08/01/2016 The Week in Parliament

Welcome back to The Week In Parliament.

Turmoil in Labour as Junior Shadow Ministers resign

following a tortured reshuffle.

It is a New Year gift for a grateful Prime Minister.

Since I walked into the Chalber this morning, his Shadow Foreign Minister

resigned, his Shadow Defence Minister resigned -

he could not run anything!

But unity isn't exactly flotrishing among the Conservatives.

At least on the subject of Durope, Cabinet Ministers will be free

to argue either for in or ott on the Euro referendum issud.

Labour seizes the moment.

He's studious...

It's an out, isn't it?

He's an outer...

Come on, come out, come out

And with the severe flooding in the north of Britain,

the chairman of the Environlent Agency admits to MPs he had it

a little bit easier in Barb`dos

So, could I have come back darlier by one or two days?

In hindsight, do I wish I h`d?

Yes, I do.

But first.

Do you have fond memories of the '70s?

Hideous designs, crockery in orange and brown?

Well, Britain seems to be rdturning to the Life On Mars era,

at least in terms of the European debate.

After weeks of speculation, it was confirmed that as in 197 ,

ministers would be free to `rgue for the UK to leave the EU

in the referendum campaign and not have to resign.

Yes, the Prime Minister has adopted exactly the same formula melorably

used by Harold Wilson.

The freedom for ministers was welcomed by those supporting

what has come to be known as Brexit, that is, a British exit

from the European Union.

Reporting to MPs on the outcome of the latest EU Summit,

David Cameron said, among European leaders,

there was strong support for Britain to stay in the DU.

European leaders began their remarks, not by saying Britain

is better off in Europe, but that Europe would be better off

with Britain staying in it.

And all wanted to reach an `greement that would address the concdrns

that we have raised.

My intention is that at the conclusion of the renegotiation,

the Government should reach a clear recommendation and then

the referendum will be held.

It is the nature of a referdndum that it is the people,

not the politicians, who decide

And as I indicated before Christmas, there will be a clear Government

position, but it will be opdn to individual ministers to take

a different personal position while remaining part

of the Government.

Ultimately, it will be for the British people to ddcide

this country's future by voting in or out of a reformed

European Union.

The Prime Minister said that he ruled nothing out.

If he loses this referendum, will he resign?

This referendum is the Government's policy and the country will decide

whether we stay in the European Union or leave

the European Union.

May I salute my right honourable friend's decision to allow linisters

to exercise their freedom of choice on this very important mattdr?

Would he accept, this is not a sign of his personal weakness,

but a sign of his personal strength.

That he believes that we in this party can have a sensible ddbate

about a fundamental issue of serious importance to the British pdople?

He has just mentioned that the negotiations may come

to fruition next month.

If they do, when would he envisage this referendum taking placd?

If we can achieve a result in February, I do not think

we should delay the referendum, I think we should get

on and hold the referendum.

David Cameron, playing coy with the referendum date.

But there was plenty of speculation the vote will be coming along soon.

So, which ministers will be in the "In" campaign

and which will sign up to the "Out" campaign?

Will it be a 50-50 split on Thursday?

The Shadow Leader of the Colmons came up with an ingenious w`y

of asking his opposite numbdr, Chris Grayling, if he was an "In"

man or an "Out" man.

And I note, that yet again, the Leader of the House has only

given us the dates for the Daster recess and not for the prorogation

for the state opening of Parliament or, for that matter,

for the Whitsun recess.

Is that because he does not yet know when he will table the motion

for the date of the EU referendum?

Can he now come clean and tdll us how he is going to vote?

It is not a matter of conscience for him any more -

he will even be able to keep his two special advhsers,

his ministerial car and his salary.

He can tell us - in or out?

He's studious...

It's an out, isn't it?

He's an outer...

Come on, come out, come out

The Prime Minister has done the right thing this week,

and I will take no lessons from the party opposite.

When will they ever do the right thing for their people?

Chris Grayling, declining to say which campaign group he will be in.

Well, it wasn't perhaps the week that will go down as the most

comradery in Labour Party hhstory.

The Leader's extensive Shadow Cabinet reshuffle

turned out not to be quite so extensive after all.

In the end, Jeremy Corbyn moved around only a handful of melbers

of his team.

But the demotions of a couple were enough to prompt some damaging

frontbench resignations.

The chaotic reshuffle was all a gift for the Conservatives,

as we found out at Prime Minister's Questions,

when the MP for Stratford-upon-Avon had a question almost too fortuitous

to be true.

CHEERING.

Nadhim Zahawi.

Mr Speaker, 2016 sees us mark the 400th anniversary of

William Shakespeare s passing away.

William Shakespeare's passing away.

Does my right honourable frhend agree with me that our country

should unite to commemorate his works?

There are special events at the RSC - the Shakespeare Birthplacd Trust

is renovating the site of hhs home, New Place, and King Edward's School

are opening his original cl`ssroom.

May I invite my right honourable friend, the whole House

and the world, to come and celebrate the greatest-living bard?

I find that Shakespeare provides language for every moment.

Let us consider what we are thinking about at the moment.

There was a moment when it looked like this reshuffle

could go into its Twelfth Night.

LAUGHTER.

Yes.

It was a revenge reshuffle, so it was going to be

As You Like It.

I think, though, we can conclude that it has turned into somdthing

of a comedy of errors - perhaps Much Ado About

Nothing.

LAUGHTER.

There will be those who worry that Love's Labour's Lost.

CHEERING.

All's Well That Ends Well - or was it The Tempest?!

Well, it was certainly a stormy week for the Parliamentary Labour Party,

but it was the more literal storms that provided the focus

for Jeremy Corbyn inside the Commons.

December's record rainfall, courtesy of Storm Desmond

and Storm Eva, left many thousands of people with flood-damaged homes

in the north of England and Scotland.

Could some of the blame lie with financial cutbacks

to flood prevention systems?

At PMQs, the Labour Leader first reminded David Cameron what he said

at the time of the last sevdre flooding two winters ago.

In January 2014, following the devastating floods at that time,

now two years ago, the Prime Minister said,

and I quote: "There are alw`ys lessons to be learned

and I will make sure they are learned."

Were they?

Having seen my own constitudncy very badly flooded in 2007 and h`ving had

floods while being Prime Minister, I think a number of lessons

have been learned.

This time, the military camd in far faster than ever before.

The Bellwin scheme was funddd at 100%, not 85%, and more loney

was got to communities more quickly.

So, a lot of lessons have been learned.

Are there more to learn?

I am sure there are, there always are, which is why

I will review everything th`t has been done.

In 2011, a ?190 million flood defence project on the River Aire

in Leeds was cancelled on cost grounds by the Government.

1,000 homes and businesses hn Leeds were flooded in recent weeks.

The Government is still onlx committed to a scaled-down version

of the project, worth a fraction of its total cost,

when the Prime Minister clahmed that "money was no object" when ht came

to flood relief.

When he meets the Leeds MPs and Judith Blake,

the leader of Leeds Council, in the near future,

or his Secretary of State does, will he guarantee that the full

scheme will go ahead to protect Leeds from future flooding?

Well, first of all, let me lake one point before answering

in detail his points.

It is worth putting on record before we get on to flood

defence investment - and I will cover it in full -

that this was the wettest Ddcember for over 100 years, and acttally

in Leeds and in Yorkshire, it was the wettest

December ever on record.

That is why rivers in Yorkshire including the Aire in Leeds,

was a metre higher than it has ever been in its history.

Now, in terms of flood defences no flood defence schemes have been

cancelled since 2010...

The Labour Leader said he h`d met flood victims in York.

They are asking all of us wholly legitimate questions:

Why was it that the insufficient pump capacity at the Foss b`rrier -

again, which we were alerted to in 2013 by a Government report -

was not dealt with or the pumps upgraded?

That meant that people in York were flooded and their possdssions

and homes severely damaged.

Those people want answers from all of us, and in parthcular,

from the Prime Minister.

I have the greatest sympathx with anyone who has been flooded

and we have to do what it t`kes to get people and communitids back

on their feet.

That is why we have put record sums in more quickly...

So, have lessons been learndd?

Yes, they have.

Are there more lessons to ldarn

There always are, but frankly, we do not need a lecture from Malta

from the honourable gentlem`n.

CHEERING.

David Cameron on the subject of the floods.

Well, a side issue to the flooding was the whereabouts

of the Environment Agency chairman, Sir Philip Dilley.

Sir Philip had to face inquhsitive journalists over the New Ye`r

because he hadn't gone to Ldeds or York when the two cities were hit

by severe flooding over Chrhstmas, along with other parts

of Yorkshire and Lancashire.

The reason, it emerged, was because Sir Philip was 4,00

miles away in the Caribbean.

A spokesman for the Environlent Agency had said Sir Philip

was in regular contact from...his "home".

The Commons Environment Comlittee thought that word needed

a little closer scrutiny.

At your pre-appointment hearing before this committee,

just approximately one year ago I think, you suggested

that your personal response to a crisis would be to turn up

in wellingtons very early on.

Why did you not return to the UK from holiday when the recent storms

became clear that they were going to have a catastrophic effect?

Well, I was in Cumbria, I was in the UK and in Cumbria

during those events...

I was away, as you are award, over the Christmas period.

The severity of the flooding became apparent to us,

and to me, on Boxing Day, the 2 th.

So I was in regular contact with the chief executive,

James, and my own deputy, a woman called

Emma...very regularly.

And quite often, more than once a day.

And I started looking at opportunities to return

on the 27th.

I actually returned on the 29th

Arriving on the 30th, overnhght

So, could I have come back earlier by one or two days?

In hindsight, do I wish I had?

Yes, I do.

But I do not feel guilty of leaving it many weeks.

This was a PR disaster for you personally, wasn't ht?

Yes, as I said, in hindsight, it would have been much better

if I had come back as early as I could, which was one

or two days earlier.

That is quite right.

But the first answer from the Environment Agency

as to your whereabouts was that you were at home with your family.

It was 24 hours before that was qualified to say that

you were in Barbados at homd with your family, and a further 12

hours before it was made cldar that you were in Barbados

at a family home.

One of my biggest regrets is that focus on me has detracted

from what really matters, which are the people,

as you heard giving evidencd earlier and all those other people that have

been affected, so that was indeed unfortunate.

That expression that was put out, lots of things are written for me

and sent to me for agreement or approval.

I saw it and approved it, so it is my problem.

But I should also explain, I do have two homes,

my wife is from the Caribbe`n, we have a home there.

And I spend some time there, over Christmas, particularlx.

And when I am there, I do not feel that I am awax,

I feel that I am at home.

Because I am equally at homd there.

As I said earlier, I keep in regular contact, I work from there.

It was more of a holiday because it was Christmas,

but in normal times, I work from there.

I keep in regular contact with the people that matter.

The saga of the December floods

Now, a look at some of the other stories in Parliament over

the last few days.

A Foreign Office Minister, Tobias Ellwood, has describdd

as deeply concerning the worsening relationship between Saudi @rabia

and Iran.

The execution of a Shia cleric by the Saudis has inflamed

the ancient religious conflhct between the Kingdom of Saudh Arabia,

which is dominated by Sunni Muslims and Iran which has largely Shia

Muslims.

The recent escalation in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Ir`n

is deeply concerning.

I urge all parties in the region urgently

to show restraint and responsibility and to work towards resolving

tensions.

But on this side of the House, we believe that the Saudi

government was profoundly wrong to have executed Sheikh al-Nimr

a Shia cleric and three young Shia men

whose alleged offences appe`r to have involved taking part

in political protest and demonstrations

against the current governmdnt.

How healthy is the health sdrvices?

The news that a series of strikes by junior doctors potentially

disrupting hundreds of hosphtal appointments on the cards is raised

by Labour.

They put the blame for the walk-out on the Health

Secretary.

Nobody wants strikes, not least the junior doctors.

But they feel badly let down by Health

Secretary who seems to think conference negotiations are a game

of brinkmanship.

This is a difficult issue to solve but at least the country knows

what the government is trying to do.

She, on the other hand, has spent the last six months

avoiding telling the countrx what she would do about these flawed

contracts.

And is this the northern powerhouse?

An online health retailer s`ys black puddings fulfil

all the criteria for being ` super food and predicts they will be

the gastronomic highlight of 20 6.

And an MP from the black pudding heartland

describes the importance of this allegedly miracle food.

Can we please have a debate on the health

benefits of eating black pudding?

My right honourable friend will no doubt have seen reports this week

that this tasty delicacy is full of protein, potassium,

calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc.

So, it is not only good for you, it is

actually a superfood.

The debate will enable us to ensure that

benefits are more widely known.

I remember very fondly walking around

Bury market with my friend looking at the fine black puddings on sale.

They are some great products made in Lancashire and they are tasty

to eat perhaps in moderation.

Black pudding. Love them.

The Chancellor's U-turn over tax credit cuts in November was one

of the government's most embarrassing moments

since the May election.

But Labour says the cuts to low income families have certainly

not gone away.

On Wednesday, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said

ministers were instead planning to make cuts

to Universal Credit, the new welfare system that merges

a range of existing benefits including tax

credits.

If you are a single mother with one or more children,

the work allowance will be half to from April

of this year, April 2016, from ?8,808 to ?4764.

That means a reduction of ?4044

In cash terms, that working mother will lose ?2,628

next year.

The sting is in the tail and working people will lose out

dramatically as the Univers`l Credit is rolled out.

I think more than that, Mr Speaker.

I think they will be absolutely cheesed off to the back teeth

that this government is tryhng to pull the wool over their eyes.

Because the truth is these are precisely the same cuts that

were proposed through tax credits.

The party that wants to continue taxing.

That is why they are the party of welfare.

They are the welfare party.

And not the "labour" Party.

Madam Deputy Speaker, welfare is much more

than simply giving money to people and writing blank cheques.

It is about removing the barriers that

prevent people from finding work and progressing in work.

It is about giving people the support they need

to stand on their own two fdet and live independently

from the state.

Now, what have the following all got in common?

Control of horses act, the specialist printing act,

and the self build housing `ct?

The answer is they all started life as backbenchers' bills.

Or as they are more usually known, private members

bills.

These don't get priority slots for discussion,

they are relegated to the debating margins,

usually Fridays.

And the vast majority are defeated, suffering

either a long slow death or a quick one, overcome by procedural moves

that are sometimes so securd that they baffle even seasoned

Westminster watchers.

So, does it have to be this way

This week, a procedure committee has been looking

at the whole issue.

Afterwards, I was joined by Nick Thomas-Symonds,

a Labour MP who had one of his bills recently

talked out and by Philip Davies

an MP who has made it one of his tasks at Westminster to talk

out private members' bills that he sees as unnecessary.

I asked Nick Thomas-Symonds what his misgivings

were about the current process for dealings

with backbenchers' bills.

I find it very difficult when my own bill was in effdct

talked out to explain to constituents why

that had happened.

I think it would have been luch cleaner and fairer if it had been,

for example voted down.

It would have been clear thdn that the will of the House

was in one direction.

Would you like to see the procedures change to make it easier

and more possible for a private member's bill to get through?

I would like to see a clearer process,

of course.

Any law has to be subject to scrutiny.

I think that having a sick duration where it is on Tuesday

instead of a Friday might bd something that committee can look

at.

MPs have only when Parliament is sitting the possibility

of a Friday in a constituency.

So, you have to understand balancing our duties at Westminster

and in the constituencies.

So that might be one argument.

Another would be simply to try to ensure that the private

member's bill always got to a vote.

There is the point that the public has a point seemed bills defeated,

not by argument but by procddure.

Isn't that really a case for change here?

Well, I think that the currdnt system strikes the right balance.

At the moment, if a bill only has minimal support,

has been badly thought through all badly drafted

and doesn't actually do what it says on the tin,

it can be blocked by being talked out.

However, if over 100 people turned up to support a ill,

that is the first one of thd day, then it will go through,

irrespective of someone trying to talk it out.

Where we can demonstrate it has widespread

support.

I don't really see why it bhll should be able to just procded

through Parliament on the b`ck of a small number of MPs.

If a bill can't even muster 100 MPs to come and support it,

why should any bill go throtgh?

It is all about that point that an MP does have two jobs.

You need to go back to Yorkshire but why

are you here on Fridays killing off bills?

Parliament it is for 13 Fridays a year.

That means there are 39 othdr Fridays a year where you can be

in your constituency.

We have extensive recesses where you can

spend the whole week in the constituency.

The idea that MPs can't spare 1 Fridays a year to be

in Parliament is a nonsense. Of course they can.

Our duty is to be in Parliament screw to nine

during legislation.

When we had the assisted dying bill, over 400 MPs

were here on Friday.

When we had the EU referendtm bill, there were over 300 MPs

here on Friday.

They can turn up if they want to.

If they choose not to, then clearly the bills that

are going through are not that important.

Nick, would you like the government to

step in and make it easier for backbenchers to get

the legislative ideas through?

I would just like them to step in and give much

clearer, modern system for how we actually do it.

Why should be people be deprived of Philip for 13 days?

I understand the point that is being made.

Nonetheless, the system seels so archaic to the public.

That is the problem.

The government has the bond`ge of mustering people here in a way

that ordinary backbenchers don't stop that is the other point.

This is the reason I suggested moving perhaps to it Tuesdax.

Let's correct that balance because most

people will be here on a Tudsday.

Then, it isn't about whether they are giving up time

in their constituency, it is whether they want to go

in and support the bill.

Philip Davies, a move to Tuesday makes sense,

doesn't it?

The government won't muster 100 people to be here on Friday,

they can't muster that many people, they might muster 30 or 40

ministers to turn up.

If you get 100 back inches here, you will get your

bill through.

If you move it to a Tuesday it went everybody is here,

it will basically be government business.

The government whips will work overtime getting everybody

here, there will be no such thing as private members'

bills in reality.

Every bill will then become a government bill.

Can I just ask you, Philip Davies, has there ever been a moment

when you have regretted telling the bill, thinking,

perhaps I shouldn't have stepped in to kill

that one off?

No, I usually regret allowing a bill through.

Going soft, occasionally, with bills.

I don't kill them just for the fun of it, I do it

because bills are misguided.

The problem we have in this House is someone comes with a worthy

sentiment, people feel they don t oppose it because if they oppose it

they will look as if they are being churlish.

There are only a few of us who have got the guts to stand up

and say, the emperor has got no clothes.

And I'm afraid that is the sad part of our democratic system,

many MPs on Howard and they won t dare stand up and oppose a worthy

sentiment.

If I have to do that duty, then, so be it.

If it makes me unpopular, then so be it.

But it is better than having broad legislation

going through simply on a worthy sentiment.

Now, with his speedy reviews of some of the more offbeat

lytic all stories this week, here is Patrick Cowling.

The DUP's Jim Shannon has so many friends in Parliament,

he can't decide where to sit.

Wednesday found him sat on the Labour benches

and here he is visiting the Conservative side.

Forgotten your way home, Jil?

Donald Trump, on the other hand, had no

place to sit in the entire country if a public petition has its way.

On the 18th of January, MPs will debate

the call to ban the US preshdential hopeful from entering the UK.

Ever wondered which fruit Bill Clinton prefers?

No? Well, neither had we.

But newly released transcripts of chats between the former

president and Tony Blair revealed that he is

very partial to a banana. Moving swiftly on.

David 'Top Cat' Davies.

Speaker John Bercow called on David 'Top Cat' Davies to speak this week.

That's right, kids.

He's the boss, he's the biz, he's the championship,

he is the most tiptop MP for Monmouth.

And they are back.

The hot topic of head Hodges -- hedgehogs returned in a deb`te

during the housing and planning bill.

Their guardian angel MP, Oliver Colewell thought

to protect his prickly friends during the building of new homes.

Patrick Cowling with a few points from around Westminster.

Patrick Cowling with a few points from around Westminster.

After a week off, the House of Lords returns the business on Monday

and on Tuesday, David Cameron will be

facing the questions of members from the Commons Liaison Colmittee.

There should be no shortage of subjects to talk about.

So, do join me for the next Week in Parliament.

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.