05/03/2018 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to

Monday In Parliament.

Coming up on the programme:

Theresa May says she's confident

she can reach a deal with the EU.

The pragmatism, calm and patient

discussion, I am confident we can

set an example to the world.

But Labour dismiss her

vision as a shambles.

This government's reckless strategy

is putting our jobs in manufacturing

industry at risk.

The Defence Secretary repeats his

verbal attacks on Russia.

Putin has made it quite clear that

he has hostile intent towards this

country.

And warnings in the Lords

about family doctors retiring early

and junior doctors quitting the NHS

after their training.

With the noble Lord care to

speculate why there is a flood of

departing junior doctors right now?

But first, emboldened

by her landmark speech

on Brexit last Friday,

Theresa May told the Commons

she's confident Britain

can reach an agreement

with the European Union.

Last week, she spelt out her vision

for the new relationship,

in which she said the UK will leave

the single market, the jurisdiction

of the European Court

of Justice will end,

some regulations will remain

in step with the EU,

and she said she wants trade

across borders which is

as frictionless as possible.

This was the first time

the Prime Minster had faced

MPs since that speech.

I am confident we can solve our

remaining differences in the days

ahead. Now we must focus on our

future relationship. A new

relationship that respects the

result of the referendum, provides

an enduring solution, protects

people's jobs and security, is

consistent with the kind of country

we want to beat and strengthens our

union of nations and people.

It was clear MPs from all sides

wanted to make their views heard.

We must resolve the tensions between

our objectives. We want the freedom

to negotiate trade agreements around

the world, we want control of our

borders and a frictionless as border

are possible with the EU so we did

not damage the integrated supply

chain to our industries rely on.

A

very considerable level of heckling

taking place in the House.

20 months

passed since the referendum. A year

has passed since the triggering of

Article 50, 20 wasted months in

which the arrogance of some of the

Cabinet who said it would be the

easiest deal in history has turned

into debilitating in fighting. This

government's reckless strategy is

putting our jobs in manufacturing

industries at risk. The Prime

Minister's only clear priority seems

to be to tie the UK permanently to

EU rules which are being used to

enforce privatisation and block

support the industry.

The Liberal Democrats were keen

to address concerns that a future

trade deal with the US would open up

the NHS to American health giants.

Can I first congratulate the Prime

Minister on the fact that, after 20

months of tough negotiation, she

appears to have delivered at least a

trade deal with her own Cabinet?

Specifically in her future,

independent trade negotiations with

the economic nationalists and

warmongering in the White House,

what exactly at the Prime Minister's

redlines? Do they include the NHS?

I

am absolutely clear that as we look

to negotiate a trade with the US,

the NHS will remain as it is today,

it will remain free of the point of

use, it is not for sale.

Last month,

as the Prime Minister gathered with

her Cabinet at Chequers, there was

one glaring absence. Where was the

Secretary of State for Scotland?

Scotland's voice was not heard that

these crucial Cabinet discussions.

The House, Mr Speaker, been a

flagrant disregard by this

government of the nations that make

up the United Kingdom.

The decision

that led to the approach in my

speech were taken by the whole

Cabinet, not by a subgroup of the

Cabinet, and all members bar one

that was in this House at the time

were present when that was taken.

On

Friday and today, the Prime Minister

said access to one another's markets

would be less than it is now. This

is the public burial of the claim

made by her Brexit secretary year

ago in this House that the

government's aim was to secure the

exact same benefits. The Prime

Minister has admitted to her country

that there is economic cost to

Brexit. So blushing now tell us,

what is that economic cost, when

will the public be told about it,

and who will pay it?

Can I say to

the right honourable gentleman, life

will be different in the future

because we will have a different

relationship of the European Union?

But while he and the Labour Party

consistently only focus on our

relationship with the European

Union, what we're doing as a

government is ensuring that the good

trade deal, the best possible trade

deal with the European Union,

together with trade deals with

countries around the world and

develop a colour me so it is a

Britain the future.

And just in case you thought it was

possible for politicians to discuss

Brexit without any food metaphors...

When she gets into negotiations with

the European counterparts about

trade arrangements, could she remind

them that cake exists to be eaten

and cherries exist to be picked?

Iain Duncan Smith there.

After spending the best part

of an hour watching Theresa May

answer questions on Brexit,

the Chancellor, Phillip Hammond,

faced his own inquisition.

The European Scrutiny Committee

wanted to know first of all

if the UK would agree to any

new EU taxes - for example

on financial transactions -

if they were introduced

during a transition

period after Brexit.

Would you regard this as something

which we would have to reject

because, after all, we have said

categorically we are not in favour

of financial transaction tax, but

there is nothing on the face of it

to prevent the EU from bringing in

something like that?

The question

you are asking is, could rules or

regulations be introduced during the

transition period which we maybe

didn't like? The question is whether

we would be required to implement

them. We think we have got very good

visibility of the pipeline of

potential legislation. In this case,

the relatively slow pace at which

the EU sausage machine grinds works

in our favour. We are talking about

a transition period, implementation

period of around two years from the

time we cease to take part as a

participant in decision-making. And,

as a matter of fact, during the

course of 2019, quite a lot of the

EU decision-making apparatus will be

in a state of suspended animation.

Six months ago, H R C had both here

and in the Republic of Ireland said

there was no issue about having a

hard border, and yet it has suddenly

become, over the last month or two,

huge issue and all these people are

jumping up and down getting

interested in Northern Ireland. Do

you not feel that, if the Irish

government really wanted this to

work, they should be getting

together with the British government

and officials on either side and

looking at technology and some of

the things that have been said by

the European Parliament or

constitutional committee, that it

could work?

Mr Hammond said the UK also

needed a free-flowing

border at Dover-Calais.

As we seek solutions with the

European Union, including

technology-based solutions to

achieve that objective, lorries

coming off the ferry at Calais can

roll straight through Dover and vice

versa, which has to be our

objective. As we seek a solution

that delivers that, we expect that

we will find in that solution the

basis for a working solution in the

Irish border as well.

Have you found

who licked those documents?

The

cross government economists. The

Cabinet Secretary, as I understand

it, is, you know... Carrying out an

investigation, as always happens

when an unauthorised leaks of

documents occur. I have not heard he

has reached any conclusions yet.

The Chancellor also said

he was setting aside £3 billion

over the next two years

to prepare for Brexit.

It is being spent on ensuring we are

prepared for a full range of

outcomes. Some of it is being spent

on preparations for a no deal exit

in March 20 19. Clearly, we will

make his money available to

departments on the basis that we

will continually review the

situation. They have to get on with

this now because, obviously, there

is limited time.

The Chancellor.

You're watching Monday

in Parliament, with me, Lucy Grey.

The Prime Minister has announced

changes to the planning rules

in England after admitting young

people without family wealth

were "right to be angry"

at not being able to buy a home.

She told a conference

in London that the disparity

was entrenching social inequality.

It was left to her Housing

Secretary, Sajid Javid,

to sell the new policy to MPs.

I am confident that the bold and

ambitious measures we are proposing

will have a huge impact. Not just on

the number of homes built but

ultimately on people's prospects and

our prospects as a country to ensure

that local authorities and

developers can no longer be in any

doubt where they stand about what is

expected of them and what they must

do to help fix our broken housing

market and deliver the homes that

the people of this country need and

deserve.

Today once again we have

seen the government bring forward

proposals that tinker with the

planning system and yet another

failed attempt to look as though

they are doing something about the

housing and infrastructure prices

the country is facing and which is

largely of their making. And let's

be clear about the skill of the

problem that has arisen. Many

communities up and down the country

do not have the homes they need.

Since 2010, the number of rough

sleepers in England has nearly

trebled from 1700 to nearly 5000

last year.

Given the scale of the

housing crisis in London, does he

really think it is acceptable that

developers use viability assessment

is to drive down levels of

affordable housing simply because to

do otherwise would limit their

profits to below 20%?

Mr Speaker, I

do not think it is acceptable for

developers to not meet the

commitments they have set at the

start. We have seen particularly in

London too many examples where a

percentage of the developer will set

out for affordable housing, it was

not met on the way the assessment

process works. That is why I hope

you will support the process was set

up the day the greater

standardisation and much more

transparency.

In 1909, Winston

Churchill spoke about the value of

the land tax while public money is

used to enhance an area. Today

developers are sitting on almost 1

million plots as young people face a

lifetime of house and security in

prices. Is it not time of the

government to look again at the

benefits of a land value taxation?

The honourable lady might be

interested in the consultation that

we have set up to on developer

contributions because I'm sure she

will agree that developer

contributions are a type of tax on

developers. They are expected to

provide for perhaps infrastructure

or affordable housing, in some cases

both, so if she's really interested

in this issue I would urge to look

at that consultation.

The SNP felt England should look

to Scotland in the area of housing.

Affordable housing is a third higher

per head of population than in

England. Has the government learned

from the SNP's building programme?

Scrapping right to buy has allowed

the Scottish Government to improve

our council housing stock. What

council houses had been delivered

across 32 local authorities in

Scotland than 326 local authority

areas in England. Or the Minister

rather than extending right to buy

the further reduce housing supply

follows:'s lead and abolish it?

Has

the government learnt anything from

Pete 's SNP's approach to housing?

No. She has also then asked about

the right to buy. We have not

learned anything from that because

they followed exactly the wrong

policy. We actually believe it is a

good thing to allow people to buy

the House.

Sajid Javid.

Now, could we be heading

for a crisis of departing doctors?

The number of GPs retiring early

in England is on the increase,

according to recent figures.

And the departure of junior doctors

from the National Health Service

at the end of their training

has become a flood,

in the words of one Labour peer.

The Government denies

the situation is serious.

The issue was raised at question

time in the House of Lords.

My Lords, we appear to be

in a vicious cycle of doctors

either retiring early and then

coming back and working part-time,

and fewer EU doctors

coming to work here.

What can my noble friend

the Minister do to increase

the number of doctors wishing

to enter GP practice,

as opposed to other

specialties?

And as regards EU doctors,

what is the certification procedure

going to be for them to be

recognised as doctors

to practise post-Brexit

in this country?

It's interesting to

note that the total number

of retirees from general practice

has been falling in recent years,

which I think is very welcome,

even though there has been

an increase in the last

few years in the number

taking early retirement.

In terms of entering general

practice, of course,

that is how we need to get more GPs.

The number of training places

has increased to a record 3250,

and that has been, again, an 18%

increase over the last three years.

Finally, on the issue

of certification, mutual recognition

of professional qualifications is,

of course, a matter for negotiation

as part of our future

relationship with the EU.

But I can tell that the Government

is committed, under whatever

circumstances, to recruit

2000 international GPs

in the coming years.

One of the reasons why general

practice is less attractive

than it used to be is

because of the enormous

bureaucratic load that

is placed upon them nowadays.

They have to sit on

committees, on CCGs,

and they are rushing around

doing nonclinical work.

Is there anyway of reducing this

nonclinical workload?

I would point the noble Lord,

and other noble Lords,

to NHS England's ten

high-impact actions.

These are actions that all GP

surgeries can take, whether it's

using technology such as e-booking

and e-prescribing to work

to reduce the kind of workload

that he's talking about.

More GPs are leaving the profession

than joining it, and there

are soaring numbers of junior

doctors leaving the NHS after

their two-year foundation training.

So how does the Government

intended to fill

the failing pipeline of junior

doctors, and would the noble

Lord the minister care

to speculate

why there is a flood of departing

junior doctors right now?

Could it be due to the

rock-bottom level of morale

of junior doctors after their shabby

treatment by the Secretary of State?

Well, the noble lady might be

interested to note that if you look

at the number of GPs in specialty

training in 2014, it was 2671,

in 2017 it was 3157 -

an increase of nearly 400.

That is how

we're filling the places.

Is the noble Lord the Minister aware

of the increasing number

of inner-city GP practices where

the entire GP workforce consists

of locum doctors because of

recruitment problems?

And does he agree that

that is an expensive way

of providing GPs,

and one which diminishes

the doctor-patient relationship?

Yes, I do agree with the noble Lord,

we do need to crack down

on agency and locum spend, which has

been falling in recent years.

Of course, the way that we fix this

issue and the demand for

general practice in a sustainable

way is to increase the number of GPs

coming into the service,

and as I've said,

exactly what we're doing.

Health Minister Lord O'Shaugnessy.

The world is sliding

into a second Cold War.

That was the stark assessment

of an Opposition MP during

defence questions in the Commons.

It follows the state-of-the-nation

speech made by President Putin last

week, when he announced

that Russia had tested an array

of new strategic nuclear weapons

that couldn't be intercepted.

He said his country was now

in possession of missiles

that no other country had.

A Labour MP was clearly troubled

at the turn of recent global events.

Surely the Secretary of State knows

that what Mr Putin announced

a few days ago was, basically,

a new Cold War.

And it's not just cyber warfare,

it's every kind of warfare,

at a time when Europe

seems to be fragmenting,

our commitment to Nato is

deeply hurt by Donald Trump

moving into a new phase

of withdrawal.

What are we going to

do about all this?

So Putin has made it quite clear

that he has hostile intent

towards this country.

We've been seeing the build-up

of his forces across the Eastern

front, and in terms of what they're

doing over many years now.

We have to wake up to that thread,

and we have to respond to it.

We have to match what Putin is doing

with Russian forces, we

have to be aware of the challenges

that they face, and that is

very much why we're engaging

in the modernising defence

programme, to ensure that we can

match the Russians going forward.

The US Nuclear Posture Review

was met with an equal level

of posturing by President Putin

in his state-of-the-nation

speech last Thursday.

What is the British Government's

policy response to these worrying

developments at the world slides

needlessly into a second Cold War?

Does he believe the British

Government has an opportunity

to de-escalate the situation?

Let's be really clear.

President Putin has been developing

a much more hostile and aggressive

posture towards the United Kingdom,

towards the United States,

towards our allies for an awful lot

longer than the last 12 months.

They want to assert their rights,

they want to...

You've seen increased Russian

activity in the North Atlantic,

a tenfold increase over

the last few years.

And do we sit submissively by,

do we just accept that

President Putin can do

whatever he wishes to do?

Or do we have to look at how

we respond and make it clear

that we are not willing

to stand up to bullying?

Can I implore my right honourable

friend not to listen

to the Trump bashing opposite?

There is absolutely

no indication whatsoever

that President Trump

is attenuating

his commitment to Nato.

And can I further say to

my right honourable friend

that Nato is the backbone,

not the European Union,

of this nation's defence,

and he should be,

and I know that he is,

going out there to Washington,

speaking to his counterparts,

and can he talk about precisely

what he has achieved?

Sorry about that!

LAUGHTER.

I thought my honourable friend

was incredibly eloquent,

and let's be absolutely clear.

There is one reason that

we've had peace right

across the continent of Europe

since the Second World War,

and that is down to the North

Atlantic Treaty Organisation,

and the fact that it has acted

as a deterrent against those

who which to prosecute aggressive

campaigns against the West,

and I'm very proud of the work

that has been done and will be done

in the future with our allies.

The Defence Secretary.

Ministers have been urged

to introduce a licensing

regime for air weapons.

As the Home Office Minister

was questioned in the Lords,

peers heard that there had been

thousands of attacks

on pets involving airguns

in the last five years.

Is she aware that a growing number

of crimes involving air weapons

relate to senseless attacks

and domestic animals,

and particularly cats,

nearly half of whom die

as a result of often

horrific injuries?

The Cats Protection charity recorded

164 attacks on cats and kittens

with an airgun last year,

while the RSPCA received nearly

900 calls to their cruelty hotline,

reporting air weapon attacks

on animals, making 4500 attacks

in the last five years.

Is it not time to license

these weapons to ensure

that they're possessed only

for legitimate purposes

by responsible owners,

and not by those who would cruelly

inflict pain and suffering,

and often death

on defenceless domestic animals?

Well, as a cat lover

and a cat owner, I sympathise

with my noble friend's question,

and the Government does take

animal welfare very seriously.

My Lords, anyone who shoots

a domestic cat is liable

to be charged and prosecuted

under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

with causing unnecessary suffering.

We are increasing the maximum

penalty for this offence

from six months in prison

and/or an unlimited fine

to five years' imprisonment

and/or an unlimited fine.

The number of offences involving air

weapons in the year to March 2017

was similar to the previous year,

and there were 64% fewer air weapons

offences than the decade previously.

A review was launched following the

case of 13-year-old Ben Wragge,

who was shot and killed

by a home-made air rifle.

We do have some

of the strongest gun laws

in the world, but they're

still not strong enough.

In the hands of irresponsible

people, these weapons can kill,

as in the tragic case

of Benjamin Wragge.

My friend Karen Smith in the other

place had an 18-month-old child

in her constituency injured

by an air weapon recently.

We need a responsible licence

system, and can the noble lady agree

to look at the whole

question of storage?

The advice at the moment

as they need to be stored

in a locked cabinet,

I don't think that good at all.

Lady Williams said the Government

was keeping an open mind

around the regulation of airguns

in England and Wales.

The weapons are already subject

to licensing in Scotland

and Northern Ireland.

Finally, two MPs briefly

used sign language

during a debate

in Westminster Hall.

It had been triggered

by an e-petition

that's attracted

around 30,000 signatures.

The petition calls for

British Sign Language, or BSL,

to become part

of the National Curriculum.

The debate also featured

a live communication

of the speeches

by a sign language expert.

There's three things

that I want to tell,

the story about why

I learned sign language.

Secondly, how BSL should be

in the National Curriculum,

and why that is really important.

And third, I want to ask

the minister some questions.

And we need more access

to work, not less.

We need to invest in access

to work so that deaf people

can reach their full potential.

And we need to invest, and the way

to do that is to show commitment.

So I do hope, when the minister

gets to his feet,

that he will have some good news

for the deaf community

and BSL users.

And I am asking the Minister

to please make BSL a GCSE.

Thank you.

We do value BSL.

There will be a huge number of steps

to go through for the BSL

qualification to

be accredited as a GCSE.

And having been through the process,

it is not a simple process

of getting those qualifications

accredited.

Nick Gibb.

And that's it from us for now,

but do join us at the same time

tomorrow for another round-up

of the day at Westminster.

But for now, from me,

Lucy Grey, goodbye.