18/04/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello - and welcome to the programme on the day Theresa May makes

a U-turn and announces she wants a General Election on June the 8th.

Labour MPs condemn the change of heart.

What I cannot understand from what the Leader of the House

has said today is how any of this makes things clearer.

But ministers argue an election is necessary.

To provide the clarity and the stability that the entire

United Kingdom needs.

Also on this programme.

The foreign secretary tells MPs the US military response

to the chemical attacks in Syria was necessary and appropriate.

And...

What will Brexit mean for the UK's creative industries?

But first, it's rare for political secrets not to spill out somewhere -

but there was genuine surprise around Westminster when journalists

were called to Downing Street and Theresa May announced she wanted

to hold a general election on June the 8th.

The hastily assembled reporters could be forgiven for not

expecting the PM's big news, given that Mrs May has

repeatedly rejected the idea of going to the country before 2020.

In her statement she explained why she'd changed her mind -

and said MPs would vote on Wednesday on her proposal.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two-thirds of MPs must

back her for Parliament to be dissolved.

Mrs May set out why she now felt an election was needed.

At this moment of enormous national significance,

there should be unity here in Westminster.

But instead there is division.

The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.

In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote

against the final agreement we reach with the European Union.

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business

of government to a standstill.

The Scottish National Party said they will vote

against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's

membership of the European Union.

And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us

every step of the way.

She said that jeopardised the work to prepare for Brexit and weakened

the government's negotiating position in Europe.

Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make

a success of Brexit.

And it will cause damaging uncertainty

and instability to the country.

So we need a general election and we need one now.

Because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done.

While the European Union agrees its negotiating position

and before the detailed talks begin.

I have only recently, and reluctantly, come

to this conclusion.

Since I became Prime Minister I have said that there should be no

election until 2020.

But now I have concluded that the only way to guarantee

certainty and stability for the years ahead is to hold this

election and secure support for the decisions I must take.

Theresa May - making her big surprise announcement

in Downing Street.

Well a couple of hours later the leader of the Commons,

David Lidington, explained to MPs what would happen now.

He confirmed there'd be a 90 minute debate,

followed by a vote on a motion proposing an election

on June the 8th.

The Shadow Leader of the House argued the Prime Minister's

announcement had broken a previous promise.

This is a massive U-turn because at least seven times,

most recently on March the 20th, the Prime Minister has ruled out

an early general election.

The Prime Minister said, I'm not going to be calling a snap election,

I have been very clear that I think we need that period of time,

that stability, to be able to deal with the issues that the country

is facing and have that election in 2020.

Clearly this government cannot be trusted.

I have to say I don't recollect any previous Labour Prime Minister

announcing a general election on the floor of

the House of Commons.

My right honourable friend this morning went about things

in the time-honoured fashion.

What she is putting to the country is the case for this government

to go forward on the basis of a clear mandate to provide

the clarity and the stability that the entire United Kingdom needs.

It is not actually in the gift of the Prime Minister's side

whether there is a general election or not, it will be this House.

And if Her Majesty's opposition don't want a general election,

can't face it, are worried about annihilation, they will not

vote for it tomorrow.

I agree completely with my honourable friend.

I thank the leader of the House for his short

but incendiary statement.

We on these benches are hearing that this was not the time

for these type of big decisions and the sole focus of this

government should really be on their hard Brexit.

This Mr Speaker is one of the most extraordinary U-turns

in political history.

And the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as we know is the biggest waste

of this House's time possible.

The calling of the general election now returns to a Prime Minister

and the interests of party now come before the interests of country.

The Prime Minister wasn't for calling a snap general election,

but now she is, perhaps sensing a political opportunity.

The choice to go for an election now is hers and hers alone

as it was the choice of a hard Brexit.

Will the Leader of the House make time available before the general

election campaign starts for this House to be able to discuss

the party of government's failure on the NHS, tackling violent crime,

and dealing with people with disabilities and their benefits?

I am astonished, Mr Speaker, that the right honourable gentleman

on behalf of the Liberal Democrats was able to talk about political

opportunism with a straight face.

It was a decision that the Prime Minister alone has to take to put

forward the motion tomorrow, but it will be a decision for every

member of the House of Commons tomorrow when we meet to decide

whether or not that is approved.

Can we find time in what is left of this Parliament to have a debate

about why she decided to trigger Article 50 and then throw the entire

planning into doubt by then calling a general election which will waste

at least three months of the precious, small amount

of time we have left to get the best deal for Britain?

Mr Speaker, far from throwing things into doubt,

what the Prime Minister's decision has done is to provide,

assuming that the people return the government,

and it will be a choice for the people to take,

that there will be the clarity of having a mandate behind

the Prime Minister and her government to deliver a successful

negotiation over the course of, and implemented over the course

of a five-year term.

Will the leader confirm that should the legislation pass tomorrow,

what we're doing is voting for a new Prime Minister for just

two years over Brexit, but for a new Prime Minister

for the duration of a Parliament of five years.

Many of us are expecting therefore that either the current

Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour Party will walk

through the door of Number Ten post June the eighth.

Could he encourage my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

to go head-to-head in as many TV debates with the Leader

of the Opposition as possible before June the eighth?

In calling a snap election is it seriously the view

of the British Government that a UK election will really change the EU

27 negotiating position?

If so, Mr Speaker, is it not guilty of living in a land of fantasy?

I think that what will be important is that newly elected leaders

in France and in Germany will meet a newly re-elected Prime Minister

of the United Kingdom, all of them with the confidence

that they have mandates from their voters as they approach

those negotiations in a constructive spirit.

What I cannot understand from what the Leader of the House

has said today is how any of this makes things clearer,

makes us feel more stable.

More secure.

This, all I ask is how does this look to people outside.

And as somebody who came from outside, it looks

like political opportunism.

David Lidington said he hoped people would believe the Prime Minister

was seeking a mandate for a government to carry

through challenging and ambitious European negotiations.

Well just ahead of those exchanges the Shadow Chancellor

John McDonnell accused Theresa May of breaking her promises

by calling an early election.

His attack came at Treasury questions - where MPs

had their first chance to react to the news in the chamber.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond defended the decision to ask

the Commons to back the date - and he attacked Labour,

saying the party remained "as fiscally incontinent as ever".

Mr Speaker, as you know this morning the Prime Minister has called

the general election.

She is breaking her commitment to not holding an early election

made only weeks ago.

She has blamed Brexit, she has blamed our European neighbours,

she has blamed the parties on these benches.

But the real truth is that after seven wasted years

of failure under the Tories, they have failed to close

the deficit, they have added 700 billion to the national debt,

pay is falling behind prices, 4 million children

are growing up in poverty.

Our schools are in crisis, more people than ever

on NHS waiting lists, more families homeless,

more elderly people not getting the care they need.

Will the Chancellor use this last opportunity before the election

to apologise to the British people for the utter failure of this

government's economic policies and for the pain he has inflicted

on this country?

Well, Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman has got some brass neck

to stand there and accuse us of having failed to eliminate

the deficit, when his policy is to add another ?500 billion to

it overnight.

The British people understand very well what is going on here.

A Conservative government which is maintaining growth,

which has got unemployment down, record levels of employment.

And a steadily closing deficit.

And a Labour Party which remains as fiscally incontinent as ever

and if given a chance, would wreck this economy once again.

There we have it, Mr Speaker, not one word of apology.

No contrition whatsoever from a Chancellor who has

broken his promises to the British people and still failing to deliver

on a manifesto elected only 23 months ago.

They're entering this election having scheduled ?70

billion of tax giveaways.

For whom?

For the super-rich and for the corporations

of the next five years.

They're entering an election with a 2 billion unfunded

black hole in the budget.

That the Chancellor delivered only a few weeks ago.

So will the Chancellor now use this opportunity before the general

election to put on record his party will rule out raising VAT,

rule out raising income tax, and will he commit unequivocally

to support legislation to protect the triple lock?

If the Tories cannot be straight with the British people,

Mr Speaker, Labour will be.

Mr Speaker, the truth is promises made from that side of the House

are not worth the paper they're written on and the voters of this

country, the pensioners of this country, the workers of this

country, understand that very well and they will give their verdict

on Labour's promises on June the eighth.

Can the Chancellor tell us which will be first to go

in the upcoming Tory manifesto?

The pledge on international aid spending, the triple lock,

or promise not to raise any new taxes?

Mr Speaker, I'm afraid the honourable gentleman will just

have to contain himself and ready his money and he will be

able to buy a copy in due course.

Philip Hammond.

The US military action in Syria was a "necessary,

appropriate and justified response to an awful crime",

the Foreign Secretary has told the House of Commons.

Boris Johnson was giving details to MPs on the evidence linking

the Assad regime with a chemical attack on the Idlib province.

Mr Johnson said the US Secretary of State had contacted the British

government asking for political support - but said it would be

difficult for Britain to say no to a request for practical support

in the future.

Mr Johnson also updated MPs on the political

situation in North Korea following a failed missile test.

The Foreign Secretary called on China to use

its influence with the country.

He began his statement paying tribute to Britons who had died

in tragic circumstances in Stockholm and Jerusalem.

Chris Bennington was among four people who died in Sweden

when a truck was driven into pedestrians

on the 7th of April.

Hannah Bladen was stabbed to death in Jerusalem on Good Friday

in a senseless attack.

Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

He laid out what was known about the Syria chemical weapons attack.

We know beyond doubt that to Sukhoi 22 aircraft took off from Shara

airfield where we know chemical weapons are stored.

We know that they were overhead at 6:39 when according

to eyewitness accounts, the attack took place.

We know from shell fragments in the crater that not only had

sarin gas been used, but sarin gas carrying the specific

chemical signature of sarin gas used by the Assad regime.

We were given advance notice of the operation but at no stage did

the US administration ask for UK military help, only

for political support.

Advance warning was given to Russian military personnel

who were co-located with the Syrian air force at the same place

to minimise the risk of casualties.

The government believes that the US action was a necessary, appropriate,

and justified response to an awful crime.

He moved on to North Korea.

The regime is now developing intercontinental ballistic missile

is which would be capable of delivering a nuclear strike

on the mainland United States.

These weapons have not yet been fully tested,

but no one can be complacent about the potential

threat they pose.

Yesterday I spoke to my Chinese counterpart Wang Yi and I urged him

to use Beijing's unique influence to restrain North Korea

and to allow a peaceful resolution of this crisis.

He ended last week disowned by Downing Street, ignored by Russia

and humiliated by the G7.

The only straw he can cling onto, we presume, is this.

That the United States State Department is still telling

him what to say and do and which countries

he is allowed to visit.

The Foreign Secretary rightly condemns the ongoing nuclear

and missile programmes being pursued by Kim Jong-un's regime.

I hope he will agree that, like Syria, this is a crisis

which can only be resolved through coordinated

international action, through the de-escalation tensions

and ultimately through negotiations.

So can he assure us that Britain will argue against any unilateral

military action taken by the United States and instead

urgently back China's call for the resumption

of the six party talks?

When it comes to North Korea the world needs statesmanship,

not brinkmanship.

The US air strikes on the Shayrat airfield and the demonstration

of the unpredictability of the Trump administration, which many fear

will only cause further escalation of the conflict,

in their rush to congratulate the administration on the recent air

strikes, did the UK Government consider the repercussions?

Until now, coalition aircraft have operated with relative freedom

against Daesh in eastern Syria.

Now Russia has suspended its US Russia air operations accord

and the Assad regime will likely activate its extensive air defences.

The skies above Syria will therefore be much more dangerous for UK pilots

while Syrian civilians on the ground will suffer even more.

Could I invite him to put pressure on the United States to try and dial

down the public rhetoric?

There is an element in which North Korea is something

like an attention seeking child.

It happens to belong to somebody else, in this case China.

And whilst the United States has proper responsibilities

to the other nations in the area about their security,

ratcheting up the rhetoric with North Korea is probably

the wrong way in publicly dealing with them.

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Crispin Blunt.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament, with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Fashion industry leaders have told MPs that the UK's departure

from the EU could put their haute couture designs at

risk of being copied.

Representatives of British clothes designers, giving evidence

to the Culture Committee, explained the current

system of rights.

That allows at the moment within the EU for you to

disclose your design, which of course is quite

often done at trade fairs or at London Fashion Week itself.

And the EU registration around that covers not only

specifics around design, but surface pattern as well,

which is very important, particularly in terms

of the designer sector.

Now, it is because this has to be disclosed first within the EU

that our deep concern is that post-exiting the EU those rights

wouldn't be recognised.

If you were to disclose your collection at London Fashion Week,

for instance, that those rights won't be protected.

And all those copyright issues that tend to arise,

particularly through the high-end designer sector won't

necessarily be protected.

That means it is a real challenge for London Fashion Week

because everyone is going to want to be able to protect their designs

as best as possible.

I have got my trademarks registered under EU trademarking.

It gets renewed every so many years.

I don't know what that means now when we are out of it.

And I protected?

So you have to have a lot of economies registered,

trademarks on this EU trade, intellectual property

right, which are going to have to be unravelled.

So it is a mess.

You know, but with every situation like this there are opportunities

and so it really requires fresh thinking, but innovation

from the Government and really thinking about how you compete

and it requires investment.

94% of everything on the High Street is imported.

70% of everything on the High Street is imported from non-EU sources.

So if you take a country like Bangladesh, for instance,

when we bring in just over ?2 billion worth of garments

wholesale, if we move from the current GSP free access

to those markets, the tariff rates on goods coming in from Bangladesh

are going to go up by 25%, because that is the WTO

most-favoured-nation tariff rate.

So that is our second largest supplier of all clothing in the UK.

And on top of that the exchange rate, we could be talking 45% more

expensive in terms of stuff coming into the UK.

So it is less the time delays, it is more the cost implications.

And those sort of figures apply whether you are talking

about Bangladesh, Turkey, where we will go from 0% to 12%.

You asked one of the questions about whether Brexit would see

a resurgence in UK manufacturing and that is absolutely

an opportunity for us, but if you take for instance

the manufacturing community within London, there is about 13,500

manufacturing employees making high-end fashion products in London.

Over 70% of the people on the machines in those businesses

are from EU countries.

So there is a real concern that we are going to lose that level

of talent down there, so we need to do something,

we need the Government to do something around changing the way

we can bring in those talented seamstresses and cutters

and all that sort of stuff, so they are not seen as low value,

a lot of these people won't be earning ?35,000 Home Office

threshold for permanent residency for instance.

But without them, the fantastic creations that get sent down

the catwalk at London Fashion Week wouldn't happen.

And one MP just couldn't pass up the chance of some

free fashion advice.

Final question, you have got four MPs in front of you,

there is 650 MPs in the House of Commons, how do you

rate our fashion sense?

LAUGHTER You don't have to answer that!

There is only one wearing a pinstripe!

That's why I'm here, to judge you guys in the suits.

I have to say, I am very intrigued...

The collar on my shirt, yes.

That is a very distinct collar but I am known for.

Maybe we need to...

Maybe we should get you one, yes.

For me, at least, I have scanned, I have measured

everyone as I have come in.

It is a weird nuance, you know?

Oh, dear, well...

We will move on from that very quickly!

You probably don't want me to answer that.

Although I am wearing a...

No, I looked at the tie immediately.

Finally, there are a handful of bills that will fall

by the wayside if Theresa May gets her way and a general election

is held on June 8th.

There are a handful more which are likely to have their most

controversial parts filleted out of them in order to get them

through in some form before this Parliament comes to an end.

Among them is the Finance Bill, which was being debated

in the Commons for the first time.

It deals with such things as personal tax rates,

tax evasion and controversially includes a proposed

rise in probate fees.

The minister set out the Bill's ambitions.

We are very clear that our taxes and the system underpinning

them need to be fair, competitive and critically

they must be paid.

This finance Bill will take the next steps in helping to deliver a fairer

and more sustainable tax system, one that can support our critical

public services and get the country back to living within its means.

The government had proposed raising some national insurance rates

for the self employed, but later withdrew the proposal.

So an SNP MP wanted to know.

Where are the ?2 billion per annum to replace the non-raising

of the National Insurance contributions is going to come

from if she is so wedded to balancing the books?

Well, the Chancellor was clear at the time that in the statements

we have made about the budget and subsequent decisions

that we are looking to balance the budgets across the period.

Clearly we are going into a General Election campaign

that we will have more to say about that in the manifesto

and we will lay that out there.

This isn't the place for that.

A Labour frontbencher looked at the government's record.

When coming to power, the Conservatives committed

to balancing the books by 2015.

A Conservative broken promise.

They said it would be pushed back to 2019-20.

Another Conservative broken promise.

Instead by 2020 they planned to be borrowing an eye

watering ?21.4 billion.

And since 2010, ten of the 14, ten of the 14 government Budgets

and Autumn Statements have seen an increase in forecast borrowing.

This government's record of borrowing is seen missed

target after missed target with constant upward revisions.

Labour's Peter Dowd.

And that's it from me for now, but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for the highlights of prime minister's questions and of course

that all important debate and vote on Theresa May's proposal

for a general election on June the 8th.

But for now from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.