27/10/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to

the Week In Parliament.

And it's been a week in which one

argument has dominated: when exactly

will Parliament be able to vote

on the deal to leave

the European Union?

It will be after March 2019?

It could be, yes.

I'll be talking to a professor

about the how Brexit

is affecting this Parliament.

Also on this programme:

there's no Universal Credit

for Universal Credit.

Our local food bank

is looking to collect 15

tonnes of extra food

to deal with the demand.

And there's no shortage

of advice for the Chancellor

on the possibility of a no-deal

outcome to the Brexit talks.

You cannot agree a price

until you know what

you are paying for, and only a fool

would write out a blank

cheque of taxpayers' money.

It was in February that ministers

pledged to give Parliament

a "meaningful" vote on the deal

to leave the European Union

before it was finalised.

The concession was made to thwart

an opposition attempt to add

conditions to the Bill triggering

Brexit.

But little did AM realise

it would be that vote

which would dominate the week,

when she stood up in the Commons

on Monday to update MPs

on her latest meetings in Brussels.

-- Theresa May.

I am ambitious and positive about

Britain's future and

these negotiations.

If we're going to take a step

forward together, it must be

on the basis of joint

effort and endeavour

between the UK and the EU.

But I believe that by approaching

these negotiations in a constructive

way, in a spirit of friendship

and cooperation, we can

and will deliver the best possible

outcomes that

works for all our people.

And that belief was shared

by other European leaders.

I am now beginning to have a...

Feel a very worrying sense

of Groundhog Day here.

Here we are again,

after another round of talks,

and we are still no clearer

as to when negotiations on Britain's

future with our largest trading

partner will actually begin.

But it was on Wednesday

that the Brexit Secretary put

the cat among the pigeons

in an appearance before

the Brexit Committee.

It is no secret that

the way the union

makes its decisions

tends to be at the 11th

minute, the 59th minute

of the 11th hour.

That is precisely what I will

expect to happen here.

Labour MPs asked when the UK

Parliament would get

to vote on the deal.

It could be after March 2019?

It could be, yes.

It could be.

It depends when it concludes.

Sorry, the vote of our

Parliament, the UK

parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be, could be.

And it was that statement

which dominated the debate

for the next two days.

In March 2019,

the Prime Minister told

this House that Parliament would be

given a meaningful vote on the terms

of the Article 50 withdrawal bill.

This morning, in the Brexit select

committee, the Secretary of State

told us that that vote may not take

place until after March 2019.

Can the Prime Minister

please explain

how it is possible to

have a meaningful vote on something

that has already taken place?

As the honourable

gentleman knows, we are

in negotiations with

the European Union, but I am

confident, we have a timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty which does

give time until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place,

but I am confident,

because it is in the interests of

both sides and it is not just this

Parliament that wants to have a vote

on this deal, but actually there

will be ratification

by other parliaments

that we will be able

toachieve that agreement

and negotiation in time for this

Parliament to have the vote

that we committed to.

And the matter didn't rest there.

After PMQs, a Labour MP took it

up with the Speaker.

It seems to me in this House

and on behalf of the people we

represent cannot take that control

unless we have that vote.

Can he advise on what

we as a House of

Commons do about that, at best

contradiction and at worst false

impression, given to the House

during that debate?

Later there was a clarification:

it was "expected and intended"

there should be a vote before.

The next day, Labour put

down an urgent question.

What a mess.

One thing one day,

another thing the next.

Yesterday the Secretary of State

was asked in the Brexit committee,

could the vote in our Parliament now

be after March 2019?

The answer, yes, it could be.

Later in the day the Prime

Minister had a go at

correcting him, then his own

spokesperson had to clarify

his remarks.

Today, he says, the vote will be

before the deal is concluded.

That is not good enough.

The issue that I raised yesterday,

because I take it as a

responsibility always to be

as forthright as I can

with the select committee,

was to go through what

has happened in the past in treaty

negotiations with the EU.

This time there is

an expectation by the

commission, there is an incentive

on the part of the various

countries to get this done

as quickly as possible.

There is an expectation

and intention by ourselves.

So none of the undertakings

given at the

dispatch box have in any

sense been undermined.

The issue here is one

of practicality on what we control.

What we control, we will run

and we will give Parliament a proper

and meaningful vote.

On Thursday, we finally

found out when detailed

consideration of the EU

Withdrawal Bill would start -

November 14th, if you want to make

a note in your diary.

MPs had expected the process

to begin much sooner,

and while they've been waiting

for it, very few substantial

bills have been discussed

on the green benches.

I've been speaking to Anand Menon,

professor of European Politics

at Kings College, London,

about what's going on here.

I began by asking him

what Parliament had

been doing with itself.

Well, the fact is that

since the election, Parliament has

not had a lot to do,

and that is partly

a deliberate Government strategy.

There are not many

bills to be discussed,

it is in the interest

of the Conservatives not to have too

many debates and votes in the House,

as we have seen.

What is interesting is you have

two political parties

acting on the basis

of different timetables.

Labour are on an election footing.

They are all revved up.

The Tories on the other hand

are playing a very slow

waitin game.

-- waiting game.

They want as little to happen

as possible, they are focused on

Brexit and so you have this weird

sense in Parliament that no one

is sure what is going on.

Do Labour really want

to have an election now?

I think yes, they genuinely do,

but above and beyond that it suits

the leadership to be on an election

footing, because it keeps the

troops disciplined.

It means there is no

infighting and the divisions

that we know exist do not come out

into the open because the potential

rebels do not want to be seen

as rocking the boat.

But it is not just the Conservatives

who don't want an election, is it?

No, the DUP do not want

an election, they are where

they want to be.

They have a degree of influence

over the Government,

despite having very few MPs.

The last thing they want

is a Jeremy Corbyn Government.

I don't, to be honest,

think that, even though the

SNP have said they will vote against

the Government in the vote of

confidence, I don't think

they are in any great hurry

to go to the polls again.

Do you think the Government's

problems with Brexit

being delayed and these

opposition debates that saw

Conservatives abstaining, how much

is that a problem of their

own making?

In a sense, it is all a problem

of their own making.

They called an election they didn't

need to call, so in that sense.

But given the arithmetic

and the fact that

there are all sorts of divisions

in as well as between the political

parties, it is a very difficult

situation for the Government to deal

with, hence why we are getting

these weird situations.

Couldn't they foresee

with the opposition day

debates that the Labour Party might

force a vote and then you have to do

something, and they

have had to abstain?

Which causes another problem,

these statements that they

are now going to have to have.

It does, and it gives

Jeremy Corbyn so much ammunition

for Prime Minister's Questions,

and it is why the opposition

are setting the policy agenda

in the country at the moment.

Whilst I don't think

the Conservatives have played this

particularly well, it is very hard

to see how they would manage

a situation like this

where they are at in danger

of losing votes if they turn out

and actually vote on things.

Are we overlooking the problems

that Labour are having,

because they are quite a lot of

problems with the Government side?

Yes, I think Labour have the luxury

of not being in power.

If you take the Brexit

issue for instance, the

Labour Party in Parliament

is profoundly divided.

They can hide it because

they don't have to make

decisions and can continue forcing

the issue by trying, as they did so

effectively in the election, to

appeal to both Leavers and Remainers

by being profoundly ambiguous.

-- fudging the issue.

-- fudging the issue.

The Government does not have that

luxury because they are negotiating

with the EU, they have to take

decisions.

Who is really holding

the power in this Parliament?

I think power is quite disbursed.

At one level you can see the select

committee having quite

a degree of influence.

They have got big personalities

chairing them, it is a

chance to make their mark.

It is a chance to come out with bold

statements on policy.

They will be very influential.

Backbenchers also,

they are absolutely fundamental.

There is an awful lot of horse

trading going on and that is why

the Whips are trying keep

them in line.

Every Parliament has a sort

of unique or distinct complexion.

Is this one much

different to the others?

Have there been other

parliaments like this?

Above and beyond the

question of numbers, what

makes this Parliament

unique is Brexit.

It is fair to say that Brexit

is an unparalleled challenge.

It haunts everything.

It means that in the Queen's

speech there was very

little legislation that was not

Brexit legislation.

All eyes are focused

on this process.

We all know that it will

determine the nature of

our country for a while to come,

depending on how it goes.

That adds to the mix.

We have had minority governments

before, but never in

this context of such a big issue

going through Parliament and being

negotiated at the same time.

Thank you very much.

Now you may remember the recent

highly unusual spectacle

of a Government defeat

in the Commons by 299 votes to zero.

The vote was on an opposition motion

proposing a pause in the roll-out

of Universal Credit,

which combines a handful

of benefits into a new payment.

Conservative MPs were

ordered to abstain.

The opposition parties condemned

the Government, saying

Parliament was being ignored.

So the Speaker granted

an emergency debate.

The decision on whether or not

to vote is a matter for members and

their parties.

As you, Mr Speaker, noted last

week, it is a legitimate

one to take.

Universal Credit was fully

legislated for in the Welfare

Reform Act 2012, and its subsequent

SI and it was extensively debated

by Parliament.

The honourable lady.

I just want to ask

the minister, if he

thought we had such a good debate

last week, why did his party abstain

from voting?

Mr Speaker, I am going to come

to many of the things that

came out of the debate,

and as I just said, it is legitimate

decision to vote or otherwise

in such debates, but it is much

that you take from a

debate like that, and I

thought, as I said, it was a very

high-quality session of this House.

Strong leadership would have

seen action last week.

Strong leadership

would have accepted the

Parliamentary arithmetic,

would have accepted the mood

of the House and our constituents.

It would have accepted

it needed to act.

Several MPs were angry

about the continued

roll-out of Universal Credit.

The roll-out will begin

halfway through November.

Six weeks later, it is Christmas.

The DWP will not be open

on Christmas Day, which means many

of my constituents will have to wait

until the New Year for

any assistance.

That is why our local food bank

is looking to collect 15 tonnes

of extra food to deal with demand.

It doesn't take a mathematician

to work out that if you transfer 12

days before Christmas

and the payments take between 35

and 42 days to appear in your bank

account,

there are going to be a lot of

Swansea residents in dire straits at

the worst possible time.

If the Labour Party

truly believe what they

were saying, that they do indeed

support the principle of Universal

Credit, they would be working

with Government to make sure

the roll-out is a success.

Rather than scaremongering

and trying to block

the good reform to

our benefits system.

So I think the Government is

demonstrating it is listening and a

key part of that has

been the introduction

of the free telephone service,

so I don't want the

roll-out to be stopped,

but for it to go on,

I think it needs reform.

Now, we heard in the week

the European Council President,

Donald Tusk, telling MEPs

that the UK's departure from the EU

was the "toughest stress test",

and if the EU failed that test,

it would be a defeat for Brussels.

The possibility of a no-deal

outcome to the talks has

been exercising MPs,

and in the Commons, some attempted

to pin down the Chancellor.

The Chancellor knows the economic

perils our country faces

if there is no deal.

He described it rightly

as a worst-case scenario.

Can I urge him, in the

interests of our country,

to have the courage

of his

convictions, stand up and face

down his opponents in Cabinet

and confirm today that like us,

he will not

support all vote for

a no deal in Brexit.

Mr Speaker, as the honourable

gentlemen very well knows, our

clear objective, our priority

is to achieve a deal

with the European Union.

Our preference would be for a deal

that a comprehensive trade,

investment, and security partnership

between the UK and the

European Union in the future.

Can I urge the Chancellor

to reject the

representation we've heard

from the shadowed Chancellor.

Would he not agree with me

that you cannot pay a

price until you know

what you are paying for.

Only if fool would write out a blank

cheques from taxpayers'

money.

My honourable friend

is absolutely right.

We shouldn't be giving

away our negotiating position

when we're going into one

of the most important negotiations

is that this country has ever

been involved in.

And that is why we need to make sure

we are prepared for all

eventualities.

The Chancellor, in his efforts

to secure a good Brexit

deal and a transition period, has

the confidence and support not only

of members on this side of the House

but across the whole of

British business.

Unlike the party opposite

which inspired complete fear with

their Marxist mayhem

which they would put upon us

if they were elected.

Mr Speaker, British business

has made clear that it

wants the earliest possible

certainty of out the interim

implementation arrangements.

And it has also made

very clear that it

doesn't want any Marxist mayhem.

And now for a round-up

of some of the other news

from Parliament in brief.

MPs have called on ministers to do

more to ensure people

traffickers face prosecution.

During a debate on tackling modern

slavery, MPs heard some distressing

testimony about the victims.

It is not sex work.

These people were slaves.

I worked with women who were forced

to have sex with over 50 men

in a day.

Her daily routine involves getting

up at 5am to get the

children ready for school,

to collect them,

to do the cleaning,

to do the cooking.

If she went out on an errand, the

woman who was holding her would spit

on the floor and tell her

that she had to be back

before the spit had dried

or she would be beaten.

She ran everywhere because she was

frightened of being late.

Peers were concerned about reports

that the NHS in Essex may discharge

people from hospital

into rooms rented locally.

The service would be

based on Air B'n'B -

the popular website which helps

people rent out their spare rooms

on a temporary basis.

Vulnerable patients will

be allocated to homes

where the hosts have no medical

expertise and for which they will be

paid £1000 per month.

Will the government not listen...

This is my final question.

Will the government not

listen to the medical

opinion and drop this

preposterous scheme.

That is, I should stress, a local

pilot, that is being explored.

I don't think it is even underway.

It has been proposed by a local

doctor, an emergency registrar.

And for it to go

ahead, it is clearly

the case that any such pilot

would have to abide by the various

strict rules that exist in terms

of safety,

safeguarding, quality, and so on,

in any care setting.

The so-called Islamic State group,

or Daesh, has been forced

out of Raqqa in Syria.

It was in January 2014

that the group took control,

declaring the city its "capital".

Later that year, America

launched air strikes.

The UK followed suit once Parliament

had approved military intervention,

after a fierce debate

in the Commons.

The liberation of Raqqa

of this month follows the

significant Daesh territorial losses

in Iraq, including Mosul in July.

Daesh has now lost over 90%

of the territory it once

occupied in Iraq and Syria.

The Defence Secretary has urged MPs

to stop attacking Saudi Arabia

over its human rights record,

because it might jeopardise

a military deal.

Sir Michael Fallon is in the middle

of negotiations to sell a second

batch of Typhoon fighter jets

to the country.

He was pressed by members

of the Defence committee on why

the deal hadn't yet been signed.

I have to repeat, sadly,

to this committee,

obviously other criticism of Saudi

Arabia in this Parliament is

not helpful.

Executives from one of the UK's

largest supermarket chicken

suppliers have apologised

to a committee of MPs

after an investigation allegedly

exposed food safety breaches.

But the company, the Two Sisters

Food Group, rejected any suggestion

that it operated "low standards".

The Labour Party announced

the suspension of one of its MPs

while it investigates misogynistic

and homophobic comments he's

alleged to have made.

Jared O'Mara beat the former

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg

in the constituency of Sheffield

Hallam.

He's apologised for remarks made

online in 2002 and 2004,

but he denies a more recent

allegation.

The Prime Minister had this message:

All of us in this House should have

due care and attention

to the way in which we refer

to other people, and should show

women in public life the respect

that they deserve.

On Friday in the Lords,

a Conservative peer called

for unpaid internships lasting more

than four weeks to be banned.

Lord Holmes reminded peers

that Theresa May had

said she wanted to build

a nation that worked for everyone.

But that nation will in no sense be

working for everybody why

we still have the perpetuation of

pathways of privilege having nothing

to do with merit, having

nothing to do with talent,

pathways of the village where people

are able to to get unpaid

opportunities on the basis

of being fortunate

enough to have family

funding or indeed the

family black book.

The Minister supported

the intention of the bill

but argued that protections

were already in place.

Part of this issue is enforcement.

It is enforcing

existing legislation.

So, to be clear, it

is against the law to

non-pay at least the

minimum wage to workers.

We want work to pay and have zero

tolerance for workers

opting out of their legal

responsibilities.

This is part of the reason

why we increased HMRC's

enforcement budget to a record level

of £25 million in 2017 to 2018.

And, at the age of 95,

the Conservative Lady Trumpington

has finally retired

from Westminster.

In a long and varied career,

she worked at the Bletchley Park

code-breaking centre

during the Second World War,

served as mayor of Cambridge,

and was a minister

in Margaret Thatcher's

governments of the 1980s.

She made a final appearance in

the Lords in order to take her oath.

I swear to Almighty God that

I will give true and faithful

allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen

and the government.

Amen.

A minority Government cutting deals

with Northern Irish MPs to survive?

Sounds familiar?

I'm talking about the late 1970s

of course, and the challenges faced

by Jim Callaghan's Labour

administration.

When playwright James Graham

was researching his

drama about that era -

This House - he watched

BBC Parliament's coverage

of the wheeling and dealing at

Westminster.

So we asked him whether the current

political situation might

inspire a future play.

Claire Gould reports.

The British people

have spoken and the

answer is, we are out.

BELL TOLLS.

And what we are saying

is that Conservatives are

the largest party.

No, they don't have an overall

majority at this stage.

But what about the challenges facing

the current Conservative government?

Could they inspire a future drama?

It has the most extraordinary

task ahead of it.

The most nation changing

piece of legislation to

pass in the next few months in

the form of the EU withdrawal bill.

That's not going to be easy

and if we know from the 1970s,

to pass even the smallest and most

incidental

piece of legislation means you are

subject to the whims and desires

and flaws of your backbenchers.

So, it is going to be

very interesting.

And I suppose with a distance

of perspective, this House was often

quite fun and quite farcical.

It might not be like

that in the coming

weeks and months because this

legislation is so serious task ahead

of the government and

the country is so huge.

The games and the tricks

and the politics that people play

might not feel quite as light

entertainment as it did

previously.

Yes, possibly, in ten years' time,

we will look back on the

parliament of 2017 to whenever this

finishes and have good fun with it.

And you can see more

from James Graham on BBC

Parliament on Sunday,

October the 29th from 8pm.

Now, let's take a look at some

of the other stories of the week.

Here's Patrick Cowling

with our countdown.

Should they stay or should they go?

MPs and peers have recommended

an exodus from the Palace of

Westminster during

essential restorations.

But the government suggested

further advice should be

sought before parliamentarians pack

their bags and say goodbye to the

circus.

Jeremy Corbyn is in the pop culture

limelight this week, as

Tracey Ullman revealed her

new impression of the Labour leader.

It was also announced that

Mr Corbyn would appear

on Channel 4's Gogglebox.

Remember to switch over to the Week

in Parliament, Jezza.

The BBC's former head of political

research put in an good word

to a Lords committee for his former

colleagues' integrity.

It was that they sat

there in the morning weather can

of lager in one hand

and a fag in the other,

thinking what can we make up now?

It tended to be much

more practical stuff.

PATRICK COWLING OPENS

CAN AND DRINKS.

Cheers, Dave.

Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne

slithered in a counter

to a claim by Labour that there

was a nest of vipers sitting

behind the Minister on Thursday.

How can I get it

onto the record that I

am in fact the parliamentary species

champion for the smooth snake and

not the viper?

Thanks for shedding some

light on that, Desmond.

Parliament has always been the place

where the really big

questions are asked.

This week, that question was,

"Who's a good boy?"

The hotly contested

Westminster dog of the

year contest was won

by Rocky this week.

Much to the joy of its friend,

Labour MP Tracey Braeburn.

Finally, in the Lords,

peers were once again

considering a matter very dear

to their hearts - themselves.

When a hereditary peer dies

or retires, an election

is held for a replacement.

One Labour member bemoaned the lack

of women and ethnic minority people

who were eligible candidates.

He beseeched the minister:

Can I just ask him a very simple

question, which, if he could just

give a yes to, we can

move onto next question.

And it is this.

Will the other meant

do something that will

hurt no one and cost

nothing and back my bill

which would scrap this

whole ludicrous system?

I'm grateful to the noble

Lord for that question.

Moving onto the next question

would not help me at all as I have

to answer that one as well.

And Lord Young added

that his line manager,

the Deputy Chief Whip,

was also a hereditary peer.

And that's it from me for now.

But do join Keith Macdougall on

BBC Parliament on Monday night at 11

for a full round-up of the day

here at Westminster.

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.