09/12/2016 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week In Parliament.

On this programme...

The government accepts demands to publish a plan before it begins

formal talks on leaving the EU.

But ministers insist they need to keep some

of the details to themselves.

It is normal even for basic trade negotiations to be carried out

with a degree of secrecy, a degree of secrecy.

Also on this programme...

MPs listen in silence as one member recounts the day she was raped.

I didn't tell my mother.

I didn't tell my father.

I didn't tell my friends.

And I didn't tell the police.

We talk to two new MPs about what it's like to join

the Commons 18 months after a general election.

And as the size of the House of Lords tops 800 -

we speak to a leading Conservative peer who thinks it s time for them

to cut their numbers.

The current size of the House of Commons is at 650.

I think we should aim for 600, the size of the House of Commons

in the next Parliament.

But first...

With Theresa May out of the country it fell to the Leader

of the Commons David Lidington to stand in at the despatch box

at Prime Minister's Questions.

The session took place just ahead of a six-hour debate

on the UK's exit from the EU, in which Labour had tabled a motion

calling on the Government to publish a plan for Brexit before the start

of formal negotiations.

Newspapers suggested that as many as 40 Conservative MPs might rebel

and back Labour's call - and so Theresa May decided

to agree to that demand - but put forward an amendment asking

MPs to support her timetable for starting the talks.

A move welcomed by the Shadow Foreign Secretary who was filling

in for Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

We welcome the Government's decision to accept our motion today,

that they will show Parliament their plan for Brexit before

Article 50 is triggered.

So can I ask the Leader of the House one central

question about this plan?

Does the Government want the UK to remain part of the customs union?

The Government has always made it clear that we would seek

to give additional clarity about our position at

the earliest opportunity, but it has been the case,

as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

has said many times, that one of our core objectives

is going to be to secure the maximum freedom for British companies both

to have access to and operate within the single European market.

We have a government that cannot tell us the plan

because they do not have a plan.

They do not have a plan.

In February the Leader of the House said, what he was hearing

about from the Leave campaign was confusing,

contradictory nonsense.

My final question is this...

Are we hearing anything different from this government today?

Mr Speaker, we will publish before Article 50 is triggered a statement

about our negotiating strategy and objectives, as the Prime

Minister has said yesterday.

But the honourable lady seems again to be in a state of utter denial

about the consequences that flow from the referendum decision.

He accused Labour of being in disarray.

It is quarrelling like Mutiny on the Bounty as reshot

by the Carry On team.

Well, shortly after those exchanges the Brexit debate got underway.

The purpose of this motion, calling for a plan is not

to frustrate or delay the process.

That is not the purpose.

That is not why we are calling for a plan.

It does present a challenge for the Government, because it now

means the Government has got to produce a plan in good time

to allow the proper formalities and processes to be gone through.

It is widely accepted that the negotiation of our

departure from the European Union is the most important and most

complex negotiation in modern times.

And it is overwhelmingly important that we get it right.

I think that is common ground.

It is normal even for basic trade negotiations to be carried out

with a degree of secrecy, a degree of secrecy.

The language used is the rather vague one of a plan.

Well, we are probably to be told the plan is to have a red,

white and blue Brexit and that we are believers in free

trade whilst giving up all the conditions that govern free

trade in the single market.

Can I say the honourable member is no longer in his place,

but to say that it might consist of hints, I would merely remind

the House that when Moses came down from the mountain bearing

the tablets, it did not contain the Ten Hints.

He was pretty clear about what he was telling people to do.

All of a sudden we see the issue of Parliamentary oversight

being used in effect as a break, a break against taking

back control, a break against bringing our democracy home.

Once again the Labour front bench side with the supranational elites.

They are out to try to frustrate and overturn the way

people voted in June.

It is 167 days or six months since the referendum and we have 113

days to go until the 31st of March deadline that the Government

has set itself.

We are almost two thirds of the way there.

To talk about a glacial pace of progress might be something

of an overstatement in this case.

This parliament has the opportunity to shape...

No, thank you.

To shape an economic policy and an immigration policy

and a knowledge policy which can make us once again a world beater,

but if we do not take that opportunity, if instead

we concentrate on seeking to dilute the result of the referendum,

then I am afraid we will fail the people of this country

at this historic moment.

Michael Gove.

An MP has moved colleagues to tears after revealing she was raped at 14.

Michelle Thomson shared her personal story during a Commons

debate focused on the UN International Day

For The Elimination Of Violence Against Women.

I want to give a very personal perspective to help people,

both in this place and outside, understand one element of sexual

violence against women.

When I was 14, I was raped.

As is common, it was by somebody who was known to me.

He had offered to walk me home from a youth event.

In those days, everybody walked everywhere -

it was quite common.

It was early evening.

It was not dark.

I was wearing, I am imagining and guessing,

jeans and a sweatshirt.

I knew my way around where I lived - I was very comfortable -

and we went a slightly different way, but I did not

think anything of it.

He told me that he wanted to show me something in a wooded area.

At that point, I must admit that I was alarmed.

I did have a warning bell, but I overrode that warning bell

because I knew him and, therefore, there was

a level of trust in place.

To be honest, looking back at that point, I do not think

I knew what rape was.

It was not something that was talked about.

My mother never talked to me about it, and I did not hear other

girls or women talking about it.

It was mercifully quick and I remember first

of all feeling surprise, then fear, then horror

as I realised that I quite simply could not escape.

Afterwards I walked home alone.

I was crying, I was cold and I was shivering.

I now realise, of course, that that was the shock response.

I did not tell my mother.

I did not tell my father.

I did not tell my friends.

And I did not tell the police.

I bottled it all up inside me.

I hoped briefly, and appallingly, that I might be pregnant so that

that would force a situation to help me control it.

Of course, without support, the capacity and resources that

I had within me to process it were very limited.

I was very ashamed.

I was ashamed that I had "allowed this to happen to me."

I had a whole range of internal conversations...

"I should have known.

"Why did I go that way?

"Why did I walk home with him?

"Why didn t I understand the danger?"

"I deserved it because I was too this, too that."

I felt that I was spoiled and impure, and I really felt

revulsion towards myself.

One thing that I realise now is that I am not scared and he was.

I am not scared.

I am not a victim.

I am a survivor.

I thank the honourable lady for what she has said and the way

in which she said it, which has left an indelible

impression upon us all.

The debate had been opened by a Labour MP.

Worldwide, an estimated one in three women experiences physical

or sexual violence - that is a staggering statistic.

Each year in the UK, up to three million women

experience violence.

On average, one woman in Britain dies at the hands

of a man every three days.

The Government was defeated in the Lords when peers demanded

some families involved in inquests have access to the same public

funding as the police.

The subject came up during detailed debate

on the Policing and Crime Bill.

Public money should pay to establish the truth.

It is surely not right, and surely not justice,

when bereaved families trying to find out the truth - and who have

done nothing wrong - find that taxpayers' money is used

by the other side, sometimes to paint a very different

picture of events in a bid to destroy their credibility.

But the Minister said there'd be cost implications of the change.

In the last financial year, 200 persons died

following contact with the police.

All of those deaths would have been subject to an inquest.

Of course, the financial ?implications of this amendment

are but one of the matters noble Lords will wish to take

into consideration, but we cannot be blind to the impact

on the public purse.

But when it came to the vote the Government was defeated

by 243 votes to 208 - Ministers will now seek to overturn

the amendment at a later stage.

Now, in recent weeks we've had a handful of new MPs

elected to the Commons.

The newest is Caroline Johnson - who won Thursday's by-election

in the safe Conservative seat of Sleaford North Hykeham -

caused by the resignation of the sitting MP.

Meanwhile on Monday the Lib Dem's Sarah Olney

took her seat in the Commons after winning the Richmond Park

by-election - forced by the resignation of Zac Goldsmith.

And there have been two other new arrivals in recent weeks -

Tracy Brabin held the seat of Batley and Spen for Labour

following the murder of Jo Cox.

And the Conservative Robert Courts kept Witney for the Conservatives

after David Cameron's departure.

I invited them both into the studio earlier and began

by asking Tracy Brabin what it was like to arrive

in a Parliament 18 months after a general election.

Obviously, the circumstances in which I arrived are probably very

different, in that there was a lot of love and there was a lot

of desire for me to do well, and very much a welcome even before

I arrived, so I was invited into the Women's's PLP WhatsApp

And certainly to get a round of applause after my maiden

speech, it is unusual in the House of Commons for people to clap,

so there was a real sense of "we are behind you,"

given the circumstances.

Now, Robert, you took over the most famous seat

in the country if you like.

What were your impressions when you arrived at Westminster?

Well, there are two things really.

Firstly you look around and there is the wonderful

surroundings and all the history, but apart from anything else

the main thing is always that you have got an enormous

responsibility, because you're conscious that the people

of your constituency, I'm sure your constituency feels

the same, put enormous trust in you and you really want to make

sure that you hit the ground running so that you are out and doing things

to help them as soon as you can.

Now, you took, it struck me, slightly different approaches

to this, because Tracey Brabin, you popped up very quickly

and you were asking questions and you made your speech quite quickly.

Robert, you hung on a little bit.

What was the thinking behind that?

Did you particularly want to hit the ground running?

I mean, it's my personality.

I do everything, you know, it is 100%.

I am going to keep going until somebody says don't, you know, stop.

So I have asked loads of questions, I have been on Bill Committee,

I have tabled an amendment.

I have had a trip to Kurdistan.

I just feel it is such a privilege that every day counts.

Robert, it strikes me he took a slightly more loyally approach.

You thought about it and then you got involved.

It really is, my first words in the House were at

Prime Minister's Questions after only about ten days,

so that was my first, but I didn't make my maiden speech

for about a month.

And that is simply because I took the view that I wanted to sit

and observe the House and understand the way that people speak

and the way that people go about things before

I made my maiden speech.

And of course November the 30th was Winston Churchill's birthday,

and because he was born and buried in my constituency there was nice

timing there which I thought would be appropriate.

Now, I am interested in how you think, or whether you think,

your previous careers prepared you ordered and prepare

you for a life in parliament.

Now, Robert, you have got a fairly traditional route in as much

as there are quite a lot of barristers in the

Commons, but does help?

Yes, it does.

I had really a twin career before I arrived here,

firstly as a district councillor and secondly as a barrister.

The link of course from being a councillor to being an MP

is clear, because it is casework and it is helping people,

it is representing people, so that really is quite clear.

And as far as the bar is concerned, yes, primarily in terms of getting

hold of a brief and assimilating it quickly and picking

out the main points.

That is the way it really helps you, more that in fact than the public

speaking which is quite a different skill.

Now, Tracey, it might surprise people, but there are actually

rather more actors in the Commons than most people might realise.

There is yourself, there is Deidre Brock,

there is Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

There are one or two others.

There are a few.

And they say that it is a really good skill,

because you can talk, you are very good at

projecting your voice, at getting points across.

Do you find it has helped?

I think confidence in front of a group of people and public

speaking is obviously is helpful, having an actor background.

Being a writer as well does help.

But actually writing a speech that has impact and power and, you know,

reflects your constituents' feelings is quite a different skill to, say,

writing Hollyoaks or Shameless or Tracy Beaker or something

like that, so I am really learning on the job as well.

But you must find yourself in a way surprised to be here.

Obviously neither of you, two or three years ago,

could possibly have foreseen that you would be sitting in these seats.

That is absolutely right.

And Tracey, for you the most conflicting emotions.

Oh, yes.

I mean, there is not much joy in it, but there is a lot of pride,

but because obviously the circumstances are so horrible.

Having been a campaigner and activist, trade unionist,

for decades, people may not know that about my past, it does feel

like all roads have led here and Batley and Spen,

my hometown, I campaigned with Jo.

I really feel connected to the community and the people

I love, so I am not surprised I am here, but obviously in a way

I would rather not be here.

But I am here now and I am going to be the best MP I can be.

All right, just finally, brief one to the both of you...

What is your ambition?

What do you want to do?

I want to be an excellent and outstanding MP for the residents

of West Oxfordshire.

All MPs say that.

What do you really want to do?

It's true.

It really is true.

Just like Tracey, I live in the area that I represent.

I live in Blaydon, so I love the areas that I am

in and that is exactly what I want to do.

It is what I did as a district councillor and it is

what I want to do now.

Tracey, what do you want to do?

Do you know what I really want to do?

I really want to understand Parliament.

I want to be one of the finest parliamentarians, so I understand

how to table a Bill or how to get a law passed, because if you don't

know that you can't actually make the most of it because you are just

beholden to other people who could guide you,

Now, that is a great skill.

All right, well, we will have you back to see how you are both doing.

Tracey Brabin, Robert Courts, thank you very much indeed

for coming into the programme.

Pleasure.

Thank you.

Now let's take a look at some other news from around

Westminster in brief.

The Transport Secretary has set out plans to overhaul the way England's

railway network is run.

Chris Grayling wants the public body, Network Rail,

which looks after infrastructure, to work more closely

with the private companies which run the trains.

But Labour demanded a different solution.

It is time for our railways to be run under public ownership and in

the public interest, as an integrated national

asset in public hands with

affordable fares with long-term investment in the railway network.

With the party opposite, they always just want to turn the clock back.

They wanted turn the clock back to the days, Mr Speaker, of British

Rail and unions and beer and sandwiches in Number Ten.

There was a rare round of applause in the Commons on Wednesday

for a special guest in the public gallery.

90-year-old Holocaust survivor Kitty Hart Moxon was watching MPs

at Prime Minister's Questions - she was applauded for her

life's work raising awareness of the Holocaust.

The Communities Secretary has told MPs that too many UK politicians

have refused to tackle integration problems as they feared

being called a racist.

Sajid Javid was responding to a report by Dame Louise

Casey on integration.

She concluded that segregation and social exclusion

are at worrying levels

and are fuelling inequality in some areas.

For too long, too many people in this

country have been living parallel lives.

Refusing to integrate and failing to embrace the shared values

that make Britain great.

And for too long, too many politicians in

this country have refused to deal with the problem.

I am concerned that there is no real understanding

in this report of the simple truth that integration is a two-way

street.

And it should definitely not be used, as it so often is, as a

stick with which to beat the minority communities of Britain.

A Conservative is calling for the UK to plant more trees.

Chris Davies says just 10% of England is given over to woodland -

compared to 18% in Scotland and a European average of 37%.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature has calculated that global demand for

timber, paper, and energy from forests is set to triple by 2050.

So, if we don't plant more trees now,

and if we continue to rely on imports, then the UK

is going to be competing against other growing

economies for natural resources that we can, and indeed should,

grow more of at home.

Now, let's take a look at some of the other political

headlines this week.

Time for our countdown.

Here's Gary Connor.

Nigel Farage was the only UK politician to be nominated for Time

Magazine's Person of the Year.

But he was pipped to the post by his old

friend Donald Trump.

In a Commons debate on Brexit, vocal Eurosceptic

Sir Bill Cash revealed that in 1975, he voted yes to Europe, to the

surprise of fellow MP Ken Clarke.

Scotland's Transport Minister has been caught driving a car without

the proper insurance.

Humza Yousaf said that a misunderstanding caused the honest

mistake and he would take any penalty imposed upon him.

When answering a question on preventing

banned items being dropped into prisons, Justice Secretary Liz Truss

revealed that some new deterrents were being used.

I was at HMP Pentonville last week.

They have now got patrol dogs who are barking

which helps deter drones.

And what is on the menu at the Prime Minister's

house on Christmas Day?

Theresa May told the Radio Times that she will be going to church,

cooking goose, and tuning into Dr Who.

Gary Connor.

Now, let's go off to the House of Lords, where on Friday

peers debated a plan that would effectively phase out

the remaining 97 hereditary peers.

It was the second time in a week they'd discussed just how big

the House of Lords should be.

According to our ermine-o-meter, membership of the House of Lords

currently stands at 809.

Making it the second largest legislative body in the world.

On Monday, the Conservative Lord Cormack led a debate

on how to reduce its size, and afterwards I asked him

if we were really going to see change this time.

What we want is a select committee that has the power to summon

witnesses, to take evidence, to take recommendations to the House of

Lords, and I very much hope that by this end of next year, we will

have had such a committee, it will

have made a report, and the House

of Lords will have accepted or rejected, and I very much hope

accepted, the recommendations.

There are 800 plus members of the House of

Lords.

Couldn't you just say, we will keep the same proportion but

halve the numbers, and the groups can decide amongst themselves who

stays and who goes, and you could do that within a year?

Well, of course we could do that within a year.

We have to see whether that may be the

recommendation from the select committee.

But there are various ways of doing this.

We say, first of all, that the House of Lords should

not be bigger than the House of Commons.

In other words, they should be a maximum of 600 because that

will be the size of the House of Commons in 2020.

Secondly, there must be a minimum of 20% cross

benches.

Fully independent.

That is the distinguishing feature of the

House of Lords, in comparison with the House of Commons.

Thirdly, we must not have any party with a

majority over the other political parties.

And, fourthly, and most importantly, we are knowledge the

supremacy of the elected House, which has the final word, the final

say in everything.

Just finally, then, how much money would you put

on the House of Lords being significantly say 200 or 300

members smaller by the end of this Parliament?

Well, if we are going to get down to what we think is right,

the current size of the House of Lords is 650, I think we should aim

for 600 for the House of Commons in the next Parliament.

But would you put a tenner on it?

I certainly would put a tenner on it.

I'm not a betting man, but, yes, I would put a

tenner on it.

I might even put a little more on it.

Lord Cormack - on his hopes for the House of Lords.

80 years ago this weekend, news of a royal romance gripped Britain.

The king - Edward VIII - wished to marry an American

divorcee, Wallis Simpson,

and was prepared to renounce the throne.

The affair had had made headlines around the world -

but the British press kept silent about it until early December 1936.

As Carolyn Quinn reports, it was in the October

that the government heard that Mrs Simpson was set to divorce

her second husband - leaving her free to marry again.

The Simpson divorce case was heard at Ipswich Assizes,

some distance from London, but not too far for the

foreign press to travel.

This is the addition for Wednesday the 28th of

October 1936,

five weeks before the story of the relationship between

Edward and Mrs Simpson appeared in British newspapers.

It is reporting, the headline, surprise in London,

press and radio in the United States are announcing the marriage of

Edward VIII to an American woman.

There was worry, erm...about Mrs Simpson,

the connections that she might have.

She was also thought to be duly sympathetic to the Nazi

regime in Germany -

of course, a point made about Edward VIII himself.

But her life, with two husbands living, the

gossip that surrounded her, was this woman a security threat?

One possible explanation is that the hard men

in Whitehall were thinking, people are going to use this crisis,

or this potential crisis, as a lever for almost a coup d'etat.

And you can watch more of that in A Very British Crisis on BBC

Parliament on Saturday night at 8pm.

But that's it from me for now.

Joanna Shinn will be with you on Monday night at 11pm

for another roundup of the day here at Westminster.

But, for now, from me - Alicia McCarthy - goodbye.