07/09/2017 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursday in Parliament.

Coming up: The Brexit Secretary David Davis says a bill

to transfer EU laws into UK legislation is vital.

Let me be clear, this bill does only what is necessary for a smooth exit.

And, to provide stability. But Labour reckons it's a government

power grab and will vote against it. That we are leaving is settled, how

we leave is not. This bill invites us to surrender all power and

influence over that question to the government and to ministers.

Also on this programme - ministers pledge support for British

territories hit by Hurricane Irma, and:

A former Cabinet minister launches a stinging attack on disgraced PR

Running a pernicious and poisonously racist smear campaign in South

Africa. But first: Mps spent the afternoon

on their first day of debate Which originally had the rather more

catchy informal title It repeals the European Communities

Act of 1972 which took us into the European Community and sets

up the process to transfer current EU laws into UK law,

so that the legal system doesn't MPs will conclude their debate

and vote late on Monday night. The legislation - and more

specifically the power it gives to ministers to make changes

to legislation - is controversial. Opening the debate,

the Brexit Secretary Put simply, this bill is an

essential step, whilst it does not take us out of the EU, that is a

matter for the Article 50 process, it does ensure that on the day that

we leave, businesses know where they stand. Workers' rights are upheld

and the consumers remain protected. This bill is vital -- is vital to

ensure that as we leave, we do so an ordinarily -- orderly manner.

He set out what the bill would do and defended the powers

This bill does only what is necessary for a smooth exit and to

supply stability but I welcome and encourage contributions from those

who approach the task in good faith and in the spirit of collaboration.

We cannot await the completion of negotiations before it is legal

certainty at the point of exit and to do so, or to delay or oppose the

bill would be reckless in the extreme. Mr Speaker, I have, in the

past, witnessed the Labour Party on European business take the most

cynical approach to legislation that I have ever seen. They are now

attempting to do the same today and, the British people are not going to

forgive them if at the end of their process, they delay or destroy the

process by which we leave the EU. Labour voted for the Article 50 act.

That is because we accept the referendum result. As a result, the

UK is leaving the EU. That we are leaving is settled. How we leave is

not. The bill invites us to surrender all power and influence

over that question to the government and to ministers. That would betray

everything we were sent here to do. Unless the government make

significant concessions before we vote on Monday, Labour will table,

and has done, tabled a reasonable amendment to vote against the bill.

Keen to portray this bill as a technical exercise converting EU law

into our law without raising any serious constitutional issues about

the role of Parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mind as I am at the moment to contemplate voting for a second

reading, I am going to need some assurances before we get there. In

particular, there is going to be sufficient movement to some of the

unanswerable points that are being made about Parliamentary democracy

and a smooth transition to whatever the alternative is. For the bill to

be anything other than a wrecking piece of legislation, if it proceeds

forward. It is interesting, if you look at the amendments put forward,

is huge number of power for reasons different MPs from different parties

have come up with this for rejecting the bill at this stage. It tells us

a huge number of serious and sometimes fundamental flaws are in

the bill which means it cannot be allowed to go forward at its present

format. To fit in with the government timetable? Tough. What is

in this bill is incompatible with the idea of Parliamentary

sovereignty. It is not taking back control of parliament, or

Parliamentary sovereignty, for this to exist, the bill threatens to

destroy it once and for all. I believe it's necessary legislation.

We start with the principle of how necessary it is. We have to get all

of that European law and regulation transposed into UK law, get it

applicable and actionable in UK law properly so that it is properly just

as a ball at the end of the day which requires a huge amount of

action. There are many pages of laws, I was looking at it the other

day and I thought, if we vote on everything through that, you have to

have something in the order of 20,000 different boats and there is

no way on earth that could possibly happen. The fact is, we do not need

to legislate in this fashion to carry out the technical task of

leaving the EU and I remain utterly bemused as to why the legislation

has been drafted in this form. Dominic Grieve, and we'll have more

from that debate later in the programme. Earlier in the day the

SNP's Constitutional affairs spokesman, Pete Wishart rebuked

ministers over the amount of time they were proposing to give the

Commons to debate the detail of the EU withdrawal bill at it's later

stages. There are only eight days according to them for the committee

of the whole house, eight days to negotiate the setting up of a new

legal framework for the UK to disentangle themselves from an

institution, they have been a member for a decade, for all of the

treaties, put it in context. There were 41 days for the Masters Treaty,

and 25 days for the Lisbon Treaty, 39 days to enter the European Union

but it was just a Common Market. Eight days for leaving the EU. It's

almost beyond a joke. It is eight days with eight hours protected

every day. Really importantly, I think honourable members need to

appreciate that this withdrawal bill is to provide a base for the UK's

departure from the EU. There will be a large number of subsequent bills

relating to new policies, new systems and new process-- processes,

there will be many opportunities for all colleagues across the house to

have their views taken into account and as we said time and again, it is

clear that we want to be a consulting government and want to

take into account the views right across the house. The Shadow Leader

of the Commons raised another concern about the bill - the use of

what are known as Henry the eighth Powers which allow ministers to make

changes to legislation without the detailed scrutiny of Parliament. And

with the withdrawal bill, section seven, eight and nine, it says the

Minister of the Crown may by regulations as the Minister

considers appropriate. Never before have ministers been given unfettered

powers like this. Anyone, on all sides of the house, who believes in

Parliamentary democracy, the sovereignty of Parliament and

separation of powers should be against this bill. But Andrea

Leadsom argued the use of such powers were nothing new. May I give

an example to the house of the psychoactive substances bill of 2016

where we can all understand, I think, that Henry VIII powers there

are something we can quickly update, as any new legal high is created, we

can update legislation to ensure it is then banned to keep people safe.

That is the kind of use of Henry VIII powers, to finally define the

terms that are necessary. Around half of all legislation in the last

parliament contained Henry VIII powers. There is nothing new or

unusual about the use of those powers. And very specifically, they

are always subject to either the committee of the whole house or by

committees as a part of this house. They are absolutely subject to

scrutiny. Andrea Leadsom. One of the most powerful storms on record -

Hurricane Irma - is continuing to devastate parts of the Caribbean.

The islands of Barbuda and St Martin have suffered catastrophic damage

and several people have been killed. Among the islands hit by sustained

wind speeds of more than 180mph were British Overseas Territories and

members of the Commonwealth - including Anguilla, Montserrat and

the British Virgin Islands. In a statement in the Commons, the

Government pledged urgent assistance. The Royal Naval ship, it

is already in the Caribbean and should reach affected territories

later today. This ship carries Royal Marines and army engineers, and her

primary task is the protection of overseas territories. -- our

overseas territories. She is loaded with a range of equipments, tents,

stores, and hydraulic vehicles specifically designed to respond to

disasters like this. It stands ready to charter flights to deliver

additional supplies as appropriate. The Prime Minister, he said, had

spoken to France's President Macron and they had agreed to cooperate

closely over the relief effort. Our priority is to support the territory

's government in meeting their immediate humanitarian and security

needs, including shelter, water and accommodation. We have four UK aid

humanitarian experts in the region who are helping coordinate the

response. What effort is the government making to work with

authorities in these areas on their reconstruction plans? I would also

like to ask what reassurances he can give that the UK stands ready to

provide not only the immediate humanitarian and security relief

needed so urgently, but also the sustained commitment to

reconstruction, which will be so important in the longer term. Sir

Sir Alan said ?12 million was immediately available for disaster

relief. We are pulling out all the stops to do our utmost to bring

urgent assistance, once we, with the professionalism that defeat has,

they do the assessment to make sure that we know who is in greatest

need, and then we can use our adeptness and flexibility urgently

to address those who need our help the most. The devastation in the

Caribbean is grave and a tragedy, our thoughts go to all of those

waiting to find out whether or not they are in the path of hurricane.

In the Dominican Republic, Florida, Haiti, in the Virgin Islands,

Barbuda, and I quote to the islands almost destroyed, the Prime Minister

of Barbuda says his island is almost totally demolished and inhabitable.

We encourage the prime ministers to send as much aid as possible. The

French have put a lot more in than we have, into Anguilla. Will the

Minister layout what resources we can provide from a military point of

view to deal with the immediate humanitarian catastrophe and support

Anguilla's government would support for hospitals, schools, airports,

prisons, and all the devastated infrastructure they will need to get

on their feet. Helping those in danger has to be the immediate

priority that I do ask the Minister to engage in the wider issue of what

the government is doing to get global climate change action on

track. This is vital, urgent, and we are currently failing. There is

preparing us for severe weather instance to ensure that flooding can

be reduced, buildings are solid, and infrastructure can hold up. I know

the kind of advanced work to which the honourable lady implicitly

refers is deeply entrenched in many of the programmes across the world

on which they spend their money. Sir Alan Duncan. You are watching

Thursday in Parliament with me, Eliseu are they -- the commerce

committees may not attract as much attention as the main chamber but

they carry out vital work. There are lots of different committees but the

most important are those that scrutinise bills and the select

committees that look at policy and the work of government departments.

The select committees haven't been re-established since June's election

- leading some MPs to become restive. The Leader of the Commons

had news... Select committees provide vital scrutiny in this

place. I've been working hard to ensure we establish them as soon as

possible and I am grateful for the cooperation of colleagues across the

house who have worked quickly to bring the names of elected members

forward. I am now delighted to draw the attention of colleagues to the

motion in my name that will ensure the select committees can begin

their important work next week. But the SNP's Pete Wishart could not

understand the delay in setting up the

select committees. He raised the delay in setting up the other main

group of committees, those which scrutinise the detail of

legislation. There is continuing disagreement over their make up

because the government wants to have a majority on those committees, even

though it does not have a majority in the Commons. This government

cannot expect to have a majority. They do not command a majority, this

is a house of minoritys and the Parliamentary arithmetic needs to be

deflected into the Parliamentary standing committees of the house. My

last question, does the Leader of the House understand and appreciate

she's in the minority in this house and recognise that minority?

Andrea Leadsom didn't address that point but rejected the suggestion

the government had dragged its feet on setting up select committees.

We have made every effort to establish the Select Committees

They have been established faster than in the previous

It is extremely churlish; what he actually demonstrates

He does not even have the decency to recognise that the House

is responding to a genuine request from Select Committee Chairs right

across the House to get a move on and do it,

He does not have the grace to say thank you or to

The public relations firm, Bell Pottinger, has been furiously

attacked in the Lords by a former Labour Cabinet Minister.

The company was expelled from the industry trade body

for a campaign stirring racial divisions in South Africa.

Lord Hain, who grew up in the country, didn't mince his words.

Does the government agree that after running a poisonous smear campaign

in South Africa where the wealthy group two brothers, from the

President allowed to capture the state and bankroll his family and

friends through corruption and cronyism, all Bell Pottinger's work

for British public bodies must be called in and reviewed? And since

the respected former Finance Minister has stated that they had

benefited from 6.8 billion rand of money laundering, can the government

investigate whether any British banks were involved and what action

can be taken at a European level and will the Minister agree to meet me

about this? I am grateful to the those questions. On the point of

money-laundering, I have read the reports that I referred to in my

original reply and there is no implication in those reports that

there has been any money-laundering or criminal activity. The company

behaved unprofessionally and unethically. If there is any

evidence of money-laundering, that should be investigated. Isn't that

the wider consideration arising from these matters and it is this...

While Bell Pottinger might have suffered reputational and

financially, the fact that this is a British company, albeit operating in

a foreign country, we will have the effect on the extent to which in the

febrile atmosphere of South African politics, diplomatic representations

may be disregarded? I have been in touch with the High Commissioner in

Pretoria this morning and he has made it clear that this has had a

very damaging impact on our country's reputation in South Africa

which is why I have gone out of my way to make it clear the government

was not involved, nor were the staff of the High Commission in South

Africa in any way with this particular contract. When the

Lobbying Bill was going through the House, we warned the government that

if it did not require a lobby firm to be a member of the professional

body, and abide by its code, then its statutory register would be

meaningless. We see that Bell Pottinger, although thrown out

because broke the code, is still a member and still remains on the

statutory register, able to lobby ministers and permanent secretaries.

You can only be removed the register if you stop acting as a lobbyist,

that is what the law says. There was an attempt last year with a private

members bill which started in house and progressed through the size to

take this a step further and have a statutory code of conduct Anna Lo

had passed through this House there was no Parliamentary time to take

this forward and I understand discussions are taking place at an

official level between those who would like to see the sort of reform

the noble Baroness has outlined but at this stage the government has no

plans to legislate. Now let's go back to the first day

of debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill. The chair of the Home Affairs

Committee, Labour's Yvette Cooper, joined the attack on the powers

given to ministers in the Bill. Parliament also has a job

to do to hold Ministers to account and the Bill,

as drafted, stops us doing that. It stops us standing up

for democracy in this House, and it stops us making sure,

frankly, that the Government do not screw up Brexit

in the process they put it Parliamentary scrutiny is not

an affront to democracy; The true saboteurs of Brexit

are those who would sanction the exclusion of Parliament

from this process. The debate on this Bill

has only just started. Well said. They said this would be a

great opportunity... of all the rules and regulations,

the miles of red tape and all the things that

were strangling British business and the economy, but we are going

to take those very same things and place them lock,

stock and barrel into They told you that you would get

an extra ?350 million They told you that you would take

back control, but if this Bill is not amended,

you can forget that, because the people will not be

taking back control in this place, That may not just be

a Conservative Government; it could`God forbid`be

a Labour Government . With the Minister be precise and

could he quantify how many Welsh jobs he is willing to sacrifice...

The truth is that the Bill was always going to be a sow s ear,

because the Government started the negotiations without clear

objectives or outcomes in mind so the Bill had to cater for any

eventuality or scenario, deal or no deal.

What started with democracy must not end with a stitch-up by Ministers.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the people,

as well as politicians, must have a meaningful

If they do not accept the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister

and her Cabinet, they should have the option to remain a member

The Government claim it will restore sovereignty to Parliament and secure

certainty post-Brexit, but that is not the case.

It transfers huge powers to Ministers, not to Members

of the House, over issues vital to people s lives, such as maternity

and paternity leave, holidays, environmental standards and a range

I fear that the Bill could increase uncertainty,

including the likelihood of legal challenge and judicial review,

because the powers in it are so broadly drawn.

But a Conservative didn't believe the legislation was as "dramatic"

We have got to make sure that on the day of exit, the statute book in

this country works and the only way that we can achieve that in the

timescale with which we are constrained and which are set out in

Article 50 is to have a flexible, pragmatic system such as the system

that is laid out in the draft bill. You cannot -- parliament and want

to... to jealously guard its

rights and privileges created by our predecessors

but still show pragmatism in the national interest

when the times demand it, That is life; that is the job

we are sent here to do. That is poetry and prose,

romance and reality; that is what we are sent

here to achieve. Robert Jenrick and MPs will conclude

that debate and have their first votes on the bill late on Monday

night. During that debate Labour's Rosie Duffy - the new MP for

Canterbury - made her maiden speech. She condemned the abuse she received

online. This ranges from badly researched articles published as

fact to unpleasant personal messages late at night and vile insults from

a small, persistent handful of activists from other parties posted

online. I would like to acknowledge the efforts being made by the

inspirational women in Parliament who are working hard to raise this

issue and fight against it, even though that usually results in much

more abuse being thrown their way. She said it was possible to engage

in passionate debate without resorting to name calling, death

threats and abusive language. Finally, an unfortunate thing

happened to the veteran Labour MP Ann Clwyd on Wednesday on her way to

the Commons. She'd wanted to take part in votes on three Government

finance measures but was prevented from doing so. I was locked, not in

the lavatory but in the left and were it not one of the researchers

of the party opposite, I suspect I would still be there! I think it is

very unsatisfactory but in our first week back after the recess that

there are problems with the left. Can I ask the House to ensure that

there are maintenance men around and surely the left should be serviced!

I am sure that Mr Speaker will be as concerned as I am to hear about that

and I will look into this situation and assure the honourable lady that

I will take that up later on today. The situation is extremely irregular

and the honourable lady has my support this. I hope she will not

take that out of good humour if I say aye am surprised that the left

there! Ann Clwyd, taking the joke in good humour! And that's it from me

for now, but do join me on BBC Parliament on Friday night at 11pm

for a round up of the week here at Westminster when we'll be chatting

to MPs and Peers about just how the government is going to get its EU

Withdrawal Bill through Parliament. But for now from me, goodbye.