05/12/2016 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday in Parliament.

Despair over the poor quality of rail services

Jobs are being lost. This situation is intolerable.

Labour rejects Government plans to give social workers new ways

Nobody in the profession believes that privatisation is the answer.

And the Lords wrestle with a longstanding problem -

The only acceptable method of reducing the size of a House of

parliament is democracy. MPs have been venting

the frustration felt by passengers Management and employees

from Southern Rail are battling over the introduction of what's called

"driver only operation". The unions - Aslef and the RMT -

say conductors are needed as well as drivers to ensure

the safety of passengers. But managers say drivers can take

sole responsibility for safety. The dispute has been

going on for months and further The Transport Minister,

Paul Maynard, was called to the Commons to make

an urgent statement. His anger with the

unions was evident. This strike action is

politically motivated. It has affected passsengers

for far too long. Union leaders have even described

this action as carrying on This will be of no comfort

to passengers who just want I will continue to ensure

that the management of the train operating company is doing

everything in its power to run improved services but we also need

union leaders to stop the needless, unreasonable, disproportionate

and politically motivated strikes. Thank you, Mr Speaker,

and I thank the I put this question

today with cross-party support from members right

across the House because on Friday we heard that Southern Rail services

will be severely disrupted every day

from tomorrow until further notice. The Green MP Caroline Lucas,

whose constituency is in Brighton on the south coast, is a regular

passenger on Southern Rail. She had initiated

the urgent statement. She said there were problems

with Southern Rail well before 18 months on my constituents

are regularly in tears This situation is intolerable

and the Government can't simply wash its hands

of involvement so will the Minister roll up

his sleeves and get stuck

in to resolve the crisis? The best thing she can do on behalf

of her constituents is to go and speak to her close friends

in the RMT and tell them to call off their disproportionate

and unreasonable industrial action. That is the best

contribution she can That we are still having

to address the abysmal service Rail after a year and

a half of substandard both Southern's incompetence and

the extent to which this Government is committed to privatise rail even

when franchises have become so deeply dysfunctional

that they are unable to provide GTR should have been

stripped of their franchise to plan properly to

take on the franchise, And providing what is by far

the country's worst rail Honourable members whose

constituents rely on Southern will be well aware of stories of

passengers fainting on overcrowded Jobs being jeopardised by repeated

lateness and parents having to say goodnight to their children

from a delayed train. That is not the case for some

of my constituents who have been sacked because

they have been late. Has not the balance of rights

and responsibilities in our society got somewhat

astray when in order to improve their terms

and conditions they are costing other

citizens their jobs? My honourable friend

is right to point out the grossly disproportionate nature

of this industrial action. He is right to point

out commuters along the GTR network are

experiencing a poorer quality of life because of

this Coincidentally I delivered

a petition to number Ten Downing St this morning calling

for Southern to be sacked. Will the Minister acknowledge

that it is not just the unacceptable and pointless union

action that is causing chaos on the network but also repeated Network

Rail equipment failure, repeated train failures which are Southern's

fault, a shortage of drivers When will the Minister

step in and take control away from the failing

company, pass responsibility for Transport for London,

which we Liberal Democrats called for as far back as 1999,

and ensure that passengers are provided with much more

generous compensation? His analysis of the multiple

causes is correct but what I don't think he fully appreciates

is that the need to focus on Network Rail as the source

of many of the delays means that we have to have

rapid and ready access to the We cannot do that against

a backdrop of continual He Transport Minister, Paul Maynard,

grappling with some knotty The Conservative former

Children's Minister Tim Loughton has criticised a Government measure

designed to improve the care The Children and Social Work Bill

allows local councils to opt out of standard care regulations

and develop new approaches The House of Lords has

rejected the provision. But when the Bill had its first

airing in the Commons, an Education Minister said

the Government would Clause 29 as it was would have

allowed local authorities to request exemptions from the statutory duties

in children's social care. The first time in the

history of children's welfare that legislation

made for all vulnerable particular area. This is a very

radical proposal that should at least have warranted a Green paper

and a White Paper and proper consultation, but there

was absolutely none. So not surprising that

the NSPCC and Action For Children describe this as, the case

that the Government is making ministers and officials the evidence

for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify

the potential risks of suspending The direct response

to issues raised by Professor Eileen Munro

and her independent review of child She says that trusting professionals

to use their judgment rather than be forced to follow

unnecessary legal rules will help ensure children get the help

they need when they need it. It is about giving councils

the opportunity to develop new ways of working that

they believe will improve outcomes I will give way to my

honourable friend. If he says it is not

about taking away rights from children, one of the scenarios would

be the abolition of Independent Reviewing Officers who absolutely

can be the only voice independently standing up for vulnerable

looked-after children If they go under these

proposals how is that not taking away

the rights of children, vulnerable children

in This isn't about

abolishing any statutory I would suggest to my

honourable friend that he should wait to see what amendments

are going to be tabled during the And I should think my honourable

friend will want to talk to the Children's Minister in more

detail about his concerns. I know that he will take

my honourable friend's In the other place,

the Government plans for the outsourcing

and privatisation of children's services

dressed up as innovation were Nobody in the profession believes

that privatisation is the answer to the immense challenges

they are currently facing. Nor can they alleviate

the growing demand honourable friend who does

a very good job of putting Is she concerned that the Minister

has not said much at all about what innovation he expects

that would require a local authority effectively to wash their hands of

their statutory duty in relation to And I just wanted to

point out that in my conversations with Hull City Council

Children's Services Department they talked to me about the resource

inequalities that they face in the very disadvantaged community

that they And they are certainly not asking

for powers to innovate, they are asking for proper resources

to provide the services that young To find better ways to care

for vulnerable children that we I hope it might be

possible to revisit the idea of this course which was

supported by my own local authority It is right that this tightly

regulated area is as protected as it is but I cannot

believe that it would not benefit I ask the Minister to look

at Scotland, to look at what we are We are not perfect, we are not doing

everything right, but we have at the heart

of our system children, their experiences,

and we I please ask the Minister

to look up north, and to Wales, who are also doing

a really good work in the area of child protection and

childcare across the board. Now, more than three million EU

nationals will need documents to prove they are entitled to live

and work in the UK once Britain That's according to the Home

Secretary, Amber Rudd. But ministers would not be

drawn on how much such Assuming that a deal is reached

and that EU citizens that were here before a certain cut-off

date can remain after we leave the European Union can

the Home Secretary tell the House how the Home Office

is going to document them, an estimated three million people,

so that employers and landlords will know thereafter to whom legally

they can offer a job or accommodation and therefore

distinguish them from those EU The right honourable gentleman

raises an important point. We are aware that there is a certain

expectation and concern about As the Prime Minister has

said, she hopes to be It is right that we do that

while looking also at the over one million UK citizens in the rest

of the European Union. There will be a need to have some

sort of documentation. But we are not going

to set a date yet. We are going to do it in a phased

approach to ensure that you use all the technology advantages

that we are increasingly able to harness to ensure

that all immigration The Secretary of State has just

confirmed that the three million new citizens in the UK will have

to be documented. This processing adds roughly 10%

to the Home Office workload. Does the Minister accept

that this will cost at least ?100 million a year and require

3,000 extra staff? Let me make clear that people

who are here from elsewhere in the EU working legally do not

need to receive additional We can assure them that

the status is assured. What happens in the future

is a matter for negotiation but certainly we have made clear

that no additional documentation May I make the case to the Minister

for updating of the systems and the use of computers

and information technology With Brexit we need to count people

in and out more effectively and for investment in our ports, like the

port of Dover? Certainly exit checks that were introduced in 2015 has

given us an additional tool to be to track people as they enter and in

particular leave the country. New technology such as e-gates has

helped in that regard. There was calls for foreign students

to be excluded from the Government's ... Students should be removed from

the tens of thousands targets. And does she also agree that the since

the data is extremely poor, we should strain every sinew to try and

get better quality data on the basis of which we can form a judgment

about whether, and if so, how we can ensure that exports, which are what

students are, are maximised in this country?

THE SPEAKER: Absolutely hopelessly long. We've got to do a lot better

than that. I share my honourable friend's view

that students play an important role in contributing to the economy

and are most welcome in the UK. The internationally recognised

definition of a migrant is someone coming here for over 12 months,

so they are likely to stay within that definition,

although I am aware there THE SPEAKER: Chairman of

the Home Affairs Select Committee, author of the textbook,

Yvette Cooper. The Home Secretary there refers

to the measure of net migration. Does she agree that international

students should be taken out of the Government target

as the Foreign Secretary has said over the weekend

and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed

to hint some weeks ago? Does she think that foreign students

should be included in the target? As I told the House the right

honourable ladie is aware The definition that I referred

to was for international students, which is held by the ONS,

which is for 12 months they represent an immigrant and

therefore are part of the numbers. You're watching Monday

in Parliament, with me, The new MP for Richmond Park, the

Liberal Democrat Sarah Ulney, has taken her seat in the House of

Commons. She cause aid political upset by taking the seat from Zac

Goldsmith, overturning a majority of 23,000. Mr Goldsmith triggered a

by-election in the constituency, when he resigned from the

Conservatives over the decision to go ahead with a third runway at

Heathrow. As the Lib Dems also oppose Heathrow expansion, they

turned the campaign into a verdict on Brexit. Mr Goldsmith voted for

Brexit and Richmond Park is a strongly pro-remain area.

Sarah Ulney was escorted into the Commons by the Lib Dem leader Tim

farron. Her arrival was rather muted, perhaps because there are

only eight fellow Liberal Democrats to provide the cheers.

THE SPEAKER: Will the member wishing to take her seat, please come to the

table. I swear by almighty God that I will

be faithful and bear true aleaningence to Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth and her heirs and successors, so help me God. By

signing the test roll she was welcomed bit Speaker with an

extended hand shake. THE SPEAKER: Sarah, many

congratulations. Bringing the tally of Lib Dems up to

nine and providing the party with its only woman MP.

Ministers are proposing to increase the maximum sentence for causing

death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life impresidentenment,

that would include crashes by a driver using a mobile phone at the

wheel. Peers said a change of culture was needed, similar to the

one achieved for drink driving. We all welcome the Prime Minister's

commitment to make this dangerous and potentially devastating practice

socially unacceptable. The increased penalties, the proposals that

drivers who kill while using a mobile phone could face a life

sentence should be a real deterrent to this growing and seemingly

obsessive addiction. But previous increases in penalties... Thank you

for that, I need to make this point. Previous increases in penalties have

not had a lasting impact. Will the minister tell us what plans the

Government has to ensure that an adequate performance enforcement of

its new measures? The noble Lord makes an important point about

enforcement. The Lords are only as good enough when they're -- laws are

only good enough when they're enforced. We have seen a rising tide

of use of mobile phones of drivers behind vehicles and that's through

admitting it themselves through various reports. We'll be working

very closely with both the Police and Crime Commissioners as well as

the police forces tone sure much more effective enforcement.

Increased sentences will, no doubt, help. As the noble Lord has

recognised in the question, a change of culture is really what is

required. I wonder whether his department has considered

introducing, in addition to a penalty for mobile phone offenders,

mandatory attendance at mobile phone awareness courses, paid for by the

offenders rather than offering such courses as an optional alternative

to points and a penalty as at present? The issue the noble refers

to about courses has been practised and left to the discretion of the

police to offer that. However it's the Government's view that this

issue now needs to be scaled up. Therefore we're actually promoting

that those discretionary courses are not offered but to raise awareness

through campaigns such as Think and of course, increase awareness of the

revised penalties that will be implicated if someone is caught

using a mobile phone. Let's be clear, if you use your mobile phone,

it's not hands free and you're using it and you're caught, it is a

criminal offence. Given that motoring organisations seem to be

dubious of the safety of using hands-free equipment in their motor

cars, I wonder whether or not the Government has any plans to regulate

car manufacturers' ability to produce this equipment, which is

distracting I believe and can cause accidents? The Right Reverend raises

an issue on the manufacture of motor cars. Certainly the Government isn't

talking specifically on this issue. I mean, the issue of hands-free

mobile phone use is difficult to regulate and indeed enforce. I would

say to the Right Reverend that of course there are other distractions

which are often available in the car, the use of loud music, indeed,

being a father of three children, if I have all three of them in the back

seat at the same time, that's equally quite a high distraction.

But on a more serious point, we are looking to ensure that we inform the

public and campaigns such as Think we take forward the importance of

not using mobile phones when driving.

Eights' stay with the Lord's. They spent most of the day debating about

the size of the House of Lords. At the moment the number of peers is

around 800. That makes the Lords one of the largest in the world. That

eye catching fact and how to reduce the size of an unelected chamber has

spawned numerous reports, debates and incremental changes, such as a

retirement scheme. Lord Cormack said it was time to reduce the number of

peers. Almost time your Lordship's House is commented on in the public

press and in the media, two remarks are made again and again and again,

that this is the largest second chamber in the world and that it's

the largest legislative chamber of any sort in the world after the

People's Republic of China. My Lord's, the constant reiteration of

those facts, and unfortunately they are facts, they coup Latively drown

the -- cumulatively drown the recognition of the scrutiny we apply

to bills and quality of our debates. All of us will remember the first

debate on the noble Lord Falconer's assisted dying bill. Whatever line

one took on that bill, one had to be proud to be a member of this House.

The very next day all the papers had leaders and long reports of the

debates saying this was Parliament at its best. My Lord's, that is the

image that we wish to present and not the image of an overbloated

House with too many members in it. I think we can criticise how we got

here. We know there was a surge of influx in terms of the liberal

peers. We know that the former Prime Minister pushed every boundary in

terms of appointments, but I don't want to, tempting though it is, to

go into that. I do think a couple of points have to be made clear. If we

are to take steps to reduce the size of this House, then we cannot have a

Prime Minister from any Government using that as an excuse for stuffing

his House with more of their appointments. Secondly, we must

maintain the principle that no Government has a right to having a

majority in this House. That would undermine the purpose of it. There

have been many variations of musical chairs suggested by those who want

to tinker with the problem. What they have in common is a denial of

the first principle of Parliamentary democracy, that is for legislators

to be as least predominantly elected. Those in this House, who

continue to obstruct real democratic reform risk an increasing public

demand for a unicamral Parliament, which I do not support. The only

acceptable method for reducing the size of the House of Parliament in a

Parliamentary democracy is democracy. An independent peer was

also clear that the status quo was not an option. Realistically, there

is, to my mind, only one answer to the central question which is raised

by today's motion. Yes, swollen as this House now is, not least through

a whole host of new appointments by Mr Cameron over recent years, we're

plainly too large and we are widely mocked on that account. And to think

otherwise, he said, was living in cloud-cuckoo-land. That's it from

Monday in Parliament. From me, goodbye.