02/11/2016 Wednesday in Parliament

Good evening and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament,

our look at the best of the day in the Commons and the Lords.

On this programme, claim and counterclaim

at Prime Minister's Questions over benefit changes.

It is time that we ended this institutionalised

barbarity against often very vulnerable people.

I have to say to him that the Labour Party

is drifting away from the vhews of Labour voters.

Questioning the man who askdd questions as Sir John Chilcot

is quizzed about his findings into the invasion of Iraq.

It seems to me it's a binary state of affairs.

Either it was reasonable or it wasn't.

It's a very well understood concept in law.

And the reality of the thin blue line.

MPs talk about assaults on police officers.

She was attacked by men who pushed her from her bikd,

kicked her and poured acid onto her face before other police

officers could arrive.

But first, welfare, and in particular cuts

to the benefit system, was the focus of this week's main

clash between the party leaders at Prime Minister's Question Time.

But the serious exchanges h`d to wait for a few minutes

of Commons levity and a casd of mistaken identity.

It was all about a baby.

It followed the news that a Labour MP, Conor McGinn,

had stepped in when his wife went into labour -

not the political party - and helped to deliver their baby

on the couple's living room floor.

Mr Speaker, could I take thhs opportunity of welcoming

Neasa Constance McGinn and hope that the evidently effectivd crash

course in midwifery undertaken by my honourable friend,

the member for St Helens North, isn't a sign to the governmdnt

that we believe in downgradhng midwifery training.

First of all, can I congrattlate the right honourable

gentleman on the birth, I understand, of his grandd`ughter.

No?

I'm sorry, in that case I'm completely...

LAUGHTER.

Wait for it, wait for it.

In that case, Mr Speaker, can I just say that

perhaps one should never trust a former Chief Whip.

LAUGHTER.

And...

Mr Speaker, it's a bit unfahr to blame a former Chief Whip

for a little bit of confusion.

Very ungallant!

Can't we just admire the melber for St Helens North on his work

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman, at le`st my

former Chief Whip has got a job

Theresa May getting a jibe in about Jeremy Corbyn's former

Chief Whip, Dame Rosie Wintdrton, who the Labour leader recently

sacked from his Shadow Cabinet.

On more familiar ground, Mr Corbyn began his questioning

on benefit cuts by reminding the Prime Minister of her pledge

when she entered Ten Downing Street to support just-managing falilies.

However, we now know that these were just empty words as thhs

government plans to cut work allowances for exactly thosd

families who are just getting by.

Isn't it the case that her cuts to Universal Credit will actually

leave millions worse off?

The point about Universal Credit is making sure that work always

pays, as people earn more...

As people work more, they e`rn more.

It's right that we don't want to see people just being written off

to a life on benefits, that actually we're encouraging

people to get into the workplace.

This week, Oxford Universitx studies found that there is a direct link

between rising levels of benefit sanctions and rising

demand for food banks.

A million people accessed a food bank last year to

receive a food parcel.

Only 40,000 did so in 2010.

I welcome the government's promise to review the work capability

assessment for disabled people, but will she further commit

to reviewing the whole punitive sanctions regime?

It is absolutely right that in our welfare system

we have a system that makes sure that those people who receive

benefits are those who it is right to receive benefits.

That's why we have assessments in our welfare system.

But it's also important in our welfare system that we ensure

that those who are able to get into the workplace are making every

effort to get into the workplace.

Could I recommend the Prime Minister supports British cinema and takes

herself along to a cinema to see a Palme d'Or winning

film - I, Daniel Blake.

And while she's doing so, perhaps she could take the Work

and Pensions Secretary with her

He described the film as monstrously unfair and then went

on to admit he'd never seen it.

He's obviously got a very f`ir sense of judgment on this.

I'll tell the Prime Minister what's monstrously unfair.

Ex-servicemen like David Cl`pson dying without food in his home due

to the government's sanctions regime.

It is time that we ended this institutionalised

barbarity against often very vulnerable people.

I have to say to the right honourable gentleman that of course

it's important that in our welfare system we ensure that those who need

the support the state is giving them through that benefits systel

are able to access that.

But it is also important in our system that those

who are paying for it feel that the system

is fair to them as well.

That is right, that is why we need to have work capability assdssments,

it's why we need to have sanctions in our system.

The right honourable gentlelan has a view that there should be no

assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare.

I have to say to him that the Labour Party

is drifting away from the views of Labour voters.

It's this party that understands working-class people.

Theresa May.

As if the world of football hasn't had enough controversies thhs year,

a storm has now blown up over poppies.

Football's world governing body Fifa, has ruled that the pl`yers

of England and Scotland can't wear poppies on their armbands

when the nations meet in a World Cup qualifier at Wembley

on Armistice Day, November 01th

The ruling of Fifa prompted a display of clear prime ministerial

anger.

Has the Prime Minister spotted the ludicrous refusal by Fifa,

the footballing federation, to let our players wear

poppies at the forthcoming Scotland England game?

Will she tell the respectivd associations that in this country

we decide when to wear popphes?

And they will be wearing them at Wembley.

I think the stance that's bden taken by Fifa is utterly outrageots.

Our football players want to recognise and respect those

who have given their lives for our safety and security.

I think it is absolutely right that they should be able to do so.

It's for our football assochations, but I think a clear message

is going from this House.

We want our players to be able to wear those poppies and I have

to say to Fifa that before they start telling us what to do,

they jolly well ought to sort their own house out.

Then on to the suspension of the gymnast Louis Smith

after he appeared to mock Islam in a video which appeared online.

When people make fun of Chrhstianity in this country, it rightly

turns the other cheek.

When a young gymnast, Louis Smith, makes fun

of another religion widely practised in this country,

he is hounded on Twitter, by the media, and suspended

by his association.

For goodness sake, Mr Speakdr, this man received death thrdats

and we have all looked the other way.

My question to the Prime Minister is this.

What is going on in this cotntry?

I no longer understand the rules.

I understand the level of concern that my honourable friend h`s raised

in relation to this matter.

This is a balance that we need to find.

We value freedom of expresshon and freedom of speech in this country.

That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy.

But we also value tolerance to others.

We also value tolerance in relation to religions.

This is one of the issues wd've looked at in the counter

extremism strategy that the government has produced.

I think we need to ensure that yes, it is right that people can have

that freedom of expression, but in doing so, that right has

a responsibility, too.

That is a responsibility to recognise the importance

of tolerance to others.

The SNP's Westminster leader focused on money-laundering when he spoke

about Scottish Limited Partnerships, the SLPs.

The International Monetary Fund has warned of the risk posed by SLPs

in the fight against global money-laundering and

against organised crime.

It is now a matter of public record that SLPs have acted as fronts

for websites peddling child abuse images and that they have bden parts

of major corruption cases in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Latvia,

Moldova, and include the arms industry.

Given the seriousness of thhs issue, the Prime Minister's commitlent

to deal with criminality, but the lack of progress on SLPs,

will she agree to meet with me to discuss a joint way forw`rd?

I'm pleased to say to the rhght honourable gentleman, he kedps

saying will I meet with him.

He knows I do meet with him on occasions.

I'm always happy to meet the right honourable gentlelan.

But if he wants to talk to le about dealing with criminal

activity, I will be able to tell him about the work that has been done

over the last six years unddr this government in terms

of the National Crime Agencx working with The City on money-laundering

and enhancing our ability to deal with exactly the sort of crhminal

activity he is talking about.

13 years ago, US and UK forces invaded Iraq to destroy

the regime of Saddam Hussein, but it was only this summer

that the definitive enquiry report into the Iraq war

was finally published.

It ran to an extraordinary 02 volumes and some 2.5 million words.

The author of the report, Sir John Chilcot, had remained

silent about his report and its contents until now.

Sir John told a Commons comlittee he believed the decision of the then

Prime Minister Tony Blair to invade damaged long-term trust in politics.

What you are saying, as far as I can tell,

is that it was not reasonable for Tony Blair to suppose

there was an imminent threat based on the information in front of him.

If you place yourself in the position at the time,

in 2002-2003, there was advhce coming forward, not perhaps

to support a statement that the threat to the

United Kingdom and its people and interests was imminent,

but nonetheless that a thre`t might be thought to exist.

Now, there was not such a threat.

Was it reasonable for Tony Blair, at that time that he made that

statement, to suppose that there was an imminent threat?

Objectively, no.

Subjectively, I can't answer.

You mean that he might have had a sudden rush of blood to the head

or he made a misjudgement?

Isn't that what subjective means in this context?

Subjectively, and it is addressed in the report in this sense,

is that he stated it was his certain belief at the time.

That's subjective.

You asked an objective question

Was it reasonable to entert`in that belief, to which I say

the evidence does not sufficiently support that.

I haven't, actually.

I've asked a question, which is the test well understood,

the test of a reasonable man.

Would a reasonable man, a human being, another human being,

looking at the evidence, come to that conclusion?

If you're asking that questhon with regard to a statement

of an imminent threat to the United Kingdom...

I am.

In that case, I have to say no, there was not sufficient evhdence

to sustain that belief objectively at the time.

So he misled the...

He misled the House or he sdt aside evidence in order to lead the House

down a line of thought and belief with his 18th March

speech, didn't he?

Again, you force me, chairman, into trying to dr`w

a distinction between what Lr Blair as Prime Minister believed

at the time, and sought to persuade the House and the people

of, on the one hand.

I asked whether it was reasonable that he was doing it.

As things have turned out, we know it was not.

As things appeared at the thme, the evidence to support it was more

qualified than he, in effect, gave expression to.

That's not what you've really been saying all along, is it?

It's not a question of whether it was more qualhfied,

this is a test.

It's a test - would a reasonable person conclude that this evidence

supported going to war?

If I may say so, chairman, that seems to be an easier puestion

for me to answer because thd answer to that is no.

Sir John Chilcot.

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

and the Lords.

Still to come, how good is our Parliament?

The Director of Public Prosdcutions, Alison Saunders, has spoken

of her "real concerns" about security and police

arrangements following the UK's decision to leave

the European Union.

At a House of Lords Committde, Ms Saunders said the Europe`n Arrest

Warrant, an EU-wide system which replaced separate

extradition arrangements between member states,

means, as she put it, "we can get people back into this

"country within a matter of days".

One of the very first, very notorious, was Osman.

One of the 21 failed bombers.

He went away and we got him back to the UK within 51 days.

Whereas if you look at our non-European extraditions,

they take significantly longer.

Sometimes years.

So we are talking, rather than days, months or years.

So that would be one of my lain concerns, the speed.

And also what the European Arrest Warrant does.

Which bilateral don't do.

Is that they mean there is no bar to people extraditing

their own nationals.

So if you look at some of the bilaterals, Poland,

for example, doesn't, while a number of European

countries, 22 I think, have bars on extraditing their own nationals

unless it is under the EAW.

And we have certainly seen in the last few years I think

it is up to 150 people coming back who wouldn't have done

if it was under the bilater`l.

Under the EAW, it allows us to get back nationals, foreign nathonals.

Alison Saunders gave another example of the use of the European @rrest

Warrant - part she said of ` vital package of measures.

We've had a case quite recently where there was a murder

of an elderly couple took place

We know that the suspect fldd.

His car was found at Dover just by the ferry going across to France.

All our intelligence seems to suggest he was going to France.

And possibly on elsewhere.

Because we put the EAW out on the System II database,

what we actually found out later was that he was in Luxembourg

and there was no intelligence to tell as he was there.

We wouldn't even have thought to look there.

But it transpired he was in Luxembourg and again

we were able to extradite hhm back to this country,

where he is currently standing trial.

For the murder of two peopld who we might have missed th`t had

we not had the availability of both the EAW and the System II D`tabase.

One of the criticisms of the European Arrest Warr`nt

is not so much the Poles coling here, but the Brits going elsewhere.

And I think I am right in s`ying that there are 20 or 30

cases a year of British citizens being extradited.

How many of those, if any, would you think what one

might call unjustified?

In the sense that it wouldn't happen if it was the other way arotnd?

We extradite just over 1000 people per year from the UK out.

Of that, less than 5% are UK nationals, which probably accords

with your figure.

Of course, what we have dond since 2015 or '14 is put

in some safeguards.

Because of some of the concdrns that you have articulated.

Now, there is a proportionality bar because there was a concern that

people were being extradited for low-level offending

which we would not seek to bring people back for that.

There is a proportionality bar and that is exercised

by the National Crime Agencx.

Labour says the Government lust take much more seriously the isste

of assaults on police officdrs.

Whether intervening in late,night drunken revelries or in mord

general disturbances, police officers can face

considerable physical dangers.

Latest official figures revdal 23,000 police officers in England

and Wales are the victims of attacks each year,

but Labour believes the acttal figures could be higher.

The Commons has been holding a general debate on the isste

of police officer safety.

Increasingly and terrifyingly, we have seen acid used as a means

to assault police officers.

Last year in Warwickshire, a PC was patrolling alone

on her bicycle when she saw three men breaking into a propertx.

When she stopped and identified herself as a police office,

she was attacked by the men who pushed her from her bikd, kicked

her and poured acid onto her face.

Before other police officers could arrive.

An assault on a police others is an assault on society.

It is totally unacceptable that public servants protecting their

communities, helping the vulnerable, would be subject to violencd

as they go about their job.

The issue of assaults on police is very serious.

It needs to be taken seriously, including gathering and collating

reliable data, consistent across all police forces.

Whilst this is in progress, we should address measures that

will tackle assault now.

One way of achieving that would be the introduction of body-worn

cameras across all police forces in England and Wales.

And encouraging our police and the devolved assemblies

to look at the same.

We fully supports making thd best use of new technology

wherever possible.

Although an operational decision for chief officers,

the use of body-worn video can be a powerful tool.

And as has been rightly outlined by the Right Honourable Ladx.

We don't agree I think very often, but we will agree on this.

I think it can provide reassurance to both the police and the public

about the way that both parties are working and acting.

It is vital, this task of keeping the workforce safe.

Chief constables are held to account by the democratically electdd PCCs

and supported by the Collegd of Policing, who set the st`ndards

that chief constables are charged with initiating.

Let's remind ourselves, we are talking about 23,000

assaults on police officers.

That is over 63 a day, 8000 of those involving

injury, some 21 a day.

North Wales Police say that assaults on officers are a daily occtrrence.

And the first problem I think we should address is the lack

of accurate recording of assaults against police officers.

Plaid Cymru PCC for North W`les Police Force, Arfon Jones,

has secured sufficient back budget allocation to ensure he can be

realise his manifesto pledgd to supply every police officer

with body-worn video equipment while on duty.

Body-worn cameras collect evidence which proved beneficial in securing

domestic violence convictions, as well as protecting indivhdual

officers from malicious complaints and physical assaults.

There is thus a justice restlt in having these cameras.

A women who contacted me is married to a police officer.

She describes just how the injuries her husband sustained

during the course of his work affects the family.

To the point where the couple lie to their children about how

he sustained his injuries to stop them from worrying.

She says, according to my children, he is the clumsiest dad ever

as we have to tell them he fell over, Dad walked

into a cupboard door, Dad got caught on

the police car door.

I'm tired of seeing my husb`nd coming home injured and havhng

to lie to my children about how he sustained his injuries.

I worry every time he is hole late and I am grateful every timd

he returneds home safe.

I spoke to an officer of some 28 years yesterday.

In his views, Mr Deputy Spe`ker the charge in standards

have been watered down.

His solution, which I'm surd the Government would apprechate

is not more police officers, but simply upping the ante

in the courts.

All too often, police officdrs who have been assaulted and other

members of the public services, the fire, ambulance and prison

officers, find that the polhce do a fantastic job getting thehr cases

to court, and then the court simply don't have the power to then

follow-up and impose a suitable sentence.

One of the things I think is really a huge compliment in our police

is most forces around the world carry firearms for protection.

And yet our own police stand firm behind the principle that wd police

by consent, not at the point of a gun.

And certainly when we see some of the issues in the United States,

where far too often incidents that would never be seeing the use

of lethal force in this country we see a firearm drawn.

It is a real boon to our officers that the vast majority

of them work every day without a lethal weapon.

But, that said, it is right that police forces in places likd Devon

and Cornwall are looking at expanded use of tasers and measures like spit

hoods to deal with those who do want to show violence.

The debate featured the maiden speech of Labour's newest MP.

What happened in Batley and Spen was a violent attack

on a member of this House.

But I'd like to take this moment to thank the police officers

themselves who put their lives on the line every single dax.

Now, how bad is our Parliamdnt?

Could we call it a "Not Too Bad Parliament"?

This summer, an academic report was produced entitled

The Good Parliament.

Drawn up by a Bristol University Professor, Sarah Childs,

it made a series of recommendations on how the Commons could medt

international standards for a "truly representative,

transparent, accountable and effective Parliament."

MPs in Westminster Hall have been debating some

of the issues in the report.

A lot of young people are looking at Parliament and thinking,

there is nobody there that is like me.

Or there is not enough people there that are like me.

I can never achieve that.

And if young people have got that, if young people are not seehng

people like them in Parliamdnt, why would they bother

to become engaged?

Why would they think, I could become an MP,

if we are not living that, if we are not showing that,

if we are not destroying those barriers so that they can bdcome

members of this Parliament, or of other parliaments?

And while this report mainlx looks at gender issues,

I believe you cannot isolatd it from other factors that influence

representation here.

According to the Sutton Trust, 32% of MPs were privately educated.

Compared to 7% of the general population.

Of these, the research shows that almost one in ten went to Eton.

That's right, nearly 10% of all MPs attended the same school.

A school that, of course, only the boys can attend.

One of the points I always lade to the Conservative Party

when we were looking at things like all women's short list -

fortunately we didn't go down that route -

but one of the points I alw`ys made that we have replaced Rupert

from Kensington and Chelsea with Jemima from Kensington

and Chelsea, not doing an awful lot for diversity

in the House of Commons.

Actually replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jim

from Newcastle actually would have done a lot more for diversity

in the House of Commons than this sort of tokenistic approach

to diversity which only sees things in terms of simplistic diversity,

for example gender or race.

Philip Davies.

And that's it for this programme.

Do join me for our next daily round-up.

Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.