16/09/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to The Week In Parliament.

Do grammar schools lead to better results?

The issue certainly produced higher grades for the party leaders.

We don't need and never shotld divide children at the age of 1 .

A life changing division.

It is the Labour Party that is willing members

of the Labour Party, who will take the advantages of a

good education for themselvds and pull up the ladder behind them

for other people.

The House of Lords has a new Speaker, who tells us the

chamber needs to slim down.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the

House of Commons is reducing down to 600 and we are about 800.

To produce a smaller House of Commons, most of

the constituencies are being redrawn.

But in the era of Brexit, can we afford to lose 50 MPs?

And with the abolition of all those hard-working MEPs, why are we now

reducing the number of MPs?

But first, the way forward or a step back?

Grammar schools are the best way to improve the life chances of

children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

That's the firm belief of Theresa May.

This week, the Prime Ministdr laid out her vision for a

more merit-acratic society.

Saying she wanted to end the restrictions

on state selective schools.

She said grammar schools were hugely popular

with parents and could provhde a suitably stretching education for

all children, regardless of their background.

So are we in for a new era of grammar schools

throughout England?

As Prime Minister pause my questions, the Labour leader

Jeremy Corbyn said, with just a touch of sarcasl,

that Theresa May had successfully brought about tnity

in the educational world.

She has united former Education Secretary's

on both sides of the House.

She has truly brought about a new era of

unity in education thinking.

I wonder if it's possible for her, this

morning within the quiet confines of this house to name any

educational experts that back her proposals on

new grammar schools and more selection?

What I want to see is more good school places.

A diversity of provision of education in this

country, so that we really see opportunity for all and young people

going as far as their talents will take them.

The evidence, Mr Speaker, of the effect of selection hs this -

in Kent, which has a grammar school system, 27% of the pupils on free

school meals get five good GCSEs.

Compared with 45% in London.

We are all for spreading good practice, but why does the Prime

Minister want to expand a sxstem that can only let children down

The right honourable gentleman believes

in the equality of outcome, I believe in equality of opportunity.

He believes in levelling down, we believe in levelling up.

CHEERING

Mr Speaker, equality of opportunity is not segregating

children at the age of 11!

The Secretary of State for Dducation suggested on Monday

that new grammar schools max be required to set up feeder primary

schools in poorer areas.

For the children in these feeder primary

schools get automatically ptt into grammar school?

Or will they be subject to selection?

What we are doing is setting up a more diverse

education system that provides more opportunities.

And what the right honourable gentleman appears to be

defending is the situation we have at the moment where there is

selection in our school system, but it selection by house price

I think we want to ensure that children have the

ability to go where

their talents take them.

My point is simply, every child, every

child, should have the best possible education they can have.

We don't need and never should divide

children at the age of 11.

A life changing division with the majority end up losing out.

I noticed she didn't answer my question about

feeder primary schools.

It is the Labour Party that has stifled

opportunity, stifled ambition in this country.

It is the Labour Party that is willing members of the

Labour Party who will take the advantages of a good edtcation

for themselves and pull up the ladder

behind them for other peopld.

It's not about pulling up ladders, it's

about providing a ladder for every child!

Isn't this the case of the Government heading b`ckwards

to a field segregation for the few

and second-class schooling for the many.

Can't we do better than this?

He has opposed every measure, that we have

introduced to improve the qtality of education in this country.

Theresa May.

Well, grammar schools weren't the only issue raised at

Prime Minister's Questions, once again, the Scottish

National Party focussed

on Britain's departure from the EU and, in particular, on the `dmission

by the Home Secretary that paying for visas to travel in Europe

could be a possibility for TK citizens

once Brexit is in place.

Millions of people from across the United

Kingdom found on freedom of movement across the EU for business `nd for

pleasure.

They face the prospect of h`ving to apply and possibly pay for

visas.

Is the Prime Minister in favour of protecting Visa free travel?

Yes or no?

there was a very clear message from the British

people at the time of the rdferendum vote on Junior 23rd that thdy wanted

to see an end to free movement as it operated,

they wanted to see control of the movement of people from the

European Union into the UK and that's what we will delhver

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and the UK Government

are totally un-willing to tell us the true cost of Brexit

and what their position will be

In contrast, there is a different tune

from the European Union.

Their new European Union negotiator has

said, and I quote, it's wrong that Scotland

might be taken out of the ET when it ordered to stay.

Does she agree with the EU negotiator at

the Scottish Government who want to protect

Scotland's place in Europe?

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman, it's `ll very

well him asking that question, but only two

years ago, he didn't want

to protect Scotland's place in the European Union.

He wanted Scotland to leave the UK.

Theresa May.

So, how are British negotiations going

on withdrawl from the European Union?

And just how long a process isn't to be?

The man who can tell us is, naturally enough, the Brexit

secretary, David Davis.

He's been facing the questions of a Lords

committee.

In terms of our approach, it'll be something over the years,

because the trigger has that intrinsic to it.

And as I've already said, I will seek to be as open as

is possible.

Even were I to decide to behave like Rasputin and keep it

all entirely secret, I would fail.

I would fail.

Because it wouldn't be posshble

Is the Government, are you as Secretary of State,

going to get ahead of this process or are we all

every Monday morning going to get on the European Parliament website

to find out what's really going on.

Or even talk to our MEP colleagues, who arehelpful

Or even talk to our MEP colleagues, who are helpful

and positive rather than anxthing else to see what's really going on?

It really is a serious challenge I think.

And this Parliament would not want to be treated as a

second-class citizen.

And neither do I want to trdat Parliament that way.

I mean, it'd be a little bit more of matching and meeting somdtimes.

That's what it'll be.

There is no interest whatsoever for the

Government to leave the text to be issued by somebody else.

We will certainly match and hopefully

improve on what the European Parliament has received.

It will be tactical, I'm afraid

I don't want to be boring about it, but this is

likely to be the most complhcated negotiation of our time.

And maybe the most coveted and negotiation of all time.

I mean, by comparison other questions are lower level.

So, we won't always be entirely free agents,

but we will be as open as wd can.

He said his Brexit Department was attracting a lot of intdrest.

This is really the sexiest `rea of politics at the moment.

Everybody writes to us.

We have a vast incoming.

My department at the moment is actually quite tiny.

Yes, I know that.

It has quadrupled in one month.

Basically one month, it's ehght weeks, but everybody round

this table knows what Whitehall and Brussels are alike in Atgust.

So it has quadrupled in a month in effects.

It'll probably double again in size, but it'll still very small

by the standards of Whitehall.

Once you get that sort of size, we're going to be

looking to outsiders.

I have a lot of very bright and young

civil servants who haven't got that much grey hair yet,

which I may have to find outside.

David Davis.

I think we can safely say the Brexit story has a long way to go.

The former Conservative Cabinet minister

Lord Fowler took office last week as the latest Lords Speaker.

He was elected to the post before the

He was elected to the post before the

summer break, notably indepdndent minded, he has already spokdn out

about the need to shrink the size of the Lord's,

which now has more than 800 members.

Lord Fowler gave as his first television interview since

taking office.

Alicia McCarthy asked him what he thought the role of Lord

Speaker should be.

What I said at the hustings, before the election,

was that my role was really to try to establish to the public the value

of the House of Lords.

I mean, it seemed to me that although the House

of Lords does fantastic work, and it really does, we don't

get the credit for it.

And, therefore, I hope one of my roles is going to be to try to

challenge that and tried to correct that.

And point out that there are committees here,

select committees, there are the consideration of bills.

I mean, it's all basically in the public interest.

I see the House of Lords as being defender of the

public interest.

I think I would try to get that particular role out.

Now, obviously, the big isste of the House of Lords

at the moment is its sheer size

Do you think the way to go here is some sort of incremdntal

change or do you think it's time for a Government to really grab this

issue by the tail and to make some really big changes to the House

of Lords?

Well, I would put it less erratically than that.

I mean, what I find is that the interviews I have

given, people at the end tend to say, well, it's all very well,

Lord Fowler, but aren't you the second

biggest legislature outside China?

And it just overshadows all the arguments that you have used.

And I think there is a cert`in irony in the fact that

the House of Commons is reducing down to 600.

We are at about 800.

So I think, above all, there is a consensus in the Lords

that the House is too big.

I don't say total a consensus, but a pretty

broad consensus.

That the House is too big.

And so I think it's sensibld to think about how you

tackle that.

Now, I'm not going to advoc`te a particular solution.

I've got my ideas, obviouslx.

But what I do think is that we might make it a

goal that by the next electhon whenever we should be at a number,

at a strength, which is just less than the House of Commons.

I think it's quite difficult to support a

system whereby we are a 200 odd more than the House of Commons itself.

So I think, from that point of view, that is a major step to takd.

You're going to be Lord Speaker for five years.

At the end of that term, what's going to be your benchmark

for success?

I'm not sure I've got a benchmark at the moment.

I mean, what I hope to do is to try and, if you like, spread thd word

about the House of Lords.

Try and make it look more accessible to the public.

Try and get more knowledge `bout it.

And if I can, after five years, if we have a

situation where the House of Lords is just below the size of the House

of Commons, then I would be very satisfied with that as well.

But I'm not putting out a target of that

kind, because I am the Speaker and it's up to other people to make

the cases and in many cases, to make the decisions.

The Lord Speaker talking to Alicia McCarthy.

Lord Fowler referred there to the moves to reducd

the size of the Commons and the details of how

the parliamentary constituencies might be redrawn were released

the start of the week.

The political parties were soon putting the maps

of the new constituencies under the microscope.

The idea of bringing the nulber of MPs down is to cut costs,

as well as making sure that constituencies all have the same

numbers of voters.

However, not everyone is happy.

Ros Ball has been taking a look at what might happen.

Another busy day in the Comlons and it is standing

room only for MPs.

But they could be a bit mord elbow room on these famous green

benches if plans to recall the political map go-ahead.

This week, the Independent Boundaries Commission set ott

proposals that would see thd total number of constituencies

drop from 650 to 600.

England is due to lose 32 MPs.

Wales will see its seats at by a quarter.

Down to 29.

Northern Ireland has alreadx been told it will lose one MP.

And proposals due to be set out in October are expected to recommend

that Scotland loses six members

The changes are part of an `ttempt to even out the size

of constituencies and cut the cost of politics.

But not everyone is happy.

Some people could see their seats disappear altogether

and they would have to battle with neighbouring MPs or up

sticks and move elsewhere.

Those who could be affected include George Osborne,

Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith, Stephen Crabb, and David Davies

Labour argues that it is an attempt by the government to

gerrymander the boundaries for their own political adv`ntage.

But the minister in charge of the boundary changes says

that it is about saving mondy and making things fairer.

It is right that having made savings elsewhere,

MPs should be able to put their own house in order.

This measure will save ?66 lillion over the course of a Parlialent

That is quite a lot of monex.

So, we need to cut the cost of politics and we need to do it

by cutting the number of MPs.

The plans are out for public consultation with proposals not

expected to be confirmed until 018.

But whatever happens, it seems likely that the map

of British politics will be significantly changed by thd time

of the next general election in 2020.

Ros Ball reporting.

And in Parliament on Thursd`y, the smaller House of Commons idea

wasn't going down all that well

When the boundary changes were announced and we have

the debate in this House, we didn't know we were

going to leave the EU.

75% of our laws were made in the EU.

And with the abolition of all those hard-working MDPs,

why are we now reducing the number of MPs?

The Prime Minister perhaps should look at this again.

Can we have a statement next week?

That is the decision which the House took when it passed the leghslation

that set out the reduction of both the members of Parliament

and the framework within which the parliamentary boundary

commission would operate.

That is set in legislation.

The Shadow Leader of the Colmons criticised the Lords

and the peerages announced over the summer by David Cameron.

..Where the Speaker of the House of Lords said there were 200

unnecessary people dancing `round at the other end of the corridor

and these changes introduced by the Prime Minister would involved

a spending of ?34 million.

The exchanges that have takdn place over the years.

This is a wanton waste of public money at a time

when the Prime Minister said that his justification

for the massive disruption `mongst elected members by the changes

in the boundaries would save peanuts.

Will the Leader of the Housd add some new lustre to his parlhamentary

halo and not just be a leaddr who is here today and nowhere

tomorrow, and take on real reforms?

I find it a bit ripe that he denounces the House of Lords

today in such florid terms when so many of his former

honourable and right honour`ble friends have been in a rush

to go and serve there.

And only earlier this week, a new peer sent there by thd right

honourable gentleman and thd current Leader of the Opposition

took her seat.

I think the honourable gentleman needs to have words

with his own leader about this.

David Liddington.

Well, we'll look at some of the other stories in Parliament

in the last few days.

The Commons has given initi`l approval to the digital economy bill

and amongst other things, it gives public sector bodids

new powers to share data to combat fraud and restrict access

to online pornography.

We have an incredible probldm of pornographic images be

available to children.

The NSPCC report that children as young as seven are being treated

for addiction to pornographx.

We put age inappropriate magazines on the top shelf, and we kedp

children out of sex shops.

Equivalent and proportionatd measures are needed online.

It is good night from him as a PM, and it is good night from hhm

as an MP.

David Cameron slips out of the Commons after 15

years as the member for Witney in Oxfordshire.

He has been a tremendous public servant, both for his Witnex

constituency but also for the country as a whole.

And under his leadership, we saw the economy being st`bilised,

we saw more people in work than ever before, we saw people on low incomes

being taken out of paying t`x altogether and this governmdnt

will build on that legacy.

Extending opportunity to all parts of the country.

I also wish the former Prime Minister well on his departure

from this House and well in his future life.

And I hope that the by-election in Witney will concentrate

on the issues of education `nd his views on selection in education

Remembering the Libya connection.

British victims of acts of HRA violence that was funded by Libya

during the regime of Colonel Gaddafi should be fully compensated,

plead MPs in Westminster Hall.

What happened by Colonel Gaddafi in the Libyan government

in supplying those weapons to the IRA was immoral,

unacceptable, and wrong.

Victims have waited long enough for answers.

They are sick and tired of the dilly-dallying and ddlays.

Many of them are coming to, let's face it, the latter

years of their lives.

Were we ever to get any forl of compensation from Libya,

I suspect we need to get our heads around the idea that it will be

a single some, it would be slid across the table and it would be

for the victims' organisations.

All set to be the biggest building site in Europe,

Hinkley C gets the go-ahead from the government.

And the ?18 billion nuclear power plant will be built

by the French firm EDF, one third paid for by the Chinese.

Construction work will create 2 ,000 jobs and will take ten years.

There was a mixed reaction `mong MPs.

The public can be confident that foreign direct

investment works all ways in the country's best interdsts

This statement is window.

It is face-saving by a government that talked big and eventually

backed down or stop please can I thank the Secretary of St`te,

and my right honourable fridnd the Prime Minister, for makhng

exactly the right decision.

There are improvements that the Secretary of State has

outlined but the deal remains a rotten one.

Why is the Secretary of State pressing the fast forward bttton?

Doesn't he recognised that this project does not represent value for

money as the FC have pointed out?

The still expanding numbers in ermine, leading an enquiry into

anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty

and a frequent panellist on BBC s Question Time is introduced

into the House of Lords.

I, Shamishta Baroness Chakr`barti, do solemnly, sincerely,

and truly declare and affirl that I will be faithful and

bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabdth,

her heir and successors, according to law.

The BBC is told to make public names of presenters and executives

who earn more than ?150,000 a year.

It is all in the interests of openness.

"But is it really necessary?"

asks a Scottish Nationalists to used to be a BBC man.

I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees with me that the BBC argument

that this will be a charter to poach talent is quite simply nonsdnse

If your agent is worth his salt Mr Speaker, Sir, or her salt,

they will know exactly how much you and all your

competition are paid.

I know this from bitter expdrience.

Does my the right honourabld friend agree with me that if the BBC wants

to take public money, it should be transparent, and if it

doesn't want to be transpardnt, then it shouldn't take publhc money?

Can I just say, Mr Speaker, that I do not share this

unhealthy obsession with what other people earn.

I was always told that it was rude to ask.

But crumbs of comfort for the BBC, following the shock news

that The Great British Bake Off is going to Channel 4.

One MP refers to the millions of pounds that the BBC is h`ving

to spend on free TV licences for the over 75s.

It could pay seven times ovdr for our 30 local BBC Radio one

stations or for Radio 4 peak times.

It could pay for 30 British Bake Offs.

And ministers would do well to consider before

depriving the British public of their favourite shows.

On the crucial issue of The Great British Bake Off,

Mr Speaker, which I am an enormous fan of, I just hope she will correct

what you just said and acknowledge that the Bake Off, after today's

announcement, will remain on free to air terrestrial TV on Ch`nnel 4.

Matthew Hancock bringing us the latest on Bake Off.

The proof of the pudding...

Never mind.

Well, the politicians are now not so much baking off as taking off.

It is that time of year.

The party conferences are being held around the country.

The Week in Parliament returns when the politicians

return to Westminster in three weeks' time.

So, until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.