03/11/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to

The Week In Parliament.

Allegations of sexual harassment

swirl round Westminster

as all the parties agree to work

together to deal with the problem.

We have a duty to ensure that

everyone coming here to contribute

to public life is treated with

respect.

Labour forces the Government to hand

over their assessments

of the impact of Brexit

to a committee of MPs.

One Conservative issues a warning.

You are in charge of this, now you

had to face up to the responsibility

of delivering a Brexit that works

for everybody in this country.

And, will it be all

change in the Lords?

The architect of the latest plans

for reform shares his vision.

There will be some rebalancing

according to election results. It

would operate within a cap on the

size of the House.

But first, in quite the most

dramatic Wednesday evening

in Westminster for some time,

the Defence Secretary

suddenly resigned -

saying his behaviour hadn't been

up to standard.

The news came amid a whirlwind

of rumours about harassment by MPs

which had been brewing for days.

The Speaker set the tone

for the week.

Let me make it clear that there must

be zero tolerance of sexual

harassment or bullying,

here at Westminster, or elsewhere.

It is absolutely right

that the House must

address the urgent issue

of alleged mistreatment

of staff by members

of

Parliament.

These allegations make clear

that there is a vital need to

provide better support

and protection for the thousands of

staff members working in Westminster

and in constituency offices across

the country.

No woman, or man for that matter,

coming to work in this

House should be subject to unwanted

sexual advances from those who are

in a position of power.

No one should have to work in toxic

atmosphere of sleazy, sexist or

homophobic banter.

No MP, let alone a minister,

should think it is

something to make jokes about.

This is not hysteria,

this is something

which is long overdue

for all the parties in this

House to deal with.

When someone holds your entire

future in their hand it is very

difficult to refuse or to speak out.

While it is sexual abuse

and sexual harassment

that has brought this

to

the attention today it is also

misogyny, dismissal and gender

discrimination.

I really hope that the news

reports of the last few

days act as a watershed moment and

help to catalyse the change that we

so clearly need, not

least on the outdated

attitudes that exist

still

in some quarters.

As I walked in here today

to come to this statement

I overheard two male colleagues

coming through the halls wittering

about a witch hunt that was

going on in Parliament.

So I think what we need to do

in this building is not

think about this as being

a party political thing.

It has to absolutely happen.

We have talked about this

being a modern workplace, that is

the rub, it is not

a modern workplace,

it is a strange workplace,

for members, for families,

but most of all strange for those

members of staff.

It requires all of us to take

very strong political

leadership and I say

this to the political

leaders on both sides,

on

all sides of the House.

That means taking decisions

against colleagues

and others even when that is

inconvenient, even when that is

against their own allies or their

own supporters on their own side.

Mr Speaker, members on both sides

of the House have been deeply

concerned about allegations

of harassment and

mistreatment here in Westminster.

This demands a response

and the Leader of the House has been

meeting with her counterparts

and we're hopeful

that all sides can work together

to quickly resolve this.

I have written to all party

leaders inviting them

to a meeting early next

week so we can discuss

the common transparent,

independent grievance procedure for

all those working in Parliament.

We have a duty to

ensure that everyone

coming here, to contribute to public

life, is treated with respect.

Just to put on the

record I am happy to

meet the Prime Minister and all

party leaders to discuss this.

We need better

protections for all in

this House.

We must involve the

trade unions in that.

It is also incumbent

on all parties to

have robust procedures in place

to protect and support victims of

sexual abuse and harassment.

Can I associate myself

with the remarks by

the Prime Minister when she talks

about zero tolerance for bad sexual

practices and behaviour.

I commit my members to work

with the Government

to make sure that we can have

a system that we can be proud of to

protect all members

of the Houses of Parliament.

This has been a difficult

week for Parliament but

it has been even harder

for those who have come

forward to report their

experiences of inappropriate

behaviour, harassment or abuse.

Their experiences are

why we need to change.

As I said on Monday it is a right,

not a privilege, to work in a

safe and respectful environment.

The Prime Minister

has written to all

party leaders, and I am pleased

to say they have all agreed to meet

to discuss a common,

transparent and

independent grievance procedure.

Now, plans to cut membership

of the House of Lords by a quarter

were unveiled this week.

The Lord Speaker commissioned

the report amid concern over

the increasing size

of the Upper Chamber.

There are currently 799 eligible

members of the House -

making the Lords chamber second

only in size to China's.

The report suggests capping

the number of seats to 600.

It recommends a two-out,

one-in system - so only half

the peers leaving over the next

decade or so would be replaced.

New peers would serve

only 15-year terms -

and existing peers might be asked

to leave to keep numbers down.

The Electoral Reform Society says

the measures don't go

far enough.

Going from 800 to 600 is not

some radical change,

we're still going to have hereditary

peers, bishops

from one church, one

country of the UK.

All these things that people look

at, scratch their heads, say

how can this be going on in 2017?

Still essentially they remain.

That lack of accountability

remains one

of the biggest challenges

in the House of Lords.

The independent or crossbench peer

Lord Burns led the committee

which produced the report.

I put it to him that this

was perhaps a cosmetic exercise.

It is much more than that.

This would reduce

the size of the Lord's

to 600.

It is a 25% reduction

on where we are at the moment.

But possibly even

more importantly it

would introduce mechanisms which

would mean that there would be a cap

on the size of the House of Lords.

It would not simply go back

to being the level of that is now.

We are also suggesting

that new appointments

should be for 15 year

terms, and people would

retire after 15 years.

And the new appointments would be

made in relation to the performance

of the parties in the previous

general election.

So there would be some

rebalancing according to

election results, there would be

terms for members, there

would be a system of a cap

on the size of the House.

Effectively you are asking the Prime

Minister to give up a lot of

power over the upper House.

Yes, it is a big ask

but the reason the

prime ministers have wanted

to appoint large numbers of people

from their own party is that

because they

haven't been sufficient

vacancies that have

emerged in the House,

because

if you are in the House you are

there for life, the only way that

they can be able to rebalance

the House is by increasing its size.

What we are trying to suggest

as a mechanism whereby you have that

rebalancing but without increasing

the size of the House.

This would take decades to achieve.

You are talking about 2042.

That is the time when Nasa

is hoping to have someone on

Mars.

No.

The House would be down

to 600 by 11 years or so.

The 2042 date which

we are indicating is

when those in the House

at the moment who came on the

basis of being there

for life, have departed.

2042 is not a terribly

important date.

The most important date is 11

years' time, you'll have a

House of 600 and the level

of 600 would be locked in.

There would be

a ceiling.

You are talking about

cuts but you're not

proposing to cut the number

of bishops or the 90-odd hereditary

peers still there.

Because this whole package

has been designed to

be able to go through

without legislation.

There is no opportunity of getting

legislation for reform of

the House of Lords at this point.

There is too many other competing

issues, not least Brexit.

We have tried to design this to be

done without legislation.

The problem of hereditary

by elections and

the bishops is that they are both in

statute and they can only be changed

by legislation.

There is nothing to stop them

subsequently when the

opportunity arises legislation

for changes there.

But we are not proposing

that at the outset.

Otherwise it would hold

up the proposals.

Is this going to happen?

Apart from the fact you're asking

the Prime Minister to reduce the

amount of power that

they have you are also

asking the agreement

of the

Lords.

While the Lords realise

that that is a problem,

turkeys don't vote

for Christmas.

Sometimes they do.

Our first step on this

journey now is to take

the view of the House

of

Lords to this report.

I am hoping that we will

get substantial amount

of support from existing

members in the Lords.

If that is the case we can say

to the Prime Minister

the House of Lords

is

ready to undertake this reform

but we need you to agree

to the aspects of the proposal

which affect the way in

which you make appointments.

And we'll have to then see.

I cannot anticipate

or predict what the

result of that would be

but this is the order

in which we now see this.

We had the report.

The next step is to see

whether that command support in

the House of Lords, if it

does command support,

we can see if we can

persuade the Government

this is worthwhile,

in their interests,

as

well as the interests

of the House of Lords itself.

Good luck.

Thank you.

One of the words of

the week was arcane -

that was the type of procedure

Labour used to try to prise a series

of Brexit assessments out

of the hands of ministers.

And it worked.

The papers were studies

of how the UK's departure

from the EU might affect 58

different economic sectors.

Looking at the list I have here,

two things are obvious.

The first is that in many ways,

it is unremarkable.

It could have and should have been

published months ago.

The second is that the wide range

of sectors analysed demonstrate why

it is so important for members

of this House to see

the impact assessment.

But one Conservative MP suggested

the debate was little

more than gameplaying.

This is a foolish and irresponsible

debate to have been called.

He knows that there is a blanket ban

on disclosing advice to ministers.

That intervention, I'm afraid,

is typical of what has been

going on for 16 or 17 months,

which is that every time somebody

raises a legitimate question,

it is suggested that somehow

they are frustrating

or undermining it.

The Brexit minister said many

thousands of documents

were being prepared with regard

to the UK's exit from EU.

Some of these would not

undermine our negotiating position

but others may have more

of an impact.

The House will appreciate

that the more information

that is shared more widely,

the less secure our negotiating

position becomes to secure the right

deal for the British people.

We can discuss here all sorts

of processes or whether it

will undermine negotiations

but will he not agree that

withholding this information is now

becoming very counter-productive

and it looks like it

is hiding bad news.

It seems to me that the only

scenario in which releasing any

information can possibly undermine

the UK's position is if that

information shows the cost of Brexit

is worse than any previous

analysis has indicated.

This is grown-up, serious stuff.

The days of shouting

from the sidelines, I say

to honourable members on this

side, have gone.

You've won, you are in charge

of this, now you have to face up

to the responsibility of delivering

a Brexit that works

for everybody in this country

and for generations to come.

After the debate, there was no

formal vote because the government

chose not to oppose the motion.

But the government decided to act.

So the question for Thursday was:

when would the papers be released

to the Brexit Committee?

When will the papers be handed over?

The right honourable gentleman

was present for the whole

of yesterday's debate.

As he notes, I said

that I would respond

appropriately and we will do.

The Secretary of State

himself issued a health

warning about the papers.

I will reiterate the point made

by my honourable friend,

and that is these documents are not

some sort of grand plan.

They are data about the regulations,

the markets, and individual sectors

which will form a negotiation.

Of course, we will be

as open as we can be

with the select committee.

I fully intend to.

But shadow ministers

wanted a definitive date.

He said in the cool light

of tomorrow, we will revisit exactly

what was said in Hansard.

In the cool light of today,

the minister got up this morning

and said, in due course.

It is the case that it is difficult

to balance the conflicting

obligation to detect the public

interest through not disclosing

information that could harm

the national interest and the public

into, whilst at the same time

ensuring that the resolution

of the House passed yesterday

is as feared to.

Andrea Leadsom.

And now for a look at some

of the other stories

from Westminster this week.

There was a call for tyres

which are more then ten

years old to be banned

from buses and coaches.

Three people were killed

when a tyre burst on the coach

they were travelling in.

One of the victims,

Michael Molloy, was just 18.

The tyre on the coach

was older than he was.

His mother Frances is heartbroken.

She thought coach

travel was a safe form

of public transport.

Yet the coach to which

she entrusted her son

turned out to be a death trap

because of 19 and a half year old

tyre that no one could

see was going to burst

because of the deterioration

caused by its age.

The maximum stake for a fixed-odds

betting terminal could drop

to as little as £2 under

a government review.

Currently, people can

bet up to £100 every 20

seconds on fobty machines,

as they're known.

But Labour's spokesman said

the government's announcement

was a victory for the gambling

industry, as he set out

the scale of the problems.

430,000 people addicted to gambling.

Up a third in three years.

A further 2 million problem gamblers

at risk of developing an addiction.

£1.8 billion lost on fobtys this

year, an increase of 79% over

the last eight years.

A gambling industry whose yield

the amount they win in bets has

increased to £13.8 billion,

up from £8.3 billion in 2009.

And, yet, they only pay £10 million

for education and treatment services

on a voluntary levy this year.

A report into the experiences

of the families of football fans

who died at Hillsborough has called

for a change in culture to stop

the burning injustice in the way

bereaved relatives are treated.

96 Liverpool supporters were

unlawfully killed in the disaster.

I worry that the pain and suffering

of the Hillsborough families

is already being repeated.

So can the Prime Minister commit had

government to supporting both

the duty of candour for all public

officials, and as this report

requires, and end to public bodies

spending limitless sums,

spending limitless sums,

providing themselves

with representation which surpasses

that available to families.

The government must urgently review

how prepared it is for a flu

outbreak this winter.

That was the demand from opposition

peers debating the take-up

level of flu vaccinations

in England and Wales.

The problem with viral

infections is, like pandemics,

they are completely unpredictable

and often hit in a way

that we never expect beforehand.

They remain one of the single

biggest threats to humanity,

and I hope you understand that this

unpredictability is a very real

issue with all these infections,

including influenza,

as history has shown us.

In the Commons, a Labour MP has

introduced legislation to change

the way force is used in mental

health units in England.

Steve Reed dedicated his bill

to 23-year-old Shaney Lewis,

who was taken to hospital

by his parents after suffering his

first ever mental health episode.

The MP described how hospital staff

called the police when Shaney Lewis

became very agitated.

11 police officers took Shaney

into seclusion room, and using pain

compliance techniques,

the kind that are used

against violent criminals,

they took it in turns to hold him

facedown on the floor for 30

minutes in total.

His hands were cuffed

behind his back and his legs

were in restraints.

They held him like that

until he could no longer breathe,

and he suffered a heart attack.

He went into a coma, and four days

later, Shaney was dead.

So, the question is let the bill

be read a second time.

As many of the opinion say, "Aye."

ALL: Aye!

On the contrary, no.

SILENCE.

The ayes have it.

The bill was voted

through to the next stage.

A bill to allow people to vote

at the age of 16 has been

debated in the Commons.

A large contingent of Labour MPs

turned up to try to get the measure

through to the next stage.

People were demanding

that we take control.

And I think the very fact

that the way today has gone means

we might not even get to vote today.

I think the government benches

are to be very concerned because 16

and 17-year-olds today might be

denied the right to vote,

but in two years' time, they will...

They will remember...

A democratic right.

You have caused me

to change my speech.

I was going to talk to the House

about Roman democracy

and indeed the influence

on the Napoleonic code.

Instead, I am disappointed

that the he spent 13 minutes

speaking nonsense and partisan

speechifying rather than dealing

with the substance of the argument.

Any voting age is

somewhat arbitrary.

However, there is some argument

in favour of retaining the status

quo, and the arguments in favour

of lowering the voting

age or at best somewhat

muddled and inconsistent.

A line must be clearly drawn

somewhere and the present age of 18

is widely accepted across society,

and indeed widely accepted

across the vast majority

of countries in the world,

only a tiny fraction

of which have a lower voting age

than the United Kingdom.

The measure ran out

of time for debate.

Paintings of Parliament

by Claude Monet take centre stage

in a new exhibition at Tate Britain.

"Impressionists in London" features

the work of French artists who fled

the Franco-Prussian War.

Claire Gould reports.

Iconic images of Westminster.

On show at Tate Britain.

Six paintings from Claude Monet's

Houses of Parliament series,

the largest number on show together

in Europe since 1973.

Monet first came to London to escape

conscription in France.

Decades later, he spent

three winters by the

Thames, working

on dozens of canvases.

The Palace of Westminster

was seen as being gigantic.

It was commented on the fact

that the Victoria

Tower was that tallest in Europe

and is the one that Monet

represented in this picture.

He didn't paint Big Ben at all.

And there was a fascination

for the Houses of

Parliament as a symbol

of the British Empire,

and as a symbol of wealth at a time

when France really in

difficulty.

And what to him to

Westminster was the weather.

He would come to the Houses of

Parliament in winter and make sure

there was fog because he was not

in London otherwise.

And he always walked

from the Savoy where he

stayed, at about 4pm,

so that he could catch the sunset,

and have this backlit effect

on the Houses of Parliament.

And through that effect,

the sun refracting through the fog,

he managed to achieve these

extraordinary pictures.

And Impressionists in London

is at Tate Britain until April.

Now let's take a look at what's been

happening in the wider world

of politics this week.

Here's Alex Partridge

with our countdown.

Congratulations to

Labour's Angela Rayner.

Accepting the Rising Star award

at the Spectator's annual award

bash, she told the audience she was

only there for the free food.

Collins Dictionary named their word

of the year and it is that favourite

of Donald Trump, fake news.

It has certainly been

on the mind of MPs

and peers to with 86 mentions

in Parliament this year.

Spin, phoney, fake.

Conservative MP Douglas Ross caused

a furore when he ran a line to play

the Champions League

game in Barcelona.

But this week, he announced

he will no longer referee

games whilst parliament is sitting,

ending his hopes of going to next

summer's World Cup.

European Commission

president Jean-Claude

Juncker has received an honorary

degree in Portugal this week and

also got a unique academic dress.

And move over George Osborne, fake

could be another former politician

in journalism.

Alex Salmond is part

of a group that wants to take

control of the Scotsman newspaper.

He says he wants it

to be more pro-Scotland.

Alex Partridge.

And finally, ministers like to show

they're being straight with MPs.

And so it was when Boris

Johnson appeared before

the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I don't want to be...

You're doing a very good job of it.

On the contrary, I don't think

the committee could possibly be

misled by anything I have said

since I

haven't said anything...

Exactly.

A rare example of a politician

not only failing

to answer a question

but making a feature of it.

And that's it.

But do join Keith Macdougall on BBC

Parliament on Monday night at 11pm

for a full round up of the day

here at Westminster.

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.