01/12/2017 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to

the Week In Parliament.

And much of it was dominated

by Donald Trump and his

notorious retweets.

The Home Secretary was,

to use one of the Government's

favourite words, clear.

President Donald Trump was wrong to

read Tweet videos posted by far

right group Britain First.

Some called for the President's

state visit to be cancelled.

We cannot simply roll out the red

carpet and give a platform for the

resident of the United States to

also sow discord in our communities.

And, Brexit-wise, the knives

were out for David Davis.

Whether he is in contempt of

Parliament is to be debated but he

is certainly treating it with

contempt.

But first, at the end

of Prime Minister's Questions

there's always a bit of a scramble

as MPs head for the doors before

the next debate starts.

But on Wednesday many stayed

in their seats as news reached them

of the notorious Donald Trump

retweets of three inflammatory

anti-Muslim videos.

A couple of Labour MPs asked

the Speaker for a statement

from the Home Secretary.

He said he wouldn't expect

a response immediately.

But the next day Amber Rudd

was called to the House,

where she had to steer

a tricky diplomatic course.

President Donald Trump was wrong

to retweet videos hosted by the far

right group, Britain First.

When we look at the wider picture,

the relationship between the UK

and America, I know how valuable

the friendship is

between our two nations.

As Home Secretary, I can tell

the House that the importance

of the relationship between our

countries - the unparalleled

sharing of intelligence

between our countries

- is vital.

It has undoubtedly

saved British lives.

That is the bigger picture here

and I urge people to remember that.

Although the Labour Party

appreciates the importance

of realpolitik, we also call

on the Government to make it clear

that, in no way and at no time,

do they give any support whatever

to the distasteful views

of the 45th President on race,

migration and Muslim communities

internationally.

To do anything else would be

an affront to voters in this

country, whichever side

of the House they support.

One of the advantages of having such

a special relationship

with the United States is that

when a friend tells us we have done

something dreadfully

wrong, we tend to listen.

Would not the world be a better

place if the Prime Minister

could persuade the President

of the United States

to delete his Twitter account?

Several MPs felt strongly

that the President's state visit

should not go ahead.

We have absolutely no idea

what the President will say or tweet

next and before he visits?

What does he actually need to say

or tweet before the idea of a state

visit is ditched once and for all?

An invitation for the visit has been

extended and accepted,

but the dates and the precise

arrangements have yet to be agreed.

That means that - no matter

what diplomatic route

we find to do this -

we cannot simply roll out a red

carpet and give the President

of the United States a platform

to also sow discord

in our communities.

Putting aside the question

of a state visit, should he even be

allowed to enter our country?

Unprecedented actions require

unprecedented responses.

I point out to the honourable lady

that the Prime Minister has robustly

replied to the President

and made her views absolutely clear.

On the honourable lady's other

proposal, we do not routinely

comment on individual exclusion

cases.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that

President Trump's behaviour -

this is not an isolated incident -

does not undermine our important

security and co-operation

relationship with the United States?

May I also say that just

because somebody stops

using Twitter, it does not mean

that they cease to be a twit?

My honourable friend puts his finger

on it, if I may say so,

in the first half of his comment

when he talks about the importance

of that close relationship.

However strongly honourable

members feel about the President,

we must protect the particular

relationship that we have

with the US, which does so much

to keep British people safe.

Is true to tackling hate crime, it

should not be opposed to taking down

the President's Twitter added

whenever anyone else who preached

hate crime.

Homophones are racist

who stood up hate crime in this

country will not be allowed --

homophobic people. That's what

everyone knows, just say it.

I would

say to the honourable gentleman

there is no pretence. We are

clearing the action we will take

against people who propagate hate.

The Home Secretary.

Now, do we need all 650 of our MPs?

Could we do without 50 of them?

Six years ago an Act of Parliament

was passed to reduce the number

to 600 and they're still consulting

on how this should be done.

But a Labour MP wants to reverse

that change and hang on to all 650.

Afzal Khan's bill has just started

its journey through Parliament.

I asked him what he

was aiming to do.

I'm trying to get a consensus with a

view that was going through. There

isn't a consensus in Parliament.

What the public think about this? I

suspect some would say there are too

many MPs and we could manage with

fewer and it would be popular. Have

you can't just public opinion?

It's

important that we do a good job so

they elected people are the voices

of the people, unelected people are

not, if we are getting more and more

special advisers, how much does that

cost? Why don't be cut on that side?

Equally important is constituency

level work. As an MP I spent half

the week here doing the legislation

site and the other half is working

with the people in the constituency.

What they are proposing, it will be

bigger constituencies which means

community is broken up and added on,

which doesn't have the same effect

and accountability. They want to do

a review every five years, building

this stability. And the cost, which

I'm saying we could do in ten years

which would give stability as well.

We could do 7.5% which gives us more

flexibility to maintain the

community link and a link with MPs.

Boundary changes would affect the

Conservatives. Is this not a party

political issue and a good thing for

the Labour Party to keep the number

650?

When we were in power, we went

ahead with the boundary review even

when it was against us. This overall

is about levelling it so levelling

the principle isn't a are idea. --

bad idea.

What part of the job would

suffer if there were 50 less MPs?

Number one is accountability and

balance between the Executive and

Parliament because what you will

have is less backbench MPs and mode

of them in ministerial posts and

that balance is also important.

Second is the workload. It will have

an impact will stop if there is more

work with the bigger constituency

and if you add in the Brexit impact

as well and if you add in the future

of how we reach out to the world,

and if you add to the point that 73

MEP jobs will vanish, that work will

be done, so you can see endlessly

there will be much more.

What chance

do you think the bill has going

through?

I think there's a pretty

good chance that we will have a huge

support in the debate.

Thank very

much.

And Afzal Khan opened

the debate in the Commons.

The public already see

politicians as remote,

self-interested and unaccountable,

and the current boundary changes

would make that worse.

The bill would preserve

the MP-constituency link,

the power to scrutinise

the Executive and the strength

of our communities.

We are probably the only people who

drive around and see boundaries.

When I good on the M4, I go through

the constituencies of the Prime

Minister and may Honourable friends,

but let's be frank, that is a bit of

a thing that only us involved in

politics C. Normal people,

constituents that we represent,

don't see the country as a

succession of Government boundaries.

The Government has said it is with

legislation but according to three

senior sources quoted in The Times,

the plan is likely to be scrapped

due to a lack of support from the

Conservative benches. Perhaps

demonstrating that this is going to

be the latest casualty following the

Prime Minister's failure to win a

majority in June, Madam Deputy

Speaker, if the review is going to

be ditched, I say to the Government,

stop wasting public money! This is a

Charente! -- charade! Lets start a

fresh review based on the principles

that we can all agree on.

Just as a

parent loves all the children

equally, I love all the areas they

represent equally. I would be sad to

lose any of them. I could no more

choose between any of them that I

could between my daughters. But my

belief in democracy is stronger,

ensuring fair representation and

that a port in north Oxfordshire

counts the same as it does anywhere

else -- a vault in north

Oxfordshire.

The bill passed a

second reading but stands little

chance of becoming law without

support.

Well, let's take a look at some

of the other news in brief.

Rail firms which operate passenger

services would also manage

the tracks their trains run on,

under new Government plans.

And some routes lost

under Richard Beeching

in the 1960s could be restored.

The closing of some

4,000 miles of track,

mainly in rural areas,

became known as the Beeching cuts.

Chris Grayling said rail

lines would be re-opened

if they eased congestion.

And his plans also give us a chance

to show you these lovely pictures.

The move is part of a new

government rail strategy.

Despite the improvements in the real

since privatisation, we are still

some way away from a

high-performance, customer focused

industry. That is why we must

continue to reform and invest in the

railway and maximise the

contribution that both public and

private sectors make to improve

services.

The Health Secretary has told

the Commons he wants to halve

the number of baby deaths

and injuries during childbirth.

Jeremy Hunt said the NHS

in England must do more

to learn from mistakes

because each year around 1,000

babies die unexpectedly or are left

with severe brain injuries.

MPs welcomed the plans.

It is easy to spot the woman who has

a past history of difficult births.

It is easy to spot the women with

obesity and diabetes but anyone who

has been involved in birth knows

that even a healthiest pregnancy can

go wrong at the last minute.

MPs have accused the Government

of sending mixed messages

on the environment after a planned

rise in fuel duty was

scrapped in the Budget.

Things got a bit tetchy

in the Committee Room,

when the Treasury minister

was challenged over whether his

department had analysed how well

pollution-reducing measures

were working.

You are the Treasury Minister and

you don't know if there is a cost

benefit analysis

inside government

on the benefits

of taking measures

to tackle air pollution

on public health.

Mr Bradshaw, you are only suggesting

you would want to take

action on the basis

of cost benefits.

That is not the case.

We recognise the public

health challenge.

That is why we have

been working on it.

We are revising the figures.

We are seeing a downward projection

in the medical statistics

of avoidable deaths.

But nevertheless,

we are very keen to

work on air quality because we know

that poor qir quality

affects...

The question the question

was to the Treasury Minister.

Thank you, chairman.

The Commons' second debating

chamber, Westminster Hall,

made a little bit of parliamentary

history on Thursday afternoon.

The moment was heralded

by the Labour MP, Jim Fitzpatrick,

who chairs the all party group

on deafness and hearing loss.

Our debate is being translated

into sign language

which I believe is a

parliamentary first.

So, we are making

history in this debate.

It is great for all

of us who are here to

participate in this event.

Well, Prime Minister's

Questions looked a little

different on Wednesday -

no Prime Minister.

Theresa May was on a visit

to the Middle East,

so the First Secretary of State,

Damian Green, was understudying.

And taking the role of Jeremy Corbyn

was Emily Thornberry,

the shadow Foreign Secretary.

She opened with a few jokes.

See if you can get the references.

And congratulating Prince Harry and

Meghan Markle on their engagement.

That is one Anglo-American

couple we on this side

will be delighted to see

holding hands.

LAUGHTER.

I'm sure that Prince Harry...

I'm sure that Prince Harry,

the patron of rugby football league

will be joining all

of us in supporting

will be joining all of us

in supporting the England team

in the World Cup final on Saturday.

And I, for one, will be

waving my St Georges flag.

LAUGHTER.

That was a reference

to the tweet she sent in 2014

about a terraced house

flying three England flags

for which she was

sacked by Ed Miliband.

And the hand-holding was of course

Donald Trump taking Theresa May's

hand at the White House.

But it was her first question

which raised eyebrows.

Damian Green is currently being

investigated by the Cabinet Office

over allegations about

his past behaviour.

Can I ask the First Secretary

of simple point of principle?

Is he happy to be held to the same

standards in government

that he required of others

when he was in opposition?

The Secretary.

Yes, I am.

I think all ministers

should respect and obey

and I actually think that

that is a very

important part of that in public

life.

I merely wondered if he remembered

the question asked at

Prime Minister's Questions almost 17

years ago, when John Prescott

stood in for Tony Blair, and whether

he could answer that same

question today.

So, what is the question?

The question is this, what

percentage of new nurses recruited

in the past 12 months

are now working full-time?

LAUGHTER.

The Secretary.

I can't remember...

I can't remember asking

the question then and I'd

love to know what the then

Deputy Prime Minister answered then.

What I am happy to assure the right

honourable lady is that we have more

nurses, more midwives,

more doctors working...

Working in the health service now.

The health service is performing

more operations now,

certainly than it was 17 years ago.

And, in particular, in the Budget

last week, my right honourable

friend the Chancellor was able

to announce more than £6 billion

extra on health spending

which will make

the health service even stronger

in the future than it is now.

Damian Green.

This week, there was no discussion

of the EU Withdrawal Bill

because MPs were occupied

with the Budget.

So were we Brexit-free?

No.

There were two issues -

the size of the exit bill and those

controversial impact statements.

You'll remember they're the papers

setting out how Brexit

would affect 58 sectors

of the economy.

MPs wanted those papers to be shown

to the Brexit committee,

and voted accordingly.

Ministers said they'd

hand them over.

And they did.

But not in their complete form.

Cue the Shadow Brexit Secretary.

It is simply not open

to the Secretary of

State to choose to

ignore it and to pass

State to choose to ignore it

and to pass to the select committee

the documents that he chooses.

Whether he's in contempt

of Parliament is a

matter that we will come

to at some later date.

But he is certainly treating

Parliament with contempt.

We have not edited

or redacted reports.

At the time the motion was passed,

and subsequently we were

clear that the documents did not

exist in the form requested.

We have collated

information in a way that

doesn't include some sensitive

material but the documents which he

freely admits he hasn't seen

do not contain reductions.

If the government

wished to resist the

publication of the papers it had,

it should have voted against the

motion, and if it wished to qualify

or to edit the papers that it had,

then it should have sought

to amend the motion.

And we cannot allow post

Brexit to start reducing

Parliamentary sovereignty

to a slightly ridiculous level.

Can I remind the Minister that the

question of what the government

will provide the select committee is

not for the government or indeed

for the select committee to decide.

This Parliament has decided.

I made it very clear

to the Secretary of

State what procedure

the select committee would use

to consider the report.

And if I may put it like this,

I do object to any suggestion

that the select committee,

and I as chair, cannot be

trusted to do our job.

Does the Minister share my

concerns as to how a letter

sent by the Secretary of State

to the select committee managed to

reach journalists at

the Daily Mirror before

it was considered by the committee?

Does that encourage

him or discourage him

when it comes to sharing

confidential information?

To meet this motion,

it is not at the

discretion of the government to

decide what to take out, it is now

at the discretion of

the select committee.

And I would therefore urge

the government either to meet

the terms of the motion in full all

to seek to put down a new motion.

And after that debate,

the Speaker suggested

in quite a forceful way

that the Brexit Secretary should

have a chat with the Brexit

Committee "within days".

In fact, it'll be on Wednesday.

The other talking point this week

was the so-called divorce bill.

And the talking got louder once

it was reported that the bill might

reach 50 billion euros.

But it did produce

an unlikely meeting of minds.

70% of the people that voted

in Bolsover voted to leave.

But can I also say this to you?

Those same people in Bolsover,

I believe, would expect me

the honourable lady from the finance

department that if they'd got

£60 billion to spare,

it should go to the National

Health Service and

social care.

For the first time in my

parliamentary career, I'm

going to agree with the honourable

member for Bolsover.

He is absolutely right.

The 60 odd percent of people

in Wellingborough who

voted to leave want to know

what we were doing with £60 billion.

They want it spent on the NHS,

social care, and defence.

They would not want it given

to the European Union.

Would the minister agree such a move

would be betraying the trust

of the British people?

The money that we have been

reading about in the

press is speculation.

These negotiations are ongoing,

discussion is ongoing,

and we want to secure

value for money for the

British taxpayer.

Now, the funeral has taken

place of Carl Sargeant.

The Labour Welsh Assembly member

died last month days

after being sacked from the Welsh

government amid allegations

over his conduct.

On Wednesday, Labour members

of the Welsh Assembly blocked

Conservative moves for an inquiry

into bullying allegations

against the government.

The Tory motion was backed

by Plaid Cymru and UKIP.

It would've triggered an inquiry

by the committee for the scrutiny

of the First Minister Carwyn Jones.

There has been talk in recent weeks

about delivering natural justice

in an enquiry that is set

in the government's own terms

behind closed doors does

not set that agenda.

A public, transparent forum is one

of the vehicles to deliver that

and so it is entirely appropriate

that this motion is allowed to pass.

In the, the assembly has always

prided itself in being an open

and transparent forum

and it is crucial that we continue

to operate in this manner.

I would just like the government

party to consider this.

Do you think it is a good look to be

seen to be looking as though

you are avoiding for scrutiny?

I would argue that it isn't.

In two days' time, we are going to

be burying our colleague and friend.

And I think it is unseemly to be

having this nature of debate

while that still hasn't happened.

I find it reprehensible,

the way people have used this

tragedy to settle scores

from their time in government.

I think the First Minister,

to his credit, has set up two

separate independent processes,

which is unprecedented.

Those need to be given time

to draw their conclusions.

Well, what's been happening

in the wider world of politics?

Here's Simon Vaughan

with our countdown.

It's Christmas time in Washington.

The White House turned

into a winter wonderland,

complete with tree made

from green books.

Will anyone actually read them?

It is a game of two halves.

Ex Lib Dem leader Tim Farren

gave a speech to the

religious think tank Theos.

He put the ball somewhere

with an extended

football metaphor.

..which in the Richmond Park

in the local elections results,

in which you could say I had

an impressive and morale boosting FA

Cup run.

Now is the winter of our discontent.

Made glorious summer

by this son of YOrk.

Jeremy Corbyn went

to Edinburgh on Monday

to congratulate the new leader of

Scottish Labour Richard Leonard from

sunny Yorkshire.

Labour MP Fiona Onasanya

smuggled in a quote from

Big Shaq, Man's Not Hot comedy rap

into her speech in the Budget

Big Shaq, Man's Not Hot comedy rap

into her speech in the

Budget debate.

It is not as simple as two plus two

is four minus three is one, quick

maths.

Other MPs were slow

to spot the reference.

In her 12th debate on the effects

of state pension changes

on women, says her election

in only 2015, Mhari Black

struggled to keep it

on women, says her election

in only 2015, Mhari Black

struggled to keep it

clean.

My honourable member eloquently

said, they've got a brass neck.

Now, I am have to say, I'm happy

to apply the Brasso on that.

Honest to God, how shiny

it is for the amount of rubbish that

has been spoken in this chamber

today by those members is appalling.

Other metal polishers are available.

Simon Vaughan.

This week saw the final days

of the debate on the Budget

and the votes to approve it.

But after four days of discussion,

the excitement can wane slightly.

Order!

The question is as

on the order paper.

As many that are of

the opinion say, "Aye!"

QUIETLY: Aye...

LAUGHTER.

You're not in very good form.

Well, they had another go

and although the response

was still a bit lacklustre,

the Speaker decided that it

did amount to approval

and the Budget went through.

And that brings us to the end

of this edition of the programme.

But do join Keith Macdougall

on Monday night at 11 for a full

roundup of the day at Westminster.

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.