19/05/2016 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursday In Parliament.

On this programme, after reaching a deal in the junior doctors

dispute, the Health Secretary holds out an olive branch.

The Government has heard and understood the wider

frustrations that you feel as about the way you're valued

and treated in the NHS.

But Labour thinks that strikes could have been avoided.

It was a "computer says no" attitude and that's no way to run the NHS.

An Education Minister says, despite a recent court ruling,

parents shouldn't take their children on holiday

during term time.

And MPs and peers continue the debate on the Queen's Speech.

But first, the doctors' union, the British Medical Association,

is to ask its members to vote on a deal over weekend working

to end the long-running dispute over a new contract for junior

doctors in England.

The agreement came after a series of strikes by junior doctors

which led to thousands of appointments and operations

being delayed and rescheduled.

A ten-day round of talks at the conciliation service ACAS

finally produced a breakthrough.

Announcing the deal in the Commons, the Health Secretary

praised the BMA.

The agreement will facilitate the biggest changes to the junior

doctors contract since 1999.

It will allow the Government to deliver a seven-day NHS,

improve patient safety, support much-needed

productivity improvements, as well as strengthening the morale

and quality of life of the junior doctors with a modern contract fit

for a modern health service.

He said the Government recognised safer care was more likely

to come from well motivated and rested doctors.

So he announced a series of changes to the work/life balance

which he hoped would improve morale and retention rates.

Whatever the progress made with today's landmark changes,

it will always be a matter of great regret that it was necessary to go

through such disruptive industrial action to get there.

We may welcome the destination but no one could have

wanted the journey.

So today I say to all junior doctors, whatever our disagreements

about the contract may have been, the Government has heard

and understood the wider frustrations that you feel

about the way you're valued and treated in the NHS.

But the Opposition insisted strikes could have been avoided.

I am pleased and relieved that an agreement has been reached

but I am sad that it took an all-out strike of junior doctors to get

the government back to the table.

What is now clear, if it wasn't already, is that a negotiated

agreement was possible all along.

So I have to ask the Health Secretary why couldn't this deal has

been struck in February?

Why did he allow his pride back then to come before sensible compromise

and constructive talks?

When he stands up, he might try to blame the BMA

for the negotiations breaking down but he failed to say what options

he was prepared to consider in order to ensure that the junior doctors

who work THE most unsociable hours are fairly rewarded.

It was a "computer says no" attitude and that's no way to run the NHS.

She is wrong today, as she has been wrong throughout this dispute.

She spent a lot of time in the last ten months criticising the way

the Government has sought to change this contract.

What she didn't dwell on was why it needed to be changed in the first

place, namely the flawed contract for junior doctors

put in place in 1999.

And we had many disagreements with the BMA but one

thing we agree on - Labour's contract was

not fit for purpose.

One concern that remains is the issue of rota gaps.

We actually don't have enough junior doctors and we don't have enough

junior doctors in the most acute specialties.

So I would ask how is the Secretary of State planning to

re-establish a relationship?

How is he going to recruit people to fill that gap?

Because that was actually the core fear of junior doctors -

a lack of doctors simply being spread further.

Does the Secretary of State realise that even if this

dispute is now settled, which we hope it will be,

there has been a really serious impact on goodwill in the health

service which could affect service delivery going forward?

A lot of this has been caused by political shenanigans that should

not have been allowed to get to this stage,

and the failure of this is that junior doctors themselves have

lost prestige throughout the United Kingdom because they were

used as political pawns by by two organisations.

I welcome the potential resolution of this dispute and I do thank

the Government for negotiating but I also think we should thank

those junior doctors for having the courage to go on strike,

which no one does lightly, to get a better deal for the NHS.

I was contacted by a constituent who told me how his four-year-old

daughter fell through a pane of glass, severely cutting her face.

Unfortunately, this accident happened on a Friday evening and,

because there were insufficient doctors working over the weekend,

she couldn't have an operation to remove any remaining glass

from the wound until Monday, by which time the wound had started

to heal and was misaligned.

That four-year-old girl will now suffer severe facial scarring

for the rest of her life.

Does my right honourable friend agree with me this is why

we need a seven-day NHS?

Jeremy Hunt said he couldn't have put it better himself.

The main business of the day was the continued debate

on the Queen's Speech, where MPs turned their attention

to transport and infrastructure.

But before dealing with the measures announced on Wednesday,

the Transport Secretary made a brief statement on the missing EgyptAir

plane which crashed while flying between Paris and Cairo.

The flight, with 66 people on board, one of them British,

vanished from radar screens just after entering Egyptian

airspace in the early hours of the morning, UK time.

I know the House will want to join me in saying our thoughts

are with the family and friends of all those on board.

The Government is in touch with the Egyptian and French

governments, French authorities, and has offered full assistance.

The Air Accident Investigation Branch has offered to assist

with the investigation in any way that it can.

I'm extremely grateful to my right honourable friend.

As chairman of the All-party Egypt Group, may I thank him

for the measures that he is seeking to take, and associate myself

and the group with the condolences that he has expressed?

Could I just ask him, though, one question?

Will the Government be seeking to discuss with the French

authorities in particular whether the French authorities

are satisfied that the measures that they are taking to screen

passengers and luggage at Paris meet the kind of requirements

that we in the United Kingdom feel are necessary, bearing in mind

that I believe a number of people in Paris have

had their authorisation revoked because of their association

with Islamic extremism?

Well, Mr Speaker, as I said, it's far too early yet to make any

assumptions as to what's happened but of course we will be wanting

to look at all these issues and discuss them with the French

authorities and others as well and I can assure my honourable

friend that is something we want to take further forward.

Patrick MacLachlan.

And we'll return to the debate on the Queen's Speech a little

later in the programme.

An education minister has repeated his determination to stop

parents taking their children on holiday during term time,

despite a High Court ruling.

A father who refused to pay a ?120 fine for taking his daughter

on holiday to Florida during term won a High Court

ruling in his favour.

It was ruled last week that John Platt had no case to answer,

as, overall, his daughter had attended school regularly.

A Conservative MP asked the Minister to come to the Commons and set out

the Government's position.

The need to take time off school in exceptional circumstances

is important but there are no special circumstances

where a ten-day family holiday to Disney World should be allowed

to trump the importance of school.

The rules must and should apply to everyone.

This is about social justice.

When parents with income available to take their children out of school

go to Florida, it sends a message to everyone that school

attendance is not important.

The Government understands, though, the fact that many school holidays

being taken at roughly the same time does lead to a hike in prices.

But that's precisely the reason we've given schools the power

to set their own term dates in a way that works for the parents

and local authorities.

-- and local communities.

Already, schools such as Hatcham College in London and

the David Young Community Academy in Leeds are doing just this.

In areas of the country such as the south-west,

where a large number of the local population are employed

in the tourist industry, there is nothing stopping schools

from clubbing together and collectively changing

or extending the dates of their summer holidays are doing

so as part of a multi-academy trust.

In fact, this government would encourage them to do so.

But the MP who asked the question wasn't satisfied.

There is another aspect to this policy that sadly to date

has been ignored.

That is the economic impact this policy is having on tourist areas.

Particularly in Cornwall.

In 2014, a report published indicated that the tourist industry

in Cornwall had lost ?50 million as a result and I would,

with respect, say to the minister there is nothing socially mobile

for a family if your parents lose their job or have their hours

cut because of the downturn in the tourist industry and the way

that it affects their job.

I would also put to the Minister that is it not the case that only 8%

of school absenteeism is as a result of family holidays?

When you actually look at the attainment of those children,

there is no drop-off in attainment.

I don't believe we should be returning to the Dickensian world

where the needs of industry and commerce take precedence over

the education of children.

I doubt, Mr Speaker, that the Cornish tourist industry

will be best pleased by my honourable friend's assertion

that tourism in Cornwall is dependent on truant

children for its survival.

The Shadow Education Minister called on the Government to get a grip.

All evidence shows regular attendance in school

is crucial to ensure children fulfil their potential.

100% attendance records should be the ambition

of all children in all schools.

But this problem is of the Government's own making.

Changing the guidance to head teachers back in 2013,

they should have done a full impact assessment much earlier and acted

to address concerns.

The honourable member led a Westminster Hall debate

on the 50,000-strong petition back in the autumn.

The Government said then they would look at the concerns raised.

So they have known this ruling was coming for a long time.

They could have clarified the law and they haven't.

This ruling is now the worst of both worlds.

It puts parents and headteachers in a very difficult position

and is not in the best interests of children.

Taking children out of school to come to the mother

of all parliaments and to learn about our democracy is one thing

but taking them to Orlando, Florida is another.

Can I welcome the rigour that he has brought to the subject of education,

moving away from the sort of play ways Labour approach?

Does he agree with me that if this country is going to succeed,

it needs to take education seriously?

My honourable friend is absolutely right.

This is about social justice.

When parents with income take their children out

of school to go to Florida, it does send a message

to everyone that school attendance is not important,

and there is no circumstance in which a trip to Disney World can

be regarded as educational.

A Labour MP thought the fundamental problem was that school summer

holidays were squeezed into a six-week period

when prices rocketed.

I am on the side of being tough.

I have constituents with great pressure from the Muslim community,

especially from Pakistan, to take their children out

and they are the very children that have been suffering,

so I am on the side of being tough, but let's look at this in a more

fundamental way, please.

Well, the honourable gentleman,

who I have huge respect for

as a former Chair of the Education Select Committee,

is right.

We do need to look at these issues in a more

fundamental way and that is why we have given them

the freedom to set the term dates.

And I would say to the honourable gentleman,

and my honourable friend,

that they should be helping to coordinate schools

so that they do set different term dates

that help their own tourist industries.

You're watching Thursday in Parliament with me, Alicia McCarthy.

It was day two of the debate on the Queen's speech,

setting out the government's legislative plans

for the coming year.

Giving their verdicts were two regular sparring partners,

the Leader of the House and his Labour shadow.

Labour's Chris Bryant started with a reference to Jeremy Corbyn's

refusal to give the floor to other speakers

during his response to the Queen's speech.

CHEERING

Mr Speaker, if only the rules

allowed me to take some interventions.

LAUGHTER

And he called the Queen's speech truly awful.

I love a bit of dressing up...

just as much as any other defrocked vicar.

Almost as much as you, Mr Speaker.

But I do think yesterday was a case of all fur coat and knickerbockers.

There were so many ironies.

Her Majesty announced that the government will legislate

for driverless cars and space ports

and arrived in a horse-drawn carriage.

She announced that the government intends to tackle poverty

to a room full of Barons and Countesses dressed in tiaras,

and even the door handles on the Royal

coach, I understand, were decorated

with 24 diamonds and 130 sapphires.

You can say you wanted to tackle

some of the deepest social problems in society till you're blue

in the face but when you have cut public services to the bone, when

you have afflicted the toughest cuts on the poorest communities,

and when you systematically undermine the very concept

of public servers,

all your blandishments are nothing

but a sugar-coating for a cyanide pill.

-- public service.

Mr Speaker, he is such an old misery.

I thought yesterday was Britain at its finest.

Strong institutions, great tradition, things that make this

great city one of the finest - if not the finest -

in the world, a monarch we should be proud of, and a programme

for government that is fulfilling the commitments we made

to the electorate last year,

an election, I remind them, that they lost and we won.

He started talking about interventions and here I have

sympathy because actually he did better this morning than his

leader did yesterday and I have to say I looked

yesterday and I thought, "There is a man," looking at the

Shadow leader,

"who spent 41 minutes try to look at the shoes

"of the people on this side, rather than looking "at his

party leader making such an awful speech yesterday."

What a few weeks we are going to have.

We are going to have to spend most of time discussing

this turgid stuff in the Queen's speech when all

they want to do is to knock lumps out of each other

for the EU referendum.

And the debate in the Tory party is largely reaching

Churchillian standards of discourse, but apparently it is all about

insults, personal attacks and tabloid smears, according to the

honourable member for Wickam this morning on radio.

-- hardly reaching.

Now, I know my honourable friends are already considering

our amendments for the driverless cars bill, most

involving locking this Tory government into that said vehicle

and heading towards the nearest cliff edge.

Can we perhaps have a debate on World War II?

And then it would allow all the senior members

in the Labour benches and the Conservative benches to indulge

their new passion in talking about Hitler.

We could hear about the dodgy histories,

all the spurious examples,

and perhaps it would take their

minds off the civil wars in the Labour Party

and Conservative Party which we are immensely enjoying.

Mr Speaker, I am really not sure this is the week

for the Scottish National Party to be

talking about stories in the tabloids.

As I have read the news,

there has to be something in the water in Scotland.

Mr Speaker, as you remember me telling the House a few months ago,

the honourable member for the Western Isles wrote to me

about recess dates because he wanted to go to the ram in with the ewes.

-- put the ram.

At that time, I thought he was talking about sheep.

And he defended the Queen's speech, calling it a powerful package that

will deliver change to the whole of the United Kingdom.

And when that Queen's speech debate got underway,

MPs focused on transport and infrastructure.

The Transport Secretary pledged that driverless cars

will become a real option for motorists in the near future.

Patrick McLoughlin pledged to make the UK a world leader

in their development

and said the Government was aiming to provide the

infrastructure that will prepare Britain for the future.

He pointed to the Modern Transport Bill.

A bill to pave the way

for the technologies and transport of tomorrow.

We are already developing the charging infrastructure for

electric and hybrid vehicles.

Now, driverless cars and commercial space flights

may seem like science fiction to some

but the economic potential

of these new technologies is vast.

And we are determined that Britain will benefit

by helping to lead their development.

Driverless cars will come under new legislation

so they can be insured under ordinary policies.

Those new laws will help autonomous and driverless vehicles - cars -

become a real option for private buyers and fleets.

The UK is already established as one of

the best places in the world to research and develop those vehicles.

To gain support, the rhetoric will need to be followed with an

inclusive vision that benefits all the nations of the UK.

An area up where this is not yet clear is the investment

in further research into autonomous vehicles.

Obviously, safety implications and deployment

will be considerations.

Madame Deputy Speaker, this investment is most welcome

but will be meaningless to most of the UK nations

if it is not supported by the required investment

in the innovation to deliver a truly universal

mobile communications network.

Let's not, yet again, take the approach

where the benefits are only seen in some urban areas of the UK.

The Minister of State has said that the UK

should adopt a light touch approach to driverless car

development.

But we do need to make sure that the risks have been

fully analysed.

It is important that ministers are not moving, to coin a

phrase, too far and too fast.

It should be said, however, that is just about the only area

where the Government

could be accused of acting too quickly.

There is a reference to supporting the growing space industry

by constructing the first UK's first spaceport.

I will give way.

I am very grateful to the honourable lady for giving way but

will she accept that Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes and BMW have all welcomed

the Government's initiatives to see driverless cars, or autonomous cars,

being tested on British roads?

They think Britain is a leader.

I thank the honourable member for his intervention.

As I have said, I do believe that offers a great

opportunity for our excellent automotive industry but we do need

to be aware of the potential difficulties of the technology

and about the safety applications.

Elsewhere in the debate, a Conservative MP turned to a

controversial trade deal between the EU and the US, known as TTIP.

Conservative MPs in favour of Britain leaving the EU are joining

forces with Labour in an attempt to defeat the government with

an amendment bemoaning the lack of protection in the Queen's speech

with the NHS in connection with TTIP.

William Wragg said the simplest

and surest way to protect the NHS from forced privatisation was

for the UK to leave the EU.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,

which the EU is determined to pass, may potentially

see the UK Government and the NHS facing legal challenge from foreign

corporations if we refuse to put some of our public services,

including the NHS, out to tender for privatisation.

This could, in effect, force the partial

privatisation of the NHS.

And there could be nothing for the UK Government,

or worse the British people, to do if we were to stay

as a member of the European Union.

And we, on these benches, must not be

blind to this issue and leave it to other

parties to make the case.

The simplest and surest way, therefore,

to protect the NHS from the strain of costs from forced privatisation

and to save enough money to build a new hospital every week

would be for Britain to vote to leave

and take back control on the 23rd.

There is going to be, presumably, at some stage, a trade agreement

between the European Union and United States.

If we want to protect ourselves from any unintended consequences,

it is better to be in there arguing the case as part

of those negotiations, rather than having

to stay on the outside and then accept the negotiation

once it is done,

whatever is included in that agreement.

And those arguments over TTIP and a proposed amendment to

the Queen's speech will resurface when the debate resumes

in the Commons next week.

Meanwhile, down the corridor in the House of Lords,

one part of the Government's programme was described as a bit

like trying to win a Grand Prix on a sit-down lawnmower.

The damning comment came from a Lib Dem peer,

who was scathing about the Government's approach

to improving Internet coverage.

Lady Burt accused ministers of a lack of ambition

in the targets they have set for improving broadband speeds.

The universal service operation for broadband

being proposed is for 10 megabytes per second by 2020.

That is not close to what we need

to be world leaders in the digital economy.

The government's idea of

superfast broadband is 25 megabytes per second.

South Korea already has speeds of one gigabyte per second,

and rising.

We cannot compete on the world market

relying on copper cables.

It is like trying to win a Grand Prix on a sit-down lawnmower.

If the Government were serious about being a world leader

in the digital economy they would support fibre to

home broadband, spending money on vital infrastructure.

And it appears one peer was having problems with the broadband

being provided to his home.

I can tell you that we had interrupted service

in a relatively straightforward part of London.

I cannot imagine the stresses and challenges that other parts

of the country have and I think...

Hear, hear!

Enough is enough, it has gone on far too long

and this bill also will, in my view,

address, hopefully, some of the weaknesses

in Ofcom's approach to this, which I certainly

believe has been utterly inadequate.

From Internet connectivity to train connectivity.

Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool and Stockton

would all lose out because there is such an emphasis

on the Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool access.

But the far north, both East and West, is not properly included.

If we are to have HS2,

I suggest we start building from Newcastle

at the same time as we start from London.

I have read recent newspaper articles

suggesting that the costs of HS2 are escalating rapidly

and that this may lead to the truncation of this

project, possibly even as far south as Crewe.

And onto broadcasting

and the Government's plans for the BBC.

The proposed health check review of the BBC,

after just five years, will inevitably be politicised

and should be dropped.

The uncertainty and disruption will distract management

from the task of creating the broadcaster of distinction

promised in the title of the white paper.

And anyway, is not Ofcom's new role

to do such so-called health checks?

And the BBC charter is to be reviewed,

as the noble Lord mentioned, every five years.

Always, by the way, coinciding with a general election.

"An opportunity to check the reforms are working as we intend,"

John Whittingdale said in his oral statement.

"We intend."

Chilling words, whoever is in government.

Lady Bonham Carter.

And that is it for now.

But do join me at 11pm on Friday night for the Week in Parliament.

Until then, from me, goodbye.