13/12/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

Coming up in the next half-hour

defeat for the Government on the

Brexit bill. The ayes to the right

209, the noes 305.

CHEERING

Order!

I'm sure you want to hear the result

to make sure it is correct. The ayes

to the right, 309. The noes to the

left, 305. The ayes Cavett, the ayes

habit. A lock. Hear, hear!.

And last

minute ... Downing Street was said

it was the disappointed despite

strong assurances. The Government

will now decide if further changes

to the Bill are needed.

Throughout the seven a detailed

consideration of the EU rebellion

bill it was afoot. It was the fault

of Klaus mine. I know you're

following diminution of this so I

want me to tell you, but just in

case, Clause nine combines the twin

concerns of government is taking

power away from Parliament and

whether Parliament will get a

meaningful vote before the deal was

finalised. The key amendment was

number seven table by the former

conservative Attorney-General,

Dominic grieve. The Debate ran for

eight hours, but the arguments began

even before with curtain raiser at

Prime Minister's question.

The Prime

Minister says she wants a meaningful

vote on Brexit before we leave the

European Union event at the last

moment, would she be so good as to

accept the right honourable and

learned gentleman's amendment seven

in the spirit of unity for everybody

here and in the country. Hear, hear!

My right honourable friend makes an

important point about the concerns

that people have had in this House

about having a meaningful vote on

this particular issue before we

complete the deal. As I set out in

the earlier answer I gave to my

right honourable friend that is what

we will have. We will ensure that

there is a meaningful vote on this,

and this House that will then be an

opportunity for Parliament to look

at the withdrawal agreement and

implementation bill. The fact that

there will be no meaningful vote has

been set out, confirm by my right

honourable friend the Brexit

Secretary or an Everett and

ministerial statement today. We were

very clear that we won't commit any

statutory instruments until that

meaningful vote has taken place, but

as currently drafted, what the

amendment says is that we should not

make any of those, put any of those

arrangements for statutory

instruments into place until the

withdrawal agreement has read the

statute book. That could be at a

very late stage in the proceedings

which could mean that we're not able

to have the orderly and smooth exit

from the European Union that we to

have.

And so the scene was set in

the real debate again.

The reality

of this bill is that it would allow,

and Clause nine, allow Ministers to

start implementing it withdrawal

agreement entirely through secondary

legislation and allow Ministers to

do so even before Parliament has

endorsed the withdrawal agreement.

We are recovering from a situation

where as members of the European

Union we have handed over these

decisions lock stock and barrel to

the European Union. This is a

massive improvement. To address this

attempt to reverse Brexit...

That is

absolute rubbish!

It is nothing but

a can't.

Oh my, what Stalinism is

this that somehow any attempt to

disagree with the way in which this

bill is drawn up is somehow a

betrayal of Brexit. What rubbish!

Is

not a question I may say to my

desperately paranoid Eurosceptic

friends that somehow I am trying in

some surreptitious, Remainer weight,

to put a spoke in the wheels of the

fast progress of the United Kingdom

towards the destination to which we

are going. They don't know what

we've mean.

And the case of

amendment seven we seem to frankly

have run out of road, and what

happens in the circumstances, I

regret to say is that all rational

discourse starts to evaporate. The

purpose of the amendment the nature

of it is entirely lost and eight

confrontation in which it is

suggested that the underlying

purpose is the sabotage of the will

of the people, which it most

manifestly is not. Hear, hear! That

is then followed by a hurling a

public abuse, large numbers of

people telling one that one is a

traitor. Some, I have to say with

regret of one's honourable and right

are no more fines, saying things

which I find slightly startling.

Amendment seven is very well

drafted, I don't think it's

deficient. We will definitely

support it and withdraw a New Clause

66 if you press to do a vote. And

then I will conclude by saying... I

give we.

This amendment either has

to be accepted by my honourable

friend on the Treasury bench there

will be put to a vote.

Hear, hear!

I'm very pleased to hear that and we

will support him and the amendment

and that eventuality. Hear, hear! We

need to reserve the ability to use

Clause nine as soon as practically.

If we waited for Royal assent for

final legislation and might be too

late and we will be too squeezed for

time, even then scenario where we

reach an agreement in October as is

our current aim. Critically, and I'm

not sure all honourable members that

picked this up, but the power only

emperors until exited. Shorter than

the operation of the Clause seven

and in practice on the Government's

current expected timetable it would

in fact his only be used for around

six months. Its not be used for

around six months. It's not the

open-ended power like some have

suggested an good-faith.

The

Government was standing firm, but

just as the 11th hour was

approaching, this happened.

I can

tell my honourable friend that we

are willing to return at report

stage to put an amendment on the

face of the Bill making crystal

clear that statutory instruments

under Clause mind will not enter

into force until we've had a

meaningful in Parliament.

But was it

enough?

I have to say, it is too

late. I'm sorry. You cannot treat

the House in this fashion. And she

may agree with me that the best way

of actually getting progress in this

area is by moving amendment seven in

securing and then delete back there

after we can co-operate.

The

Government lost by four votes.

You're watching Tuesday in

Parliament with me Mandy Baker.

Well, the day was not all about

Brexit.

Over an increase in the waiting list

for social housing, but the session

started on a more sombre note as the

party leaders remembered the fire at

Grenfell Tower in west London in

June.

This week marks the six-month

anniversary of the Grenfell Tower

fire. I will be attending the

national memorial service tomorrow

and I'm sure I speak for members

across the House when I say it

remains at the forefront of our

minds is a truly unimaginable

tragedy and should never have

happened. Many who survived the

fires lost everything that night,

and I can assure the House that we

continue to do everything we can to

support those affected and take the

necessary steps to make sure it can

never happen again.

This week does

indeed Mark six months since the

avoidable and tragic fire at

Grenfell Tower which took the lives

of 71 people and injured and

traumatised many more, and I too

will be at the service tomorrow in

memory of them. But that fire also

shone a light on the neglect of

working-class community all over

this country. And since this

Government came to power,

homelessness is up by 50%. Rough

sleeping has doubled. Homelessness

and rough sleeping have doubled

every single year -- risen every

single year since 2010. Will the

Prime Minister pledged today that

2018 will be the year when

homelessness starts to go down?

Hear, hear!

Across the cells we

don't want to see anybody who is

homeless or sleeping rough on our

streets. That is why the Government

is putting £500 million into the

question of homelessness. That's why

we backed the Bill that was brought

forward by my honourable friend, the

Member for Brent, I'm sorry for

Harrow. And it's why we have ensured

that we are putting into place a

number of projects that will deal

with this issue of rough sleeping.

I

asked the Prime Minister for a

pledge to reduce the amount of

homelessness next year. The pledge

was not forthcoming. 128,000

children will spend Christmas

without a home to call their own.

60% up on 2010. It's too late for

this Christmas, but will the Prime

Minister promised out by Christmas

2018, fewer children will be without

a home to call their own?

I say to

the right honourable gentleman,

again, that we of course want every

child to wake up and their own home.

Particularly at Christmas, but it is

incredibly important, even though

they can keep a roof over their

heads in the most desperate

circumstances, that is why we making

sure that councils can place

families and it brought a range of

homes that they fall into the

circumstances.

Jeremy Corbyn turn to

the state of privately rented

houses.

When it comes to housing, Mr

Speaker, this government has an

absolute disgrace. After seven

years, more people are living on the

streets. More families in temporary

accommodation. More families and

homes not fit for human habitation,

and fewer people owning their own

home. One is this government going

to get out of the pockets of

property speculators and rogue

landlords and get on the side of

tenants and people with out a home

of their own this Christmas?

Prime

Minister.

Under Labour, health

building down, homes bought and sold

down, and social housing down. One

thing, I'll tell him one thing did

go up under the last Labour

government, the number of people on

the social housing waiting list.

1.74 million people waiting for a

home under a Labour government.

Staying with PMQs, the SM SNP leader

and Blackford urged

the Prime Minister... To close

branches. The bank has announced

that it is shedding more than 250

branches in the UK.

including nearly 200 operating

under the NatWest banner.

In 2017, the Royal Bank of Scotland

are paying us back by turning their

backs and 259 of our communities.

Given we have the majority

shareholder, will be Prime Minister

stepped in and tell the Royal Bank

of Scotland to stick to their

commitment and not close the last

bank entirely?

I think my right

honourable gentleman knows the

decision to open and close branches

is a commercial decision taken by

the banks without intervention from

the Government but we recognise the

impact this has on communities and

the Secretary of State for Scotland

raise concerns of the housing

expressed on this issue in the

meeting with RBS.

She said the

Government wanted to ensure all

customers have access to bank.

Or

not is why we established the access

to banking standards which commits

banks to carry out a number of sets

before closing a branch Post Office

have also reached an agreement with

banks that will allow my customers

to use post office services.

The

Labour MP said she did not have a

clue about the concerns of

small-town.

And they don't has to

market towns have been so that they

are not West bridges are to close.

That is too more on top of a

record-breaking 700 bank branch

closures this year and that is

despite delivering 13.5 billion

half-year profits. For the Prime

Minister admit that the Government's

access to banking protocol has

failed to keep a single branch

opened and will she restore the bank

levy and use some of it to stop

communities losing their last bank

branch.

Ancillary, she said they

were raising more than the banks

did. But calls for changing the law,

and England or Wales were debated by

MPs in Hall. Young when a person

commits horrendous kinds, they

cannot be allowed to pull the

strings from inside a prison cell. I

have seen cases where convicted sex

offender has the rights of the

father. And influences the lives of

the children who were his

victims all

stopped

should have specialist

training to it understand the

dynamics. And to be able to

recognise coercive, controllers and

the tactics used by abusive parents,

to mutilate that children of my life

from inside prison walls.

Questions

have been raised of the

effectiveness of these orders and

how they can be best used to protect

the child with care from the abusive

exercise of it a parent in prison.

Any change to remove parental

responsibility automatically, on

conviction of certain criminal

offences would involve some in

porting considerations for my

department. We would need to be

clear that such a change in the law

would be in the best interest of all

children for whom the current law

provides maximum flexibility.

But in

all all the prisoners are abusive

presence and they want to maintain

family ties what in jail.

Families

play an important part in this

process. I want to spend a few

moments looking at the needs work

prisoners to fulfil their parental

responsibilities. I believe this

could be and should be a focus for

reform. Bringing men in particular

face-to-face with their enduring

response abilities to the family, is

indispensable to the rehabilitation

culture we urgently need to develop

in our penal system.

One of three

women are locked up, our mothers,

and one in five days their children

being taken away from them. This is

all but them to lose her job, their

home, and their children, not just

for those six months but forever.

Plaintiff surface about a scandal

involving thousands of steelworkers.

In just over a week's time we had to

decide what to do with their pension

savings when the old Priddis still

pension scheme ends. The financial

authority has intervened to stop

several firms

offering advice to steelworkers.

We had a little bit about the clip

from earlier owns about the sorts of

questions they would like to see is

asking. Those were exactly the

questions we do ask. We go in and

when we see high numbers of

transfers going through, we ask them

expressly why it is in the context

of transfers where for most people

most of the time staying in a DB

scheme is a better outcome. They

have satisfied themselves that it is

suitable in so many cases to

transfer. It is exactly where we go

with our line of questioning and

with our file testing. As a result

of this, for firms have stopped

providing pensions advices as a

direct result of our intervention.

Either by directing invitations on

their permissions or by voluntary or

separate a ration provided to them.

A conservative MP asked whether

workers will have to move to a

personal pension fund or PPS after

the deadline.

What will happen if

you reach this, and there are still

thousands of people outstanding.

Unfortunately, the difficult

position is the state in the pension

scheme will stop you cannot. We have

been trying very hard to get that

message out.

The student loan system

is failing and needs to be replaced,

according to labour. At the general

election, the party pledged to scrap

university tuition fees and the

government said it will carry out a

review of higher education funding.

At question time in the House of

Lords, Labour seized on the fact

that only around a third of students

would ever repay their loans fully.

We also know that up to 45% of the

total loan outplay will never be

paid. My lords, the poorer students

and up with the biggest debt, and

last week, the national office said

that two thirds of students consider

universities do not provide value

for money and that proper

independent advice is not available

to students when they make these

decisions, which have such a large

financial consequence upon them. My

lords, how can we have confidence in

the forthcoming review, when the

government resolutely defends the

president Brexit system so

determinedly. My lords, will the

noble Lord except that the current

system is failing. We need a new

system, which is fair to students.

Bayley raise a number of points, but

we believe the student loan system

is working well. There is always

room for improvement. But on one of

his point, we do believe that

students do get a good advice before

they take on the lens and indeed

they have to sign some papers for

that. But on some of his more major

points, we are very keen to see the

value for money approach. They have

been quite clear that universities

much provide value for money for

students. Can I also say that as the

house knows, the whole graduate

student payment system is designed

with a deliberate subsidy in place.

And we are on track with a

complicated formula to achieve it.

At the moment, we have a situation

where degrees have become monetized.

Would it not be a good idea that we

have a good long hard look at having

some form of graduate tax brought in

which would remove this idea of what

a huge debt hanging over those who

take on the degree.

Certainly, the

noble man is right. The tax was

considered as part of the reform

that were considered several years

ago. We do not think this is the

right approach, but we do think it

is right that the students are able

to take out loans, which the noble

lord I am sure will agree. Increases

aim of having more disadvantaged

people at universities.

Are there

any other government agencies charge

is 611% on loans?

There is a

question I will not answer that

question. Can I say, the interest

rates are very much set and I has I

have said before, these are being

kept under constant review and there

will be a review forthcoming on

higher education and funding.

Has a

government made any assessment on

whether there will be any material

difference in the signs repaid over

the decades if interest rates were

set at eight last level.

I am sure

they have been drawn out. I do not

have is with me. Can I say, actually

98% of all those who entered

repayment of April 2015 or earlier

have fully repaid or meeting their

repayment obligations and I think

that is a testament to the fact that

the payment source system were

complicit of HMR seat is working

well. I did to exempt journalists

and others from data protection

provisions have been condemned in

the Lords as one hostage here

explained.

These amendments are

representations of all sides. Which

sort of copper mines, a way to

protect this free expression rights

of publishers and ensures the public

are protected.

By a former Supreme

Court judge opposed the plans.

The

opposed change would inhibit

prepublication, prepared to work, in

particular, work of investigation

and research, with a view to

publication, which may in the end

never actually resolved in

publication. It would provide a

field day for those who are seeking

to impede academic work, artistic

expression, literary expression as

well as journalism, which they do

not welcome. It would inevitably

create a chilling effect on work in

academia, the arts, literature and

journalism.

The executive director

of the telegraph media group said

the proposals would cripple

investigative journalism.

It would

create a deeply repressive regime

for all those involved in

journalistic academic literary and

artistic activities. It is not just

the journalists on the national

newspapers who are so clearly

targeted by these amendments, who

would be tonnage. But the local

press, the broadcasters, academics,

film producers, playwrights, book

producers, and many others. Because

they all use data regularly in the

course of their kiddies. It would

make their day-to-day work almost

impossible.

But some peers support

it.

All you journalists, you can put

your editorials, suggesting we are

oppressing freedom, we do know it is

rubbish. You know it is not true.

But unless you deal with the real

hurt, the real problem, the real

exposed faults of the media, then

this will continue.

I cannot give

his house a legal opinion. I can

give them one of experience and give

might interest that I attended the

level of inquiry and a legal typing

of my found. Public interest was not

offended there, the public interest

was defined by the evidence in the

papers.

The labour spokesman said

that it had been let down and action

was needed. He urged the lady to

withdraw her amendment which she

did.

I want to wait and see what is

going to emerge from the

consultation, and I do hope that it

will be forthcoming before we reach

the meaning of this bill. I would

like to withdraw my dominion --

amendment.

And that was Lord

Prescott first expressing his

frustration. Do join me tomorrow,

but for now, goodbye.