21/07/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello there and welcome to The Week In Parliament.

On this programme, the last Prime Minister's Questions

before the summer recess sees Jeremy Corbyn

and Theresa May going to

battle on some familiar themes.

3.8 million people in work are now living in poverty.

We created the National Living Wage.

That was the biggest pay increase for people on

lowest incomes ever.

With MPs and peers heading off on their summer

break, we ask three experts what we have learnt

from this parliament so

far and what we can expect in the future.

Also on this programme, the Government announces it's bringing

forward the date when the state pension age will rise to 68.

There is a balance to be struck between

funding of the state pension in years to come,

whilst also ensuring fairness for future generations of

taxpayers.

But first, there was a rowdy end of term sort of feel to

the last Prime Minister's Questions before recess.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn focused on low pay,

but began by highlighting splits at the top of the Government.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, had appeared on TV a few days earlier,

saying some senior ministers were briefing against him because they

didn't like his views on Brexit.

That had followed press stories featuring comments he'd reportedly

made during a Cabinet meeting.

Remarks Jeremy Corbyn seized on.

Mr Speaker, the Chancellor said this week that some public services

servants are overpaid.

Given the Prime Minister has had to administer

a slap down to her squabbling cabinet, does she think the

Chancellor was actually talking about her own ministers?

I recognise, as I said when I stood on

the steps of Downing Street a year ago,

that there are some people in

our country who are just about managing.

They find life a struggle.

That actually covers people who are working

in the public sector and

some people who are working in the private sector.

And that's why it's important that the Government is

taking steps - for example, to help those on lowest

incomes through the National Living Wage.

It's why we have taken millions of people out of paying

income tax altogether.

It's why basic rate tax payers under this

Government have seen a tax cut of the equivalent of ?1,000.

Can I invite the Prime Minister to take a

check with reality on this?

Mr Speaker, one in eight workers in the

United Kingdom, that is 3.8 million people,

in work are now living in

poverty.

Why doesn't the Prime Minister understand that low pay is

a threat to an already weakening economy?

The best route out of poverty is to work.

That's why it is so important that over the last

seven years we have seen 3 million more jobs being created in our

economy.

What's important for Government as well is to ensure that

we do provide support for people.

That's why we created the National Living Wage.

That was the biggest pay increase for people on lowest

incomes ever.

When did the Labour Party ever introduce the National

Living Wage?

Never.

That was a Conservative Government and a

Conservative record.

I look along that front bench opposite, Mr

Speaker, and I see a Cabinet bickering and backbiting while the

economy gets weaker and people are pushed further into debt.

I'll tell the Right Honourable gentleman

the reality.

The reality is that he is always talking Britain

down and we are leading Britain forward.

The SNP's leader at Westminster turned to the pensions

of the so-called Waspy women.

The Prime Minister has found up to ?35

billion for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station,

up to 200 billion to replace the Trident missile system,

and one billion for a deal with DUP just so she can keep her own job.

She seems to be able to shake the magic money

tree when she wants to.

Can the Prime Minister now end the injustice for those women

who are missing out on their pension before

she herself thinks about retiring?

We have put ?1 billion extra into this question of the change

of the state pension age to ensure that

nobody sees their state pension age increased by more than 18 months

from that which was previously expected.

And I have to also say to the honourable gentleman that the

Scottish Government, of course, does now have

extra powers in the area of

welfare.

And perhaps...

Perhaps it's about time the Scottish

Government got on with the day job and stopped talking about

independence.

Theresa May.

Parliament has been back for just over a month since June's surprise

general election.

Theresa May was returned without a majority and was

forced to strike a ?1 billion deal with the DUP.

The change in her electoral fortunes has left Mrs May

at the mercy of her own backbenchers and tightened

Jeremy Corbyn's grip on

his party.

It promises to be a parliament with plenty of fight and

of course there's one big subject on the agenda.

Roslyn Ball reports.

A two-year Parliament, but a pared down Queen's speech

with one big agenda item.

Presentation of bill.

Mr Secretary Davis.

Mr Minister Baker.

European Union Withdrawal Bill.

With Brexit talks under way in Brussels, opposition parties claimed

the UK Parliament has been left with little to do.

Isn't the European Parliament, however much mocked in

this country, showing the mother of Parliaments just

what parliamentary control looks like in the modern

era?

Its ability to veto the Brexit deal means that the other

institutions need to front-load information to the Parliament, so

there have been seven position papers against one

from our Government and

unfortunately parliamentary scrutiny in the Westminster Parliament is

still rather unstructured.

We have just completed an election where we

have asked people to vote for us.

As a parliamentary democracy, they expect us to debate and vote on

motions that were relevant to their lives 31 days ago.

Our constituents expected us to come back

straightaway to work.

Instead after the gracious speech, there have only

been seven votes.

This Parliament is already being dubbed the zombie

Parliament.

I actually think that that comparison would actually give

the flesh eating undead a bad name.

This is turbo-charged political zombie-ism.

Pete Wishart.

So those are just some of the issues which are

going to shape this Parliament over the months to come.

And to discuss all of this, I am joined in the

studio by Jill Rutter of the Institute for Government,

Professor Ian Begg of the London School of

Economics, and by the constitutional expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor.

Vernon Bogdanor, is Pete Wishart right?

Is it a zombie Parliament?

From one point of view, it is a zombie Parliament in that it is

deadlocked.

There is really no majority for any controversial

legislation at all.

And both of the major parties are internally deeply

divided on the major piece of legislation,

which is, of course, the

European Union Withdrawal Bill.

But from another point of view, you might call it the backbencher's

Parliament, because any backbenchers with proposals which achieve

consensus can get their measures through.

We have already seen an example of that in the proposal by

Stella Creasey that women who come from Northern Ireland to secure

abortions on this side of the Irish Sea can

have them paid for by the

taxpayer.

And that was accepted by the Government for fear of losing

the vote.

There may be other similar measures.

The great danger with that, of course, is that both of

these proposals are for increases in expenditure, which is difficult

for the Government to resist.

So the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this

backbencher's Parliament may be even more beleaguered than he would be

normally.

All right.

Ian Begg, let's talk a bit about Brexit, then.

How, as far as we can tell, are the political shenanigans

and the parliamentary shenanigans at

Westminster being viewed from Europe?

I think I could sum it up in one word.

They are perplexed.

They cannot fathom what we're up to.

I am regularly in other European countries

and the question I am constantly asked is,

"Why are you so insistent on

shooting yourself in the foot in this manner?"

And what comes over is a sense of not understanding what

Britain wants, which is very clear in the stance that has been put

forward in the negotiations, and not knowing what

kind of finalite, the

outcome Britain wants to achieve from it.

All right, now Jill Rutter, we're going to see the Great Repeal

Bill as it used to be called, the EU Withdrawal Bill, being discussed

properly for the first time in September, when MPs return from

their summer break.

So how far is the civil service over the summer

presumably going to be working flat out to try to make some sense of

what this bill is going to do and where Parliament can go with it?

Well, the civil service has been trying to work out what to do with

the bill since the referendum, basically.

There's been a long task to try and identify both what

legislation needs to be brought over, but also how to put that into

law, and we have seen that with the Repeal Bill,

which was actually ready for introduction a month or

two earlier because it was ready for before

the general election, so what

the civil service really has to be getting

on with is not just the

legislation.

There are seven other Brexit bills that need to be drafted

on agriculture, fisheries, customs, trade, all those issues, so we need

seven more, and I think those are in a less

state of readiness than the

Repeal Bill was.

Then there are all the statutory instruments that need to

go under scrutiny.

We have seen an estimate from the Department on the EU that

there will be...

These are the changes that ministers can make.

These are the things that actually give effect to the changes because

the Repeal Bill is really just more of a shell to give ministers power

to make those changes in law when they decide

what they need to do.

And some of those depend on the outcomes

of the negotiations, so the

real meat of the Repeal Bill isn't in the clauses that people

are going to start debating in September.

It is in all of the statutory instruments that the

ministers are going to be bringing forward.

And Vernon Bogdanof, the fear that has been expressed already

by some of the nations but also by some backbenchers is that these

ministerial powers are a great, fat power grab by the Government.

Absolutely.

Statutory instruments don't get the sort of scrutiny that

primary legislation, that is bills, get from MPs.

And the great danger is that this is a transfer of

power not from the European Union to Parliament but from the European

Union to the executive.

Now, the Government's view is that the Repeal

Bill is dealing with essentially mechanical matters.

It is just transposing European law into our

own legal system.

But perhaps it is not quite so simple in some cases,

because what after all is the analogous British

institution to say the European Commission?

Where do you find the analogy in Britain?

So there are political choices to be made and

where there are those political choices to be made, MPs will

understandably want to scrutinise precisely what choices are being

made and not hand ministers too much power.

Meanwhile, Ian Begg, let's talk money.

Over in Europe, one of the first things on the agenda is

the divorce bill and what it is going to cost us.

Where are we going to get to with that?

Well, if I start with where I think it will finish, I believe

that we will get a settlement of the order of 30 or 40

billion euros, not the hundred billion euros that is being

canvassed in the press.

The reason it is contradicted is that if

Britain withdraws on day one of Brexit from paying into the European

Union, it receives a hole in the EU budget.

And that would apply to other net contributors, particularly

Germany, to pay more.

So what they would like to do is to seek out the

current medium-term framework for the budget,

which would last until 2020, and a bit beyond because of

the overhanging bills.

If that can be negotiated, it is going to make

Britain look far more amenable for deals on other areas.

And Jill Rutter, presumably the Government this end

trying to negotiate that figure

down to is close to zero as they can get.

It will be trying to negotiate it down as close to zero but it's not

actually put a red line on that one which is quite interesting,

given the other areas where we have seen the government draw red lines.

Because I think they realised, precisely every zones Ian says.

That this is one of the cards in our hand to actually secure

other things we want.

At the end of the day, we can have some flexibility on money,

we can use that to improve other parts of the exit offer.

So I think ministers will try as hard as they can

to avoid being held down, while talking quite tough and trying

to anchor to a lower figure.

Let's look at one issue where we have had a lot of chatter

already and that is the status of the EU nationals

living in the UK.

Now, the House of Lords so far, we haven't had a lot of noise

from them but this is a subject they care passionately about.

Is this going to be one of the first battles for the Lords

versus the government in Brexit?

Well, it might well be, but it seems to me the government

has put forward a reasonable position on which there

can be negotiation.

There are problems about families and so on but those matters can be

discussed and dealt with.

And I think, there, the EU will have to back down.

I think they have been, frankly, a little ungenerous

towards Theresa May's offer which I think was a reasonable

and generous first step.

And no doubt it can be improved with negotiation.

So, if you think that the EU nationals issue will be settled,

if you were a government minister, what would you be looking out

for as the flash points particularly in the House of Lords?

Well, the House of Lords, I suspect, will want us to remain

in the internal market and in the customs union

which Theresa May at least has said we shouldn't do.

She was very clear in her Lancaster House speech that Brexit

means Brexit and she means by that we should be out

of the internal market and out of the customs union

because in her view that would make us the satellite

or colony of the EU, that is we would have to accept much

EU law but without any role in formulating it.

Now, the House of Lords may take a different view,

and the Labour Party in the Commons may take a different view.

And the business community may take a different view.

There will, I think, be serious clashes with the House

of Lords because they are dealing with a minority government.

The House of Lords is even more strongly Remain.

It is worth pointing out that the House of Commons not only

has a majority of people who voted Remain but an even larger majority,

given the increase in the number of Labour MPs, and even larger

majority than in the 2015 Parliament.

So it is being required to do something that it doesn't want to do

which is a constitutional first in British history.

Let's get a brief final thought from all of you.

Imagine that you are sitting in these chairs 12 months

from now, where are we?

Is Theresa May still Prime Minister? Have we had another election?

Jill Rutter.

Who knows, who knows?

I think it is at the impossible to say.

I think, hopefully, well, where do we hope to be?

We hope to be much clearer about the UK Government's

negotiating objectives.

Ideally, there would be far more consensus about what we are trying

to object, we want to make progress in getting some of the necessary

legislation through onto the statute book.

We would be clear what sort of outcome

we are starting to implement.

That is what we need to be doing if we are going to minimise

the risks on exit in March 2019.

Ian Begg, are you this optimistic?

I think we will have moved to a position where we recognise

that what is being talked about now, the dichotomy between hard

Brexit and soft Brexit, is actually a false dichotomy,

and the real dialogue will be between hard Brexit and rethinking

whether we leave at all.

Interesting.

I agree with that comment very much but I think that government is much

more stable than many imagine.

It has an effective majority with the support of the DUP of 13.

And it will be able to avoid a vote of no-confidence which is the only

way you can get it out.

And I think Theresa May will last longer than people imagine.

The backbenchers say they want to keep her there for the moment,

that any leadership election will be divisive and would lead to calls

for another general election which they don't want.

And the key unifying factor for the Government which keeps them

there is Jeremy Corbyn.

The fear of Jeremy Corbyn.

And that will keep them there possibly for five years.

All right, thank you all very much indeed for coming

into the programme.

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

Westminster in brief.

The state pension age is to rise from 67 to 68 seven years earlier

than initially planned.

The change will affect those born between April 1970 and April 1978.

The increase will now come into effect from 2037.

The Work and Pensions Secretary David Gauke told MPs

people were living longer.

There is a balance to be struck between funding of the state pension

in years to come whilst also ensuring fairness for future

generations of taxpayers.

The approach I am setting out today is the responsible

and fair course of action.

Most tensioners will now spend their retirement battling

a toxic cocktail of ill-health.

In our manifesto, we committed to leaving the state pension age

at 66 while we undertake a review into healthy life expectancy,

arduous work, and the potential of a flexible state pension age.

The SNP continue to call for the establishment

of an independent savings and pension commission.

We believe that the government is not doing enough to recognise

the demographic differences across the United Kingdom

and an independent review of this would look at those.

When Her Majesty the Queen came to the throne in 1952,

there were 300 April that year who reached the age of 100.

Last year, it was over 13,000.

Youth custody centres in England and Wales are now so unsafe

that the tragedy is inevitable - that is the finding

of the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

Peter Clark said he hadn't inspected a single establishment where

it was safe to hold young people.

The jump in violence in our prisons is the crisis

of the government's own making.

The warning signs have been there.

They have been warned by MPs, they have been warned

by staff in our prisons, and they've been

warned by charities.

Now, they are being condemned by this damning report.

The budget for prisons has been cut by more than a fifth

over the last six years, cuts that have now been proved

to be a false economy.

Prison staff have been cut by a quarter, and those who remain

are being put at risk.

I would argue that the unforeseen exacerbant in prisons has been

spice, and drug use.

It was not anticipated by a previous government,

and this is undeniably causing difficulties, both in terms

of the behaviour of the prisoners and indeed the corruption

of the prisoners and some staff in regards to the trade

of these substances.

Labour has accused the government on in a promise to allow MPs vote

on increasing tuition fees in England.

They are due to rise this autumn to a maximum of ?9,250.

But Labour face accusations from the Conservatives of misleading

students during the election when it homes to write off

existing student debt.

This weak and wobbly government doesn't even

trust its own backbenchers with a vote on its own policies.

Can she confirm, is it still Labour policy to pay off

all 400 billion pounds worth of the outstanding student debt?

Is it still her policy?

Yes or no?

I said once, and I will say it again, we have no plans to write off

existing student debt, and we never promised to do so.

The party opposite wants to talk about process because its policy

platform is disintegrating before our eyes.

This debate which cannot change arrangements for 2017/18

is therefore a sham exercise.

The government has confirmed the routes for the second stage

of the high-speed rail network HS2.

There will be two links on from Birmingham,

one to the North West, and the other to the East

Midlands and Yorkshire.

The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling initially made

the announcement in a written statement, prompting

protests in the Commons.

All the indications and now that the news will be

sneaked out in a written statement any time now.

Shocking!

Mr Speaker, this is a gross discourtesy and adds insult

to injury for my constituents.

I too, sadly, think that it is outrageous that this

major item of public expenditure which is affecting my constituents

and those of many others is not being reflected

by a statement here today.

The Transport Secretary did eventually come to the Commons

a little after ten o'clock at night.

As you know, Mr Speaker, sometimes these things can happen

as a result of cock-ups rather than conspiracy.

We need HS2.

Since privatisation, the number of passenger journeys

in our railways has doubled, it has nearly tripled on the key

West Coast Intercity Corridor.

We cannot continue to rely on the legacy of a Victorian

forbearers, far-sighted though they were.

What assurances and guarantees can he give that the total cost will not

exceed the stated ?55.7 billion and not spiral as has been alleged

in certain quarters?

There have been some wild rumours, I have to say, Mr Speaker,

in the last 24 hours about the project, based on frankly

a finger in the air by people who are not involved in the project.

The government has been urged to use the depth of the UK's relationship

with Saudi Arabia to do more than just condemn its use

of the death penalty.

Ministers say they seek King charity over reports that over 14 men

could be facing execution for attending protests in 2012.

The week the Foreign Secretary visited Saudi Arabia,

eight people were executed in one day, beheaded.

Now, when will this government actually decide that it is time

to publicly condemn these abuses of human rights?

Our silence is deafening.

Surely that depth of our relationship with Saudi Arabia

in trade, in finance, in the presence of many

Saudi Arabians in this country, the long-standing way

in which we have been together through war and peace, it

would indicate we have the options for significantly more leveraged

than mere condemnation.

At the end of the day, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state

and it is not possible for us to either interfere

with its judicial system or its constitutional approach

to these matters.

But we can make clear, as we do, our profound disapproval

and our profound opposition to abuses of human rights and to

deployment of the death penalty.

The Lib Dem former Business Secretary Vince Cable has been

announced as the new Liberal Democrat leader.

He takes over from Tim Farron who stepped down from the job

after the June general election.

Dr Cable lost his Commons seat in the 2015 general

election, regaining it in the election in June.

No other candidate stood for the job.

Time now for a look at what has been happening in the wider world

of politics this week.

Here is Claire Gould with our countdown.

PMQs might get heated but that is nothing compared

to the passion unleashed in the Taiwanese parliament

where a debate over infrastructure spending got a bit out of hand.

Settling their differences on the sport field rather

than the battlefield, MPs versus journalists

in the Westminster end of term Sportsday.

With cross-party working in the tug-of-war and dispatch box

relay decided in a photo finish.

A note from the clerks can be invaluable to the Speaker.

Well, that is very helpful.

And I mean very helpful.

From one of our senior clerks - don't have the details,

believe you are correct, we can check.

And there was just time for one more election before the end of term,

this time in the House of Lords where a new hereditary

peer was elected.

The successful candidate was Lord Volkes of Harridon.

Someone in Parliament was very keen to get home for the holidays

on Wednesday evening.

The situation, lighting wise, has slightly thrown me off.

That's right, Minister, keep calm and carry on.

Claire Gould.

And that is it from us this week and indeed for the summer.

MPs and peers are now taking a break from Westminster.

And we will be back when they return on September the 5th.

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