15/03/2018 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme.

Coming up:

Conservative MPs demand ministers

stand up to the EU on the vexed

question of fishing after Brexit.

The Armada of trawlers who have been

hit plundering Britain cosmic

historic oozing ground are not going

to be happy that their best years

are behind them. -- Britain's

historic fishing grounds.

The doors to flats in

Grenfell Tower are found to have

failed a police fire test.

When tested by the Metropolitan

Police, the door failed after 15

minutes.

And a former cabinet minister

questions if a fellow peer is right

to play host to the founder

of a far-right group.

At a time when there is an increased

risk of relation to hate crimes.

Of the many questions

surrounding Brexit, one

of the main ones concerns fish.

Conservative MPs have been pressing

the government not to agree

to the EU's demand that the bloc

should still have the right to fish

in UK waters after Brexit,

in return for tariff-free access

to the European market

for British goods and services.

In its latest version

of the Brexit agreement,

released on Thursday,

the EU has added in "opportunities"

for the UK to "comment"

on fishing quotas.

One Conservative believed people

would unite against the idea

of continued access to UK waters:

Well, while fish largely

Remainers and believers are united

at the very worst aspect of our EU

membership is the common fisheries

policy and when we leave the

European Union, we leave the common

fisheries policy will stop on that

day, the Armada of EU trawlers that

have been plundering Britain's

historic fishing grounds since 1973

are not going to be happy that their

best years are behind them. Can we

ensure that the Royal Navy has the

resources it needs to protect our

sovereign waters and ensure the

rebirth and the renaissance of the

British fishing industry.

It was

disappointing to see an aggressive

line in that document about

maintaining access to fishing

waters. I want the department is

robust on the behalf of my

Northumbrian fishermen to ensure we

regain control of our fishing waters

afford the sighting who else

condition them.

It was a very odd

linkage to make as well. The simple

truth is that when we leave the

European Union, we will be an

independent coastal state. As a

result, we will control our own

waters. There will of course be

continuing negotiations between

neighbouring states because this

move about cats and quotas and the

rest of it.

When we leave the

European Union will my friend

confirm that he will not give free

and unfettered access as is demanded

currently by the European Union?

As

the Secretary of State and I have

but said, we will be leaving common

fisheries policy and take control of

our waters. I would just say to him

that my experience of fishermen is

that they do wish to have access to

European markets and I think we need

to approach the fisheries

negotiation in the same constructive

spirit as other parts of our

negotiation but yes, we will be

taking control of our waters.

While fish largely ignore

national borders, that's not

always the case with MPs

- especially when that border

is the one between Northern Ireland

and the Republic.

The Government's committed

to avoiding what's known as a

"hard border" after Brexit.

But some MPs questioned

whether that's really plausible.

Given that the Government have said

that the border will remain

frictionless and that there will be

no border in the Irish Sea, the

question many of us continue to ask

is, how can this happen?

Well,

government has made clear its

unwavering commitment to three

guiding principles in relation to

Northern Ireland and Republic.

First, there should be no hard

border, North and South. Belfast

agreement must be honoured and

thirdly that the Constitution and

economic integrity of the United

Kingdom remains unimpaired and the

Prime Minister has set out most

recently in her speech how that

might be achieved. And also,

building on the options set out in

the August position papers which

sets out practical options how we

might take this forward.

This is

much more than just the movement of

goods or services. It is about the

cultural issue. It is about the

movement of people. It is about all

of that any symbolism of is enormous

and the Minister needs to ensure

that that is recognised time after

time in all of the talks that she

has to reassure the people of both

parts of Ireland.

I don't think that

Ministers quite appreciate the level

of concern that there is across the

House on this issue. Whenever I

visited the Irish border, I've come

face-to-face with the reality of

what the installation of any cameras

or any infrastructure would mean him

and it would not last a day,

Minister. It would not last a day.

Why won't the Secretary of State

even visit the borders so that he

can appreciate why people are so

concerned?

The Secretary of State

has also been to the border prior to

his appointment to this position and

is very much apprised of the

sensitivity and importance of the

squiggle issue.

Mr Speaker, I think

that says all we need to hear. How?

How, that is what we want to know,

how can we ensure an open border

without a customs union?

The minister said there were many

proposals on the table that would be

viable and workable.

The Government has reported a new

and worrying development into the

investigation of the fire at

Grenfell Tower.

It's nine months since

the blaze claimed 71 lives.

The cladding and insulation

on the outside of the building have

already failed all preliminary

tests by the police.

Now investigators have found that

a flat door from the building

could only hold back a fire for half

the time it was supposed to.

Initial inspections indicated the

door is believed to have been

designed to resist fire for up to 30

minutes. But when tested by the

Metropolitan Police, failed after

approximately 15 minutes. The

Metropolitan Police considered that

this test result might have wider

implications for public safety and

alerted my department.

Sajid Javid had sought the advice

of an independent expert panel.

The expert panel has advised that

the risk to the public safety remain

low. There is no change to the fire

safety advice of the public should

follow. I, nevertheless, fully

appreciate that this news will be

troubling for many people, not

least, all those affected by the

Grenville tragedy. -- Grenfell Tower

tragedy. That is why we have begun

the process of conducting further

tests and will continue to consult

with the expert panel to identify

the implications of these further

test. I have made it clear that the

necessary tests and assessments must

he carried a thoroughly, but at

pace. There is no evidence that this

is a systemic issue.

If this isn't

systemic, what assessment has been

made of how many buildings are

potentially affected by this? How

many individual flats? How many

people who have fire doors that

simply don't do the job. What steps

is he taking to ascertain those

numbers if he doesn't already know

that and I suspect it is too early

to know that, but what steps are

being taken to make that kind of

dissemination? Because that's the

point at which the words that this

is not systemic begins to ring a

little incredible. It may be a

systemic problem and we've got to

begin to recognise if this is

widescale that we have just that

systemic problem.

The minister repeated

that the government

was being led by the experts.

And there advice so far and that is

exactly why I said in my statement

earlier that there is no evidence of

a systemic problem. That is their

advice so far and B are correctly

taking advice whilst we continue

with further tests at pace. -- we

are.

The expert panel's

recommendation that no change in

safety device will come as a

surprise to many people, so will the

Government insist that Dame Judith

Hackett's review into the fire

regulations assessment will make

sure that every high-rise building's

assessment will be published and

made available in an accessible form

for the public so they can perhaps

the reassurance from that that I

fear they won't have got from this

report.

As a west London near

neighbour, residents in the London

Borough of Ealing Tansey grand mal

-- can see Grenfell. My constituent

was at the silent march last night

and he said that there was massive

numbers and the sense of injustice

was overwhelming. The Minister has

repeatedly said that public safety

is paramount. What is he doing to

instill public confidence into the

inquiry and the actor Matt? I don't

take it was ever there.

Grenfell Tower is in

the constituency of Emma Dent Coad.

She'd been speaking to an architect

who'd worked on the Estate.

In those days, the 1970s, fire doors

were supposed to lasts for one hour.

We're down to 30 minutes. Can we

please consider whether or not

buildings of that size am a half an

hour is enough?

She asked me about

the fire doors and whether one hour

is correct versus half-an-hour. This

is exactly one of the reasons why

I've set up the independent building

regulation and fire safety work

being done by Dame Judith Hackett. I

know this is an issue she will be

looking at.

Sajid Javid.

You're watching Thursday

in Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

The Chair of the Commons health

committee has dismissed as "dismal"

the explanation from NHS

digital about why it

shares some patient data.

Last year the service agreed

with the home office that doctors

could give details including

addresses to immigration officials.

But such sharing has raised fears

that some migrants will be put off

getting medical help.

The chair of the health committee

began by reminding NHS

digital of its remit.

You say, we are the guardians of

patient data and say it is only ever

used for the good of health and

care. I'm afraid this is not the

approach that you're taking and I

just wonder, do you recognise the

potential damage that this is doing

at a time when we want the public to

trust NHS Digital to be making

ethical decisions about sharing data

for research purposes? Is a really

crucial thing that we need to get

the public on board with so that

they understand why it is in

everyone's best interest to do that.

Still, this matter has taken an

entirely versus driven approach to a

serious ethical issue. We have taken

a law driven approach. Not an

ethical driven approach.

It was

consulted on very widely with a

large committee. So, a case of

filling inboxes. We are very, very,

very careful with how we handled

clinical data. I absolutely accept

you have, you know, a concern about

where the address data is in terms

of the confidentiality treatment of

it. We have looked to the law, we

have looked to case law and sought

to follow that came fully. --

carefully.

It is not there for an

individual to not expect that

information to be shared? Is that

not reasonable?

The Minister Pato

position is that there's not

reasonable expectation. From our

perspective, we have given notice

that we may share this data with the

Home Office, address data for

immigration enforcement tracing

purposes, so we have sought to be

completely transparent about the

potential use of the data.

Do you

personally think that is right if

that is going to reduce people's

willingness to access health care?

You personally think that is right?

We don't have empirical evidence

that says this will impact people's

use of the system.

The information

procured by the Home Office resulted

in a deportation notice was sent to

AGP to pass on to a highly

vulnerable patient. Do you think

that is acceptable?

We have nothing

to do with how the Home Office

handle this.

But as a consequence of

you release snye data, you have to

take summer spots ability for what

then happens with that.

I know

nothing about the case that you're

talking about.

I am telling you what

happened and you think on that basis

it was appropriate?

I don't know

enough contextually about that case,

the way immigration enforcement

work, to be able to make a comment

on it.

That's just dismal. I just

think that you have been told very

clearly that there is a risk. Why we

do not apply a precautionary

principle on this and at least

suspends data sharing until they

have completed their review?

But Sarah Wilkinson insisted,

they hadn't been told clearly

that this data sharing had an impact

on people seeking health care.

And MPs were keeping up the pressure

on ministers to invest

in mental health services.

In a debate in Westminister Hall,

a former health minister,

said better services

would benefit both

the individual and the Treasury.

What we know from the analysis

that's been done is that for every

£1 to invest in early intervention

and psychosis, to get the return of

£15 over subsequent years. Where the

complications is that the return on

that investment is not concentrated

just the NHS. It's getting people

off benefits and into work. It's

bringing in tax revenue, it's

reducing the number of people who

end up going through the criminal

justice system. As well as reduction

in the use of the NHS.

Norman Lamb also said leaving

people for months before

they could get treatment

amounted to discrimination.

Why should someone who experiences

psychosis be treated in any inferior

way to someone who suffers from

cancer or any other physical

condition?

Labour's Paul Williams is a GP.

He said people who got rapid

treatment had "half a chance"

of getting their lives

back on track.

You can just imagine if there were a

pathway through, it improves

survival and recovery, we would know

all about it and fight for it.

In

the past, diagnosis of psychosis

would be a life sentence. But early

intervention and treatment now can

lead to a recovery, people can get

their lives back on track. This is

not the dark old days where if you

had a mental illness, that was it.

We know that people can recover and

people should recover, but getting

early treatment is absolutely

crucial to that.

The Health Minister agreed that

improving access to treatment must

be a "top priority" and said that

ministers had a plan.

It remains the Government's priority

that we do deliver a change in how

we provide services to people with

poor mental health, and that is a

cultural change, it will take time.

We will make the investment in the

additional static resources to

deliver that change.

The Health Minister.

Peers have been debating how

to tackle hate speech online,

but the subject of hate speech

within the Lords also came up.

The Bishop of Gloucester

began by considering how

vulnerable, children

were to extreme content.

Websites have not benefits but this

is fraud costs. I'm concerned about

the hate speech that young people

are exposed to online, including

through anonymous apps. What is the

Government doing to ensure that the

age verification checks on apps are

actually effective stop the

Government is working extensively

with platforms on things such as age

verification, but also on things

such as bullying and trolling

online.

Some of the things that

young people are exposed to second

blight their lives.

But then the questioning

moved closer to home.

It concerned Tommy Robinson,

the founder of the far-right group,

the English Defence League.

Does my noble friend agreed that all

members of this House should be

working to eradicate all forms of

hate speech and I know the noble

lord Lord Pearson is desperate to

get into this question, or if he

does get the opportunity to do so,

he could explain whether he thinks

is appropriate for members of this

House to be hosting the likes of

Tommy Robinson within the precincts

of this House at a time when there

is an increased risk in relation to

hate crime, and members of the other

house have been receiving hate

letters.

I couldn't agree more that

this isn't just a governmental

thing, is not a societal, but as

legislators for this country, we

have got a strong leadership role to

take. It does this make me when I

see that certain quite extreme

people are actually being invited

into the Palace of Westminster to

propagate some of their hate.

The UKIP peer didn't

mention Tommy Robinson

when he asked a question later.

A former Labour cabinet minister

said hate speech wouldn't be tackled

by technical control of platforms

alone, education was key.

In the chequered history of this

country, then there was a glorious

hours and sacrifices were made, in

order to defeat an ideology where at

its core, had racial hatred,

homophobic hatred, and political

hatred as well. And that you

abandoned the history of this

country and its greatest hours by

indulging in any of them and our

young people should know that.

The Minister agreed and stressed

the need to respect the right

to free speech without forgetting

how many lives had been

lost fighting hatred.

UN investigators have said it's

likely that crimes under

international law had been committed

against Rohingya Muslims

in the Burmese state of Rakine.

Hundreds of thousands

of people have fled

the violence and are now sheltering

in refugee camps in

neighbouring Bangladesh.

They now face new dangers

of landslides and flooding

during the monsoon season.

When a Foreign Office minister

updated MPs on the situation he said

the Burmese autorities has refused

to allow the UN fact finding

mission into the country.

Despite this, after interviewing

Rohingya refugees, the report

revealed evidence of widespread and

systematic rape and murder of her

Hindi people and the distraction of

their homes and villages, primarily

by the Burmese military. -- of

Rohingya people. Since August 2017,

nearly 680,000 refugees have sought

shelter. The UN special reporter for

human rights in Burma recently

stated the conflict had all the

hallmarks of genocide. However, I

must tell the House that the only

path to prosecution for genocide

were crimes against humanity is by

the international criminal Court. It

is a legal process. Burma is not a

party to their own statute and must

either therefore revert itself to

the court or be referred by the UN

Security Council. Neither

eventuality is likely, I fear, in

the short term.

You will understand

the long-standing view on the side

of the House that is time to go

further and be more public and using

the UK's formal role as pen holder

on Myanmar and the United Nations

Security Council. The table

resolutions on these vital issues.

First, to table a resolution setting

down the terms under which the

repair attrition process should

proceed and the future rights and

protections that must be accorded to

the Rohingya refugees and obliging

the Myanmar authority to accede to

these terms. Secondly, at the

appropriate time, to table a

resolution referring Myanmar to the

international criminal Court. So

that the generals who this week

scandalously dismissed the UN's

claims of ethnic cleansing and

genocide and said instead that the

Rohingya had burned down their own

houses so that they can be brought

to account.

We will... There was

taken place in Burma a human rights

violation of the most serious kind.

Amounting to crimes under

international law and we've heard

earlier,... As a speaker today, my

own... Which was given to Aung San

Suu Kyi for...

The Minister has

reminded the House today that they

UN special reporter for human rights

in Burma has described this conflict

as having the hallmarks of genocide.

It is therefore absolutely

imperative that everything is done

to bring the various actors to

justice at the conclusion of it. The

Minister is quite right to remind us

about the challenges that we face in

reaching that end but there is an

immediate issue here, the most

compelling evidence that will inform

any prosecution in the future is to

be found now. Can't the Minister

tell me what the Government is doing

to ensure that every piece of

evidence that is available for

future use is being sought and

acquired at the moment?

The minister said the British

government was doing

its best to make sure

all the evidence was collected.

There have claims that the creative

industries will lose "vital

protection" after the UK

leaves the EU.

A Liberal Democrat was worried

about Brexit's impact on fashion

and design-based industries.

The heart exit from the EU means the

loss of EU unregistered community

design rights and vital protection

for designers who first disclosed

their designs in the UK. This is

just the way to lose London Fashion

Week.

The business minister said

new schemes would be

established to protect rights.

We will bring forward... To further

our rights here, there are the

negotiations that will take place in

the EU, with the EU as part of the

leaving process, which we hope will

feel though such will deal with

these matters.

But that didn't convince

one Labour peer.

The amount of GDP that Fashion Week

race of this country is enormous, we

really needed to continue. Can you

ensure that this industry is welcome

here and will make sure that this

will happen quickly otherwise they

will look to go to Paris and Milan,

because they are asking them and

baiting them to come.

I think the

noble lady is taking a rather

pessimistic view of things, but we

are aware of those risks. When one

thinks of the strengths of the

industry in this country, I think

it's unlikely it's going to leave

overnight. But we will be in

discussion with people such as the

fashion Council, listen to their

particular concerns and we will

continue with our negotiations as

part of the process.

And that's it.

Join me at the same time

tomorrow for a look back

at the whole Week in Parliament,

but for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.