07/03/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament. Our look at the best of

the day in the Commons on the Lords. On this programme, another spanner

in the works for ministers EU departures planned, peers vote for

one more alteration to the government 's Brexit bill. It

ensures that Parliament has the critical role in determining the

future that we will bequeath to generations. I find it quite

extraordinary that your lordship is spending hours here and basically

what is an effective amendment. Ministers are urged to reconsider

the ending of their policy to give lone refugee children sanctuary in

Britain. They are opposed who are sure for safety. Closing the scheme

will not stop that pull factor. Labour criticises the ending of

automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18-21 -year-olds. This

will make significantly more young people forced to rough sleep in our

country and will make them increasingly vulnerable. First, the

Brexit bill has cleared the House of Lords but with two significant

changes made by peers, the bill that starts the EU departure process must

now return to the House of Commons, where MPs will either accept or

reject the wishes of peers. Before its final stage of debate in the

Lords, peers returned to the details of the built in two areas of

contention in particular, first the Liberal Democrats propose the

holding of a second referendum, once the terms of the UK's exiting an old

and a Labour peer supported the idea saying many who voted leave in June

last year might be starting to have second thoughts. We are going to be

seeing huge tranches of money spent on trade negotiators seeking to

reinstate immigration processes and any number of things that this will

cost us and I think as people recognise that in fact our public

services are going to see greater and greater depletion in the shadows

of this Brexit movement, people are going to say, is this really what we

wanted? It goes back to that thing, did people vote to become poorer?

People voted to start the process and we get to the point where there

is a deal, at that point, the people should decide finally on whether the

deal is acceptable. There is no need, there would be no point or

issue for having a third referendum after that second decisive

referendum. Surely, we voted on leaving remaining, nothing else.

People voted on 57 varieties of the future of this country. At the time

of the European referendum last year, it is clear in my mind that

the starting point for Liberal Democrats was as follows, there

would be one referendum, it was not suggested for one moment that there

would be two or three or four referendums. A former diplomat

claimed government followers who are strongly against a second referendum

were in the position of lemmings. The matter how awful the deal turns

out to be, no matter how unlike the promises of the Leavers turns out to

be, no matter how Steve the cliff or storming the sea, we must go over,

there is no time to think again, no chance of turning back on any

decision. I find that strangely reminiscent of the Moscow I worked

in in 1968 when Soviet foreign policy ran on the Brezhnev doctrine.

It said that once you have voted communists in, you cannot vote them

out. The Ukip peers said the Liberal Democrats were grossly

overrepresented in the House of Lords. If they use this dishonest

advantage, by their own standards, by their own manifesto, if they use

this dishonest advantage to vote down the will of the people, to vote

down the will of the House of Commons and then my Lords, they will

reveal their contempt for democracy. And it will do your Lordships house

no good at all. The government should avoid an inclination to

oversimplify the outcome of the most complex peacetime negotiations

probably ever. Neither is the complexity of a further referendum a

good way of dealing with the process. At the end of negotiation,

it will add to our divisions, it will deepen the bitterness. It is

not democratic, it is unwise. To call a second referendum as this

amendment seeks to do it undermines the will of the people as expressed

in the EU referendum. The people voted to leave the European Union

and leave we will and I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their

amendment. Despite that, the Liberal Democrats did put their proposal for

another referendum to a vote but it was easily defeated, the peers voted

against the proposal. That was just the start of the events today. The

second big issue of the day centred on the role of Parliament when a

final EU exit deal emerges in two years' time, it should MPs and peers

get a decisive vote on that deal? Without help or hinder the EU

negotiations? And what if a parliamentary vote rejected the

deal? The essence of this amendment is clear and it has been clear from

the start. It simply seeks to ensure that Parliament and not ministers

have control over the terms of our withdrawal at the end of the

negotiating process. We now face the most momentous piece time decision

of our time. And this amendment, as the noble Lord has so clearly set

out, secure as in law, the government's commitment, already

made to another place, to ensure that Parliament is the ultimate

custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that

Parliament has the critical role in determining the future that we will

bequeath to generations of young people and I urge your Lordships to

support the amendment. A former Tory leader said that MPs would have

their say regardless, it did not need to be in the Brexit bill. They

do not even need the authority of my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister for that. They certainly do not need this new clause for that.

They do not need any authority of that. They will have their say, they

will have their way. The only assurance we are going to have is by

putting this on the face of the bill. My Lords, the government has

not got the former over this, they have not got good form. They went

into the Supreme Court after the High Court had told them what the

judgment should be and they foolishly went on, in my view, so we

need this on the face of the bill because the government has form in

bypassing Parliament and we need to know that that will not happen

again. Why would we deny Parliament the heart of our democracy, the

authority to approve or push for a better deal, rather than accepting

no deal without a proper state? This Parliamentary route, giving

Parliament a meaningful final vote is my preferred option. So we get to

the final hour at midnight when the deal has been done and the Prime

Minister says hang on, I cannot agree a deal, I have to consult the

House of Commons, it is ridiculous. It is a ridiculous proposal to

suggest... It is not the Prime Minister's proposal, it is

ridiculous to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an

agreement until this has been sorted. This is putting an

assurance, an undertaking even by the Prime Minister into a statutory

obligation and it is wise and sensible so to do. If you

contemplate what might happen in two years' time, you will see only two

sadly that sovereignty lies with Europe. If this house or the other

house were to reject the deal, we would end up as puppets in their

hands. Cannot honestly be imagined that if one or other house, whether

it is approval or act of Parliament goes back to Europe in just under

two years' time and says we do not like the deal, that the other 27

will say, oh dear, here is a much better one? Or that they will say,

let us all 27 now agreed to extend the negotiation time? I don't think

that is the case. I feel that during the referendum, we did vote for

taking back control and it seems to me that taking back control does not

mean giving such momentous decision about the UK to a tiny cohort of

politicians. I find it extraordinary that your Lordships house is

spending several hours here on what is basically a defective amendment!

There are better ways, he is incapable of putting down an

amendment that is in order, then so be it! He is a highly creative

lawyer and there are other lawyers looking who come perhaps produce an

amendment that is not defective. I ask your Lordships to rest on the

long contest a principle that this country's future should rest with

Parliament. And not with ministers. It is in that spirit that I content,

commend, this new clause to the Lordships house. The government

cannot possibly accept an amendment which is so unclear on an issue of

this importance on what the Prime Minister is to do if Parliament

votes against leaving with no agreement. The parliamentary vote we

have promised will be a meaningful vote, we will leave with a deal or

we will leave without a deal. That is the choice on offer. But the

choice offered by this amendment by Klaus four is unclear. At the end of

the debate, peers voted decisively for the amendment to the Brexit bill

requiring an meaningful Parliamentary vote on the final exit

deal. My Lords, they have voted contends, 366, not contends to 68,

so the content habit. And so those peers changes to the bill must now

be considered by MPs. Meanwhile in the Commons, ministers have seen off

a potential Conservative rebellion on the issue of unaccompanied child

refugees. The Tory MP Heidi Allen put forward a proposal requiring

councils to state how many children they could take but MPs voted

narrowly against her plan. Last month there was an angry reaction to

the news the government was ending the scheme that allowed vulnerable

refugee children to come to Britain. The scheme was named after the

Labour peer Lord dubs. Campaigners hope that 3000 would be given

sanctuary but only 350 have been taken. The Home Secretary said that

the programme rest being an incentive for refuge street children

to make perilous sea crossings to Europe. The government has a great

record in the region but for me and many in this house the remains a big

issue in Europe that stopped been addressed on how we safeguard

children had that might come to us from Europe and that is a matter

close to our hearts. Since the government

announced that the Dubbs Scheme scheme would be close, local

authorities have stepped forward and said they can do more. If that

capacity is there, safeguarding strategy and something that extracts

that information from local authorities on a regular basis, it

is powerful information and we must know what. Just to remind ourselves,

Lewisham said they could take 23 children and they have been someone.

Gloucestershire would like ten but only have received two, the small

numbers add up. Does she agree that local authorities are already

reviewing capacity on a week by week basis and this is very evident when

we look at the number of referrals that are coming out of London to

look after our own British children. Does she accept that actually this

is something that local authorities are taking part in everyday of the

week? I do. That is what has borne this debate for me, they have said

they are struggling and others have said they have got capacity. Somehow

we are not joining those conversations together and for the

benefit of these refugee children and children in care, I know there

is further capacity out there. The pool factor is safety. There are

Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running

from rape and murder, indeed, they are pulled to assure for safety.

Closing the Dubbs Scheme will not stop that factor but it will make

the traffic is the most attractive proposition that those children have

an crucially, amendment one and new clause 14 identify our

responsibility to involve them in the safeguarding process and involve

not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. Surely

what the government should do is seek the further advice of the

expert anti-slavery commissioner, before it makes any changes and

closes the scheme and if it wants to persist in this view, at least

tested against the evidence and not just the many organisations and

charities who have been arguing so strongly on the basis of the work

that they themselves are doing with children and young people across

Europe and other places as well who are at risk of trafficking and who

are at risk of being sucked into exploitation and sexual abuse.

The government has committed to a statement. We have been consulting

local authorities about their capacity and will set out plans to

boost capacity for foster carers and supported lodgings. We will continue

to consult with local authorities about their capacity to support

asylum seeking and refugee children in order to identify those

authorities most able to support unaccompanied children. The minister

added he was happy to give MPs regular updates on the number of

children resettled in the UK. The Commons rejected the proposal 287

votes to 267, a majority of 20. You're watching our round-up of the

day in the Commons and the Lords. Still to come, is it fair to

reinvestigate events of 40 years ago during the dark days of the Northern

Ireland troubles? Labour is claiming that ending the

automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds is a

nasty, vindictive policy. The proposal within the Conservative's

2015 election manifesto and a statement last week confirmed the

policy will go ahead from April. It could affect 10,000 youngsters and

is expected to save ?105 million in this Parliament. Answering an urgent

question, a minister defended the policy. It removes the incentive to

leave the family home and pass the cost onto the taxpayer.

About stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits and

brings parity with young people in work but who may not be up to leave

the family home one unemployed young person can. She said the policy

would have interventions, including care leavers, those with children

and apprentices. Labour said many housing charities had concerns.

Surely the Minister does not think these charities are wrong. If she

knows they are right, surely the government is not going to go ahead

with these cruel and counter-productive cuts. This is

about levelling the playing field? These young people who are old

enough to marry, work, pay taxes, fight for our country, will now be

denied the same right to basic help with housing costs as any British

adults. Does she think an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a

job if they have a stable address or if they are living in a hostel or

sleeping on the streets? We should call this for what it is. A nasty,

vindictive policy that will make injustice worse from a government

who said they would tackle burning injustice. The key point about

nipping it in the Bard is important because once it takes hold it could

be damaging. Young people can be forgiven, they may think this is

fair, but when we do this and we protect every single penny going to

pensioners, including in winter fuel allowance the millionaires just

because they are over 65, they can be forgiven for thinking we are not

playing fair to everybody. What we are trying to do is play fairly for

the those young people in work and having to make the decision that

they cannot afford to leave this family home and stay living with

their parents. I'm working on homelessness in Greater Manchester.

I went round the streets of Manchester and was shocked to see

the risk young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances

and the threat from violence. Does the Honourable lady not understand

this will make significantly more young people forced to rough sleep

in our country and will make those young people increasingly

vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the

nasty party? The honourable gentleman makes the assumption that

this will increase homelessness. What we expect is behavioural change

and young people, where they can, to stay living with their parents. When

they cannot stay living with their parents, they will be exempt from

this policy. When it was announced in December that the Police Service

of Northern Ireland were proposing to examine all 302 killings by

British troops during the Northern Ireland troubles the decision was

denounced in some quarters as a witchhunt. The Commons defence

committee is now looking at whether the government can protect British

soldiers from what the Conservative chair Julian Lewis called

persecution 40 years after the events. Doctor Lewis broke in on the

questioning by a Conservative member to tease out what he saw as the

double standards being applied. If a terrorist has killed 16 people and

they get prosecuted, they are let out after two years. Is that right?

Whereas if a soldier has killed one person, wrongly, and they are

prosecuted, they serve a life sentence. Do you see the imbalance

that appears to the average man on the street? Plainly balance is what

is needed. If there are imbalances, that's a problem. There are and it's

a problem so what do we do about it? That's what we are talking about.

What in the legal world can we do about that? A law professor

suggested the solution might lie outside the scope of the criminal

law. The way these things have worked in other jurisdictions is

variations on mechanisms of truth and reconciliation in which people

come forward with information and as part of the providing of that

information, they are effectively take themselves out from the

criminal process system. That has worked in several jurisdictions.

It's more cost effective, it tends to create harmony rather than

discord, it's quicker, cheaper, if you can get and this is a crucial

point, if you can get the political will by the participants. If they

can't agree between themselves in the relation to crimes between

Republicans and loyalists, is that an option for us to do justice to

the soldiers? Coming back to the realities of what you can do is

legislating chamber, you can do whatever you want, you are

sovereign. Would it be wise? Absolutely not, you would exacerbate

the disharmony. He said the need to achieve a balanced approach was

crucial. Some people call it one of the most

beautiful walks in the world. The coast-to-coast walk stretches for

190 miles across northern England from the Cumbrian coast near

Whitehaven to the Yorkshire coast near Whitby it takes at least ten

days to complete if you are fit, but it has no official status. A North

Yorkshire MP has explained why it's high time to give the walk official

recognition. Across mountains and fells, wandering through valleys and

villages, it is an inspirational crossing of the North of England. It

might seem self-evident that the coast-to-coast walk would be one of

Britain's 50 official national trails. It is, however, with regret

that I report that this remarkable route is yet to be officially

recognised and has not taken its rightful place alongside what are in

many cases far less celebrated walks. Despite its renown and the

thousands that walk it every year, the coast-to-coast does not even

appear on Ordnance Survey maps. He said parts of the walk had got over

warm. Areas of the past have become virtually owned walkable and with

National Trail status we can insure its kept as safe as possible, giving

people the confidence to undertake one of Britain's most magnificent

journeys. Money is the issue with designating new national trails. I

know that natural England have indicated to him that while they

support the idea of designating the coast-to-coast path as a National

Trail, it currently has no plans to designate any new national trails.

At the moment the government's priority is to develop coastal

access proposals under the Marine and coastal access

at 2009 for the England coast path. George Eustice. Finally, NMP

believes it's only right and proper that we all enjoy an extra bank

holiday this year. Why? Simple. Now 65 years since the moment when the

young Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II. Her long reign

on the throne means that Queen has gone past her silver jubilee, her

gold in the throne means that Queen has gone past her silver jubilee,

her golden and her diamond jubilee. So she has now reached her, you've

got it, her sapphire jubilee. Just as previous dew believes have been

celebrated far and wide, it must surely be right that the sapphire

jubilee is too. In fact, I say to this house that Her Majesty's

sapphire jubilee should be the greatest jubilee of all is no other

monarch has reached 65 years on the throne. And it is inconceivable that

any future king or queen will accomplish such an achievement for

centuries to come. We must not allow this year to pass by without a

celebration befitting the occasion. Saluting Her Majesty for all she has

done for our nation and the wider commonwealth. A Labour MP described

what happened in previous years when extra bank holidays were granted.

Before the diamond jubilee I wrote to the then Prime Minister David

Cameron. His reply, unfortunately, was unhelpful, merely restating the

NHS management view. We were left with a situation where Hyde working,

dedicated NHS staff who gave up their days off in order to provide a

vital service were not adequately remunerated and I do not want to see

this happen again with this new bill. But despite that, the bill got

the initial approval of MPs. Very little chance of it becoming law so

don't get your hopes up for that extra bank on a day.

That's it for this programme, but join me for our next daily round-up

when we'll have all the news of the Chancellor's Budget. Until then,

from me, Keith mac Dougal, goodbye.