12/05/2016 Thursday in Parliament

Hello there and welcome to Thursday in Parliament.

On this programme: the Government sets out plans for the future

of the BBC, urging them to focus on distinctiveness and diversity.

Just how many people are coming to the UK from the rest of the EU?

Ministers are urged to iron out the wrinkles in the figures.

And a former Labour leader appears a calendar clash between the EU

referendum and the Glastonbury Festival.

It would be an awful pity if instead of voting,

they were rocking, my Lords.

But first, the Culture Secretary has unveiled the Government's blueprint

for the future of the BBC, saying the broadcaster needs

to focus on distinctiveness and diversity.

John Whittingdale dismissed earlier reports on plans to reduce the BBC's

independence and funding as the hysterical speculation

of left-wing luvvies.

Under the plans, the licence fee will continue for at

least the next 11 years.

People watching BBC programmes online will have to

pay the licence fee.

The BBC will be overseen by a new unitary board and regulated

by the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom.

And there was news about the highest-paid individuals,

including star names.

The public has a right to know what the highest earners the BBC

employs are paid out of their licence fee.

The new charter will therefore require the BBC to go further

regarding the transparency of what it pays its talent

and publish the names of all its employees and freelancers

above ?450,000, which is the current director-general's

salary, in broad bands.

John Whittingdale said the Government was not saying

the BBC should not be popular.

Some of its most distinctive programmes such as Life On Earth

or Strictly Come Dancing had very wide audiences.

But it wasn't for the BBC to produce "me too" popular shows.

Commissioning editors should ask consistently of new programming,

"Is this idea sufficiently innovative and high quality?"

Rather than simply, "How will it do in the ratings?"

So we will place a requirement to provide distinctive content

and services at the heart of the BBC's overall coordination

of informing, educating and entertaining in the public interest.

For the last few weeks, Mr Speaker, we have had to read

an increasing avalanche of briefing to Conservative supporting

newspapers, especially those newspapers hostile to the BBC,

which appears to have been emanating from his department.

The fact that most of his wilder proposals appear to have been

watered down or damped or delayed by the Government

of which he is a member is a reflection of his diminishing

influence and lack of clout.

He's not got his way in most things, Mr Speaker, and I welcome that.

She was concerned about the appointments to the new board

to oversee the corporation.

I am still worried that the Government are seeking unduly

to influence the output and editorial decision-making

of the BBC, or can be seen to be doing so.

So will the Secretary of State now promise that all Government

appointments will be made by a demonstrably

independent process, overseen by the Commissioner

for Public Appointments, which prevents there being any

suspicion that the Government seeks to turn the BBC into something over

which it has more control than is currently the case?

I do have some sympathy with the Right Honourable Lady,

who of course had a dry run of this yesterday and rehearsed

all of her lines of attack only to wake up this morning to discover

that all of the concerns she expressed were based

on ill-founded, hysterical speculation by left-wing lobbies.

A view shared by a veteran conservative.

Every fox she expected to see running appears to have been shot

and the hounds she expected to release appear to be running

around in some confusion.

I am sorry to say to the Secretary of State that the British

people are not going to be fooled by his words today.

There might be some fantasy foxes being shot this morning,

but the fact is, by Sunday, like the budget, when this

has been crawled over, when we look at the detail,

I believe that this is going to be a deep, dark day for the BBC

and the British public...

OK, the Brexiters, who seem to be joined by hating

Europe and hating the BBC, the fact of the matter is that this

is going to be a champagne night for Rupert Murdoch and Richard

Desmond.

The BBC is better than that and it is owned by the British

people, not this Government.

Mr Speaker, the BBC have struggled with diversity on screen and off

screen for far too long.

And I absolutely welcome the enshrinement of diversity

into the new charter.

It is the right thing to do.

It is the wise thing to do it.

And does the Secretary of State agree with me that attracting

the brightest and most diverse talent will actually improve

the content of the BBC's offering and also

ultimately the ratings?

Helen Grant.

Well, that statement was repeated a short time later

in the House of Lords.

My Lords, surely it is fair to congratulate the Government

on dropping some of the more unacceptable proposals that have

been floated over the last few weeks and to congratulate them

on abolishing the BBC Trust, which should never have been

established, and which the committee of this house actually said ten

years ago should not be?

The test today, for me, is really does this white

paper leave the BBC more independent or less independent

than it is today?

And my fear is it is less independent.

Many of us are very concerned that this is the thin end

of the wedge, my Lords, that is going to prevent the BBC

from competing in prime time with commercial broadcasters,

and is deliberately designed to do so.

Now, what assurance can the minister gave to this house that that is not

the intention and that that will not be the case?

I think I can assure my noble friend that that is not the intention.

It is certainly something that the BBC has fully

recognised and embraced.

The BBC's director-general has been a driving force here.

He has highlighted that he wants to see a system that firmly

holds our feet to the fire on distinctiveness and that,

to my mind, is what the white paper proposals will deliver.

My Lords...

My Lords, the register declares my interest -

I was going to say as a member of an endangered species,

but it is now an member of a condemned species -

namely, the BBC Trust.

Now first, knowing the great interest there is in this house,

I welcome the Government's commitment in the white

paper to the ring-fencing of the BBC World Service.

I think that is very important indeed.

That presents a solid guarantee for the years ahead

as well as the certainty provided by an 11 year charter.

My concerns, however, are that the proposals to protect

the BBC's independence do not go far enough.

Will the Minister assure the house that the Government will provide

sufficient guarantees that its future decisions

about the BBC and in particular about funding appointments

to the board are made clearly and transparently

and without comprising the BBC's independence?

Lady Neville-Rolfe said points of detail would be debated

in the weeks and months ahead.

Now, the Government has urged MPs not to distort discrepancies

between National Insurance numbers and long-term migration figures.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics have shown

that just over 250,000 migrants from other parts

of the European Union were recorded as coming to the UK

over the last year.

But more than 650,000 National Insurance numbers

were issued during the same period.

A Conservative MP, John Redwood, called on ministers to "get

a grip," saying locations for public services.

-- saying the difference between the two figures had big

implications for public services.

But answering an urgent question, the Immigration Minister said

the gap was due to short term EU migration to the UK.

National Insurance numbers can be obtained by anyone working in the UK

for just a few weeks, and the ONS explains clearly why

the number of National Insurance registrations should not be compared

with migration figures, because they measure entirely

different things, and we must now be careful not to distort these figures

following their clear statements.

Doesn't it show that all the time we stay in the European Union,

we cannot control European migration in the way that we promised to do

in the general election?

And doesn't he share my wish to get a grip on it so that we can properly

plan our public services?

And I found the note slipped out - but fortunately the speaker allowed

an urgent question - doesn't answer the discrepancy

and it doesn't deal with this fundamental point that

if someone comes here, works and get a National Insurance

number, we need to provide public facilities for them.

But the minister argued that leaving the EU would not have the effect

Mr Redwood believes it would.

This idea that somehow on the outside that it

would somehow be better, I find it inconceivable

that we would have access to the single market and not have

those issues of free movement.

Labour's spokesman quoted the head of the ONS.

National Insurance numbers are not a good indicator

of long-term migration.

This research shows that many people who register for National Insurance

stay in the United Kingdom for less than a year, which is the minimum

stay for a long term migrant, according to the internationally

recognised definition.

The publication of these NI numbers is simply one more confirmation

that there is no chance, zero, of us fulfilling our promise

to the British people on immigration, to reduce it

to the tens of thousands, unless there is restriction on free

movement of Labour within the European Union,

so since the minister himself mentioned the renegotiation,

will he tell us why the Government did not attempt in any way to get

a reduction in that free movement as part of that renegotiation?

The real migrant crisis which we in this country face

at the moment is a problem of how to deal with,

in a civilised and effective way, with the flood of people coming

from war and anarchy in the Middle East and North Africa

and the problem is not Polish construction workers and Romanian

nurses, who make a very valuable contribution to the economic

life of this country.

A few months ago, the Prime Minister was telling us that unless he got

his way on migration, he would consider leaving the EU.

This was a minor change in migration figures and controls.

He now says that if we leave the EU, there might indeed

be a third world war.

Doesn't the mismatch, and we can see it...

I brought this graph so that members can see the difference

between the two figures.

The fact is we have no idea what net migration in this country is.

It is out of control and we need to get control back of our borders

and that is what he should have done with an emergency break.

On their own, I don't think these National Insurance registrations are

a reliable indicator for measuring long-term international migration.

It is vital, though, we remember that migration

is a global phenomenon and not just a European issue and also

remember that it is very much a two-way street.

In Scotland, we are all too well aware that for generations migration

has meant that many of our citizens have had to move abroad and even now

many of our most highly qualified young people leave to build careers

in other parts of the world.

Every EU citizen and their dependents have the right to come

here and the Government has no means of excluding them,

even if they are criminals and terrorists.

Figures clearly lay bare that the government is powerless

to control EU immigration for the benefit of

our public services.

I came into the chamber hoping to see conspiracy exposed over

National Insurance numbers and there is no conspiracy,

so it has been a disappointing day.

Meanwhile, in the Lords, there were bad tempered exchanges

over the causes of large-scale migration.

A Liberal Democrat wanted to know what evidence the government had

to support its claim that pull factors are responsible

for the mass movement of people from the Middle East

and North Africa in recent years.

The causes of migration are many and complex.

But are commonly described as consisting of push factors,

that make people want to leave their own countries,

and pull factors that make them choose particular destinations.

The Government does not claim that pull factors alone are responsible

for migration, but there is good circumstantial evidence that

demonstrates language, benefits and work opportunities

influence movements of people.

I can see from the Minister's reply that the Government still insist

that pull factors...

I am glad to see that he has now accepted that there are some

push factors involved...

That pull factors, by which I mean higher wages and benefits,

are still at work.

Given that these have remained relatively stable over many years,

what does he believe is the reason behind the very large

increase in numbers of refugees in recent years?

The Government has always recognised there are both push and pull factors

in the context of migration.

Indeed, historically, that has been well established.

We can go back to the Goths moving into the Western Roman Empire

in order to confirm that issue.

With regards to more recent migration, there is no

doubt that a great deal of it is economically based.

Indeed, statistical flows to Italy between January and April this year

show that the top nationalities entering across the Mediterranean

have been Nigerian, Gambian and Senegalese.

Would not the Government accept that it is wars,

repression and instability that primarily lead to the mass

movement of people?

If those seeking to come from Europe, from the Middle East

and North Africa are simply economic migrants, then why is it after every

outbreak of violence and repression we get,

a new wave of people from the area that has just had that outbreak?

Listening to Labour opine on the matter of immigration

and immigration control, is rather like listening

to an arsonist on the subject of fire prevention.

I cannot answer the question unless I'm given an opportunity

to do so, but thank you.

Now, the position is this, yes, yes, push factors increase

when there is violence and instability but push factors

alone are not the issue.

There are push factors and pull factors and a simple

example is Sweden.

It takes the second-highest number of asylum seekers from North Africa

and the Mediterranean area and yet has the borders furthest away

from that point.

Lord Keen of Elie.

You are watching Thursday in Parliament with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Now, do you have a Smart meter in your home monitoring how much

energy you are using? If not, you could have one soon.

The Government has committed to getting 53 million of these

devices into homes and businesses by the end of 2020.

Smart meters send information on energy usage directly

back to the supplier and there are concerns

about the safety of that data.

Concerns were raised with the Energy and Climate Change Secretary

who told the Commons that the new meters were vital

to putting consumers in control of their energy use.

Consumers need to have ready access to the data from their Smart meters

if we are to achieve this goal, and that is why all households

will be offered an in-home display that will allow them to see

the energy that they are using in real near-time as well as its costs

and why it will also add suppliers to trial new and innovative

technologies alongside that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yes, Smart meters can transform domestic energy consumption

and literally help save the planet but only if consumers

are giving secure, controlled ownership of their own data.

The display option she refers to will still allow Smart meters

to be a back door into our homes for hackers so can she,

before it is too late, overcome her ridiculous complacency

and announce measures which will give consumers the digital

rights that they deserve?

The honourable lady should know that privacy is absolutely

protected and at the heart of the Smart meter programme.

She should be careful not to put fear into the hearts of people

where none should exist.

The data is protected and the data belongs not to Government,

which some people might not unreasonably fear,

but to the energy companies.

So we will make sure that we always reassure consumers that privacy

is at the core of delivering safe meters in the future.

According to government's own calculations, they reckon that

with Smart meters installed, we could as a nation save some

?17 billion on our collective energy bills over the next 15 years.

Does the Minister recognise that if consumers have access

to their detailed data usage, this would put them in a good

position to share with third parties, should they want to,

and this could improve competition which is something the Government

would always be glad to see?

Yes, Mr Speaker, the Government will be glad to see the fact that

competition and market authority have said they are going to make

available in a controlled way, the details of people who have not

switched, who have to make sure it is done in a way which doesn't

result in consumers feeling overwhelmed by suggestions.

They have yet to come out with a final solution

on this point but I'm

confident they will do so in a way that is measured and it will help

make sure that the people who have not been switching have

access to switching and the opportunities

that are there.

There was one item not on the Commons agenda on Thursday

which many MPs had been expecting - a statement on Syria.

The Leader of the House Chris Grayling suggested last week

that there would be a statement before this session

of Parliament ended.

So a Labour MP asked the Speaker when it might now happen.

Quarterly reports, Mr Speaker, as you will recall, were part

of the motion agreed in this House on the 2nd December,

2015 and as the first few weeks will be taken up of the new session

for the Queen's Speech, I wanted to see your guidance

as to when would be the very first opportunity that we would be able

to have a statement from the Government on the situation

in Syria and military involvement?

Realistically, it seems to me that a statement cannot be made

to the House for at least a week and it may be somewhat

longer than that.

I take very seriously the point of order the honourable

lady has raised.

I am bound to say that I did recall what was said last week

and therefore I had rather anticipated that there was to be

such a statement today.

The House had been told there would be.

There may very well have been some private understanding reached

between the front benches on this matter, I have no

way of knowing that.

Although I would just say, whether that is the case or not,

that there has to be a respect for the rights of the House

and its legitimate expectations as a whole.

This is not just a matter of what front benches may

or may not have agreed, so I confess I was looking forward

to the statement.

It seemed to me a very important matter and the Government Chief Whip

is unfailingly courteous to me and to all members, is in his place

and he has heard what has been said and I very much hope,

let's just put it like that, it was a very good commitment

the Government made, I very much hope we can have that

statement as soon as is practical.

The cause was taken up by a Liberal Democrat who picked up

on a phrase used by the Speaker at Prime Minister's Questions

the day before when he had said the party leader,

Tim Farron, should be heard, however irritating he might be

to Government backbenchers.

You will be aware that I have been pursuing this issue of the Syrian

quarterly statements for some months now,

in a dogged and possibly irritating fashion.

I accept of course that the Government have made a number

of statements on this matter, whether it is the siege of Aleppo,

the Russian intervention, the humanitarian conference,

but they have rarely focused on the matter which I think

the Prime Minister promised to report on, and that was quarterly

statements in relation to the RAF's action against Daesh in Syria.

Periodically, people irritate other people,

but members hardly ever irritate me.

I am always happy to hear members and I'm very happy to hear the right

honourable gentleman's right honourable friend yesterday.

In fact, so keen was I to hear the right honourable gentleman,

that I called him something like ten minutes into injury time,

so I'm sure he won't have any complaints, he is

a robust character.

He can look after himself and he has a good sense of humour in any case.

I don't think I can offer the prospect of a statement

on Wednesday of next week, I think that is simply not practical.

I think that we have to balance the understandable disappointment

on the part of many members that there isn't a statement today

with a degree of reasonableness as to when that statement

can take place.

I don't think we would serve the House by interrupting

the Queen's Speech debate on Wednesday of next week.

The Commons Speaker, John Bercow.

Now, are you registered to vote and what about anyone you know under

the age of 25?

In the Lords, many Peers were concerned that with the EU

referendum just weeks away, many teenagers and university

students weren't on the register.

A former Labour leader wanted action.

Will the Government therefore make major efforts, in addition

to the commitments they have so far undertaken, particularly

through the online communication that was mentioned and through

social media to ensure that young people know that the final date

for voter registration and for getting a postal vote

is June 7th? Just less than four weeks from now.

Does the Minister agree with me that this kind of information

is specially vital when polling day coincides

with the Glastonbury Festival, which through broadcasting,

could rather preoccupy the attention of millions of young people,

whose votes are not only vital to their future,

but to the future of the country.

It would be an awful pity if, instead of voting,

they were rocking, my Lords.

I think the answer is in the question.

Glastonbury.

I think the noble Lord should get a group of their Lordships together,

appear on stage, and sing, no satisfaction, unless

there is registration.

Which nod to the Rolling Stones brings us rumbling to the end

of this session of Parliament.

The session closed with a traditional ceremony of prorogation.

It begins with the Lords gathering with the Leader of the House,

Lady Stowell taking centre stage as senior Peers gather

in their ceremonial finery.

Black Rod is then summoned and asked to go to the Commons to summon MPs.

Just as with the Queen's Speech, Black Rod, General David Leakey,

sets off to the House of Commons.

And having passed through Central Lobby, he arrives

at the door of the chamber.

Black Rod delivers his message to MPs who then leave their seats

and slowly process out of the Commons chamber and down

the corridor to gather at the bar of the House of Lords.

When the MPs arrive, there is a ceremonial doffing

of hats before the Leader of the Lords tells MPs

that while the Queen is not present herself,

she has given her royal assent to a number of acts.

The names of the bills which have recently been passed are then read

out and the Clerk of Parliaments gives royal assent in Norman French.

Immigration act. La Reyne le veult.

After which, MPs return to the Commons before finally

leaving Westminster, shaking hands with the Speaker John Bercow

on their way out.

So that is it from us but do join me on Friday night at 11pm for a full

round-up of the week here at Westminster,

when among other things, I'll be talking to two Westminster

watchers about the art of the political U-turn.

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