and enhancement

of green belt land.

Most building is inappropriate and should be refused planning

permission unless in very special circumstances.

Philip Davies.

Mayor welcomed the minister although you pointer to no longer

be my whip.

Laughter there because Philip Davies often votes against his party.

I wish the honourable friend good luck and his new whip the best

of luck as well.

He should see a description of the kind of development

which is appropriate in the green belt and a strong view

that the inappropriate development not be approved

except in special circumstances.

One major, but less well publicised, surprise was the departure

of Lady Stowell, who has been Leader of the Lords for two years.

The day in the Lords started with tributes to Lady Stowell.

Labour's leader in the Lords recalled how she handled the same

sex marriage bill.

She brought both political judgment and humour to what might have

been difficult debate.

Who will ever forget her explanation on adultery?

She explained that if she was married to George Clooney

under the then existing law, and I quote, should I wish

to divorce Mr Clooney on those grounds, I would do

so on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

But in future, if the noble Lord, Lord Ali, was to marry Mr Clooney,

and Mr Clooney was to have an affair with me, and she added,

and who would blame him in the circumstances?

That would be adultery and the noble Lord, Lord Ali,

should he choose to, would be able to divorce Mr Clooney

on those grounds.

The wit and careful thought she brought to that debate helped us

all better appreciate the details.

And there was a tribute from the new Leader of the Lords.

It is greatly to her credit that the legislative programme

of the first Conservative government for nearly 20 years was delivered,

despite there being no Conservative majority in this place.

And as a whip on several much debated bills, I have the battle

scars to prove just how difficult that was.

While I am, I know, a newcomer, I have a deep appreciation

and admiration for the important role this House plays

in governing our great country.

I am honoured to have been asked to be a member of the Cabinet

by the new Prime Minister but I'm particularly proud to be leader,

Leader of the House of Lords and by that, I mean leader

of the whole house, not just the Conservative benches.

You're watching Monday in Parliament, with me,

Kristiina Cooper.

The Government has been accused of behaving fraudulently

over its decision to change the terms for students paying

back their university loans.

The threshold at which repayment begins has been frozen at ?21,000.

Previously, the level rose each year in line with average earnings.

An e-petition has so far attracted over 130,000 signatures,

so a debate on the issue was organised.

The worst thing about this decision, it seems

to me, is that it is retrospective,

so that students who took out a loan at the beginning of this process,

and let's remember some of them were only 18 when they did so,

have found the conditions of that loan changed without any right

of appeal or any course to any other relief.

of appeal or any recourse to any other relief.

Now, as people have said quite rightly, if this were a commercial

organisation, they wouldn't be allowed to do that,

but the standards that the government imposes on others,

it seems, it isn't prepared to adhere to itself.

I'm sure the Minister is a literate and intelligent man and can work it

out for himself but, if he looks at the political impact

of this versus the fiscal gain, I think he will see that it's

basically not an objective that is worth pursuing,

because part of the rationale for the government doing this is not

that they wish to be faithless towards students

but that their country's circumstances demand that.

Going on to the country's circumstances, if it is the case,

and the Chancellor has told us several times that the country's

finances are in an upward trend and we are in a more buoyant position.

The Prime Minister said the other day the economy

was left in a very strong position.

Why do we need to do worse things than we did in 2010?

I don't follow the logic.

She made the calculations about what she could afford

on the basis of that trust that she put in the government,

and now she expects to pay thousands more over the life of her loan,

because perhaps in her area of study she's going to graduate

with an incredibly socially useful degree, fulfilling a very positive

and useful role in our society, but isn't necessarily going to be

a high earner.

This is, she said to me, more than just about money.

A retrospective change, she said, will destroy any trust that she has

in the student finance system and, perhaps more significantly,

in the political system as a whole.

In total, 73% of graduates are now expected to never fully pay

off their debts, in comparison with 32% under the old system.

Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that it would take

247 years to repay an NHS loan on a staff nurse's salary.

I know that life expectancy is increasing, but I hadn't quite

realised the government expected it to be on that scale.

The measure doesn't apply in Scotland but one SNP MP

said his email inbox showed his constituents were concerned.

I have never met a nurse or a teacher or a social worker

who enrolled as a student in those professions in order to get rich.

I've never known a student nurse or student teacher or social worker

that could have told me on the day they matriculated or the day

of their graduation how much they expected to get paid

over their lifetime.

It's simply not part of what brings people into these vital and,

all too often, undervalued professions.

So let's stop saying that these changes are minor because they don't

make that much difference

to somebody's long-term lifetime earnings.

They are enough to deter people who are scared of the idea

of leaving university with a student loan debt three times as much

as their first annual pay packet.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue,

but we as a government have to balance the interests

of the students who benefit from higher education and those

of general taxpayers.

We have taken difficult decisions but, in the process,

we've underpinned the financial sustainability of our student

funding system in a manner that enables us to lift student number

controls and ensure that more young people proportionately are able

to benefit from university than ever before.

Now, what role - if any - does Parliament now have

in the process of the UK withdrawing from the European Union?

Members of the House of Lords devoted all of their daily question

time to different aspects of this vexed issue.

There are grave uncertainties in the operation of modern law

concerning the royal prerogative, not least in relation

to going to war and the BBC Charter, but the most pressing

is the requirement relating to the triggering of Article 50

to leave the European Union.

1050 barristers have, most unusually, given free advice

to the nation, that the consent of Parliament is necessary.

Other lawyers say that it is a matter of prerogative alone.

Can the Minister disentangle these competing views and say

whether Parliamentary consent is necessary?

Well, the government's position is that there is no legal obligation

to consult Parliament on triggering Article 50,

and I understand that there is, as the noble Baroness rightly

alluded to, a court case beginning to trundle its way

through the courts, and that will have to make its way.

Beyond what I said, there is nothing further for me to add at this point,

other than what I have just said.

The fact that the government does not legally require the consent

of Parliament does not mean that government cannot bind itself

to seek Parliament's authority before entering

into particular action.

That is what the government has done in relation to entering

into armed conflict.

And can I just put it to my noble friend that sometimes ministers

are not allowed to say things that we all know are perfectly

obvious, that ministers of government must seek the approval

of both Houses of Parliament before notifying under Article 50.

I hear what the noble Lord says.

Given that my noble friend was my first boss, I hear it

very much so.

It is inconceivable that the royal prerogative should be used

to withdraw statutory rights.

Isn't that what we had an argument with Charles I about in

the 17th century?

That's an interesting observation, my lords.

This is not just a matter of the triggering of Article 50.

It's the whole process ahead of us that is a matter of concern to both

Houses of Parliament.

Does the Minister recall that, throughout the referendum campaign,

there were constant calls to restore the sovereignty

of the British Parliament, not least from Messieurs Davis,

Fox and Johnson.

We also were told regularly that we should take back control.

Who is in control?

Is it the British Parliament?

Who is answerable to the British Parliament?

Is it one of those three?

Another Minister had a shot at answering

these constitutional questions.

Parliament is sovereign but, of course, the executive has certain

prerogative powers, which it exercises in international legal

matters, including the making and unmaking of treaty,

and that remains the position.

Now, last Friday the funeral of Labour MP Jo Cox took place.

Jo Cox was stabbed and shot just over a month ago

in her constituency, Batley and Spen.

Her death caused shock and horror in the UK and across the world.

At her funeral, hundreds of people lined the streets of Batley

to pay their respects.

Jo Cox leaves behind her husband, Brendan, and two children.

The Speaker, John Bercow, shared one example of how her death

is being commemorated.

I have received a letter from the President of the Chamber

of Deputies of Italy, telling me that her chamber has

established a cross-party committee on intolerance,

xenophobia, racism and hate crime, and have decided to name it

the Cox Committee after our colleague,

Jo Cox.

In the president's words, and I quote, through this act,

we will contribute to keeping the memory of Jo Cox

and of what she stood for alive.

The Speaker telling MPs about the creation

of the Cox Committee in the Italian Parliament.

Well, that's it from Monday in Parliament.

Alicia McCarthy will be here for the rest of the week but,

from me, Kristiina Cooper, goodbye.

Good morning.

A summer scorcher on the way for most of you but then again

Monday wasn't too bad.

We had some cloud in northern parts of the country,

sunshine elsewhere, temperatures widely in the mid-to-high 20s,