13/11/2017 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to our look back

at the day here in Westminster.

Coming up, the Brexit

secretary makes a

surprise concession to pro-EU MPs,

the Foreign Secretary admits he was

wrong over controversial remarks

about the British woman jailed in

Iran, And the Ministry of Justice

gets a dressing down over its

electronic tagging system.

Whoever put this down

as a procurement

strategy I don't think had any idea

what they were trying to achieve.

But first, Tuesday will be

a big day for Brexit,

MPs are to start their long-awaited

scrutiny of the

European Union withdrawal bill.

But as something of

a curtain raiser the

government has offered

a concession to MPs,

calling for Parliament

to

have a greater say

on the final Brexit agreement.

In a significant shift

the Brexit secretary told the

Commons he intends

on bringing forward

a new lot to implement

the

final deal, giving MPs the chance

to go through it in detail.

Labour described the

move as a climb-down

by ministers facing potential defeat

on the EU withdrawal bill.

David Davis warns

that if MPs voted the

new bill down the UK

with leave without a deal.

Mr Davis unveiled a plan

while reporting back on last

week's talks with Brussels.

I can now confirm that once we have

reached an agreement we will bring

forward a specific piece of primary

legislation to implement that

agreement known as the withdrawal

agreement and implementation bill.

This confirms the major policy set

out in the withdrawal agreement,

will be done correctly implemented

in the UK by primary legislation.

Not by secondary legislation

of the withdrawal bill.

This also means that

Parliament will be given time

to debate, scrutinise

and vote on the final

agreement we strike

with

the EU.

This agreement will only hold

of Parliament approves it.

Can the Secretary

of State confirm to

this house that this house will get

a vote in the event that there is no

deal?

Mr Speaker these questions have been

pressing for months, this

last-minute attempt to climb-down

brings them into very sharp focus.

And we are entitled

to clear answers.

Will it simply be a question

of take it or leave it?

The deal or no deal.

Will the house be given

an opportunity to amend that

bill as the house must

have the opportunity to amend any

bill and therefore will the house

have the

opportunity to amend

to amend the agreement?

I don't think it is in the gift

of the government to put a

piece of primary legislation before

the house which is incapable of

amendment.

It is the nature of primary

legislation that it is

always capable of amendment.

Of course we will have the practical

limitations of having a deal with

signed and there will be

applications to that, and the whole

thing will be put in

front of the house.

I welcome the Secretary of State's

announcement that there will

be primary legislation to implement

EU withdrawal agreement and I would

say it is other recognition

of the government having to listen.

If the House of Commons

votes down the new

withdrawal bill, will the

consequence be that we will still

leave on the 29th of March 2019

but without an agreement?

Yes.

What was that?

Yes.

The Secretary of State said yes.

Can he confirm that in the event

of no agreement, no deal, this

place will have no say

and we will leave on that date

because it is on the face

of the bill without any say

from this supposedly sovereign

Parliament which voted to take back

control.

What I can say to her is that

if we don't have a withdrawal

agreement we can have

a withdrawal agreement Bill.

Hasn't he does giving

the game away on what a sham

offer this is?

Totally worthless to Parliament,

essentially tried to buy

people by saying we're

going to give you an act

to shake things when

in

fact is a post-hoc after

the horse has bolted

piece of legislation,

we

might have left the EU,

the Treaty and the deal would have

been done and Parliament could do

nothing at

all to shape the nature of that

withdrawal agreement.

He has to do much better than this.

Parliament must have a say

on that withdrawal

agreement before we are thrown

over the cliff edge.

Let the repeated and the probable

sequence of events.

If Mr Barnier hit

his target and I had

mine we will include the withdrawal

agreement and associated agreements

in the latter part of next year.

He is aiming for October next year,

that is his stated aim.

If we do that then

the withdrawal, the first

withdrawal and treaty vote will come

to the house, the simple in

principle vote and then as soon

as possible thereafter

the withdrawal agreement Bill

will come through the

house.

That is the sequence and that

will be plenty of time and it will

be implemented at the time.

If the agreement only

happens on the very

last day in March,

could he explain how

the bill which is intended

to

ensure the meaningful vote only

comes forward after that date,

in any sense meaningful?

A meaningful vote is a vote that

allows you to say you want the deal

or you don't want the deal.

While Parliamentary involvement

is essential, this is not and never

should be construed as

an opportunity to reverse Brexit, to

return the UK to the EU

or go behind the wishes

of the British people

as

expressed in last

year 's referendum.

My honourable friend is entirely

right, it is a meaningful

vote but not meaningful

in the sense that some

believe meaningful,

which

is that you can reverse Article 50.

That is not available.

David Davis.

Now the case of British Iranian

national being held in prison in

Iran continues to make headlines.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being

held on charges of plotting to

overthrow the Iranian regime.

You may remember that the Foreign

Secretary issued a clarification

after appearing to suggest

she was in the country training

journalists Rather than merely

on holiday as her

family have stated.

The remarks prompted

fears that her five-year

term could be extended.

Boris John was called

to the Commons to update

MPs on the situation

and there was anger on both

sides of the house.

The whole house will join me

in expressing our deep concern about

the ordeal of this young mother

who has spent the last 19

months in jail in Iran

and have the honourable

member will join the government

in urging the Iranian authorities to

release on humanitarian grounds.

I spoke by phone to her husband,

Richard Ratcliffe, yesterday, and we

agreed to meet later this week.

I told Mr Ratcliffe that the whole

country is behind him and we all

want to see his wife home safe.

The Foreign Secretary

argued last week

that his comments to the select

committee and I quote no connection

whatsoever with the latest threat

by the Iranian authorities to extend

Nazanin's sentence and that it was

simply untrue to suggest otherwise.

That, Mr Speaker, is entirely

contradicted by what has been said

by the Iranian courts last weekend

and an Iranian judiciary websites

and an Iranian state TV.

All of them set explicitly

that the Foreign

Secretary's remarks were the basis

of the renewed action against

Nazanin so in conclusion after one

week of obtuse Cajun and plaster,

though he finally take the

opportunity today to states simply

and unequivocally for the removal

of any doubt, either here or in

Teheran, that he

simply got it wrong?

Mr Speaker I am more than happy

to see again what I said to

the Right Honourable Lady last week,

that yes of course I apologise for

the distress, for the suffering,

but that has been caused by the

impression that I gave

that the government believed,

that I believe that she was there

any professional

capacity she was there on holiday

and that is the view of...

I do apologise, I do

apologise and of

course I retract any suggestion

that she was there in a professional

capacity.

You must have heard that from me

about a dozen times.

Regrettably more than a faint whiff

of opportunism hangs over this

urgent question.

Others will question

the wisdom of having this

discussion at all.

Would my right honourable

friend not agree with me

that it is incumbent on each

and every one of us in this house

to pay very close attention

to what we may

may not be about to say

because the Iranians

will be watching

the

deliberations and we do not want

to exacerbate an already extremely

difficult situation.

At the weekend when asked

about the case the

Environment Secretary

said he did not know

why Nazanin had been

in

Iran.

Why and another Cabinet member not

briefed properly and said live

on television that he did not

know why she was there?

What is going on in the heart

of this government?

Every time he says things

like my words were open

to misinterpretation for,

he provides a lack of clarity

and sounds like he's wriggling

in a way other people can exploit.

So could see for

the sake of the -- of

Miss Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, say

unequivocally for the record I got

it wrong.

I hope that the house will

understand, with crystal clarity,

that Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

was there on holiday and she was not

there in any professional capacity,

insofar as people got a different

impression of what I

was seeing at the FAC

that was my mistake,

I

should have been, they should

have been clearer.

In the Foreign Secretary

tell me if you've

considered in the quality

and competitiveness of the Foreign

Office briefings and that they are

promptly made available to other

government ministers in advance

of media appearances?

If not, will he sorted out?

If so does he accept that

that is most useful ministers

to continue to get it wrong?

Does my right honourable

friend accept that

this has not been his finest hour?

But before the opposition

make too much of that

may I offer them

the

right deadlines such as that

in the independent online where it

says Boris to should resign

if British

mother stays in Iranian jail

for even one more day.

The Iranian regime plays

politics with hostages

and thus my right honourable friend

agree that if they believe that they

can get rid of the British Foreign

Secretary by jailing a hostage for a

longer then they will jail

that hostage for longer?

Could he reflect on this

and the rest of his conduct

as Foreign Secretary

and realise that his

brand of incompetence

is a

joke that is no longer funny

and consider being replaced by a

competent politician who will

attract the respect of the world and

not the ridicule that he attracts?

Paul Flynn.

You're watching Monday In Parliament

with me, Mandy Baker.

If you want to catch

a leader with all the news

from Westminster on the go,

don't forget our sister programme,

Today In Parliament,

is available as a download

from the BBC Radio 4 website.

Now, some 40 months have passed

since voters north of the border

decided that Scotland should stay

in the United Kingdom.

The winning margin for No

to independence was 55% to 45%.

So that was that then.

Well, not quite.

Over the last three years,

a second referendum,

sometimes called Indy Ref 2,

has been much discussed.

Now a petition on the Parliamentary

website is demanding that

a second vote is held.

While a rival petition

is demanding that a second

referendum is not held.

The two pertitions made

for an interesting debate

in Westminster Hall.

When people go to the polls

and make their deocratic

choice to stay part

of the United Kingdom,

that should be respected.

Respected for a number of reasons,

one, it's democratic, but secondly,

we were promised by the proponents

of an independent Scotland it

would be once in a generation,

or indeed once in a lifetime.

When proponents say that,

when you go to the polls

and you put your cross in the box,

whether it's yes or no, you should

be able to trust what people say

when your are doing that.

I appreciate that Scotland

being dragged out of the EU

against its will hasn't yet caught

the fire the general populace

as a reason to hold a major

referendum just now.

However, surveys have shown that

people would like a referendum

when the impact and the effects

of Brexit are fully understood.

So there is actually

a will to have another referendum,

just not right now,

but sometime in the future.

The majority of people in East

Lothian recognise that devolution

was created to empower

Scotland within the Union,

not pull it further apart.

During the recent election,

I ran on the promise of no second

independence referendum,

and I know some members

of this House do not agree.

But the evidence from East Lothian

is that they did not want,

that they do not want,

a second independence referendum.

70% of the voters who cast

their votes voted for a party

or parties that did not want

a second independence referendum.

It will be no surprise that

I often wear a Yes badge,

it's something I'm proud

of my involvement in.

But the reasons are more important

than just being in or out of Europe,

although that's a very important

issue at the moment.

My motivation is a hope that

Scotland can become a fairer

and more equal society.

But that, to me, requires us

to have the full levers of power

to make it a successful country.

Just now, with 70% of tax

and 85% of welfare powers

remaining controlled by Westminster,

the Scottish Parliament has no say

over immigration and is powerless

to prevent Trident weapons of mass

destruction sitting a few miles

from our largest city.

We need an alternative

to the economics of austerity,

where our Scottish Government is not

merely restricted to mitigating some

of the worst aspects of Westminster.

Since September 2014,

there've been over 17 polls

taken across Scotland,

and they have consistently said

the Scottish people do not want

independence and they don't

want to have another referendum.

After all these elections that

you have suffered so much from,

what's it's going to take

for the Scottish National Party

to listen to the people of Scotland,

who they supposedly represent?

I feel that reflecting on the binary

nature of that referendum

was what truly destructed the civic

discourse in Scotland.

Having the yes or no position

offered a simplistic answer

to a very complex question.

That was what was so

unsatisfactory about it.

I was one of those people

at the very early stages of that

referendum that favoured a third

option, and that would have actually

opened up the debate in Scotland

during that referendum for a more

nuanced discussion about

the process of devolution,

which, we recall, Donald Dewar

called a process, not an event.

So enough.

Indeed, we've heard all the figures.

There is now no reason,

no will and a lot of

people would argue no need

for a second referendum.

Since the Smith Commission,

and the latest tranche of powers,

which remarkably seems to slip

the minds of the SNP

at any given opportunity, when they

tell us about the rosy picture

they've created in Scotland

and ignoring the lack of GPs,

the shortage of teachers,

the closing of GP practices.

Christine Jardine there.

The Government's flagship wellfare

policy, Universal Credit,

dominated Work and Pensions

questions at the beginning

of the Commons day.

Universal Credit combines six

working-age benefits

into a single payment.

The Government says it's been

designed to make the system simpler.

There have been criticisms

from Labour and the SNP over

length of time claimments

wait for money and the system

of advance payments.

While many Conservative MPs have

supported the rollout.

We hear a lot on the other side

about Universal Credit,

but we do need to remember this

is a much more effective system

at getting people into work

and that, nationally,

113 people move into work under

Universal Credit for every

100 under the previous system.

And in my constituency,

which was a pathfinder

for Universal Credit,

we are seeing very substantial falls

in people claiming it.

Isn't this a better

system altogether?

My honourable friend

is absolutely right.

Universal Credit is helping

people get into work,

to progress in work,

and it is also clear that people

on Universal Credit are spending

more time looking for work

than on the legacy benefits.

And I think it's really important

we all work to ensure that

Universal Credit is a success.

We believe it will result

in 250,000 more jobs in this country

as a consequence of its operation,

and that is something

that is worth achieving.

I wonder if the Secretary of State

has seen the report from

the Child Poverty Action

Group on the IPPR?

They say that cuts to

Universal Credit will leave an extra

1 million children in poverty.

Is a million more children

in proverty not evidence enough

for the UK Government to reverse

the cuts to work allowances

and make work pay?

My point was that the Scottish

Government are delivering

Universal Credit in a different way,

but in a way

that I think is worse

than the situation

in England and Wales.

I have to say, the point

about Universal Credit is that it

will help people in the work.

I'll give one brief example,

if I may, Mr Speaker.

I heard of an account last week

of someone, a single mother,

on income support, not currently

or previously able to claim

for her childcare costs.

Now under Universal Credit,

she is able to do so.

She is taking up a job working eight

or nine hours a week,

which she was previously

unable to do.

A first step on the ladder,

that is an example of

what Universal Credit is delivering.

I won't ask the Government bench

for a fifth time whether I should

believe his statement

that the roll-out of

Universal Credit in Birkenhead

will go hunky-dory, or the foodbank

that says it will need ten times

more food to prevent a scenario

of people going hungry.

They can't abide the word starving.

We have a debate on Thursday,

which is signed by members

across the House of Commons.

It will be the first time

when members opposite can actually

vote whether they want to reform

Universal Credit.

Will he be opening that debate

and hearing it and taking

a message directly back

to Cabinet, please?

Well, the position we have made very

clear for a long time

is that we want to ensure that

Universal Credit works.

This is a test and learn system,

and we are always looking for ways

in which we can improve the system,

particularly for that first period.

David Gauke.

The top civil servant

at the Ministry of Justice has

admitted to MPs his department

was too ambitious when it attempted

to introduce a new form

of electronic tagging for criminals.

The ankle tagging scheme makes use

of GPS satellite technology.

It was meant to be a cheaper

alternative to prison.

But a National Audit Office report

found that, by March,

it cost the Government £60 million

and still hasn't been implemented.

Monday's session of the Public

Accounts Committee investigated

the report's findings.

The failure to pilot

is something we all now regret.

I think it was done

because the Department wanted to see

results quickly and had faith

in the contract being able

to deliver more quickly

than we realise now that they

could have delivered.

And there was an overoptimistic

belief that tagging could be

used as an alternative

to other disposals.

And without an insight into either

behaviour of sentences

or behaviour of offenders

under a tagging regime.

There was some basic research done,

I understand, by the Home Office,

but it was very limited.

What I am accepting is that,

by the time we came to renew

the contracts that we had that

were running out in 2013,

we were effectively looking at this

as a reprocurement, with wanting,

through that reprocurement,

to provide options for the future.

What we got wrong was not

recognising that this was a major

transformation programme,

and that should have been based

on a much more solid policy base

than we had,

and we should have had

better research to be able

to launch it in that way.

Having been an IT procurement badger

myself, I do have insights here.

The procurement was

absolutely shambolic.

You had untested providers.

absolutely shambolic.

You had no clear accountability for

who was responsible for the service.

And you didn't have an integrator,

so whoever put this town

as a recruitment strategy,

I don't think had any idea

what they were trying to achieve.

It was completely,

fundamentally flawed.

This is a mistake we made thinking,

as part of the reprocurement,

we could somehow get suppliers

to invent on the hoof tags that

could do everything.

That was an overly ambitious

reading of what the market

was capable of delivering.

Richard Heaton.

Earlier this year, new penalties

were introduced for people

caught driving while using

a hand-held mobile phone.

A fine of £200 as well as six

penalty points could be imposed

for first-time offenders.

More than 15,000 drivers have been

fined under the new rules.

In the Lords, peers asked

about the impact of the regulations.

Young people aged between the ages

of 17 and 29 are more likely to use

hand-held mobile phones

and other hand-held devices.

Can my noble friend the Minister say

what the Government is doing to take

action against this,

and also in relation to further

education for that particular group?

My noble friend is right

to highlight the importance

of addressing young drivers.

Around 20% of new drivers

will have a crash within the first

six months of passing their test.

So any novice drivers caught

using a mobile phone

within the first two years

will have their licence revoked.

We've announced changes

to the practical driving test,

which will come

into force in December.

I've mentioned the Think campaign,

which is targeting young drivers,

we have also produced a provisional

licence mailing insert

which is estimated to reach nearly

1.7 million new drivers annually.

What representations, if any have

Transport Ministers been making

to the Treasury that

road traffic offences,

including vehicle theft

and using hand-held mobile phones

while driving cannot,

even in increasing

numbers of occasions,

even be pursued by the police,

let alone see perpetrators brought

to justice, due to the continuing

squeeze on police budgets

and continuing reductions

to the number of police officers?

Can I take it the Department

for Transport, despite the recent

publicly expressed concerns of HM

Inspectorate of Constabulary, has

remained utterly silent on the issue

of inadequate police resources?

My Lords, we are very sensitive

to the pressures which police face

and we recognise the importance

of wider police spending in the

2015 Police Spending Review,

which did protect overall

police spending in real terms.

It is of course up to Police

and Crime Commissioners and chief

constables for each force to decide

how they deploy resources.

Can the Minister tell us what she's

going to do about cyclists

who use their phones,

often at high speed,

and are becoming a danger

on our roads?

My Lords, I agree that everyone

who uses highways does have

responsibility to behave safely.

There are a number of offences that

can cover cycling behaviour.

Fixed penalty notices,

or officers can report the

road user for prosecution.

The Government announced last

month its cycle safety review that

will involve a consultation on these

were issues, and is working

with stakeholders for their input

and will publish results this year.

Members of the Lords come

from all walks of life.

Lord Bradshaw worked for

Thames Valley Police association,

specialising in road safety.

He was concerned about drivers

stopping to take calls.

Throughout the area,

the regulations about parking

are universally ignored,

and some very dangerous parking

is taking place in a town centres.

Does this not indicate a lack

of respect for the law?

I wonder what the Government

is doing about that?

I'm afraid am not aware of

the incident the noble Lord raises.

Obviously, we're working with police

forces across the country to ensure

enforcement is taking place.

Because laws are only as good

as their enforcement.

That's it, but do join us

at the same time tomorrow

for another round-up

of the day at Westminster.

For now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.