23/05/2016 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday In Parliament,

A Treasury report suggesting an economic shock if Britain leaves

the EU is condemned - and supported -

We all know that these forecasts are just rubbish being produced

by a Government that is now obsessed with producing propaganda.

This analysis is an attempt to assess the British people

And a report, suggesting eating fat isn't that bad, has MPs calling

for the Government's long-awaited childhood obesity strategy.

Ordinary people are now caught in a whirlwind of conflicting advice at a

time when they desperately need clarity, consistency and straight

talk. A Treasury forecast claiming that

a vote to leave the EU would result in an economic shock has been

dismissed as rubbish Bernard Jenkin dismissed the claim

that the UK would head back into recession,

while the Treasury Minister David Gauke said it was carried out

in order to inform voters ahead We all know that these forecasts

are just rubbish being produced by a Government that is now obsessed

with producing propaganda to try and get its way in this vote,

rather than to enlighten the public. Has this report been

signed off by the same Professor Charles Bean who has

been said previously that the moderate economic shocks

are based on, quote, Will he confirm that the so-called

shock scenario is to suggest nothing more serious

than the economy will remain the same size

as it was just last year? What does the Minister say

in response to his Conservative predecessor, my noble

friend Lord Lamont, who said this morning,

quote, "A lot of the Government's so-called

forecasts depends upon business "confidence, which the Government

is doing its best to undermine. "Economists are no better

than anyone else in predicting "We have nothing to fear but fear

itself, which the Government "is doing its best to stir up."

Unquote. The economy is a key issue in terms

of the debate and the choice the British people will make

on the 23rd of June. This analysis is an attempt

to assist the British people in making an informed decision,

based on the likely consequences of the United Kingdom leaving

the European Union. Indeed, there have been many

supporters of the Leave campaign who have been prepared

to acknowledge that leaving the European Union would,

at the very least, have a short-term impact

upon our economy. Well, unusually perhaps,

I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what the minister has

said to the house today. The honourable member for Harwich

tries to rubbish this report Well, if we were to leave

the European Union, we would have to negotiate,

in very short order, trade relationships with the rest

of the world, As the honourable member would know,

and I know from having been in business myself,

one of the key concerns of business I'm very sorry that my right

honourable friend has had to come to the house to defend this

disreputable, shabby In the last Treasury report,

there were three scenarios set out, And was the Permanent Secretary

in agreement with this major Well, in terms of membership

of the EEA, as I understood from what the Leave campaign

was saying, they have made it very clear that they would not want to go

down the Norway route to being members of the EEA,

because that would require continued continued compliance with

EU regulations, and continuing to be signed up to

free movement of labour. Why does the forecast leave out

the very beneficial impact of spending another 10 billion,

which we would get back in contributions,

on our own priorities, jobs and services here, which would

boost the economy by 0.6%? And why does it leave out the impact

of the lower interest rates and the big injection of liquidity,

which the Bank of England says it will grant the economy around

the time of the vote? If the economy shrinks by 1%

or more, any fiscal gains you are seeking to make

in contributions to the EU, they will be wiped out by lower tax

receipts and greater costs. Indeed, under the central scenario

set out in this report, the public finances will be

?24 billion worse off as a consequence

of us leaving the EU. Leaving aside the Treasury's

notorious incompetence at forecasting,

would my right honourable friend, for whom I have a lot

of time normally, not agree that this

document really does plumb What the Government is trying to do

is scare the public witless, and if the consequences are so dire,

why on earth did the Prime Minister say, on record, that Britain

could prosper perfectly well If the Minister is as concerned

as I am that the Leave campaign dismissed the views of the Treasury,

the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the CBI,

the Bank of England, the OBR, and LSC, as a conspiracy,

does he hope that, in June, people will vote with their hearts

and their heads to stay in the EU, which, with Nato, has provided peace

and prosperity for the longest period of time since

antiquity, according The institutions and individuals

forecasting economic doom if we leave the EU have got it wrong

time and again in the past, The exchange rate mechanism debacle,

driven by the whole Europhile spectrum, the prediction

that the skies would fall in if we did not join the euro,

and complete failure to foresee the 2008 crisis coming down

the road, Would the Minister accept that

a plausible opposite case could easily be made

that we would be better off If he can't, I will happily

provide him with one. I look forward to hearing that

plausible case whenever it is made. I look forward to some analysis

with the support of leading economists making that case,

but we have not heard that case. A report calling for people to eat

more full-fat food to combat obesity has led to renewed questions

on the Government's late-running First expected at the end

of 2015, it's now due to be The report from the National Obesity

Forum said that eating fat does not make you fat,

and that it was sugar The Labour MP Keith Vaz,

himself a diabetic, On the issue of the views expressed

today by the National Obesity Forum Ordinary people are now caught in a

whirlwind of conflicting advice when they need clarity, consistency and

straight talk. The Royal College of physicians, faculty of Public health

and the British Heart Foundation have all raised concerns about this

report. Some claimed local authorities, schools and the NHS are

receiving guidance from organisations whose funding and

motivations are not known. I welcome the use by the Minister of the word

irresponsible in respect of this we support -- this report. The critical

issue is the delay publication of the childhood obesity strategy. We

were told that be published on December 2015, then February 20 16.

It is now expected at the end of summer.

You can look at any national newspaper any day of the week -

and get regular conflicting advice on what is good and what is bad.

Whereas that might be the source of amusement in a news programme,

for parents who are looking at what is right for their children,

it's really, really important that they have advice

That's why the childhood obesity strategy,

much commented upon in this place, is so important.

Instead of having all this complex and conflicting nanny state advice,

it would be far better if children were simply advised to

Well, I'm delighted to welcome a question from my honourable friend

from Bury North - may God bless all who live there.

And I had a short bet with the Secretary of State how long

it would be before the words "nanny state" emerged,

Let me start by asking the minister about today's report.

It makes a number of recommendations, but perhaps

the most controversial has been the call to stop recommending

the avoidance of foods with a high saturated fat content.

Let me start by asking the minister about today's report.

It makes a number of recommendations, but perhaps

the most controversial has been the call to stop recommending

the avoidance of foods with a high saturated fat content.

Now, I am pleased he has reaffirmed that he has no plans

to review its official advice in light of this call,

and has also reaffirmed that the evidence on the current

But does he share the views of experts, including

the British Heart Foundation, who have today stressed

the importance of official guidance being informed by robust evidence,

Can I join my honourable friend from Bury North in urging him

to curb the Department of Health's natural nanny state instincts

when it comes to a childhood obesity strategy?

And, if the sugar tax is part of the childhood obesity strategy,

perhaps you can explain why the tax is being directed at a certain

number of products, when other products with far more sugar in them

isn't going to be covered by the sugar tax?

Can I ask him to abandon this policy, and encourage the Chancellor

to abandon this policy before it becomes the new pasty tax policy?

There is a difficult issue, not only about childhood obesity,

but also around dentistry and around the shocking information

and the shocking evidence that is showing young children today

having to go through procedures that they should...

Shouldn't necessitate them doing that.

Would the minister re-give that advice today,

reissue that guidance, as a warning to all parents.

Many people, Mr Speaker, will be shocked to hear that

he was 16 and he hadn't had a fizzy pop.

By the age of 18, after he had had fizzy pop,

from 16 to 18, he had 12 fillings in that period of time.

The Minister replied he thoroughly agreed

with the dangers of fizzy drinks, saying the state of children's

MPs have begun a detailed inquiry into the collapse

BHS had debts of ?1.25 billion when it went into administration

last month, putting 164 shops and 11,000 jobs at risk.

It also had a pensions deficit of ?571 million.

In 2000, BHS was bought by the retail billionaire

Sir Philip Green, who made it part of the Arcadia Group.

Last year he sold it to Retail Acquisitions,

a group whose leader, Dominic Chappell, had been declared

What more could the trustees have done at the moment when it

was decided to sell BHS to a completely unknown entity

with an arguably disreputable background?

I'm not going to comment on the background of

the individuals, if that's OK with you, but in terms

of the trustee actions, I think there's a very

fundamental point that would be helpful for me to explain.

The trustees have no power of veto over corporate activity.

They are not able to stop a transaction.

They are not able to dictate to a corporate who they can

or cannot sell assets or business to.

Did any of you google Mr Chappell and see anything about him?

When we were told of the buyer, which at that point of time

was listed as Swiss Rock, we did use internet searches to try

and establish something about Swiss Rock.

We were also given the names of four or five

individuals who would be involved in the Swiss Rock.

I would also suggest to you that, if you carried out an internet

search about Mr Chappell in early 2015, you'd get a very

different set of results than you would if you carried out

an internet search on Mr Chappell today.

Regardless, I'm very confident that the trustees and their adviser

team did everything they could within the regulatory framework

to ask questions of the seller and buyer to try and

They also made very clear, both to the seller and the buyer,

the scale of the pension obligations.

The session then quizzed a representative from the City firm

Goldman Sachs, which gave advice on the sale of BHS

In a formal situation with Goldman Sachs, one of the premier

advisers in the world on M transactions,

it is presented to its client with a potential purchaser

who is in the early stages of their business plan,

who has absolutely no experience in the history

that they are going to take over, and has a history of being bankrupt

not once but twice or three times, your advice is,

"Hey, there's a risk - let's just carry on"?

We would identify the risks at hand...

You wouldn't say, there are substantial problems selling

a major business to someone who has no experience in that industry

and has a history of personal bankruptcy?

I think it's important for you to explain.

In a similar situation, would you not be

Would you not be waving the red flag to say,

"This is a walking disaster - don't touch it",

Goldman Sachs says, "Don't go there."

In a situation, at an early stage in a transaction, with many months

to follow before the deal could have pathetically close,

we would identify the risks and say, these risks need to be assessed

A legal adviser on the sale said he'd had conversations

with a legal firm, Olswang, that represented Mr Chapell.

In the conversation I had, I learned that Olswang had

carried out a very detailed, very thorough due diligence

and that nothing in what they had done had given rise to any concerns

in relation to impropriety, and that their client had been open

throughout, and that if they'd had any sense that there might be

any impropriety there, then it is not something

The reality was that we had reached the stage when the board as a whole

had decided that either BHS was going to have to go into some

insolvency process or, alternatively, it should be sold.

If we could find a buyer, that was the most desirable outcome,

because it would protect the jobs and it would protect the position

But, if we could not find a buyer that was an acceptable buyer,

and we couldn't do that deal, I had no doubt whatsoever

that this business would have gone into administration.

And what we are discussing actually is, in my view,

for what it's worth, really the most fundamental

That is that if this deal had not been done with this particular

buyer, the BHS business would have gone into administration

12 or 13 months - or whatever the period was -

You're watching Monday in Parliament.

A new Labour peer warns against her party becoming a sect.

But first, there were some testy exchanges about

the National Health Service on the third day of debate

on the Queen's Speech, when public services

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, began with what he felt

Paul cares about the most expensive thing a hospital can do. A fall in a

hospital will cost the NHS ?1200 as a patient stays for three days

longer. A bedsore adds about ?2500 to NHS costs with their patients

staying on average 12 days longer. Avoidable mistakes and poor care

cost the NHS more than ?2 billion a year. Let me just read this letter I

received the other week. Dear Miss Alexander, I recently had the

misfortune of using the a and E at my local hospital in Margate. My

wife feels that I was lucky to escape with my life. My experience

has convinced me that our health service has never been more under

threat than since Mrs Thatcher. The fact that I was sent home after four

hours without seeing a doctor and returned by emergency ambulance with

a now perforated appendix, I blame mostly on the conflict between the

Health Secretary and the junior doctors. Had this been resolved, he

would have been able to concentrate on the woeful lack of resources our

NHS faces. Mr Speaker, take the experience... The PPS to the Health

Secretary is saying show us the latter. I got it here and I have the

permission of the individual who wrote to me before referring to it.

There are always pressures in the NHS as demand grows and expectation

rises and there always will be. She could have made the speech as an

opposition spokesman on ten years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40

years ago. After 20 minutes, she hasn't yet suggested a solitary

policy proposal as an alternative to the Secretary of State's. She hasn't

says weighs whether she agrees on the seven-day working and all the

rest of it. Apart from describing sad incidents when things have not

been ideal and as they should be, does she have anything to suggest by

way of policy that might contribute to helping the NHS in future? I'm

grateful, Mr Speaker. The thing that strikes me having had these

exchanges over the dispatch box for the last nine months is that

actually, the reality of what people are experiencing in hospitals is

sometimes missing from these debates and so that is why I thought it was

important to quote from those letters today.

A Conservative, Peter Lilley, raised the issue of the Transatlantic Trade

and Investment Partnership - or TTIP - which he thinks poses

A centre privately owned, set up by Tony Blair, working alongside the

NHS list a hospital in Stevenage conserving my constituents ran into

terrible problems. The whole system under which these centres was set up

was daft and it didn't work. My right honourable friend 's... All of

us Conservatives lobbied that it should be brought back into the NHS

and we were successful. But had TTIP been in force and fallen into the

hands of an American company, they could have sued the local NHS for

taking that back in. At very least, they would have won massive damages,

they might even have been able to prevent it happening entirely and

even if they had lost, it would cost the local health service a massive

sum of money since the average cost of taking one of these cases is $8

million. And the campaign to exclude the NHS

from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -

a trade agreement - is being led in the House

of Lords by Lord Owen, a former Labour Foreign Secretary

who wants the UK to leave the EU. His concern is that the TTIP

agreement would make it impossible for a future government to reduce

private sector involvement I am not going to argue the

arguments that are different between the political parties about what we

should do with the NHS. But I will argue to my dying day the right of a

new parliament to change the legislation of a previous parliament

and a previous government. Forfeit that right on an issue so important

to us as the NHS, then the tolerance of society starts to break down.

This is the great advantage of our system of government. Lord Dobbs,

also in favour of leaving, expressed his concern

for the message a Remain vote we need to ask ourselves, what will

happen on June the 24th if we vote to stay in? Will President Junker

say, brilliant, glad you are staying, we hear your message, we

will be more tolerant now, more flexible? All those who regard ever

closer union as their religion, the sign that their hour has come, by

even the British Prime Minister has said there is no alternative. So

full steam ahead. Making her maiden speech

was Labour's Lady Jowell - as Tessa Jowell, a Government

minister throughout In favour of remaining

in the European Union, she compared its diversity

to the Labour party at home. What I wish for my country I wish

for my own beloveds Labour Party. I hope it can embrace the energy of

its new and growing membership, who all share a belief that we should

help people achieve more together than they can alone. But my party

can only do that when it governs. And it fails when it becomes a sect

of the elect. Turning its back on those who are not true believers,

obsessed with rooting out heresy. Back to the EU debate,

the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown said that staying

in the EU was the only way If you want to reform something, you

have to be in it come apart of it, acting for it. Using your influence

and building alliances to bring that about. If we want to reform the

European Union and God knows Shui Sheard, it is insufficiently

democratic, although I have to say not as insufficiently democratic as

the other place at the other end... The other place at the other end

being the Commons, of course. And back to the other

place at the other end, where Labour's Gill Furniss

made her maiden speech. And, as the new MP for

Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough explained,

she had particular reason to pay In keeping with the tradition of the

house, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to my

predecessor as member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside and

Hillsborough. I'm doubly proud to say that not only was he a dedicated

and conscientious Labour MP but as many colleagues will know, he was

also my husband. He served in this house for less than a year before

his death but in that time, he made his mark. He spoke powerfully

against the Chancellor's cuts to tax credits knowing the suffering it

would cause people he represented. And as a lifelong trade unionist, he

made an eloquent speech in defence of workplace rights when they were

threatened by the trade union Bill. Men and women working across the

public sector are being asked to do more with less and less. Morale is

at rock bottom across the board. Teachers, doctors, police officers,

nurses, firefighters, social workers, prison and probation

officers, the list goes on. They have all dedicated their working

lives to public service and all see on a daily basis their ability to

serve being undermined by this government. It always takes courage

for an honourable member to make a maiden speech in this daunting

chamber but it must especially have been so when she gave tribute to her

predecessor, her late husband, whose untimely death robs this chamber of

a promising new member who spoke with equal passion for his

constituents in her city of Perth, Hillsborough. She is clearly going

to be a great champion for them and speak with bluntness that she

declared and I am sure that she will be a much respected on the opposite

benches. Alicia McCarthy's here for the rest

of the week, but from me,