10/03/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the Week in Parliament.

It wasn't the best of weeks for the Government.

First, peers give the Brexit Bill another kicking.

We don't trust the government on this matter.

This country's future should rest with Parliament.

And I find it quite extraordinary that your Lordships' House is

spending several hours here on what is basically

Next day, part of the Budget unravels within hours,

when the Chancellor reveals a shock tax rise for the self-employed.

White Van man gets battered by Budget.

Should MPs make a discrete exit, to let the builders repair

The danger is that if we go for the long option,

So we believe that we need to get out.

But first, it's showdown time at Westminster.

A second Government defeat by peers on the Bill that starts the UK's

departure process from the EU has thrown the ball back

They'll decide on Monday whether to accept or reject

the now-two alterations made to the Bill by their Lordships.

Tuesday evening saw the highest number of peers ever to take part

It turned out be a big defeat for the Government on the proposal,

from an independent peer, for the Brexit Bill to state clearly

that Parliament must get a meaningful vote in two years' time

My Lords, the essence of this amendment is very clear.

It simply seeks to ensure that Parliament, and not ministers,

have control over the terms of our

withdrawal at the end of the negotiating process.

We now face the most momentous peacetime division of our time.

And this amendment, as the Noble Lord has so clearly set

out, secures in law the government's commitment already made to Another

Place to ensure that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of our

Nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating

But this clause in this amendment, my Lords,

By denying the Prime Minister's ability to walk away from

the negotiating table, as clause four would do, this would only

incentivise the European Union to offer us a bad deal.

This was the mistake that David Cameron made.

If David Cameron had walked away, he might have been able

But the fact is, he didn't walk away and they knew he wasn't

That's why he got such a useless deal.

And this actually ensures that ministers

We want to ensure that our sovereign Parliament, so

often championed by the Leave campaigners has a clear and decisive

role in scrutiny, scrutinising the final outcome of this process.

Then it must assert its rights and legislation.

We don't trust the government on this matter.

The only assurance we are going to have is by putting this

My Lords, the government has not got good form

over this. They have not got good form.

A former Tory leader said MPs would have their say regardless.

It didn't need to be in the Brexit Bill.

They don't even need the authority of my Right Honourable Friend

And they certainly don't need this new clause for that.

They don't need any authority of that.

They will have their say. They will have their way.

If you concentrate on what might happen in two years' time,

we will see, only too sadly, that sovereignty lies with Europe.

If this House or the other House were to reject

we will end up as puppets in their hands.

Can one honestly imagine whether this House

goes back to Europe in just under two years' time and says we don't

like the deal, that the other 27 will say, oh, dear,

I feel that during the referendum we did vote for taking

It seems to me taking back control does not mean giving such a

momentous decision over the future of the UK to

I find it extraordinary that your Lordships' House is spending several

hours on a defective amendment. That Lord Pannick is incapable of putting

down an amendment which can produce that is not defective. He is a

highly capable lawyer. I asked the Lordships on the long contested

principle that this country's future should rest with Parliament, and not

with ministers, and it is in that spirit that I contained to make this

new clause watertight. peers voted decisively

FOR the amendment to the Brexit Bill requiring a Parliamentary

vote on the Exit deal. My Lords, they have voted, contents

366, not contents 260, so the contents have it.

And shortly after that vote, Michael Heseltine,

who we saw taking part in that debate, was told he'd been

sacked from his jobs advising the government.

Well, Monday sees the next chapter in the Brexit Bill story.

And to find out how this drama might play out,

we spoke to the constitutional expert, Professor Meg Russell.

She told me much now depends on the attitude

And the key question is, do backbenchers want to back down on

this or do they privately support what the Lords is asking for? And if

it is the latter that puts the government under a lot of pressure

and the government may need to either accept the amendments or

perhaps more likely, make some very sort of clear promises on the rights

of EU citizens and the vote at the end. Maybe go further than you have

before to assuage backbench critic so that they can get the bill

through, not amended. If the Commons flatly rejects the House of Lords

alterations to the bill, will appears begin on both issues? That

is a very interesting question. My best guess would be that the peers

would back down at that point. But it all depends on the dynamics in

the Commons. The Lords listen to the Commons all the time. And in the

end, the Commons decides. So the Lords throws things back to the

Commons, asks MPs if they are sure they want this thing, and if MPs

send a signal back, we're really sure, then generally, the Lords will

back down. So it all goes back to what the dynamic looks like between

the government and its backbenchers. If there are concerns expressed by

backbenchers during the debate or in the media that they don't think the

is doing the right thing, peers could give it another go, but if the

government and its backbenchers speak with one clear voice, I

suspect that will be the end of the matter. Given the size of the

majorities in both cases, it would be quite back down by peers, it?

Members of the Lords are very appreciative of their role which is

to review, to invite second thought and to ask the Commons whether it

issue about what it is doing. I think that was voiced very much in

the debate. It has been voiced very much around the edges of the debate

whilst this has been going on in the TV studios and so on. Peers see it

as their rightful role, and this has been reflected by comments by the

Conservative Leader of the House of Commons, it is perfectly right for

them to ask the Commons to think again. If the Commons says no, a lot

of peers at that point will think, we have done our job and the commons

must decide. This is a classic confrontation between the Commons

and the Lords. There have been plenty of notable stand-offs between

the House is in the past. How does this confrontation compare with

previous ones? There are two key differences between this and

previous confrontations. The first is, this is not unique but it is

fairly unusual, in being such a high profile issue. Brexit is honoured in

British politics. All eyes are on it. Everyone understands what this

question is about whether we triggered Article 52 start to exit

the EU. So it is top of the the EU. So it is top of the

headlines. And confrontations which happen more routinely between the

Lords and Commons do not even reach Lords and Commons do not even reach

the headlines. So everybody is watching this. The other key thing

is that this is a confrontation between a Conservative government

and the House of Lords. Although we are becoming slightly more used

that, historically, this is very unusual this is the first majority

been able to get its business been able to get its business

through. Others have been the great through. Others have been the great

reform Act, the Lloyd George budget of 1909. Those were governments of

the left facing a Conservative dominated House of Lords. Now the

Lords is more party political balance. The Blair and Brown

governments faced confrontation with the Lords of anti-terrorism measures

and things like that all the time. And the need to respond to defeat

and to negotiate and sometimes back down was well understood on the

Labour side and fairly familiar. For Conservatives this is quite new. So

the coming together of those two things makes it feel very important

to the government but in some respects it is actually fairly

routine and I think, as I have said, the Lords will probably be back

down, so it is not going to be one of those historic confrontations.

Philip Hammond presented day on Wednesday.

And, curiously, it was also his last Budget,

From now on, the annual Budget reverts to the Autumn.

The Chancellor hoped new money for social care in England

would be the good news story to grab the headlines but things didn't

And a measure to increase the national insurance paid

by the self employed produced far more reaction,

reaction not exactly to Mr Hammond's liking.

In the Commons, Spreadsheet Phil found time to

I turn now, to the OBR forecast. This is the spreadsheet bit. But

bear with me, because I have a reputation to defend. The OBR

forecast the level of GDP in 2021 to be broadly the same as at the Autumn

Statement. Then came the announcement

on caring for the elderly. So, today, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am

committing additional grant funding of ?2 billion to social care in

England over the next three years. That is ?2 billion over the next

three years, with ?1 billion available in two 2017-18. This will

allow local authorities to Act now to commission new care packages.

Today I can announce funding for a further 110 new three schools on top

of the current commitment to 500. This will include new specialist

maths skills to build on the success of Exeter mathematics School and

King's College London mathematics School which my Right Honourable

Friend the Prime Minister visited earlier this week. We commit to this

programme we understand that choice is the key to excellence in

education. He said... He said he'd listened to concerns

about the new levels I will provide local authorities

with a ?300 million fund to deliver discretionary relief to target

individual hard cases in their local This is how the Chancellor justified

increasing National Insurance Employed and self-employed alike

use our public services in the same way that they are not paying

for them in the same way. The lower national

insurance paid by the self-employed is forecast to cost

our public finances over ?5 billion This is not fair to the 85%

of workers who are And we embark on this next

chapter of our history confident in our strengths and clear

in our determination to build a This was a Budget of

utter complacency about Utter complacency

about the crises facing our public services,

and complacent about the reality of daily life

for Yesterday, Mr Deputy Speaker, over

3,000 people in this country will have queued up at food banks to feed

themselves and their families. Last night, Mr Deputy

Speaker, over 4000 people will have slept rough

on the streets of this country. And the Chancellor

made his boast about But who is reaping

the rewards of this economy? For millions, it is

simply not working. We have had the self-effacing jokes

about spreadsheets, we had the spun lines about being stronger together,

and then it went downhill, and barely a mention of Brexit,

the most momentous challenge facing We've seen a scandalous

attack on aspiration, Next day, more reaction to how

the Budget would impact I do think that we need

to look at this very, very carefully, however,

because there was a solemn promise in the manifesto not

to increase national insurance. And the reality is that I worry

that the accusation it is a bit like signing a contract

but failing to look at the fine print and the small

print that exists. And I think that we

need to the extremely side that we don't just satisfy

the letter of our manifesto commitments

but also the spirit. Immediately, I heard

about what they were doing with the self-employed, my

thoughts did not come and the City of London and how

the Labour thinking about my friend in Skye,

and some of my friends in the Highlands, and knowing

their reliance on the type of self-employed

there who do not have a choice. They cannot choose to work for other

corporations that do not exist. They are what might be called

necessity entrepreneurs. And they don't work

in one sector either. They have to job around and go

travelling sometimes. It is fair to say that

the headlines today haven't gone perhaps as the Chancellor

might have planned. Tories bricked tax row,

Phil picks up pocket or two, Rob the builder, white van man

gets battered by Budget. And the Budget debate in the Commons

is, as they say, to be continued. Now a look at some of

the others stories around The Government went down

to another defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday,

this time over plans to introduce an Olympic-style ranking

in higher education, with UK universities listed

as gold, silver and bronze. It is utterly ridiculous

to suggest that you can assess arts teaching by this kind

of approach of rankings. When we look at the top

of the theatre review, we look at whether it has

one star, two stars, three star, four stars,

five stars, and that is, in most

cases, all we look at. We don't then reached down

and read the analysis University teachers, university let

jurors will want to teach at gold universities.

Human nature. They don't want to

say, "Well, I'm at a And I want to strongly

reassure noble Lords we are working closely

with the British Council, Universities UK International

and others to ensure that a provider who attains

a bronze is recognised Uncertainty for car production

in Britain, as Peugeot-Citroen MPs ask if things will

really stay the same. Many of my constituents are really

concerned about this because they work at Vauxhall

in Ellesmere Port. What can he say to

reassure my constituents Particularly given that our

employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the UK,

compared to those who work in France The reason that we have a successful

record in this country is that our car plants

and their workforces are highly efficient,

and we shouldn't forget that. I can't help but feel

that the minister is 76% of Ellesmere Port

production goes as export, much of that is

left-hand drive for Europe. Would it really makes sense

for Peugeot to continue left-hand drive production outside

the EU and not in Poland or Germany? The sending home of a female

receptionist because she wore flat shoes to work prompts

an online petition and then Some women will choose

to wear high heels and I will not criticise

them for that. We should all be free

to wear whatever But what I cannot tolerate

is employers trying to force women into an ideal what constitutes

professionalism. I don't know about anyone in this

chamber today but the site of a woman in flat shoes does

not normally send me reaching for Personally, I'm five foot ten,

so I've never really But whether they wear

high heels or not, it should be absolutely up to them,

not to some outdated, dodgy 1970s The Government utterly

condemns such dress requirements where their effect

is discriminatory. A new report from Westminster's

spending watchdog warns that unless the programme of renovating

Parliament goes ahead as a matter of urgency, the building

could suffer catastrophic failure. The extensive programme

to restore crumbling masonry, and replace miles of ageing wiring

and plumbing will cost an estimated The Public Accounts committee

is backing a full decanting of the building for six years

to enable the work to be done. The committee chair is the MP

Meg Hillier, who's with us now. Meg Hillier, would it be fair

to say that a summary of your report is: Let's get

out as soon as we can? We need to get on with

it to get a full business case worked out

so we really know what the real costings are and then get

through the refurbishment. The danger is if you go

for the long option, costs can To do it cost effectively,

we need to get out. Of course, some MPs

like Edward Leigh, who, curiously, used to be in your job, he believes

the palaces big enough to accommodate MPs sitting somewhere

else while the work goes ahead. Well, I mean, anything

is possible, but whether it We heard some very

startling evidence about what could go wrong if you put

everybody in the same building. The truth is that

the Victorians built And, let's be clear,

even if it were possible to stay, it would be very

disruptive, you would still have years outside of the

chamber to deal with. We just have to get on with

the programme now, because if we don't choose an option to get it

openly worked out, we will just be shilly-shallying around

and putting off the decision. We have to make the decision,

the over it has to do it because it is a World Heritage

site and they have the It seems, though, even though

on the quickest option, way because it won't be in this

Parliament, so it won't happen We've got to make sure that

lots of work is done before then. We could make this building

far more accessible We could make this building far more

accessible to the public, At the moment, there is a real

demand for the rooms from people other than MPs, and when

they are available, it should be There is a lot of potential win

for the public, and we need to make sure that once

the project is worked out, there was better communication

with everybody involved, that is MPs, of course,

but also members of the public, about what the real wins could be

sorting this building out. Now, shutting down for six years, it

seems a bit drastic, there are some MPs saying this is sending out

completely the wrong message, this is the wrong image,

particular this time, when we are going through this

Brexit negotiations, we've got Well, no, the parliament is more

than just a building. It is iconic, it is very

important, but the disease upon it is done by members

of Parliament, working with the public, and actually, that is

what will continue to happen. I'm a Shoreditch MP,

I don't have an office in my patch, I have to work

in a cafe with a laptop, I'm not saying all MPs will be doing

that for the six years, but we can find other

ways of working, and work around And that is why we need to get

on with it, so we can plan for where MPs go, as well as what

the costs will truly be. Now, plenty of speculation

about where MPs could go. Give me your thoughts on the way

you think would be a good building. Well, we heard clear evidence

about the work going on the northern Estate, in Richmond,

that is where the Department There is plans to decant

MPs to that part of Of course, all these

things have to be worked out as part of the plan

to take MPs out of the building. So, let's be clear that

staying is a really So, let's be clear that staying

is a really tricky option because of the asbestos,

because of the upheaval. We do have to work up

the option of moving out, where MPs will go,

where peers will go, and how

that will be funded. And a vote's been promised

in the next few weeks on whether or not to go for a full

decanting of Parliament. Then again, a vote's

been promised before, Time now for this week's report

from the wider world of politics. Here's Patrick Cowling

with our countdown. As MPs consider the renovation

of their grand old home, EU leaders met for the first time

this week in the swanky new Europa The European Council's

new home boasts oak sourced from all

over the continent. No politician likes

being called a doormat. Apart from Conservative

MP Steve Baker, It was revealed this week

that the MP for Wycombe boasts a doormat, replete with

an image of his face. So, you be careful

we put those feet. A touch of star dust

fell on Tuesday. Actors Toby Jones and Rhys Ifans

failed to persuade MPs to revise the so-called

Dubs Amendment on accepting receiving unaccompanied child

refugees to the UK. International Women's Day did not go

unnoticed in the House of Lords on Wednesday,

as Tory peer Baroness that the three clerks on duty

were all men. Minister Baroness Williams

sought to reassure peers. Theresa May's laughter

in PMQs turned a few heads The SNP MP Peter Wishart group

comparisons with previous Patrick Cowling with all

the chuckles from the Commons. All eyes in the next few days

on the progress of the Brexit Bill. Could we be in for a spot

of parliamentary ping-pong Do join Alicia McCarthy

for the next Week in Parliament. Until then, from me,

Keith Macdougall, goodbye.