18/07/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Coming up: As the Prime Minister urges her Cabinet to stop leaking,

over his comments on public sector pay.

Ministers are told a free child care scheme is full of holes

And: calls on the government to do more over reports

of the imminent execution of 14 men in Saudi Arabia.

When will this government decide that it is time to publicly condemn

these abuses of human rights? Our silence is deafening.

Theresa May has told her Cabinet ministers to show "strength

and unity" as she attempts to stem a series of leaks

The Prime Minister said "open discussion" was important

but it was vital for it to stay private.

Newspaper reports over the weekend claimed

that the Chancellor Philip Hammond had said in a Cabinet meeting that

public sector workers were "overpaid".

On the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Hammond defended his stance,

saying public sector pay had "raced ahead" of the private sector

after the economic crash and while, in terms of salary, that gap had now

closed, there was a 10% disparity when pension contributions

The Shadow Chancellor raised the remarks at Treasury Questions.

Does the secretary agree that it ill becomes a multimillionaire,

earning ?145,000 a year, admittedly in a temporary job,

and living in two grace and favour properties at taxpayers' expense

to attack public sector workers, our hospital cleaners, nurses,

teachers and firefighters, as being "overpaid"?

Public sector workers' pay has fallen, on average,

by ?4,000 in the first six years of this government.

One in five NHS staff are forced to take a second job.

Teachers are facing a further cut of ?3,000 in their salaries by 2020.

Doesn't he think the Chancellor should just do the right

Yet again the honourable gentleman is not giving the House the full

picture of what is happening with public sector wages.

Last year teachers' pay went up 3.3%.

More than half of nurses and other NHS workers saw

The armed services saw a pay rise of 2.4%.

And the cleaner that he talked about was not employed

by the public sector. They are employed by Serco.

The government privatised their jobs.

And I note, I note that the Chief Secretary did not refute the fact

that the Chancellor said that the staff were overpaid.

John McDonnell turned to the disparity

between public and private sector pensions.

Is she aware that the supposedly generous pensions across these

professions pay on average the princely sum of

And that low pay has lost many public sector workers to opt out

11% of NHS staff have opted out of their pension scheme, a figure that,

if it continues to rise will potentially undermine the whole

scheme. Bobby Chief Secretary recognise the damage the Chancellor

is causing and lift the pay cap so that public sector staff can have

some hope of a fair wage settlement and a decent future pension? The

onward gentleman hasn't acknowledged the truth of the figures that I have

just talked about, the 3% rise for nurses over half of them, the

teachers' rise of 3.3%. He simply won't look at the facts. The reality

is that, at the moment, we have a situation where public sector

workers are paid in line with the private sector, which is right, to

allow the public sector and private sector to flourish, so be can create

wealth in this country and, in addition, public sector workers have

a 10% premium on their wages in pension contributions, and that is

in the OBR report. The Treasury response today to the questions of

the 1% pay cap are profoundly disappointing. This is the single

biggest thing ensuring that inflation is eroding living

standards. It is impoverishing workers and driving consumer debt.

When will the Treasury at agree with the Foreign Secretary, that the time

has come to end cap? I would point out to the honourable gentleman that

in fact public sector workers like teachers have seen a 3% pay rise,

nurses, many nurses get progression pay, those in the Armed Forces get

an ex back to supplement which is worth 2.4% a year. And their

salaries are in line with private sector salaries. What would be wrong

is to have a significant differential between the public and

private sectors, because we need businesses to thrive at the same

tame as needing well funded public services.

Parents in England could be missing out on government help

with childcare costs because the application

scheme is over-complicated and "full of holes",

Latest figures show childcare costs are rising rapidly.

A part-time nursery place for one pre-school child costs on average

?6,000 a year, and in London the average

Working parents who employ nannies face much higher costs.

The Government scheme provides parents with, in effect,

30 hours of free childcare a week from September.

Parents whose applications are successful receive

a 30 hours eligibility code to take to their provider

As of today, over 145,000 codes have been generated

Increasing numbers of parents are successfully applying.

It's great news that so many families will

Of course, as we seen from our early implementer and early roll-out

areas, this support can make a real positive

Let's face it, as some may be reading in their end of year report

due this week, good effort, but just not good enough.

The process for applying for free childcare is

confusing for both parents and nurseries.

As members in this House will attest, setting up

two-factor authentication on our phones was difficult

enough and we have a well resourced IT department.

Who is helping the parents at home who are

juggling this with jobs and caring for their young children?

As a result, parents haven't been able to

open accounts to pay for the nursery care or preschool and even some

providers, particularly in the voluntary sector, cannot register.

What a shame it is that when we could be weeks away from a great

breakthrough for providers, parents and most importantly children,

we are instead discussing a policy that is riddled with holes.

And, my word, are there are questions to answer?

Just yesterday the Minister's colleagues in the Treasury admitted

in response to one of my written questions that it is not possible

to provide a definitive number of applications not completed

Could the Minister give us his estimate of just how

many parents suffered these technical issues?

What steps are being put in place to fix

the system, and what guarantees can he make to parents that,

as the August deadline approaches, the system will work for them?

I have to say, she is very much a glass half full person.

Yesterday morning, I was in the city of York meeting with

providers and parents who were benefiting,

I heard from people who said, this is a great offer.

It means that no longer do I have to pass my

husband in the hallway as I go out to my evening job as he comes in

We have ironed out the glitches in the software.

People are registering. We are on track for 200,000.

Given the amount of my time that was taken

and the amount of time that my

constituent had to give up, and indeed the technical support people

from his department, all as a consequence of the fact

that she had an apostrophe in her name, can he

speculate as to why on earth we weren't told that there

Certainly, I have made that clear, today.

There have been a number of outages, some of which were to fix

some of the issues that my Right Honourable Friend

recent one was due to a power supply issue

That has now been fixed and the system is up

MPs will hold an emergency debate on proposals to increase tuition fees

in England. The Speaker, John Bercow, agree to a request from the

Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner. The three-hour debate will

take place after Prime Minister's Questions. Angela Rayner said time

had been set aside on the 18th of April. But then, Mr Speaker, the

Prime Minister announced her plans to go to the country in an early

general election. That meant the debate was cancelled. Audley, Mr

Speaker, they have been determined not to grant the House about since

that election, and it was the First Secretary of State who called only

two weeks ago for a national debate on tuition fees and student debt,

but apparently that national debate will not include this House. Both

universities and thousands of students across the country are now

uncertain about the rate of tuition fees that can be charged with

neither government or opposition time being provided, we have no

choice but to use standing order 24. So, Mr Speaker, 109 days since it

was first promised by ministers, I ask leave the House for an emergency

debate on their plans to raise tuition fees. The Speaker accented

that argument. I have listened carefully to the application from

the honourable member. I am satisfied that the matter raised by

the honourable member is proper to be discussed under standing order

number 24. As the honourable member the leave of the House? -- has the

honourable member. The honourable member has obtained believe of the

House. MPs on the opposition side showing their support for Angela

Rayner's motion for an emergency debate, but a second motion from Lib

Dem leader Tim Farron was unsuccessful. He wanted MPs to

discuss unaccompanied child refugees. He explained why. I feel

strongly that this issue must be debated before the House rises for

the summer recess. The summer months mean that more troops are being made

to Europe by migrants on unsuitable votes and I feel that all over again

we are likely to see an increase in the news about people drowning,

attempting desperately to reach safety. Put bluntly, by the time

October comes around there will be many more children alone and sadly

orphaned lending a hand to mouth existence in continental Europe. We

must examine our consciences. The government made an unambitious

commitment that had to be dragged out of it, it then cancelled that

agreement before even managing to meet half of those terms. I ask this

House to take the opportunity to address this outrage and to help

those desperate children. The right onward gentleman asks leave to grant

the debate on a specific and important matter that should have

important consideration, namely accepting unaccompanied child

refugees into the UK. I have listened carefully to the

application and I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be

discussed under standing order number 24. John Bercow said that it

was open to Tim Farron to raise the issue in other ways, saying that he

could ask an urgent question and bring the matter to the Chamber,

that way. You're watching Tuesday

in Parliament with me, Photographers and film-makers

love them, but, to many in the airline

industry, they are a modern menace. Airborne drones can have all sort

of uses, but there is increasing concern about their potential

danger to aircraft. There was disruption at

Gatwick Airport earlier this summer when a drone was spotted

flying too close. It led to a runway being closed

and five flights being diverted. The incident prompted

a Conservative MP to call a debate in Westminster Hall,

although he stressed There has been enormous growth

in the ownership of drones. 530,000, so I understand,

were bought in 2014 alone, and of course the vast majority

are for leisure use. When used responsibly,

they're a great asset. They encourage interest

in aviation and aerodynamics, But there is also responsible

or downright dangerous use, which poses a risk to

aircraft and passengers. The key is to have regulation

and enforcement which protects what is becoming an important

sector of the economy. Laws are already in place

governing the use of drones. They must not put people

or property in danger, and the person controlling one must

be able to see it at all times. Jeremy Lefroy suggested

an additional rule - compulsory registration

so that owners could be traced. There is a story -

perhaps apocryphal, perhaps not - that quite recently a drone

was flown into the Shard in London, and the only way people found

out who owned the drone was when the owner went

to try to retrieve it which sounds to me a slight

example of chutzpah. The minister said it was an emerging

technology with potential benefits. It is a growing market and offers

the UK opportunities, An example of positive ways

in which drones could be used was well illustrated when,

as many here will know, the firefighters at Grenfell Tower

used drones after the incident to inspect some of the top floors,

when these were deemed too unsafe Shakespeare said in Henry V, all

things are ready if our mind be so, and our mind is ready

to take further action. And Tennyson, the great

Lincolnshire poet, said, dream not that the hour

that was will last, and by that he meant

that there is a period of time when you need to act,

you shouldn't dream that this So, notwithstanding my sunny

disposition, my eternal summer, it is important that we do act

swiftly, proportionately, Last week the Government set

out its strategy on drugs, specifically targeting psychoactive

substances to cut illicit drug use. Fewer than a tenth of adults

in England and Wales now take drugs, according to the Home Office,

but drug-related deaths In the Commons, MPs held

a general debate on the issue. One of the most pressing questions

was decriminalisation. I do very much accept that there

are some members of this house, and some people in our country,

that think what we should be doing because we are evidence-based

policy makers. All the evidence shows

of the awful harms of the drugs that we ban and restrict,

and it's our job, it's our primary job to keep people safe,

and the way to keep people safe is to prevent them from taking

drugs in the first place. I note the point about

"evidence-based", but it's clear on the evidence that the most

dangerous drug in terms of harm is alcohol, so could she explain

the different approach that the Government

takes to alcohol, the most dangerous drug,

and, for example, cannabis? I wouldn't agree with the honourable

gentleman that, you know, If you look at the substances

which we are restricting... Of course, there are those people

who take alcohol to such a harmful degree that it is devastating

for them, and it is devastating to their family members

and to the wider community. as we do in the Modern Crime

Prevention Strategy, that misuse of alcohol does have

very dramatically harmful effects, but, actually, alcohol taken

in moderation is not a harmful drug. The Government's recognition

of evidence-based treatment in recovery and harm reduction

is welcome, but what stakeholders want to know, and what families

and communities suffering from drug abuse up and down the country want

to know, is whether this strategy isn't just old methods

in a shinier package. We frequently use the term "war

on drugs", so I ask the minister, how exactly do we expect to win

a war with reduced forces We desperately need a new approach,

a completely different strategy, and whilst I welcome the emphasis

that the Government strategy puts on improving treatment

and recovery for users, the strategy rehearses

the same failed arguments for prohibition and criminalisation

which have patently failed. The measure of that failure is

spelt out in the strategy itself, which tells us that in England

and Wales the number of deaths from drug misuse registered in 2015

increased by 10.3% to 2,479, and this follows an increase

of 14.9% in the previous year In 1971, we had fewer

than 1,000 addicts to heroin and cocaine in this country,

and virtually no deaths, because they were receiving their

heroin from the Health Service. After 46 years of the harshest

prohibition in Europe, Isn't it true that prohibition

creates the drug take, creates the gangsters

and creates the deaths? I'm extremely grateful

to the honourable gentleman. I know that he has a long history

of campaigning on this subject, which I respect, but I'm afraid

I must disagree with him, because a lot...a very great deal

has changed since 1971. We have criminal gangs

from all over the world coming to the United Kingdom

because we have a high population, and we are much more densely

populated than other countries, and they come to this

country to sell drugs. I am sure there are colleagues

that would like, sometimes, to turn the clock back to 1971 -

I don't think we can. The former barrister

Victoria Atkins. Over in the Lords, the Government's

been urged to use the depth of the UK's relationship

with Saudi Arabia to do more than just condemn the country

over its use of the death penalty. Ministers say they're seeking

clarity over reports that 14 men, including two juveniles,

could be facing execution for attending protests in eastern

Saudi Arabia in 2012. My Lords, we have a close

relationship with Saudi Arabia. Could the minister now

explain what they are doing We have a precedence in the past,

when David Cameron, as Prime Minister, personally

intervened to stop the execution The Minister said the Government

was urgently seeking clarification over the situation from

the Saudi leadership, The week the Foreign Secretary

visited Saudi Arabia, eight people were executed

on one day - beheaded. Now, when will this Government

actually decide that it's time to publicly condemn these abuses

of human rights? It is known domestically

within the United Kingdom. We do exhort Saudi Arabia to

have respect for human rights. The threat to stability

is extremism. The ultimate battle

against extremism is one How can this sordid,

uncivilised behaviour possibly help The minister said it was

a question of balance - the UK condemned human rights abuses

and the use of the death penalty, but there were other areas

where it was better to have a dialogue, and she had backing

from a Conservative colleague. Should we not just have a thought

to what the implosion of Saudi Arabia would mean to

world peace and stability? We only have to take

the example of Syria and Iraq I thank my noble friend, I think,

for a very helpful observation, because it is indeed the case that

Saudi Arabia is in a position to influence, is in a position

to assist with stability in the Gulf area, and is in a position to help

in the fight against Daesh. Surely the depth of our relationship

with Saudi Arabia in trade, in finance, in the presence of many

Saudi Arabians in this country, the long-standing way

in which we have been together through war and peace, would

indicate that we have the options for significantly more leveraged

than mere condemnation. And I wonder what other measures

the Government is taking which involve action

as well as condemnation, At the end of the day,

Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state, and it is not possible for us

to interfere either with its judicial system

or its constitutional approach our profound disapproval

and our profound opposition to abuses of human rights

and deployment of the death penalty. Finally, the 2017 intake of MPs

are continuing to make their first The new MP for Slough said he felt

the weight of expectation on his shoulders as the first

turban-wearing Sikh in the Commons. Slough, Mr Speaker,

is a town of firsts. It elected the UK's

first-ever black lady mayor, and now, more than three decades

later, it has elected the first-ever turbaned Sikh in

the British Parliament. Indeed, I believe the first-ever

to any European Parliament. A glass ceiling has truly been

broken, and I sincerely hope that many more like me will follow

in the years and decades to come. I was most overwhelmed

during a recent trip up north, when an elderly gentleman walked up

to me with tears streaming down his eyes and said, I'm proud,

son, because I didn't think that But, he said, being distinctive

could have advantages. I for one, Mr Speaker,

and very much hoping that these brightly-coloured turbans

will act as a magnet, as you repeatedly point

towards the member for Slough to make his invaluable contribution

to proceedings in this House. The new MP for Slough

making his first speech Do join me at the same time

tomorrow, when, among other things, we'll have highlights from

the last Prime Minister's Questions But, for now, from me,

Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.