25/01/2018 Thursday in Parliament

Hello there and welcome

to Thursday in Parliament.

On this programme: Coming up:

A former Labour minister tells

of her battle with a brain tumour

and calls for more

innovative international

working to tackle cancer.

So that we can do live well together

with cancer. Not just dying of it.

The Defence Secretary announces

a new review of the Armed Forces

and faces calls for more spending.

Could he please ensure that we do

not repeat the nonsense of when

people say, you can modernise but

what they mean is you cut.

And: the government's told to do

more to stop the revolving door

of former ministers and civil

servants moving into lucrative jobs

in the private sector.

If nothing is done by government to

strengthen business rules we risk of

further undermining trust and

integrity in politics.

But first: There was

a prolonged standing ovation

in the Lords for Tessa -

now Lady Jowell - as she called

for greater global cooperation

to help beat cancer.

Lady Jowell was diagnosed

with a brain tumour.

On the 24th of May last year I was

on my way to talk not for the first

time in East London. I rot into a

taxi but I couldn't speak. I had two

powerful seizures. I was taken to

hospital. Two days later, I was told

that I had a brain tumour. A week

later, the tumour was removed by an

outstanding surgeon at the national

Hospital in Queens Square. I then

had the standard treatment of radio

and chemotherapy.

She told peers what had happened:

Now she was backing a scheme called

the eliminate cancer initiative

-- or ECI.

It aims to do three main things. The

first, link patients and doctors

across the world through a clinical

trial network. Secondly, speed up

the use of active trials. Thirdly,

build a global database to improve

research and patient care.

It was she said about sharing

knowledge at every level --

and quoting Seamus Heaney she said

she was not afraid

So many cancer patients collaborate

and support each other every day.

They create the community of love

and determination that they find

each other every day. All we now ask

is that doctors and health systems

learn to do the same and for us to

work together. To learn from each

other. In the end, what gives life

meaning? Is not only how it is left.

But how it draws to a close. I hope

that this debate will give hope to

other cancer patients like me so

that we can live well together with

cancer. Not just dying of it. All of

us for longer. Thank you.

To a packed public gallery

and with MPs crowding at the bar

of the lords a fellow former cabinet

minister paid tribute

to his friend of 40 years.

We are all of us privileged to be

here this afternoon and to have

heard her speak and to give us a

clarion call to pick up the cudgel

into work tirelessly to ensure words

she seeks is carried forward for

others and the future and that our

NHS, scientists, innovators,

consultants, can jot down and

experience from across the world and

can remember Tessa giallo is the all

well and we are privileged to have

heard this afternoon.

The minister praised

Lady Jowell's speech.

I would like to praise the normal

lady for the determination she has

shown. I think it's fair to say she

is inspired us all and many cancer

sufferers as well. I suppose we

should expect nothing less from the

women who brought us the most

wonderful Olympic and her Olympic

Games in 2012. On of the wonderful

things about the NHS is is here for

all of us all the time. One of the

quirks is that it has an unrivaled

data set on patient's medical

experiences and that is invaluable

to the research community. We all

know that we have a God policy rate

in this area always or brought the

public with us about the benefits of

sharing data but the earth keep

decisions coming up so that we can

access and create a data set for

research purposes. The noble lady

has offered hope. With her ever for

tile mind making suggestions for how

we can improve cancer care she races

our sites and demands that

collectively we work harder to offer

hope to people affected by the

terrible disease she suffers with

such dignity. It is the right

challenge and one I'm prepared to

accept on behalf of the government.

In doing so, I promise her that our

efforts will not waver until the

scourge of cancer no longer robs us

of the ones we love.

The Defence Secretary has hinted

he'll ask for more money

for the UK's Armed Forces

when he carries out

a defence review.

Making a statement to MPs he said it

would not be "fiscally neutral'

There's been much

speculation in recent weeks

that there could be cuts

on the horizon, specifically

the potential loss of amphibious

assault ships and reports that

full-time army numbers could fall

from their current level

of about 78,000 to 70,000 -

well below the government's

target of 82,000.

The review was being overseen

by the National Security Council -

the NSC, but Gavin Williamson

successfully argued for it to be

carried out within the MOD.

The world is becoming a more

dangerous place. We cannot afford to

shy away from this reality. Nor can

we take our security for granted.

But even more than back, and a post

Brexit world, pretend must continue

to champion the global good. It must

continue to reach out to seize

global opportunities in deal with

global threats.

If this review

identifies additional spending is

necessary for the security of our

nation, will the government step up

to the plate? Surely he must agree

that it would be pointless to have a

review that finds we need additional

equipment or increase personnel only

for the government to ignore that

recommendation. You cannot do

security on the cheap and it's high

time that the government recognise

this. And yet, this statement makes

reference to further efficiencies

being carried out as part of this

review. Raising the spectre of you

further cuts.

The honourable lady

asked if this is aiming to be

fiscally neutral. No, it isn't. It's

looking at how we can actually get

the Armed Forces that we need in

order to deal with the threats that

we face.

Could he ensure that we do

not repeat the nonsense of when

people say, you can modernise but

what they actually mean is you

can't.

If it is not to be fiscally

neutral, Kenny confirm that the

departure... If not, can members of

the armed forces expect a pay rise?

Gavin Willliamson repeated

it was not aiming to

be fiscally neutral.

He will have the second part of that

whole house if he manages to secure

additional funding. But then put the

defence budget on a more sustainable

footing that allows our armed forces

to tackle the increased threats that

they face without these demoralising

rumours of deep cuts. The words here

are interesting and they are

important. But what matters in the

end is money.

We have seen rumour

after rumour and speculation

undermining not only our global

reputation but the confidence of our

serving personnel about their

futures. Rumours about the parachute

Regiment merging with the rail

Marines, all of this has been

nonsense.

There'd been much criticism

during the statement

of the way it was made,

with the timings being

repeatedly changed.

But a Conservative reckoned

he understood the pressures.

I have every sympathy with the

Secretary of State in terms of over

the last two days when this was

going to be announced.

Keith Simpson.

The minister said the aim of

the review was for the Armed Forces

to set out their case

for the resources that they needed.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled

that the law which has allowed

people to be convicted of murder

even if they did not inflict

the fatal blow has been wrongly

interpreted for more than 30 years.

In recent years, what's known

as Joint enterprise has been used

to convict people in gang-related

cases if defendants "could" have

foreseen violent acts

by their associates.

But it's very controversial because,

many believe, it lowers the burden

of proof and allows people to be

swept up in a prosecution

and convicted on the basis

that they were all "in it together".

With hundreds of what's known as

lifers in prison convict did

underwent the Supreme Court viewed

as a wrong application of the law,

this is potentially one of the

biggest and most widespread

miscarriages of justice ever to face

our justice system. As such, I fear

that the cosy club of the criminal

justice establishment is closing in

on itself to prevent this from fully

ever being exposed.

If you look at

statistics, 37% of those were

serving long sentences for joint

enterprise are black. That is 11

times the proportion of black people

the population. I think it

underlines why it's absolutely

essential that we have the review

that my honourable friend has called

for which I fully support. Secondly,

surely we're seeing a case given the

uncertainty here where the courts

are in effect acting as legislators.

That is wrong. Where there's

uncertainty in the law it is for

this host to tidy and cleared up

particularly when it's visiting in

on people the way we're seeing.

There's been a failure to

distinguish between gangs and

groups. The house will understand

that not all members of groups have

a criminal purpose and not all

members of or groups join in when

there's an incident. Humans are by

nature social animals. People hang

around and groups or sports teams.

It doesn't mean if an incident

occurs that everyone in the group

intended whatever happened to

happen.

We know of this harassment

honourable members have picked up

the maze. Former leader of the SMP,

the honourable member Lord

Haseltine, if you picked up the mace

and an older member of Parliament

got the mace was coming towards them

and had a heart attack and died, he

would be in serious Thomas serious

trouble. But if you discussed it

with your colleagues beforehand, you

two would be in serious, serious

trouble. At the whole political

party. And this occasion, the S and

P that might have been heading.

That's how ridiculous this has come

and why we need urgent review.

August 2013, Alex Henry went

shopping with three friends. A

confrontation took place that lasted

just over 40 seconds. It's not clear

why the confrontation took place. It

may have been triggered by a stare.

One young man used a knife from

within a bag and stop two brothers

one of whom tragically lost his

life. On the sixth day of the trial,

the man with a knife pleaded guilty

to murder and was sentenced to 20

years. While Alex Henry received 19

years. Despite never touching the

knife or even being aware of its

existence. Only four years class.

We

can seek to actually bring an end to

this rent is, a disproportionate

nightmare, this and British

jurisprudence and this appalling

situation in which 40 seconds and

laid to 12 years. For someone who

happens to be with a group of people

can find themselves facing the best

part of their young life in prison

for something that they cannot stop

even they wanted to. And it is often

said that the house is at its worst

when it's unanimous but I think this

is the exception to that.

I

recognise the importance of the law

and joint enterprise. The impact

that it can have on those such as

the constituents of the honourable

member for Manchester Centura and

others who have come before the

house today. Up for the reasons set

out, the government does not believe

that time is currently writes for

any changes to the law and joint

enterprise. It is for the courts to

interpret the law as laid down by

the Supreme Court. I very much hope

that the revised guidance on

secondary liability will provide a

clear direction and guidance for

prosecutors on this area of law. I'm

happy to keep the matter under

review.

You're watching Thursday

in Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

A senior Conservative,

has made a stinging criticism

of the "revolving door" which allows

former ministers, to take up

highly-paid jobs linked

to their previous ministerial

responsibilities.

There was criticism

of the Conservative former

Chancellor, George Osborne,

who took a job with the financial

firm BlackRock shortly after leaving

office and later took

on the editorship of

London's Evening Standard Newspaper.

Bernard Jenkin, who chairs

the Public Administration and

Constitutional Affairs Committee,

also said he was disappointed

in the government had responded

"evasively" to his committee's

report on the issue.

For example, it includes every

department. The will finish up

working in the industry. A similar

situation occurs in our departments.

No one should assume that there is

automatically anything wrong with

this. That there needs to be an

adequate system of assurance. That

there is indeed nothing wrong, and

that we are not fostering it commits

an attitude.

He described the official watchdog,

ACOBA, as a toothless regulator,

which had failed to change

the environment around

official appointments.

If personal observation, the

magazine Private Eye, frequently

appears to be doing a better job

than the advisory committee itself.

The SNP, said the government's

response smacked of complacency

and self interest.

Alison Thewliss pointed to the

former Chancellor, George Osborne.

The actions of the former

Chancellor, had respected, if

nothing is done, buy this house, the

risk further undermining trust and

integrity.

Our port does mention,

George Osborne as, first of all, dad

it was striking in starkly, the fact

that he appeared to give a blank

check to the former Chancellor to

join at a very inflated salary. So

shortly after he had left his

office. George Osborne also

completely bypassed the appointment

as editor of the evening standard,

prior to accepting his appointment.

And a very glaring example, not

necessarily of a particularly his

honour of an individual, but --

dishonor.

A Labour mp, said George Osborne had

been invited to give evidence to

the public administration committee.

To explain why had five meanings, he

altered the law in their favour and

when he lost his office, took a job

with them for £650,000 for a one day

a week of work. If that is not an

egregious example of the abuse of

the revolving door, it is hard to

see what is.

If they have not

already done so, to take a look at

the government response that has

been laid to the committee, in which

we clearly stated, to maintain the

highest standards of conduct,

including special advisers under the

rules and procedures we have in

place. We look forward to work with

the committee to do more though.

A response Bernard Jenkin

described as disappointing.

The present arrangements

he insisted were not adequate.

The Prime Minister says she's

"appalled" by the reports

of the groping and sexual harassment

of women at a men only

charity fundraiser.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum

in Davos, she said "I thought that

sort of approach to women,

that objectification

of women, was something

we were leaving behind.

The Children and Families minister

Nadhim Zahawi attended the evening

organised by the Presidents Club,

but says he left early.

Mps had expressed their fury

about the women's treatment

in the Commons on Wednesday and kept

up the pressure at

business questions.

One shadow minister wanted to know.

Was it a official visit, or was a

private visit? Where all the

Presidents men is neck either way,

it is an abuse of power. There is

absolutely no place for that type of

activity. A men only club, abusing

women in this way, is absolutely

unacceptable.

It continues to

develop to appal, to be possibly

have a debate about this? Canmore

begun to challenge the laws that

sustain them in the culture that

still thinks that they are

acceptable? We're in an area of zero

tolerance of behaviour, and it has

to be substantial progress to tackle

this pathetic behaviour.

Plastic waste has made the news

again as water companies announced

plans to set up water refill

points across England.

In an attempt to reduce the amount

of plastic bottles sold,

shops, cafes and businesses

will provide the refill points

and public fountains will be found

via an app.

This was welcomed by

the Environment Secretary

in the Commons as he spelled out how

the government is trying

to stick to its twenty-five

year environment plan

We have already banned these

products, single use plastics, and a

return scheme as well as production

of plastic food eyelets by

retailers.

Can you tell why it is,

that he allowed 20 years for the

elimination of nonessential

plastics. If they're not essential,

surely we can do better than that.

The nature of betrayed five-year

plan was, it covers a wide array,

and they're more ambitious ways to

reduce these plastics which the

government is bringing forward. But

he sadly right to encourage us in

the government and all of us to be

more.

A number of times the

importance of recycling. So I'm very

concerned that the government has

been opposing the new EU targets.

Can they explain why the government

is opposing?

Across the EU that we

have the right targets. One of the

flaws with the EU system is that it

relies on measuring through weight,

sometimes it signifies the wrong

approaches. But our country has gone

further than the European Union as

requested, or suggested on

everything from banning micro

plastics, to indeed introducing a

charge on plastic bags, that all of

these areas, that we've gone further

and faster than the EU. That is the

ambition of this government for a

claim Brexit.

And away from pollution

and recycling, after being wished

a happy Burns day by a Scottish

colleague, Mr Gove told

the Commons that he was hopeful

of a breakthrough with

the United States over its ban

on haggis from 1971 because of its

key ingredient: sheep's lung.

On the subject of, I've had recent

discussions with the Department of

Agriculture, if he can lift the ban

on haggis. He has one virtue is that

he has, I hope that he may listen

sympathetically.

Michael Gove.

Controversial plans to build a zip

wire tourist attraction

across the Thirlmere Reservoir

in the Lake District have faced

strong opposition in the Lords.

At question time the scheme

was described as a "very bad idea"

and an "inappropriate"

for a National Park

and World Heritage site.

Concerns were also raised over

the potential threat to RAF planes

who use the area for training.

Zip wires across there are a very

bad idea. Intrusion into the

national Park, where fundamental

policies include the conservation of

the landscape. Together with

recreational uses, how would that

landscape.

Has he nominated the

national Park for heritage site

status. That is primarily about our

cultural landscape in beauty. It

would be inappropriate for the

tourist industry to see it is mainly

a way to create another Disneyland.

I am not in a position to comment on

what is a very light application in

which I think will be considered by

the national Park Authority, on the

7th of March.

The preservation of

natural beauty of this country.

Should properly have a very high

priority. The governments first

obligation is to provide for the

defence of this country. The

proposed zip line would be a highly

dangerous, and pediment of our crews

in low-level flying.

The register of

defence, this will be a matter that

is considered by Lords by the

planning authority.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me on BBC Parliament

on Friday night at 11 for a look

back at the last week

here at Westminster.

But for now from me, AM goodbye.