15/11/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

The controversial sport of fox

hunting is the origin for a word

that has become very much associated

with the portal politics. A whip her

in is an assistant huntsman he uses

to which to keep the hounds in check

and drive them into the main body of

the pack. By the late 18th century,

Parliament had adopted the term.

Officials whose job it was to make

their MPs behaved and make them vote

according to the party line were

jokingly referred to as the present.

And by the 1840s, people called them

whips. It became very common to use

the word whip in this way, for

example, in the mess, collection for

more wine which everyone was excited

to contribute to, was called a whip.

So eventually, any collection from

money among members of the group

became our modern phrase, whip

round.

Hello, welcome to our round-up

of the day at Westminster.

On this programme, Jeremy Corbyn

warns thousands of families

will spend Christmas fearing

eviction due to the introduction

of Universal Credit.

But Theresa May defends the long

term impact of the new benefit.

Citizens' rights come under

the spotlight on the second

day of detailed debate

on the EU withdrawal bill.

And the Foreign Secretary urges

all sides in Zimbabwe

to refrain from violence.

We, and I think in everybody this

House, would want the people of

Zimbabwe to have the choice about

their future in free and fair

elections.

But first to Prime Minister's

Questions where Jeremy Corbyn

renewed his call for the Government

to pause the roll out of the new

welfare payment, Universal Credit.

It replaces six working age

benefits, but many MPs have

expressed concern that claimants can

have to wait up to six weeks

before getting any money,

leading to debt and rent arrears.

Jeremy Corbyn kept up the pressure

on the Government to make a change.

I was passed a letter, Mr Speaker,

from a lettings agency in

Lincolnshire where

Universal Credit is

about to be rolled out.

The agency, and I have

the letter here...

The agency is issuing

all of its tenants

with a pre-emptive notice

of eviction because Universal Credit

has driven up arrears

where it's been rolled

out, and the letter,

and I quote, says...

The letter says, and I quote,

"GAP property cannot

sustain arrears at the potential

levels Universal Credit

could create."

Will the Prime Minister pause

Universal Credit so it can be fixed?

Or does she think it is right to put

thousands of families through

Christmas in the trauma of knowing

they're about to be evicted because

they're in rent arrears

because of Universal Credit?

Prime Minister.

Can I say to the Right

Honourable gentleman that

there have been concerns raised

in this House previously

over the issue of people

managing their budgets to

pay rent, but what we actually see,

what we see, is that...

We see that over four

months and number of

people on Universal Credit

in arrears has fallen by a third.

Now, it's important

that we do look at

the issues on this particular case.

The right honourable gentleman might

like to send the letter through.

I know in an earlier

Prime Minister's Questions,

he raised a specific

constituent, a specific case of an

individual who had written to him

about her experience on Universal

Credit, I think it was Georgina,

as far as I'm aware he's so far not

sent that letter to me

despite the fact I asked for it.

In truth this is a Government

that protects the super-rich

while the rest of us pick

up the bill through cuts, austerity,

poverty, homelessness,

low wages and slashing of local

services all over the country.

That is the reality

of a Tory government.

Labour have backtracked

on Brexit, they've gone

back on their promise on student

debt and they would cause and lose

control of public finances.

I say to the right

honourable gentleman, he

may have given momentum to his party

but he brings stagnation

to the country.

Earlier in the year the Prime

Minister told the country that

she was the only person that

could offer strong and stable

leadership in the national interest.

With her Cabinet crumbling

before our eyes,

can she tell us how it's going?

LAUGHTER

Let me say to the right

honourable lady

what we see this government

dithering post I have spoken about

--delivering, I have spoken about

some the things earlier.

Deficits down,

unemployment down, we have

seen more record sums

going to our health

service and our schools

and a

Government determined with a clear

plan, as set out in my Florence

speech, a clear plan

to deliver the best Brexit

deal for this country.

She is a member of a party that

can't even decide what it wants from

Brexit, let alone set a plan for it.

The Brexit Secretary gave a pledge

in the City that freedom of movement

would be preserved for bankers

and other members of the financial

services industry.

Why can't the same pledge

be given to other key

economic sectors like

manufacturing and agriculture?

As we look towards the immigration

rules about will be introduced

once we leave the European Union,

we are clear about

the need to ensure we take into

account the needs of our economy,

that's precisely why my right

honourable friend the Home Secretary

has asked the independent migration

advisory committee to make

recommendations to the government.

We are leaving the European Union

and as the EU Withdrawal Bill goes

through the House of Commons, does

the Prime Minister agree with me

that it's part of our job as members

of Parliament, some might

even say it's our duty as members

of Parliament, to

scrutinise that legislation.

To debate considered amendments,

which seek to improve

the bill and which are constructive

and which seek to ensure a smooth

transition of our laws from the EU

to the UK and importantly that we

come together and deliver

Brexit for our country and

for the British people.

What we are doing as a Government is

listening to the contributions that

are being made, listening carefully

to those who wish to improve the

bill, they help we can all come

together to deliver on the decision

that the country took that we should

leave the European Union.

Now the second day of detailed

debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill saw

concerns that rights currently

enjoyed by British citizens

would not be protected after Brexit.

Labour's spokesman said that

after exit day, employment,

equality and other important

rights would be at risk.

The Bill seeks to

transfer European law

into British law.

It's true that the government has

promised to ensure that workers'

rights are fully protected

and maintained after the UK's

departure from the EU,

but in the absence of stronger legal

safeguards, there are good

reasons to be sceptical

about that commitment.

Happy to give way.

Thank you.

Would my friends agree with me

that given the political

events of this year,

who the government might be

in the future has become ever more

uncertain and that therefore

all of us have a job to protect

the process and institutions

of our democracy because we never

know what might

happen in the future?

I agree with that and I agree

with her, which is her point

that the public would expect these

rights to continue to have the level

of protection they have enjoyed

while being underpinned by EU law.

They should not have a reduced level

of protection going forward.

The bill seeks to transfer European

law into British law.

But the Conservative former

Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,

warned that could mean laws

were "brought to the lowest

possible status".

The question is how do we make sure

bringing this law into our own law

we preserve its essence

because that's what the government

says it wants to do until such time

as we as a domestic parliament

decide that we want to do

something about it?

And the problem which has arisen

is that as presently drafted

the importation of EU law means that

legal protection and standards

in areas such as equality

and the environment will no longer

enjoy the protection that EU

membership gives them.

Indeed, they will then

for the most part be repeatable

by statutory instrument.

--Repealable by

statutory instrument.

Something which on the whole in this

House we would not think

an appropriate thing to do

with our own primary legislation

and this legislation undoubtedly has

the importance of primary status.

Does he envisage a time

in the future where tariffs

are imposed, economic circumstances

are imposed, businesses

demand reductions in cost

and they would turn to the holiday

pay, to the 48 hours directive,

to anything that cuts their cost

and that government will be tempted,

then, to abolish these rights.

At I don't think I'm quite as

apocalyptic as the honourable

gentleman. I happen to think, as my

right honourable friend said

yesterday in his speech, that's the

idea that the UK suddenly wishes to

translate itself into a country of

no regulation, no protection at all,

is fanciful.

But he said he wanted the Government

to look at these matters.

I don't wish to force the

Government's can, even though that

might appear superficially

attractive. I don't even intend to

put this amendment to the vote, it

has problems of its own. But I put

the Government on notice that we are

going to have to draw together the

issues that we are debating today

and indeed I'm convinced there will

be similar issues next week, all of

which derive from the same problem

as to the way the Government has

approached this and drafted this

legislation of the moment, and it

must be remedied.

The Brexit process

will in no way whatsoever be used to

undermine or curtail the rights of

workers that happening find both in

domestic law and by virtue of the

European Union. I hope that today

can in my remarks and indeed by

demonstration reassure the right

honourable members that the

Government's policy here is clear,

is deliberated and this is not some

out-of-control grab power to use

this bill, which is a framework

though, it is very much a process

bill, to somehow then use this as

the basis to change policy. That is

not the intention of this Bill.

MPs heard

from the recently-resigned

International Development Secretary:

I am speaking today in this debate

following an intensive course, over

the past week, I think it's fair to

say, on how to stage an exit.

LAUGHTER

Which was the focus of a degree of

international attention. So for

anyone who is still tracking my

movements, it is fair to say that I

can confirm that as I walked into

the chamber this afternoon, a past

studies and portraits commemorating

some of our greatest statesman

including Margaret Thatcher and

Winston Churchill, statesmen who

stood up and defended democracy,

freedom and sovereignty of our great

nation. So, this Bill paves way for

a smoother withdrawal from the

European Union and it complements

many of the discussions that have

happened around Article 50 and

delivers on the will of the British

people as exposed in the referendum.

Priti Patel, and MPs have six more

days of detailed debate on the EU

Withdrawal Bill still to come.

You're watching Wednesday

in Parliament with me,

Alicia McCarthy.

Armoured vehicles have been

patrolling the Zimbabwean capital,

Harare, where President Mugabe has

been placed under house arrest

after the military declared it had

taken temporary control

of the country.

Mr Mugabe, who is 93, has dominated

the impoverished country's

politics since independence

from the UK in 1980.

Responding to an urgent question,

the Foreign Secretary urged

all sides to refrain from violence.

The events of the last 24 hours

are the latest escalation of months

of brutal infighting

within the ruling Zanu?PF party.

Including the sacking

of a vice president,

the purging of his followers

and the apparent positioning

of Grace Mugabe as a contender

to replace her 93 rolled husband.

of Grace Mugabe as a contender

to replace her 93 year old husband.

I will say frankly to the House

that we cannot tell how developments

in Zimbabwe will play out

in the days ahead and we do not know

whether this marks the downfall

of Mugabe or not and we call

for calm and restraint.

While it is not a coup in a sense

of the military wanting to run

the country it is a coup to ensure

the former vice

president takes over.

Does the Minister agree that

changing from one ruthless leader

to another ruthless leader does not

help to create the kind

of conditions that could lead

to a free and fair election

in the coming year in Zimbabwe,

nor will it solve the dire economic

situation where thousands of people

are destitute and food is scarce.

We, and I think everybody in this

House, would want the people

of Zimbabwe to have the choice

about their future in a free

and fair elections and that is

the consensus that we are building

up with our friends and partners

and I will be having a discussion

with the vice president

of South Africa later today.

The situation seems highly volatile.

Could I ask the Foreign Secretary

for his assurances that the 20,000

British nationals in Zimbabwe

will be given all the assistance

they need during this dangerous

period and in the past in times

of great tension, I understand

there have been Cobra plans

for the evacuation of British

nationals if necessary.

I wonder if there will be such

thought processes once more.

There are about 20,000,

the crisis centre has been working

overnight to ensure their welfare

and to the best of our knowledge

at present we have no reports of any

injuries or suffering involving them

and as I talked earlier

on to our head of mission in Harare

and he said as far as he understood

it UK nationals were very much

staying where they were and avoiding

trouble and I think that is exactly

the right thing to do.

If this does indeed presage

a move to easier times,

and I accept the caution

of the honourable lady of course,

will he acknowledge with me

that the British government does

have unfinished business

with Zimbabwe and will he assure me

that the government will offer

further assistance if we can to help

that wonderful country

and its remarkable people,

both black and white,

to hopefully transition

to a better government

and a more prosperous state.

He knows that Zimbabwe has

fantastic potential,

this is a country with a very

well-educated population,

it has a great future if they can

get the right to political system.

There is reports that Grace Mugabe

is out of the country possibly

in Namibia so building on,

as he says, the important role

the regional organisations have

to play and the role of Difid

and the Foreign Office,

what steps can he make to make sure

instability that might be in place

in Zimbabwe does not spread

into the wider region?

I think it's a very acute question

and I think the answer lies,

as so often in matters of Zimbabwean

politics, the answer lies very

much with our friends

in South Africa and it is to them

we will be telling first.

Now, the Chief Minister

of Gibraltar knows all

about handling tricky borders.

So MPs on the Northern Ireland

Committee were keen to hear from him

as part of their work looking

at what happens to the Irish

border after Brexit.

Fabien Picardo offered some hi-tech

suggestions about how

to achieve frictionless trade

across an EU border.

Gibraltar Customs has led in terms

of technological solutions.

With the United Nations Conference

on Trade and Development Customs,

they've set up a centre

of excellence at Gibraltar

University, it's their only centre

of excellence in Europe.

And what they have created

is something called Asycuda,

which is a system that allows

trusted traders to pre-declare

what they are importing

into Gibraltar and

to have an account

with the Government

through which they pay their duty

in a frictionless way,

in an entirely frictionless way.

And that development of Asycuda

has been something where Gibraltar

technology is now being shared,

technology developed

in Gibraltar is now being shared

in 100 other countries.

He issued a warning to those on

both sides of the Irish border.

I put it to you that I think

citizens expect us to do everything

It comes at a cost, but people

will expect us to invest in that

I mean, yes, we must use border

crossings for controls which relate

to criminality not being allowed

to run freely across continents,

but we must not allow anyone

to use a border crossing

as a political choke point.

Look, nobody is going to accept

something that looks like,

feels like or smells

like Checkpoint Charlie

in Europe in the future.

And if the Spanish authorities

have not realised that,

I think their citizens

would wish that they did.

The Middle East is entering

what many analysts see

as a dangerous new phase.

Experts fear that,

with the Islamic State group

on the brink of defeat,

there's a danger of the long-held

rivalry between Saudi Arabia

and Iran boiling over as they engage

in proxy battles in the region.

In Yemen, the two countries

are backing opposing sides,

while the Saudis are thought to be

behind the recent resignation

of the Lebanese Prime Minister

in an attempt to weaken Iran's

influence in the region.

Does the noble Lord, the Minister,

accept that we have to adopt a much

more even handed stance

between Tehran and Riyadh in order

to resolve the toxic instability

afflicting the entire

Gulf Middle East region?

And we are seen to be

allies of Saudi Arabia,

I don't dispute the need for that,

but we are seen to take

the side of Saudi Arabia

and the Sunni Muslim faith,

against Iran and the

Shia Muslim faith.

And we need to be equally

handed between the two,

in order to end the proxy wars

in Yemen, Lebanon increasingly,

Syria and also Iraq.

Even allowing for the fact

of jihadist terrorism,

is not the greatest threat to peace,

from the Middle East now

the imminent danger of a conflict

between the Sunnis and the Shias

led by Saudi Arabia and Tehran,

in which the West are backing

one side and Russia

is backing the other?

In the light of this,

is it not foolish for

the United Kingdom Government to be

supporting tacitly and with arms

Saudi Arabia while they are

committing such clearly illegal acts

in the Yemen?

First of all, as the noble Lord

knows, the UK is not

directly involved with

the Saudi led coalition.

He talks about alliances

and of course, our alliance

between the United Kingdom

and Saudi Arabia, as an ally,

is an important one.

But at the same time, as I have made

the point clear already,

we believe very strongly that

for peace and stability

in the region, it requires both

Iran and Saudi Arabia

to resolve their differences

and move forward in a positive vein,

and the agenda is not about taking

sort of one side over the other.

We make sure that any

representation we make,

including those to the Saudis,

on concerns we have particularly

in the conflict in Yemen,

are made clear and made

at the highest level.

Lord Ahmad.

There have been many lurid newspaper

headlines of late with allegations

of inappropriate behaviour,

harassment and even assault

going on at Westminster.

The Women and Equalities Committee

is holding an inquiry into women

in the House of Commons.

Its chair Maria Miller asked

representatives of the four

biggest Westminster parties

what was being done to make sure

anyone with a complaint was more

likely to come forward now

than they had been in the past.

I think there have been abuses

of power, and I think this

is something which goes right

across the political parties.

I'm appalled that we haven't

shown due leadership

on this, historically.

And I think the fact that it has

been public pressure and the media

that has brought this to the fore,

we actually should be ashamed

of ourselves that we haven't given

proper leadership on it.

We now know the scale of the problem

and we must all work together

to make sure that we get...

But what's changed which would make

somebody now come forward?

I think the traditional complaints

processes operated under

a criminal standard of proof,

which was very difficult

to establish and inhibited

people coming forward.

It's now done on the balance

of probabilities, which means that

cases are much more likely to be

determined for the complainer.

A Labour committee member asked

about the abuse directed

at candidates during elections.

What evidence does your party have

about the effect of fear and abuse

and harassment on the willingness

of people to come

forward as candidates

to remain in public life

once elected, and what do any

of your political parties do

to offer support to people,

to candidates responding

to such abuse?

Because we all have seen,

quite widely, that it exists.

If we're just about the kind

of aggressive language

that we encounter in politics,

I mean, to some extent, we have

to put up with it, men or women.

Do you think that

it's worse for women?

I think it probably is,

sort of what you could call casual

misogyny and the results of that...

It...

As somebody who suffers from it,

it doesn't feel very casual.

And what about abuse

directed at other people?

If a candidate in an election

from an opposing political party

suffered from an abuse

from somebody within your

political party, if,

say, that abuse was

misogynistic, would...

You would say that there be robust

processes in the Liberal Democrats

to stop a person in a candidate

again or being an activist, being

a member of the Liberal Democrats?

I think that would be

a reasonable request.

I shall test that.

Anybody else want to...?

I would put the same question

to everybody on the panel.

This is a massive issue, let's be

absolutely crystal clear about it.

There is clear evidence that women

candidates and women

parliamentarians have suffered

from far greater abuse

than anyone else has.

So what would you do about it?

Well...

There's things we can

do about it in terms

of providing support to people.

I think if anyone has crossed

the line, that is a member

of the political party,

then they have got to be

held account for that.

And held to account means...?

Well, suspension, expulsion,

if that's what it takes.

We do that as well...

How many people have you expelled?

I don't know that number,

I don't have that...

But you could tell us?

There was a Labour MP for Harlington

and Hayes who asked,

who was talking about lynching

a Conservative MP during

an election campaign,

repeating it, endorsing it,

going around and talking about it.

What did the Labour Party do?

They made him the Shadow Chancellor.

They promoted him to

the Shadow Chancellor.

So, if you're saying that,

yes, we expel people

for the kind of behaviour,

what are you going to do

about the Shadow Chancellor?

Or do you endorse that behaviour?

I think you're misrepresenting

the situation.

I think going into individual cases

can be difficult to...

No, I don't think it is.

There is a real-life case,

we know exactly what he said,

it was on the record,

there is a recording

of what he said.

And so I want to know,

why did the Labour Party promotes

somebody in that situation rather

than do what you say you do?

Should we ask Dawn

write to us on that?

I'm just conscious of...

You're misrepresenting

the situation.

But I will happily

write to the committee.

Finally, to Westminster Hall,

where MPs debated

the subject of loneliness.

The session was opened

by Labour's Rachel Reeves,

a close friend of the murdered MP

Jo Cox, who'd campaigned

on the subject.

Loneliness, as we all know,

is bad for our mental health

but it's bad for our physical

health as well.

Research suggests that loneliness

is worse for us in terms

of mortality than obesity is,

and being lonely, being acutely

loneliness is bad for your health

as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

A Conservative MP worked

with Jo Cox to set up

a commission on loneliness.

I would like to put on the record

that, although this is a burden

I would never have wanted to carry,

it's been the honour

of my professional life to carry

on work in Jo Cox's name.

The MP who took over from Jo Cox

told how she'd been lonely

as a young actor living in Brighton.

There were more nights that

I cried myself to sleep off

loneliness than not.

Now, I am a gregarious,

can-do person, so I'd force

myself to go to gigs,

events, libraries, coffee bars,

just on the off chance that I might

meet someone I'd vaguely know.

But it was excruciating.

As a Government, we welcome

the Jo Cox Commission's work and it

has kick-started a national

conversation on loneliness

here in the UK.

And that's why we look forward

to receiving the recommendations

when they are published next month.

Jake Berry.

And that's it from me for now,

but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for another round up

of the day here at Westminster.

But for now from me, goodbye.