26/10/2017 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to our look back

at Thursday in Parliament.

Coming up:

Labour calls on the Brexit Secretary

to promise Parliament a vote

on the final EU deal.

And passions run high.

Stop fighting and be honest with the

British people!

And the Commons hears

of the horrors of modern slavery.

It is a blight on the conscience of

this nation and whilst we have done

a lot there is much more to do.

The row about whether Parliament

will get to vote on a deal to leave

the EU before the UK's departure has

entered a second day.

You may remember that on Wednesday

the Brexit Secretary suggested

MPs may not get a vote

until after the UK has left.

But later there was a clarification

saying ministers "expected

and intended" that there would be

a vote before.

Labour put down an urgent question

asking David Davis to explain

what exactly the position was.

His opposite number,

Sir Keir Starmer, gave his

version of events.

What a mess. One thing one day

another thing the next. Yesterday

the secretary of state was asked

could the vote in our parliament be

after March 2019? The answer, yes,

it could be. Later the Prime

Minister had a go at collecting him,

then his own spokesperson had to

clarify his remarks. Today he said

the vote will be before the deal is

concluded. That is not good enough

and it would be wholly unacceptable

time was fun for the European

Parliament to vote on the deal but

time was not found for this house.

Does the state might expect us to

sit here watching the European

Parliament proceedings whilst we are

told we do not have time? We need a

cast iron guarantees that will not

happen. The Secretary of State has

repeatedly asked them to accept his

word. Given the events of the last

24 hours and will he now accept the

amendments that are down to the

withdrawal bill that the article 15

meaningful vote should be put into

law sought we all know where we

stand?

The issue I raised yesterday

because I always planned to be as

forthright and open as I can with

the select committee is to go

through what happened in the past in

treaty negotiation with the EU.

There is an expectation by the

commission, there is an incentive on

the part of the various countries to

get this done as quickly as possible

and there is expectation and

intention by ourselves. None of the

undertakings given at this dispatch

box have been undermined. The issue

is one of practicality in what the

control. What we control we will run

in order to give Parliament a proper

and meaningful vote.

One amendment to the EU

Withdrawal Bill being

proposed is from the former

Attorney General Dominic Grieve

to ensure the final deal is approved

by Parliamentary statute.

There is a way for the Government to

put this beyond doubt that is to the

amendment seven to the withdrawal

bill. Reports have reached members

on the side of the Secretary of

State does not think those

Conservative members who signed the

amendment are serious about

supporting it. Can I tell him we are

deadly serious and it would be

better for the Government to adopt a

concession strategy on having a

withdrawal agreement secured icecaps

-- statutes sooner rather than

later.

I will not pre-empt the discussion

in the build up those reports are

not true.

Does the state might not agree after

the shambles of the past 24 hours

when he had to be rebutted by his

own spokesperson, the only way to

guarantee Parliament a meaningful

say and meaningful input into these

most vital of the negotiations, is

to amend the EU withdrawal bill

accordingly?

I do not agree with him on that. His

description of the event is also

wrong. There is one thing to give a

binding undertaking, the other thing

is to say these are the problems and

difficulties we face to get there,

which is what I did yesterday. I

treated the committee was absolute

respect and outlining what had

happened previously, not what we

inspect or in time, but what had

happened previously and risk we have

to take on board. We intend to meet

all our undertakings and I do not

take it very well he suggested we do

not.

One Conservative MP believed a vote

on Brexit had already taken place.

It was a meaningful vote in June

2016 and the 78% turnout, 61% of

voters in Kettering voted to leave.

In Kettering people are honest and

straightforward and plain speaking.

Can the Secretary of State reassure

them we are leaving the EU in March

2019?

The answer to my honourable friend

is yes and my task is to respect

that vote because it is the biggest

mandate given to more than

Government and deliver the best deal

possible, which means a deal, not no

deal,.

David Davis.

Now, many of the morning papers

carried a story suggesting the NHS

in Essex may discharge people

from hospital into

rooms rented locally.

The service would be

based on Airbnb -

the popular website which helps

people rent out their spare rooms

on a temporary basis.

In the Lords, peers were keen to get

to the bottom of the story.

Is it true the Government have given

the go-ahead that vulnerable

patients who are not fit to be

discharged to

their home will actually be

discharged to third parties?

Vulnerable patients will

be allocated to homes

where the hosts have no medical

expertise and for which they will

get paid £1000 a month.

Will the Government not listen...?

This is my final question.

Will the Government not listen

to the medical opinion

and drop this preposterous scheme?

That is, I should stress,

a local pilot that is

being explored.

I don't think it is even underway.

It has been proposed by a local

doctor, an emergency registrar,

and for it to go ahead it is clearly

the case any such pilot

would have to abide by the very

strict rules that exist in terms of

safety, safeguarding,

quality and so on for any care

setting.

The head of Age UK said that any new

innovation - and we want

to encourage innovation -

needs to pass the

mum or grandma test.

And I think that is a very

reasonable test to apply to

something like this.

The case raised by my noble

friend relating to Essex

really goes to the heart of the

issue of the problem of discharging

patients from NHS

hospitals and the lack

of support either in

the

community from social care

or in the reduction in places

and nursing homes that has taken

place in the

last four years.

My Lords, are the noble lords

as surprised as I am that, despite

this, up and down the country,

the NHS, in sustainability and

transformation programmes, are

actually putting forward proposals

to cut out community hospitals

and community hospital beds?

My Lords, will ministers

issue an instruction

to the NHS that this simply will not

actually be allowed to happen?

On the issue on social care,

we have discussed the issue

of nursing home beds.

We also know there has been

an increase in the amount of

domiciliary care being provided

so that reflects the changing needs

of people who have care needs.

There was also publication yesterday

showing social care spending has

risen by 500 million in 2016-17,

which I'm sure is something that

is warmly welcomed across the house.

In terms of community beds,

the noble lords should know

that in addition to

the usual four tests

for reconfigurations,

last

year Simon Stephens,

the head of NHS England said

there was now a fifth test,

the bed test, there must be

absolutely very strong

and robust evidence

any proposed reduction

in

'beds is because of the reduction in

demand and not the other way round.

The exchanges came during a

discussion about the possible when

the crisis in the NHS.

One was concerned about flu. The

only way to increase staffing levels

in anticipation of the flu epidemic

is the flu agency staff which will

cost a huge of money. Surely a

better thing to do would be to

ensure all health staff are

vaccinated so they are at least

healthy when the epidemic hits us,

if it does?

My noble friend talks with great

authority on this issue and he is

quite right, the NHS is offering all

front line health staff free

vaccinations and the NHS England has

confirmed it will be paying for care

workers in social care settings to

also get free vaccinations. For the

first time we are now inoculating

between two and eight-year-old in

school who are sometimes known as

super spreader is to ensure that

such an epidemic happens we will be

as we're prepared -- well-prepared

as ever.

Lord O'Shaughnessy.

You're watching

Thursday in Parliament

with me, Mandy Baker.

Don't forget you can follow BBC

Parliament on Twitter and catch

previous editions of this

programme on the bbc iPlayer.

At questions to the Environment

Secretary there was good news

for campaigners

against the ivory trade.

We are consulting on proposals to

introduce a total ban on UK ivory

sales that we hope will contribute

to eliminating elephant poaching. We

will consult on certain narrowly

defined and carefully targeted

exceptions.

I, along with students and residents

across my constituency,

welcome the Government s commitment

to a near total ban

on ivory sales in the UK.

How will the Government work

with our friends abroad,

especially in south-east Asia,

to ensure that together

we bring an end to poaching

by illegal armed gangs?

I thank my honourable friend,

as I know that she has been

campaigning with young people

across Wealden to ensure

that there is heightened awareness

of the direct link between the ivory

trade and illegal poaching.

We are hosting the illegal wildlife

trade conference next year,

and we will ensure that we work

with countries, particularly in east

and south-east Asia,

to close down this evil trade.

It was also Mr Gove's first chance

to talk about the proposals

he announced last month to increase

the maximum penalty for animal

cruelty from six months

in prison to five years.

The news was welcomed

on the SNP benches.

I welcome this proposal,

having secured a debate on this

issue in Westminster Hall

in the last Parliament.

This issue is extremely important,

particularly in relation to dog

fighting, which is an appalling act

of animal cruelty.

During last year s debate,

it was said that the policing

of such crimes and the funding

for that need to be increased.

What is the Minister planning

to do in that regard?

The honourable lady

makes a very good point.

Of course, sentencing

decisions and, indeed,

policing matters are devolved,

but one thing we do

at DEFRA is to work closely

with the Home Office to ensure that

examples of animal cruelty that need

to focus the minds of police forces

on more effective investigation

are at the heart of

our shared conversations.

our shared conversations.

The Environment Secretary.

MPs have called on ministers to do

more to ensure people

traffickers face prosecution.

The demand came during a debate

on tackling modern slavery.

Before becoming an MP,

Jess Phillips ran a service

which provided safe houses

for victims of modern slavery.

The vast majority of women now

living in the safe accommodation

through the national

referral mechanism are there

because they have been

trafficked into this country

for sexual slavery.

It is not sex work -

these people were slaves.

I worked with women

who were forced to have sex

with over 50 men in a day.

The idea, in a modern system of sex

work, that we have an honest John

who is saying, do you mind if I ask

you where you come from?

Are you here out of choice?

is a total fallacy and something

successive Governments have

failed to tackle.

We really, really need

to be tackling it now,

because the number of women

from different countries

and originally from the UK

who are prostituted,

exploited and trafficked

around the country

who are from the UK originally

is absolutely phenomenal.

Hundreds and hundreds

and hundreds have gone

through the service I used

to work for.

Another MP gave some distressing

details of how a victim

in her constituency had been

treated.

She was brought to London

and taken to a woman's house,

where she was told she would be

staying and looking

after the woman s children.

She asked the woman when she would

be going back to school.

It was the first time

the woman slapped her.

She also asked about her mother,

but she was told to speak

only when she was spoken

to and that she was not allowed

to make any friends.

Her daily routine involved

getting up at 5am,

getting the children ready

for school, taking them to school

and collecting them,

and doing the shopping,

cleaning and cooking.

If she went out on an errand,

the woman who was holding her

would spit on the floor

and tell her that she had to be back

before the spit had dried

or she would be beaten.

She ran everywhere as she was

frightened of being late.

She was beaten on a daily basis,

she had her head flushed down

the toilet, and she was often privy

to what we believe were drug deals.

Labour's Vernon Coaker

initiated the debate.

He used to be a Home

Office minister.

I had much of the responsibility

for dealing with modern

slavery for four years

between 2006 and 2017.

When I challenge the Government,

it is a challenge to all of us.

It is a challenge to what I did.

It is a challenge to every one

of us, to every local authority

and to every police force.

We have to challenge

ourselves to do better.

It is not acceptable that modern

slavery still exists.

It is a blight on the

conscience of this nation.

Although we have done a lot,

there is so much more to do.

Those who are enslaved

deserve our support and our help.

A Conservative former

victims' minister spoke

of the scourge of modern slavery.

It creates victims who are often

some of the most vulnerable members

of society, separated

from their families

and friends, with no access

to financial help or support.

As I speak today, I am reminded

of a young man I met

about three years ago,

when I was the Victims Minister.

He dispelled many of the myths

surrounding human trafficking -

he was a man, he was British,

and he was trafficked

for forced labour.

He bravely shared with me his story

of absolute misery and how

he was dehumanised and degraded.

The meeting drove home

to me just how important

it is for the Government,

local authorities and all our

partners to work more

effectively together.

The minister set out

measures to support victims.

In many cases, the existing 14-day

move-on support period does not give

enough time for support to be

provided properly, so we will extend

the period to 45 days,

thereby guaranteeing that confirmed

victims will receive a minimum of 90

days of Government-funded support.

Further, we will extend by a week

the period of support for those

who are not confirmed as victims,

making it nine days.

For all confirmed victims

who have left the NRM,

we will run weekly drop-in centres

in partnership with the Salvation

Army, so that victims can continue

to receive ongoing

support and advice.

Sarah Newton.

The programme of restoration planned

for Parliament may be delayed

for another year to 18 months.

It was in 2016 that a report

was published setting

out the options for the renewal

of the building's

crumbling infrastructure.

They included MPs and peers

decamping while the multi-billion

-pound restoration was carried out.

But now there are proposals to set

up a new body to, in effect,

review the possibilities.

In the Commons MPs wanted to know

how long it would all take.

The Leader of the House is now

appointing yet another Committee,

delaying the repairs yet again,

despite warnings that delays

increase the risk of serious

events such as fires.

Has the Commission made any estimate

of how much longer the deployment

of a new body to consider costings

will delay the timeline of work?

Both houses were due to debate

setting up the new bodies before the

end of the year.

The expectation is that once

the shadow sponsor board

and the delivery authority have been

established, it might take them

something of the order of 12

to 18 months to consider

the options for decanting.

That would therefore

add to the timescales.

I welcome the fact that we are

going to have the debate

by the end of this year.

We really need that,

because meanwhile the fabric

of the building continues

to deteriorate and the very high

maintenance costs that we incur

as a result also continue apace.

Does my right honourable friend

agree that the public might be

somewhat puzzled at the thought

of a further 12 to 18 month delay

while options that have already been

assessed are discussed yet again?

When works are urgent

for structural and safety reasons,

surely we should choose the option

that maximises the ability to carry

out those works efficiently

while minimising the cost

to the public purse

without any further delay.

Tom Brake said since

the original report,

the picture had changed slightly --

but he hoped MPs would take up

the chance to tour Parliament's

basements to see how much work

needed to be done.

A Conservative wondered

if there might be a financial

motive for the delay.

I might be wrong, but I get

the impression that the Treasury

would much rather spend money over

a long period than over

a shorter period.

Does the right honourable

gentleman know whether the Treasury

would prefer to spend £5 billion

or £6 billion over five or six years

or much more over 20 to 30 years?

As the spokesman of the House

of Commons Commission,

I am somewhat loth to express

a Treasury view, the Treasury

is better equipped to do that

than I am.

However, for the risk profile

associated with doing

these works over, say,

a 30-year period as opposed

to a much shorter period of time,

the risk of some catastrophic

failure is clearly much higher

if the ?works take place over 30

years while we are in situ debating

in either Chamber and, indeed,

our staff are here working.

Does he agree consideration should

be given to turning this place into

a museum?

When this matter has been

looked at in the past by a

commission and the laws are

equivalent, there was no desire to

turn this place into a museum that a

desire to ensure this building could

continue to operate, both for staff

and members and visitors, and could

remain a significant world heritage

building.

Well, the subject came up again

later when an MP reminded the Leader

of the Commons what one

of her predecessors had said.

There was a Joint Committee s

report published

on 8th September 2016,

with the guarantee of a vote

by Christmas last year.

Now the Leader of the House

is saying that we will have a debate

by the end of this year,

but we will not make a decision

then, we are going to delay it

for another 18 months.

Honestly, this is

downright irresponsible.

Just let the House make a decision,

if you understand the concept.

We have to ensure value

for taxpayers money.

The Joint Committee made

a recommendation without being

in a position to pin down the entire

costs of its proposed option.

It is essential that that work

is done, and it will be done

as quickly as possible.

Could she write to me

to let me know how many

consultants there have been?

What are the costs of the people

who have been employed

while the Government have delayed

making a decision?

If we follow one of the options

set out in her letter

with regard to State Opening,

will she really be asking

our Gracious Sovereign

to attend a building site?

Will hard hats be

available for all of us?

Golden ones!

This is not a blank cheque.

We must get the best possible value

for taxpayers money in restoring

this Parliament for future

generations, and Members

right across this House

should support that.

Andrea Leadsom.

Earlier this month, the Commons

authorities approved plans

for a replacement Commons chamber

at Westminster, to be

used if there was a fire

or terrorist attack.

MPs could also move there

when restoration work finally began.

One MP wondered if it might also

present a good opportunity

to introduce electronic voting.

Before we spend astronomical sums

on refurbishing this place,

the Commission should at the very

least build in the capacity

for electronic voting in the future,

should the House at some point

decide to move itself into the 20th

century before the rest

of the world enters the 22nd?

Tom Brake is a member

of the committee that deals

with housekeeping matters.

There may well be an opportunity

provided shortly by a contingency

chamber, in which case it would have

course be open to the House

to decide to implement an electronic

voting system if it considered that

to be appropriate.

Mr Patrick Grady.

We do read reports about

a contingency chamber.

Have any assessments been made

of the differing costs of installing

voting lobbies, which I assume

would have to include

little toilets at the end,

in which Members could hide

if they accidentally

made their way into the wrong

lobby, versus simply installing

an electronic voting system?

Would the latter not be a more

sensible use of public funds?

I suspect that we have not yet

reached the stage of deciding

whether the provision of toilets

will be needed for a contingency

chamber, or, indeed,

establishing whether any financial

assessment has been made

of the installation

of electronic voting.

According to figures produced

in past debates, however,

it appears that the cost might be

up to £500,000.

Hannah Barbell.

In the Scottish Parliament,

where there is a seat for every

Member and voting takes two seconds

rather than 20 minutes,

electronic voting is very effective.

Is he aware that in this Chamber

there were more than 500 votes

between 2012 and 2014,

which took up more than seven days?

Given what is coming down

the line with Brexit,

does he not think that this

is a perfect time to install

electronic voting in

the House of Commons?

I am aware that electronic

voting takes place in

the Scottish Parliament,

and my personal view

is that it is a more effective way

of dealing with votes.

Members who have not been

here as long as I have may ?not

remember that back in 1997

there was an attempt

to reform a number of ways

in which the House operated.

I supported it, but it was

blocked by the House.

But is it not the case

that there are advantages

in going into the lobby?

One can meet colleague

and do things?

If we listen to

the SNP all together,

why do we not go the whole hog?

Why do we not just sit at home,

watch proceedings on the Parliament

channel, and vote on our iPhones?

As a Minister in the previous

coalition Government

and now as a Back Bencher,

the right honourable

gentleman will appreciate that one

of the advantages for Back Benchers

of voting in person is that

Ministers have no escape

from Back Benchers who want

to collar them to raise local

and national issues.

I am sure Ministers love meeting

the honourable gentleman

in the Division Lobby,

and that they have good

conversations although they are

probably usually one-way.

I have nothing to add

to what Mr Speaker has said.

Yes!

The Speaker John Bercow.

And finally, there's quite a strict

code as to what honourable members

can and can't say in the Commons.

One Labour MP let his passion

get the better of him

during the question

about the vote on Brexit.

The nest of vipers behind him and in

the Cabinet make him a fudger.

Stop fudging and be honest

with the British people!

Was a "nest of vipers"

unparliamentary language?

The Speaker thought not,

but that didn't stop MPs hissing

in the manner of reptiles.

Which apparently isn't

unparliamentary at all.

That's it for now, but do

join me on Friday night

at 11pm, for our round up

of the week at Westminster.

But for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.