25/10/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to our look back

at the day here at Westminster.

Coming up in the next half hour:

The Brexit Secretary says a vote

in Parliament on any Brexit

deal might come after

the UK leaves the EU.

MPs are confused.

Can the Prime Minister explain how

it is possible to have a meaningful

vote on something that has already

taken place?

And the Prime Minister

gives her reaction to

the suspension of a Labour MP.

All of us in this house should have

care and attention to the way in

which we refer to other people.

But first, the Brexit Secretary,

David Davis, says a vote

in Parliament on any Brexit deal

might not come before

the UK leaves the EU.

He was appearing in front

of a committee of MPs

where he predicted the talks

could go right up to the wire.

The UK is due to leave

the EU in March 2019,

but ministers hope that in the next

few months they'll be able

to secure a transitional

arrangement that would apply

temporarily after Brexit.

David Davis said there

were three reasons for wanting

an implementation period.

Number one, in order to give the UK

Government longer to put in place in

the changes it needs. We think we

can put in place all the critical

ones by March 2019 but it would give

them longer and therefore make it

more reliable. Secondly, critically,

give European countries time to put

in place any structure is the meat

meat, whether that is new customs

arrangements, new data exchanges

and, thirdly, the point Chancellor

is making, to give businesses time

after the decision is made on what

the final outcome will be, in order

to make any subsequent changes to

their own dispositions.

A Conservative Brexiteer suggested

that sorting out a transition

sounded rather difficult.

Why not just extended now membership

of the EU until March 2021?

We did have a referendum, you

properly missed it. -- properly

missed it.

Another Brexit supporting

Conservative, asked if the UK

would have to pay a so called

divorce bill for leaving the EU,

if there were no deal.

Is the Prime Minister's commitment

to pay an unconditional one or is

conditional on agreement?

We have not got into the speculative

outcomes of the no deal and let me

see why it for a second. Much of the

arguments about a deal or a zero

deal are phrased in polemical rather

than... Rephrase crash out. There is

a no deal which we go to WTO or

arrangements but happy bare-bones

Deal on other elements such as

aviation, data, nuclear, maybe. And

then there is a complete failure to

agree and hostile, now, I think that

is so incredible it is off the

probability scale but under those

circumstances it is conceivable that

will be no deal of any sort.

And if that is we pay nothing.

You

could imagine the country paying

nothing. It is no secret the way the

union makes this decision is tends

to be at the 11th minute, the 59th

minute of the 11th hour of the 11th

day and that is what I would expect

to happen.

Labour MPs asked when the UK

Parliament would get

to vote on the deal.

Could it be after March 2019?

It

could be. It depends when it

concludes.

Sorry, the vote of our parliaments

could be after March 2019?

Yes.

The Labour MP who chairs

the committee gave his summary.

If I may say so you have made two

very significant observations, the

first is your answer a moment ago

when you miss -- you said it is

possible parliament might not vote

on the deal until after the end of

March 2019.

That is correct. In the

event we do not do a deal until

then.

And secondly, being absolutely

clear, it is Government policy,

despite the recent uncertainty, that

it wishes to pursue and sort out the

nature of the implementation period

as swiftly as possible because I

think that would provide reassurance

to many people for whom the

implementation period and

transitional arrangement is very

important.

Hilary Benn.

Well, the main talking point

following that committee session

was David Davis's remarks

about whether the Commons would get

a vote on a Brexit deal in time

for it to make any difference.

News of the comments soon

reached the Commons.

In March 2017, the Prime Minister

told the House that Parliament

would be given a meaningful vote

on the terms of the Withdrawal

from the European Union

Article 50 Bill.

This morning, in the Select

Committee on Exiting

the European Union, the Secretary

of State told us that

that vote might not take

place until March 2019.

Will the Prime Minister please

explain how it is possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that has

already taken place?

As the honourable

Gentleman knows,

we are in negotiations

with the European Union.

The timetable under the Lisbon

treaty allows the negotiations

to take place until March 2019,

but, because it is in the interests

of both sides, and it is not just

this Parliament that wants

to have a vote on the deal.

There will be ratification

by other Parliaments.

I am confident that we will be

able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for Parliament

to have the vote to which we

committed ourselves.

And the matter didn't rest there.

After PMQs a Labour MP took it

up with the Speaker.

It seems to me that this House,

on behalf of the people

we represent, cannot take back

control unless we have that vote.

Mr Speaker, can you advise

on what we, as a House of Commons,

can do about the, at best,

contradiction or, at worst,

false impression given to the House

during the debate on 7th February?

A Conservative MP thought

he'd misunderstood

David Davis's intention.

The question the Secretary of State

had was whether or not he thought

there would be an agreement before

midnight on 29th March 2019

and he indicated that he thought it

might be reached a nanosecond before

midnight on that day.

He was then asked whether that meant

this House would not be able to vote

on such an agreement

until after 29th March,

and he said that obviously

it

will not be able to

vote on an agreement

until after 29th March

if there has not been

an agreement until 29th March.

That was the point he was making,

and it was a perfectly sensible one.

But another Labour MP said that

wasn't what he'd said.

As somebody who was also

in attendance at the Select

Committee meeting -

indeed, I was the person who asked

the question of the Secretary

of State - my understanding is that

which has been reflected

by my Labour colleagues.

If the Government had

changed their position on something

of such constitutional significance,

would it not be in order that that

change should be brought before this

House in a ministerial statement?

In response - the Speaker said

everyone would just have to read

what it said in Hansard,

the official report of proceedings.

Later the Brexit Department issued

a clarification: they expected

and intended to give Parliament

a vote on the Brexit deal

before the UK's departure.

You're watching Wednesday

in Parliament with me, Mandy Baker.

If you want to catch

up with all the news

from Westminster on the go,

don't forget our sister programme,

Today in Parliament,

is available as a download

via the BBC Radio 4 Website.

It was the issue of benefits that

dominated the main exchanges at this

week's Prime Minister's Questions.

If you haven't been

following the long-running saga

of Universal Credit,

allow me to explain.

Last week the Labour Party initiated

a debate on the issue,

unhappy that claimants were having

to wait up to six weeks

to get their first payment.

The Conservatives abstained

in the vote that followed -

a vote which was won by Labour.

Then with cries that the Government

was ignoring Parliament

ringing in his ears,

the Speaker granted an emergency

debate which took place on Tuesday.

So the scene was set for PMQs.

Will the Prime Minister respect the

will of the house?

As I have said before, we

acknowledge the fact that there are

concerns people have raised with

Universal Credit and we have been

listening and changes have been

made. Perhaps I could update the

house on where we are on the

roll-out of Universal Credit.

Currently, of people claiming

benefits, 8% are Universal Credit

and by next January that will rise

to 10%. The roll-out is being

conducted in three phases and the

intention is it will be completed by

2022. It is being done in a measured

way and I am pleased to say four out

of five people are satisfied or very

satisfied with the service they are

receiving. Universal... Universal

Credit helps people into the

workplace and make sure work pays

and that is what the welfare system

should do.

I would have thought that if only 8%

of the roll-out has taken place, and

20% of the people in receipt of an

dissatisfied that is a cause for

thoughts, maybe a pause in the

process. A Conservative member of

the Welsh Assembly Angela Byrne

said, "For the life of me I cannot

understand why a six or four week

gap is deemed acceptable." She

called Universal Credit calloused at

best and downright cruel at worst

and concluded by saying she is

ashamed of her Government. Can the

Prime Minister ease colic's shame by

pausing and fixing Universal Credit?

We introduced it as a more

straightforward system that ensures

work pays and helps people into the

workplace. Under Labour, let's look

at what happened in the benefit

system. Under Labour the low paid

paid tax and then had it paid back

to them in benefits. Under Labour

people were trapped on a life of

benefits for years. Under Labour,

the number of workless household

doubled and Labour's benefit system

cost households that extra £3000 a

year. What the Conservatives have

done is given the low paid a given

the work as a tax cut and ensure we

have the benefit system that helps

people into work.

Mr Speaker, under Labour, 1 million

children were lifted out of poverty.

Under Labour we introduced the

principle of the national minimum

wage, posed by all Tories over

there. Can. This Government does not

know if it is coming or going. They

say... Mr Speaker, the Conservative

Party and the Government says they

have full confidence in Universal

Credit. But they will not vote for

it. They say they will and the NHS

pay cap but will not allocate any

money to pay for it. The Communities

Secretary backs £50 billion of

bordering on housing but the

Chancellor says it is not policy.

The Brexit secretary says they are

planning for a no deal Brexit and

the Chancellor says they are not.

Isn't it the case, Mr Speaker, this

Government is weak, incompetent,

divided and unable to take a

decision.

Of course we want to see people

earning higher wages and we want to

ensure we can invest in our public

services but the wait to have a

higher standard of living and high

wages and invest in public services

and have a better future for people

in this country is to build and

continue to build a stronger economy

and you do not build a stronger

economy by losing control of public

finances. You do not build a

stronger economy by uncontrolled

borrowing and you don't build a

stronger economy by hitting people

with the highest taxes in our

peacetime history. You don't build a

stronger economy by voting against

progress in our Brexit negotiations.

And you don't... And you don't build

a stronger economy by planning for

capital flight and a run on the

pound. That is what Labour would do

and we will never let it happen.

Away from Parliament,

the Labour Party announced

the suspension of one of its MPs

while it investigates misogynistic

and homophobic comments he's

alleged to have made.

Jared O'Mara beat

the former Liberal Democrat leader

Nick Clegg in the constituency

of Sheffield Hallam.

He's apologised for remarks made

online in 2002 and 2004,

but he denies some more

recent allegations.

The situation was

raised in the Commons.

Next year sees the Centenary of the

first woman member of Parliament,

would my right honourable friend

Stella is what leadership and

encouragement to the women and girls

of his constituency to take part in

public life the member for Sheffield

Hallam as shown in his remarks?

I

want to see young women and women

actually able to see this house has

a place they actively want to come

to, that they want to contribute to

their society, they want to respond

to the needs of local constituents

and make a real difference to

people's lives, that is what I am in

it for and why I have encouraged

women to come into this house and I

am pleased to say we have more women

on benches than ever before. And

finally, all others -- all of ours

in this house, all of us in this

house should have due care and

attention to the way in which we

refer to other people and should

sure women in public life the

respect they deserve.

At the general election,

the Conservatives proposed that

people in England with

assets of over £100,000

would have to pay for social care.

They also said for people

receiving care at home,

the means test would -

for the first time -

include the value of their home.

Critics called the measure

a "dementia tax".

In a debate initiated by Labour,

Ministers were urged

to abandon the plan.

After the Battle of the demented

taxpayer has been continuing concern

that current and future issues over

the funding of social care are not

being addressed. He worry stirred up

by the party opposite during the

general election are not going to be

resolved without a better idea about

what the future now holds for social

care. One place where people were

expecting to hear some discussion on

this was the party conferences in

September, but if we thought we

would hear about this in the

conference speeches of the

secretaries of State responsible for

social care we were sadly let down.

She said 1.2 million people had an

Medicare needs and without extra

money that figure would rise.

And a

lack of publicly funded care means

that the task of meeting care needs.

Heavily onto unpaid family carers,

many carers have to give up work

because of the demands of caring but

a real impact on their finances and

future career prospects.

These

debates are helpful for educating

people about the difficult issues,

the disappointing thing about the

motion and I am happy to accept that

we did not handle this issue well in

the general election, but what we

did not do, the mistake we made was

not being clear about the current

system and that is why her

referencing here to what we propose

without setting at the current

system where people could

potentially lose all but £20,000 of

assets, is something that would help

contribute to the public debate.

Mr

Speaker we will come onto that but

if the honourable member wants to

get into the mess that his party

made of this the truth is we

legislated, we legislated a number

of years ago to lift the asset for

two 118,000, what his party did

during the general election is

dropped that to 100,000 from the

118,000 that it was at and in fact

we learn that the weekend that there

was an intention to make it only

50,000 so I think he should be clear

and perhaps speak to his front bench

colleagues, what were they trying to

do? And since then we have heard

that a deafening silence.

She talks

their -- talks about there being a

squeeze on funding, on that basis

would she agree that it would be

right to ask those who have the

means to contribute more towards

their social care in the home?

I

don't agree with that and I think

that is one of the reasons why his

party's policy or the demented tax

policy failed so badly, suddenly to

bring hundreds of thousands of

people into means testing using

their homes was actually I can say

to the honourable gentleman one of

the biggest flaws in the policy that

his party floated. The King 's fund,

the health foundation and Nuffield

trust that estimated a funding gap

in the social health care budget of

£1.9 billion this year, but the

extra funding in the budget was only

1 billion so we still have a funding

gap of £900 million this year. This

is why Labour pledged an extra

billion pounds for social care this

year to start to deal with that

funding crisis.

I am grateful for

the opportunity to answer this

debate because I think it gives the

government an opportunity to set out

exactly where we are in this space

and it is not as has been

characterised by the honourable lady

in her opening marks, she is as ever

characteristically challenging and I

hope to answer some of the issues

she has raised today. We announced

in the Queen's Speech that we will

work to address challenges of social

care for our ageing population, and

we will bring forth proposals for

consultation to build way to put

support for future provision.

She

said the government put an X 2

billion into social care.

For the

long-term reform is required so we

have a stable system for the future

equipped to meet the challenges of

the increasing number of people with

care needs. To address these

questions the government will work

with partners including those who

use services, those who work to

provide care, and all other agencies

to bring forward proposals for

public consultation. The

consultation will consult on a wide

range of options.

At the end of the debate,

Labour put the motion to MPs.

There were no shouts to oppose

it from Conservatives

so the motion passed unopposed,

without a vote.

Labour criticised the Conservatives

for abstaining, saying

they were picking and choosing

which issues to vote on.

Executives from one of the UK's

largest supermarket chicken

suppliers have apologised after an

investigation allegedly exposed food

safety breaches. The hearing

followed an investigation from the

Guardian and ITV news in which an

undercover reporter claimed to have

witnessed workers changing the kill

dates on chickens. For the company

the two sisters from clip they

rejected any suggestion that it

operated below standards.

Do you

accept that these allegations are

accurate and that they represent the

practice that went on in your plant

even though you say you weren't

aware of this situation?

We are very

disappointed and upset when we saw

the footage for the first time,

which was heard by the ITN. The

absolutely apologise for the doubt

this has caused to our customers,

consumers and our employers. We want

to reassure you, we treat food

safety at the highest of standards,

we are continuously committed to

improve food safety everyday. The

signed up across the whole factory,

do not pick a product up off the

floor. There are 400 hygiene people

in these factories that were orange

overalls, they're the only people

who can take product of the forum

still someone did it. Someone has

made a mistake. We have to apologise

for that and take responsible that

if that. So what are we doing about

it? That is more important. What

we're doing his the training that we

do for hours, we're not doing it any

more. We're doing it our training.

Every year.

Why wear labels being

changed? If it was not wrong, why

did you sack the person that was

doing it?

It is essential that the

meat reflects the label on the

outside. What we found is that

processes were not robust as they

should be. We have now changed it,

we're not labelling trace any more,

every tree has a plastic liner that

is full that on top of one another

in the liner now has a label across

its when you open the tray you read

the label and it is obvious, it is

put in at the time, sealed at the

time and ripped when open so we have

strengthened our system and made it

foolproof for except with the

reasons you're seeing. We could not

get the worker took an club -- to

collaborate with investigation and

it was not as good as it should have

been a BLT instead.

Shouldn't your

product be labelled?

The episode as

numbers on the pack you will be able

to tell from.

What will the customer

thing?

We have identification

system. We do not have low

standards. There is nothing to say

we have low standards. I invite all

of you to my factory, come announced

or unannounced. We have people who

work there, 850 people in question,

and I can't accept that you say we

have low standards because our

factories don't have low standards.

And finally, in the Lords

peer were once again

considering a matter very dear

to their hearts: themselves.

When a hereditary peer dies

or retires an election

is held for a replacement.

A Labour peer Lord Grocott

bemoaned the lack of women

and ethnic minority people

who were eligible candidates.

Can I just ask him a very simple

question, which if you could just

give a yes to we could move onto

next question. And it is this. Will

the government do something which

will hurt no one and cost nothing?

And back my bill which would scrap

this whole ludicrous system.

In

grateful to the noble Lord for that.

Moving onto the next question would

tell me at all because I have to

answer that one.

The Minister agreed

the system was difficult to defend.

This opposite number had a cunning

plan.

Some of my best friends are

bred at a cunning plan. Some of my

best friends are credit to peers.

This is not about the individuals,

it is about the system. Many

Blackadder fans in your Lordships

house will remember a by-election.

As Blackadder said it was half an

acre of sodden marshland, the

Suffolk fence with an anti-town hall

and a population of three mangy

cals, a dashing cold: in the small

hand in his 40s. Such bottom laws in

real places had larger electorate

and some of hereditary peers

by-elections. They were abolished in

1832.

Lord Young reminded her that

his line manager at the Deputy Chief

Whip was also a predatory peer.

And that's it, but do join me

at the same time tomorrow

for another round up of the day

here at Westminster.

For now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.