03/03/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and Welcome to the Week In Parliament.

A setback for the Government, as the Lords gives the Brexit

Peers demand guarantees for EU nationals in Britain.

These people are not bargaining chips. When we say take your

children out of the schools, we would say to the elderly, please go

away from our care homes. These amendments are at the wrong time n

the wrong bill, on the wrong subject. Peers make their mark in a

week when a TV documentary discloses what life is really like in the

House of Lords. Complete with its rather odd ceremonies. Visitors from

overseas go to watch the Changing of the Guard. People do like these

quaintnesses. And if so, in whose interest is it to take them away?

Snappy dresser and long served parliamentarian, tributes are paid

to the late Sir Gerald Kaufman He was an iconic figure in the Labour

Party. He loved marmalade. So he was made marmalade ice cream. First,

just doing their job or causing needless interference? Peers made

sure the untouched Brexit bill got well and truly damaged and will have

to return to the Commons. On Wednesday night, the Lords voted by

a majority of more than 100 for the inclusion of a guarantee of rights

for European Union nationals living and working in the UK ministers

don't want it in the bill, whose full tielt is the EU notification of

withdrawal bill. The red benches of the Lords were packed for a

three-hour debate. In the end, this is a matter of

principal. This House can in fact make decision and give a unilateral

guarantee. And my Lords, that is what we should do. Let us all

remember how shocked we were when Armeen expelled the Ugandas. So

shocked we offered them refuge in this country. As we've had over

three million people live in this country who are European nations.

They are not experiences anxious, it is their family member, irtheir

employers, their neighbours. It is quite clear to everyone in this

House that there is no chance that Parliament would approve the

expulsion of EU citizens legally resident in this country. No way.

This is understood by the Government. This amendment has no

place in this bill. Whatever. These people need to know now, not in 12

months' time. They simply cannot put their lives on hold. Some are

planning schools for their children. They are moving jobs, renting or

buying a home or acting as carers. I think that the Government ought to

accept that the weight of opinion is in favour of that unilateral

guarantee which will trigger similar rights for Britons abroad. What has

changed is the Prime Minister has said, it is our first priority.

She's said that the fate of those people living in this country from

Europe will be determined by primary legislation and that no change will

be made other than with the agreement of the other place and

this House. That is good enough for me. Not to wish to amend a bill

which prevents us, which allows us to get on with the process of thak

making that happen. -- of making that happen. These people are not

bargaining chips. If we say they are free to stay, that does give them

moral high ground to our Government in its negotiations. Why is

everybody here today so excited about an amendment which looks after

the foreigners and not the British? It's true. Quite right.

I would like to point out to the noble Lord the reason the amendment

is structured as it is, is we are conscious of the powers of the

British Government and the British Government is able to determine the

lives of the EU citizens resident in this country, but we are not able to

determine the lives of our own citizens abroad. Of course we don't

have the power to do, to look after our citizens overseas. Not in these

days when we don't have many gunboats. If, as I do, want to see

there is this decision that the Government takes on behalf of all of

us, citizenship should be given a guarantee to remain, the best way to

do it is to call the bluff of Angela Merkel. This is a matter of

principal. It is a simple matter of principal of being prepared to do

the right thing because it is the right thing and being prepared to

say so. And that is what I hope these benches and members on all

sides of the House, not all members, but members on all sides of the

House, including the Bishop's bench, will be prepared to do when it comes

to taking the vote. These amendments are at the wrong

time n the wrong bill, on the wrong subject and we should support the

rights of British citizens living in Europe.

But at the end of the debate, peers voted for the Labour-led amendment

against the Government. They have voted contents, 358. No contents,

256. So the contents have it. And the Brexit bill will see more

debate in the Lords in the next few days, with more upsets, a distinct

possibility. Well, with public interest in the Upper House more

than it usually it, there was a TV series showing what goes on in the

Lord's. Meet the Lord's on BBC Two, Monday evening, is the latest

documentary to show life behind the scenes at the posh end of the Palace

of Westminster. Is it giving a fair picture? We will talk to two experts

in a moment. First, let's get a brief reminder of last Monday's

initial instalment of Meet The Lords.

Lord Palmer is doing some lobbying of his own. This used to be our

television room, which I had the most lovely comfortable chairs in

it. To watch big sporting events like Wimbledon or Cheltenham races

or whatever. And I came in here the other day and was amazed to find it

had been turned into an office, as you know, we are very, very short of

space and a lot of the new members do want a desk. I have never, ever

seen these desks occupied, which does seem really rather

extraordinary and I actually put down a written question about this.

Why has the television room closed down? Will there be an alternative

venue? I was told, no there will not be an alternative venue.

So, that was a clip from the first programme, in the Meet The Lords

series. The second programme is coming up on Monday. Now, two years

ago there was a similar TV documentary, a series of programmes

all about the House of Commons. It was called inside the Commons. Here

to talk about both documentaries we have two people who might well be

called parliamentary insiders. Sir David Bemish has been chief of Clark

in the House of Lords. And we have the chief of the House of Commons.

What did you make of meet the Lord's? Did you enjoy the programme?

I enjoyed it. I wished it could have been more representative. Behind the

flummery, there was some good stories that did show the House

doing its job, which, at the moment, was Brexit going on is very much in

the public eye. I was delighted the public have an opportunity to see

that for themselves. Did it convey the House of Lords that you know? I

don't think it was exactly a cross-section. For example, the clip

we have just seen of Lord Palmer, I don't think you would find many

peers who share his view about the TV room. It was a little used

facility. As he said, we did need the space. Other parts of it,

absolutely. Some of the characters you saw, the ones I know well and

the kind of work that goesen oh, particularly in relation to a-- that

goes on, particularly in relation to ill bills. Two years ago -- to

bills. Two years ago, the documentary about the inside of the

Commons. There was a lot of resistance about that. The

documentary maker had to apply many, many times for permission to get in

with the cameras. Were you in favour of it being made? Once a good

proposition came forward and we knew about the privacy staff, then I was

happy about it. When it went out, were you pleased? I think the

general reaction of the membership of the House, but more importantly,

because this was for who it was made, the public. It was positive.

That pleased members. Because they felt there were bits in it that

showed them in the light they would want to be seen. The work of

individual members pursuing causes, sometimes with success, sometimes

with not. So their constituents were saying to them, gosh, I had no idea

this went on in the House of Commons, or in the same token in the

House of Lords, presumably. And therefore it is educational. You

have mentioned constituents, it is an interesting point. Members of the

House of Lords don't have constituents and don't have any

constituencies to go back to. That provides a different basis entirely.

In a sense it is not so important what the public makes of the House

of Lords, on that basis. We've never thought of it that way. As the

unelected second chamber, ensuring that they play a complimentary role

to the Commons that is appreciated outside is a little bit of a

balancing act and again Brexit provides a good example. We know

that the Commons will be considering at least one amendment from the

Lords, if the Commons reject it, the House will have to decide whether to

take it further and plainly the House, to be useful, needs to

command respectability. People are not knowledgeable about the House of

Lords. What do you think they will feel at the end of the documentary -

will it make them more informed or they might think this is a quirky,

eccentric place? I am less placed to view than the viewers. I feel

optimistic they will feel better informed. Some of the work that is

shown is not what members of the public normally get to see. They

will have a better idea of the valuable work that's going on all

the time, that's not front of house, so to speak. I suppose, in one sense

you can take what you want, if you want to think of it an eccentric

place - there were one or two aristocratic shotses and there were

shots trying to brief a lot of fresh air in the place. In a sense you can

see what you want? It would have given the public a more clearer view

of the diversity of the Lords, in terms of the membership and the

seriousness in which they approach their legislative tasks. You two are

great specialists in your own Houses. It is said in Westminster

there is a lack of knowledge about each other's Houses? Was it

interesting to see how the other House lives? Yes. I wouldn't say

there were many surprises. I knew some of the characters being

portrayed. Some quite well. And I don't think anything came to me as a

surprise. Obviously, we know our own House better. We do share a

building. We are not married, but we do co-hab it. -- co--habit. There is

concern that members don't know enough about them. I think I would

say at senior staff level that is not the case and David and I work

closely together on all sorts of things. I don't think there are any

surprises, although I did find inside the Commons very instruckive.

In meet the Lord's we saw the ceremony for introducing new peers,

the procession at the start of each day and the garter king of arms.

This would have struck the general public as being quite remarkable

bits of flummery and tradition. Do you think some of it could go? Some

should be dispensed with? Or should we hang on to these little show

pieces? I think it is really up to the public to express a view on

that. It sometimes surprises me how popular these ancient traditions

are. The State Opening of Parliament is the most striking example is

widely covered. Visitors from overseas go to watch the Changing of

the Guard or the beefeaters. I think people do like these quaintnesses

and if so, in whose interest is it to take them away? Does it sit well

in a 21st century Parliament? I think some of the ceremonies are

fine. If the people taking part are happy and if there's no reason that

it believes it does any harm, then there's no need to challenge them

all. I think it is sometimes worth questioning them and then working

out why we do them and whether they are in anyway detracting from,

particularly in detracting from making either House more accessible

to the public or less efficient. To wrap everything up, coming to the

business of TV documentaries, is it better to let the cameras in, warts

and all, or is it better to keep them out? I don't think there's any

doubt about that. It would look very odd if we were not willing to let

the taxpayers who enable us to operate to look inside. Incidentally

Meet The Lords was not the first Lords experience of this sort of

thing. Over my career, the BBC have been involved in three different

documentary series. So we have been looked at before. And indeed we were

head of the Commons by four years on allowing all our proceedings to be

televised. I am clear, we ought to allow this sort of thing.

Absolutely. All the proceedings should be televised and available as

they all are now. It is a fair question on warts and all. Some of

the warts may be, for example, staff, who I don't want to see

exposed on television. That is not what they joined for. You have to be

protective. In terms of documentaries, absolutely. And

indeed we are in the middle now of a further documentary series on the

Elizabeth Tower, known to many as Big Ben, which is being restored and

rehabilitated. Channel 4 will be doing a three-part programme on this

and they will come out in the course of the year, showing about the clock

tower and about the work that's done on it. It is being done with public

money in the name of the public. Why not let them see that? Thanks very

much for joining us on the programme. And the second edition of

Meet The Lords, BBC Two, on Monday evening.

Well, worth watching. Time for a round-up of debates in Parliament.

On wents, Jeremy Corbyn demanded to know why ministers were refusing to

make benefits available to those with mental health conditions.

Theresa May said the Government wasn't cutting benefits and said

no-one would see a reduction from the benefit already awarded to them.

But the Labour leader said the decision of the Government ignored a

court judgment. The reality is this is a shameful

decision that will affect people with dementia. Those suffering

disorders due to a stroke, military veterans with post post-traumatic

stress disorder and those can schizophrenia. Can she look at the

effects of her decision to override what an independent court has

decided and think again? What the court said was the regulations were

unclear. That is why we are clarifying the regulations and we

are ensuring that they respect that they reflect the original intention

that was agreed by this Parliament. As the doping investigation

continues into British cycling, do some big representations in the

sport lie in at thors? Damning evidence is given to the culture and

sport committee about the absence of any record-keeping into what was

given to riders and when it was given. The extent of our

investigation is confined to this particular race, for which there are

zero records by Dr Freeman. What about this woeful lack of record

keeping? We haven't had an excuse from them. There is an

acknowledgement there was no policy and no records. That is it. And the

sky team? They did have a policy. Not everybody was adhering to it.

Could the cost of car insurance be about to soar? Following changes by

the Lord Chancellor to the size of personal injury payments? The

Transport Committee finds motor s could be -- motor unionists could be

facing higher prices. As you pointed out, it will add significant cost to

the cost of drivers'. You have a petition of 180,000 people who

indicated their concern at the cost of car insurance, I think all of the

market estimates that have been put out over the last 24 hours would

indicate that the Lord Chancellor's decision yesterday is going to make

car insurance for young drivers sky rocket. So people paying ?4,000. You

say that could be ?5,000? That was the estimate. So, yes. How do get

more of us to take the bus. The bus services bill gives the new directly

elected mayors in the city regions the responsibleability to run

services. Why -- responsibility to run services. Look at the wards and

in four of the last five years it has been won by a mew nis pal bus

operators. They are not the answer. I would not expect every local

authority to set one up. Why not let local authorities decide what is

best for them? It is a point of difference between us. We do not

want to go back to the situation where every Labour council tries to

set up its own bus company. It will absorb capital which could be wisely

used elsewhere. After electoral success, it is on to Westminster.

The winners of the two February by-elections take their seats in the

Commons. Firstly the new Stoke Labour MP

Gareth Snell. I will be faithful and bear allegiance... And then in the

all together louder atmosphere of the Wednesday lunch time, the new

Copeland Conservative, Trudy Harrison.

Reaching new heights was this MP out of order? A Labour opponent thought

Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been guilty of sizism. Possibly. This

week, the member for North East Somerset was in my constituency. And

to his credit he did inform me he was going there as a fundraiser. I

offered to go with him. He rejected my advances. Today, I opened the

local paper to read he described the pygmy nature of the opposition, does

the Deputy Speaker think that the term pygmy is appropriate while

standing in the constituency of the shortest MP? There will be a quiet

word in his ear. Tributes were paid throughout the week to the father of

the house, Gerald Kaufman, who has died at the age of 86. A former BBC

sketchwriter and an adviser to Harold Wilson he was a Labour MP

since 1970. We look back on an eventful career. Junior minister in

the 1970s. Can Gerald Kaufman's book, how to be a minister was

reading for ambitious MPs. He fought his party's move to the left.

Famously describing the 1983 manifesto as the longest suicide

note in history. Later, as a Select Committee chair, he challenged

organisations like the Royal Opera House and the BBC. The figures

attached to Sir John Birt are astounding, aren't they. If you add

his salary of ?276,000 and his annual bonus of ?159,000 and his

benefits of ?21,000 and his termination payment of ?328,0400. We

are arriving at... That's an ex-extraordinary sum of money. Well,

if you add those figures up you are adding an an approximate to an

orange and a grape. It is all money. Isn't it? He became a critic of the

Jewish state. It is time to remind Sharon, the star of David belongs to

all dues and no his repulsive Government. Known as a distinctive

dresser he became father of the House in 2015. I swear by Almighty

God I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen... Tributes were

paid to him at PMQs on Wednesday. He was an outstanding parliamentarian.

He was a committed MP, who dedicated his life to the service of his

constituents and as Father of the House, his wisdom and experience

will be very much missed across this House. I am sure our thoughts are

with his friends and family. He was an iconic figure in the Labour Party

and in British politics. He was a champion for peace in the Middle

East and around the world. I was talking to members of his family and

his great nephews and nieces. I asked, how would you describe him?

They said, he was an awesome uncle. We should remember Gerald as that

and convey our condolences to all of his family. Remembering Sir Gerald

Kaufman and the new father of the House is Kenneth Clarke, who also

first become an MP back in 1970. Now, with a look at what has

happened in the wider world of politics, here is our countdown,

with Ros Ball. Five, four, three, two, one...

Bronze miniatures were on display in Parliament. The winning design will

be used for a statue in Manchester. Vive Mr President. 40,000 people

have signed an on line petition calling for Barack Obama to stand

for their elections. A by-election in the Lords. 27 candidates are

looking for a place among the 92 hereditary peers. The only members

of the Upper House. A bad week for crisps. Prime Minister, Theresa May,

is giving them up for lent. Oh, yes! And they may have been

defeated over the Brexit bill this week, but MPs did beat the Lords in

the annual pancake race. Another successful pancake race. So,

quickly flipping. Now to the week ahead, two significant events coming

along. On Wednesday, the Chancellor will unveil the contents of his

Budget box. The final Budget to be presented in the spring. Before

that, peers could be causing more embarrassment for ministers with

another possible defeat on the Brexit bill. Do join me for the next

week in Parliament. Until then, from me Keith Macdougall, goodbye.