15/12/2017 The Week in Parliament

We are going to leave

but we are going to do it

in a smooth and orderly way.

But smooth and orderly was not how

it turned out in the Commons.

But I have to say, it is too late,

I'm sorry, you cannot treat

the House in this fashion.

Also on the programme,

one MP pleads for better refuges

for victims of domestic violence.

I want to see caring,

well-paid support workers

sitting over there clients

who are so traumatised

they cannot eat.

I want lives to be rebuilt.

It started off so well.

Theresa May took her place

in the Commons on Monday having

secured agreement with the EU that

talks could move

on to the next stage.

She seemed to have pleased all

factions of her party, no mean feat.

At the despatch box

she commended the settlement.

This is good news for the people

who voted leave who were worried

that we were so bogged down

in the negotiations,

that tortuous negotiations,

that it was ever going to happen.

It is good news for people who voted

remain who were worried

we were going to crash out

without a deal.

We are going to leave

but we are going to do

so in a smooth and orderly way,

securing a new, deep,

and special partnership

with our friends while taking back

control of our borders, money,

and laws once again.

That is my mission, this

is my government's mission,

and on Friday, we took a big step

towards achieving it, and I commend

this statement to the House.

The Labour leader was grudging.

And ultimately, we saw a rather

fudged agreement late last week.

So, has this experience given

the Prime Minister a reason

to consider dropping the unnecessary

exit date deadline of

the 29th of March 2019

from the EU withdrawal bill?

Because I am sure Mr Speaker,

the whole House, and indeed probably

the whole country would rather get

the best possible deal a little bit

later if that meant a better feel

for peoples jobs and the economy.

Last week, we had the humiliating

scene of the Prime Minister league

forced out of the original deal

by the DUP, rushing back to London,

the government had to rewrite

the agreement so as to reach

the DUP's approval.

We really have to wonder

who is running the UK.

Is it Arlene Foster the right

honourable member for Maidenhead?

Would she confirm that the text

of this agreement now takes clear

that in the event of a deal,

Northern Ireland will not be

separated legally, economically,

or by any regulatory requirements

for the rest of the UK.

Along with the aim of no hardboard

and the island of Ireland.

But in the event of no deal,

no overall deal, nothing is agreed.

Can I suggest to the Prime Minister

that in order to strengthen her

leave originally next stage

of negotiations, she might

want to suspend tribal politics

and invite Keep channel please hold

bench colleagues to join

her negotiating team

since whatever their tactical

differences, they agree

with her on the fundamentals

of Brexit and withdrawal

from the single market and customs

union, disastrous as though

that might be.

After all the prophecies of doom

and gloom, the Prime Minister

is showing that Brexit can

and will be done.

And we congratulate her for that.

When people like me, Brexiteers,

look at the alternative,

namely that the Labour other meant

staying in the single market

for ever and having no

control over immigration,

it is amazing how our minds

are concentrated in support

for the Prime Minister.

So the Government

was in the ascendancy,

what could possibly go wrong?

Well, Parliament really.

Tuesday saw a slight wobble: MPs

once again took up their detailed

scrutiny of the EU Withdrawal Bill.

The day was dominated

by Henry VIII powers.

Nothing to do with chopping off

heads, but measures which allow

ministers to repeal or amend

legislation without the usual levels

of parliamentary scrutiny.

Some MPs didn't approve.

It is not an exaggeration to say

that this is a massive potential

transfer of legislative competence

from Parliament to government.

And it is a sweeping power that

would certainly make Henry VIII

blush if he were to see it today.

My amendment proposes deleting

the sweeping nature of that

particular sub-clause

because ministers have not

ensured that there powers

are as limited as possible,

quite the contrary, they have

assured that they are

exceptionally wide as possible.

The Government agreed

to the creation of a committee

to sift all legislation that

won't be subject to the usual

parliamentary scrutiny.

But would that committee have teeth?

The political cost to this front

bench, to my front bench,

of going against a recommendation

of the sifting committee

will be significant.

It will have to give a reason why

it is in disagreement.

The Minister will be summoned

to explain his or her

department's position.

The Brexit minister denied there

was any power-grabbing going on.

It is the case that the government

wishes to take the minimum powers

necessary, the minimum powers

required to do the job before us,

which is to deliver a working

statute book by exit date.

We do not intend to make any major

changes of policy beyond those

which are appropriate to deliver

a working statute book

where the law after exit day

is the law before exit day.

So the public, individuals

and businesses can rely on it.

So no defeats on Tuesday.

But then came day seven

of the debate, and the small

matter of amendment seven

and a vote at 7pm.

Inauspicious.

The ayes to the right, 309,

the noes to the left, 305.

CHEERING.

The Government was defeated.

So how had the day unfolded?

Well it all boiled down

to the concept of the 'meaningful

vote', should Parliament

have a legal guarantee of a vote

on the final Brexit deal

struck with Brussels?

The amendment was tabled

by the former Conservative Attorney

General Dominic Grieve.

It was a stormy debate.

We are recovering from a situation

where as members of the

European Union we had

handed over all these

decisions lock stock

and

barrel to the European Union.

So this is a massive

improvement and to

dress this attempt to reverse Brexit

about an argument...

In favour of parliamentary

sovereignty is nothing

but count.

Oh, my, what Stalinism is this?

Somehow, any attempt to disagree

with which the way in which

this bill is drawn up is somehow

a betrayal of Brexit.

What rubbish.

It's not a question,

I may say to my desperately paranoid

Eurosceptic friends,

that somehow I am trying in

some surreptitious

remain away to put

a spoke in the wheels

of the

vast progress of the United Kingdom

towards the declaration to which we

are going.

They won't know what leave means.

The amendment seven, it is very well

drafted, I don't think

it is deficient, we will definitely

supported and withdrawal new clause

66 if he pressed it to a vote.

I will conclude by saying...

I am happy to give way.

This amendment have

to either be accepted by my

honourable friends on the Treasury

bench or it will be put to the vote.

I'm very pleased to hear

that and we will support

him and the amendment

in that eventuality.

Critically, the power only

endures until exit day.

It is shorter than the

operation of the clause

seven and in practice,

on

the government's current

expected timetable,

it would in practice

only

be used for around six months

so this is not the open-ended power

that some have suggested.

So the Government was standing

firm, no concessions.

But just as the eleventh

hour was approaching.

I can tell my honourable

friend that we are

willing to put an amendment on the

face of the ill, making crystal

clear that statutory instruments

under clause nine will not enter

force until we have had

a meaningful vote in Parliament.

But was it enough?

I have to say, it is too late.

I'm sorry.

You cannot treat the House

in this

fashion.

And she may agree

with me

that the best way of

actually

getting progress in this area

is by moving amendment seven

and there after we can cooperate

with the other meant

to try and achieve it.

The Government lost by four votes.

With Parliament in febrile

mood, the Prime Minister

headed to Brussels.

She was applauded by other leaders

after she stressed her desire

for a 'smooth' departure.

And then on Friday it was official:

EU leaders agreed to move Brexit

talks on to the long-term

relationship between the UK and EU,

But there's one more

Parliamentary hurdle

for the the Prime Minister,

day eight of the Brexit

Bill on Wednesday.

It could be a long day!

You're watching the Week

in Parliament with me,

Mandy Baker and my cold!

Well, this week Prime Minister's

Questions was a bit overshadowed

by all the Brexitry.

But the main topic was homelessness.

Jeremy Corbyn condemned

the Government's record.

Since this government came to power,

homelessness is up by 50%,

rough sleeping has doubled,

homelessness and rough sleeping have

risen every single year since 2010.

Will the Prime Minister pledge today

that 2018 will be the year

when homelessness starts to go down?

Across this House, we don't

want to see anybody who is homeless

or who is sleeping rough

on our streets.

That is why the government

is putting 500 million pounds

into the question of homelessness,

it is why we backed the bill

that was brought forward

by my honourable friend

the member for Brent.

I'm sorry, for however.

And it is why we have ensured

that we are putting into place

a number of jokes that will deal

with this issue of rough sleeping.

I asked the Prime Minister

for a pledge to be choosy

about of homelessness next year.

The pledge was not forthcoming.

128,000 children will spend

Christmas without a home

to call their own.

60% up on 2010.

It is too late for this Christmas,

but will the Prime Minister promised

that by Christmas 2008 team,

the way children will be

without a home to call their own?

We of course want every child to

wake up in their own home. It is

incredibly boring, people know they

can keep a roof over their heads

even in the most desperate

circumstances. That is why we are

making sure they can place families,

if they fall into these

circumstances.

Theresa May.

The Home Affairs Committee has been

examining what action the Government

could take to stop demonstrations

taking place directly

outside abortion clinics.

Abortion providers complain that

women are being harassed.

But anti-abortion protesters

insisted they're simply 'pavement

counsellors' helping women

in desperate situations

to make a 'true choice'.

We have seen an escalation in the

size and tactics used. We have seen

across the UK now, protests and

other harassment. Not only outside

dedicated centres, but also outside

GP surgeries, and NHS properties. We

have one service user recently say

she was greeted outside the clinic

by a protester, or counsellor with

money please don't kill me. I love

you mummy. They are told that they

will die of cancer. God will punish

them. They have holy water thrown

them. Young God help me. I just hope

the people on the panel will ask for

very concrete evidence of this. And

that none of you ever had to sit and

listen to somebody producing

evidence like you just because they

say it to be so. There are two

cameras trained on the gates. Just

so they can have a better look. All

the time. Yet we are blocking with

an entry. We are grabbing hold of

women, with Facebook lien stripping

women, all these things are

happening, but there is no evidence

of it. Why is there no evidence?

Where there have been cases,

whoever it was, where there have

been cases of somebody standing

in front of a clinic entrance

or following somebody who has left

the clinic was sending threatening

messages to staff, do you agree that

that is intimidation

and that it should not happen?

To the best of my knowledge,

none of those incidents

exist and I believe

that they should not happen.

The debate about abortion clinics.

Plans to change the way refuges

for victims of domestic violence

are funded have been strongly

criticised by MPs.

In Westminster Hall,

one Labour MP related some

of the experiences she had had

when she worked for

the organisation Women's Aid.

I remember a woman coming

into the refuge where I worked.

She couldn't speak or eat

because she had been starved

as part of her control.

I will never forget watching

a refuge worker sit with her

for hours gently feeding her son

Luke warm baked beans, teaching her

how to feed herself again.

I remember another family

with another had been so belittled,

so dehumanised by her abuser

that she could not

help her kids any more.

She had no power or influence

over them at all.

She criticised the proposal to fund

refuges via local council.

The bare minimum is that

someone should be no more

than a phone call away.

These people are at risk,

they are in danger.

How is the government

going to check that councils

are spending this money

and what they are spending it on?

What audit function will they put

in place to make sure that quality

refuge services commissioned

actually help people?

Because local need,

what has been outlined,

means very different things.

I want to see little girl is given

back their childhood.

I want to see caring well-paid

support workers sitting over

their clients who are

so traumatised they cannot eat.

I want lives to be rebuilt.

I don't want a bed for the night.

Within my own family,

there have been several members that

have been the direct victims

of quite extreme domestic abuse.

And I have seen through luck,

through their own strength, energy,

and determination have they been

able to change that trajectory

and make sure it wasn't

something that was repeated

in future generations.

But I think it is down

to their character and luck

that they have been able to do that

and that is not something

that is afforded to everyone,

and that is where government must

intervene.

A new funding model will see

all housing costs, core rent,

and eligible service charges funded

by a ring-fenced grant to be

distributed by local authorities.

And we intend that ring fenced

to remain in the long term.

We also intend to use grant

conditions to make sure the funding

is spent where it is intended.

And what I would like to do

is invite the honourable lady

for Yardley to meet with myself

and my honourable friend to discuss

some of these issues in more depth,

particularly in terms of appropriate

accommodation and some

of the examples that she mentioned

in that sense, and the wider issues

that she raised.

As members have pointed out as well,

there is a consultation

on the funding model which closes

on the 23rd of January

so there is still time

for organisations to have their say

and I would encourage them to come

forward and do that.

Marcus Jones.

In the House of Lords,

there was a call for a change

in the Lord to allow child refugees

in the UK to be reunited

with members of their family.

A Liberal Democrat peer wanted child

refugees who had arrived at the UK

to have the right to be joined

by other members of their family.

In 2016, the UK received 3% of

asylum applications made in the EU.

Per head of population,

the UK ranked 18th in the EU

with 0.6 applications

per 1000 people.

In the same year, globally,

20 people became displaced every

minute of every day.

I believe on this issue,

in the bill, public opinion

is certainly on our side.

All we have to do is explain

to the public what the position is,

how individuals are affected.

They won't all come around,

I've had a few abusive tweets

and things, but on the whole,

public opinion is supportive.

No one but no one could fail to be

moved by the thought of close family

living in conflict zones

or dangerous it duration

is and that is why this meant

strongly supports the principle

of family unity, and we already

have a comprehensive framework

for family members of refugees

to be reunited here.

This is set out in the immigration

rules and our Family Reunion policy

rather than primary legislation.

Lady Williams.

The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

has repeated his pledge to leave no

stone unturned to secure the release

of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held

in Iran since April 2016,

on charges of spying,

which she denies.

She was arrested as she attempted

to return to the UK after visit

to relatives with a young daughter.

Boris Johnson was updating

MPs following a series

of meetings in Iran.

He said his first priority had

been the plight of dual

nationals being held there.

These are complex cases involving

individuals considered by Iran

to be their own citizens.

I do not wish to raise false

but my meetings in Tehran well

worthwhile and while I do not

believe it would be in the interests

of the individuals concerned

and their loved ones to provide

a running commentary,

the House can be assured

that the government will leave no

stone unturned in our efforts

to secure their release.

Boris Johnson provoked a storm

of criticism earlier this autumn

when he told the Commons committee

that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been

training journalists,

a comment he later withdrew.

I have no wish to go over

old ground concerning

the Foreign Secretary's remarks

to the Foreign Affairs Select

Committee and it is right

that he has finally apologised

for those remarks and finally

admitted he was wrong

and it is right that he has finally

met Richard Ratcliffe.

And it is right that he has spent

the weekend in the region attempting

to return for his mistake and get

Nazanin released.

And we welcome that tentative

progress that the Foreign Secretary

has made in that regard,

as Richard Ratcliffe himself put it,

it doesn't change the fundamentals

but it makes a change

in the fundamentals more likely.

Several Labour MPs pressed

the Foreign Secretary over

whether he tried to see

Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe himself.

Did he request to see

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe personally

in order to judge her mental

and physical well-being?

I must just remind the honourable

gentleman opposite that the Iranian

government does not recognise

the dual national system

that we have, and therefore the two

not give consular access.

What response did he get

from the president of Iran and other

authorities when he pressed

for the release of my constituent

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe?

And does he have any indication

of what the authorities think

about the recent prison health

assessments made of Nazanin and her

fitness to remain in prison in Iraq?

Yes, of course I've raised these

humanitarian concerns in a number

of consular cases and those concerns

were taken on board but it

would be wrong, I think,

to give a running commentary

of report about exactly what

the Iranian side said in each case.

Boris Johnson.

Now it was exactly six months ago

on Thursday since the horrific fire

at Grenfell Tower in London.

A memorial service was held

in honour of the 71 people who died.

Members of the Royal family,

Theresa May, survivors and families

the victims attended the service

at St Paul's Cathedral.

In the Lords, the government

was asked about new housing

for those left homeless

and traumatised by the fire.

Six months is a very long time

in these circumstances to be living

in hotel accommodation and no way

to spend Christmas.

Vulnerable, unsettled,

and traumatised.

Can the noble Lords tell the House

what specific action that government

are taking to get these families

into accommodation in the New Year?

To bring the House up to date,

151 homes were lost in the fire.

Some of those homes

were overcrowded, others had

multi-generational households

who now wish to divide.

So, 210 households that formerly

lived in Grenfell power

in Grenfell Walk need

to be rehoused.

144 households have accepted

an offer of either temporary

or permanent accommodation.

99 have moved in, 54 into temporary,

and 45 into permanent housing.

So, 111 are in emergency

accommodation, of whom 66 are yet

to accept an offer of either

permanent or temporary

accommodation.

The noble Lord asks quite rightly

what action is being taken.

The Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea claimed to have acquired

by Christmas 300 homes,

set against the 210 that

were needed, they are

requiring two homes a day.

I quite agree with you that

Christmas is no time to be spending

in emergency accommodation.

The government is

acutely aware of that.

And in the four hotels where most

of the families are,

specific arrangements are made

for the families to have space

of their own to meet each other,

to entertain their wider families

if they want, a lot of services

are being put on by voluntary groups

and faith groups over the Christmas

period to help them

support those families.

We very much hope that by June next

year, everyone will have moved

into permanent accommodation.

But families need to

move in their own time.

Some are in emergency accommodation

not wanting to move in temporary

accommodation because they might

have to move twice.

The Royal are of Kensington

and Chelsea is doing intensive work

alongside the families,

finding out what accommodation

they need, where they need it,

and seeking to match that

with the 300 houses

they are acquiring.

Could I remind the Minister

that the government statement

on the Grenfell fire on the 19th

of October said they were expected

to be 300 suitable local permanent

properties by Christmas,

and yet, only 45 households

have actually moved in.

Could I ask the Minister

whether he has confidence

in the local council to deliver

or whether it may be

time for the other meant

to intervene more directly?

The government has no plans to put

commissions into the Royal Borough

of Kensington and Chelsea.

They have a new leader,

they have a new Chief Executive,

and the government has established

a task force to make

sure the Royal Borough

of Kensington and Chelsea live up

to the expectations that everyone

has because of what they plan to do.

That is it for this

EU dominated week.

Important though the Brexit bill is,

it can be a bit, well, dry.

References to the European

Parliament, references to future EU

obligations including new EU

obligations implemented under

the ECA, references to EU

law as a generic term,

and harmonisation members.

Thirdly, references to specific EU

directives which are set out

in the paper, and finally,

references to the UK

as part of the EEA.

Welcome to my world.

The Minister Steve Baker

they're taking dryness

to a whole new guy mentioned.

And that is it from me,

Mandy Baker, no relation.

We will be back on Monday,

but for now, from me, goodbye.