30/10/2017 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday

in Parliament, our look at the best

of the day in the Commons

and the Lords.

On this programme.

The Government promises action

"within days" to deal

with allegations of sexual

harassment at Westminster.

These reports risk bringing all of

our offices into disrepute.

A peer voices fears that a flu

epidemic could strike

with little warning.

The problem with viruses, like

pandemics is that they are

completely unpredictable and never

hit on the way we expect beforehand.

And what's wrong with first

past the post voting?

Lots of things, say

some Opposition MPs.

Unless you live in one of a small

number of heavily targeted marginal

seats, your vote quite simply does

not count.

Not for the first time,

MPs have been putting

the spotlight on themselves.

Or, at least, on the practices

and, more particularly,

the "culture" of Westminster.

It follows days of allegations

of sexual harassment

and inappropriate behaviour

inflicted on mainly female MPs

and staff working at Parliament.

There've even been reports of women

using the 'WhatsApp' social

messaging service to issue warnings

about known "sex pest" MPs.

The Commons Speaker

John Bercow stressed

the importance of the issue.

I wish to make a statement about

recent disturbing allegations about

a culture of sexual harassment and

Westminster. Between members and

those who work for members. Let me

make it clear, there must be zero

tolerance of sexual harassment or

bullying here at Westminster or

elsewhere.

The Leader of the House favoured

bringing in a code of conduct

and a grievance procedure.

As members of Parliament, our

constituents will be rightly

appalled at the thought that some

representatives in Parliament may

have acted in an entirely

inappropriate way towards others.

These reports risk bringing all of

our offices into disrepute. I know

this is an issue of great concern to

you, Mr Speaker, and I know you will

do everything you can to tackle this

issue. I know members from all

parties will want to work alongside

you to investigate every claim,

provide the right support in the

future, and make sure this never

happens again. Mr Speaker, it is a

bright, not a privilege, to work in

a safe and respectful environment.

These plans will ensure that

Parliament takes a zero tolerance

approach. It is absolutely right

that the House must address the

urgent issue of alleged mistreatment

of staff by members of Parliament.

These allegations make clear that

there is a vital need to provide

better support and protection for

the thousands of staff members

working in Westminster and in

constituency offices across the

country.

She is right, there is

obviously a problem. It's a good

thing it has been exposed and it has

to be dealt with. No woman or man

coming to work in this House should

be subjected to an unwanted sexual

advances from those who are in a

position of power over them. No one

should have to work in the toxic

atmosphere of sleazy sexist or

homophobic banter. No MP, let alone

a minister, should think it is

something to make jokes about. This

is not hysteria. This is something

which is long overdue for all the

parties in this House to deal with.

No one voted for me to come to this

House to engage in high jinks, no

one elected any of us to engage in

sleazy, oppressive behaviour. It has

to be stopped now is the time to do

it.

Welcoming the new procedures, one MP

recalled comments made about her

by the Shadow Chancellor John

McDonnell.

I'm delighted to hear the Leader of

the House will extend these to other

forms of abuse. Will that include

those MPs who go on rallies

endorsing the lynching of other MPs?

It is an absolute disgrace that

senior MPs go about their business

getting violence against female MPs.

I welcome these steps to eradicate

harassment from this place. But when

I complained recently to an officer

of Parliament to have some

responsibility in this area that I

knew a number of researchers, male

and female, who had been made to

feel deeply uncomfortable in the

sports and social club here by

members of Parliament, I was told

that that happens in pubs all over

the country.

Of course the House,

what we recognise is that this is a

fault of undiluted power. When

someone holds your entire future in

their hands, it is very difficult to

refuse or to speak out. While it is

sexual abuse and sexual harassment

that has brought this to the

attention today, it is also

misogyny, dismissal, and gender

discrimination.

Sexual harassment is

a problem in Parliament as it is in

workplaces and schools, right across

the country. It is often worst

weather big discrepancy of power I

really hope that the news reports of

the last few days actors watershed

moment and help to catalyse the

change that we so clearly need, not

least in the outdated attitudes that

exist still in some quarters.

As I

walked in here, rushed in here today

to come to this statement, I

overheard two male colleagues

walking through the halls, wittering

about a witch hunt that was going on

in Parliament. I think what we need

to do in this building is not think

of this as being a party political

thing, but something that has two

absolutely happen. We do not just

cheer when our own side is the

person getting attacked, we cheer

when everyone is bound to rights.

We

talk about this being a modern

workplace. Isn't that the rub? This

is not a modern workplace, it's a

very strange one. It is strange for

members, for our families, and most

of all for those members of staff.

This is nothing new, as others have

said. This comes about because of a

political culture deferments, where

people can't speak about what has

happened to them for fear of their

career being stifled. In order to

change that political culture, it

requires all of us to take very

strong political leadership. I say

this to the political leaders on

both sides and all sides of the

House, that means taking decisions

against colleagues and others, even

when that is inconvenient, even when

that is against their own allies or

their own supporters on their own

side.

Urgency is very important in

how we deal with this issue, but

nevertheless with the Leader of the

House confirms is not going to be

something that will be dealt with

simply by house officials and those

working in the Palace of

Westminster? But the best practice

would be utilised, and that advice

would be sought from external

organisations as to how they deal

with this.

Over the weekend I read

some very worrying articles saying

that whips officers from all

political parties and senior members

of the government-held information

about sexual misconduct by their own

MPs but stayed quiet because of fear

of sabotaging their career and

bringing the government into

disrepute. Is the Leader of the

House where these reports? That she

believed them to be true and if so,

what will she do about them?

I am

absolutely not aware of any such

wrongdoing as she suggests, and I am

absolutely confident that anybody

you had serious allegations would be

directed by the whips office or by

members of Parliament to go directly

to the police.

Andrea Leadsom.

A report into deaths in police

custody in England and Wales has

called for major reforms.

The review was commissioned

by Theresa May when she was

Home Secretary two years ago.

The report's 110 recommendations

include changes in the police

treatment of people suffering

with mental health problems.

In the Commons, a Home Office

Minister said the Government had

to ensure that the public had

confidence in police officers.

When things do go wrong, policing by

consent can only have meaning. Where

swift action is taken to find the

truth, to expose institutional

failings and tackle any conduct

issues where these are found. I want

to stress to the House that the

issues identified in this report

point to the need for reform in a

number of areas. Where we have gone

all set in motion work today. Her

report also highlights complex

issues, for which there are no easy

answers at this time. The government

response which are outlined today is

to be seen as the start of the

journey, a journey which will see a

focused programme of work to address

the problems identified.

I

personally have had to comfort to

many families who said goodbye to

their son in the morning, and he

never came back. Can the Minister

explain why we have had to wait two

and a half years for the publication

of this report which I understand is

completed 15 months ago? Does the

Minister agree with United friends

and families that officers must be

held to account?

I have met with the

Home Secretary and some of the

families and their camp is

overwhelming. Overwhelming. In terms

of what they have had to endure, not

just the original lost but the

journey from that point, absolutely

unacceptable. The report is

devastating. It is a story of system

failure and human failure going back

over many, many years.

I welcome

this report and the governments

response, in west Yorkshire we had

the tragic case of Mark Kam who died

as a result of being held in police

custody when he should in have been

sent on an emergency basis to

hospital. And his family campaign

for years to have the truth

uncovered about the lack of

monitoring of him in a police cell,

but also who injured real

difficulties with the failure of the

IPC to properly investigate in a

timely way and ensure that lessons

were learned as a result of that

case.

Can I thank Mr Foy's

statements, and his personal

commitment to following through,

particularly for better support for

bereaved families? Can I take him up

on his point about making sure we

find the right places to detain

people? We have heard about it and

the respect of people with mental

health problems. I want to press on

the point of those were intoxicated.

Tim Ellis makes a strong

recommendation, recommendation 22,

the government should consider

drying up centres with international

evidence suggests may be safer and

cheaper than police custody.

You're watching our round-up of the

day in the Commons and the Lords.

Still to come: The government

is accused of "passing the buck"

over Grenfell Tower.

Now we regularly call Parliament

the heart of British democracy.

But how democratic is Parliament?

An e-petition that's attracted more

than 100,000 signatures says

the current Westminster electoral

system makes Parliament

"unrepresentative".

The petition demands the replacement

of first-past-the-post voting

with proportional representation,

or PR, where numbers of MPs

would exactly match the amount

of public support across the country

for each political party.

In Westminster Hall, MPs debated

changing the voting system.

Possibly the biggest argument

for first past the post

and against PR is that more often

than not, it will produce

a clear, decisive result

and a stable government.

Just one moment.

Whereas, PR often results in no

clear majority and days or weeks

of backroom dealing in order

to form a government.

I just wonder whether he could

perhaps explain what his

definition of democracy is?

Because I would have thought

democracy is about ensuring

that the governing party or parties

actually command a majority

of support in the country.

And the truth is, that hasn't

happened, has it, for some time?

I think that historically,

in our party, we have had the first

past the post system which has

delivered decisive government

results over many, many

years and that has served

our country well.

I believe that the current system

has served our country well.

And we are one of the greatest

democracies on the planet,

I personally believe,

and therefore, I don't

share his views.

It is right and excellent

if you are viewing this

as a partisan position where simply

what matters is your side wins,

but if you are a Democrat,

you have to look at this

from the point of view

as to what the public are putting

forward and responding

to that public demand.

And if you are not doing that,

you have to ask yourself,

what is the purpose of elections

to begin with?

It cannot just be about maximising

our individual own party advantage

and finding a system that gets us

to that point.

That is not good enough

and it is not what democratic

systems are based upon.

Would you agree that the Scottish

Parliament's D'Hondt system,

which has a first past the post

correction and also proportional

representation list,

is one of the best examples

of a tried and tested proportional

representation system that keeps

the constituency link,

which this petition advocates.

For example, at the last Scottish

election, the SNP got 46.5%

of the votes and 48.8% of the seats.

Lord Norton is actually simplified

the issues around PR and the ability

of countries to form coalitions.

And he has said that even though

party A might have 40% of the vote

and party B might have 20%

of the vote, it does not mean

that their joint manifesto

has 60% of the vote.

Without a secondary vote

agreement in the manifesto,

their government actually

enjoys 0% support.

It is a stitch up, done in a back

room between parties.

That is in stark contrast

to single-member government produced

by first past the post which knows

for certain that it enjoys a large

plurality of support

and is therefore far more legitimate

than a coalition government.

Why do the honourable member think

that after the Second World War,

British constitutionalists

recommended to Germany

for introducing the best

government possible,

the Best democracy, not

first past the post,

but a proportional system

based on AMS?

It was not first past the post.

Could he explain why

he thinks that was?

I'm here to talk about first past

the post in the United Kingdom...

LAUGHTER.

..continue to talk about.

The current representative

voting system is doing

long-term pervasive damage.

It manifested itself in phenomena

like a widespread lack of trust

and faith in public servants,

the growth of what have some have

coined with Orwellian overtones,

post-truth politics.

Far too many of our constituents

are disillusioned,

disaffected and disengaged.

Continuing to deny them a voice

in the decisions that affect us

all only perpetuates that problem.

And yet that is exactly

what is happening past the post.

A system where votes are not

all equal because unless you live

in one of a small number of heavily

targeted marginal seat, your vote,

quite simple, doesn't count.

Caroline Lucas.

The Government's preparedness

programme for a flu

outbreak this winter should

be urgently reviewed.

That was the demand of Opposition

peers when debate in the Lords

turned to the level of take-up

of flu vaccinations

in England and Wales.

First, a Labour peer said a recent

Health Service survey had disclosed

a rise in numbers of people

being re-admitted to hospital

after being discharged.

The survey also showed a rise of 29%

of people we admitted to hospital

as emergencies within 24 hours.

-- readmitted.

Does this not raise huge

concerns about patient

is being discharged unsafely

and before they are medically

fit in order to meet

the government's empty beds target?

Not to mention the trauma and upset

caused to the patients themselves

and their carers and families.

Do the targets take

account of readmission?

What additional funding

and contingency plans are in place

across NHS Trusts and local

authorities if there just aren't

enough beds to cope with the flu

crisis and isn't the government's

flu preparedness in

urgent need of review?

Well, the NHS has never

been better prepared

for winter or indeed for flu.

There are something like 21,000

people who are eligible

for free flu jabs this year,

including for the first time care

workers the voluntary sector.

So I think that is good progress.

Of course, we don't know how

exactly that will play out.

My lords, I wonder if my noble lord

the minister would perhaps consider

all reconsider the statement he made

in answer to the question,

that the NHS has never been better

ready for flu outbreak?

The problem with viral

infections is, like pandemics,

that they are completely

unpredictable and often hit in a way

that we never expect beforehand.

They remain one of the biggest

single threat to humanity and I hope

he will understand that this

unpredictability is a real

issue with all these infections,

including influenza,

as history has shown us.

The noble Lord is of

course quite right.

We can't know what will hit else.

-- we can't know what will hit us.

What we can do is prepare

in advance as much as possible

and that was the sense

in which I meant there was a huge

amount of preparedness in terms

of what has gone on not just

for flu, but in terms of winter.

Starting earlier this

year than ever before.

I was talking to a very senior

consultant early this morning

and to my absolute amazement,

he said to me that the latest

research on flu jabs,

compulsory for NHS staff,

provides no significant improvement

at all in patient health.

And I wondered whether the Minister

has any different research

or evidence because it is rather

striking and unexpected.

Well, that would be unexpected

and worrying if that is true.

That is not the information

on which we have based our policy.

The information on which we have

based our policy is that flu jabs

are effective in most people.

Of course, they are not

effective in all people,

but they are effective in spreading

the risk of flu

within care settings.

The World Health Organisation

recommends about nine months

to a year what strain of vaccine

should be developed.

And this is of course,

before the Australian epidemic that

took place which of course killed

many people and affected

many elderly.

Can my noble friend the Minister say

that the vaccine that has been

developed here in the UK is both

effective and remains very relevant

and people need to go and access it,

both young and the elderly?

Yes, my noble friend

is absolutely right.

Simon Stephens, the head of the NHS,

warned about the impact of the flu

epidemic in Australia

and New Zealand back in September.

The feedback on the Australian

epidemic was that those particularly

vulnerable groups were the over-80s

and five-year-old to nine-year old.

So we have talked about helping

the younger children

through the school-based

immunisation, and I should also

point out that we have the highest

uptake of over 65 is getting flu

jabs in Europe, but clearly

there is more to do because around

a third of people don't.

Lord O'Shaughnessy.

The government's being urged to stop

"passing the buck" in its response

to the disaster at Grenfell Tower.

At least 80 people died when fire

tore through the block

in West London on the evening

of Wednesday June 14th.

An inquiry into the disaster

opened in September.

At Commons Question Time, the deputy

leader of the Liberal Democrats

focused on how such tragedies

could be prevented in future.

I want to ask him about things that

could be done to prevent fires

from claiming lives.

We know that sprinklers saved lives

yet only 2% of council tower

blocks have systems.

Is the Secretary of State

content with that state

of affairs and if not, four months

on from the Grenfell tragedy,

when will he stop passing the buck

and help local authorities

fit sprinklers in

high-rise authorities?

-- in high-rise buildings.

Mr Speaker, the honourable lady

will know that it is already the law

in building regulations that

since she thousands of seven,

-- since 2007,

any new high-rise buildings

above 30 metres are required

to fit sprinklers.

In terms of whether

that is appropriate,

and whether more can be done,

I think the appropriate way to look

at that is through the independent

building regulations review on fire

safety which Dame Judith

Hackett is taking.

I know she is gathering evidence,

there is a call for evidence right

now, perhaps the honourable lady

would like to input into that.

Is it not an irony, actually,

that it wasn't that enough money

was not spent on Grenfell Tower,

but that £10 million was spent

on Grenfell Tower to provide

cladding to stop water ingress

which caused the whole problem?

And is my right honourable friend

aware that experts have told me that

sprinklers are not the sole solution

to this issue.

Sprinklers alone without sound fire

doors will not work.

And there are other

provisions that can be made.

Mr Speaker, if my honourable

friend will allow me,

I won't speculate on Grenfell Tower

and the causes of that

terrible tragedy.

But in terms of his broader

point about measures

which also are important,

such as fire doors, something

that we found in Camden,

when fire safety checks were done,

there were hundreds of fire doors

that were not there and so there

are other measures alongside

shrimpers which certainly can be

-- alongside sprinklers, which

certainly can be and should be taken

when necessary.

Sajid Javid.

Finally, 100 years have passed

since this humble-looking but very

significant document was drawn up.

The Balfour Declaration was sent

in 1917 to Lord Rothschild,

leader of the British Jewish

community, and to the Zionist

Federation of Great Britain.

It pledged support for

the establishment of a national home

for dues in the area of Palestine,

which was then part

-- dues.

of the Ottoman empire.

The Declaration was written

by Arthur Balfour,

Conservative Prime Minister

in the first few years

of the 20th century,

who later became Foreign Secretary.

His successor 100 years on told MPs

the government was proud of the UK's

part in the creation of Israel.

And I see no contradiction

in being a friend of Israel

and a believer in that country's

destiny while also being profoundly

moved by the suffering of those

who were affected and dislodged

by its birth.

That vital caveats in the Balfour

declaration intended to safeguard

the rights of other communities,

by which of course we mean

the Palestinians, has not

been fully realised.

As we approach the centenary

of the Balfour declaration

we on this side of the House

are glad to join him

in commemorating this historic

anniversary and expressing once

again our continued support

for the state of Israel.

Understanding the challenges

of unfinished business

-- notwithstanding the challenges,

to which my right honourable friend

rightly referred, does he agree

with me that centenary can be

a powerful way of drawing people

together for fully and respectfully,

even where, as here,

-- thoughtfully and respectfully,

even where, as here, the history is

complex and nuanced.

I agree very strongly with that.

And it has been very salutary

for people to go back over the last

hundred years and look at the many,

many opportunities that have been

missed and also to look

at the reasons why Balfour thought

it necessary to make

his declaration.

And it wasn't, as is frequently

said, simply because Britain wanted

to solicit American support

in the First World War,

it was genuinely because of a need,

an imperative to deal

with the pogroms and

the anti-Semitism that have

plagued Russia and parts

of Eastern Europe for solar.

-- for so long. It was vital to find

a homeland for the Jewish people and

it was vital that Balfour made that

decision. But we have to balance

that with the suffering that was

occasioned by that decision.

And that's it for this programme.

Mandy Baker will be here

for the rest of the week.

But for now, from me

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.

When it's time to vote, MPs come out

of the chambers, and into one of the

lobbies. This is the no lobby for

MPs who are opposed to what has been

put forward. Getting a bill through

Parliament has never been easy but

until 2015, it was a process in

which all MPs took part at every

stage. But that was before the

arrival of English votes for English

laws. The change came about because

there had long been concerned over

what was known as the West Lothian

question. They knew that Scottish

MPs could vote on questions such as

education but English MPs had no say

over how Scottish schools were run

because education was devolved to

the Scottish Parliament at

Hollywood. It was a problem David

Cameron decided to tackle in 2015,

following this Scottish independence

referendum. The answer was to give

English and Welsh MPs a greater say

on laws that only apply in their

countries.

All MPs will still vote

on some bells but laws which only

apply in England should only pass if

they are supported by a majority of

English MPs.

So, how does it work?

Early on in the process, the Speaker

certifiers whether a bill or part of

it applies only to England or

England and Wales. After that, it

all gets fiendish to complicated.

But the Portman bit is this, a bill

for England or England and Wales --

the important bit is this. Such a

bill has stages when only MPs from

those countries can vote, ruling out

MPs from Scotland and Northern

Ireland. So if they come here to

vote, they wouldn't be allowed

through. The arrival of this measure

has been hugely controversial. SNP

MPs argue it has turned them into

second-class citizens with fewer

powers than there in griz colleagues

while others think it has put the

Speaker and his deputy is a

difficult position as it is down to

them to certify which of sometimes

complex legislation apply when.

We

have illegitimate view and we object

to being made second-class citizens.

This is our Parliament just as as

and yet we have got to accept the

second-class status.

But once a bill

has finished its passage through the

Commons and finished its final

hurdle at third reading, it is off

to the House of Lords where this

measure doesn't apply.