29/01/2018 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 Tory turf war over Brexit gets

a full airing in the Commons.

When is the Government

going to stand up against

the hard Brexiteers who mainly

inhabit these benches -

there's only about 35 of them -

see them off?

MPs debate the dangers

of fireworks in the back garden.

She says, I saw two

groups of young people

of various ages standing

at either end

of the street firing

fireworks at each other

as if they were guns.

And is the latest history

syllabus in schools

biased against the Labour Party?

Completely omits the 1945-51 Labour

Government, asks candidates for

Conservative strengths and Labour

weaknesses and stops in 1997.

But first, all the countries

of the EU apart from Britain

have agreed just

what they're prepared to offer

the UK in the so-called

transitional period

immediately after the UK's

departure date from the EU.

The declaration, made in Brussels,

would require Britain to follow

all relevant EU rules

without the power to change them.

The announcement followed a weekend

of Conservative in-fighting

with members of the new pro-Brexit

group, the European Research Group,

ERG, taking to the airwaves,

while a Remain-supporting Tory

accused Brexit supporters

of being "the swivel-eyed few."

The transition period

is also sometimes called

the implementation period.

Whatever it's called,

the Brexit Minister oultined to MPs

the Government's latest thinking.

For such a period to

work, both sides must continue

to follow the same stable

set of laws and rules.

Without compromising the integrity

of the single market and

the customs union to which we will

maintain access on current terms,

both sides should approach this

period in the spirit

of our future partnership.

That means each side

committing to not taking

any action that

undermines the other.

And during this period,

we will still make our voice heard.

We will have to agree a way

of resolving concerns if laws

are deemed to run contrary to our

interest and if we have not had our

say and we will agree an appropriate

process for this temporary period.

So that we have the means to remedy

any issues through dialogue

as soon as possible.

All of this will be provided

for in the withdrawal agreement

we reach with the EU

which will have the status

of a new international treaty

between the UK and the EU.

Given this document

to which the Minister

has just referred, which has just

been issued by the UK -

by the European Union to the UK -

about two hours ago, can

the Government reconcile its policy

of leaving the European Union

with its own implementation

proposals during the

transition period?

Furthermore, would this

apply when EU laws are to be

imposed on us when we will have

no say either in the European

Council or the European Parliament

and our courts would be obliged

to apply European court case law

without having a judge in the court?

Will he reject that

the European at key

will apply in relation

to the United Kingdom

and reject the notion put

forward in this document

that during the transitional period

European Union law will continue

to apply to the UK with direct

effect and primacy?

I want to be very clear that the UK

will be leaving the EU

on March the 29th 2019.

and we will then have a strictly

time-limited implementation period

which will be as short

as is practical.

We currently expect that to be

in the region of two years.

The answer to my right

honourable friend's first question

is yes, that we must make

sure that we reconcile these issues

through the negotiations to come

and he would not expect me, I know,

to speak on behalf of the European

Union and their directives today.

Mr Speaker, there is

a majority in this House

that wants a sensible

approach to Brexit.

So, would the Minister agree

that it would be right to reach out

to that majority instead of letting

the European Research Group

call the shots?

Will he also confirm,

as the Chancellor, Business

Secretary and Brexit Secretary said

in a letter on Friday,

that during the transition period,

our relations will, quote,

continue on current

terms, full stop.

Mr Speaker, the CBI,

which represents thousands of

businesses across the United Kingdom

of all sizes and from all sectors

just over a week ago called

on the Government to put

the interests of the economy over

and above ideology.

Does the Minister agree,

and if he does, when

is the Government going to stand up

against the hard Brexiteers

who mainly inhabit these benches -

there's only about 35 of them -

see them off and make sure

that we get a sensible Brexit?

Because if we don't, we will

sleepwalk into a disastrous Brexit

for generations to come.

Can I urge the Minister

to resist the siren voices

from his own backbenchers urging him

onto the rocks a WTO,

World Trade Organisation only deal?

Isn't the real reason

for Cabinet's sort of policy

of destructive ambiguity

because they are fatally split on

ideological grounds and they're

putting the unity of their own party

before British jobs, the British

economy and British public services?

I'm afraid I completely disagree

with the honourable lady.

The Government has set out a clear

strategy to deliver for the British

economy through this process.

We will deliver

on their strategy and

what I've seen in votes in this

House time and time again is that

the greatest split that exists

is between the backbenchers

of the Labour Party and their

own front bench on these issues.

Can the Minister confirm that

from a practical point of view

we shouldn't be too worried

about new EU law

during the two-year period

because it takes more than two years

for new EU laws to be

put into place?

But also, from a practical point of

view, can he confirm that we will be

setting up working groups

and technical issues that

are important, like data exchanges,

as as soon as possible?

I think our constituents

would respect us all a lot more in

this place if we stopped making

comments about people being swivel

eyed just because they have very

firmly held opinions.

Does the Minister agree

that the purpose of

an implementation period is to

demonstrate very, very clearly that

we have a realistic grasp of

the scale and complexity of the task

ahead of us?

We are just over a year away

from leaving the EU and the

only thing that we can rely

on from this Government is chaos.

Now, it's been said

in the past that the SNP

is the real opposition to this

failing Government, though I'd have

to say we have been given a good run

for our money from the Tory

backbenchers at the moment.

Now, the Scottish

Government has published

its analysis of what leaving the

European Union will mean

and have done so publicly.

When will this Government

published its analysis?

Well, I say to the honourable

gentleman if he seeks to provide

real opposition, he might want a few

more of his colleagues to turn up

for debate in this House.

Of course, the Government

is going to continue

to do all the analysis,

all the work we need

to prepare for this process,

but we are going to stick

to what this House has repeatedly

voted for which is not to publish

anything that could be prejudicial

to our negotiating position.

The Government has been pressed

to set up an independent inquiry

into the disclosure of evidence

by the police in criminal cases.

The demand follows the announcement

of a review of all current rape

and serious sexual assault cases

in England and Wales

after the collapse of several rape

trials because evidence had not been

shared with defence lawyers.

Well and what is being done

belatedly because confident in the

criminal legal system in the Crown

Court has been seeping away almost

daily. Well the attorney join with

the Home Secretary in studying what

was done in 1998 when there was a

failure to prosecute deaths in

custody cases and I appointed a

senior ex-circuit judge to do an

independent review as he delivered a

damning report into or three months?

My boards, we recognise that

complies with disclosure

requirements is vital if there is

ever to be a fair trial. As regards

a review at present policy, the

Attorney General's review will take

account of recent reports from

judges and Her Majesty's inspectors

as well as gathering additional

evidence from bodies including the

judiciary, the bar Council, the Law

Society, police representatives and

prosecutors. Disclosure is an issue

in all jurisdictions. It's a

question of how it is actually

handled and here we are concerned

with a handling issue, not a

resource issue.

I don't think I

could disagree with the minister

more. We are dealing with the

resource issue, quite simply. Law

disclosure is as clear as daylight

but it was written before iPhones

and social media came into

existence. Whatever guidance is

offered, and I ask the Minister to

agree with this, whatever guidance

is issued to the police and their

forensic IT investigators, there has

to be some concern about whether

they have the resources to do this

in cases of rape when they also have

cases of terrorism and organised

crime to deal with.

Clearly, the

development of digital media has

increased the demands made both on

the police and the prosecution

service in the investigation of

crime and, indeed, in their most

recent report, National disclosure

improvement plan from the National

police chief's Council, the College

of policing and the Crown

Prosecution Service, it was

indicated that they will develop a

joint protocol by March 20 18th at

the examination of digital media.

On

the one hand, we have urgent crisis

reviews of pending prosecutions for

fear of potential nondisclosure and

unsafe trials. On the other hand, we

have various women's groups telling

us that the existing law designed to

protect women from degrading

questioning on their sexual history

is not being applied which causes

severe. Addicott insult to injury, a

notorious sex offender has been

released on parole or will be

without rhyme or reason or voice for

victims of crime. Well the noble

Lords the Minister please agree with

me that it is time for the

Government to give urgent attention

if not resources to restore faith,

trust and confidence in our criminal

justice system?

What is necessary is

that a responsible Government should

not an wave but instead respect the

rule of law.

A picture of sub-standard living

conditions in rented housing

in London has been given to MPs

on a parliamentary committee.

The Communities And Local Government

committee has been investigating

issues in the private rented sector.

The Mayor of Newham has been

the latest to give evidence.

In Newham, it's now 46% private

rental. That is not true. We do not

know what it was 20 years ago. We

know it is 46 now but we do not know

what it was ten years ago because

nobody knows I think, except us,

what the extent of the private

rented centre is because with a

borough wide license system we are

able to identify the problems and

fraenulum the problem is simply

shocking conditions, absently

shocking conditions. 23 people in a

three-bedroom houses not unusual.

Harry Potter, we had a guy in a race

I went on the sleeping under the

stairs and if you have seen the

film, there was more space in Harry

Potter's cupboards than in this one.

Two people living in a walk-in

freezer. £500 for a bed in a bedroom

with four beds, bunk beds. £500.

Shocking conditions. A family living

in a place that has been built with

chipboard and their fridge and

washing machine are in the garden

powered from the kitchen because

they are living in the garden. That

is the problem we have got and we

now know, 51,000 properties, we know

we have 20,000 landlords and we have

prosecuted 1200 so that tells you

roughly how many good landlords we

have for landlords who are trying

and the scale of the problem. 1200,

multiply that by how many people are

in each proxy and it is absolutely

shocking.

He turned to how landlords acting

illegally should be punished.

The punishment needs to break the

business model. The example I like

to give, because it is nice and

clear cut, if someone breaks a

packet of cigarettes up to sell

individual cigarettes to children,

tell me why they should be permitted

to retain their business? They are

consciously doing something that we

all understand is evil. It is the

same with people who don't waste as

part of their business model. They

are Kotze, pay a fine, it's part of

the business model. With landlords,

they pay fines as part of the

business model. If you have 25

people in a home, which is not

unusual, if you have 25 people in a

property, 12 and a half thousand

pounds a month, you will have to be

pretty... We think confiscation of

the property, a proper thing that is

your business model will be broken

if we catch you doing these things

consciously, we will take your

property. That way, the business

model will work any more. We had to

break the business model. There have

to be fines that are properly

substantial fines.

And from inner London

to the Lancashire coast.

The particular issue that affects

not as black rubber seaside towns in

general and coastal resorts is the

dramatic size of the convergence

from four hotels and bed and

breakfasts into poor quality private

rental flats. Almost all of that has

driven entirely by the amount of

rentals can be obtained through the

local housing allowance, housing

benefit system and that is a

particular challenge in terms of

displacing people from metropolitan

areas where rents are higher and it

is harder to get housing at social

rents but also in terms of the

amount of issues which people living

in that type of accommodation are

likely to face and that can be

anything from drug addiction, mental

health problems, fleeing from

domestic violence etc, etc. A

significant drain on the local

economy as a consequence.

The debate

over the private rented sector.

You're watching our round-up of the

day in the Commons and the Lords.

Still to come, why a former Army

commander changed his mind

on the role of women in the army.

The Government must avoid slipping

into the rhetoric of a second

cold war with Russia,

a former British

diplomat has warned.

Sir Adam Thompson, who used to be

a British Permanent Representative

to Nato, was one of a group

of former security bosses giving

evidence to a committee

on the review of National Security

Strategy.

He said the UK needed

to engage with Moscow.

We do also need to

engage with Russia.

So painting them as completely black

doesn't really help our cause.

And therefore, I think we need

to avoid slipping into both

the dynamics and the rhetoric

and the institutionalization

of a second Cold War,

which would be not just very

dangerous but also extremely costly.

It's really important that we remain

engaged with Russia.

Being engaged doesn't mean

being nice to them, it is a vehicle

for having tough conversations.

We need a form of tough, direct,

clear-headed engagement with Russia

to ensure there is proper

understanding between the two sides.

We've sort of developed it over

Syria now because Western forces

and Russian forces are operating

in the same theatre and we have

to go to great lengths to avoid

a clash between the two.

Frankly had we had that level

of communication with the Russians

over much of the last ten years,

some of the activities that we see

the Russians involved and may

not have taken place,

certainly not in the same way.

MPs have been debating a ban

on private fireworks displays,

after more than 100,000 people

signed an electronic petition

calling for the law to be tougher.

MPs from across the parties

described traumatic experiences

that people and animals

in their constituencies had

suffered as a result

of private fireworks displays.

Stephanie Daisy shared a moving

video about her daughter Macy, who

suffered serious injuries after a

small, home firework display when

wrong. A stray flare became stuck

and Hirst Garth E for exploding. She

suffered burns to her head neck and

shoulders in when through five

surgeries. Stephanie said my

thoughts are and always will be that

fireworks can be devastatingly

dangerous, even when used safely and

should only be used in organised

displays. And Mr Walker, Stephanie

is not alone in her views.

I may

read this from spam Thompson, this

is an eyewitness statements. I saw

two groups of young people at

various ages standing on either end

of the street, firing fireworks at

each other up as if they were guns.

They were holding the wooden

launching sticks lighting them and

putting them at each other. One

young child was hit in the head, and

fortunately it did not explode. I

saw kids firing fireworks at passing

cars and windows on were broken by

straight fireworks.

Perhaps more

difficult and impossible to us as

are the livestock in the fields. It

may spook sheep as we heard before

and they crowd in the corner and

risk suffocation. Cattle become

distressed and worse and I heard her

fake big ears on the death of forces

because of the responsible use of

fireworks.

In response, the Consumer Minister

said the current regulations provide

a balance between the concerns

and the interests of those who enjoy

celebrating with fireworks.

But said he has created

a new office for standards

which will look into this.

This is a new body that will receive

some £12 million a year, central

government funding. To ensure that

we have access to the information

nationally and to support local

authorities in their work. The new

office for product safety and

standards will work with key

stakeholders and enforcing

authorities, to review the guidance

materials available on the safe and

responsible use of fireworks. It

will also provide an intelligence

handling function to improve the

information.

Andrew Griffiths,

the Consumer minister.

Perhaps the biggest loser

in Theresa May's reshuffle

at the New Year was Justine

Greening.

Having been offered the job of Work

and Pensions Secretary, she said no.

It became clear she wanted to stay

as Education Secretary

but wasn't allowed to.

So, how's her

replacement getting on?

Damian Hinds has just

done his first question session

as Education Secretary.

A Labour MP followed up reports that

some academy trusts in England

are concerned about the viability

of their budgets.

Mr Speaker, all this focus on

structures takes us away from the

real issue, even Tori party donors

this weekend are talking about real

terms cuts to funding which is what

I am seeing in my constituency. Will

this government please face up to

the real crisis which is the real

terms cuts in school funding.

Mr

Speaker that is more money going

into these schools and our country

than ever before in the history of

the country. We know in real terms,

for people across the sea some, it

is increasing and with the national

funding formula on the cash they

says, for each individual school, at

least a small cash increase.

On to the financing

of higher education.

Thank you Mr Speaker, the secretary

of state's predecessor admitted that

they were wrong to abolishes Bell

abolished maintenance grants.

Variable fields will punish the

poorest and it woke take the issue

into the long grass rather than take

decisions. Apart from that, she is

very supportive. But she is right,

isn't she?

Mr Speaker, we have a

system of higher education finance

in this country which means that we

have unprecedented levels of

disadvantaged people being able to

go to university. And means our

universities are properly funded. In

October, the prime Minister said we

would be taking quick action with

raising the threshold for repayment

and freezing the top fees for the

next academic year. It is also right

that we have a full review, looking

at all aspects of value for money

for people going to university and

the alternatives of university such

as taking in an apprenticeship.

Later the session moved

on to whether history

is biased against Labour.

Visiting my own school, not only me

but the ex-conservative MP, I found

concern of the new A-level histories

syllabus. It completely admits the

1945-51 Labour government, asks

candidates for conservative strings

and labour weaknesses and stopped in

1997. By deleting labour, are they

trying to rewrite history?

The

A-level histories syllabus is widely

consulted on before it was

confirmed. The actual detail of the

content of the exam boards is

determined by exam boards for

independence, as long as they could

afford to the subject content which

as I said was widely consulted a

pond.

Finally, it could be called

an in-house conversion.

The Conservative MP and one-time

Commander of United Nations forces

in Bosnia, Colonel Bob Stewart,

has been describing how he was won

over to supporting the cause

of female soldiers fighting

in close combat roles.

He was contributing to the debate

on the Armed Forces

Flexible Working Bill.

I was always, until recently,

against women serving in close

combat roles. I had to be convinced,

myself, but society has changed,

which is crucial to that change in

me. And perhaps, my full support for

it has come from within my own

family. My wretched but beautiful

daughter has said that she will only

join the armed forces if she can

serve in a column about role. I

applaud her for that and at this

moment she is on selection. -- in a

combat role.

In order to identify

and fill potential gaps in capacity.

As well to assess the effectiveness

of this bill's aims. I welcome the

front bench amendment requiring this

information to be included in the

armed forces diversity statistics.

Why no female Defence Ministers,

asked the previous

Defence Secretary.

I was delighted that my honourable

friend, was appointed and I

congratulate her on her promotion to

the foreign and Commonwealth office

but that does leave a gap. And it is

a mistake, if I made put it as

boldly as that. It is a mistake to

have five defence Ministers and have

them all male. If we could get more

women and in the fullness of time

more people from the ethnic

minorities to join up, then we could

show that it is there from the top.

Sir Michael Fallon.

And that's it for this programme.

Alicia McCarthy will be

here for the rest of the week.

But for now, from me

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.