14/12/2017 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up in the next half hour:

The morning after the night before.

That was a humiliating and entirely

avoidable defeat for the government.

Also on the programme,

damning criticism of government

reforms which have left probation

officers monitoring 200 offenders

each, some only by phone.

And it's six months since

the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower.

Can the noble Lord Taulbee has what

specific action the government are

taking to get these families into

accommodation in the new year?

It was on the seventh amendment

during the seventh day

at round about seven pm

that the Government suffered

a defeat on the Brexit Bill.

On Thursday morning,

along with their Coco Pops,

MPs were still digesting

what had happened.

And coincidentally it was

the Brexit Department who were down

to answer questions in the Commons.

The session began

with a bit of banter.

I can understand why the minister a

isn't quite right side this morning.

It is the extension I am afraid of

the single European cold which is

having a transition period of its

own.

But then it was down to business.

Last night this has voted that

Parliament should have a meaningful

vote at the end of the process. That

was a humiliating and entirely

avoidable at the feet for the

government. This has not having

spoken, have assurance that the

government will not seek to

undermine or overturn last nights

results at the report stage.

Let me

first make an observation on last

night's outcome. The effect of it is

to make the powers available under

section nine, deferred until after

as we see it... We get oil assents

to the withdrawal agreement and a

limitation bill which means that it

will be a compressed timetable.

Those who want to see a smooth and

orderly exit from the European

Union, hopefully want to see a

working statute book. We will have

to think about how we respond to it.

But as always we take the House of

Commons views seriously.

Mr Speaker

that was not the basis upon which

the debate was conducted yesterday.

We will have to come back to that.

The next accident waiting to happen

is government amendment 381, which

seeks to put a fixed exit date on

the face of the bill. Rather than

repeated last nights debacle, will

be government now commits to

dropping that ill-conceived gimmick?

Unlike the right honourable

gentleman I do not of you both as

accidents. Their decisions taken by

the house and not decision, the

respected as will the next one.

Nobody on these benches who voted

against the government took any

pleasure not, nobody drank

champagne. We drink champagne, not

on these benches. These are serious

matters. It was avoidable if the

offer that have been made by my

right honourable and learned friend

from back in field had been taken

up.

Essential to our ambition for a

excellent deal is preparation for no

deal. Isn't it?

That's one

perspective, I will say one thing

about no deal. No deal has become

massively less probable after the

decisions of last Friday. That is a

good thing because the best to deal

is a terrace of free and a nontariff

barrier free arrangement with the

European Union. However he is quite

right, we do continue to prepare for

all contingencies and will continue

to do so until we are certain that

we have a good free-trade deal with

the European Union.

The European

Union is estimate is of a wider

seller of over 42,000 bottles, and

artwork worth more than £13 million.

Some might say metaphorically looted

from the capitals of Europe. After

we leave the party will be minister

promised to take back control of our

fair share of this are to an out

wind and not lead to Mr York to

enjoy?

First advisory referenda was

conducted in ignorance of the wine

cellars and almost every thing else

was a choice between operation fear

and operation lies. As an

appropriate that we listen to all

those independent bodies who have

looked at the press fax and decided

it that's Brexit, no Brexit would be

better than any Brexit. Isn't it

time to think about a second

well-informed confirmation

referendum?

The answer I give to him

is the same one that I did then. He

referendum debate that we had to

knock him out of the blue Comet came

after 30 years of debating in this

country. The government at the time

went to every country. We should

suck the decision of the British

people.

Recent polls and I'll show

there is a clear majority in favour

of a referendum on the deal, and it

is it any wonder this government has

lost control? Yesterday Parliament

took back control, and now the book

want to take back control from the

Tory party any DUP. Can the Minister

please acclaimed my constituents how

a referendum on the deal, the

first-ever random on the facts,

would be anti-democratic?

I'm very

tempted to point out the polling

results the Liberal Democrats

party... No opinion poll comes

anywhere near the votes of 17 and a

half million people which we will

respect. Following events in the

timber last night, somehow met

members of your main campaign took

to Twitter saying this is another

step towards a Barry of preventing

Brexit. With the Secretary of State

please confirm and reassure the 17.4

million people who voted to leave

that this government is absolutely

committed to delivering a positive

Brexit for this country?

That things

are by saying I do not agree with

the people who tweeted that that was

the purpose of many of the people

who voted last night. I think they

did so in good faith. However, he is

right. The aim of this government is

to take a set of the European Union,

dissected by the European people and

that is what we will do.

Several MPs were concerned

about the rights of EU

nationals living in the UK.

Unfortunately the 3 million EU 27

citizens living here do not feel

that certainty because nothing is

agreed until editing is agreed. The

government not commit now to putting

an amendment on the face of any of

the forthcoming EU bills to give

that certainty?

The Secretary of

State claims that the phase

agreement gives security to EU

nationals, but this is constantly

undermined by the reference to a no

deal Brexit which would let up. Does

he not accept that there is a need

to give the legal standing to EU

citizens rights and now? Not put

them through another year of anxiety

is not the first thing I will say to

the honourable Lady is that the

government has made clear from the

beginning that it values the million

citizens who are here, the Prime

Minister has been to them all.

Or

rather the ones we have records for.

As it is our clear intention, and it

will be legally binding within the

with drawl bill that they will have

the right to have laid out.

Staying with Brexit for a moment,

you may remember the seemingly

endless debate over the impact

assessments - these were studies

of 58 sectors of the economy and how

Brexit would affect them.

Except that they turned out not

to be impact assessments,

but sectoral analyses.

It's all coming back isn't it?

Well, one MP decided

to have a look at them.

I recently booked an appointment in

the reading room and I thought it

would be like an N/A circle of hell

that I'll be trapped in there for

days to read the sectoral analysis.

Others of the honourable Lady

opposite. In fact there are only

nine pages on health and social care

and the entire documents relevant to

my/ committee took less than one

hour to read.

Several MPs had complained

that the documents released

were incomplete and also that,

having promised to hand them over,

the Brexit Secretary then

said impact assessments

actually didn't exist.

They complained to the Speaker

that this amounted to

a contempt of Parliament.

John Bercow delivered his verdict.

Ministers could with advantage have

been a considerably clearer in their

statements. Particularly in the

challenging lines of questioning in

select committees, which are based

upon a genuine misconception.

The Speaker said he'd "carefully"

considered the accounts given

by ministers but he didn't

consider their conduct amounted

to a contempt of Parliament.

It's exactly six months

since the horrific fire

at the Grenfell Tower

block in London.

A memorial service has

been held in honour

of the seventy-one people who died.

Members of the royal family,

Theresa May, survivors and families

of the victims attended

the multi-faith service

at St Paul's Cathedral.

In the Lords, the Government

was asked about new housing

for those left homeless

and traumatised by the fire.

Six months is a very long time to be

living in hotel accommodation, and

in no way to spend Christmas of

honourable, unsettled and

traumatised. Can the noble Lords

tell the House what specific action

the government are taking to get

these families into accommodation in

the new year?

To bring me has up to

date, 151 homes were lost in the

fire. Some of those homes were

overcrowded, others have

multi-generational households who

now wish to divide. 210 households

that formerly lived in rental tower

need to be rehoused. Hundred and 44

households have accepted an offer of

either temporary or permanent

accommodation. 99 have moved income

of 54 are temporary and 45 are into

permanent housing. I are into

permanent housing. 111 RN emergency

accommodations boast up 66 have yet

to accept an option of temporary or

permanent. We ask what action is

being taken. The Royal Borough of

Kingston and Chelsea plan by

Christmas to have acquired the good

homes. They are acquiring to homes a

day. I quite agree that Christmas is

no time to spend in emergency,

nation, the government is acutely

aware of that. In the four hotels or

most of the families are, specific

arrangements are made for the

families have space of their own to

meet each other and entertain their

wider families that they want to. A

lot of services are being put on by

voluntary groups and faith groups of

because his period to help them

support those families. We very much

hope that by June of next year

everyone will have moved into

permanent accommodation. But

families need to move in their own

time. Some are in emergency

accommodation, not wanting to move

into temporary accommodation because

they might have to move twice. And

the world Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea is doing intensive work at

getting along side the families

finding out what accommodation they

need and where they need it and

sticking to match that with the 300

houses that they are acquiring.

Could I remind the Minister that the

government statement on the gun fell

a fire of the 19th of October it was

said they were expecting to be 300

suitable local, permanent properties

by Christmas. And yet only 45

households have actually moved in.

Could I ask the Minister whether he

has confidence in the local council

to deliver, or whether it may be

time for the government to intervene

more directly?

The government has no

plans to the commissions into the

world Borough of Camden and Chelsea,

they have a new leader. They have

any chief executive. The government

is establishing a task force to make

sure the world Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea live up to the

expectation that everyone has of

what they plan to do. Some of those

in temporary accommodation want that

temporary accommodation to become a

permanent home. The world Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea is

approaching the relevant landlords

to see if I can take place. Some of

those an emergency accommodation

have already accepted permanent

accommodation, but it takes time to

complete and fit out to the house,

to put into the goods for the

families to move in. I'm conscious

that there is an and patients on

behalf of your lordships to make

progress. I am confident that the

Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea are planning to spend nearly

a quarter of £1 billion acquiring

property and Hanau got the message

the formal lack of emotional

intelligence is behind us and

they're getting on with the job.

Are

any of those who are claiming now

social housing, work any of those

tenants of Grenfell Tower who had

moved out and unlawfully left there

accommodation to more than one

family? I don't think we need have

too much sympathy for people who

behaved like that.

Lord Young said the assistance

from the council was for those

who were living at Grenfell

at the time of the fire.

He has lived through tragic

circumstances where people have lost

their life and he will know better

than anyone in this House the trauma

of those people have been through

and we ought to allow them the time

and space to allow -- to find

suitable accommodation to move into.

You're watching Thursday

in Parliament, with me, Mandy Baker.

Don't forget you can find all our

programmes on the BBC iPlayer.

Urgent action is needed to help

hundreds of thousands of children

facing "Dickensian" living

conditions.

That plea came as peers

debated a report from

the Children's Commissioner

for England which said

millions of children

were leading vulnerable lives.

The Labour peer who opened

the debate described

the findings as "horrific".

A little girl of eight called Hannah

lives with her mother

and younger sister.

Their father, who has an alcohol

problem, has left the family,

but when he was drunk

he sometimes returned.

When he did, Hannah knew

that her responsibility

was to take her younger sister

upstairs to the bedroom

and hide under the bed.

However, that does nothing

to protect them from hearing

the beating their mother is getting

from their father downstairs.

When it's over, the little

girls see their mother's

face pouring blood.

This is not drama but

real life for Hannah.

The police are called

and eventually the mother

and children were told

that they had to move,

so they went to a homeless refuge.

That was not the end

of their nightmare.

In many respects,

it was just the start.

Councils, she said, were facing

a £2 billion shortfall in funding

for children's services by 2020.

This, my lords, is a Dickensian

situation in 2017 with which we must

come to terms and to which we must

respond in a more considered

and profound way than

we have done up to now.

It needs a high-level

response, the highest,

from the Prime Minister.

Only by Mrs May expressing her

determination that this scandal,

for that is what it is,

will now be solved that government

departments will work together,

pooling ideas and resources.

Is there any chance that

progress will be made?

There are around 700,000 hidden

young carers in the UK,

all of whom are children under

the age of 18.

One in 12 of these children

are caring for someone at home

for more than 15 hours a week,

delivering significant caring tasks

such as administering

medication, toileting,

bathing, domestic care

and emotional support.

Around one in plenty of these young

people miss school because of

their caring responsibilities.

However, these children are hidden

from view, caring in silence,

under the radar of social workers

and teachers, carrying a huge

burden of responsibility,

often without support.

At the beginning of her report,

the commissioner quotes AA Milne.

I feel it is only right to start

in a similar manner.

"Promise me you'll always remember,

you're braver than you believe,

and stronger than you seem,

and smarter than you think."

We must try to get vulnerable

children, in particular,

to think like this.

When something goes wrong

for a child, there should always be

someone there to help.

It is our duty to make sure that

children and families

have that support.

He said action was being taken

across government to reform care

and mental health services

and protect victims of abuse.

Where local authorities are not

delivering children's social care

services to the standard we expect,

we have shown that we

will take tough action.

We are appointing expert advisers

and challenging progress

to drive rapid improvement.

Where it is found that a local

authority does not have the capacity

to bring about the changes needed,

we will not hesitate

to remove service control.

Lady Dean had a warning

for the minister.

The Children's Commissioner's report

is going to become an annual one,

so we will be able to watch

and comment rather forensically

on just how well, or not,

we as a nation are doing,

through our Government,

for the children of England

who desperately need help

in so many areas.

Lady Dean.

Now, the Committee on Standards

in Public Life revealed this week

that a third of parliamentary

candidates at the election in June

had experienced inappropriate

or intimidating behaviour.

Candidates of all parties

were affected - though Conservatives

were twice as likely to be abused

as Labour ones.

And the aggressive behaviour

can intensify

once a candidate's elected -

as the Conservative Sarah Wollaston

has found to her cost.

On one of the busiest

Saturdays in the run-up

to Christmas in Totnes,

local activists, including, sadly,

the local Labour Party,

decided to parade with a real coffin

and leave a large and carefully

constructed model of a coffin

at my constituency office.

Does the Leader of the House feel,

particularly in the light

of the report on intimidation

in public life that was published

yesterday, that the line

of decency was overstepped?

There are real dangers

in using the imagery of death

and directing it against individuals

to whip up hatred.

Most importantly of all,

this kind of thing deters really

good candidates from applying

for positions in public life.

I was disgusted, as I am sure

all right honourable members were,

to hear about my honourable

friend's awful experience.

I texted her at the time to say

that I hoped she was OK.

It must have been

absolutely terrifying.

It was truly horrible and we should

all condemn this kind of behaviour

and call it out wherever we see it.

Lord Bew's report on the abuse

and intimidation of candidates

highlights that this is not a simple

matter of holding

politicians to account.

It goes far beyond that and it

will be a deterrent to diversity

and the high calibre of candidates

we want to see

in Parliament.

We all combine in condemning that

action against my honourable friend.

Andrea Leadsom.

The Chief Inspector

of the Probation Service,

Dame Glenys Stacey, has delivered

a scathing verdict on the use

of private firms to manage offenders

who are considered

low to medium risk.

She said "deep-rooted

problems" meant that

Community Rehabilitation Companies -

or CRCs - were not transforming

rehabilitation in the way

ministers had hoped.

Several peers were especially

alarmed at the use of

supervision by telephone.

This well-researched report,

which I commend to the House

as of interest to us all,

presents a thoroughly dispiriting

account of just how great has

been the deterioration

and the effectiveness

of the Probation Service

in the past three years.

It is now clear that the so-called

innovative programme has resulted

in a disjointed and incoherent

system despite

the hard work of the staff.

I hope the Minister will agree

that the victims of crime,

the courts of this country and local

communities deserve better,

and I hope urgent action will now be

taken to recover what has been lost

in these recent changes.

My Lords, we recognise the concerns

identified by the inspectorate

and are working hard

to address these problems.

Many of the performance issues

with CRCs stem from the financial

challenges that providers

are facing, which has meant

that we have addressed

those contractual terms.

However, I observe that nearly

two-thirds of CRCs have reduced

the number of people reoffending.

One of the important issues

that the Chief Inspector raises

in her report is the fact that

low-risk people, who are

supposed to be supervised

by the Probation Service,

can become high-risk.

She gave the example

of someone convicted

of driving while disqualified,

who was receiving

telephone supervision -

one call every six weeks -

and who eventually assaulted

a previous partner.

Does the noble and learned Lord

accept that a phone call every six

weeks is no way to supervise people

who are supposed to be

under the supervision

of the Probation Service?

My Lords, supervision of offenders

needs to be proportionate

to the risk they present.

In some cases, remote contact may be

appropriate for lower-risk offenders

who are complying with their orders.

However, we recognise that best

practice is for probation officers

to work with offenders face to face.

Listening to the Minister,

he has been meticulous in not

thanking or supporting the inspector

for her report.

I invite him to do so.

During my 12 years in government

I came across Dame Glenys Stacey,

and she is one of the finest public

servants I had contact

with during my time as a Minister.

She deserves incredible

support and the thanks

of the House for the report,

and I should like to hear

it from the Minister.

My Lords, I am perfectly happy

to endorse the observations

made by the noble Lord.

Had I been asked about that point

earlier, I would have

responded in the same way.

Is the Minister really

saying that the Government

are satisfied with a telephone form

of probation, because I do not

believe anybody in this House is?

My Lords, we are not

satisfied with the telephone

form of probation but,

as I said, contact with offenders

has to be proportionate

to the risk they present.

My Lords, I assure the Minister that

when these proposals were put

through by the Coalition Government

they were ideologically driven,

and some of the flaws that have

emerged reveal the kind

of compromises that were created

in the Probation Service.

Before these reforms,

the Probation Service had

an excellent report.

We now have this disastrous report.

If the Minister is approaching this

ideologically, I put it to him

that there is now a strong case

for handing probation over wholly

to the National Probation Service.

My Lords, I am not approaching this

matter as an ideologue.

I am approaching it as a Minister

with responsibility

for the implementation

of the existing system of probation,

in which we continue to have faith.

Lord Keen.

Just before I go, misleading

the House of Commons is considered

a very serious offence

by the Parliamentary authorities,

so one MP was anxious to set

the record straight.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

I fear that I inadvertently misled

the House during business questions,

when I suggested that honourable

and right honourable members

could enjoy the pantomime

of Dick Whittington at the Millfield

theatre this Christmas.

In fact, that was the last

pantomime that I saw there.

If honourable members wish to attend

the Millfield theatre this year,

it will be to enjoy Jack

and the Beanstalk.

LAUGHTER.

Oh, no, it won't.

And that's it, but do

join me at the same time

tomorrow for our round-up

of the week at Westminster.

But for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.