23/10/2015 The Week in Parliament

Hello. Welcome to the Week in Parliament.

It's "Evel" by name, and, say the Scottish Nationalists,

The basic principle about what is being achieved and secured by these

plans is that me and my honourable friend is it will be second-class

Could we be in for a head-on clash between the Lords and the Commons

A new Conservative MP slams her Government

As these proposals stand, too many people

And we look at e-petitions from the public,

after one comes under strong attack in Parliament.

The petition and the wording of the petition

I would suggest that after we have considered it today,

But first - a huge historical change?

From now on, MPs with constituencies outside England will be barred from

deciding on matters at Westminster that are solely English.

The idea of English votes for English laws all sounds

perfectly logical, and MPs voted the change through on Thursday.

But will the new system - of an extra stage of consideration for

And will the Speaker find it straightforward

to decide which Bills are England-only and which are UK-wide?

In a moment, I'll be talking to an MP

But first, let's get a flavour of an often heated debate.

England has waited 18 years for some justice and some power back under

this lopsided devolution settlement that was forced upon us against

Can my right honourable friend think of any good reason that an English

MP could give for voting against these very moderate proposals.

These proposed changes, what they do is they enable us to give an answer

They enable us to give an answer to our constituents,

to say that England will have its own piece of our devolution

settlement, but they do so without, and I emphasise without,

removing any member of Parliament from the workings of this chamber.

The basic principle about what has been achieved and secured by these

plans is that me and my honourable friends here will be second-class

citizens in the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that is quite simply

Now, Scotland's watching this, Scotland's watching this,

Could I say, if this is an exercise in saving the union,

you could not have contrived of our more inept way to save the union.

Will the honourable gentleman not agree that it was actually

the people that wanted to see this happen.

We have a legitimate view when it comes to these things and we object

to being made second-class citizens in this particular Parliament.

This is our Parliament as much as hers.

This is the unitary Parliament of the UK,

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and yet we have got to accept the

second-class status and no wonder the mood is darkening in Scotland.

Would he agree with me that these are relatively modest proposals do

something very powerful, which is allow us to say to our constituents,

and I say this as a member of Parliament born in Belfast

representing an English constituency, that in future, there

is no chance of the rest of the United Kingdom members of Parliament

imposing upon them something that they do not want in England.

And the reason there is so much hostility from the SNP

benches opposite is actually, they realise this is a safety belt that

benches opposite is actually, they realise this is a safety valve that

will help protect the future of the United Kingdom.

At this point in time, all of us are equal.

I can vote on exactly everything at the leader of the house can vote

I can vote on everything that comes before this house.

If this goes through, then from tonight onwards, I will be

denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of the people who elected me

They are trying to set up a grievance that does not exist,

because no bill will be able to pass this has without the consent

because no bill will be able to pass this House without the consent

of all Members of Parliament taking part in that division.

What we are about is inserting a consent stage into matters that

The honest truth is, Madam Deputy Speaker,

this is not a Conservatives set of measures, it is actually quite

It's a bureaucratic nightmare and I think honourable members

As Lord Forsyth said last night in the House of Lords,

it is "like an Uber driver without a sat-nav".

It is not a unionist set of measures either.

It is as if the Prime Minister had decided to fashion a new grievance

for Scotland and, God knows, they have never needed a new grievance.

You cannot describe this as devolution for England.

What is going to happen is the English MPs will have discussion

at committee stage and they will have a veto over things that have

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the Government have brought

forward these proposals in the way in which they often do, on the basis

The most dangerous words you will ever hear in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, this is a divisive measure.

It differentiates between Members of Parliament.

It differentiates between parts of the United Kingdom.

It doesn't allow us to speak when we want to on behalf of

At at the end of that debate, the Commons voted 312 to 270

From this point onwards, non-English MPs are, for the first

I asked Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP and strong supporter

of English votes, if this week would come to be seen as a significant

I think it's certainly a very important change,

that it does create some element of division for the English but not

that it does create some element of devolution for the English

but not so much as to upset the union.

So looking back 100 years, it could turn out to have that

But, of course, the cynics will say this is really party politics,

this is the Conservatives worried about the popularity of Ukip in,

I don't think so, I think it's a response to the real constitutional

need that asymmetric devolution is perfectly acceptable to the English,

who form the largest part of the United Kingdom, but something needed

to be done to give some element of protection to England

following the degree of devolution that has gone to Scotland.

And this seems to me a small amount of devolution that

just ensures that the English electorate will be happy.

But for the purists, they will say the logical answer is

This is just a bit of a messy compromise, what one MP called

I'm not really keen on spaghetti, I prefer potatoes, personally, but

most of our constitutional changes take place with issues fixed to meet

the needs of the day, not an overarching grand strategy, and this

is part of that, it's part of ensuring things are done in a

measured way that meets the current needs, without assuming that there

is some new Jerusalem that can be built, which maybe a view that the

left often has, that they think you can improve

Now, of course, as well as opposition from Labour, there

have also been massive objections from the Scottish National party.

We heard Pete Wishart saying, rather threateningly,

This is going to go down like a lead balloon north

They are saying it creates second-class MPs,

which is the one thing it absolutely definitely does not do.

The key is it is in standing orders, and standing orders can be revoked

by MPs, and that includes all MPs, so it is merely and interim

self-denying ordinance that MPs have accepted, but can on accept, and

self-denying ordinance that MPs have accepted, but can unaccept, and

that is so important in maintaining the equality

of each MP and I would not have supported it had it done otherwise.

Now, you have touched on the involvement of standing orders.

Do you think there will be a temptation from the Speaker

John Bercow to avoid too much controversy, because it is now up to

him to certify whether a bill is England only or UK-wide?

He's going to be tempted, isn't he, too perhaps be cautious and say most

bills are not England only, they do have United Kingdom influence?

I think any wise Speaker would be cautious with a new standing order

of this kind not to use it aggressively, but I am sure the

Speaker will also use it properly, will use it as it has been drafted

and won't fail to use it when it is necessary, when it applies.

But from this point onwards, we have got a clear distinction between

How long would you give the United Kingdom?

Oh, no, I think this is very important to

My worry for the United Kingdom has been, for some time, that the

English would get unhappy with the settlement, rather than that or the

English would get unhappy with the settlement, rather than that

or the Northern Irish would breakaway and I think this ensures

that the settlement remains sufficiently fair, though asymmetric

for the English, that there will be no further pressure

Jacob Rees-Mogg, thank you very much joining us

On Monday, MPs described as "xenophobic" an electronic petition,

or e-petition, which called for an immediate end to immigration.

The petition attracted nearly 200,000 signatures.

But it found no favour when it was debated by MPs.

In a moment, we'll try to find out why such

a controversial e-petition qualified for a hearing in Parliament.

But first, some moments from the debate.

We thought, as a committee, that it was important that although

some of the wording of the bill, of the petition, wasn't quite what

many members of the committee would support, that we don't just brush

these issues under the carpet, we actually tackle immigration

We don't need nasty, small-minded xenophobia, and I believe

debates and the wording such as this one that has been expressed

The petition and the wording of the petition has got it wrong

I would suggest that after we have considered it today,

I received a fair amount of vitriolic abuse myself for

remarks I made in the local press about this particular petition.

I understand it was picked up by a national newspaper.

Now, I expressed in those comments to the local press some concern

about the wording of this petition and about any automatic tendency to

debate petitions, just simply because of numbers.

And soon afterwards, we caught up with Paul Scully,

the MP who led the debate on this petition on immigration.

He explained how the e-petitions system works.

An e-petition is a direct way that members of the public can raise

an issue that require an outcome or an action, either of the Government

or the House of Commons, via the Government website, the new website.

And what it means is the Petitions Committee will actually

look at the petitions that reach a certain threshold and decide whether

we recommend them on to a select committee for action, whether we

have a debate in Westminster Hall, typically, or some further action.

Now, is it high noon at the OK Corral?

MPs and Lords appear to be heading for a showdown,

with peers threatening to vote out the Government's cuts

The Commons has twice approved the reductions.

Ministers are promising increases in the Living Wage to compensate people

affected and they say, by reducing tax credits,

?15 billion will be saved from Britain's welfare budget.

If peers decide to throw out the cuts, reprisals are being

First, let's rewind to Tuesday, when a new Conservative MP stunned the

Commons with a maiden speech openly attacking her party's policy.

I believe the pace of these reforms is too hard, too fast.

As these proposals stand, too many people will be adverse to

For those of us proud enough to call ourselves

compassionate conservatives, it must not be the backs of the working

When tax credits first came in, their aim was entirely noble, but

they quickly soared out of control, the total costs more than trebled

between 1999 and 2010, ending up costing ?30 billion in 2010, and,

Madam Deputy Speaker, scandalously, under the last government,

while this spending spiralled, in work poverty actually rose by 20%.

Now, we can kick a problem down the road

We, Madam Deputy Speaker, we chose to do something about it.

The problem of low pay in the UK persists

and these changes to tax credits are about to make things much worse.

With 6 million people not earning enough to cover the basic costs

of living, tackling in work poverty is crucial, but not this way,

by making matters worse and hitting those who need help the most.

And the Government chooses to bring these changes in without even

a transition plan and now when crossbenchers and bishops start to

express concern in the other plays, Madam Deputy Speaker, we hear

reports that Number Ten threatens to suspend the other place

This moment is telling us that work is the route out of poverty and they

will support those that do the right thing, ministers tell us at info

night and in the media but they will stand up for hard-working families.

They are not standing up for hard-working families.

It rapidly became clear that what we were doing was a lot of this money

was subsidising employers who found that they could hold down incomes to

a level and at a time of coming out of recession, hire all the staff

that they needed with the taxpayer in general subsidising pay.

So to Wednesday and Labour's Jeremy Corbyn quoted

Yesterday, one of his backbenchers said,

and I quote, "Too many people would be adversely affected by the tax

For those of us proud enough to call ourselves

compassionate conservatives, it must not be on the backs of the working

The tax credit changes are part of a package and a package that includes

a higher national living wage and tax reductions and I think that is

Sian e-mailed me to say the Prime Minister solemnly declared

on national television, shortly before...

before the last General Election that tax credits would not be

Is there any reason why this change has come about or any reason why we

should believe the Prime Minister on any assurances he gives

What we said before the election is that we would reduce

welfare by ?12 billion as part of getting the deficit down, part

of getting the economy growing and part of creating two million jobs.

That is what happened at the election.

Thursday - and concern from Opposition peers

over threatened reprisals if peers vote to reject the changes.

The Government is now threatening to either suspend

your Lordships' house or to create 150 new Conservative peers to ensure

Does she consider this is an appropriate statesman-like

response or a gross and irresponsible overreaction?

Particularly as government estimates say the cost of the public purse

Could that money not be better spent on mitigating these awful cuts?

The primacy of the House of Commons on financial matters is something

which this house has respected for over 400 years.

The saga of the proposed cuts to tax credits.

Looking at some of the other stories inside Parliament in the last week:

The Labour Party Deputy Leader Tom Watson has apologised

to the widow of Leon Brittan for causing distress by the part

he played in the investigation into a rape allegation

made against the former Conservative Cabinet Minister.

The alleged victim had met Tom Watson

when she thought her complaint wasn't being dealt with.

Scotland Yard admitted it failed to tell Lord Brittan's family before

the peer's death that he'd been cleared.

Do you regret using the words about someone presumably you had

never met that they are as close to evil as any human being could be?

I regret using that emotive language, I shouldn't have done

and I am sincerely sorry for repeating it,

it was unnecessary. What would you like to say

to Lady Brittan as a result of what has happened?

I am very sorry for the distress caused and I am very sorry

for her wider family, I know they are very angry

and they clearly loved Leon Brittan very much

and they are angry on behalf of their family and I am sorry.

But they appear to be angry with you, do

you think you have some responsibility for their distress?

Well, I feel that the people's voices were not really heard

and I felt responsibility of them and I

hope they can try and understand that.

A brief return to the '60s. Arguments are rekindled over grammar

school education after news that the Weald of Kent school

in Tonbridge is to open an annexe in Sevenoaks,

so sidestepping the ban on new grammar schools.

The truth about selective grammar schools is that far

from being the bastions of social mobility that

some romanticise about, they have entrenched social advantage.

We on this side of the House trust frontline professionals to run

schools and to lead our education system.

We want parents to have real choice about their children's school.

The opposition don't want that. If she believes that

grammar schools should be part of that choice for parents,

does she foresee a point in time when she will change

the rules to allow for new grammar schools?

I think he can hear from members on both sides

of the House there is a desire for new grammar schools,

but let me be very clear, this does not change

policy, we do not anticipate changing the law, this

is a particular case decided on the particular circumstances.

Is this the winds of change blowing through Parliament?

Ministers' energy policy is blown off course when the ending

of subsidies for onshore wind farms is rejected in the Lords.

And in relation to meeting EU targets, it's simply not true

that there is no more room for onshore

wind, all we should be throttling back.

The hasty and trash and poorly thought through policies of this

Government in the early months of its Government really have,

I think, sent shock waves. The commitment in the manifesto

was to avoid, or reject, any new subsidies,

whereas what we are talking about here

is getting rid of existing subsidies.

My objection to the wind industry is not ideological,

it is economic and scientific. Wind is making a trivial

contribution to our energy supplies. It supplied 4% of our total energy

use last year, my lords. Bearing down on

overweight youngsters. How do we improve the nutritional

quality of what children consume? When a celebrity chef comes

to Parliament to demonstrate his idea for labelling sugar content

of drinks, it's less committee

session, more game show. There are humongous amounts

in sugary sweetened drinks, which just to remind you,

is the largest single source of sugar in our children's

and teenagers' diet, that's why I have honed in on them.

All I have done is stick a little sticker on a thing.

Everyone of you will have an immediate opinion.

I am talking about empowering parents

that are busy and I just stuck this on, but I believe Britain should

have this and I am massively passionate that British people,

if given clear information, make good choices - a lot.

Not all the time, but a lot. The death of the 92-year-old

poppy-seller Olive Cooke focuses attention on the methods used

by some of Britain's charities. Do they put too much pressure

on us to raise money? A committee focuses on what can be

done to keep the charities in check. We were not inactive,

but we were active on a very wide front.

You might not have been inactive but what I am suggesting

is you were actually in effective in curbing the activities of these

charities, who continued their abuses until June,

when the Mail expose them. In acting on that information,

the evidence is that the charities are now coming to heel.

I'm confident that we are going to be able to force the law.

Parliament goes international, when, during his state visit

to the UK, the President of China addresses MPs and peers

in the splendour of the Royal Gallery.

TRANSLATION: Parliamentarians are the cream of a society.

I hope you will, as we Chinese often say, scale

higher to see further. I hope that you will continue

to promote the UK's relations with China, strengthen

our friendship and support our cooperation.

And tributes are said to Labour's Michael Meacher,

who's died aged 75. He was an Environment Minister

in Tony Blair's Government after being a junior Minister

in the governments of the ?70s. He'd been an MP for 45 years.

Many colleagues here present will have known Michael well.

He served his party, his constituency and his

country with dedication, ability and commitment.

In recent years, he was a very prominent, active and effective

contributor to the work of Parliament first.

I was privileged to come to know him well over the last six years

since I took the chair. He will, I believe, be sadly missed.

John Bercow. Now with a look at some

of the offbeat stories around Big Ben's bongs could fall silent

if repairs costing up to ?40 million are not carried out,

according to the Finance Committee report seen by the Mail on Sunday

and the Sunday Times. Parliament officials insist that

there is no risk of the great Is that the jumper that

your mum made? Jeremy Corbyn's sartorial elegance

was called into question yet again this week, this time

for scrubbing up too well. He ditched his brown suit for white

tie and tails for the State banquet Brainchild of the broadcast

and comedian Sandi Toksvig, the Women's Equality Party held

their official launch. The party, led by Sophie Walker,

called for quotas for female MPs, an end to the gender pay gap

and more affordable childcare. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney

waded in on the in out Speaking in Oxford,

he said EU membership had opened up the UK economy and made it more

dynamic, but said it also left them Will the noble lady urge Mr Cameron

to stem this inflow before we enter the Guinness book of Records as the

largest Assembly in the world? By members, the House of Lords is

the second largest legislative body in the world, just behind the

National People's Congress of China. With the introductions to the

chamber last week and this week, the number of peers has

smashed through the 800 mark. And that's it for this programme.

A busy few days coming up. The Lords could scupper

the Government's tax credit changes. And on Wednesday, Greg Dyke

of the Football Association will be talking to the Culture Committee

about corruption in football. Do join Georgina Pattinson

for the next Week In Parliament. Until then, from me,

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.