15/11/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Now on BBC News,

Tuesday in Parliament.

Welcome to Tuesday in Parliament as

MPs get down to their line by line

scrutiny of the bill putting EU law

into the statutory regulations.

It

is about one main question and it is

democracy.

I asked the government to

reconsider silly amendments thrown

out because they have a good article

in the Daily Telegraph.

Also calls

for more to be done to tackle tax

avoidance and questions for the

government over whether Islamic

State extremists were allowed to

free the city of Raqqa.

On this

release of fighters, our ability to

hold these criminals to account.

It

was time for MPs to finally get down

to the detailed scrutiny of the bill

putting EU law into UK law to avoid

a legislative Black hole come

Brexit. The bill is being

scrutinised in committee, line by

line, by all MPs. It is a mammoth

piece of legislation running 260

pages, add another 200 pages of

amendments propose. So start

reluctant Brexiteer Frank Field

proposed the build should propose a

date of except of March three, 2019.

The Brexit secretary wants to build

two feet except date on 11pm March

29 2019.

While the government is

introducing its own timetable, set

by the European bureaucrats whoever

they are, I think we should actually

make a decision today it and leave

on our terms and on our time. I have

never bought a house without having

in the contract that date when it is

mine, when I can actually get in.

I

think is an allergy about buying a

house falls down at its first

hurdle. Nobody commits to buying a

house before knowing what they are

buying. It is possible that

negotiations may go to the 59th

minute of the 11th hour. In those

circumstances, does it really make

sense to bind the hands of the

country, of those who are

negotiating on the heart of the

country to get the best possible

deal we can get, which is also the

weakness of the government 's

amendment.

This argument falls when

you look at Article 50 itself. It

was very specific for a very simple

reason and that is, in that time

scale it is therefore determined on

those negotiating to reach an

agreement or agreed not to reach an

agreement. Just changing that

timescale does not allow you to

reach an agreement. That is the

whole point of compression, to get

an agreement.

We recognise the

importance of being crystal clear on

the setting of except date and the

government is keen to provide the

certainty that people are seeking.

In light of these, three at one

amendment has been brought forward

with amendments three 100 and 82

11pm 29th of March 2019. Of course,

this is slightly different to the

amendment of the honourable member

in that it also sets a time. Under

Article 50 there is a date but also

it has in itself provisions for the

possible extension of the period if

that is what is actually needed to

conclude an agreement and that is

what I have to say, this amendment

by the government is is a very

strange because it seems to me to

add nothing to the strength of the

government negotiating position and,

in fact potentially create a very

great problem that could be brought

back to visit us at a later stage.

The government has had months to

repair this deeply flawed deals.

Environmental protection, and

limiting the scope of delegated

powers etc, but instead, they have

chosen to come to this house with

the gimmick on the departure date, a

gimmick that is about the Prime

Minister negotiating with her party

rather than trying to get a Brexit

deal that prioritises job, the

economy and the livelihood of our

people.

The majority wanted to leave

the European Union. It settled

nothing else. Nobody expected lead

to win, including the Leave campaign

as LAUGHTER he would have taken no

notice of the referendum had they

notice, nobody actually paid any

attention to what leaving actually

meant. There are some very, very

serious issues to be settled in this

bill and a half the government to

reconsider the silly amendment

thrown out because they have a good

article in the Daily Telegraph which

actually might do harm. CHEERING AND

APPLAUSE..

It is an absolute

privilege to follow the right

honourable member and I welcome the

applause from the Labour Party

benches as well...

Some of the

benches.

We will seek to find common

cause with colleagues from across

the house. However, we know that

what we are trying to achieve, even

if we achieve common ground, is to

make the situation in not better but

less bad and that is not a situation

that any member should ever find

themselves in when they come to this

house. I would urge members to

reconsider, I would urge the

government to press the reset

clause, there is far more at stake

than the future of this government

all members of this house.

These are

built, this whole issue is about one

main question and the word is a

democracy. Whether or not we have

the right to govern ourselves in

this sacred House of Commons which

is the basis on which the people of

this country in general elections

make decisions of their own free

choice, whether it is to vote for

the Labour Party or the Liberal

Democrats or the SNP or the

Conservative Party, and then had to

make a decision in this house as to

how they going to be governed.

At

the end of that debate, Frank Field

withdrew his proposal that Brexit

should happen on March 30, 2019.

They will vote on the government 's

preferred date later in the process.

The government should compel British

overseas territories and Crown

dependencies such as Bermuda and the

Isle of Man to do away with secret

tax arrangements. Debate on tax

avoidance, Dave Margaret Hodge, she

said it was one way to ensure rich

firms and individuals who fill their

duty to pay tax in the UK.

The

culture of powerful corporation and

the wealthiest in a society, as

revealed in the Paradise Papers,

Constitution and national and

international disgrace. --

constitutes. It is not just a

trivial or return practised by a

small number of greedy individuals

and co-operation but a widely

accepted behaviour of too many of

those who were rich and influential.

There is no such thing as a magic

money tree the Prime Minister told a

nurse who had not had an increase in

eight years. Do they grow on the

Cayman Islands, Bermuda and tax

dodging to be picked and put into

our public services, we would not

have police services and teachers

facing the sack.

I completely agree

with their remarks which are very

pertinent to what we will be

discussing in the debate. An tax is

an essential part of the social

contract into which we all enter as

members of the community. As members

of society we agree to abide by a

set of rules and regulations that

make all our lives better.

She said

several things I agree with, the

incident everyone should pay their

fair share to the tax system and

that tax avoidance is something we

should work together on, yet, she

not feel a little ashamed about her

party's attempts to block steps

before the most recent election that

would have reduced some of the tax

avoidance?

I am trying not to make

this overly partisan but I feel more

ashamed as a member of a limit at

her party 's reluctance to adopt a

very clear and simple measure that

could actually tackle tax avoidance.

She said transparency would change

behaviour.

We should compel our

overseas territories to publish

public registers in all their

territories. In the past, a

Conservative government has used its

powers to outlaw capital punishment

in our territories and the Labour

government used the same powers will

skim a nation against gay people.

Today we should work together to our

rule of the secrecy of these

jurisdictions that leads to such

massive tax injustices.

The minister

defended the government's records.

We have raised £160 billion in

additional revenue as a consequence

of clamping down on tax avoidance,

invasion and non-compliant since

2010. We have brought in to point £1

billion tracking down those who

would soar to inappropriately hide

their finances in overseas tax

jurisdictions. -- 2.8. A further 35

measures will come in from 2015 are

raising 18.5 billion pounds and one

of the problems is we have been so

active bringing in so many measures

that, unfortunately, not all of them

have been notice.

A significant tax

return, would it be better if we

were to invest tax officers and go

after the multi- billion-dollar tax

avoidance?

The minister insisted the

government was going after the tax

cuts. You are watching Tuesday in

Parliament. Don't forget, you can

find previous editions of this

programme by going to the BBC

iPlayer.

committee has been questioning why

there is a need for the review of

there is a need for the review of

security capabilities. The

conservative MP, Johnny Mercer,

himself or for me -- former Army

lieutenant, ask the question.

Is it

hard to accept and we are so

appalled a booking at board threats

that we have to do the thing again

two years later.

The whole package

includes the strategic decision by

the nation to leave the EU and to

change by implication the nature of

our posture in the world. So that's

a very good start to a review

reconsideration. And the finances

associated with that including the

fundamentals such as the fundamental

shift in the pound dollar balance.

General Sir Richard Barron 's was

the head of joint forces command for

three years.

If defence officials

were here they could show you pages

of analysis showing we are in a

different climate with Russia and we

need to worry about North Korea and

various tensions in the Middle East

and they would also begin to

describe just in terms of military

capability, there are reasons to be

UK homeland which armed forces can

deal with.

We are very close in the

commercial sector to huge advances

in AI which will change the nature

of the human machine performance and

that will change incredibly quickly

without the law being in place for

military conflict. It's just, I

think, I would guess between five

and ten years and now, which is

within the horizon, we are going to

have a wholly different approach to

the nature of the human in warfare

and there is not a whisper of debate

on the subject.

Which areas to see

this first and foremost coming into

defence thinking and operationally

within the MOD or rather forces?

Any

area that has very rapid

decision-making associated with

weaponry. So if the human in the

loop is in a decision-making loop is

slower than the enemy, you will

lose. You have to do, in a Darwinian

way, accelerate your utility of AI

at least as fast if not faster than

the enemy.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant was

a National Security Adviser who

helped put together the Strategic

Defence Review in 2015, telling the

committee why there had to be

another reviewer now.

A number of

things have happened since then

which call into question the

affordability of the review. There

is obviously an extra element which

is the referendum to leave the

European Union but that does not

have a very significant impact on

either the threat assessment or the

commitment made. Only one of the 89

commitments in the review mentions

the European Union at all. So I

don't think that development

fundamentally changes the properties

of the review but as I mentioned

since then, partly perhaps linked to

the referendum decision, the pound

has gone down. Some of that money

can be hedged and has been hedged by

the Ministry of Defence and not all

of it. Some of the costs have gone

up and that is fairly normal

process. We should be fairly

familiar. All those issues are

there. As I mentioned, some of the

efficiency savings have not come

through as fully as they liked.

There is an issue in the Budget.

That review is due to be published

next month. This week, the BBC

learned that several hundred Islamic

State fighters and their family

members were allowed to leave the

Syrian city of Raqqa when it fell to

US- backed forces. Labour's Collings

was concerned.

These fighters have

gone somewhere. There is a threat to

neighbouring countries. What

assessment has the government done

in terms of the threat to

neighbouring countries and

particularly countries that are

fighting Daesh and what assessment

has the minister made on fighters on

our ability to hold the kernel --

these criminals to account?

The

withdrawal from the city happened

under the gaze of the coalition.

Britain was said not to have been

involved in the agreement with the

aim had been to minimise civilian

casualties.

We are continuing to

work with the coalition, 73

countries including several

neighbouring countries, to ensure

that those are seeking to leave. But

they are held accountable. And that

those foreign fighters seek to

return to the UK, that there is due

process. That they are held to

account for their crimes abroad.

The

government should honour the

controversial promise on the side of

the Birch Leave campaign bus, saying

millions of pounds would be

available for the health service.

Simon Stephens insisted ministers

needed to scrap the cost of the pay

NHS workers, a point raised by the

Shadow Health Secretary.

Does he

agree with Simon Stephens who says

it would be an own goal not to fully

fund the scrapping of the pay cut in

the Budget next week and expected to

be paid for by a productivity gains?

The government is willing to be

flexible in terms of funding

additional pay. We do want some

important reforms and if those

negotiations do well and we have had

very constructive discussions, I'm

hopeful we can get a deal everyone

is happy with.

So he doesn't agree

with Simon Stephens. Can I ask him

about his comments last week that it

that underfunding continues, the

waiting lists will rise from 4

million to 5 million, Cancer care

will deteriorate and the mental

health pledges won't be met, the 18

week target will be permanently

abandoned. Is it not the case that

in the Budget next week, if the

Chancellor doesn't allocate at least

an extra £6 billion a year, but he

will have failed the Secretary of

State?

What Simon Stephens noticed,

when he came up with this plan in

2014, Labour refused to back it.

What we were prepared to put on his

side of the house. And what he also

said as he is quoting Simon Stephens

is that when the British economy

sneezes, the NHS catches a cold and

it will be far worse than a cold to

the NHS if we have Labour's run on

the prowl.

Later a bill to address

-- address another service bugbear,

car parking charges at hospitals.

Hospital car parking charges are a

stealth tax on the NHS. We cannot

say in good faith that the NHS is

free at the point of access paid by

general taxation if people with cars

basics tour June -- extortionate

fees to go to hospital appointments

and work and visit sick relatives.

The bill had support from across the

house but one MP was concerned about

course.

I am concerned about the

funding stream. 200 million was

mentioned. It is certainly more than

162 million mentions. That would be

a funding gap that would need to be

provided. If we have 162 million, we

would be better spending on hospital

care rather than hospital parking.

That bill will go onto the next

stage of consideration but it stands

no real chance of becoming law. The

football Association needs to take a

long hard look at itself in the

light of allegations of bullying and

races in women's football according

to the Sports Minister, Tracey

Crouch. A barrister last month ruled

the former England women's coach

Mark Sampson had made unacceptable

remarks to two England players. At a

committee session, one of the

players accused the FA of behaviour

bordering on blackmail when it

dismissed complaints. A Labour MP,

Julie Elliott, took up the issue.

One of the things claimed about the

FA investigation, one of the things

she said was she felt it was

constantly protecting the reputation

of the FA and that came across to

the committee very clearly in the

answer is that the employees do.

Dancing on the head of a pin. Rather

than if they admitted they had done

wrong. You think that is a realistic

claim that it was all about

protecting the reputation of the FA?

I do think it's right to me to sit

there...

I think it is right but to

your opinion.

I said I thought the

FA handled the incident really

badly. In a way, it has quite

rightly taken the shine off the work

that is the FA has done on reform of

the government. I think that the FA

have to take a long hard look at

itself.

What about the gaps it

showed an acknowledgement?

Lastly,

there was good news for bees. A ban

on neo-nicotinoid pesticides will be

banned in the UK. It can cause bees

to lose their bars.

Why do bees

matter? First, they are exceptional

animals in the Roman rite and

although there are over 250 speeches

of bees including 25 species of

bumblebee, they have some remarkable

characteristics. They can navigate

their way in an astonishingly

sophisticated way with a combination

of using the angular angle of the

Sun, counting landmarks and

exploiting electrical fields and

they can exchange information with

other bees about the precise

location of a perfect flower known

as a waggle dance. Beyond are

intrigued to value, they play a

vital role in the border environment

and that was summarised beautifully

by a poet stating, to be, the flower

is the fountain of life and to the

flour, is the messenger of life.

The

role of pollinating is that it is

fundamental to our agricultural way

of life and it's in the interest of

farmers as well of those with an

interest in pollinating that we get

this done together. One in every

three mouthful of food depends on

pollinators.

The minister said he

had consulted the expert committee

on pesticides.

There may also be a

persistence of neo-nicotinoid in

soils which may have a wider effect

on as a precautionary basis, we have

decided to act on that. They were

clear in their recent advice. The

evidence is not that clear at the

moment. It is, they believe, reason

to extend the restrictions further

and that's why we've taken the

restrictions we have.

That is it

from either now but do join me

tomorrow for a round-up of the best

of the day in Westminster including

the highlights from Prime Minister's

questions but the knee, for now,

goodbye.