18/11/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week In Parliament.

We know we're leaving the EU.

But how's the exit plan coming along?

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman, yes we do have

a plan.

Isn't the truth that the government is making a total

shambles of Brexit and nobody understands what the strategy

actually is?

We've got Brexit Ministers and a Brexit Department.

Do we really need a Brexit committee as well?

Certainly we do, says this MP.

The negotiations that we are as a nation about to

embark on, are really the most complex we have faced

for decades, a lot rests on it.

We talk to the chair of the new Brexit committee.

And the leaves are falling.

It's almost time for the Autumn statement.

Anyone remember what happened last year?

So the Shadow Chancellor literally stood at the dispatch box and

read out from Mao's Little Red Book.

But first.

Brexit in the chamber. Brexit in the committee rooms.

Britain's EU departure was being debated everywhere

you went in Parliament.

As the new 'Committee for Exiting the EU' was holding its first

inquiry session, the party leaders at Prime Minister's Questions were,

once again, doing battle over how the whole process was going.

A leaked memo, written by the consultancy firm Deloitte,

suggested there were 500 separate Whitehall projects underway related

to Brexit, and civil servants were struggling to cope

with the workload.

Jeremy Corbyn read from the leaked memo.

"No common strategy has emerged, in part because of the divisions

within the Cabinet."

If this memo is, as the Prime Minister's press department says,

written by ill informed consultants, could she put the government's

plan and common strategy for Brexit before Parliament?

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman,

yes we do have a plan.

Our plan is to deliver the best possible deal in trading

with the European Union.

Our plan is to deliver control of movement for people

from the European Union into the United Kingdom.

Well, the word doesn't seem to have travelled very far, Mr Speaker,

and I have to say I sympathise with the Italian government

minister who this week said about our government,

"Somebody needs to tell us something,

it needs to be something that makes sense."

Isn't the truth that the government is making a total shambles of Brexit

and nobody understands what their strategy actually is?

Of course those in the European Union who we will be

negotiating with will want us to start out at this stage every

detail of our negotiating strategy.

If we were to do that, it would be the best possible way

of ensuring that we got the worst result for this country.

That's why we won't do it.

I'm sure there is a question that's vexing the whole of Scotland,

on the 22nd of June this year, Ruth Davidson stated

to those supporting Leave, they won't tell us what they want

to replace the single market with.

Now that the Prime Minister is part of a government dragging Scotland

out of the European Union against its sovereign will,

could she answer Ruth Davidson?

And on the 23rd of June, the people of the United Kingdom

voted to leave the European Union, and that's what this

government will deliver.

It is right that the Prime Minister has latitude to enter

into negotiations with the EU.

However, the vote Leave campaign were very clear that the rights

of EU citizens would not be affected if this country voted

to leave the EU.

My parents are Italian, they have never naturalised

and they have been in this country for 50 years.

Can the Prime Minister assure me that she would never instruct me

to vote in a lobby to take away the rights of my parents

and millions of EU citizens?

I recognise the personal passion with which my honourable

friend raises this issue.

I want, intend and expect to be able to guarantee the rights of those EU

citizens who are living here in the United Kingdom

but I also want to see the rights of UK citizens living

in European Union member states being guaranteed too.

As I have said previously, I would hope this is an issue

on which we can come to a position on which we can discuss

with my European colleagues at an early stage.

Theresa May.

Also on Wednesday, a new committee of MPs was starting its detailed

examination into the whole process of leaving the EU.

The chair of the committee focused on a report from the Institute

for Government think tank.

It had warned that Whitehall didn't have the capacity 'to deliver Brexit

on top of everything else'.

It's talked about existential threat

for government departments, and the process externally appearing

to some people as somewhat chaotic and dysfunctional

so I want to begin by asking you, Doctor White, how do you think it's

going and in particular, do you think the civil servants

involved have got direction, political direction,

and the resources they need?

We have not said there is any existential threat to any

government department, that has been said to us.

What we said in our blog yesterday which has been picked up this

morning by the Times is that we didn't recognise

the numbers, we don't know anything about the contents of this memo,

there is a lot of speculation about that online, but having been

out and about in Whitehall in the past, talking

to lots of people in lots of different departments,

also talking to people outside government who have been trying

to get their voices heard within government, we do recognise

some of the pressures which are reflected within that

memo, which are being experienced by Whitehall.

What, if I were determined simply to leave the European Union, to trigger

Article 50 and to conclude the bare minimum required to leave,

what would Article 50 actually require me to do?

I simply want a divorce on the quickest possible

terms, what do I need?

Mr Gove was told there was no "quick fix" solution to the issue of EU

nationals living in Britain.

We have no record of how many EU nationals are living in the UK.

And there are various options which have been mooted,

and I think there's been quite a lot of agreement that those who have

been living here a long time should be given the right to stay.

There are a lot of problems about how to prove an individual has

been living here for a long time.

If you are an academic, you will have contracts

and you have a paper trail but if you are a seasonal worker,

working in a farm in Lincolnshire, some of those farmers aren't

so good on the paperwork, particularly if you are here

for a few months, go away, come back, or you've got other jobs,

you might go back to Poland, it's very difficult to prove.

The trouble is, this is highly resource intensive.

You do a case-by-case analysis of up to 3 million people a year,

the resource indications are vast.

So going to your question about a quickie divorce,

the quickie divorce would say, everyone who's here on 23rd of June

or 31st of March 2019, should have the right to stay,

irrespective of the paperwork.

Some moments there from Wednesday's session of the new Brexit committee.

And I'm joined in the studio now by the man you saw there chairing

the committee, Hilary Benn. Welcome to the week in Parliament.

What was your impression of that first meeting, were you pleased

with the way things went?

I thought it was an interesting session because the negotiation

we are about to embark on as a nation, are the most

conflicts we have faced for decades, a lot rests on it.

It's going to have various moving parts, and we were trying to tease

out today from our witnesses, how they think this

is going to work, and what's going to happen, in what order.

There is both the divorce settlement, from the European Union,

that's agreeing who's going to pay the standing gas and electricity

bills over here, but then the second part is, what is our future,

economic trading, with the European Union,

and we had this as our first session, to help inform

subsequent witnesses.

Margaret Hodge told us that 21 members is far too big a committee,

it's not going to make for forensic questioning because you can't

focus in on one issue.

Is your committee too big and how to get to be too big?

The answer to that question rests with others and not me.

I stood for the post of the Select Committee knowing

there would be 21 members and that is what I now

have responsibility for.

We tried to organise the question in a way that allows us

to cover all of the areas.

It's obviously known that some areas of your committee are on one side,

you have Peter Lilley, Michael Gove, big players

you have Peter Lilley, Michael Gove, big players in the Leave camp,

so why should we believe that we will get objective

questioning when we have MPs that are so well associated with one

side of the argument?

Well, it is particularly contested territory, particularly

because we have just come out of this enormously important

referendum, where the nation is very divided.

But if you look at the committees as a whole we have a balance

of views, and I think a task for us, regardless of which side

of the argument we are on, if we all agree the aim now

is to try and get the best deal for Britain, is to understand,

what is that going to involve?

It's important with select committees but I think

particularly here, to inform a view about what needs to be done

and what we should be seeking and in what order.

The other thing is, it's all very well us as numbers of the committee

having a view about what we should think should happen or the British

government, there are seven other countries,

they often have a view to.

they often have a view too.

You yourself, big Remain campaign, can we trust

you as the chief interrogator?

Well, I hope so but you have to ask other people!

I campaigned passionately for Remain, I am devastated

about the result, I think it's wrong for the future of Britain

but we are democrats and we have to accept

the outcome of the referendum.

Is the government being too secretive?

That's the view of a lot of people about how things have gone,

a lot of months have gone by since June 23.

It is five months, and I think we are personally, getting

to the point with the government is going to have to sit out

what its objectives are.

Let's be clear, nobody is expecting the government to reveal

its full negotiating hand, red lines and so on,

of course they have to have space to negotiate, but when it comes

to what kind of access to the single market are we seeking,

what plans does the government have for control of free movement,

we can to remain members of the European medicine agency,

Europol, European aviation safety authority, the second theme is this.

There is a debate about whether you can complete the whole

process, divorce proceedings, and agreeing a new relationship

with Europe, in two years.

I suppose the number of organisations you could invite

your sessions is just about limitless, everyone has a view.

How are you going to select those people you want to hear

from and those you don't?

We are working in partnership with all the other select

committees, both in the Commons and the Lords.

What we are looking for is, for the purposes of our first

report, what are the main themes, the main issues that have

got to be addressed, what about timing and sequencing,

has the government got the capacity to do this work?

That's one of the things we've discussed today.

Can I just ask you about the report, will it be a united report?

All select committees hope...

But it's not likely to be with such polarised view?

I am not going to prejudge what the reporter is

going to say or how the Select Committee

is going to decide it but

I think it is important for the country that

although we were very divided in the referendum as a

nation, it is in our common interest, whatever view we took,

and that includes the select committee,

to come together and say, what are the

things that we now agree need to be done?

There will be differences of

view, but Select Committee reports have more influence if they are

unanimous.

If it is a united report, will it just be a bland document?

It'll be a bit like Goldilocks's porridge in the end, we're

going to have to find it just right.

Thanks very much indeed.

Long before we'd voted to leave the EU, Parliament had decided

to reduce the number of MPs at Westminster, as a way of cutting

the cost of politics.

The figure is due to go down from 650 to 600.

But a Labour MP says the reduction will undermine democracy and give

the people less of a say.

She put forward a Bill to keep the number at 650.

She said the newly drawn constituencies

are far too big.

If someone from my constituency wants to come and see me

at a surgery in the South, given that the lines

of communication are east-west in that part of the country,

it would take them all day on public transport and they will

need an overnight stay.

That cannot be acceptable.

My constituents are deeply deeply worried.

They think they will lose representation.

Cumbria is not large square mileage wise,

but it has mountain it has lakes, it has difficult weather.

A lot of the time, you can't get from one part of it to the other.

People on the Solway would lose their representation.

My constituents wouldn't find it possible to travel from one end

of the constituency to the other by public transport,

so what I'd do is I go to them, which I considered to be my job,

as a member of Parliament.

My constituency of Caithness on Easter Ross will be incorporated

into a large constituency called Highland North,

which is 13,000 square kilometres, the same size as Northern Ireland,

nobody would seriously suggest that Northern Ireland

is covered by one MP.

But that is what these proposals suggest for Scotland.

And we face a boundary review being conducted on a completely

lopsided electoral register, and if we proceed as planned,

we will see a huge transfer of parliamentary representation

from areas that are growing to areas that actually have not seen the same

level of growth.

The primary reasons for the boundary changes and using the more

up-to-date register is having more equal votes, more equal

sized constituencies, so our constituents are more fairly

represented in the House.

We have now already had 500 hours of public hearings, 20

members of staff involved, 21 assistant commissioners,

14 videographers, 36 public hearings across England, the last ones

of which are taking place today.

The cost of scrapping all that and redrawing the boundaries on this

completely new proposal, even if it could get

through in time, that would surely run into many millions of pounds.

And although Pat Glass' bill won the initial approval of the Commons,

it's most unlikely to become law.

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

in the last seven days.

Labour peers have put pressure on a minister for the return

of national identity cards, following the scrapping

of the scheme six years ago when the Labour Government

was replaced by the Coalition.

My Lords, for the life of me, I do not understand why

the government has set its mind so firmly against the idea

of having an identity card.

It is common practice in many, many parts of the world.

The greatest civil liberty is to have your identity stolen,

and we have found in the banking world and other worlds,

by having biometric cards that identify clearly who you are,

this can be avoided.

They cannot be duplicated easily because they are biometric.

The passport now has facial, certainly the e-passport,

has facial recognition which is a very good

system of identity.

But my Lords, we will not be moving to the identity card scheme.

Problems in our jails.

As prison officers stage a day of action over increasing violence,

Labour accuses the Justice Secretary of not getting a grip

on the situation.

What the Secretary of State has consistently failed to acknowledge

is that this is a service in crisis.

The protest action by prison officers today gives

the clearest sign yet that this is a crisis.

A crisis which she and her ministerial colleagues

have lost control of.

This, Mr Speaker, is a Secretary of State in denial.

Mr Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that

the honourable and refuses to condemn illegal industrial action

that is putting our hard-working front line prison staff at risk.

It is completely irresponsible.

I have made it absolutely clear, ever since I was appointed

in this role, that safety is my number one priority.

A beaming Nigel Farage, fresh from Brexit success,

meets victorious Donald Trump in New York.

An SNP MP wonders about official recognition for the UKIP man.

Can the Prime Minister, firm or deny if there have been any

official conversations at any level regarding giving

Nigel Farage a peerage?

LAUGHTER.

Well, all I can say to the honourable gentleman is that

such matters are normally never discussed in public.

Carry on as you are.

After a change of heart, the House of Lords won't, after all,

suffer a removal of its powers to vote down certain

types of legislation.

The government is therefore reliant on the discipline and

self-regulation that this House imposes upon itself.

What that government has done, 12 months on, is to have listened

very carefully to the voices around the House and decided the best

way forward is the way the House always precedes,

which is by agreement, at a pace, and with perspective.

How to put the best gloss on events.

You've finished painting the bedroom and there's plenty left over.

MPs discuss what to do with those leftover tins of matt emulsion.

Now, presently, only 2% of paint and other coating is reused

after manufacture, and most of the remaining 98% is lost

to us, as a resource.

Principally, because it is incinerated and because it

ends up in landfill.

Too few waste and recycling centres are accepting paint.

There should be a universal approach to this, not a postcode lottery.

Perhaps having extended responsibility on the paint industry

might be the way to go.

That is not currently part of being considered in the package

by the EU but it might be something we want to consider

when we leave the EU.

And whether they're producing red, white or rose, the vineyards

of England are a growing success say MPs, who want the Chancellor to

support the domestic wine industry.

This is a potential success story.

English wine is no longer a joke.

People are talking about it.

It is the potential source of alternative rural employment.

English wine now is the fastest-growing agri-sector

in the UK and last year alone, it had added 100 million

to the UK economy.

I can say that while I was in Japan at the G7 agricultural ministers'

meeting earlier this year, I took the opportunity

of promoting our sparkling wines at the British Embassy.

George Eustice with a glass of good news.

And his ministerial colleague Philip Hammond may well,

on Wednesday, be delivering some taxation changes

to alcohol products.

That's because it's the annual Autumn Statement in the Commons,

Mr Hammond's first as Chancellor.

Will it be as eventful an occasion as a year ago,

when the Shadow Chancellor took his reply to the

Autumn Statement down a rather unexpected route.

To assist Comrade Osborne in his dealings with his newfound comrades,

I brought him along Mao's Little Red Book.

Let me quote!

Let's quote from Mao.

Rarely done in this chamber.

The quote is this.

Behave.

"We must learn to do economic work from all who know how,

"no matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers,

"learning from them, respectfully and conscientiously."

So, the Shadow Chancellor literally stood at the dispatch box and read

out from Mao's Little Red Book.

It's his personal signed copy.

The problem is half the Shadow Cabinet have been sent

off to re-education.

George Osborne having the House in stitches last year.

Whatever happened to him?

Well, back to the present, and with a look at some of this

week's other political news, here's Gary Connor.

This week was the poshest night of the Prime Minister's year.

Theresa May made her first speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet.

Hailing post Brexit Britain's historical opportunity to take

on the new role as a global champion of free trade.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has joined the Privy Council,

the historic group which advises the monarch.

The swearing-in ceremony usually involves kneeling,

and kissing the hand of the Queen.

Fresh from winning the US election, Donald Trump might have another

title to add to his collection.

Foreign Office minister Baroness Anelay accidentally

introduced him as a member of the upper House.

My Lords, when my the right honourable friend the Prime Minister

had a conversation on the telephone with with Lord Trump...

With Lord Trump! LAUGHTER.

Over in the select committee rooms, TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall

slammed supermarkets for their approach

to wonky vegetables.

He said retailers are deluded in terms of what people

will and won't buy.

And in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP SMP has called on the UK

Government to take speedy action over the reduction

in weight of Toblerones.

Colin Beattie says that the change is emblematic of the devastating

consequences of Brexit and calls on the government to offer

its condolences.

Mm, chocolate.

Gary Connor and the Toblerone row.

Where will it all end?

The Chancellor could have some treats in store this Wednesday

when he reveals the contents of his Autumn Statement.

Plenty of other issues also coming up in the Commons and the Lords.

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

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.