09/09/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and Welcome to the Week In Parliament.

Hard Brexit?

Soft Brexit?

It's going to be a slow exit from the European Union.

And don't expect any details any time soon.

It would not be right for me or this government to give a running

commentary on negotiations.

There is going to be no running commentary at this stage on the

negotiations.

But definitely making his exit was the chairman who gave

us plenty of committee drama.

Why are you still in your post?

I need to excuse you from this committee because

your evidence so far has been unsatisfactory.

And buy one, get one free.

As the Greens decide to have

two co-leaders, an MP says job sharing could be the way

forward at Westminster.

I'm really enthusiastic about job shares so I

say congratulations to the Green Party for being prepared to be

trailblazers in this.

But first, it's 11 weeks since the country

voted to leave the European Union.

When Theresa May entered 10 Downing Street in mid-July

she assured victorious Leave supporters that Brexit would mean

Brexit, a sound-bite if ever there was one.

So when MPs returned from their summer holidays many

thought they would be in a for an informative

progress report on how negotiations were going.

After all, a Cabinet Minister had been appointed

specifically for the job.

David Davis was dubbed the Brexit Secretary.

Sure enough, on day one of the new term, Mr Davis

was at the Commons despatch box.

But those hoping for a detailed update were disappointed.

Statement, the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union.

Secretary David Davis.

Naturally, people want to know what Brexit will

mean.

Simply...

Simply, it means leaving the European Union.

So we, we will decide on our borders,

our laws, and the taxpayers' money.

It means getting the best deal for Britain.

One that's unique to Britain and not an off-the-shelf solution.

We are confident of negotiating a position that means this country

flourishing outside the European Union,

keeping its members as our friends, allies and trading partners.

We will leave the European Union but not

turn our back on Europe.

We heard we were going to hear what the

government's strategy for Brexit was but what we have heard instead

hasn't been a strategy, it hasn't been thought out plan, it's just

been more empty platitudes.

Many of us this afternoon wanted rather more

detail than a few more reheated old sound bites this afternoon.

and what we got is an essay on how

waffle means waffle.

Can I commend to him the approach of the Japanese

government, which spent the last seven weeks not simply

going to the lengths of setting up a Brexit commission

but has reported its results.

I hope that diligence and speed will inspire his work in his

department over the months to come.

He should know well that what we are doing

at the interests of a limited number of companies,

and a limited number of banks, which is obviously the issue

for the Japanese government.

We're looking at the interests of our whole economy.

So it will take just touch longer.

So the Wednesday, and the Prime Minister was put on the spot.

The UK Government has had all summer to come with a plan, as

strategy, so far we have just had waffle.

So may I ask the Prime Minister a simple question

but quite important,

does she want the UK to remain fully within the European single market?

What I want for the UK is that we put into

into practice, the vote that was taken

by the people of the UK to leave the European Union.

And I say to the right Honourable gentleman

And I say to the right Honourable gentleman that we can approach

the vote that took place on the 23rd

of June in two ways.

Try and row back on it, have a second

referendum, say we didn't really believe it.

Actually, we are respecting the views of the British people.

But more than that.

We will be seizing the opportunities that

leaving the European Union now gives us to forge a new role for the

United Kingdom in the world.

The European single market is the biggest market in the world

and it really matters to our businesses

and to our economy.

I asked the Prime Minister a very, very simple question.

There is either an in or out answer.

So let me ask it again.

Does she want the United Kingdom to remain fully part of the European

single market? Yes or no?

The right honourable gentleman doesn't seem to

quite understand...

What the vote on the 23rd of June was about.

The United Kingdom will leave European Union

and we will build a new relationship with the European Union.

That new relationship will include control of

the movement of people from the EU into the UK

the movement of people from the EU into the UK and it will include

the right deal for trade

in goods and services.

That is how to approach it, and I also say this to him.

In looking at negotiations, it would

not be right for me or this government to give a running

commentary on negotiations.

The Brexit secretary said that staying

in the single market was improbable.

The Prime Minister's spokesperson said that was not the case.

It's one or the other, can't be both.

So can the Prime Minister tell the house

what the government's policy actually is?

It will be a new relationship, and as indicated in my statement and

in Prime Minister's Questions, I will not be giving a running

commentary and the government will not be giving a running

commentary, and there is a very good reason for doing that.

We want to get the best deal, the right deal

for the UK, and if we were to give a constant running commentary,

and give away our negotiating hand and that would not be what we would

achieve.

Why did the Prime Minister authorise a very public dressing down

of the Brexit secretary, merely for telling

of the Brexit secretary, merely for telling the house that

membership of the single market and free

movement of people tend to go together?

Isn't it possible the Brexit secretary, who has believed

in this stuff for years, has thought more deeply about it

than the Prime Minister, who has been a Brexiteer

for a matter of weeks?

And can we revert to in this house to the

traditional practice, where ministers are disciplined for

misleading the house, as opposed to the odd occasion

occasion where they're court telling the truth?

Please could she tell us and clear up the

confusion, do she value membership of the single market, does she think

it should be an aim or an objective of the negotiations, and we should

be trying to stay in it if we can?

We will be looking to develop a new model

of the relationship between the UK and the European Union,

and we will not, as I said earlier, be setting out every bit of our

negotiating hand in advance of entering those negotiations,

because that would be the best way to come out with the worst deal.

Definitely not the last word on Brexit.

Now, are they the way to improve social mobility?

Or do they belong to a bygone era?

The words 'Grammar Schools' more often than not produce

a strong reaction - either for or against -

among both public and politicians.

And even before the Government unveiled its consultation

on its plans, allowing every secondary school in England

to become a grammar, MPs and peers were getting

their thoughts in early.

In the Commons the Education Secretary, herself the product

of a comprehensive school, said she was open-minded

about selection.

She said the education world had seen many changes

in the last 30 years.

We now have a whole variety of educational offers available.

There will be no return to the simplistic

binary choice of the past where schools separate children into

winners and losers, successes or failures.

This government wants to focus on the future,

to build on our successes

and create the truly 21st-century school system.

But we want a system that can cater for the

talents and the abilities of every single child.

So, to achieve that, we needed truly diverse range of

schools and specialisms.

This policy will not help social mobility, Mr

Speaker, but will entrench inequality and disadvantage.

It will be the lucky few who can afford the

tuition and who can get ahead and the disadvantaged that will be left

behind.

The Secretary of State well knows that apart from the best

possible teaching, the most important thing we can do for our

young people is to encourage them as they make their way through school.

Given that we still as a nation are dealing with a legacy of a divided

education system, why on earth does she think that subject in more

11-year-old children to that experience, 34 parents having opened

the bloke, telling them that they have failed

opened the envelope, telling them

that they have failed

is going to encourage and support them in their

self-esteem and in day continuing career through the education system?

I'm sure many across Torbay where three grammar schools work perfectly

well with comprehensive schools, a studio school and a very

successful technical college,

we've been listening to some of the comments we've had today,

particularly from the Shadow Education Secretary with some

amazement.

Would she agree with me that really there is nothing radical

about the idea that we are going to give other areas the chance

to have the education system that Torbay

already benefits from?

The Minister will surely share the view that the

biggest and most significant problem in British education is the long

tale of underperforming boys in our poorer areas, few of whom will

actually pass the 11 plus.

How on earth does she think the creation of

grammar schools, in simple terms, is a solution to this?

As my right honourable friend will know, people

move to Kent because of its grammar schools.

Does she agree that it is not right for an excellent academic

education to be only available to those who can move to the catchment

areas of outstanding schools?

We do need to improve diversity and improve choice.

As the Prime Minister said, the reality is that

too often in Britain, we do have selection,

but it is on the basis of house prices, which is

totally unacceptable.

And plenty of opinions also in the House of Lords.

Does the Minister not accept that for every

grammar school, there is consequentially three secondary

modern schools?

In other words, that comprehensive schools become

secondary modern schools so that one child's social mobility is

bought at the expense of the destruction of opportunity

for three other children?

Anyone concerned about the great lack of social mobility in recent

years will be delighted about any possibility of the return

to grammar schools since it was their destruction

that was a major cause of the reduction of social mobility.

Thoughts on grammar schools.

And now a look at some of the other stories around Parliament

in the last seven days.

As the Paralympic Games move into full swing,

British success at the Rio Olympics was recognised in Parliament.

Team GB came second in the Medals table, pushing the Chinese out

to third place.

I know that the whole House will join me in congratulating the

British Olympic team on a truly magnificent performance in Rio.

That record medal haul, second in the

table ahead of China, and so, many memorable moments.

We can say they did their country proud.

Can I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the entirety

of the Olympic team for their fantastic achievements

at the Olympics in Rio.

How safe is this place?

BBC Panorama reveals the concerns of a whistle-blower about standards

at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria.

Local MPs are worried.

I have many constituents who work at Sellafield and they have

been in touch with me because they are concerned

about what the Panorama programme said about safe staffing levels.

These staff are committed to high standards of safety.

They are a huge asset to our nuclear industry.

And they feel undermined what has been said in this programme.

As far as the independent regulator is concerned, who attaches enormous

who attaches enormous importance to Sellafield in terms

of the resources they commit to monitoring this,

Sellafield is safe.

Is it ready for take-off or at least approaching the runway?

Peers wonder about the future of Heathrow Airport.

Should we now consider not asking the question as to whether or not

Heathrow is going to have a runway but ask the question

of whether Gatwick and Heathrow are going to have runways?

My honourable friend Lord Spicer asked where the government

decision would be announced.

I wonder if my noble friend could answer that question?

The best answer I can give is that the government will be

looking to make that decision very shortly.

A glimmer of hope in the temps to end a long dispute.

Junior doctors in England have called off their planned week

of strikes in September but walk-outs are still

on the cards for future months.

This afternoon's news delaying the first strike

is of course welcome.

But we mustn't let it obscure the fact that the remaining planned

industrial action is unprecedented in length and severity and will be

damaging for patients, some of whom will already have

had operations cancelled.

The public is looking for the Secretary of State to try

and meet the junior doctors, stop vilifying, stop pretending

they are the enemy within, and meet their reasonable demands.

New term, new lands for the future.

At the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood, the First Minister sets

out the legislative way forward.

The outcome of the EU referendum has created significant uncertainty

and anxiety for individuals, businesses, organisations,

and communities right across the country.

We will introduce a Social Security Bill.

This will see us takes the first steps towards a distinctive

Scottish social security system, based on dignity and respect.

This bill will be a powerful demonstration of our determination

to use new powers to create a fairer Scotland that we wish to see.

I hope that this will start a new phase in the British

government's approach to welfare.

One which spends less time complaining about policy and more

time spelling out what it intends to do with the powers it has.

A new report says the Palace of Westminster is not just creaking

and crumbling, it could suffer at catastrophic event.

One MP wonders if it is worth spending billions

on restoration and renovation.

This morning it was announced that billions of pounds will be spent

on refurbishing this House.

I'm sure the Leader of the House meant to announce that we were going

to have a full statement on when we are going

to have a proper debate in government time about this

proposal, particularly when they learn that this could cost

up to ?4.3 billion of public money.

And I'm sure all of the constituents would want to know if that is a good

use of public money.

Does anybody know what this man does in his latest job?

Patrick McLoughlin is the new Chancellor of the Duchy

of Lancaster.

Come again?

The honeymoon period for the Chancellor of the Duchy

of Lancaster is well and truly over.

I've been asking a series of questions about his

responsibilities, which have not been answered,

after 56 days in office.

So, can I ask any member of his team, where is he today

and what does he actually do?

The honourable gentleman has asked a number of questions.

I'll make sure that I relate his questions to the Chancellor

of the Duchy of Lancaster.

But he is responsible for the chancellory

of the Duchy of Lancaster.

And as a tailpiece, MPs have been putting their dogs through their

paces in the hope of winning the coveted award of Westminster dog

of the year.

The award went to Labour's Jonathan Reynolds and his two dogs named

after two American presidents Clinton and Kennedy.

Well, moving swiftly on, in a first photo Westminster party,

Greens have elected Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley as co-leaders,

replacing Natalie Bennett, who stood down as leader in July.

Job sharing remains rare in the world of politics.

They have been calls to allow MPs to split their workload

between two people.

Our reporter Ros Ball spoke to the Conservative MP

Sarah Wollaston who was herself a job sharing obstetrician and GP.

Ros asked her why she thinks job sharing might work for MPs.

Well, I have experience of job sharing myself as a doctor.

I job shared for over a decade.

I think the thing about job sharing is there are a lot

of advantages to it, not only the individuals themselves

who are job sharing the people that are working for.

Very often, you end up with more than the equivalent

of a single whole time worker.

You often also bring into areas of expertise, so, for example,

the job share partner that I was working with in medicine,

we both had areas of special interest and we could both bring

that to the role.

But I think within politics, I can see that working very well.

So, for example, someone might have a lot of expertise in health

and social care, for example, but less expertise in business.

If I was job sharing with somebody who had that role, we could bring

both into a single role.

I think also, crucially, you could allow some people

to become MPs who might not be able to do so if it was a

single full-time role.

So, somebody, perhaps, with disabilities, who didn't feel

they were able to commit to a full-time role

for whatever reason.

I think that would allow us to have a much more representative

parliament which I think is a good thing.

So, who needs more convincing about job sharing, do you think?

Is it the people at Westminster or is that the public?

Understandably, people feel very strongly about the link,

the constituency link, and they worry that we

would have pitfalls.

People look at what would happen if it didn't work out,

what would happen if one person dropped out, all these

kinds of things.

But that can happen with single full-time MPs as well.

I think rather than seeing all these things as insurmountable barriers,

yes, we should look at how you could overcome them,

and I think very clearly upfront people should have a plan for how

they would manage that because obviously it is the voters

who decide, if the voters didn't want to have a job sharing

MP representing them, they could put their cross

elsewhere, just as they can do now.

So, the Green party are forging ahead and job sharing

for the leadership role.

As someone who has job shared, what would your advice be to them

for how to make it work?

My advice would be communication.

My advice would be communication. Between you and also outside.

I would love to see this work.

I'm really enthusiastic about job sharing so I say congratulations

to the Green Party for being prepared to be trailblazers in this,

and I hope it works and the absolute key to it, I think,

is good communication.

Sarah Wollaston.

Now, a little bit of history.

In 1999, the government of Tony Blair got rid

of all the hereditary members of the House of Lords.

Well, not quite all.

92 hereditaries were left.

And despite several deaths over the years, there are still 92.

The reason being that every time I hereditary peer passes away,

an election is held within the Lords to replace him or her.

Labour peer Lord Grocott has said this temporary measure has gone way

past its sell by date and watched to be ditched.

In most respects, hereditary peer is in this House are completely

indistinguishable from any other peer, apart from the absurd anomaly

of their being able to pass on their passage to another

of their number when they die or retire.

My Lords, the by-election system is way, way, way past

its sell by date.

My bill scraps it into simple clauses.

For this House to take the lead would enhance our reputation

and improve our Parliament.

Its passage would hurt no one and cost nothing.

The history of debate in this House about the future of hereditary

peer by elections has not been a happy one.

But let us put an end to them now, pass this bill, and put an end

to a process which does no credit to this House, to Parliament

generally, or to British democracy.

The government does not believe that now is not the time

for comprehensive reform, given the priorities elsewhere.

Not least implementing the result of the EU referendum.

My noble friend talks about incremental changes

and then says, oh gosh, we've got a lot of other important

things to deal with, such as Brexit.

I cannot understand why this tiny, modest bill which will take very

little time of Parliament should be in any way compromised

by the other major changes.

I cannot understand why the Government should resist

this tiny but important and sensible bill.

It would just change the whole position of the House,

and this is not the time to do that.

But what we do want to do is keep talking about this problem

and the new leader...

The new leader...

Let me finish.

The new leader looks forward to working with peers to support

incremental reforms which command consensus across the House.

And Lord Grocott's bill that would end the hereditary by-election

system was later given initial approval but it is not likely

ever to pass into law.

Finally, in a year of huge political change, the first week

of the new term produced one more.

The House of Commons home affairs committee is under new management.

The Conservative Tim Lawton will be in charge until a new committee

chair is elected.

It follows the resignation of this man, Keith Vaz,

who became the latest politician brought down by a sex scandal.

The Labour MP endured several days of salacious revelations

in the tabloid press.

Keith Vaz have chaired the home affairs committee for nine years,

a period when its profile was raised considerably.

The sessions were often topical and newsworthy,

and Mr Vaz's style of chairmanship was always worth a watch.

Mr Buckles, since last Thursday, when this matter was raised

in the House of Commons, your company's value

has gone down by 9%, your chairman has issued a statement

not necessarily backing your position, why are

you still in your post?

Er...

Mr Robbins, this is very unsatisfactory, I'm surprised that

you cannot answer a question about whether or not someone

who is reporting to view knows what their budget is.

I need to excuse you from this committee because I think your

your evidence so far has been unsatisfactory.

I would be grateful if you would let me know by six o'clock today

whether he knows what it is.

That is all this committee is asking.

Mr Burnham is not a member of this committee so what goes

on between him and the Home Secretary is entirely different.

Do you understand that?

I do understand that.

Good.

So, thank you for coming.

OK.

Peter would never let me and if I had ever done that,

Peter would have been all over me like a rash.

All of this sounds more like Clouseau rather than Columbo.

I mean, I have to say...

You're having dinner with people you are investigating, you don't

know they are being investigated, you sign deals two months...

I know they are being investigated, of course I do.

I, in one of my interviews, said I'll take...

If anyone can prove what I said is an true, I will take them out

the best dinner of the lives.

Oddly enough, one has come with it.

If any of you can demonstrate what I said isn't true,...

It may be that actually no one wants to have dinner with you.

Ignore victims!

I think we are running out of time.

I have a final question about...

Time is infinite. Unfortunately...

You cannot run out of time.

Who is next? Theresa May?

She may not show up.

Check she knows what day it is.

Mr Brand, I have a final question for you.

Some interesting moments from what we might call

the Keith Vaz years at the home affairs select committee.

Never a dull moment. Well, almost.

That is it for this programme.

There will be more fall-out from the grammar schools

announcement in the Commons and the Lords in the next few days.

Cabinet minister David Davies will be undergoing a grilling

on the Brexit issue.

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

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.

I know the House will join me in congratulating