tv Monday in Parliament BBC News December 12, 2017 2:30am-3:01am GMT
to the city's busiest bus station as an isolated attempt at a terrorist attack. the suspect is a young bangladeshi who moved to the us in 2011 with his family. he suffered burns from the crude pipe—bomb he had strapped to his body. three women who claim they were sexually harassed by donald trump have called on congress to investigate allegations of his misconduct. the accusations first came to light during last year's presidential race, and the white house has repeatedly rejected them. world leaders are gathering in france for tuesday's summit, called to push forward plans to tackle climate change agreed in paris two years ago. the us president won't be there, of course. he pulled his country out of the agreement injune, the only one of 195 countries to do so. now on bbc news, monday in parliament. hello and welcome to monday
in parliament, our look at the best of the day in the commons and the lords. on this programme: the prime minister tells mps the interim brexit deal is good news for everyone. but there's a mixed reaction from her own side. the prime minister, with her calm grit has shown brexit can and will be done. we are giving the eu tens of billions of pounds and they are taking them. meanwhile, should there be a second referendum on britain's eu exit deal? we are not pretending it did not happen or trying to go back to the 22nd ofjune of last year. is borisjohnson a liability as foreign secretary? no, says a ministerial colleague. in the role of foreign secretary or any foreign office minister or any minister, personality also counts. but first — a week is a long time in politics. seven days ago theresa may's initial brexit deal with the eu lay
in tatters, scuppered by the leader of the dup disliking what it meant for northern ireland. but from the jaws of apparent defeat came apparent victory for the prime minister. in the early hours of friday theresa may appeared in brussels alongside the european commission president, jean claude juncker, to announce that an interim deal had been struck, so allowing a progression to the next stage of brexit negotiations, over trade. the moment triggered four days of comment and analysis. was the interim deal a success for britain or could we have done better? the commons was keen to hear from theresa may. statement, the prime minister. i would like to update the house on the negotiations for our departure from the european union. she said britain's negotiators argued robustly for the outcomes achieved, which were...
reciprocal deal guaranteeing the right of more than 3 million eu citizens in the uk and 1 million uk nationals in the eu so they can carry on living their lives as before. a fair settlement of accounts, meeting our rights and obligations as a deapart member state in the spirit of our future partnership. a commitment to maintain the common travel area with ireland and uphold the belfast agreement in full and avoid the hard border between northern ireland and ireland while upholding the constitutional economic integrity of the whole of the uk. the role of the european court ofjustice has been reduced. eu citizens in the uk will have their rights enshrined in uk law and enforced by british courts and uk citizens in the eu will also have their rights protected. the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice is coming to an end and we are taking control of our own laws once again, which is exactly how it should be.
she warned nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed. these are the actions of a responsible nation honouring the commitments it has made to its allies having gone through those commitments line by line, as we said we would. it is a fair settlement for the british taxpayer who will soon see significant savings compared with remaining in the eu. we well be able to use that money to invest in our priorities at home such as housing, schools and the nhs. it means the days of paying vast sums to the european union every year are coming to an end. the deal was good news all round, she concluded. this is good news for the people who voted leave who were worried we were so bogged down in negotiations it was never going to happen. it is good news for people who voted remain who are worried
we would crash out without a deal. we will leave and do so in a smooth and orderly way, securing a new deep and special partnership with our friends while taking back control of our borders, money and laws once again and on friday we took a big step towards achieving it and i commend this statement to the house. 18 months on from the referendum result the prime minister has scraped through phase one of the negotiations. scraped through after 18 months. two months later than planned, with many of the key aspects of phase one is still not clear. this weekend cabinet members have managed to contradict each other, some have managed to go even further and contradict themselves. ultimately we saw a rather fudged agreement late last week. has this experience given the prime minister reason to consider dropping the unnecessary
exit deadline of the 29th of march 2019 from the eu withdrawal bill? i am sure the whole house and probably whole country would rather get the best possible deal a little bit later if that meant a better deal for people's jobs and the economy. the prime minister referred to the so—called divorce payment of £39 billion. this offer is on the table in the context of agreeing the partnership for the future and the next stage and the partnership. if we do not agree that partnership this offer is off the table. despite the prophecies of doom and gloom, the prime minister, with her calm grit, has shown brexit can and will be done
and we congratulate her. it is a compromise but when people like me look at the alternative, namely a labour government staying in the single market forever and having no control over immigration, it's amazing how our minds are concentrated in support of the prime minister. last week we had the humiliating scene of the prime minister being forced out of the original deal by the dup. rushing back to london, the government had to rewrite the agreement so as to reach the dup's approval. we have to wonder who is running the uk, is it arlene foster or the right honourable memberfor maidenhead? would she confirm the text of this agreement now makes clear in the event of the deal northern ireland will not be separated by any regulatory requirements from the rest of the uk, along with no hard border. in the event of no overall
deal nothing is agreed. can i suggest in order to strengthen her leverage in the next stage of negotiations she might want to suspend tribal politics and invited the leader of the opposition to join her negotiating team, since whatever their tactical differences, they agree with her on the fundamentals of brexit and withdrawal from the single market and customs union, disastrous as that may be. across these benches we are in complete with the prime minister. a pitiful performance from the leader of the opposition. i still do not know if he welcomes the agreement because he should do because it's a major step forward and looking to the future, around about this time next year we should have begun to have
concluded the trade negotiations towards a trade deal. the brexit secretary captivated the house with tales of regulatory impact assessments that do not exist, the chancellor said the divorce bill will be paid in all circumstances and the brexit secretary contradicted him at the weekend, saying it is conditional on a trade deal. her deal promising full regulatory alignment, he dismissed as a statement of intent. if she cannot even get her brexit secretary to agree with her then how on earth can she get a good deal protecting jobs, investment and growth? the prime minister said there had been give and take in negotiations and she is right — we are giving the eu tens of billions of pounds and they are taking them. as the prime minister said, the money will not be paid unless there is a final agreement, by definition that must mean
we are not legally obliged to make these payments, otherwise that would not be available to us. i put it to the prime minister if those two members are in agreement one or both them must be mistaken. you cannot have full autonomy and full alignment at the same time. cross—border trade and services that require some sort of long—term regulatory cooperation in place. the response of mps to the brexit deal. meanwhile, there was also reaction from members of the house of lords. the statement from the prime minister twice repeated nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. would she not think it was a good idea the government should actually work out a plan b for no deal because in that way we will get a much better deal with plan a because the great advantage of plan b and leaving with no deal is we cease to pay into the eu budget?
the leader of the house is a member of the cabinet and therefore i'm sure she will know the answer to my question. is that the government's and intention at the ferry port of belfast there will be no customs officials or immigration officers in attendance with the remit or ability to check persons, non—uk citizens, travelling to ports in scotland, england or wales? the noble lord asks the question of implementation and i am not in a position to answer at the moment. will my noble friend answer a simple question? she said in the statement there would be a large sum of money available to britain because of our work leaving the eu. could she promise to place before the house the details of that sum of money, how the addition is done
and how it is the government makes that statement in the full and flat opposition to every independent commentator in this country? we have agreed a important principle on how we arrive at the valuation which will ensure the process is fair. and back to that divorce settlement of £39 billion. will the minister confirm the uk government, having agreed the definition of its financial obligations, will, under no circumstances refuse to honour them, as a matter of honour? as the prime minister has been clear, this money is on the table in the context of agreeing our future partnership and if that is not agreed the financial offer is off the table. lady evans.
now, brexit is happening because of the outcome of the national referendum held back injune 2016. but should we be taking part in a second national referendum, one that decides if we like the exit terms the uk is being offered by the european union? an electronic or e—petition on the parliamentary website, calling for the people to have the final say on brexit, has attracted 137,000 signatures, so triggering a special debate in westminster hall. it was a debate that saw some passionate speeches. what we are not talking about here i think is some kind of reversion to the status quo before the referendum happened. we are not pretending it didn't happen. we are not trying to go back
to the 22nd ofjune last year. it did happen and people are very angry and many of the reasons for that anger are very legitimate. the idea that those issues that they were mostly concerned about, their future prospects of work, future prospects of their kids, whether or not they could get into the nhs, whether or not they could get affordable housing, the irony is that by leaving the eu, all of those problems will get 100 times worse. and believe me, the anger of those people when they realise that is going to be something that we haven't yet begun to discuss and to imagine. it was a referendum based on fiction and it was a referendum and we were going to have a debate in the next couple of weeks about the influences. because i believe that the referendum wasn't a fair vote. it was heavily influenced by the propaganda machines and those propaganda machines are out of the control of the electoral commission. because the changes made, the uses of algorithms, of money from abroad,
very clever artificial intelligence, influenced people in a way that is invisible. that is the best reason why we need a new one. on the issue of tourism. we were told that britain would benefit from tourism. more people would come into the uk because the pound was weaker and we would see a real boom. i talk to the industry, they are saying they can't cope with brexit. people that previously supported going through brexit, but they are saying it is deeply damaging because they are losing all the labour which is working in the tourism industry and therefore as a result businesses are closing. the prime minister has gone from remainer to leaver, the foreign secretary had an article written for a newspaper saying why we should remain, but changed his mind, and the environment secretary went from the best friend and strong supporter of the foreign secretary's leadership campaign to somebody who chose to stand against him. even at the highest levels
of cabinet governance on these islands, cabinet ministers can change their mind very quickly. and i do understand the argument that says that if people change their mind at some point in the future should they not be given the opportunity to express that change of mind at the ballot box? generally speaking though i would take the view that the way to change the referendum result is for the party that wants to change it to get elected at the ballot box with a referendum as an explicit manifesto commitment. we heard in earlier discussions about how if we had a second referendum we would have a different sort of referendum, as if the first one was invalid or incomprehensible or there wasn't sufficient discussion. again the conversation tended towards the emotional and the lies. just from the very emotion that i have seen in this room today, from the conversations that have occurred, from statements such as catastrophe, exodus, dire, crisis, lies, death row, malicious, i don't believe that there would be anything less than the kind of emotional discussion that we had
two years ago. again, be very careful what we wish for. the debate on whether we should have a second referendum on leaving the eu. you're watching our round—up of the day in the commons and the lords. still to come: what sort of person do we need as foreign secretary? borisjohnson has repeated his pledge to leave no stone unturned to secure the release of nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe. she has been held in iran since april 2016 on charges of spying, which she denies. she was arrested as she attempted to return to the uk after a visit to relatives with her young daughter. borisjohnson was updating mps following a series of meetings in iran and in other countries in the region over the weekend. he said his first priority has been the plight of dual nationals being held in iran.
these are complex cases involving individuals considered by iran to be their own citizens. and i do not wish to raise false hopes. but my meetings in tehran were worthwhile. and while i do not believe it would be in the interests of the individuals concerned, or their loved ones, to provide a running commentary, the house can be assured that the government will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to secure their release. borisjohnson provoked a storm of criticism earlier this autumn when he told a commons committee ms zaghari ratcliffe had been training journalists — a comment he later withdrew. i have no wish to go over old ground concerning the foreign secretary's remarks to the foreign affairs select committee. and it is right that he has finally apologised for those remarks, finally admitted that he was wrong. and it is right that he has finally met richard ratcliffe. and that is right that he has spent the weekend in the region attempting to atone for his mistake
and get nazanin released. and we welcome the tentative progress that the foreign secretary has made in that regard. as richard ratcliffe himself put it, it doesn't change the fundamentals, but it makes a change in the fundamentals more likely. several labour mps pressed the foreign secretary over whether he'd tried to see ms zaghari—ratcliffe himself. did he request to see nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe personally in order tojudge her mental and physical well—being? i mustjust remind the honourable gentleman opposite that the iranian government does not recognise the dual national system that we have. and therefore do not give consular access. what response did he get from the president of iran and other authorities when he pressed for the release ofand nazanin zaghari— ratcliffe ? and does he have any indication of what the authorities think of the recent present health assessments made
on nazanin zaghari— ratcliffe and her fitness to remain in prison in iran? yes, of course, i raised the humanitarian concerns in a number of consular cases. and those concerns were taken on board, but it would be wrong to give a running commentary or report about exactly what they are saying in each case. borisjohnson also updated mps on talks aimed at resolving the conflict in yemen. the country has been devastated by a war between forces loyal to the internationally—recognised government and those allied to the houthi rebel movement. saudi arabia is leading a coalition backing the government — blockading some ports — stopping aid getting through. he is right to highlight the devastating consequences of the war and can he tell us more about the lifting of the blockade?
more details on that would be helpful to the house. and to everybody that the foreign secretary met, did he make it clear that any tactic of starvation and surrender is abhorrent? finally, did he commit to any increase in aid to yemen at the end of the blockade as well? as to the suggestion that starvation is being used as an instrument of warfare, that is indeed what i said. and what i said to our friends in the region is that that is the risk that we are running, that the judgment of history will be, that unless we sort this out, people will deem that starvation has been used as an instrument for the prosecution of a war. meanwhile, a labour peer has claimed that the performance of the foreign secretary is damaging britain's reputation abroad. lord soley, a former labour mp, made his strong attack during questions in the house of lords. is the minister aware of the immense
damage being done to britain's reputation abroad, and also to the rights of british citizens abroad, by the tendency of the present foreign secretary, boris johnson, to speak first and think afterwards? and can he and his colleagues in government please convey to the secretary of state that he needs to reverse that process because he has a bad reputation for it in this country and overseas and it is damaging britain's relationships and damaging individuals. my right honourable friend the foreign secretary, as i am sure many in this house would acknowledge, represents our country and indeed the foreign office in exemplary fashion and this weekend... this weekend's example is testimony to that. my right honourable friend the foreign secretary has also over the last week raised some important issues on the issues of counter—terrorism and countering violent extremism. this again demonstrates
the importance that my right honourable friend the foreign secretary attaches to this important area of representing government abroad, and i have seen the foreign secretary in operation directly as a minister on this team. he does so with a strategic outlook and he does so in a positive fashion. would he perhaps try to redress the balance by telling us about the foreign secretary's close mutually confident relationships with any particular senior ministers of foreign governments, just to redress the balance we have seen in the media? the foreign secretary has just returned from a very important and constructive visit to iran and the middle east. and i am sure that we will agree that we have important relationships with the foreign secretary leading from the front and ensuring that
relationships are not just sustained but strengthened. we have had in this country, and been fortunate to have, many interesting individuals that have carried on the role of foreign secretary over centuries. not all of them are straitjacketed by guidance or anything that comes from an official level. but surely would he not agree with me that the only way in which we can judge the success of diplomacy is whether or not that serves the best interests at any time of this country? i agree with my noble friend and at the same time i add this much, that in the role of foreign secretary, or any foreign office minister, personality also counts. back in the commons, labour has accused the chancellor philip hammond of preferring to make giveaway payments to britain's banks over the country's financially stretched public services. in last month's budget mr hammond went ahead with cuts in the bank levy, that is, an annual
tax on bank debt. labour believe the bank levy should have been increased, not decreased. the issue was raised when mps debated the bill that implements measures announced in the budget, namely the finance bill. the bill proposes a stamp duty cut that according to analysis will include house prices while failing to address the housing crisis by introducing measures to build more affordable homes. it also includes plans to continue with the government's 2015 bank levy cut and go further, as the minister seemed to proudly proclaim, exempting all foreign banks from the bank levy and ensuring that all banks from 2021 only had to pay the levy based on their uk balance sheets. on the subject of the bank levy, looking back in history, in 2011, the conservative—led government introduced it, but labour voted against it and in 2015, when they introduced the 8% surcharge so that banks would pay more,
again the conservatives voted for it but labour voted against it. so why are you now rewriting history? it is not a question of rewriting history. we are not supporting bills that continue austerity year in, year out. and that's it for this programme. mandy baker will be here for the rest of the week. until then, from me, keith macdougall, goodbye. well, it's no wonder the snow has been making the headlines the last couple of days, it has been exceptionally heavy across parts of england and wales. winter wonderland scenes like this in parts of wales, it looks beautiful but can be
so disruptive, like the snow we saw in the south—east of england on monday. now, the wintry weather continues through the overnight through eastern coastal areas and to some extent as well across south—west wales, into cornwall and devon. elsewhere, it's going to be a bitterly cold night under clear skies. these are towns and city values. out in the countryside, and where there's lying snow, easily minus double digit figures. we're going to see some freezing mist and fog as well to greet us for tuesday morning. so watch out for lying snow and ice, which could be quite widespread where we've got snow and where there's been some snow melt during the course of monday. some treacherous conditions out there on untreated roads and pavements and cycle routes, you'll see a cold, frosty start across the board. a few wintry showers again across east anglia and these should generally ease away, same too across south—west wales and cornwall and devon. up into the midlands northern england, scotland and to some extrent northern ireland, a very cold and crisp start, but at least dry and bright with plenty of sunshine.
it's going to be a glorious day. in fact, light winds, lots of sunshine albeit very cold. a change across the west, a weather front pushing into northern ireland, western scotland and across the far south—west lifting temperatures slowly, outbreaks of rain bumping into that cold air so we'll start to see some outbreaks of snow across the higher ground. temperatures rising in the south—west but a very cold day in central and eastern areas. there's the change taking place on tuesday, the first of a succession of weather fronts which will move through and then we'll see another one moving on wednesday, behind it colder air once again. that first weather front will eventually clear away from the south—east wednesday morning. a frost—free start on most places, a little bit of sunshine before the next weather system moves in, looks like it'll bring heavy bursts of rain to england and wales. behind it turns brighter but colder with some wintry showers moving in, certainly some snow in parts of northern ireland and in towards scotland.
double—figure values in the south, but colder in the north. into thursday, we'll continue to see a little bit of rain across the south, plenty of showers and quite windy across the board in the north and the west. a little bit colder as well, and that cold air will start to pour southwards behind this area of low pressure as it clears away eastwards, it will open the floodgates again to the arctic, so a much colder friday and into the weekend. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. our top stories: new york's mayor describes an attempt to blow up a busy transport hub as an isolated attack. this was an attempted terrorist attack. thank god the perpetrator did not achieve his ultimate goals. three women who say they were sexually harassed by donald trump want the us congress to investigate their allegations. world leaders gather for the latest climate change conference agreed in paris two years ago, without the american president. and as the shape of water leads