tv Tuesday in Parliament BBC News January 25, 2017 2:30am-3:01am GMT
two controversial oil pipeline projects in the united states, saying they will create a lot ofjobs. the schemes were both blocked by barack obama. environmentalists and native americans have reacted angrily and vowed to challenge the decision. the israeli government has approved plans to build 2,500 new homes in the occupied west bank. it's the second announcement of new construction in occupied territory since president trump took office. a spokesman for the palestinian president said the move would promote extremism. the british government says it will begin the formal process of leaving the european union by the end of march, despite losing a supreme court case over the role of parliament. the court ruled that mps must have the final say on triggering brexit, bringing a seven—month legal battle to an end. now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello and welcome to tuesday in parliament.
the main news in westminster, thejudges have spoken. it's up to parliament to make a decision on triggering brexit. i can announce today that we will shortly introduce legislation allowing the government to move ahead with invoking article 50, which starts the formal process of withdrawing from the european union. some mps want to be clear about what they are voting for. i would like a white paper which we can debate. it will bring us together, i would say to my right honourable friend. what does my right honourable friend have to lose with a debate on it? also on the programme, the government is refusing to talk about a failed trident missile test, but there are other sources. i could phone up mr putin can i did a favour for him once rescuing his submariners when they were drowning and i'm sure he would tell me. i surely would know the date... but first, the supreme court has
ruled that parliament would need formal approval before leaving the european union. explaining the decision of a 96 pagejudgment, the president of the supreme court said withdrawal from the eu would effect a fundamental change and altar legal rights. he said that such changes to the uk's constitutional arrangements should be clearly authorised by parliament. having lost the court case, the government was quick off the mark with its next move. brexit secretary david davis said a bill would be introduced within days. this government is determined to deliver on a decision taken by the people of the united kingdom in the referendum granted by this house to leave the european union. so we will move swiftly to do just that. i can announce today that we will introduce legislation allowing the government to move ahead with invoking article 50, which starts the formal
process of withdrawing from the european union. he said the bill would be straightforward. it's not about whether or not the uk should leave the european union, that decision has already been made by the people of the united kingdom. we will work with colleagues in both houses to ensure this bill is passed in good time for us to invoke article 50 by the end of march this year. this is a good day for parliamentary sovereignty. the supreme court has ruled that we shall have a say in this house on the article 50 issue. given the issues involved, that is quite right and the prime minister was wrong to have attempted to sideline parliament in this process. this bill is only to be introduced because the prime minister has been ordered to do so. he said it was a question of substance, not process. last week the prime minister committed herself to swapping the known benefits of single market membership of the customs union for the hoped—for benefits of a agreement. with a fallback position
of breaking our economic model. that is high risk. there are big gaps in consistency is an unanswered questions in the prime minister's approach. mr speaker, if the prime minister fails in her endeavour, the cost will be borne by families, working people and communities throughout the uk. the stakes are high and the role of this house in holding the prime minister and the government to account throughout the process is crucial. the supreme court ruled that the administrations in scotland, northern ireland and wales do not need to be consulted before brexit is triggered, but the snp is still welcomed the mainjudgments. there was a time when the secretary of state himself was a great champion of parliamentary sovereignty, in the distant past... i'm sure that deep down inside he will be welcoming this judgment as well. and i'm wondering why they fear parliamentary scrutiny? is it because they will be found out?
is it because we will find out the emperor has no clothes? because we talk of democracy but let me remind the secretary of state of this. when it comes to scotland, the conservatives got their worst ever result at the general election since 1865. you have one mp! will the secretary of state now agreed to accept the unanimous recommendation of the brexit select committee and in the process, agree with himself before he got thisjob? and now publish a white paper on the government's objectives, so that these can be considered alongside the legislation that he hasjust announced? because if the government does not do so, then i have to say to him it will be showing a lack of respect for this house of commons. i don't often disagree with myself but let me say
this to the honourable, the right honourable gentleman. the speech given last week by the prime minister was the clearest exposition of a negotiating strategy i have seen in modern times. it laid out very clearly what we judge the national interest to be, how we intend to protect it, what we want to do, what we hope does not happen, how we're going to go about avoiding that too. so i don't see that this government has avoided answering any question, either from his committee or indeed the front bench. does the minister accept it my view that the public want us to get on with this and actually carry out what they voted for? does he also accept too that the public will not look kindly on amendments brought in by parties who want another referendum to delay unnecessarily, but do want perhaps a member and is that clarify and make us all more aware
of the government's intentions? if someone votes against sending the article 50 letter, aren't they voting against restoring the very parliamentary sovereignty that they called in aid? doesn't the british public want the pattern and answering to brussels? i would like a white paper which we can debate. it will bring us together, i say to my right honourable friend, what does my right honourable friend have to lose with a debate? let me say this, do the honourable lady. she holds passionately a very well formed a view on the matter, that firstly in terms of bringing people together, a large part of the prime minister's speech was aimed at creating the sense of this country which everybody can get behind. david davis. and later in the programme, we will hear what the house of lords had to say about the brexit judgment.
now, mps have been told that the government's refusal to confirm reports of a failed trident missile test may be due to pressure by the united states. defence secretary sur michael fallon refuses to discuss any details of a test reportedly carried out in june. he told mps that the government had absolute confidence in the uk's nuclear weapons system. appearing before the defence committee, an expert suggested there had been a problem with the missile‘s guidance system. american sources only now reporting in the american press on cnn that the missile, quote "had to be diverted into the ocean to self—destruct", which suggests that it may have been heading for land if it had to be diverted into the ocean, if that statement is technically correct. so it does suggest, if that is true, that there was a fairly major telemetry failure that the missile may have notjust been uncertain in its flight but may have genuinely been going on the wrong track. professor clarke said
the missiles were made by the us firm lockheed martin. there have been 161 successful tests since 1989. there were five failures before 1989, when the missile was in a bigger testing phase. so in total, there have been six failed tests, five of them before 1989 and one of them since then, which is the 162nd test failure. lockheed martin are certainly, i think, embarrassed about this. there has been a certain amount ofjournalistically reported pressure from the united states on the uk government not to say too much about this because clearly it must worry the americans as well. 0ne failure out of 162 is very small but the fact that it has never failed before may raise questions about the adequacy of the checking of the manufacturer. also appearing before the committee was a former
head of the royal navy, who has also been a security minister. he said missile tests were not carried out in secret. first of all we have to inform all of the aviators, civil airline people. also we have an agreement when we do these firings, that we warn russia so that they don't think we're starting world war three. they are very aware this is what is to happen. we don't even know what date the tests took place on but i have heard a suggestion that it was on the 20th ofjune. are you in a position to know... i absolutely don't know. but i see no reason, i personally can see no reason whatsoever. . . i could probably phone up mr putin, i did a favour for him once rescuing his sub mariners when they were drowning and ask him what it is about sure he would tell me. he certainly would be able to know the date. would you have thought it
at all likely that if a missile firing had gone wrong, as this one apparently did, that such a matter could be kept secret, given number of observers who would have seen what happened? i think anyone who thought that could be done was being very stupid and foolhardy. it's all very well being upfront and transparent about these things but we have agreed that there is a sort of relative scale of transparency, certain things that you cannot be transparent about... absolutely. all the trials we did with the type 455, you don't tell anyone about that, of course you don't. but this is quite a comedian no, this is a big bonanza occasion, we do this once every four years, it was inevitably going to come out. if anyone thought it wasn't going to come out, they were in cloud cuckoo land. and back to professor clarke. do you think that anything we have discussed in our two sessions today has in any way undermined the secrecy or security
britain's nuclear deterrent? can you think of any good reason why a similar discussion couldn't have been held before yesterday? absolutely not, chairman. there is an old rule in politics that it is not the failure that does the damage, it is the cover—up or the perception of a cover—up. in this case i agree with admiral west, this whole issue is not in anyway undermining the deterrent. it may be doing damage to the government because it has not been handled particularly well. now, violence in prisons is an old problem but it has escalated in recent months. the prison service is on a major recruitment drive, including a new graduate scheme. some jails are experimenting with novel ways to tackle the violence, such as paying some inmates to monitor the behaviour of others. violence in prisons has been a problem for decades. was it really wise to cut the number
of prison officers by a quarter in the last six years, given these problems? i would be delighted to have a conversation with my honourable friend about his experience looking at these issues, because he is aptly be right. they have been a problem for a number of years and it will take time to build up the front line and recruit those 2500 additional officers. but we have faced recently is new challenges, with psychoactive substances, with drones, with mobile phones. we are taking action to deal with those but it is vitally important we have staff on the front who can reform offenders and also keep our prisons save. the level is unprecedented in the years i've been in this house. following on from the honourable gentleman from gainsborough, would she confirmed that the figures
to september meant a loss of a17 prison officers, and when she says she has to recruit 2500, does she not mean that in the next 12 months she has to recruit 4000 to make those 2510 she do that? the honourable gentleman is absolutely right, we do need to recruit 4000 officers over the next year. i announced initially that we were recruiting officers for ten of the most challenging prisons and we have already made job offers to almost all of those 400, so we are making good progress. we've recently launched a graduate scheme, unlock. within 24 hours of announcing that scheme, we had expressions of interest from over 1000 candidates. it is challenging to recruit those numbers of officers but we are absolutely determined to do it because it is what we need to do, to be able to turn our prisons round and make them
places of safety and reform. some prisons including her majesty's prison in birmingham, they are using prisoners who are paid to monitor other inmates. the stakeholders we have spoken to suggest that somewhere in care and compliance, themselves meeting out violence and troublesome inmates, what assessment has she made of their use? the honourable lady refers to those violence reduction programmes and i have seen them in place in a number of prisons where they can be very effective. because, often it is peer to peer support that can help turn prisoners around. however, they need to be carefully managed and monitored and my expectation is that that is the role of the prison governor to make sure those systems are in place. you are watching tuesday in parliament. coming up, what may happen
if parliament blocks brexit. they'll be no option for those of us who voted to leave other than to take to the streets probably breaking things. the home affairs committee is continuing its investigation into one of the big factors in the brexit vote, migration. 0ne labour committee member said there was no point in setting net migration targets which could not be met. i think there is broad consensus, however you voted last year, that there is a desire in all parts of the uk for more control over immigration system. but does not to undermine the sense of control to persist with a target you continually fail to meet? lord greene, you are asked about that in the past tense.
you supported it when it was introduced. how can you carry on supporting a target, which, even if you take eu citizens out of the equation, the government is not going to meet? has not met. yes, we certainly have supported it and we continue to for these reasons. one is that it is a very effective means of focusing public opinion on an issue we think needs attention. secondly, it introduces an element, if you like, of democratic accountability. this is now firmly in the public mind. i'm not sure it can be helpful for a government to abandon it. with the greatest respect, lord greene, what it is is an effective means of undermining the confidence of people in the system. it is ludicrous to suggest that somehow it has helped achieve
the targets, because the target has never been met thus far. well, it it certainly underline the failure to reach the target, that is clear. what organisation sets itself up to fail year after year, surely that is stupid? yes, if that's was the case, which i'm not sure it is. so they haven't failed? i'm saying in the future that may not be the case, for a number of reasons. one is the proposal we make to reduce net migration by 100,000 a year for a start. please explain why the government maintains this ludicrous target. i'm not the position to do that, because we've criticised the target ever since was introduced. we acknowledge the fact that, you know, it helps public
accountability and the government understand the objective. however, it's created a whole set of quite perverse incentives. a conservative said poland had one of the best education systems in the eu and received eu funds. we have the absurd situation in which we are paying money to the polish people to educate to a high level their students in order for a lot of them, the high skilled ones, to then leave poland in a brain drain and come to the uk, where, by and large, they are employed below their skill level. that may be good for us, although having somebody picking turnips in norfolk with a phd. is a huge waste of human skills, but it is a net detriment, surely, to poland? so free movements of labour from poland, surely this
is completely unsustainable for that country? i think what you've described is pretty accurate. it was entirely this european fixation with free movement of goods, capital and labour that they were not prepared to shift. i'm particularly not prepared to shift they were certain the british were going to stay anywhere. they were wrong. the child poverty unit was set up some 20 years ago by the previous labour government. it was run across three government departments, work and pensions, education and the treasury. now it is part of the department for work and pensions, prompting claims the political focus on reducing child poverty has diminished. the abolition of the cross
departmentally unit is widely seen as downgrading and weakening. the government machinery dedicated to the eradication of child poverty. could the minister explain how the abolition of a cross departmentally unit, co—sponsored by the department for education is consistent with the government's own analysis of the root causes of poverty as parlour lying in children's education and achievement? surely it is his own approach to reject what it calls a narrow, income—based approach strengthens rather than weakens a case for a cross—departmental unit. the purpose of the child poverty unit was to measure those income related target set up by the previous government. those targets are a waste of time and we got rid of them. we have now set up something better, and that is the social mobility commission, based on the department for education and as i said in my original answer, the appropriate measure for these
things should be parental responsibility and children's educational attainment and those of the two we will look out. the last labour government lift the 1 million children out of poverty and that record is unarguable. the resolution foundation has estimated that in 2060 alone, 1 million children extra will be forced into poverty, mostly from working households. how on earth can any government be proud of such a record? particularly one that says it is in favour of those who were just about managing? 0n the measures the previous labour government sets forth, we found that in a recession, the number of children in poverty went down and when incomes are rising, it went up. it wasn't measuring the correct thing. we end where we started, with the supreme court's ruling that parliament must give formal approval before the uk government can start the brexit process. the government will soon be producing a bill which must be
approved by the commons on the laws. this was a completely unnecessary legal procedure. if the government are brought forward a bill which the court has forced upon them shortly after the referendum, it would now be safely enacted, and much time and effort and cost would have been saved. it is of course a sign of the robustness of our constitutional arrangement, that a private citizen can require the government against its will to play by the rules. but it's greatly to the government's discredit that this was ever necessary. he explains what action the lib dems would be taking. we will therefore be seeking to amend the bill to provide for a referendum to be held and we know the terms which the government has been able to negotiate. the government may have a mandate to stop brexit negotiations, it certainly does not have a mandate to impose harsh brexit terms on the country. in referring to the government's
commitment to work with the devolved administrations, there's an opportunity arising from the white paper published here in london yesterday morning by the welsh first minister, with support from plaid cymru and the lib dems, based on the possibility of a single market. this may well be the difficulties being faced in both scotland and northern ireland and will he give a firm assurance that the details of these proposals will be carefully considered. it gives me an opportunity to say yes, if he would like to meet, he can, i can also take this opportunity to say the proposals issued by the scottish government also been giving careful consideration and we will continue to cooperate and consult with those representatives of the northern irish assembly and devolved administrations in scotland and wales. does my noble friend except that if the parliament accepted
the advice of the labour lord, lord harris and trees of the referendum as adviser and decided this country should not leave the eu... there would be no option for those of us are wanted to leave other than to take to the streets and start raking things. i very much hope that this doesn't happen and considering the comments made so far by your lordships and the very constructive approach that the nobel baroness has been making through this process that we will avoid that. this bill which will come to us is essentially one about process and not outcomes and the way in which we handle our processes is different to how we will get outcomes at the end of this two year period, and the use of language which may occasionally
sound threatening is very unhelpful if at the end of the two year period we are going to end up with a country that is able to go forward ina country that is able to go forward in a reconciled and prosperous and flourishing way. we need to take our processes calmly and quietly without issuing threats and with an eye to the unity of this country. and that advice from the archbishop of canterbury on how to achieve a peaceful brexit brings us to the end of tuesday in parliament. join us again for another round—up of the news in westminster. until then, from me, christina cooper, goodbye. hello. wednesday will start quite windy across northern and western parts of the uk, and continue that way.
whereas into parts of southern england, the midlands, east anglia, it is troublesome fog once again. some freezing fog patches at that, dense in places. and that could be having an impact on travel again, so check the situation before you head out, you can see the fog showing up here. but, if you are in scotland and northern ireland, you can see the wind arrows indicating a strong, quite gusty wind in places, keeping the fog at bay. where we have the thickest fog is where we have the frost as well, and that could be giving the icy stretches on untreated surfaces. could be a few fog patches into the welsh marches, into a few spots in yorkshire. it is a windy picture through scotland and northern ireland, north—west england, too. plenty of cloud around, could be quite drizzly in places first thing. now, as we go on through the day, the fog will gradually lift into low cloud, but a cloudier, colder—feeling day into east anglia and the south—east compared with tuesday. some brighter skies, though, into much of south—west england, now, as we go through wednesday
night, there will be a frost developing again for many of us. and just a subtle shift in the wind direction, connecting with colder air freezing continental europe, means we draw in some colder air to the uk for thursday, and quite brisk south—easterly winds, so it is going to feel quite raw. there could be a few snow flows around the beginning in some spots, a few icy stretches, too. many of us will improve the sunny spells. it won't help the feel of the weather on thursday in that brisk south—easterly flow, as temperatures for some will struggle to get above freezing, and if you add in the impact of the wind, it will feel like it is below freezing, for that raw feel on thursday. not quite so chilly on friday, but still chilly, definitely, down the eastern side of the uk. towards the south—west we bring in more cloud. the risk of getting a few showers as we go on through friday. that is a bit of a change heading into the start of the weekend. a weather disturbance coming our way. still a lot of uncertainty
about the detail, but that could bring some heavier downpours into parts of england and wales at the start of the weekend. sunday, at the moment, looks quieter, more of us dry. so a risk of some showers, at least to start the weekend. some sunshine around. less chilly at the weekend, but still the scope for getting some overnight frosts, and some fog patches around, too. a very warm welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to our viewers in north america and around the globe. my name's mike embley. our top stories: jobs trump the environment — the new president overturns barack 0bama's ban on two controversial oil pipelines. "grave concern" — the head of the un criticises israel's plans for 2,500 more settlement homes in the occupied palestinian land in the west bank. the british government vows to press on with brexit, despite the country's highest court ruling that parliament must vote first.