07/11/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday in

Parliament. Our look at the best of

the day in the Commons and the

Lords. On this programme, Boris

Johnson says he is sorry if his

words about a British woman jailed

in Iran caused anxiety, but Labour

strongly criticises the Foreign

Secretary.

Will the Foreign Secretary now

apologise? He cannot be trusted to

do this job and he should resign.

She deflects blame, she deflect

accountability from those who are

truly responsible for holding that

mother in jail.

Also on this programme, should the

International Development Secretary

quit because of meetings she had on

holiday while in Israel?

Does the minister accept that it is

time the Secretary of State Ivor

faces a Cabinet Office investigation

order the decent and just resigns?

If I had been in Israel and on a

two-day visit, I would have wanted a

programme just like this.

And arguments rage again over the

release of documents on the economic

impact of Brexit.

There can be no

further delay. Ministers just need

to get on with it.

Our purpose is not to create the

kind of stories which the honourable

gentleman seems to be pursuing.

But first, the Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson has apologised to the

family of a British woman imprisoned

in Iran for marks Elwood remarks he

made which, as Ben says, could lead

to a prison term being lengthened.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is serving

a five-year jail sentence for

allegedly allotting to overthrow the

government in Tehran. Boris Johnson

had told MPs last week that Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe was simply

teaching people journalism, a

statement to family and employers

that was untrue. Or as Johnson has

faced calls for his resignation.

When he came to the Commons, he told

MPs that the government wanted to

see the early release from jail of

Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

The UK

Government has no doubt that she was

on holiday in Iran when she was

arrested last year, and that was the

sole purpose of their visit. My

point was that I disagreed with the

Iranian view that training

journalists was a crime, not that I

wanted to lend any credence to

Iranian allegations that Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been engaged

in such activity. I except that my

remarks could have been clearer in

that respect, and I am glad to

provide this clarification.

I hope that he will now take the

opportunity to apologise to this

woman's family, to their friends and

see their employers. How many more

times does the Foreign Secretary

have to consult our international

partners, damage our diplomatic

relations, and now in peril the

interest of British National

-- British national abroad? How much

is it until the Prime Minister says

enough is enough? But the truth is,

she can't, because she does not have

the strength or authority to sack

him. How about the Foreign Secretary

himself shows a bit of personal

responsibility and admits that a job

like this, where your words hold

gravity and your actions have

consequences, it is simply not the

job for him?

And they may say to the right

Honourable lady that she has a

choice. She always has a choice in

these matters. She can choose to

blame, to heap blame onto the

British Foreign Office that is

trying to secure... Trying to secure

the release of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and in so doing,

she deflect blame, she deflect

accountability from those who are

truly responsible for holding that

mother in jail, and that is the

Iranian regime.

Order!

In this case, there are fears

this could mean the extended

incarceration of a British- Iranian

woman, and he will know that the

lives and the safety of British

citizens across the globe depend on

having a Foreign Secretary who does

not bluster and who is not too

careless or too lazy to consider his

words. Will the Foreign Secretary

now apologise? He cannot be trusted

to do this job, and he should

resign.

I really think, Madame deputy

Speaker, that I have made my

position clear already on this. And

indeed, the Iranians have made their

position clear.

May I say that his errors in choice

of words, however unfortunate they

may seem, are, to be fair, entirely

secondary and maybe even tertiary to

the crimes committed by the Iranian

regime over nearly four decades of

Khamenei site authoritarianism. But

the Foreign Secretary take this

opportunity to address the threat

that Iran poses to UK interest in

the region, and whether, after 40

years of instability and tyranny, we

need a wider review of Iran policy?

It is precisely because many of us

have, for many months, been working

to try to secure Nazanin's release

that many of us are so upset by this

mistake which has been made. I

accept, perhaps inadvertently. We

are aware of the effect of her

detention on her and their family,

and this is an occasion in this

extent of dismay. This is not an

attempt of politicisation. It is

genuine upset. I hope the Foreign

Secretary will now go to look at the

website of the Iranian judicial

authorities where his remarks are

repeated for all to see.

Could he

now give us an undertaking that in

future, he will concentrate on the

very important matters that he has

within his brief as Foreign

Secretary? To that end, could he

give an undertaking to support the

Prime Minister in her efforts, as in

relation to the Florence speech, for

example, and make sure that his own

ambitions upwards Eikenberry to the

well-being of all my constituents,

and indeed, to everyone else in this

country? Because that is his job.

It is not enough of the Foreign

Secretary not in the basic details

of this case. It is unforgivable to

repeat the lies of the Iranian

Revolutionary Guard, and to say that

I should be clearer does not cut it

when it is a matter of life and

death.

So if our words really do

matter, then it is only right that

we do not play party politics. I am

looking at the shadow front bench,

giggling a minute ago about the

discomfort that the Foreign

Secretary may be feeling. And I

would ask the Foreign Secretary to

redouble his efforts to get Nazanin

released as soon as possible.

I am very grateful to my honourable

friend, who speaks with huge

authority about that region. And I

can certainly say that we are

redoubling our efforts to secure the

release of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and I think it is

entirely right that the focus of the

house should not be on any failings

and the responsibility of the UK

Government for the incarceration of

this mother. I really think that if

she is going to continue to blame

the British government for the

incarceration of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, she is living in

cloud cuckoo land, Madame deputy 's

bid. The world is upside down in the

Labour Party, absolutely upside

down. It is the Iranian authorities

against whom she should be directing

her attention and her anger.

Boris Johnson. It is not the best of

weeks for Theresa May. Another of

her Cabinet ministers has also faced

calls for her resignation. The

International Development Secretary

Priti Patel has apologised to the

Prime Minister for holding a series

of unofficial meetings while on a

private holiday in Israel. One of

those was with the is really Prime

Minister. The Shadow International

Development Secretary went down what

is known as an urgent question in

the Commons.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for

International Development issue will

make a statement on the

circumstances surrounding her

meetings in Israel in August 20 17.

She's at a meeting!

Mr Speaker, may I start by

explaining that the Secretary of

State is on a prearranged government

visit to Africa to focus on how we

are breaking down barriers...

And she is presently in the air.

She is a prearranged visit to

Africa.

The minister said Priti

Patel had met a number of

organisations in Israel.

A list of

who she met and what was covered was

published in yesterday's statement.

The Secretary of State realises in

hindsight that these meetings were

not arranged following the usual

procedures, and she has apologised

for that. The Foreign Office has

said the UK interests were not

damaged or affected by meetings on

this visit, so I hope therefore that

honourable members would now agree

that she has made that apology, and

published details of those meetings,

we should accept that.

The British public are outraged that

the international developer and

secretary held 12 secret meetings in

Israel, including the Prime Minister

Netanyahu, without telling either

the Foreign Office or the Prime

Minister, and was accompanied by a

pro-Israeli lobbyist. She then

misled the British public with

comments on Friday that yesterday

she finally corrected. It is hard to

think of a more black and white case

of breaking the ministerial code of

conduct. But rather than change the

minister, the Prime Minister somehow

decided last night that it is the

Ministerial Code itself that needs

changing. We have a Prime Minister

who has lost their authority and her

control of the classroom. Does the

minister except that it is time the

Secretary of State either faces a

Cabinet Office investigation or does

the decent thing and just resigns?

The minister list of the

organisations Priti Patel had met in

Israel.

A visit to Save A Child's

Heart to talk about a coincidence

project. The Galilee International

Management Institute. A group of

start-ups with a focus on Africa.

Does the honourable lady think she

should not have met these people?

All of these people are perfectly...

This is... If I had been in Israel,

and I had been on a two-day visit, I

would have wanted a programme just

like this.

He has read out an

incredibly long list of meetings

that the Secretary of State held in

Israel, on what I thought were

supposed to be a family holiday.

Did she have any meetings with the

Palestinian side? He would, of

course, appreciate the importance as

Middle East minister of a whole

balanced approach to the Middle East

peace process and not a one-sided

one. If she is in the air now, she

could have delayed her departure,

couldn't she, Ann Jones courtesy to

this house? It is very difficult to

know whether the Secretary for

international developer or the

Foreign Secretary is the one who has

the worst relationship with

accuracy, and if we had a Prime

Minister who was not so weak, both

of them would have been sacked.

The spotlight is on this place, and

the proceedings of this place, and

the behaviour of all of us as never

before. And what people want is

transparency and accountability. So

does my right honourable friend not

agree with me that it is time

finally to address the issue of

access, privileged access, and

lobbying, and funding, if we are not

to have this repeated time and time

again? And would he not agree with

me that all organisations involved

with active lobbying members of

Parliament and ministers should open

their books, be entirely transparent

so we can see who is lobbying who,

and he was providing the funding?

Has guidance now been reissued to

ministers and secretaries of state

that they should not freelance on

foreign policy when they are on

their holidays, or indeed on policy

in relation to any other government

department? With or without Tory

donors present?

It seems to me to be a gross breach

of the existing code of ministerial

conduct, and every code of

ministerial conduct I have ever seen

as a minister of some nine years

standing. In previous governments, I

would have thought this was a

resigning matter.

What action is the Prime Minister

taking to ensure this matter is

investigated in terms of the

Ministerial Code, and does he have

faith that the Secretary of State

still has the ability and

credibility to carry on?

When I met the is really Deputy

Prime Minister, he stormed out of

the meeting. The Secretary of State

got a much more cordial reception.

-- the is really Deputy Prime

Minister. Is it just because she is

a lady?

I'm not sure, Mr Speaker, if it is

appropriate for me to answer. Either

how my right honourable friend was

treated himself, or the reception

for the Secretary of State for

International Development. I'm sure

both meetings were entirely proper

and.

Alistair Burt.

The Commons Education Committee is

investigating how to improve the

foster care system for children. The

committee has been hearing from

young people who have been through

the care system. For this unique

session, they sat alongside MPs. The

MPs instead sat at a table set aside

for witnesses. Rachel revealed that

she was separated from her siblings.

I was moved away from them because I

was overprotective with them, which

in my eyes, as a sister, moving away

from home, I feel like it is an

instinct straightaway to just be

protective, because you are moving

in with a stranger you don't know.

To lose a bond with your own

siblings is sad, because you are by

yourself in the world, and your

siblings are practically best

friends, and now you are losing

them. You have lost your parents are

now your siblings, and it is like

your whole world has crashed down

quite quickly.

MR, which you like to ask something?

It is quite upsetting you have gone

through that. I just think you're

also impressive and brilliant and I

am so pleased you are here. I think

you are fantastic. What you said

about the resilience and strength

you all have is just absolutely

incredible. And I'm sure you will

get your link back with your

siblings.

I see them now with a long

process of fighting, writing letters

and getting an advocate. I see them

once a month.

Luke had a difficult

experience in foster care.

My story

is common. As a child, I was very

angry about moving around a lot. Now

I understand it is down to the

capacity of the individuals in the

information they had about me. Myra

Ferrell was bad. It was about things

I had done.

Fundamentally, we need

to be remind from the survey that

83% of children reported they

thought that being in foster care

improved their life. So overall, the

picture is good. And certainly it is

better. I met some care leavers last

week who had been out of care for

ten years. Some of the stories I

heard about being moved at short

notice, for example, one of them had

been moved in the middle of his GCSE

exams. He had a two hour commute to

his school, sleek and complete his

exams. 83% of children in the survey

in foster care said their lives had

been improved.

Where did this survey

come from?

It was commissioned to

get feedback. Many of those children

have had a pretty rough time with

their birth parents. So we have

improved from where they were. But

it shows that foster carers are

doing a great job in the vast

majority of cases in improving the

lives of their children.

In our

sector, I think surveys are quite

useless. The only engage with

children who want to engage who have

had good experiences.

The Minister

said some foster carers would not be

happy calling themselves workers or

employees.

It is vital to keep it

within the family environment. Any

move towards employees there think

would be bad. We are unable to

recruit foster carers who consider

themselves in this role. We don't

see themselves of taking another

drop.

He added foster carers should

not be left out of pocket. You are

watching our round-up of the day in

the House of Commons House of Lords.

Still to come, does the intranet

have too much power and influence

over the nation's children? --

internet. An Anglican bishop has

confessed to looking at pictures in

sleazy magazines when he was a boy

of 15. The Bishop of Chelmsford said

the admission would not be good on

his Facebook page. The admission

came during the Lords debate on the

internet and children.

When I was

about 15, I had a Saturday job in a

wood yard. The men who worked there

are often left there are sleazy

magazines, mild by today's

standards. When I was alone in the

canteen, and if I thought nobody

could see me, I looked at those

magazines. I am not particularly

proud to tell you that and I

publicly repented within the House

of Lords. I am a bishop, after role.

It won't work very good on my

Facebook page, admitting this to

you. I was a normal 15-year-old boy

and I expect most normal 15-year-old

boys would have done the same thing.

He said it should've been a huge

moral concern that those sorts of

images are much worse and available

today in the pockets of every

15-year-old.

The digital age can be

an age of cultural and intellectual

and even moral prosperity. But

enlightened legislation based on

sound and child-centred research is

needed to lift it from the mire and

misery that it is also creating.

Bullying and name-calling online

doesn't stop when you go home from

school or even when you go to bed.

You can be exposed to confusing and

frightening images of pornography

and violence, images that can stay

in the mind for years. These pop up

on social media or they may be

pressed on you by others, or you may

access them deliberately but regret

doing so. A fifth of 12-15

-year-olds say they have encountered

something online they found worrying

or nasty.

Teachers will tell you

children come to school tired after

having watched film, television or

online material for hours, rather

than being asleep. We need to teach

children how to resist temptation

and not allow the online world to

control their existence. Not to be

seduced by social networking and

readily share personal information

without first learning about privacy

and trust.

The debate over the

internet. Last week, the government

was told that it had to release

detailed reports on the economic

impact of Brexit. When the work

release of the reports take place?

Labour wants them handed over

immediately. In the House of

Commons, a Brexit minister said the

government's analysis was constantly

evolving and was being updated.

It

will take the government some time

to collate and bring together this

information in a way that is

accessible and informative to the

committee. We will provide this

information to the committee as soon

as is possible. We have made claim

to the House authorities that we

currently expect this to be no more

than three weeks.

If it is the case

the department has some of the

information but not all of it, can

he tell the House what is preventing

the information that is available

from being released immediately?

This farce has dragged on for too

long. Ministers cannot use semantics

and doublespeak to have a clear

instruction this House has given

them. There can be no further delay.

Ministers need to get on with it.

The honourable gentleman says that

an impression has been allowed to

develop. It was never our intention

to allow this to develop. The

situation is that the government, as

I've explained, carries out a wide

range of analysis across these

sectors in order to inform our

negotiating position. Our purpose is

to develop our negotiating capital,

not create the kind of stories which

the honourable gentleman seems to be

pursuing. I think the public will

look at the Labour Party today, look

at what they're asking for, they

will look at the kind of narrative

which members opposite are trying to

create and they will ask whose side

are they on?

Can I thank my right

honourable friend for his answer.

The select committee has not

discussed this matter. Can I tell

them that what he is said to the

House this afternoon seems to be

entirely reasonable.

It is

astonishing that more than 500 days

on from the referendum these are not

prepared yet. It is astonishing. If

they are scrabbling together this in

three weeks' time, will beside us

all. Will he tell us, will these be

shared with the devolved

administrations?

Sure the public

will on all agree that this timing

is reasonable. Could I ask the

Minister to make it very clear that

whatever is in these documents that

we will all be sitting up all night

to read, it will make no change to

the government policy and the policy

of this country where leaving the

European Union?

The Minister

confirmed in response to me in

September the Department had the

analysis. He has confirmed today he

has seen the analysis. He has then

said there is no quantitative work

that casts its eye into the future.

The question that is why has that

work not been done by his Department

on such a critical issue? He has not

explained at.

What the Minister has

said it is reasonable. I urge him to

release these documents in full as

quickly as possible, redaction is

only inflame interest. I have lived

through many of these rows. Once

these documents are published,

they're often found to be very long

and boring. When Parliament gets

itself into a fine passion about the

sort of thing, often travelling is

more fun than arriving.

That is it

for this programme. MPs and peers

take a brief half term break.

Orthoses returned on Monday. From

me, goodbye. -- both houses return

on Monday.