07/09/2016 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...

Summer is over, new term, new mockery from the new Prime Minister.

Lewis writes, "Does she know that in a recent poll on who would make

a better Prime Minister, 'don't know' scored higher

than Jeremy Corbyn?"

LAUGHTER.

But Labour says the Government is muddled and confused over Brexit.

The outcome has left this country divided with increased

levels of hate crimes, huge uncertainty about what comes

next for our country.

And the great education debate...

In improving children's life chances, do grammar schools pass

the test or should they be given a fail mark?

Grammar schools will benefit a minority of pupils.

It was their destruction, it was a major cause

of the reduction in social mobility.

But first, Wednesday at Westminster means Prime Minister's Question Time

and the still emerging duel between Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Corbyn could, in theory, have only a couple of

weeks left in the job.

The outcome of the battle with his leadership contender,

Owen Smith, will be known two weeks on Saturday.

Facing the Prime Minister, the Labour leader stuck to one

of his main priority issues, namely housing.

He said the average price of a house in Britain is now ?215,000,

eight times the level of the average wage.

For those...

For those who are desperate to get their own place,

I just refer the Prime Minister to a note I received

from a lady called Jenny, whose partner and herself

work in a supermarket earning ?7.37 an hour each.

They are trying to get a mortgage and have been told

they can borrow ?73,000 - not much hope for them then.

The former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Witney,

promised that there would be a one-for-one replacement

for every council house that is sold under Right to Buy.

Sadly, the reality is that there is only one for every five sold.

Will the Prime Minister give us a commitment on the one-for-one

replacement and when it will be a reality?"

Prime Minister.

Well, firstly, can I say to Jenny that I fully understand

and appreciate the concerns that individuals have about wanting to be

able to have their own home and to set up that home.

I fully recognise the difficulties that there are for some people

in doing that.

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman that

in relation to the figures on council housing, he is wrong,

we have delivered on the one-for-one replacement on the Right to Buy.

But, I was...

I am very interested because I did notice that the right honourable

gentleman had asked all his Twitter followers what questions he should

ask me this week, so I thought I would look to see what sort

of responses he'd received.

I have to say that the first one was quite good.

In fact, he might want to make sure he stays sitting down for this.

Lewis writes, "Does she know that in a recent poll on who would make

a better Prime Minister, 'don't know' scored higher

than Jeremy Corbyn?"

LAUGHTER.

Mr Speaker, what we do know is that whoever wins the Labour Party

leadership, we're not going to let them anywhere

near power again.

CHEERING.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Speaker, the number of first-time buyers has halved in the last 20

years and their average age has increased a great deal.

There is a housing crisis in Britain.

What I say is what this government is doing,

is ensuring that we are looking across the board so we will see

more houses being built, we're looking to ensure

that there is a diversity of opportunity for people in terms

of getting their own home.

But I have to say to the right honourable gentleman that everything

he says just tells us all we need to know about modern Labour...

The train has left the station, the seats are all empty,

the leader is on the floor...

Even on rolling stock, they are laughing stock.

Jeremy Corbyn went back to the conditions of

some rented housing.

The Citizens Advice Bureau says one sixth of housing benefit goes

to private sector landlords renting out unsafe homes.

Does the Prime Minister think this really is a satisfactory

state of affairs?

We are introducing new regulations in relation to housing

in multiple occupation, so we're looking at

all of these issues.

I recognise, as every Member of Parliament in this house will,

the problems that people sometimes have when they are living

in accommodation that is not up to the standard that we would all

wish to see people living in.

That is why we are looking, we are changing the rules

and we are ensuring that the regulations are there.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Well, that is extremely interesting, Mr Speaker, because only one year

ago the Prime Minister voted against a Labour amendment

to the Housing Bill which quite simply said all homes rented

in the private rented sector should be fit for human habitation.

And just over one year ago the Treasury estimated

that it is losing half of ?1 billion per year on unpaid tax

from landlords renting in the private rented sector.

So there we have it, ?9.5 billion in housing benefit,

half a billion not being collected, a very large number of homes not

really fit for human habitation.

Does this not require government intervention on the side of the

tenant and those in housing need?

He may have a model of society where he does not want to see

private landlords, where he wants to see the Government owning

everything, the Government deliberating on everything

and the Government doing everything for everybody, that

is not what we want.

We want opportunities for people and to help them take

those opportunities, there is a big difference

between him and me.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Of course, we all recognise there is a mixed housing economy

but we want to make sure that those living in the private rented sector

are properly treated and not having to pay excessive levels of rent.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Well, ten weeks have gone by since the momentous vote

for the UK to leave the EU.

But are we any closer to knowing more about the terms

of Britain's departure and what the country's future

relationship with the continuing EU will be?

The issue was focused on at PMQs by the Scottish National Party.

The UK Government has had all summer to come up

with a plan, a strategy.

So far we have just had waffle.

So may I ask the Prime Minister a very simple question,

but it is quite important?

Does she want the UK to remain firmly in

the European single market?

What I want in the UK is that we put into place and into practice

the vote that was taken by the people of the United Kingdom

to leave the European Union.

And that we get the right deal for the trading goods and services

within the European Union and a new relationship

that we will be building with them and that we will also introduce

control of the movement of people from the European Union

into the United Kingdom.

And I would say to the right honourable gentleman that we can

approach the vote that took place on 23 June in two ways.

We could try to row back on it, have a second referendum and say

that we did not really believe it, but actually we are respecting

the views of the British people.

More than that, we will be seizing the opportunities that leaving

the European Union now gives us to forge a new role

for the United Kingdom in the world.

Angus Robertson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We on these benches respect the views of the people of Scotland,

who voted to remain in the European Union.

The European single market...

Order.

The right honourable gentleman must be heard and he will be heard.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The European single market is the biggest market in the world

and it really matters to our businesses and to our economy.

I asked the Prime Minister a very, very simple question, to which there

is either an in or an out answer.

Let me ask it again.

Does she want the United Kingdom to remain fully part

of the European single market?

Yes or no?

The right honourable gentleman does not seem to quite understand

what the vote on 23 June was about.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union and we will build

a new relationship with the European Union.

That new relationship will include control over the movement of people

from the EU into the UK, and it will include the right deal

for trade in goods and services.

That is how to approach it.

I also say to him that, in looking at the negotiations,

it would not be right for me or this government to give a running

commentary on negotiations...

May I just comment that following the EU referendum

and under her leadership, I feel more confident

about the future of this country than ever in my lifetime?

And...

And will she beware those who are trying to make leaving

the European Union ever more complicated and protracted?

To that end...

Order, progress is very slow.

There is far too much noise, the honourable gentleman will be

heard, it is as simple as that.

He will be heard.

And to that end, will the Prime Minister confirm

that there is no basis in law to require the Government to seek

the permission of Parliament before invoking Article 50?

As he alludes to in his question, no one should be in any doubt

that those who are trying to prolong the process by their legal

references in relation to Parliament are not those who want to see

us successfully leave the European Union, they are those

who want to try to stop us leaving the European Union.

Well, a few minutes after that, the Prime Minister gave

the customary report back to MPs on the outcome of the weekend's

summit in China of the G20 group of leading nations.

It allowed the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

to challenge the Prime Minister on the Brexit issue.

Mr Speaker, when the British people voted to leave the European Union,

they did not vote to leave Europe.

To turn inwards or to walk away from the G20 or any

of our international partners around the world.

That's never been the British way.

We've always understood that our success as a sovereign

nation is inextricably bound up in our trade

and cooperation with others.

The G20 met in the wake of the vote to leave the European union.

We have to be clear, we accept the decision taken

by the majority of our people, however, we cannot ignore the fact

that the outcome has left this country divided,

with increased levels of hate crimes, huge uncertainty

about what comes next for our country and an extraordinary

lack of planning and preparation on how to navigate

the post-referendum situation in relation to Europe.

He said ministers had come up with contradictory

messages that did not add up to a considered position.

The Brexit Secretary said that staying in the single

market was improbable.

The Prime Minister's spokesperson said that was not the case.

It is one or the other.

It cannot be both.

So, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government's

policy actually is?

It will be a new relationship and as indicated in my statement

and indeed in Prime Minister's Questions earlier, I will not be

giving a running commentary, nor will the Government,

on our negotiations.

And there is a very good reason for doing that, we want

to get the best deal, we want to get the right deal

for the United Kingdom and if we were to give a constant

running commentary and give away our negotiating hand,

then that would not be what we would achieve.

Now Australia today has joined the United States at the G20

last week in slapping down her government,

telling us we are in fact at the back of the queue for a trade

deal, the plain fact is that this government is not

concealing its hand, it hasn't got a hand,

or it would appear a clue.

I would like like to thank the Prime Minister for clarifying

that her Brexit Secretary was wrong to rule out membership

of the European single market and that her Foreign Secretary

was wrong to campaign for a points-based immigration

system and that her International Trade Secretary was wrong to say

that we are leaving the customs union.

But is it not the case, Mr Speaker, that if we are to strike

trade deals with non-EU countries - and I am somebody who appreciates

the value of free trade deals - then we will have to leave

the customs union and that will bring disadvantages

for UK businesses and for foreign direct investment?

In the European Union, we currently run a deficit

with the other 27 member states - according to the Office

for National Statistics - of 62 billion each year.

However, we run a surplus for the same goods and services

with the rest of the world at over 30 billion, which went up

by 10 billion last year alone.

Will my right honourable friend therefore continue her crusade

for free trade to develop our world opportunities through Brexit

and to make sure that the European Commission and the European Union

are no longer continuing to run our trade policy -

we will do it ourselves and do it really well?

Why did the Prime Minister authorise a very public dressing down

of the Brexit Secretary merely for telling the House that

membership of the single market and free movement of people tend

to go together?

Is it not possible that the Brexit Secretary,

who has believed in this stuff for years, has thought more deeply

about it than a Prime Minister who has been a Brexiteer

for a matter of weeks?

Can we revert in this House to the traditional practice

where ministers are disciplined for misleading the House

as opposed to the odd occasion when they are caught

telling the truth?

Please could she tell us and clear up the confusion from yesterday,

does she value membership of the single market?

Does she think it should be an aim or an objective of the negotiations

and that we should be trying to stay in it if we can?

I would have to say to the right honourable lady, I have answered

this question on a number of occasions already today.

And she will find that she can, you know...

People ask me a question, I give an answer.

If they ask the same question, they will get the same answer.

Theresa May.

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

Still to come, the new Home Secretary tells MPs how she sees

the immigration question.

Now, are grammar schools the way to improve the life chances

of children from disadvantaged backgrounds?

The debate over selective or comprehensive education was a big

political topic in previous decades.

Many hundreds of grammar schools were closed across England

and replaced by comprehensives.

But the arguments could now be rekindled.

Theresa May is said to favour re-instigating grammar

schools in certain areas as part of her mission

to improve social mobility.

This week, a private document by a civil servant about ending

restrictions on grammars was captured by a photographer

outside 10 Downing St.

The issue was taken up in the House of Lords by a Labour peer.

The inadvertent leak yesterday, if indeed that is how it was,

that the Government is seeking to create new grammar schools,

has caused widespread alarm.

Now, the noble lord the Minister has not accepted that that is the case,

but I think something must be afoot.

The Prime Minister has made it quite clear she wants a society

that works for everyone, she wants children to have access,

all children, to have access to a good education.

We are exploring our options for delivering this and we want

all good schools to help us in this endeavor.

Will the Minister agree that the majority...

Grammar schools will benefit a minority of pupils,

that's well-recognized, but they will not benefit

the majority of pupils, because the majority of pupils,

if I may say so, like me, are deprived the opportunity

to go to grammar schools?

Anyone who is really concerned about the great lack of social

mobility in recent years will be delighted about any possibility

of the return of grammar schools, since it was their destruction

that was a major cause of the reduction in social mobility.

Will the Minister tell the House what representations his department

has received for the return of secondary modern schools?

Well, as I said, this is a long-running debate.

We've had plenty of representations for the return of grammar schools.

In the great Butler Education Act, there was a provision

for a tripartite system - grammar schools, the secondary

moderns and the technical schools.

The failure of successive governments has been to institute

a suitable number of high-quality technical schools and that is one

of the reasons why we have lagged behind our rivals

in Germany in the provision of a skilled workforce.

Does the Minister not accept that, for every grammar school,

there is consequentially three secondary modern schools?

In other words, the comprehensive schools become secondary modern

schools, so that one child's social mobility is bought at the expense

of the destruction of opportunity for three other children?

As one who benefited from a grammar school education and who lives

in a county of Lincolnshire which has excellent grammar schools

which do no damaged to children at all, could I urge my noble

friends to support our right honourable friend

the Prime Minister, if indeed she is inclined to increase

the number of grammar schools in this country?

Of course, my job is to support the Prime Minister and I'm

fully aware that many, that most grammar schools

do an excellent job, but this is a long-running argument

and there are strong views on both sides and I can assure the House

that we won't do anything without detailed consideration

and consultation.

Lord Nash.

Next week, we'll get an idea of what parliamentary constituencies

in England and Wales might look like in future.

The Boundaries Commissions will be publishing their

initial recommendations.

The idea is to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and redraw

constituency boundaries in time for the general election of 2020.

In the Commons, Labour laid into the plans.

The review next week is going to be a sham.

Nearly 2 million voters haven't been counted, so why doesn't the Minister

start again so our democracy isn't undermined by next week's

partisan gerrymandering?

Minister.

Without the implementation of these reforms, legislated by a majority

in the previous Parliament, members will continue to represent

constituencies that were drawn up on data over 20 years ago,

disregarding significant changes in the population

since that happened.

The status quo cannot and must not be an option and in future

the boundary reviews will take place every five years to ensure

constituencies remain up-to-date as they should be.

Glyn Davies.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The number of electors in the Welsh parliamentary

constituencies varies hugely.

Cardiff South, over 72,000 electors, others have less than 40.

My constituency sits roughly in the middle with about 48,000.

Now, does the Minister agree that it can't be right for each

of these constituencies to elect one MP, when the number

of voters within them is so radically different?

It's absolutely right.

We cannot continue with the historic injustice of allowing such

unequal representation - representation that currently allows

for one seat to be twice the size of another,

or to be put in other words, allow one of elector's vote to be

worth twice that of another.

This injustice, long recognised, must be resolved.

Labour said ministers hoped to save ?12 million by cutting

the number of MPs, but...

Is it not the case that this town three redistribution is proceeding

on the basis of a register where 2 million people are excluded

and is that not an absolute affront to democracy?

-- boundary redistribution.

Minister!

He is absolutely right to recognise that cutting the number of MPs

of MPs from 650 to 600, will not just save ?12 million,

it will save ?66 million over the course of a Parliament.

At the time, Mr Speaker, when many areas of public

life have found savings, it is right that we should

put our own house in order, equally it is right that we should

be finally establishing the Democratic principle of equal

size constituencies, first called for by the Chartists

back in 1838 and more recently endorsed by the committee

on standards in public life.

Does the Minister agree with the Lord Speaker that

membership of the House of Lords should be less

than that of the Commons?

Minister!

The other place has an important role in scrutinising,

improving draft legislation, as a revising chamber.

The Government is clear that an unelected chamber should not seek

to block the will of the Commons.

The Conservative manifesto is clear that a reform of the House of Lords

is needed and we have seen significant reforms including

the retirement of peers.

Over 150 peers have left the Lord since 2010 and the chamber is 400

members smaller than 1998.

The operating cost of the Lords have also fallen by 14% since 2010.

The new minister, Chris Skidmore, who by the way studied

history at Oxford.

It may take some time, that was the phrase

of the Home Secretary Amber Rudd on Britain reaching the flagship

pledge on immigration, namely to reduce it to tens

of thousands - it was the target that the previous Prime Minister

David Cameron famously missed during his years in power,

a miss that could've played a key part in voting intentions in the EU

referendum in June.

Amber Rudd, who campaigned for a Remain result

in the referendum, has been facing questions for her first time

in the new job from the Home Affairs Committee.

The Prime Minister rejected the Australian style points system

as a vehicle to control immigration to the United Kingdom at the G20.

Given that this was a key opponent of the Brexit campaign,

given that many people understood this to be the mechanism

under which we could regain control of our borders

and that the public are, I believe, rightly concerned

about immigration, you may wish to comment on that,

how do you propose controlling migration and immigration

if a points-based system is not the way forward?

I think that with the Prime Minister drew attention to was

that the points-based system has not been a successful system

for limiting migration into a country.

Although the Prime Minister is committed, as I am,

to making sure we produce migration and we make sure that the public get

what they have voted for, which is more control

over their borders with European countries, the points-based

system is not going to be the way to deliver it.

-- reduce.

We need to find a different way.

So two questions.

First, the points-based system could well be used, as in Australia,

to increase migration in certain areas, but it could also be used

to control migration if the bar was set high enough.

So perhaps that's a failing of the points-based system

in the past, but not a reason to rule it out.

I would welcome your comments on that.

But second, if it is not a points-based system,

how do you propose that migration is controlled going forward?

The Home Office is looking at the various alternatives.

I can't reveal anything more than that at the moment

because we want to make sure that we explore all the different

options and that the Prime Minister is armed with all the information

she needs, although it is fair to say she has a fairly substantial

expertise in this area.

And then she will be able to proceed with the negotiations

within the European Union.

-- with the European Union.

But I want to be absolutely clear that leaving the European Union

will mean having more control over our borders in a way

that we haven't to date when engaged with the European Union.

So are we still going for the tens of thousands?

We are still going to be looking to achieve tens of thousands,

but it may take some time.

Amber Rudd.

And that's it for this programme.

Do join me for our next daily round-up.

Until then, from me, Keith McDougall, goodbye.