11/12/2017 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 Prime Minister tells MPs

the interim Brexit deal

is good news for everyone.

But there's a mixed

reaction from her own side.

The Prime Minister, with her calm

grit her shawl Brexit can and will

be done.

We are giving the EU tens

of billions of pounds and they are

taking them.

Meanwhile, should there

be a second referendum

on Britain's EU exit deal?

We are not pretending it did not

happen or trying to go back to the

22nd of June of last year.

Is Boris Johnson a liability

as Foreign Secretary?

No, says a ministerial colleague.

In the role of Foreign Secretary or

any Foreign Office minister or any

minister, personality also counts.

But first -

a week is a long time in politics.

Seven days ago Theresa May's

initial Brexit deal with the EU lay

in tatters, scuppered by the leader

of the DUP disliking what it meant

for Northern Ireland.

But from the jaws of apparent defeat

came apparent victory

for the Prime Minister.

In the early hours of

Friday Theresa May appeared

in Brussels alongside

the European Commission president,

Jean Claude Juncker,

to announce that an interim deal had

been struck, so allowing

a progression to the next stage

of Brexit negotiations, over trade.

The moment triggered four days

of comment and analysis.

Was the interim deal

a success for Britain

or could we have done better?

The Commons was keen

to hear from Theresa May.

Statesman, the Prime Minister.

I would like to update the house on

the negotiations for our departure

from the European Union.

She said Britain was 's negotiators

are good boss Lee for the outcomes

achieved.

Reciprocal deal guaranteeing the

rates of more than 3 million EU

citizens in the UK and 1 million UK

National in the EU so they can carry

on living their lives as before. A

fair settlement of accounts, meeting

our rights and obligations as it

apart the member state in the spirit

of our future partnership. A

commitment to maintain the Common

travel area with Ireland and uphold

the Belfast agreement in fuel and

avoid the hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland while

upholding the constitutional

economic integrity of the whole of

the UK.

The role of the European Court of

Justice has been reduced.

EU citizens in the UK will have

their rights enshrined in UK law and

enforced by British courts and UK

citizens in the EU will also have

their rights protected. The

jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice is coming to an end and

we are taking control of our own

laws once again which is exactly how

it should be.

She warned nothing

would be agreed until everything was

agreed.

These are the actions of a

responsible nation honouring the

commitments it has made to its

allies having gone through those

commitments line by line as we said

we would. It is a fair settlement

for the British taxpayer who will

soon see significant savings

compared with remaining in the EU.

We well be able to use that money to

invest in our priorities at home

such as housing, schools and the

NHS. It means the days of paying

vast sums to the European Union

every year are coming to an end.

The deal was good news all round,

she concluded.

This is good news for

the people who voted leave who were

worried we were so bogged down in

negotiations it was never going to

happen. It is good news for people

who voted remain who are worried

they would crash out without a deal.

We well leave and do so in a smooth

and orderly way, securing a new deep

and special partnership with our

friends while taking back control of

our borders, money and laws once

again and that is vanishing,

discover and's mission and on Friday

we took a big step towards achieving

it and I commend the statement to

the house.

18 months on from the referendum

result the Prime Minister has

scraped through phase one of the

negotiations. Scraped through after

18 months. Two months later than

planned, with many of the key

aspects of phase one is still not

clear. This weekend Cabinet members

have managed to contradict each

other, some have managed to go even

further and contradict themselves.

Ultimately we saw a rather fudged

agreement late last week. Has this

experience given the Prime Minister

reason to consider dropping the

unnecessary except the deadline of

the 29th of March 2019 from the EU

withdrawal bill? I am sure the whole

house and probably whole country

would rather get the best possible

deal a little bit later if that

meant a better deal for people's

jobs and the economy.

The Prime Minister referred to the

so-called divorce payment of £39

billion.

This offer is on the table

in the context of agreeing the

partnership for the future and the

next stage and the partnership. If

we do not agree that partnership

this offer is off the table.

Despite the prophecies of doom and

gloom at the Prime Minister with her

calm grit her Shawna Brexit can and

will be done and we congratulate

her. It is a compromise but when

people like me look at the

alternative, namely the Labour

Government staying in the single

market forever and having no control

over immigration, it's amazing how

our minds are concentrated in

support of the Prime Minister.

Last week we had the humiliating

scene of the Prime Minister being

forced out of the original deal by

the DUP. Rushing back to London, the

Government had to rewrite the

agreement so as to reach the DUP's

approval. We have to wonder who is

running the UK, is it Arlene Foster

or the right Honourable member for

Maidenhead?

Which she confirmed the text of this

agreement note mixed fleet in the

event of the deal norther Ireland

will not be separated by any

repertory requirements from the rest

of the UK, along with zero hard

border. In the event of no overall

deal nothing is agreed.

Can I suggest in order to strengthen

her level ridge in the next stage of

negotiations she might want to

suspend tribal politics national

average. And invited leader --

invited Leader of the Opposition to

join her negotiating team. Since

whatever their tactical differences,

they agree with her on the

fundamentals of Brexit and

withdrawal from the single market

and Customs union, disasters as that

may be.

Across these benches complete your

inanity in congratulating the Prime

Minister in -- complete agreement. A

pitiful performance from the Leader

of the Opposition. I still do not

know if he welcomes the agreement

because he should do because it's a

major step forward and looking to

the future, around about this time

next year we should have begun to

have concluded the trade

negotiations towards a trade deal.

The Brexit secretary captivated the

house with tales of regulatory

impact assessments that are not

assessed, the Chancellor said the

Divorce Bill will be paid in all

circumstances and the Brexit second

of it contradicted him at the

weekend saying it is conditional on

a trade deal. Her deal promising

full regulatory alignment he

dismissed as a statement of intent.

She cannot even get her Brexit

secretary to agree with her and how

on earth can she get a good deal

protecting jobs, investment and

growth?

The Prime Minister said there had

been give and take in negotiations

and she is right, we are giving the

EU tens of billions of pounds and

they are taking them. As the Prime

Minister said, the money will not be

paid unless that is final agreement,

by definition that must mean we are

not legally obliged to make these

payments, otherwise that would not

be available to us.

I put it to the Prime Minister of FB

members for the lipid -- 50 members

are in agreement one or both them

must be mistaken. You cannot have

full autonomy and feel alignment at

the same time. Cross-border trade

and services that require some sort

of long-term regulatory cooperation

in place.

The response of MPs

to the Brexit deal.

Meanwhile, there was also reaction

from members of the House of Lords.

The statement from the Prime

Minister twice repeated nothing is

agreed until everything is agreed.

Would she not think it was a good

idea the Government should actually

work out a plan B for no deal

because in that way we will get a

much better deal with plan a because

the great advantage of plan B and

leaving with no deal is we cease to

pay into the EU budget?

The Leader of the House is a member

of the Cabinet and therefore I'm

sure she will know the answer to my

question. Is that the Government's

and tension that the ferry port of

Belfast there will be no customs

officials or immigration officers in

attendance with the remit or ability

to check persons non-UK citizens

travelling to ports in Scotland,

England or Wales?

The noble lord asks the question of

implementation and I am not in a

position to answer at the moment.

With my noble friend answer a simple

question? She said in the statement

there would be a large sum of money

available to Britain because of our

work leaving the EU. Could she

promised to place before the house

the details of that sum of money,

how the addition is done and how it

is the Government makes that

statement in the school and flat

opposition to every independent

commentator in this country? -- Phil

and flat opposition.

We have agreed a important principle

at Aston how we arrive at the

valuation which will ensure the

protests is fair and how we --

ensure the process is fair, leaving.

And back to that divorce

settlement of £39 billion.

Will the Minister confirm the UK

Government, having agreed the

definition of its financial

obligations, well under no

circumstances refused to honour them

as a matter of honour?

As the Prime

Minister has been clear this money

is on the table in the context of

agreeing our future partnership and

if that is not agreed the financial

offer

is off the table.

Lady Evans.

Now, Brexit is happening

because of the outcome

of the national referendum held back

in June 2016.

But should we be taking part

in a second national referendum,

one that decides if we like the exit

terms the UK is being offered

by the European Union?

An electronic or e-petition

on the Parliamentary website,

calling for the people

to have the final say on Brexit, has

attracted 137,000 signatures,

so triggering a special debate

in Westminster Hall.

It was a debate that saw some

passionate speeches.

What we are not talking

about here I think is some kind

of reversion to the status quo

before the referendum

happened.

We are not pretending

it didn't happen.

We are not trying to go

back to the 22nd of

June last year.

It did happen and people

are very angry and many of

the reasons for that anger

are very legitimate.

The idea that those issues

that they were mostly

concerned about, their future

prospects of work, future prospects

of their kids, whether

or not they could get

into the NHS, whether or not

they could get affordable

housing, the irony is

that by leaving the EU,

all

of those problems will

get 100 times worse.

And believe me, the anger

of those people when they

realise that is going to be

something that we haven't yet begun

to discuss and to imagine.

It was a referendum based on fiction

and it was a referendum

and we were going to

have a debate in the next

couple of weeks about

the

influences.

Because I believe that

the referendum wasn't a fair vote.

It was heavily influenced

by the propaganda machines and those

propaganda machines

are out of the control

of the Electoral Commission.

Because the changes made,

the uses of algorithms,

of money from abroad,

very clever artificial intelligence,

influenced people in

a way that is invisible.

That is the best reason

why we need a new one.

On the issue of tourism.

We were told that Britain

would benefit from

tourism.

More people would come into the UK

because the pound was weaker

and we would see a real boom.

I talk to the industry,

they are saying they

can't cope with Brexit.

People that previously

supported going through

Brexit, but they are saying it is

deeply damaging because they are

losing all the labour

which is working in

the tourism industry

and

therefore as a result

businesses are closing.

The Prime Minister has gone

from Remainer to Leaver, the Foreign

Secretary had an article written

for a newspaper saying

why we should remain,

but

changed his mind, and

the Environment Secretary went from

the best friend and strong supporter

of the Foreign Secretary's

leadership campaign to somebody

who chose to stand against him.

Even at the highest

levels of Cabinet

governance on these islands,

Cabinet ministers can

change their mind very

quickly.

And I do understand

the argument that says

that if people change

their

mind at some point in

the future should they not be

given the opportunity

to

express that change

of mind at the ballot box?

Generally speaking though

I would take the view that

the way to change

the referendum result

is for the party that wants

to

change it to get

elected at the ballot

box with a referendum

as an

explicit manifesto commitment.

We heard in earlier

discussions about

how if we had a second referendum

we would have a different sort of

referendum, as if the first one was

invalid or incomprehensible or there

wasn't sufficient discussion.

Again the conversation

tended towards the

emotional and the lies.

Just from the very emotion

that I have seen in

this room today, from the

conversations that have occurred,

from statements such as catastrophe,

exodus, dire, crisis, lies, death

row, malicious, I don't believe

that there would be anything less

than the kind of emotional

discussion

that we had two years ago.

Again, be very careful

what we wish for.

The debate on whether we should

have a second referendum

on leaving the EU.

You're watching our round-up of the

day in the Commons and the Lords.

Still to come.

What sort of person do we need

as Foreign Secretary?

Boris Johnson, has repeated

his pledge to leave no

stone unturned to secure

the release of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

She has been held in

Iran since April 2016

on charges of spying,

which she denies.

She was arrested as she attempted

to return to the UK

after a visit to relatives

with her young daughter.

Boris Johnson was updating MPs

following a series of meetings

in Iran and in other countries

in the region over the weekend.

He said his first priority has been

the plight of dual nationals

being held in Iran.

These are complex cases involving

individuals considered by Iran to

be their own citizens.

And I do not wish

to raise false hopes.

But my meetings in

Tehran were worthwhile.

And while I do not believe it

would be in the interests of the

individuals concerned,

or their loved ones,

to provide a running commentary,

the House can be assured

that the Government will leave no

stone unturned in our efforts to

secure their release.

Boris Johnson provoked

a storm of criticism

earlier this autumn when he told

a Commons committee

Ms Zaghari Ratcliffe had been

training journalists -

a comment he later withdrew.

I have no wish to go over old ground

concerning the Foreign

Secretary's remarks to the Foreign

Affairs Select Committee.

And it is right that he has

finally apologised

for those remarks, finally

admitted that he was wrong.

And it is right that he has

finally met Richard

Ratcliffe.

And that is right that he has spent

the weekend in the region

attempting to atone for his mistake

and get Nazanin

released.

And we welcome the tentative

progress that the Foreign

Secretary has made in that regard.

As Richard Ratcliffe himself put it,

it doesn't change the fundamentals,

but it makes a change

in the fundamentals more likely.

Several Labour MPs pressed

the foreign secretary over

whether he'd tried to see

Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe himself.

Did he request to see Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe personally in

order to judge her mental

and physical well-being?

I must just remind

the honourable gentleman

opposite that the Iranian Government

does not recognise the dual

national system that we have.

And therefore do not

give consular access.

What response did he get

from the president of Iran

and other authorities

when he

pressed for the release

of and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe?

And does he have any

indication of what

the authorities think

of the recent present

health assessments made

on

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her

fitness to remain in prison in

Iran?

Yes, of course I raised

the humanitarian

concerns in a number

of

consular cases.

And those concerns were taken

on board but it would be

wrong to give a running commentary

or report about exactly what they

are saying in each case.

Boris Johnson also updated MPs

on talks aimed at resolving

the conflict in Yemen.

The country has been devastated

by a war between forces loyal

to the internationally-recognised

government and those allied

to the Houthi rebel movement.

Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition

backing the government -

blockading some ports -

stopping aid getting through.

Highlight the devastating

consequences of the

war and can he tell us more

about the lifting of the blockade?

More details on that

would be helpful to

the House.

And to everybody that the Foreign

Secretary met did he

make it clear that any

tactic of starvation

and surrender is abhorrent?

Finally, did he commit to any

increase in aid to Yemen at the

end of the blockade as well?

As to the suggestion

that starvation is

being used as an instrument of

warfare, that is indeed what I said.

And what I said to our

friends in the region

is that that is the risk

that we are running, that the

judgment of history will be, that

unless we sort this out, people will

deem that starvation has been used

as an instrument for the prosecution

of a war.

Meanwhile, a Labour peer has claimed

that the performance

of the Foreign Secretary

is damaging Britain's

reputation abroad.

Lord Soley, a former

Labour MP, made his strong

attack during questions

in the house of Lords.

Is the minister aware

of the immense damage being done

to Britain's reputation abroad,

and

also to the rights of British

citizens abroad, by the tendency of

the present Foreign Secretary, Boris

Johnson, to speak first and think

afterwards?

And can he and his colleagues

in Government

please convey to the Secretary

of State that he needs to reverse

that process because he has a bad

reputation for it in this country

and overseas and it is damaging

Britain's relationships and

damaging individuals.

My right honourable

friend the Foreign

Secretary, as I am sure many in this

House would acknowledge, represents

our country and indeed

the Foreign Office

in exemplary fashion

and this

weekend...

This weekend's example

is testimony to that.

My right honourable

friend the Foreign

Secretary has also over

the last week raised

some important issues

on

the issues of counter-terrorism

and countering violent extremism.

This again demonstrates

the importance

that my right honourable friend the

Foreign Secretary attaches to this

important area of representing

Government abroad,

and I have seen the

Foreign Secretary in

operation directly as

a minister on this team.

He does so with a strategic

outlook and he does so in

a positive fashion.

Would he perhaps try to redress

the balance by telling us

about the Foreign Secretary's close

mutually confident relationships

with any particular senior ministers

of foreign governments, just to

redress the balance

we have seen in the media?

The Foreign Secretary has just

returned from a very important

and constructive visit to Iran

and the Middle East.

And I am sure that we will agree

that we have important

relationships with the Foreign

Secretary leading from

the front and ensuring

that relationships

are not just sustained

but

strengthened.

We have had in this country,

and been fortunate to have,

many interesting individuals that

have carried on the role of Foreign

Secretary over centuries.

Not all of them are

straitjacketed by guidance

or anything that comes

from an official level.

But surely would he not agree

with me that the only way

in which we can judge the success

of diplomacy is whether or not that

serves the best interests at any

time of this country?

I agree with my noble friend

and at the same time

I add this much, that in the role

of Foreign Secretary, or any Foreign

Office minister,

personality also counts.

Back in the Commons,

Labour has accused the Chancellor

Philip Hammond of preferring to make

giveaway payments to Britain's banks

over the country's financially

stretched public services.

In last month's Budget Mr Hammond

went ahead with cuts

in the bank levy, that is,

an annual tax on bank debt.

Labour believe the bank levy should

have been increased, not decreased.

The issue was raised when MPs

debated the Bill that implements

measures announced in the Budget,

namely the Finance Bill.

The Bill proposes a stamp duty cut

that according to analysis will

include house prices while failing

to address the housing crisis by

introducing measures to build

more affordable homes.

It also includes plans

to continue with the

Government's 2015 bank

levy cut and go further,

as the minister seemed to proudly

proclaim, exempting all

foreign banks from the bank levy

and ensuring that all banks

from 2021 only had to pay the levy

based on

their UK balance sheets.

On the subject of

the bank levy, looking

back in history, in 2011,

the Conservative-led government

introduced it, but Labour voted

against it and in 2015, when they

introduced the 8%

surcharge so that banks

would pay more, again

the

Conservatives voted for it

but Labour voted against it.

So why are you now

rewriting history?

It is not a question

of rewriting history.

We are not supporting bills that

continue austerity year in, year

out.

And that's it for this programme.

Mandy Baker will be here

for the rest of the week.

Until then, from me,

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.