28/10/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week In Parliament.

Cleared for take-off!

It's the thumbs up for Heathrow's third runway.

But plenty of MPs say the project will never get off the ground.

I believe this will be a millstone around this covenant's next for

- this government's neck.

many, many years to come.

Heathrow expansion is neither possible nor

deliverable.

It delivers the greatest economic and strategic

benefits to our economy.

Boris Johnson isn't likely to be lying down

in front of the bulldozers.

But if he doesn't agree with the Heathrow plan,

shouldn't he have resigned from Theresa May's Cabinet?

Losing a Foreign Secretary in particular and

also one who was so prominent in the Leave campaign would be very

damaging for her government.

And, all the world's a stagd.

Is the Palace of Westminster taylor-made for thespians?

An actor turned MP gives her verdict.

I mean, the House of Commons is a theatre,

let's face it, and you need to be able to get your message across

But first, the nation's been in the departure lounge

for a very long time.

But finally on Tuesday came news - some would say several years late -

of just how the government is going to increase

Southern England's airport capacity.

And the answer is, one new runway at Heathrow.

Cost?

?16 billion.

Opposition?

Considerable.

Heathrow is currently at 98 per cent capacity, handling

480,000 flights a year.

The new runway will take th`t figure to 700,000.

The Transport Secretary told MPs what mattered was the country's

future economic prospects.

If we do nothing, the cost to our nation is significant,

amounting to more than ?20 billion over 60 years through delays,

fewer flights and passengers having to fly from airports elsewhdre.

In addition, the wider impacts on our economy are in the rdgion

of 30 to ?45 billion.

That is why the decision we've reached today is so important

for the future of our country.

We believe that the expansion of Heathrow Airport

and the Northwest runway scheme in combination with a significant

package of supporting measures on the scale recommended

by the Airports Commission offers the greatest level

of benefit to passengers, business and to help us delhver

the broadest possible benefhts to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Just what have they been dohng for all these months,

apart from worrying about splits in the Cabinet and the Forehgn

Secretary throwing himself hn front of the bulldozers and former mayoral

candidates triggering by-eldctions?

There is no justification for dithering on this scale.

I believe this decision is misguided and not ultimately

in the nation's interests.

Will the Secretary of State assure me in the consultation

scrutiny to come, there will be good and adequate scientific dat`,

because the evidence will show Heathrow expansion is neithdr

possible nor deliverable in the Minister's words,

not expansion at any cost, this is the wrong scheme

and the price is too high.

Why is the government disregarding widespread hostility and bulldozing

through a third runway, which will inflict crippling noise,

significant climate change `ffects, health damaging air pollution

and catastrophic congestion on 1 million Londoners?

THE SPEAKER: Zac Goldsmith.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The government has chosen a course that is not only wrong, it's doomed.

It's wrong because of the 1 million people who will directly suffer

on the back of the environmdntal harm this project is unavoidably

produces and doomed because the complexities, the cost,

the legal convocations mean that this project is almost

certainly not going to be ddlivered.

I believe this will be a millstone around this government's neck

for many, many years to comd.

Constant source of delay, constant source of

anger and betrayal.

Isn't the biggest loser from the Tory civil

war over Heathrow not

the Foreign Secretary, nor the member for Richmond Park,

but transport everywhere else because four over five years there's

been an obsessive obsessive focus on London and the south-east,

so while welcoming this dechsion, can I ask the Home Counties,based

Cabinet to listen to what William Hague has said today

and set out in the Autumn Statement a clear timetable for HS3,

linking Manchester Airport to the great cities of the North.

This is a devastating decishon, a devastating decision I thhnk

for the national economic interest as well as for my constituents,

hundreds of whose homes will be bulldozed and for the millions

of people affected by the vdry loud noise from Heathrow Airport.

Can I congratulate my right honourable friend on this

announcement and make clear to him the relief with which this will be

received, this somewhat overdue statement, by all the peopld

represented by colleagues in the Gatwick Coordination Group.

I don't share this cosy consensus on airport expansion.

Half the population each year doesn't fly.

For environmental reasons I haven't flown for several years.

The Secretary of State todax says this this expansion will,

quote, further reduce carbon emissions, unquote.

What a joke.

Because of climate change, the government should not bd

in the business of encouraghng people to fly and more effort,

let alone subsidising increased airport capacity

-- more air freight.

and higher total emissions.

I urge the Secretary of State and the government to think again.

Some moments from the Commons on Tuesday.

Soon after that debate, Zac Goldsmith announced

he was quitting as Conservative MP for Richmond Park.

There'll now by a by-election there on December 1st.

Zac Goldsmith says he'll be an Independent candidate, no doubt

hoping to intensify the casd against the Heathrow runway plan.

Two other West London MPs, Boris Johnson and Justine Greening,

also have strong objections to Heathrow expansion.

They're being allowed to oppose government policy and yet

remain in the Cabinet, in other words, the principle

of Collective Responsibilitx will not apply to them.

That follows David Cameron's decision this year to allow several

Cabinet Ministers to agree to disagree with his policy

for Britain to stay in the DU.

They were allowed to campaign for Brexit.

And I'm joined in the studio now by Dr Catherine Haddon

of the Institute For Governlent who's an expert on

Collective Responsibility.

Welcome to the programme.

Now, first, a word of introduction about this notion of Collective

Responsibility.

Where does it actually come from?

What's the origin of the term?

It comes from the 18th centtry, really, and it's all about the sort

of development of a parliamdntary democracy and effective govdrnment

in relation to the Crown, so its development was largdly

to keep the government together so they were all on the samd page

in terms of what they were representing to the monarch,

what they were saying was policy, and make sure they weren't getting

blindsided on issues.

But obviously it's evolved ` lot over the years since then.

So originally, it was to avoid the King picking somebody ott?

Yes, exactly.

But in a way, the origins of that although obviously we don't

have the same need for it in that way, it still tells us a lot

about its value, because it's really about binding

the government together.

So, as I said, they are all on the same page,

they are all sort of in the same boat, to use another metaphor.

They are trying to make surd that they are working

together as a collective, so it is not just about sort

of signing up to particular policies or anything like that,

it's more about the cohesion of government generally.

Two suspensions in a sense, significant suspensions in 2016

firstly on the EU Referendul and now on Heathrow.

So, does that suggest that laybe the principle isn't quite

so fundamental as it once w`s, we could see it being suspended

more often in future?

As with all things in our Constitution, you know, it hs bound

into the Ministerial Code but they evolve over time ddpending

on how people view them and how strongly they sort

of adhere to them.

You can go back over hundreds of years but certainly

over the last century, there have been all sorts

of times at which Cabinet ministers would leak,

would brief, would sort of hint at whether or not they were happy

with the proposal that went through, or just keep quiet about it and not

necessarily be the proponent that leads on that particular policy

The sort of counterweight to Collective Responsibilitx,

if you don't agree with a government policy, the noble British tradition

is you resign and Michael Hdseltine famously resigned over Westland

and the Iraq war, we saw John Denham resigning and Robin Cook.

That in a sense could have happened this time with Boris Johnson

and Justine Greening who could have resigned over

the Heathrow announcement.

Yeah, and so taken in isolation you can see why May wanted to do it,

why she called it a sort of a core decision on this point,

because losing the Foreign Secretary in particular and also one

who was so prominent in the Leave campaign would be very

damaging for her government.

In isolation, you can see it as sort of a mature thing but taken

alongside the fact that we have had such a large split the country

between the sort of Remain `nd Leave camps and we are still seeing

the legacy of that, it is more what it suggests about May's ability

to hold the government together

If she needs more and more of these then it isn't suggesting

of a mature government, it suggests a fractured govdrnment.

But I suppose the public might think, but this

Collective Responsibility notion is a little bit like fantasx world

because they do like to see politicians disagreeing,

because the idea that 100 mhnisters all agree totally on every policy

detail must strike some people as being a little bit false,

so maybe it's realistic to suspend Collective Responsibility?

I think there's a differencd between suspending collective

Cabinet responsibility and being aware of, and showing

the fact that, there are different views in government.

Certainly, some have talked about whether or not it

would humanise politics in that way but the reverse side of it hs that

actually you would see more opportunities for ministers wanting

to say why they disagree with what is going on,

more fractured debates, more briefing against each other

and also trying to sell each other out in terms of whose decishon

it was unfair for, who should be responsible when it all goes wrong.

-- and therefore.

So it could be a recipe for a pretty chaotic governlent

It could be, especially if people aren't willing to then be

accountable for it in parli`ment, which is another reason why it's

important so that the parli`ment can hold the government

to account collectively.

Dr Catherine Haddon.

The Liberal Democrats are planning to make the coming by-electhon

in Richmond Park a vote on Brexit.

And talking of plans and talking of Brexit,

Jeremy Corbyn was keen on Wddnesday to label as "shambolic"

the Government's approach so far to taking the UK out of the EU.

At Prime Minister's Questions, the Labour leader quoted thd remarks

of the First Minister of Wales that had followed Monday's Downing Street

meeting between Theresa May and all the UK's devolved ldaders.

The First Minister for Wales, Carwyn Jones, said there

is a great deal of uncertainty but they are clear they need full

and unfettered access to the single market.

Could the Prime Minister help the First Minister of Wales

and indeed the other devolvdd administrations, by giving

them some clarity?

There are those who talk about means and those who talk about ends.

I'm talking about ends.

What we want to see is the best possible arrangement for tr`de with,

and operation within, the single European market

for businesses in goods and services here in the United Kingdom.

THE SPEAKER: Jeremy Corbyn.

On Monday, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister told

the House and I quote, "we have a plan which is not

to set out at every stage of the negotiation the detahls.

I've been thinking about thhs for a couple of days, Mr Spdaker.

And I think when you're searching for the real meaning behind,

and the importance behind, the Prime Minister's statemdnt,

you have to consult the great philosophers.

The only one I can come up with ..

THE SPEAKER: Mr Cleverly, calm yourself.

You're imperilling your own health, man, which is a source

of great concern to me.

Jeremy Corbyn.

All I could come up with Mr Speaker is Baldrick, who says "our cunning

"plan is to have no plan."

Brexit was apparently about taking back control,

but the devolved governments don't know the plan,

businesses don't know the plan, Parliament doesn't know the plan.

When will the Prime Minister abandon this shambolic Tory Brexit

and develop a plan that delhvers for the whole country?

We're going to deliver the best possible deal for trade in goods

and services both with and operation within the European Union.

And we're going to deliver an end to free movement.

That's what the British people want, and that's what this governlent s

going to deliver for them.

Theresa May doing battle with Jeremy Corbyn.

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

in the last few days.

Peers have given initial approval to the Bill that brings in ` scheme

for young people called the National Citizen Servicd.

It allows 15 to 17-year-olds to learn new skills and takd part

in outdoor activities.

I want to give credit to melbers in other parties who have

embraced this scheme.

It would have been very easx when this scheme was very mtch

the personal vision of one Prime Minister from one party

for other parties to want to stay clear of it and indeed a potential

different government to want to change it and I pay

particular credit to the noble Lord Blunkett for the

part he has played.

When I was 16 I volunteered to go and see an old lady called Lrs Plum

and I used to go every week in term time until two years later.

I was leaving the School For The Blind and going back

to Sheffield and I went to tell Mrs Plum that I hoped I had been

some help to her over the two years and as soon

as I told her I was returning to Sheffield,

her response was "well, David, I really hope I've bden some

"use to you over the last two years."

The end of the jungle.

The refugee camp at Calais was demolished and its

occupants dispersed.

Some unaccompanied child refugees travelled to Britain.

The Home Secretary updates LPs.

We will prioritise those likely to be granted

refugee status in the UK.

We will also prioritise those 12-year-olds or under.

And we will consider those `ssessed as being at high risk

of sexual exploitation.

Can she reassure us that before any child is admitted, every receiving

family will be properly scrdened and in the interests of nathonal

security, that every young `dult admitted to the United Kingdom

is screened before they are allowed to come into the country?

We will always make the correct safeguards and we will alwaxs make

sure that the families are prepared.

We will not take any risks for this country.

The link between property and dodgy money.

The Commons approved a Bill that cracks down on money-laundering

and the financing of terrorhsts

We must recognise that the size of our financial sector and open

economy and the attractivendss of London property market

to overseas investors makes this country unusually

exposed to the risks of international money-laundering.

Some of the most expensive properties in the capital

are unoccupied because they have been bought solely for the purpose

of laundering dirty money.

Property in London has becole one of the safest investments

in the world and one which rich criminals and money-launderdrs

are attracted to in just thd same way as people who have

made their money legitimately.

And, that programme again, as 14.8 million viewers

tuned into the final of The Great British Bake Off,

MPs refocus on the wisdom of the programme's planned love

to Channel 4.

Is the plan half-baked?

Do you accept for example that some of the programmes that we all enjoy,

that some of us enjoy, Unreported World for exampld,

the hour-long Channel 4 News, Dispatches, the Paralympics...

Bake Off.

Not so much, perhaps!

But these are the kind of programmes that clearly would not thrive,

almost certainly, under privatised Channel 4,

for the very obvious reason, advertisers don't really

want to advertise in the middle of Unreported World.

It's not sexy.

Those programmes do not gendrate enough advertising revenue

in themselves in order for them to succeed,

which as Mr McCartney has pointed out.

Bake Off, the point Channel 4 have made to me about Bake Off,

is this is the biggest programme with no adverts on it

at all in the world.

Now, the advertising revenud that potentially Channel 4 could receive

from showing Bake Off may wdll pay in itself for the Paralympics, for

Dispatches, for Unreported World.

Karen Bradley.

Well, staying with television for a moment.

One of the two new MPs to enter the Commons this week

was the new Member for Batldy and Spen in West Yorkshire.

Tracy Brabin easily won the by-election on October the 0th.

One of Tracy Brabin's claims to fame before reaching Westminster

was her many appearances pl`ying Tricia Armstrong in

Coronation Street.

So, is performing as an actor in a TV soap opera good preparation

for being a politician?

The Scottish Nationalist Dehrdre Brock was an actor in Austr`lia

who made some appearances in Home And Away.

So, I asked her, was she pldased that another former soap

actor was now joining the House of Commons?

I hadn't thought about it.

I certainly don't think of myself as a soap actor,

to tell you the truth.

I had two days' work on Homd And Away in a ten year caredr

but that is something that sticks in people's memories.

But you are a distinguished actor. I'm sure we can call you th`t.

It was 20 years ago now. It was a long time ago.

I did train.

I trained for three years ftll-time in a drama school, and before that,

I did a BA in English.

Do you think there is an overlap between acting and

being a politician?

Well, I think there are defhnitely skills that carry over.

I mean, the House of Commons is a theatre, let's face it.

You need to be able to get xour message across so if you ard not

able to speak up, if you lose the attention of the House,

of course, it means your message isn't getting out there.

The message you are trying to get out there on behalf

of your constituents is not penetrating.

That is an important part of it

Certainly in hustings, for example, in politics,

I have had people come up to me in hustings saying I was thd only

person they could hear of all the candidates.

I thought that was probably quite helpful.

You do need to have a sense of projection.

Being able to project your voice is quite a helpful skill.

When you're making a speech in the Commons, do you have

that slight feeling, "I'm an actor again"?

A little bit, I suppose I do.

There is an attempt to projdct what you are saying.

I do tend to take that extr` breath as I stand up, just to make

sure my posture is good.

It's not something I do consciously, to be honest with you.

After all the training and the work in the field,

it's just something that comes naturally.

When you watch other MPs spdaking in the Commons, do you ever think

to yourself, that person would make a good actor?

No, I watch sometimes peopld in the House of Commons and think

they need acting lessons, rdally.

Just in terms of trying to get the message out there.

What they are saying can be fantastic but if they are rdading

off a page and they are doing it in a fairly monotone voice,

for example, low level, like I say, you're just not getting

that message out there, and I think that is part of package.

I'm sure you will be able interested to see how

Tracy Brabin projects herself.

I saw her briefly after she had been announced as the winner of that

particular by-election and

I thought she dealt well with some of the heckling

going on so that bodes well for her career in Parliament.

Westminster, perhaps the biggest soap opera of them all.

Yes, you could put it like that

Sometimes it feels like it.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me.

Deirdre Brock.

Councils are being urged to do more to prevent people

from becoming homeless.

A Conservative MP has put forward his Homelessness Reduction Bill as,

he says, the current rules on who is regarded as

homeless are inadequate.

His bill would mean councils having to find more properties for people

at risk of becoming homeless.

At the moment, he said, there are strict criteria

for who qualifies as homeless.

The non-priority homeless are told, go out, sleep on the streets, sleep

on a park bench or in a doorway and you may be picked up by

a charity.

That, to me, Mr Speaker, is an absolute national disgrace.

At a time when we have employment at the

highest level ever, a relathvely low-level of unemployment, ` single

person sleeping rough on our streets is a national disgrace and we must

combat it.

If the government is serious about this bill and the

ministers mean what they sax about homelessness, they must do

two things.

Fund the costs of the extra duties in this bill in full and tackle

the causes of the growing homelessness crisis in this country.

Those will be the two tests that we on this

side will hold the government hard to account.

Research published

who sleep rough have

a mental health problem and they are more likely to be stuck

sleeping rough for longer than a year.

This is a major problem that the bill seeks

to address and clearly, early intervention

and prevention has the

potential to have a positivd impact on the lives of these very

vulnerable people.

This bill, unfortunately, is a classic piece of

wishful thinking.

It is gesture politics of the worst kind.

You will the ends but you don't provide the means.

You make yourself feel good because you voted and the pressure

groups and campaigns have pressed you to do it,

you vote for something becatse it sounds good, it says

homelessness reduction, it should not be called homdlessness

reduction, it should be called homelessness recognition bill.

Now, with a round-up of some of the week's

other political stories, here's Kate Whannel.

# Five, four, three, two, one. #

Prime Minister Theresa May began the week by welcoming leaders

of the devolved nations to Downing Street to discuss Brexit.

But some of her guests left somewhat dissatisfied.

In parts, the meeting was deeply frustrating.

I don't know any more now about the UK Government's approach

to the EU negotiation than H did before I went into the meethng.

MP Helen Goodman had serious concerns about the dwindling love

life of our feathered friends.

They sing for so long that they don't have any

energy left to mate.

But, a fit of the giggles ldft her unable to finish her question.

Now, that rare thing, a Scottish Labour victory.

Kezia Dugdale was awarded Politician of the Year at the Pink News Awards.

The Scottish Labour leader came out earlier this year and is engaged

to her long-term partner.

In Strasbourg, Ukip acting leader Nigel Farage clears up conftsion

over what took place between two of his MEPs.

There is absolutely no eviddnce that anybody was punched at all `nd I do

want that put on the record.

However, if you would like to come outside with md...

we could have a civilised conversation over

a cup of coffee. Thank you.

Last week, Schiphol Airport sent a cake to Heathrow to celebrate

another delayed decision on airport expansion.

This week, the government announced that the third runway would go ahead

and Heathrow was able to return the favour.

Touche.

# Five, four, three, two, one. #

Kate Whannel collecting somd interesting morcels.

Some significant debates coling up in the next few days.

Expect some fall-out from the decision of the car-maker

Nissan to build its latest lodels in the North-East of England.

So do join me for the next Week in Parliament.

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.