23/01/2017 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday In Parliament,

our look at the day at Westminster.

The headlines...

The Defence Secretary says he has full confidence in the Trident

nuclear deterrent, but won't give the Commons any details on reports

of an unarmed missile going off course in a test last year.

Labour have questioned the Prime Minister's response.

And yet when she came to this House on the 18th of July to

call on members to back the renewal of Britain's nuclear submarines,

she did not say a word, not a single word.

But many Conservative MPs defended Trident and the need

to keep the tests secret.

Is it not the case that the unilateralists

opposite who are complaining today are in the position of eunuchs

complaining about the cost of Viagra?

Also tonight, users of adult social care explain what the shortage

of funding means for their lives.

It's now legally acceptable for them to just say use

incontinence pads even if you're not incontinent because

you can't have a night-time carer.

The Defence Secretary has told MPs he has "full confidence"

in the Trident nuclear weapons system, following reports

of an unarmed missile going off-course during a test launch.

But Sir Michael Fallon would not be drawn on the reports,

other than to tell MPs not to believe everything

they read in the papers.

Before an urgent question on the subject from a former defence

minister, there was a call from the Conservative

Jacob Rees-Mogg for the Commons sit in private.

Mr Speaker, as the matters we are about to discuss

are of the utmost confidentiality and may give succour to Her

Majesty's enemies, I beg to move...

I beg to move that the House sit in private.

Under standing order number 163, I am obliged to put this question

to the House without debate.

The question is that the House do sit in private.

As many as are of the opinion, say "aye".

Aye.

To the contrary, "no".

No.

I think the noes have it.

The noes have it.

In June last year, the Royal Navy conducted a demonstration

and shakedown operation designed to certify HMS Vengeance

and her crew prior to their return to operations.

This included a routine, unarmed Trident missile test launch.

Contrary to reports in the weekend press, HMS Vengeance and her crew

were successfully tested and certified as ready to rejoin

the operational cycle.

We do not comment on the detail of submarine operations.

I can however assure the House that during any test-firing,

the safety of the crew and public is paramount and is

never compromised.

He will have seen the press at the weekend, the claims

that the missile veered off towards the United States.

Could he confirm whether that was the case?

Could he also tell the House when he was first informed

that there was a problem with the test and when his

department informed the then Prime Minister David Cameron

of the problem?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused four times on live

television to say when she became aware of the details

of this missile test.

Today number ten admitted that the Prime Minister was told

about this incident as soon as she took office.

And yet when she came to this House on the 18th of July to call

on members to back the renewal of Britain's nuclear submarines,

she did not say a word, not a single word.

Mr Speaker, this is just not good enough.

The British public deserve the facts on a matter of importance

of Britain's nuclear deterrent and they deserve to hear those facts

from the Prime Minister, not in allegations sprawled

across a Sunday paper.

Is the Secretary of State telling us that nothing went wrong

on this particular launch?

While accepting that the nuclear deterrent needs to be

shrouded in secrecy, it also needs to deter and once

stories get out there that a missile may have failed,

isn't it better to be quite frank about it,

especially if it has no strategic significance as in this case

it probably has none?

It is absolutely outrageous that this House had to rely

on a leak to a Sunday newspaper to find out about this

and the subsequent cover-up.

Can the Secretary of State tell me when did he first find out

about this missile failure?

Was it he who informed the new Prime Minister

about the failure and who took the decision not to inform

Parliament of this incident?

Well, the honourable gentleman, of course, is opposed to the Trident

deterrent that has kept this country safe for so many years.

Let me, first of all, caution him against believing

everything he has read in the weekend press.

Ah, yes.

Young Gove.

Mr Michael Gove.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Would my right honourable friend agree that investment

in our continuous at sea nuclear deterrent has bought us not only

peace since 1968 and the protection of western Europe but has also

congruent with our position as a Permanent Five member

of the UN's Security Council?

And is it not the case that the unilateralists opposite

who are complaining today are in the position

of eunuchs complaining about the cost of Viagra?

I agree with all three, all three of my right honourable

friend's propositions.

The Secretary of State has advised us not to believe everything we read

in the Sunday newspapers but should we believe the White House official

who, while we've been sitting here debating,

has confirmed to CNN that the missile did auto

self-destruct off the coast of Florida and if that is the case,

why is the British Parliament and the British public the last

people to know?

Mr Hague.

We do not, in this House, nor has any previous Government

given operational details of the demonstration and shakedown

operation of one of our submarines conducting a test with one

of our Trident missiles.

Later, in the House of Lords, the historian Lord Hennessy said

he witnessed the test last June.

May I declare an interest in that I witnessed the launch in question

from the survey vessel two and a half miles away

from where the missile came out of the sea?

My Lords, may I put it to the noble Earl, the minister,

with great respect, that for those of us who support the independent

deterrent, very powerfully supported, and also the building

of the four dreadnoughts submarines in the successor class,

it would make it much easier for us to make the case generally in

the country when we are interviewed in the media if the noble Earl

could assure us that a full analysis has been successfully made

of whatever it was that went wrong, and I have no knowledge at all

of the nature of what went wrong, and remedies have been put in place.

The Defence Minister, Lord Howe, said there was "absolute

confidence" in the system.

The government has launched a new industrial strategy preparing

for Britain's post-Brexit future.

The plans, personally unveiled by the Prime Minister at a cabinet

meeting in Cheshire, include a ?556 million

boost for the so-called "northern Powerhouse",

an overhaul of technical education and a ?170 million cash

injection for science, technology, engineering

and innovation.

The Business Secretary told MPs it was about creating

the right conditions for new and growing enterprises.

To meet these challenges, we have identified ten pillars around

which the strategy is structured.

That is to say ten areas of action to drive growth across the economy

and in every part of the country.

They're to invest in science, research and innovation,

to further develop our skills, to upgrade our infrastructure,

to support businesses to start and grow, to improve public

procurement, to encourage trade and investment,

to deliver affordable energy and clean growth, to cultivate

world leading sectors, to drive growth across all parts

of the country and to create the right institutions to bring

together sectors and places.

Across all of these areas, the Government is taking strategic

decisions to keep British business on the front foot.

There is a glaring inconsistency between the noble aims of this green

paper and the threats made by the Prime Minister to turn

Britain into an offshore tax haven if she fails

in her Brexit negotiations.

Until now, the industrial strategy has seemingly consisted of one deal,

made in secret with Nissan.

If the Nissan deal didn't last six months, how can businesses be

confident of the other commitments in this green paper?

It's often said, correctly, that an industrial strategy

is a long-term project and that to work it must outlast

particular governments.

With this in mind, I can pledge our support for its broad aims

from this side of the chamber but I feel compelled to ask,

can the Secretary of State count on the same from his own side?

When we previously debated the industrial strategy here,

one of his own honourable friends said they had

two problems with it.

One was industrial and the other was strategy.

However good this industrial strategy may be, we have to accept

that the biggest threat to Scotland's economy and I believe

the UK economy is the lack of access to the markets and the skilled

people that come through our EU membership.

Will he give serious consideration to the Scottish Government's plans

that would see Scotland maintain its membership

of the European single market?

There's one area of infrastructure where Britain lags behind

all our competitors enormously and that's with the

cost of childcare.

Childcare in Britain costs more than every other OECD country apart

from Switzerland and takes up over 40% of the average wage and yet it's

hardly mentioned in his green paper.

This is the way to liberate the talent of women,

what's he going to do about it?

In the green paper that the Secretary of State has brought

forward there is mention of an overhaul of technical

and vocational education.

Can I say to him I think what this country needs is a cultural change,

a shift to valuing technical and vocational education and skills

education as highly as it does academic education?

And until that changes, the Secretary of State will not

achieve what he wants, however much all of us want him to.

The Prime Minister's strategy lacks concrete proposals for Wales,

considering our ?5 billion of trade and good net surplus with the EU,

Wales is set to suffer most at the pursuit of a brutal Brexit.

Does the Minister accept that doing nothing to counter the loss

of the EU convergence funding will serve only to exacerbate

the already significant geographical wealth and earnings inequalities

which characterise the British state?

May I welcome this wide ranging discussion of Government

policies at this time, even if the broad buffet of good

things outlined will unleash a torrent of insatiable demands,

not least from the Davos business leaders jetting back

with their Government advisers to barge their way to

the front of the table?

So will my right honourable friend assure me that his agenda will be

set by entrepreneurs?

Greg Clark assured him there would be, as he put it,

"no cosy clubs for the incumbents".

Where does the crucial role of free markets sit in the strategy?

It runs through every page of the strategy, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Laughter

Laughter at

Laughter at the

Laughter at the diplomatic

Laughter at the diplomatic reply.

At the start of the day, the writs were moved for two

by-elections following the departure of two Labour MPs.

I beg to move that, Mr Speaker, to issue his warrant to the clerk

of the crown to make out a new writ for the electing other

member to serve in this present Parliament...

Both elections will be held on the 23rd February.

One is to replace the Jamie Reed, who represented Copeland -

he's taken a job at Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant.

The other replaces Stoke-on-Trent Central's Tristram Hunt,

who is becoming the director of London's Victoria

and Albert Museum.

Now, moves which would allow local councils in England to keep

all the proceeds from business rates raised in their area have

had their first main debate in the Commons.

The local government Finance Bill will also enable councillors to vary

the level of business rates.

Ministers say the move would encourage local

authorities to boost business, increasing the income from local

taxes that can be spent in the area.

I am often told that local authorities lack

meaningful incentives to grow their local economies.

They tell me the system is overcentralised, that residents

see no connection between the level of local taxation and the level

of services they receive, that the proceeds of local growth

disappear into national coffers, forcing councils to go cap in hand

asking Whitehall for funding.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not good enough.

Local authorities, local businesses and local communities deserve

a better deal and this Bill will provide it.

It could exacerbate the social care crisis and leave council taxpayers

having to foot even more of the bill for local services.

Badly introduced, it could deepen regional inequality and increase

the divisions between those areas with a large business

community and those with more entrenched barriers to growth.

We support the principle of a 100% business rate retention,

but it needs to be accompanied by a redistribution formula,

which redresses the divide between those councils that do have

sizeable business rates income already and those that don't.

The Shadow Local Government Minister, Gareth Thomas.

You're watching Monday In Parliament.

Our top story...

The Defence Secretary says he has full confidence

in the Trident nuclear deterrent, but has refused to give any details

on press reports suggesting a missile went off-course

during a test last June.

Now, last week Surrey County Council announced it would be holding

a referendum to find out whether voters would approve a big

rise in council tax to pay for better social care.

The Council said care was in crisis, a message that's been echoed

elsewhere in the country.

MPs on the Communities and Local Government Committee heard

the views of three people who use adult social care services.

The main worry I think comes from not that even that my quality

of life would have improved but that if my condition gets worse,

and I don't know what's going to happen in the future,

that the care won't increase to even keep, to even be dignified, really.

I know of local authorities now that say at night-time if you need

assistance going to the toilet it's now legally acceptable for them

to just say use incontinence pads, even if you're not incontinent,

because you can't have a night-time carer.

Now, I don't need that fortunately at the moment but that is a fear

for me that if one day I needed that support,

would it actually be provided?

I have been in the process of recently having health

professionals and social care professionals making

a recommendation and the panel who have never met me making

a decision around providing something that's ?500 cheaper

and I have now got to trial a product that isn't going to work

and is wasting my time and the professionals' time just

to please the panel.

It's all about, for me, it has all been a game

of aligning what you need

with the people that can often support you and sometimes your voice

gets lost within that.

I think people who enter this profession of providing care do

so with a sense of vocation and a sense of service and a desire

to want to make a difference and to change things and to be

of service and I happen to be mindful of not taking

that for granted and certainly not abusing it but it is a messy,

it's a messy place to go, this.

I get six hours a week for socialisation,

whatever that means.

That includes, has to include my food shopping,

my hospital appointments, which average one a week,

going to church and if I want to go swimming, because none of those

things can be separately, you know, they don't get covered otherwise.

So by the time you've done that, there is no socialisation left.

There's certainly no flexibility or, you know if a friend rings up

and says "do you want to go here?"

It's "oh sorry, I've used by hours."

So, for me, I think it's, you know, you try and get on and you try

and make most of the situation and I do find myself having make

choices sometimes so there will be times and I think I want to go here,

I won't have a shower or I won't cook a meal

that day with my PA, I'll use the time to do

the socialisation aspect of it because otherwise you become

extremely isolated and that's quite depressing or, you know,

it's hard not to feel like I'm a 31-year-old and my friends that

were in university with me are all out doing all these things

and actually my life looks extremely different to theirs.

I live in my own home, my own home is becoming more

like an institution.

I have support and there are times and I feel really isolated

and I need that additional support but it's not available and for me

it has been really detrimental and it has really had a massive impact

on my mental ill-health.

It's something that I would think that lots of people with care

and support needs often struggle with, so, you know, the practical

stuff is amazing, you know, I'm grateful to live in a country

where we do have that system, but sometimes I just feel like I'm

a product of a system that is just functional, so I'm just like dress,

wash, eat, nothing about well-being, nothing about relationships

and the hardest thing is being somebody that has hopes

and dreams and aspirations and you have to sometimes say

to yourself and people around you, that's not possible.

Now, there have been further calls for increased sex and relationships

education in schools to tackle online grooming for child abuse.

But at Home Office Questions, ministers insisted the resources

for staying safe online were available and schools

were already taking action.

Can I urge the House that people recommend to their constituents that

a process of contributing to keeping their own children safe

is to take time out to look at the Think You Know campaign

on the National Crime Agency because we all, I as a parent,

have a role in making sure my children know

what's safe online.

But actually, don't children need to be educated about how to help

themselves stay safe online and wouldn't it be the case

if we had compulsory sex and relationship education that

every school could make sure that every child knew

how to be safe online?

Can I ask the Honourable Lady to go onto the website

of the National Crime Agency and look at the Think

You Know campaign.

It is tailor-made for children to go through the tutorial online

and it's broken down by age, so my young children

have an appropriate curriculum to look at and it makes

a real difference.

There's even one for her so she could follow it

and understand how she can be safe online and make sure

children are as well.

The Minister is being far too glib on this.

All the research shows the best intermediary for teaching children

is someone they trust in the school.

That is the truth and online work isn't actually very effective.

Isn't it the truth that bullying, exploitation, is rampant and isn't

it about time we stopped making excuses and took on the Googles

and the people who allow this to be transmitted?

The honourable gentleman misses the point.

We are taking on the Googles and the big internet companies

and also if he spends time in the schools, in the primary

school when my children go to, they are given classes on how

to stay safe online.

This is not done in a silo way, it's not just a website,

it's a website, it's teachers, its parents, everyone has a role

in it and that is being delivered.

The challenge we have in the world of the internet is keeping pace

with the huge numbers of referrals we get every month from

international paedophiles who abuse the internet to exploit our children

and take advantage of the very latest technology, to make

sure our law enforcement agencies are having to constantly go

the extra mile to catch them.

Mr Speaker, we have had a dreadful local case where an international

paedophile ring such as the one the Minister was mentioning

infiltrated a chat room aimed at 9-year-olds with really

dreadful consequences for those children.

Could the Minister tell us what investment the government

is making to help the police and other law enforcement

agencies deal with and stamp out this sort of abuse?

I'm grateful to my honourable friend, the National Crime Agency's

child exploitation and online protection command receives an extra

?10 million this year and in November 2015,

the NCA joined up with GCHQ in a joint operation to make sure

that we tackle some of the most complicated crimes online.

Labour's Rupa Huq raised the immigration status of EU

nationals in the UK seeking some certainty following the Brexit vote.

People like Mrs Fabio La Paras, Spanish by birth but married

and resident in Acton for decades, now dismayed at having been rejected

because they cannot prove either five years continuous service

with the same employer or having paid in for

private health insurance.

Can the Home Secretary revisit these rigid requirements that penalised EU

nationals like her who have been homemakers or students,

on short term contracta or self-employed and end

this bureaucratic nightmare?

There is no penalising of people like the lady who the Honourable

Lady was referring to.

We continue to value the important contribution that EU nationals make

to this country and I would repeat and I would urge the honourable lady

to follow the advice I previously set out,

which is to reassure constituents like the one she referred to that

in fact we are doing our best to ensure that their future will be

secure and as the Prime Minister says, it will be an early

priority to do so.

The Home Secretary Amber Rudd replying there.

Now, returning to social care, Labour peers have called

on ministers to reverse cuts

in funding, which they say have had

a knock-on effect on the whole of the National Health

Service in England.

Raising the matter at Question Time in the Lords, Lady McDonagh said

the government had cut the social care budget by nearly ?2 billion.

It is the case that the government have cut ?1.8 billion to social

care during this period, which has led to the escalation

of the ?2.5 billion in NHS debt.

I don't know whether it's through incompetence or ideology

but the government has set about providing us with the most

expensive and the worst system of care for the elderly

in the Western world.

Can I ask the noble Lord the minister whether he would use

all his powers of persuasion to do what the Chancellor wanted to do

last year and persuade the Prime Minister to put more money

into local authorities for social care?

It will save lives and money.

The Minister said he accepted there were challenges still there.

There are a million more over 65-year-olds

than there were in 2010.

The social care is under a lot of pressure, of course it is,

which is why in the Autumn Statement additional money was

outlined for social care.

There is ?900 million extra over the next couple of years

and the precept is rising faster than it was previously

and we have the Better Care fund.

So there is money going in, but I accept the fact

that there is pressure on the system.

The Minister said he accepted there were challenges still there.

And that's all from me for now.

Kristina Cooper's here for the rest of the week but from me,

Joanna Shinn, goodbye.