08/03/2018 Thursday in Parliament

Hello, welcome to

Thursday in Parliament.

On this programme, the Home

Secretary says the government

will take robust action once it's

clear who's responsible

for the attempted murder

of a former Russian spy

and his daughter in Salisbury.

The investigation is moving at pace

and the Government will act without

hesitation as facts become clear.

There's a call for better

support for young people

and children's mental health.

And, as MPs mark

International Women's Day,

one argues there's still sexism

in the House of Commons.

We see it in this House. A juvenile,

grinning idiocy that is so offensive

sometimes.

The Home Secretary has described

the poisoning with nerve gas

of the Russian former double agent

Sergei Skripal and his daughter

Yulia as a "brazen

and reckless act."

The pair were found collapsed

on a bench in Salisbury

city centre on Sunday.

Counter-terrorism officers

are working to find the origin

of the nerve agent.

In a statement to MPs,

Amber Rudd said it was important

to avoid speculation

about who was responsible,

but added when that became clear,

the UK would respond

in "a robust manner."

She gave MPs a timeline

of the events at the weekend.

I want now to turn to

the speculation, of which there has

been much, around who was

responsible for this

most outrageous crime.

The use of a nerve agent on UK soil

is a brazen and reckless act.

This was attempted murder

in the most cruel and public way.

People are right to want to know

who to hold to account.

But, if we are to be rigorous

in this investigation,

we must avoid speculation and allow

the police to carry

on their investigation.

She said the investigation is

involving...

The investigation is moving at pace,

and this Government will

act without hesitation

as the facts become clearer.

As my Right Honourable

Friend the Foreign Secretary

made clear on Tuesday,

we will respond in a robust

and appropriate manner once

we ascertain who was responsible.

We on this side of the House are

appalled that anyone could be

poisoned on the streets of our towns

and be share with the Government the

determination that this case be

brought to a speedy and just

conclusion. And that similar

incidents are prevented in the

future.

How do we affect human

assets in this country, and build

this type of scenario lead to a

review of how we best protect these

people across the United Kingdom?

Considering his background, he was

at high risk, does the Secretary of

State know how the process was able

to slip through the intelligence

service and what sense is she taking

to ensure that those who are at risk

are properly protected?

This is an

investigation that's ongoing. It is

going at pace and in circumstances

where the police and the other

services involved appreciate the

urgency of this. It does not help

their work, which must be our

priority, the speculative at the

moment, on what might happen the

future, when we have an attribution

in hand.

I have written to ask for a

review of 14 other cases and she

will note that there are many ways

that this will happen and precedents

for doing so. Can I also ask her in

terms of this immediate

investigation, has she considered

going to the UN Security Council to

ask for a statement calling on all

nations to provide assistance,

including willingness to extradite

suspects should that be needed?

I

think the right honourable Lady and

I have got her letter and I will be

responding. I would gently say that

now is not the time to... Now is the

time to focus on the investigation

proceeding. She makes a suggestion

involving international activity and

I can't say that at some stage, we

will be coming back to the House

with our proposals, but for now, we

are merely preparing and

concentrating on the incident.

Whether or not Russian agents are

shown to be responsible for this

incident, as in the time we got more

realistic about Russia? Kenda Home

Secretary confirm whether or not the

memorandum of understanding between

the UK and the Russian nuclear power

company that was championed by the

former Prime Minister Esther

Cameron, has formally -- Mr Cameron.

Can she make sure it has ended so

that the previous love in with

Russia we saw it years ago is

completely finish.

We should be

cautious about attribute in guilt at

this stage. Thus the Home Secretary

share my anger about the cruel

nature of this crime which could so

easily have resulted in considerably

more collateral damage. Moshe Escher

me and my constituents that the full

force of the law -- will she assure.

Just because we want to approach

this with a cool head in order to

collect the evidence does not mean

that we don't share the outrage that

his constituents and he himself

clearly feels about this. When we

have the evidence, I will return to

the House.

Amber Rudd.

Too many children and young people

reach "crisis point"

because services are not working

effectively together,

according to regulators.

The Care Quality Commission has

warned that national,

regional and local action is needed

to ensure services work to support

young people's mental health needs.

In December, the Government

published a plan, or green paper,

aimed at improving children

and young people's access to mental

health support in schools

and colleges in England.

The Government has committed to

making available an addition £1.4

billion to improve children suspect

mental health services to deliver

two commitments... Spend is reaching

the front line, it's an issue I know

the honourable Lady and members have

concerns about. By 2020, ...

In this

report, we see evidence of services

actively putting up barriers to

treatment. Resulting in children and

young people reaching crisis point

before being able to get access to

the right treatment. Children are

suffering because of those high

eligibility thresholds. We know that

50% of mental health problems

develop before the age of 14 and

that 75% develop before the age of

18. Does the Minister recognise that

imposing high eligibility thresholds

means that children and young people

are treated only when their

condition becomes more serious?

We

are the first government to

introduce waiting time standards,

and have to make relevant... They

are both either meeting are on track

to meet their target at the moment.

We will also be piloting the full

week waiting time for specialist

waiting times as outlined, we are

considering the report that the

responses to that.

It is shocking

that some children are receiving

assistance after attempting suicide,

I note that the national mental

health director has stated that

child and adolescent mental health

services are now proving that from a

stopping point, a historic

underfunding and the legacy

understaffing. This report is surely

an example of the latest reports in

recent years demonstrating the

impact that this government's

austerity driven agenda...

In the

next few weeks, workbook...

Something that is long overdue and

much anticipated, a clear sign that

this government is investing in

mental health and young people but

we continue to have a problem with

our CCJA in delivering front-line

services even though the Government

are providing -- our CCG.

We know

that the money has fallen short,

well short of what was committed to-

three years ago. Of the Minister

absolutely commit to making sure the

shortfall of money getting through

to children's mental health

services?

Will the Minister listened

more closely to the voice of

parents? What parents want, if they

think there something wrong with

their child, whether it's mental

health or autism, they want early

diagnosis and treatment.

That's why

the report highlighted... I

completely agree with him.

Steve Brine.

The Prime Minister has

said that after Brexit,

the UK will be leaving

the Common Fisheries Policy,

the rules which give all European

fishing fleets equal

access to EU waters.

But on Wednesday, there

were two developments

which worried the UK industry.

First, the draft EU guidelines

for trade talks with the UK stated

that existing reciprocal access

to fishing waters and resources

should be maintained.

Then, the Chancellor Philip Hammond

said the Government would be open

to discussing appropriate

arrangements for access for British

fishermen to EU waters and for EU

fishermen to British waters.

With those factors in mind,

several MPs had questions

for the Environment Minister.

Can the Minister give an absolute

assurance...

We have been clear that

when we leave the European Union, we

leave the common fisheries policy.

That means that under international

law, the UN convention of the law of

the sea, we become an independent

coastal state that we will manage

the fisheries resources in our

exclusive economic zone and manage

access to our own waters.

Does the

Minister agree that leaving the

European Union provides fishermen

with a sea of opportunity and part

of that will include protecting

them...

I wonder if we can get an

answer with no Dodge, given all the

tales...

Mr Speaker, the Government

is still seeking a trade deal in the

future, but he should also be aware

that other countries like Norway and

Iceland have control of their

waters, they grant access and the

other that we will continue to be

part of that negotiation.

A Conservative MP wondered

whether the UK would leave before

the proposed transition period

began next year.

When not far -- one of our... Can

the Minister confirm that we are

leaving it in March up next year and

that he won't trade away our newly

we want sovereignty over fishing in

the interest of a wider trade deal?

To agree an approach on the

management of shared stocks and we

envisage that such meetings will

continue. But I can confirm that the

UK Government's view is that there

is a trade discussion to take place

and we want a free trade agreement

and the fisheries discussion to take

place, where we want to take control

of our waters.

The commission's

position on the other that they

state, existing reciprocal access

should be maintained. They also

suggest that any future deal should

be... This position is cooked

unacceptable for the fishing

communities around the UK. Can my

honourable friend confirm that this

government...

Yes, I simply say to my friend that

this is an EU position. They current

-- currently benefit from access to

it UK. They currently access 100,000

tonnes of fish in EU waters, and the

EU Access 700000 tonnes of fish.

They would say that, wouldn't they

quiz map that is not a position UK

shares.

George Eustice.

You're watching Thursday

in Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Earlier this week, MPs voted

to bring Northern Ireland in line

with the rest of the UK by requiring

political parties there

to reveal who funds them.

It means that all donations of more

than £7,500 made after July last

year will have to be made public.

But the decision not to backdate

the publication of donations means

details of those made during the EU

referendum campaign

will not be listed.

That includes a controversial

donation of more than £400,000

to the DUP from a group of pro-union

business people called

the Constitutional Research Council.

That angered a Labour

former Cabinet minister.

Following the disgraceful decision

by the Government yesterday to keep

secret the source of the 425 of

hundred thousand pounds donation to

the Leave campaign via the DUP,

meeting the public have no idea

where this money came from, what

more can she be in the Electoral

Commission do to ensure we have full

transparency in our democratic

system?

The commission welcomes the

existing order which will provide

for the first time information about

donations and loans received by

parties in Northern Ireland. But the

commission also builds as the

transparency back to 2014 as

Parliament envisaged and would

support the third order to provide a

full transparency back to 2014.

There are more than 500,000 miles

of underwater cables that carry much

of the world's web traffic.

At the end of last year,

the head of the armed forces

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach,

said the military had prioritised

the protection of the UK's cables

because of the threat

posed by Russia.

This was after warnings that any

attack would be a "crippling

blow" to the country's

security and economy.

A Labour Peer wondered

if the government took

the issue seriously enough.

Journalist walk into a farmhouse in

Cornwell through an open door and

photographed all the connections to

one of the main submarine cables.

And at last summer, a ship dropped

its anchor on a cable between here

and the mainland and cut the cable.

And nobody has bothered to prosecute

this. So could he explain whether

the Government really is -- takes

seriously the issue of a security on

these cables and what is he going to

do to ensure that these two

instances that I have just mentioned

will not happen again?

The noble

lord raises an important point. As

far as the Sunday Times report is

concerned, I can say the reporter

was unable to access any secure

section of the facility. The

essential point about this is that

there is resilience in the system.

There are many cables coming into

the 11 the landing sites for

transatlantic cables in a different

places. Because of the resilience of

the system, when one particular

cable is broken, the system

continues. As far as prosecution is

concerned, most of the breaks in the

cables, and there are a considerable

number each year, about 30-40 each

year, as the result of accidents.

And that is why it is not normally

necessarily -- necessary to

prosecute. But these are similar

actions because the cables locking

individual companies. It is under

them to seek damages.

We were very

concerned about cables in the 1970s

and we built the HMS Challenger grey

cost because we were concerned.

Finally we got rid of her when the

Cold War style. The Russians have

now started investing very heavily

in a nuclear submarines that can go

deep into these attacks on these

cables. At the end of the Cold War,

we're the best anti-submarine

warfare and undersea warfare to

mobility in the world. That hasn't

been eroded. What are we doing to

have ships that will enable us and

platforms that will enable us to go

and check these lines, repair them

and do the work?

Is not just the

Marines nowadays. Any so called a

civilian vessel, which can have

drones on them, can do it. The

issue, the main defence is

resilience, and a lot to different

cables because there are just over

half 1 million miles of cables to

monitoring the world.

Lord Ashton.

Back in the Commons,

MPs held a debate to mark

International Women's Day

and celebrate 100 years

since some women got the vote.

The Labour MP Jess Philips began

by reciting the names of women

killed by men in the last year.

As always, the women are all ages

and were killed in violent episodes

at the hands of men. Violence

against women and girls is an

epidemic. If as many people died

every week at a sporting event or

because they had a particular job,

there'll be a national outcry. These

deserve the same. We must all do

better to hear their stories and to

end the culture of a male violence

that killed them up.

Over the next nearly four minutes,

she read out the names

of all the women who had died

from domestic violence

in the UK since the last

International Women's Day.

Our test should always be given we

do everything we could to protect

all women? There are too many women

in this country, the answer to this

is still simply know. We must do

better.

Another Labour MP fought back tears

as she called for an end to violence

against women in conflict zones.

I was more in the country,

Bangladesh, that was born out of

compliment were millions lost their

lives. Where rape and violence was

used as a weapon of war. And that

continues in many other countries

today. We must all continue to work

hard to make sure that we bring an

end to sexual violence in the

conflicts.

An SNP MP argued sexism was deeply

embedded in our culture.

We see it in this House, a juvenile,

grinning idiocy that is so offensive

that sometimes, the smugness of a

minority of men who think that

supposedly clever point scoring

Peru's something. And

anti-intellectual nonsense that

makes this continuing debate so

tiring. There are men in this House

who have a record of opposing

progressive politics without

substantiated argument but with

plenty of bluster and filibuster,

imposing a quality as a playground

joke. I, and I am sure others, are

tired of engaging with men who have

it so very little to offer, and I am

pleased that they represent a very

tiny percentage of the men I

encounter.

Other MPs spoke of encouraging more

women into politics and Westminster.

We must put forward a very positive

view of the women's role in this

House because the most important

thing is to encourage young women to

look at this as a potential career

and if they are always complaining

and pointing out downsides of the

jar, that is not going to be very

encouraging.

The best thing we are

doing at the moment is having a

female Prime Minister. Because

certainly for me, it was when I saw

Margaret Thatcher become Prime

Minister and leader of the party,

that made politics relevant for me.

It turned to politics from being

frankly a lot of old men in grey

raincoats into something which was a

Technicolor, relevant issue for me

to be involved in as a 14-year-old

girl living in South Wales, where

there were not too Tories around.

And I could see an amazing role

model on the television.

It is

important that we in his house take

responsibility for inspiring our

women and daughters. But I think we

should also remember that many of

inspiration to our mothers and

grandmothers, and Parliament in our

lives. My own grandmother did not

have the right to vote when she was

bored. I wear her wedding ring to

this chamber every day up and

occasionally it serves as a reminder

to generations paid fast -- of past.

Christine Jardine.

The tech firms YouTube and Google

could be called in front of MPs

after claims they've failed

to honour a pledge to take

down extremist videos.

The companies told the Home Affairs

Committee in December that they'd

remove content from illegal

far-right group National Action.

But the chair of the committee,

raising a point of order

in the Commons, told MPs the videos

were still widely

available this week.

Can you advise on the course of

action when a private company gives

commitments and assurances to select

committees on issues that affect

national security and public safety

and then fails to meet them? Mr

Speaker, there is widely available

on YouTube this week, the band in

illegal propaganda videos from the

extremist prescribed organisation

national action that, despite the

fact that this video has been raised

with YouTube and Google seven times

by a select committee over the last

12 months. Despite the fact that

they have promised us that that

video is illegal and will be taken

down and they had the technology to

prevent that being put back up. Have

you had any indication the

Government will look into this? And

do you share my immense concern that

this was one of the richest

companies in the world and is

failing to meet its basic

responsibility to tackle extremism

and protect public safety in this

country?

Grateful for your point of

order and I share her intense

concern on the matter. National

Action is a despicable fascist

neo-Nazi organisation. And my

understanding is that it has been

prescribed, by the Home Secretary.

If they are having commitments may,

they must be honoured. It is open to

committee but it should not be

necessary for the committee to

demand as a matter of urgency the

appearance of representatives of one

or more of those companies before it

to explain itself.

The Home Secretary,

who was still in the chamber

following her earlier statement

on Sergei Skripal stepped in.

They are right to raise this issue.

National Action, as you rightly say,

is a prescribed group, I prescribed

it myself. It is a terrorist

organisation. The fact is that

Internet companies have made good

progress in taking down the Aiesh

focused material. Now we hadn't --

demonstrated they can take that with

our own system 94% of material that

goes up from Daesh type

organisation. But we must see more

focused in areas of extreme

right-wing groups like my right

honourable lady hasn't raced. I hope

the lady and I can work together to

make sure that we hold the more to

account.

Amber Rudd.

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, among other things,

I'll be finding out why not

all petitions to MPs get debated

and whether they have any impact

when they do.

But for now from me,

Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.