09/03/2016 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament, our look at the best

of the day in the Commons and the Lords.

On this programme:

Should we shop till we drop?

Or ought we to continue to make Sunday a little bit

different from the rest of the week?

We are all capable of deciding whether we work or shop on a Sunday.

Why is it that in this country, this Government thinks

that we should put the free market above everything else?

That deal between the EU and Turkey aimed at easing the migrants crisis.

One MP sounds a stark warning about Turkey.

Over a period of time, the president of Turkey has

done his best to undermine democratic rights

in that country.

And the Health Secretary says it's time for a cultural change

in the NHS.

Other industries, in particular the airline in nuclear

industries, have learned the importance of developing

a learning culture and not a blame culture if safety is to be improved.

But first - ministers have suffered a defeat in the Commons

over their plans to allow shops in England and Wales to open

for longer on Sundays.

Rebel Conservative backbenchers combined with Labour and the

SNP to inflict the second Government defeat in the Commons

since last year's election.

Under the plans, local councils would be given

the power to allow large shops to open longer than the current

six hours on Sundays.

Trade unions say the changes might have added

as much as another six hours to the time the shops would stay

open for business.

The Commons battle was keenly fought.

Don't we understand that while we have this

great job here with all the privileges we have,

we have a duty to look after people who are much

less better off than us, who work unbelievably hard,

often in fairly grim jobs.

And do we want to force them - because ultimately all the pressure

will be on them, from these big businesses -

do we want them to sit behind a till on a Sunday,

or do we say to them, yes, we do believe that

Sunday is special.

Doesn't he agree with me that we should actually just

trust our constituents to make up their own minds?

In life we all have to find our own balance,

and we are all capable of deciding whether we work

or shop on a Sunday.

This isn't actually the most complicated

decision that our constituents will make in their lives.

Isn't it also misleading of the Government to

describe this as a devolutionary measure?

Isn't it simply the fact that the moment one particular

council adopts these powers,

every other neighbouring council will be forced to follow suit?

I think it is important to bear in mind that the laws

in England and Wales on trading were last updated in 1994,

back when the only time we heard of Amazon

was when you were talking about a river.

The high street faced no external pressure.

The internet is liberating, it changes the way we

live and work.

But the pressures on our high street are rising and internet

But the pressures on our high street are rising and the internet

plays a part.

Surveys of internet shoppers show there is no relationship

between them internet shopping on a Sunday,

because they can't or want to go to extended hours at local stores.

If we follow that argument, those who are on the internet

between midnight and 3am, is that an argument for shops

being open at that time?

In my own constituency - which I accept is a relatively

exceptional constituency in a city centre -

there would be a demand, particularly at tourist times,

that the local authorities should give permission.

But it would be up to the local authority to manage that.

I think this is a good compromise, given the great changes

that have taking place in the last 30 years,

not least with the internet, in that shopping pattern.

Even in workplaces with trade union reps to support members,

many staff are pressured into not using the Sunday opt-out.

In fact, something like a third of workers,

shop workers, are pressured into working Sundays

or having their working hours cut.

To those who say we need to keep Sunday special,

I respect that.

But I ask, do you not shop on the internet on a Sunday?

Do not visit your local leisure centre?

Goods are delivered on a Sunday, we eat in restaurants on a Sunday,

call centres are open on a Sunday, many sectors work on a Sunday.

You talk about rights, what about their rights?

Many of us been abroad, Spain, Portugal or France -

and we have found real restrictions on

finding things open on a Sunday.

We have been out at lunchtime and found the shops on siesta.

Why is it, in this country, this Government

thinks that we should put the free market above everything else?

I rise to speak in favour of Sunday trading, because I feel in a place

like central London, and I stand as a London MP,

we should have some freedom for people to trade and choose how

they do business.

You don't have to go shopping, but if you want to go shopping,

you should have the opportunity to do so.

The Treasury have been taking media flak for this.

The Treasury are putting out the lines to take.

In fact, if you are and obscure backbench Tory MP, you're likely -

In fact, if you are an obscure backbench Tory MP, you're likely -

if you vote the right way today - to get a brand-new bypass.

Or perhaps become special representative to some warm

and exotic place you've never heard of.

Before entering this place, I was in business for 25 years.

It is absolutely right to consider the needs of business

and the family lives of workers.

But as all business people know, shouldn't the customer first?

But as all business people know, shouldn't the customer come first?

If the customer wants to shop at other times in a

weekend, shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

Isn't a pilot the right way to take this forward?

People work to live, they don't live to work.

There are lots of other things we could do that would be more

efficient - we could propose to our partners by text,

we could read to children on Skype from the office,

no-one would suggest these things!

This constant denigration of family life is truly unhelpful.

And at the end of the debate, MPs voted in favour

of an Opposition amendment.

The ayes to the right, 317,

the noes to the left, 286.

The "skill ambitions" of young people in the UK are being held back

by the Government's economic policies -

the claim of Jeremy Corbyn as he tackled David Cameron

at the weekly round of Prime Minister's Questions.

It was during this latest half-hour session that the Labour

leader notched up his first hundred questions to the Prime Minister.

Mr Corbyn focused on the state of the economy.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that we had

a strong economy with a sound plan.

If the economy is so strong, then why this week has he forced

through a ?30 per week cut, hitting some of

the poorest disabled people in the country?

As we speak today we have inflation at 0%, unemployment at 5%,

our economy is growing, wages are growing, and we're cutting

the taxes that people are paying.

That, combined with reforming welfare - and we are reforming

welfare - is a way to get the deficit down, continue

with growth and help deliver for the working people of Britain.

Mr Speaker, I don't believe the majority of people in this

country are content to see someone diagnosed with cancer today,

unfit to work next year, reduced to poverty,

because of the cuts this Government is putting through.

If we really do have the strong economy

the Prime Minister claims, then why did the Chancellor warn

last week, and I quote, we may need to make

further reductions?

Who will these reductions fall on?

The disabled?

Pensioners?

Young people?

Women?

Is he going to rule out attacking those groups?

He will see the budget next week, when my right honourable

friend the Chancellor - who has an excellent record

of steering this nation's economy - will stand up to give that.

As he well knows, the poorest have paid the most for the

cuts, and women have paid for 81% of those cuts.

Mr Speaker, on 99 previous attempts to ask questions

to the Prime Minister, I've been unclear or dissatisfied

by the answers, as indeed many other people have.

So, on this auspicious 100th occasion, can I ask the

Prime Minister to help out a young man called Callum.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the Engineering

Employers Federation that we have a skills shortage -

a good admission.

Callum asks - and he's a bright young man who wants to make his way

in the world - says, will the Government acknowledge...

Maybe the Prime Minister does as well.

Will the Government acknowledge the importance of sixth-form

colleges and post-16 education services in Britain?

First of all, let me congratulate the honourable gentleman on getting

to 100 not out.

I'm sure it will be welcomed across the House.

What I say to Callum is what we are introducing

in our country is a situation where we uncap university places,

so as many people who want to go can go.

And we will be introducing in this Parliament

three million apprentices.

Mr Speaker, we have a construction industry in recession at a time that

has an acute need for new housing.

Construction apprenticeships have fallen by 11% since 2010.

With the lowest rate of house building since

the 1920s, almost 100 years ago.

Will the Prime Minister look again at this issue,

stop the cuts to skills training, and cuts to

investment which are holding back this country, holding back the skill

ambitions of so many young people, and invest in them and invest

in our future?

I do have to pick up the right honourable gentleman

on his statistics, because we have seen a massive boost to apprentices

and apprenticeship funding under this Government.

Two million in the last Parliament, three million in this Parliament.

On housing, let me give him the figures,

house building under Labour fell by 45%, since then it's increased

by two thirds.

David Cameron.

104 days to go until the European Referendum -

plenty of time for both the Leave EU camp and the Remain In camp to argue

their respective cases.

David Cameron faced questions from both sides

at Prime Minister's Questions, including one that concerned

him very directly.

If the British people vote to leave the European Union,

will the Prime Minister resign, yes or no?

No.

JEERING

It is very much to the Government's credit that over two million jobs

have been created since 2010.

But nearly one million of those have gone to non-UK EU nationals.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the EU's free movement

of people is damaging UK nationals' employment prospects,

and has contributed to the 1.6 million British

people remaining unemployed?

And this has not been compensated for by equivalent-level jobs

in other European countries for UK nationals?

In combination with the welfare reform we've introduced

for EU citizens and the tougher control of migration from outside

the EU, we should see welfare reform in the UK as the flip side

of migration control.

We want to make sure it always pays for

British people to train up to do the jobs that are being made

available, so we should see immigration control and welfare

reform together with a growing economy as the way of getting

more of our people into work.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is very important

that we make the positive case for Britain remaining in the EU?

That each of us get ?1200 back for every ?120 we put in.

We have lower prices and choice in shops and easier travelling

for holidays and businesses.

Can the Prime Minister explain how our

membership of the EU benefits so many aspects of our lives?

I think the honourable lady makes an important point,

which is in all the arguments about single markets and sovereignty

and the rest of it, we can sometimes lose some of the simple consumer

benefits of being a member of the European Union.

And the things she mentions about cheaper

air travel, ease of travel, not having any tariffs,

these are things that we take for granted now, that simply

weren't the case 40 years ago.

I agree that's a strong part of the very

positive case we should make remaining in the EU.

The SNP's Westminster leader focused on allegations about how

some refugees arriving in the UK are being treated.

Mr Speaker, the refugee crisis is the biggest issue

facing governments right across Europe.

Is the Prime Minister ashamed that in a UK Government

programme, we now know that in Folkstone, trafficking victims

were locked up without food, asylum-seekign children were forced

to sleep on concrete floors, that patients with diarrhoea

were denied access to showers, and also a naked woman was allegedly

beaten at a detention centre.

Is the Prime Minister ashamed of this?

I will look very carefully at the points the right

honourable gentleman makes.

I would say our asylum system is fair, and Britain,

down the ages, has given people asylum who are fleeing

torture and persecution.

When it comes to the issue of resettling

Syrian refugees, it was instructive at this week's European Council

there was a chart showing how many countries have actually resettled

Syrian refugees, Britain has done far better than any other

country bar Germany.

David Cameron talking about claims about the treatment of some

refugees reaching Britain.

Earlier this week a deal was drawn up aimed at easing the migrant

crisis, generally reckoned to be the biggest mass movement

of people since the Second World War.

Last year, more than a million people, most fleeing the conflict

in Syria, entered the EU by boat, mainly going from Turkey to Greece.

Under Monday's deal, all migrants arriving in Greece

from Turkey would be returned.

For each Syrian sent back, a Syrian already in Turkey would be

resettled in the EU.

Turkey would also get extra funding and progress on EU integration.

MPs have been discussing the plan.

Agreements that were reached in principle at the EU-Turkey summit

on Monday represent a basis that could mean that in future

all migrants who arrived in Greece could be returned to Turkey.

That would, if implemented, break the business

model of the people smugglers and end the link between getting

in a boat and getting settlement in Europe.

This is something which the Prime Minister and the government

have been arguing for for nearly a year.

The agreement would not impose any new obligations on the UK in respect

of either resettlement or relocation.

Does the Minister agree that the only way to deal with this

crisis is to work with our European neighbours and with other countries

affected in the region, including Turkey?

We welcome the fact, therefore, that European nations are working

together to try to find a solution rather than individual

countries trying to find individual solutions to what is clearly

a collective challenge.

Actually this deal is a rather grubby one.

We all know that the government, our own

government in particular but the whole of the European Union,

is desperate to try and be seen to be

resolving this migration crisis, that this is a self-inflicted crisis

to some extent because the free movement area in the Schengen area

is a temptation, and attraction for refugees to get

into the European Union so they can travel anywhere,

and the refusal to close down the Schengen agreement means

they want to keep that invitation open, so they are doing a very

grubby deal with a country with a very

indifferent human rights record to subcontract the deportation

of these terrori...

these refugees back to their country of origin.

We share the deep concern expressed by the United Nations that these

proposals would contravene refugees' right to

protection under European and international law.

Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCR Europe regional director,

said yesterday that an agreement on this basis would not be

consistent with either European or international law.

Over a period of time the President of Turkey has

done his best to undermine democratic rights in that country,

outright intimidation of critics, a newspaper taken over last week

by his henchmen and has now become a mouthpiece for the regime.

More recently than that, a news agency.

Does the Minister realise that there can be no question

of Turkey becoming in any way associated

with the European Union while this intimidation of critics continues,

and indeed the President of Turkey gives a very good example of trying

to follow Putin.

I wish to associate the Liberal Democrats with the comments

on free speech and also the comments just made with regard to the very

troubling one-for-one refugee agreement, which raises both

practical and moral concerns.

The Minister is a very honourable man.

Surely he cannot be comfortable with an

agreement that actually requires refugees to risk their lives

travelling to the EU in return for another refugee only from Syria

to get safe passage.

That is entirely unacceptable.

The purpose that...we have is to put in place a set of arrangements

which remove the incentives for people to entrust

their safety to the people traffickers, and unless we are able

to do that then the risk is exactly that the flow of people

and the appalling casualties that result

from that flow of people across the Aegean will continue.

You're watching our round-up of the day in the Commons

and the Lords.

Still to come...

A minister declares himself at the end of his tether over

the issue of broadband.

Now, how safe is the NHS?

The Health Secretary has announced a number of changes

designed to improve patient safety in England.

He told MPs that progress was being made, but still too many

mistakes were taking place.

Twice a week in the NHS we operate on the

wrong part of someone's body.

Twice a week we leave a foreign object in someone's body.

The pioneering work of Helen Hogan, Nick Black and Ara

Darzi has estimated that 3.6% of hospital deaths have a 50%

or more chance of being avoidable, which equates to over 150

deaths every week.

We should remember that, despite this, our standards

of safety still compare well to many other countries but I want England

to lead the world in offering the highest possible standards

of safety in healthcare.

He called for cultural change.

Other industries, in particular the airline and nuclear industries,

have learned the importance of developing a learning

culture and not a blame culture if safety is to be improved,

but too often the fear of litigation or

professional consequences inhibits the openness and transparency

we need if we are to learn from mistakes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always support sensible steps

to improve safety and transparency in the delivery of health services

but what I can't do is stand here today and pretend that other

actions taken by this government won't have a detrimental effect

on patient care.

The Health Secretary's kamikaze approach to the junior-doctor

contract means that no matter how this dispute ends he will have lost

the goodwill of staff on which the NHS survives.

How can he stand here and talk about patient safety when it is him

and him alone who is to blame for the current industrial

action, for the destruction of staff morale and for the potential exodus

of junior doctors to the southern hemisphere?

We do need to look at the ratio of staff.

Both France's and other research has shown the importance of nursing

staff - staff who do not have a minute to stop and think

will make mistakes and they will not have time to report them.

We need to make it easy, people do need to have time

to minimise mistakes and there has to be that culture.

A minister has declared himself "at the end

of his tether" with BT Openreach.

Ed Vaizey was replying to a debate about customer-service

standards at the firm, which provides cables,

fibre and infrastructure for BT's phone lines and broadband.

A recent report by the regulator Ofcom pledged to introduce tougher

rules on BT's faults, repairs and installations.

The Conservative who raised the subject in Westminster Hall said

she'd had a myriad of complaints about the service.

Caroline Nokes gave the example of the village of Up Somborne

in her Hampshire constituency.

We had an interesting experience a few weeks ago when most

of the village's lines were crossed and neighbouring houses

were providing a message service to each

other as lines were swapped and numbers redistributed

in an apparently random fashion.

The spectacle of neighbours running up

and down the road passing messages to each other may sound amusing

but in the 21st century it is really not acceptable.

Another Conservative had an altogether more serious example.

In my constituency there was a 99-year-old lady whose phone

line was down with BT refusing to send an engineer out.

Thankfully my office forced BT to send an engineer -

after the work was done when she had a stroke and her son managed to make

phone contact to discover this.

It could have been so very different had the line not been fixed

and her son unable to get through.

She could have died without immediate

assistance and it shows the importance of phone lines.

Ofcom will need the right kind of political support in order

to ensure that these measures are put in place.

As our digital infrastructure is critical and it is strategic,

we have wasted five years in the policy wilderness,

not improving our digital infrastructure.

The Minister shared the frustration.

I have no truck with Openreach and its

customer-service levels.

They are absolutely woeful.

I find myself, as the Minister responsible for telecoms,

a bit like a person who has had a sort of forced adoption

of an unruly teenager.

I tell my colleagues that he means well,

he is doing his best, and they simply tell me

about the latest outrage they have suffered at his hands,

and that's unfortunately the position I find myself in,

in terms of Openreach customer service.

I am completely at the end of my tether, I agree

with all of the complaints made by all of

my colleagues in this debate, and I want to make sure

there is action, and I hope we have this debate in a year's time

and we have seen some action.

You may see a different minister if I don't succeed

but we will do our best to make some progress.

Now, does the Lords have too many members who've come from the lofty

heights of university and too few with a more practical background?

That seemed to be thrust of a remark by the former

Labour Minister Lord Rooker, as the Lords debated the value

of working adults doing evening Further Education courses.

Many noble Lords in this chamber will remember the day when night

school was a major instrument of social mobility.

Yet today night school has almost disappeared and the number of adults

on part-time courses has plummeted.

So please can I ask the Minister, what can the government do

to increase the availability of part-time higher-education

and further-education courses, including

night school, and to encourage people in work to better themselves

in this old-fashioned but tried and trusted way.

For 2016-17, learners aged 19 and over studying at level

three to six will be able to access this support,

so we are doing what we can to provide people who want to study

part-time support to do so.

Would it not be a good idea with respect to further education,

and I declare an interest as someone who did three nights a week in day

release at one point, instead of stuffing this place

with chancellors of universities of higher

education, do we actually put some people with direct knowledge

of further education into this place?

I'm afraid I think the noble Lord has an over...over-view of my...

Gosh, sorry!

Basically there's nothing I can do about it but I have sympathy.

Lady Evans trying to get the right words out in the House of Lords.

I think we know what she meant.

And that's it for this programme.

Do join me for the next daily round-up.

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.