07/03/2014 The Week in Parliament

Now on BBC News, it's time for The Week in Parliament.

Hello there and welcome to the programme in a week when the Home

Secretary unveils a fresh investigation into the police over

the Stephen Lawrence murder case. Only a public inquiry will get to

the truth. They are matters of huge concern expressed and contained in

the report. The Silk Commission sets out its

latest proposals for devolution in Wales, but when will the changes

actually be made? And we're told that people just don't like it, so

we ask an expert what she thinks of the wall of noise that is Prime

Minister's Questions. I have spoken in many parliaments in the world.

They are like mortuaries. I don't want that to happen in the British

Parliament. First, a former Cabinet Minister called it one of the most

shocking statements he'd heard in his 35 years in parliament. Jack

Straw was reacting to the announcement by the Home Secretary,

Theresa May, that there's to be a public inquiry into undercover

policing after evidence emerged of police corruption in the Stephen

Lawrence murder investigation. An independent review by QC Mark

Ellison found the family had been spied on and that relevant

information about the case had not been disclosed to an earlier public

inquiry. He also concluded there were reasonable grounds to suspect

one former Met officer had acted corruptly. Key evidence was the

subject of mass shredding in 2003. A hard drive containing relevant data

was only discovered in 2013. As a result of this, there are serious

concerns that further relevant material has not been shown because

it has been destroyed. The other question was whether there was

inappropriate activity directed at the family. Ellison finds that

officers were deployed into activist groups that sought to influence the

family. On the allegation of smearing, Ellison has found no

surviving record that supports the claim. However, given the lack of

written records from the era and since such tasking would have been

more likely to be oral rather than written, Ellison says he cannot

reject the claims. I don't say this lightly. The greatest possible

scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. And so, given the

Gravity of what has now been uncovered, I have decided that a

public inquiry led by a judge is necessary to investigate undercover

policing. Only a public inquiry will get to the full truth behind the

mattes of huge concern expressed and contained in Mark Ellison's report.

I have to say, in the 35 years I have been in this House, it's one of

the most shocking and serious statements I have heard by any

minister from any party. Could I say to the Home Secretary, that as the

Home Secretary and police authority, who established the MacPherson

inquiry, I was very struck in the three months it took me to establish

the inquiry and agree the terms, by the reluctance of the Metropolitan

Police Service to have any inquiry which focused forensically on the

facts. As they resisted such calls for four years. Given what has now

been said, had that evidence been offered, it is at least possible

that Sir William MacPherson and his colleagues would not only have

concluded that there was institutional racism, they may have

concluded there was institutional corruption as well. When we embarked

on the corruption case, we knew there would always be something. It

is difficult to convince other police officers and even the Home

Secretary that there has been this corruption. And it's taken over one

year. But it has been 21 years since Stephen was killed. The fact that

we, as a family, had to go through all this and still there is more to

come out... Now let's go back to the House of

Commons. This week saw a rather different Prime Minister's

Questions, with an outbreak of cross party unity over the situation in

Ukraine. By recent standards it was a rather tame affair in a showdown

which has been getting rowdier and rowdier. A recent Hansard Society

survey showed nearly 70% of people thought there was too much party

political point scoring and almost half deemed it too noisy and

aggressive. And it's not just the viewers at home. The Speaker too has

often expressed his anger and exasperation with the going's on.

Order. Order! Order! Order! Order! Order. Order. Order. I say to the

children's minister, try to calm down and behave like an adult. And

if you can't, if it is beyond you, leave the chamber, get out, we will

manage without you. John Bercow, in 2011, clearly less than impressed.

More recently at a lecture last month the Speaker shared his

thoughts about PMQs and the ear splitting noise in the Chamber. I'm

all in favour of having it as an institution. Speakers and

parliaments around the world say they wish the Prime Minister would

come in every week. That is the good bit. The bad bit is when the decibel

level makes Deep Purple seem like a soft playing band of the 1970s,

rather than what they were, the latest band in the world. --

loudest. Of course the decibel busting noise level at PMQs is

nothing new. Here's a familiar face bringing the roof down in 1995.

These are party matters. Will he tell us his position? Mr Blair.

Order! There is one very big difference. There is one very big

difference. Yeah. Oh, no, one big difference. I lead my party, he

follows his. And if past prime ministers have had to deal with the

shouting and ya booing, so have former Speakers. Here's Betty

Boothroyd moving things along a bit in 1997. Order. This is so

time-consuming. Come on! Spit it out. Come on!

Order! Order. There is no point in waiting for silence. The honourable

gentleman will not get silence. Simon Hughes, learning the hard way

that there's no mercy for he who hesitates. So it's rough, it's tough

and it's certainly noisy. But for a definitive verdict we thought we'd

ask an expert to check it out. The former Commons Speaker, Betty

Boothroyd, kindly nipped down the corridor to the Chamber on Wednesday

to watch the latest joust and then came back here to pick out some of

her favourite moments from this week's PMQS. I am full of passion

and commitment on behalf of these people. I like that. That is what

Parliament is made of. I am joined by Betty Boothroyd. Thank you for

coming into see us. Do you think that Prime Minister's Questions is

noisier now? Well, I think it is in general noisier. But today was

rather an exception. But it has got noisier. Let me tell you where I'm

coming from about the noise. I have spoken in many parliaments in the

world. I want the British Parliament to be robust, but not noisy so that

it becomes for showmanship. But today was more docile largely

because of the first question that came from the Leader of the

Opposition to the Prime Minister. We are told that 60% of people do not

like Prime Minister's Questions. Are they right to dislike it? I don't

think they are right to dislike it. I don't think they learn much from

it. But those who do watch it enjoy it, I think. They like to see people

who are robust and to feel that they have all the answers, or at least

all the questions. It is enjoyable to a large audience. And of course,

as you know, there are queues outside the House of Commons to get

into Prime Minister 's questions. Seats are as scarce as hen's teeth,

so somebody must love it. But if they do not learn anything what is

the point? If it was quieter they would learn much more. Much depends

on the sort of questions that are asked. Questioners have to seek

information from our Prime Minister. Tell him that his policies are not

being carried out. If the questions were of that nature they would be

much more understanding and learning of what it is all about. A lot is to

do with the questioning. We have a classic question here. There is

almost 1 million young people unemployed in the UK. More than 1

million. In my constituency, people are worse off since 2010. How is the

Prime Minister have the audacity to say that his party as a worker's

party. The passion is in there. He has got

a fight to the very end for his constituents. I love that sort of

thing. And the cheers. They are cheering him on. He is a good Member

of Parliament. He seems very good to me. A lot of people think it is a

game. There is gamesmanship. You get people asking questions just to be

on the front page. What do you make about that? Absolutely right. I

deprecated. It seemed to be taking up most of question time. Will you

congratulate my local authority on doing this or somebody who has put a

level crossing in an area for children. Condemning the local

planning authority. I deprecate it. That is not what prime ministers's

questions is all about. There are other times when that can happen. It

is abysmal. Question time in Britain, there is no other Western

nation where the Prime Minister comes before his Parliament once or

twice a week and is accountable to his Parliament. It is unique. We

must cherish it. We should not abuse it. We should cherish it. It is

unique in the British system. But there are two audiences for Prime

Minister's questions. The people watching at home and the MPs in the

chamber. What does it mean to MPs? It means a good deal to them. MPs

get themselves elected because they want to change the flow of the pens.

They are passionate people. They want to be hard. They want to make

progress. They want to be really did. -- re-elected. It means a good

deal to them. Question time, the chamber is packed. Rows of members

standing because there is not enough space. It means a great deal to

them. They want to catch the eye of the speaker. Is it a chance for them

to assess how their leader is doing? Absolutely. They like to cheer their

leader on, they like to test the leader. They want to see what the

leadership is and to push the leadership. Of course it is a test

of the leadership. It can get very passionate and noisy. What did you

find was the best way to deal with that? A smile on your face. A bit of

Kumar. That sort of thing. -- humour. Do not lose your temper. Put

a smile on your face. It can go the other way. We can have statesmanlike

exchangers. Let us take a look at a clip of David Cameron and Ed

Miliband. This is a delicate and dangerous moment for international

security and is the combination of diplomacy, resolve and support for

the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian self-determination that is

the best hope for securing an end to this crisis. The government will

have our full support. I am grateful for what the right honourable

gentleman has said. Just as we do see a voice of unity and clarity

from the countries of the European Union, not always easy to get, but

it is also welcome that there is a clear and unified voice rang out

from this house to say to the Russian government what you have

done is wrong and what you have done should not be allowed to stand. That

showed great unity of purpose between two leaders. It was a

splendid exchange. I do not often go into what Prime Minister's

questions. But I was proud to be in there today to see that exchange.

Should they all be like that? They should always be like that. There is

calm, proper questions are asked, there is no train to make political

points. They should be dealt with seriously. I loved that exchange. It

is not often it occurred and they want to see more of it. Wouldn't it

be a little doll? It was not always be like that. You would have a

lovely passionate man coming about the working class or somebody doing

something. It would reduce the tension. It is a colourful arena.

You would always have these are marvellous personalities that would

reduce the tension. I enjoyed today's Prime Minister's questions

very much. That would seem a good moment in which to end it. Thank you

for coming to see us. At the start of the week, a report

on Welsh devolution was released this week. It did not seem like long

since we had lost had a chat about proposals to devolve more powers to

the Welsh assembly. This is a tale of two reports. Last time we spoke

with talk about the first report. That was whether the Welsh

government should get responsibility for raising some of the money it

spends. At the moment it relies on a crud from Westminster. Those

proposals now in draft. What we have had as a second report, the sequel

if you like. Whether the powers at Westminster that should be

transferred to Wales. What are the key proposals? If you look at the

proposals there are 61 of them. If you look at the key policy areas,

policing, youth justice and larger energy projects. The Welsh

government has limited energy planning responsibilities. Things

like windfarms are approved at Westminster by a planning inspector

at without the say so of local people. The Welsh government would

have more say. It is interesting. The government as Swensen is

interesting. The government has once Mr has made a lot of what of all

standards in areas that are already devolved. It would be one of the

questions of the week, particularly areas like health and education. It

is not just the Coalition. One Labor MP has said that even though she is

a passionate advocate of devolution, the government's record

of health means she will be likely the looking carefully. If you look

at flooding, the flooding in Wales was not as bad as England. Nobody is

suggesting Westminster should lose responsibility for flooding in

England. There are suggestions they should be 20 more assembly members.

Will that mean few MPs at Westminster? If you look at the

number at the moment there are 60. The suggestion is that that should

rise to 80. How would you pay for that? Few MPs. That is the

suggestion. That would have to be approved by Westminster. Potential

cuts in numbers of MPs further down the line. That is a possibility. At

the moment it is the National Assembly for Wales. Maybe it could

be called the Welsh name for Parliament. That would reflect its

growing status as a lawmaking and possibly tax-raising body. One final

question. The second lot of proposals, when is anything going to

happen? Not before the general election. The UK government is

saying that there are too many things to consider before the

election. Interesting that labour equally as cautious. In Wales the

support devolution, at Westminster, slightly more cautious. Nobody is

rushing to give power away. Thank you.

From Wales to Europe, where we all get the chance to vote in the

elections to the European Parliament in late May.

Nick Clegg and Nigel Farrow Shadow Creek on a debt for their televised

encounter. You will be able to watch them on the 2nd of April at 7pm and

a repeat on BBC Parliament. On Thursday, EU leaders agreed to

suspend negotiations with Russia for these free travel. David Cameron

promised to stand up for the people of Ukraine. And in a speech in

London on Tuesday, the EU migration commissioner dismissed Tory calls

for reform of free movement as a very British issue. She said there

was little support for renegotiating treaties. You can watch that speech

on BBC Parliament on Saturday night or on the eye player.

This is the week in Parliament. Theresa May announced a fresh

inquiry into the police conduct of the Stephen Lawrence murder

investigation. Friday was suddenly a contrast

across the UK. We are talking about temperatures. Across many parts of

the Midlands, 16-17. In Scotland, cold enough to snow in Edinburgh.