21/11/2017 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to the programme:

Coming up in the next half hour.

The Foreign Secretary tells MPs

a return to customs posts

on the Irish border after Brexit

would be "unthinkable".

There can be no hard border, that

would be unthinkable, it would be

economic and political madness.

MPs continue their detailed scrutiny

of the EU Withdrawal Bill and demand

reassurances on citizens rights.

There aren't British rights, there

are a universal human rights and

that is the message that this

government and our comradeship sent

to the rest of the world.

And: the government promises it

will bring in new rules

on the use of drones

to try to protect aeroplanes.

But first: The leader of the DUP,

Arlene Foster, has suggest that

Ireland and the rest of the EU

were being "careless" and "reckless"

in the way they were using concerns

about the Northern Irish border

as part of the Brexit talks.

In a BBC interview, Mrs Foster also

suggested that there was no way

the EU and the UK could " put down

red lines" on the border before

moving to the second phase

of Brexit negotiations.

It follows Ireland's suggesting

that the UK must give a firm

commitment that there would be no

hard border between Northern Ireland

and Ireland after Brexit.

The subject came up at foreign

office questions in the Commons.

It is now nearly 50 long years since

the start of the troubles in

Northern Ireland and none of us who

lived in that era want to go back to

it. In February 2016 the Foreign

Secretary gave his guarantee that a

vote for Brexit would leave

arrangements on the Irish border and

I quote, absolutely unchanged. No

caveats, no I hope this will happen,

just a commitment that nothing would

change. Can the Foreign Secretary

give us the same promises today?

My

right honourable friend is right to

ask that question, because I was

recently in Dublin talking to all

the political groups there and there

is no question that the issue of the

border is very live in Irish

politics. I repeated exactly the

pledge to which she refers, there

can be no return to a hard border,

there can be no hard border, it

would be unthinkable, it would be

economic and political madness. And

we certainly, I think everyone on

both sides of this House understands

the social, political and spiritual

ramifications of allowing any such

thing to happen. That is why it is

so important that we get onto the

second phase of the negotiations,

that we get sufficient progress at

the European Council in December and

we are able to debate these issues

properly.

I thank the Foreign

Secretary for that answer. No one

will have missed the fact that like

so many of his initial promises over

Brexit, he has turned a guaranteed

to an aspiration dependent on a

successful deal. I was listening to

the right honourable gentleman and

it seemed to me, like his partner

from the sun, he seems to be saying

it is up to the Irish to find a

solution but why should that be? It

was his promise that border

arrangements would not change and it

is up to him to make sure that works

and that is why I want to challenge

him today, because in September he

laid down red line for the Brexit

negotiations and none of them

related to the Irish land border,

which is a crucial issue. Let me

urge him today to announce a fifth

red line and to promise what he

promised last year that Irish border

arrangements will not change

anything do, he will refuse to stay

in the government.

If I may say so,

I think she prepared her

supplementary question before she

heard my first answer. There can be

no return to a hard border, we do

not want our hard border north south

or east or west.

A Conservative turned to the news

that Britain is to lose its seat

on the International Criminal Court

in the Hague for the first time

since the court was set up in 1946.

Britain was hoping its current

representative would be

elected for a second term,

but withdrew his nomination when

the United Nations General Assembly

backed a rival candidate

from India.

There is no hiding that the loss of

a British judge on the ICJ is a

major failure for British diplomacy.

What can be done to ensure this

doesn't happen again?

I don't think

I can quite agree with their

construction my friend places on

events but I will repeat my

congratulations to the Indian judge

and as the House will know, it has

been an objective of UK foreign

policy to support India in the UN.

Boris Johnson.

Once Britain departs

the European Union, will British

citizens still have all the same

rights they enjoy now?

Human rights dominated the latest

day of detailed debate

on the all-important EU Withdrawal

Bill.

Although this brings European law

over into UK law, the Bill

as it stands at the moment doesn't

bring over the EU Charter

of Fundamental Rights.

The Charter guarantees

rights under the headings

of dignity, equality,

justice, solidarity and freedom.

In the Commons, there were arguments

both for keeping the Charter

and for dropping it.

By compiling these rights in the

single document, the Chancellor

effectively created new rights

attorney new protections. In short,

the Charter is the most effective

key to unlocking vital rights and

the failure to transpose it and make

it operable in UK law is to lock

those rights away and deny UK

citizens the key to accessing them.

My point is that our rights will be

guaranteed once we have left by the

Supreme Court and the common law or

the art location for a statue of law

and I cannot think that the light

that would be destroyed because we

have not co-opted the Charter, I

think they will be guaranteed by

these ancient and tested methods.

We

will continue to be a beacon of

freedom for the world. As we have

demonstrated since Magna Carta up to

and including the more recent

commitments to respecting and

remaining the party for the European

Convention on Human Rights.

One MP put forward an amendment

calling for Ministers to produce

a report on the effects of not

having the Charter.

We need to have a more detailed

analysis from ministers about the

consequences of deleting this

Charter of Fundamental Rights.

They

are potentially far ranging. As a

lawyer and someone who enjoyed

jurisprudence, our laws and rights

come from different sources. I do

not like stuff being written down

too much, I like to develop over

time. But can I say, I would need

persuading about this amendment

because it is have a report and it

seems awfully wet!

LAUGHTER. I was trying my best to

say let us meet halfway. Let us find

a way of forging a consensus.

Is he

concerned with me, when there are

still children in the world who are

engaged in slave Labour? There are

still being trafficked, they are

still working as child soldiers.

That the message that this sense,

that the UK with simply do away with

rights, that we campaigned for, that

gave us the universal declaration is

an borrowers and really does need

the minister to come to this

dispatch box and say he has changed

his mind?

This argument of saying

that we do not we have rights given

to us by the European Union, we

cannot manage to do it ourselves is

utter nonsense. We are signed up to

the European Convention, we have an

equality act, we have signed a lot

of UN treaties covered the offensive

notion that if we do not adopt this,

we

somehow human rights is actually

offensive nonsense. This is not just

about the application of the

European Charter in British law, it

is a matter of the message we send

to the rest of the world and this

goes to the heart of the problem

with the so-called British Bill of

Rights, there are not British

rights, there are universal human

rights. This is the message we need

to send to the rest of the world

where people do not have those

rights. I was responsible in part

for the protection of children Bill

and the gender equality Bill, these

are intrinsic acts, we do not need

the Charter to do that, we do it

ourselves.

Does he not find it odd

that we are transposing all of EU

law into our own laws, but the thing

that really underpins all the EU

laws, we are taking away, it is

taking away the fundamentals, the

foundation of what is the body of

the EU law.

My real worries about

the Charter are that it is simply

too complicated. It does not add

sufficient rights and everyone here

is in favour of the rights we have

in the convention. We are very keen

on those may want to protect them,

but we do not feel that the Charter

as sufficiently.

She suggested that

the Charter of fundamental rights

contains rights to complicated to be

incorporated into English law. Can

you reassure her that those rights

have been incorporated into Scots

law and also all the legal systems

of all the member states of the

European Union and it is not too

complicated to do it into English

law?

At the end of that debate,

there followed a series of votes

including one on those charters. The

government won the day meaning that

so far it has not been defeated on

any of the votes of the bill. MPs

have another five days of committee

stage debate on the EU withdrawal

bill still to go.

You're watching

Tuesday In Parliament,

with me, Alicia McCarthy.

Don't forget you can find all our

programmes on the BBC iPlayer.

The Immigration Minister has told

MPs that foreign nationals whose

applications for settled status

in the UK are rejected

following Brexit could be deported

before their appeals are heard.

Brandon Lewis told the House

of Commons Home Affairs Committee

he expected deportations to take

place only in clear-cut cases.

In those circumstances, if you have

somebody who the Home Office

assesses is trying to, as you say,

game the system or trying to...

Is not eligible,

will they be able to remain

in the UK while they appeal?

Well, again, that depends

on the situation, because obviously

there are going to be a number

of different groups of people,

so if somebody is an EU

citizen and is in the UK

but hasn't fulfilled

their five years yet,

then obviously, they have

the right to stay

because they are allowed to apply

to get to five years.

Someone who is not an EU citizen

who is claiming to be an EU citizen

would therefore be committing

fraud and we would look

to deal with them in normal

immigration routes.

Which means that they would

be liable to removal.

OK, so in those circumstances, even

though somebody has an appeal, so

even though the Home Office may have

made an incorrect decision which you

would accept under the current...

Given the current number of appeals

that get overturned,

you would still deport somebody

in advance of their appeal?

We can support people in advance

of appeal because you can

appeal from overseas, but again,

it depends on the circumstances

of the individual case.

So it's difficult to answer that

because it depends

on the individual case

and the circumstances.

OK, so you're not ruling out...

So again in your technical notes

you seem to suggest

that actually EU citizens

would be able to remain here

while the appeal?

I did specifically say this

is somebody who is not

an EU citizen, who is claiming

to be an EU citizen.

But if that is the issue

on which they are appealing,

so their appeal is that the Home

Office has got it wrong claiming

that they are a citizen from outside

the EU when in fact they are an EU

citizen, under those circumstances

you still plan to deport them?

Well, no, as I said,

we plan to look at each case

on an individual basis,

so if you look at a case on an

individual basis and an individual

case is claiming to be an EU citizen

and they have reason

to claim that they are

and they believe that

the system has got it wrong,

then in that particular case,

it's likely we would allow

them to stay.

The UK's amphibious forces,

capable of landing

troops from the sea,

are an elite fighting force

vital for an island nation.

That was the message

from MPs of all parties

during a Westminster Hall debate.

They formed a united front to urge

the Chancellor Philip Hammond

to avoid making any defence cuts

in the Budget.

The Ministry of Defence embarked

on a new defence review in July.

According to media reports,

it includes proposals to reduce

the number of Royal Marines by 1,000

or take two specialist

landing ships, HMS Albion

and Bulwark, out of action.

Today, we must send

a united message to the Chancellor

that his decisions

on these matters will have

consequences, that we cannot do

national security on the cheap, that

we must ensure that our Armed Forces

have the resources that they need

to deal with the threats that we

face and that any reduction in our

amphibious capability

or in the numbers of our

Royal Marines would be the wrong

cuts at the wrong time.

His backbenchers

are telling him,

his own party grandees are

telling him and those

in this room will today,

I am sure,

agree as we prepare to exit

the European Union and chart

a new course for Britain's role

in the world, we cannot play

fast and loose

with the defence of the realm.

She revealed her "fondness"

for the Royal Marines.

I feel immensely privileged to have

had the opportunity to visit

our Royals around the world

and even to have taken part,

sort of, in their

Arctic training in Norway,

at least what are they allowed

me to pretend to do.

I have seen first-hand their

extraordinary courage, ability,

focus and fortitude.

They are truly an elite

fighting force.

But what really stood

out from me, and I'm sure

for anyone who has spent any time

with them, is the mindset

that they bring to the role.

First to understand,

first to adapt and respond

and first to overcome.

A Conservative MP said culling 1,000

marines would be a "grave mistake."

The Royal Marines are

some of the most elite infantry

in the world and are in effect

tier two special forces.

We also derive around

40% of our tier one

special forces, the SAS and the SBS,

from the Royal Marines.

Not only do the Royal Marines

have an incredibly proud history,

having recently celebrated

their 350th anniversary,

they also have

tremendous utility and

I can see no defence advantage

at all in getting rid

of 1,000 of the best

maritime infantry in the world.

Johnny Mercer is a

former army commando.

I think it's very important

that we don't dictate tactically

what we ask our professionals

to do in this country.

What I mean by that is that our job

here is to ensure, is to hold

the Government's feet to the fire

and to ensure that what they say

with one hand is

matched by the other.

The Government has a very small

majority and we will hold them

to account on this issue

because on this issue, I'm afraid,

the feelings are running high.

We have to go back to our

constituents and justify what

we do in this place every weekend

and I'm determined that we will come

through, see them through

provide the country

with the defences we need.

Albion and Bulwark are strategic

assets which other nations rely on.

Getting rid of this vital command

and control capability would be

nothing short of an abdication of

that responsibility and undermine

UK leadership when it will be

under more scrutiny after Brexit.

This debate has no doubt been

prompted by speculation

in the media on the

future of the amphibious ships.

As members will be aware,

the Government has initiated work

on a review of national security

capabilities which is being

conducted to ensure the UK's

investment in national security

capabilities is as joined up,

effective and efficient as possible

for the threats that we face

in the 21st century.

Will she confirm the press

reports that the new

Secretary of State for Defence has

asked the Treasury for more money?

I can confirm that there have been

press reports, yes, Mr Gray.

I can also confirm that we

are one of only 13 Nato countries

that meet the guideline

to spend 20% of our defence budget

on major equipment

and research and development.

The Defence Minister refusing

to give anything away.

What can be done to

increase convictions

in cases of domestic abuse?

It was a question put to

the Director of Public Prosecutions

when she appeared in front

of the Commons Justice Committee.

Official figures show

there were an estimated two million

adults aged 16 to 59 who said

they were a victim of domestic abuse

in the last year

and according to the Office

for National statistics, a decision

to charge was made for 70%

of domestic abuse cases referred

to the CPS by the police.

Do you think increasing

the scope or in fact

defining domestic abuse in law

as is planned in Scotland in the

Domestic Abuse Bill that is going

through the Scottish Parliament

would help or does that

present its own challenges?

With the upcoming Domestic Abuse

Bill in the New Year

as promised in the Queen's speech,

what needs to change in our approach

at all levels to domestic abuse in

order to increased conviction rates?

I mean, I think the

definition may help.

Of course, the details...

The Devil's always

in the details, so it

depends on what the definition is.

But I think a definition which we're

all working to may help.

We already have that

to some extent in that we have

at least agreed definition

of domestic abuse.

We've been doing some work

with the National Criminal

Justice Board where we've been

looking at a study of what works

in domestic abuse cases

and what doesn't, and it is...

To some extent it's

not rocket science.

Some of it's around

making sure that cases

are dealt with very quickly

so sometimes we still see delays

are such that people disengage

with the process

because they want to get

on with their lives or their

relationship may have resumed,

making sure that they have the

support that they need so things

like independent and domestic

violence advisers, making sure

that we get the cases

to specialist courts that

understand some of the issues,

so we know that in some

of the Magistrates' Courts

where they have timescales

on them were you get to trial

within six weeks, that

helps and that works.

Knowing that officers

have got body-worn video

that actually captures not just

the defendant but sometimes

the complainant, the victim as well.

We prosecuted a case

not long ago where

I think it was a daughter

called the police.

There was a violent

domestic incident.

The victim was in the street

bleeding from her injuries.

She didn't want to give a statement

to the police, the daughter didn't

want to, two officers,

one was able to capture

the defendant who made some

incriminating comments on the video

and one which was able to

capture the demeanour and

the sort of injuries to the victim.

That and the 999 call

we were able to use so

we didn't have to rely on the victim

and we obtained

a conviction in that case.

So we are learning more as we go

along about the sorts of things

that we might use in order to get

that before the court, so there's

lots that we can do which don't

necessarily need legislation,

but there may be legislative

things as well that would be useful.

Alison Saunders.

Peers have been told that tighter

rules on the use of airborne drones

are to be brought in next year.

Near miss incidents involving

aircraft and drones are monitored

by the UK Airprox Board.

There were 70 Airprox reports

involving drones coming close

to aircraft over the UK in 2016 -

more than double

the number for 2015.

Following the public

consultation on this in July,

I can confirm that the Government

does intend to bring

forward legislation

with regard to drones.

As set out by my predecessor,

we hope to bring legislation forward

as soon as possible next year

including an amendment

to the Air Navigation Order 2016.

I will be setting out

further details on the

content and timing of this

legislation in the coming weeks.

My Lords, there are hundreds of

thousands of drones now in operation

and there were over 50

near misses reported

this year alone on aircraft.

Is the noble Baroness and Minister

aware of the research by

the British Airline Pilots

Association which shows the risks

and dangers of serious accidents

as a result of a drone strike

and does the Minister accept

that the Government

needs to develop a much greater

sense of urgency in dealing

with this serious problem

that will lead to an accident

if it is not controlled?

My Lords, I am indeed aware

of the evidence put forward on

the danger of drones that they can

cause to aircraft and helicopters.

I do understand the need to move

on this and we are taking action.

Since the consultation

response, we have been assessing

the best way to implement

the legislation which will include

the registration of drones

and leisure pilot tests.

We are engaging internationally

on developing the best practice for

drone rules and we are reviewing

and exploring the other possible

policies that we set out

for further consideration.

Can I ask, what is the Government's

current assessment

of the possibility of a drone

being involved in a major incident

resulting in loss of life

or serious injuries?

Is the possibility of such a major

incident becoming more or less

likely as each day passes?

My Lords, I am aware

that the expectation

of an incident is high.

Of course, there hasn't been

a significant incident yet, but

obviously more drones are being sold

every day and so we are very clear

on the need to take action on this.

We will be setting out as soon

as we can the legislation and,

as I say, in the next couple

of weeks,

I will be able to write to the noble

Lords and update them on this.

Who is going to catch

the perpetrators of people

flying drones illegally

and what are they going to do

about it and how and what kind

of penalties could there be?

There are so many flying around

today, who is going to

identify and catch them?

My Lords, as I mentioned,

we will be extending

police powers in the legislation.

I'm sure your Lordships will

understand that it is sometimes

a challenge to link an

operator to a drone.

We are trying to help address

this by bringing forward

a registration system and

we are also investigating

electronic identification.

For the legislation,

we are looking at powers for the

police to require the production

of the registration ID

and documents for drone users.

Also that they will be able

to require a drone user

to land their drone and also

to search for and seize

a drone when there

is reasonable belief

that a crime has taken place

and we very much hope

that this will enable police

to capture people

who are misusing drones.

Can I understand that this

legislation will cover other illegal

uses of drones such as the reports

of drones being used

to take illicit drugs into prisons

and other illegal activities

associated with these machines?

My Lords, we will be looking

to expand these powders in the bill.

I'm aware of course of the issue

of smuggling illegal

substances into prisons.

They are working with HM

Prison Information Service to ensure

that they are analysing drone

use and acting upon it.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for a round up

of what promises to be

a busy day at Westminster.

At midday, it's Prime Minister's

Questions when Theresa May will once

again face Jeremy Corbyn

across the despatch box

and immediately after that,

the Chancellor Philip Hammond

will deliver his latest budget.

But for now, from me,

Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.