22/01/2018 Monday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Monday in

Parliament. Coming up, MPs attacked

the Government over the Carillion

pension black hole.

Executive

directors and even ex-directors

should carry on drawing large

payments, at the same time as there

is a mounting pension deficit.

Peers

say there is great disquiet over

potential defence cuts.

The head of

the Army and the Secretary of State

have reached the view that there is

insufficient investment in defence.

Isn't it high time the Government

did so as well?

And NBC about the advantages about

putting a price on alcohol.

Rather

than thinking 7.5%, they will be

drinking three or 4%.

First, the fall of Carillion is

still reverberating around

Westminster. The company went into

liquidation after its huge financial

troubles proved overwhelming.

Despite discussions between

thrilling, its lenders and the

Government, no deal could be reached

to save the firm, which employs

20,000 people in the UK. Last week

it was the question of private firms

providing public services which was

the focus, but on Monday, attention

turned to the company's pension

scheme and specifically the £580

million hole in it. At the weekend,

Theresa May told a Sunday newspaper

the Government would stop workers'

pensions being put at risk from, as

she put it, executives who try to

line their own pockets. The Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary called

her opposite number to the Commons

to answer an urgent question.

Given the severity of the financial

problems facing Carillion, why did

the Government not act then rather

than attempting to close the stable

door after the horse has bolted? We

have been arguing for years for the

Government to take better action to

protect people's pensions. The

Government at the opportunity to act

in 2013 and again in 2015 by

supporting Labour's amendments to

legislation. More recently, the work

and pensions Select Committee warned

the Government on both the need for

protection is and more powers for

the regulator, and all -- welcome

the green paper, the agency has not

been there.

As all sides know, the

regulator is an independent

arm's-length body, set up after much

discussion in 2004 on how it is best

to work, how it is best to support

those pensioners when they need

help. But it never did was interfere

with the running of a business. That

was what was decided. We have said

we need to make sure that if we need

to go further, we could, and that is

why we set about bringing forward

the green paper, looking at where it

was best to intervene.

While top

executives make bad decisions and

are rewarded, 11 million people who

relied on the final salary pension

could still be at risk of having the

rug pulled from under their feet and

facing reduced entitlements should

these cases continue to be repeated.

Can I draw my honourable friend's

attentions to how the British public

reacted to this, because they are

seriously repelled by the notion

that executive directors and even

ex-directors should carry on drawing

large payments, at the same time as

there is a mounting pension deficit.

If this is what capitalism was

really like, people wouldn't want

it.

The Secretary of State does not

seem to have grasped that the

decision to carry on paying

dividends and to boost the bonuses

of the board while running up the

pensions deficit were taken by the

board. So what is she going to do to

stop this happening in future?

I

want to thank the honourable member.

I do understand the gravity of what

happened, but what we never seem to

do in this House, ends in 2004 after

much discussion we gave it to an

independent arm's-length body to

look into this, and what we are

saying, where things have gone wrong

or irresponsible things have

happened, investigations are under

way. Because we are not the

investigator, we put the legislation

in place to make sure those people

will be brought to account. If they

have done something wrong, my

goodness, we need to bring them to

account.

How is it that some of

these private sector pension fund

deficits are allowed to get so much

before action is taken?

I thank my

honourable friend. We allow

businesses to run their business

without interfering, interference by

government, therefore we do not know

the complete structure, obviously,

of their profit and loss, the assets

and liabilities. But what we do

have, should anybody wish to bring

the concern about the business, they

are free to do so to a regulator.

This weekend I heard some

commentators who really ought to

know better say things such as:

pensioners risk losing their

pensions. Can the Secretary of State

confirm what percentage of the

anticipated pension many of the

Carillion pensioners can expect to

get?

He raises a very good point.

Those who are in receipt of pension,

100%. Those coming forward, it is

90%.

The Work and Pensions Secretary.

Peers have told the Government there

is grave disquiet at speculation

that defence spending may be cut.

The comments came during an urgent

question in the Lords before a

speech by the head of the army.

General Sir Nick Houghton Carter

warned that without extra

investment, Britain's military risks

falling behind potential enemies.

The speech was approved by the

Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson.

The intervention comes amid a

defence review launched after

larger's election and fears that

amphibious assault ships could be

lost and army numbers reduced. The

Minister said defence spending was

rising, not falling.

The UK is proud to be the

second-largest defence spender in

Nato, and the fifth largest in the

world. Recent speculation on changes

to the UK's force structure and cuts

to the budget has been misleading

and unhelpful.

Isn't it

unprecedented for the head of one of

the armed services to intervene in a

debate of this kind? Made all the

more remarkable by the fact that he

has been endorsed by the Secretary

of State for Defence. In the head of

the army and the Secretary of State

have now reached the view that there

is insufficient investment in

defence, isn't it high time the

Government did so as well?

The

National security capability review

is about maintaining agility in this

country's security and defence.

Staying ahead of the curve in terms

of the resources that we deploy. We

must remain agile in a world that is

ever-changing, and that is why the

Government is conducting this

review. It is about ensuring that

our defence and security policies

and plans are as joined up,

efficient and effective as possible.

Setting aside the potential cuts,

what has been speculation about is

the cuts are currently happening

now, particularly affecting the

training of our Armed Forces. Would

he like to comment on that?

Some

decisions have been taken for the

current financial year, the decrease

the amount of training that certain

parts of the Armed Forces will be

able to avail themselves of. But it

is a temporary measure.

There is no

starker an illustration of the

crisis in defence that the Secretary

of State allows a head of service to

talk about the fact that it needs

more resources. I cannot remember

that ever happening before.

Admittedly, I may have been in a

different figure three years, but I

can't remember it happening before.

This is a very worrying event. This

uncertainty, the pressure on

resources, the hollowing out which

is going on day by day, is affecting

the morale of our people. It is

causing difficulty in recruiting,

people are leaving, it is causing

churn because there are less people.

Is the Secretary of State or the MoD

going to produce something telling

our people what is going on? Because

of the moment there is huge

confusion and it is bad for our

military.

The central point he makes

is of course quite correct. I agree

with him, uncertainty in any context

can be unsettling and damaging, and

the Government does not wish to

prolong this exercise for longer

than necessary. I can only say to

him that the review is still

currently ongoing. Ministers will

consider the conclusions in due

course. Any decisions on whether,

when or to what extent the

conclusions of the work made public

will be for a separate decision by

ministers.

There is grave disquiet,

repeat the words, grave disquiet,

from all members on both Houses. My

friend the noble Earl, who has huge

experience in this area and is

always totally courteous on this,

must be aware of this aspect of

disquiet. It is cute.

I am of course

aware of the disquiet he refers to.

I have been made aware of it over

many weeks. But the exercise we are

doing is a very important one. It is

to make sure that we have Armed

Forces that are fit for the future

and not the past.

This is money in Parliament. If you

want to catch up with all the news

from Westminster on the go, don't

forget our sister programme, Today

in Parliament. It is available via a

download.

Now, it is seven months since the

horrific fire at Grenfell Tower in

west London, which left 71 people

dead. The blaze spread quickly

because there was combustible

cladding on the outside of the

building. In the wake of the

disaster, cladding on other

high-rise buildings was tested for

fire safety. So, how's that work

getting on whiz-mac in the Commons,

the Minister and his Labour shadow

clashed on the issue.

312 buildings in total have been

tested. Of those, 299 have not

passed the test that has been put in

place. A number of buildings, the

cladding has started to come down.

That cladding is being replaced

slowly as well. And also, we are

very interested in making sure there

is enough capacity in the industry

to meet the extra demand that is now

up on it. That is why we are working

with industry and with the Business

Secretary.

I wonder if he read it this morning,

because the answer of fact, a number

of Tarbox with us and cladding has

been taken down and replaced, more

than seven months from Grenfell

Tower is three. How has it come to

this Mr Speaker? The seven months on

from Grenfell Tower, one in four,

families who are survivors only have

a new permanent home? The Government

still cannot confirm how many other

tower blocks across the country are

unsafe. Ministers still refuse to

help fund essential fire safety work

where they know blocks are

dangerous. And the Secretary of

State is sitting back and letting

individual site owners pick up the

full costs in private tower blocks

and not the landlord or the

developer. And now the Secretary of

State must know this is not good and

not so what will he do to sort out

the problems? First of all Mr

Speaker, the honourable gentleman

will know and shares this, that the

number one priority following the

Grenfell Tower tragedy in terms of

building safety is to make sure

everyone and anyone living in any

tower that might have similar

cladding, feels completely safe and

to make sure the buildings are

properly tested and if anything is

found before that exciting can be

taken down and replaced which of

course it will take time, that the

adequate measures are put in place

such as 20 47 fire wardens and other

measures, all on the advice of the

local Fire and Rescue Service and

that is exactly what has been done

in every single case. Yellow

they

wrote to to say -- make saved the

tower in the aftermath of the

Grenfell Tower fire. Can the

Secretary of State provided an

update on the proposals submitted

and whether it will make the

finances available?

Mr Speaker we

are working with the Council on the

request, and as I said earlier, at

no request will be turned down and

we will receive further information

are working on that with them right

now.

I want to refer to part B of

the regulation, and the guidance

that goes with it. Paragraph 12

seven, specifically prevents the use

of combustible material in high-rise

buildings. Will the Secretary of

State confirm about the guidelines

of cladding and allowing the

continued use of combustible

material in the cladding on

high-rise buildings, is that the

case and is soaked to the Secretary

of State the comfortable with the

situation?

I can say to the

honourable member that I do not

believe that is the case, I do not

think that is still the case,

however what he has raised is the

important point of the need to

review the guidance and regulations

themselves, a point that was made

clear by Dame Judith Hackett in her

intro report published last month

and the recommendations we accepted

him. White the decision of the

church of England to name a deceased

Bishop

has been strongly condemned

in the Lords. On Monday, the arch

Bishop refuse to retract a statement

saying that George Bell had a

significant cloud over his name,

following claims that he abused a

girl in his days as the ship. Bishop

Bell was seen in Anglican circles as

one of the leading church figures of

the 20th century. He died in 1958.

This is a deeply shocking case. The

reputation of a rate man, has been

produced. And many of us who are

Anglican are deeply ashamed of how

the ship -- church has behaved. This

can surely, be a spur to the

Government. To review the law and to

try and protect that anonymity of

people. Who are accused of something

years, decades after their death

with one uncorroborated alleged

witness. Could she please take this

on board and talk to the Secretary

of State about this grisly --?

As I

said earlier, there is a presumption

of anonymity, and the report itself

was a report to the church of

England, and it would not be

appropriate for me to comment on it.

This is a knife edge issue, there

are circumstances, in which it is

appropriate to name a suspect. And

that is usually when the person is

incredibly powerful. The naming of

deceased people is a different

issue. But the naming of like the

suspects, I will give you two

examples if I may my lords. And

asked the Minister if she agrees

with them, the first is at home,

Stuart Hall. If there had not been

an announcement that he had been

arrested, the charges of other

victims coming forward will be very

limited. And he is now in prison for

a long time. The other one my lords,

which is topical at the moment, is

Harvey Weinstein.

Did not hear a

question, but I do agree with the

noble lord, he'd better puts the

point I was trying to make to the

previous question, that it may be in

interest of an investigation to

actually name a person, but there is

clear guidance on this my lords.

Adie Williams. Transfer committee

has recalled Chris to explain

further his decision to cancel the

full adjudication of three railway

lines. The scheme will be replaced

by tracks that allow mobile

operation which we all know means a

trained to operate on diesel and

electricity. MPs grilled him on his

change of heart.

I did they

considered impartial adjudication as

an option, and discounted it and

decided to go for full

electrocution, you say that now that

offers good value for money, by

impartial adjudication, what has

changed so that that is good value

for money and get previously, those

options were discounted because are

you think your colleagues made a bad

decision, and chose to provide a

something that had poor value for

money or you just have not looked at

the entrance to the question.

It

seems to be simpler back, you have

to bear in mind these are sheep

disruptive programmes, it led to the

closure for six weeks for example,

these are disruptive programmes, and

involved weak enclosures and

disruption to services,

justification of another route was

documented and taken longer to

achieve, the committee has

questioned the value for money of

it, and I think everybody started

this process with good will and

intent, I think we have understood

more about what we can achieve now

with motor transit operating on

network, and to take a more informed

decision by just later about what is

going to be benefit cook good that's

what matters will stop he says he

based the decision on the VCR or

benefit cost ratio.

The VCR that

exist for this project contains more

in them, then the simple question of

electrocution. Because they include

things like configuration traits,

they contain capacity improvements,

implications for commuter traffics

and etc. So yes you can take

documents of the here and save this

does not work, but I had given you

what you have asked for which is the

analysis upon which I took.

Taking

into account, greenhouse gases,

there is a written question a

weather go, which asks questions

about the difference about

introducing by modes, the over 60

years period, using diesel, would

deliver £271 of greenhouse gases,

are losing a huge gain in terms of

getting the emissions.

Talking about

antennas, Mike's petition is that

these trends will migrate from going

to be sold to a different type of

attraction before the end of the

lives. We have senior people in the

industry to expect these trains to

have second-generation hydrogen

engines rather than diesel.

The

questioning moved onto Virgin train

east coast franchise.

Resetting the

whole system post 2012, and I to

talk about long franchise but this

is one that is only in its third

year and it is already in trouble.

How can we possibly feel confidence

or the public feel competence with

just three years ago, they promised

that the franchise was going to

deliver £3 billion of taxpayers and

now they can walk away bike 2020

without having delivered what they

promised?

We have made changes since

then, I emphasise it, we're looking

at what needs to be learned from it.

I am not happy with the situation,

this is a franchise we clearly have

not got right, the company has a car

wreck, it is very frustrating. But

you can only do with what it is and

we have to learn the lessons and

understand how to do differently.

When a company is getting it bad

that wrong quickly, should they be

allowed to work with other

franchises?

They will have fulfilled

their contract, and I have to do

what is lawful and desirable. Chris

Grayling. Now it is hard to believe

by one third of all alcohol sold in

England, is consumed by just 4% of

the population. That figure emerged

as Ministers workers to bring in a

paucity of minimum pricing for

alcohol to combat excessive

drinking. From a first sister,

minimum alcohol pricing is being

introduced throughout Scotland.

Ministers and the Scottish

Government say that 50p per unit

minimum cost will help tackle what

for many Scots is an unhealthy

relationship with drink. So, should

a similar policy to be brought in

south of the border? Health

committee has been hearing the

evidence.

Evidence shows that if you

put up the price is the most

cost-effective way releasing harm,

and obviously there are two ways

that you can increase price, one is

through taxation and the other is

through minimum unit price. And the

benefit of minimum unit price, is

that it is exquisitely targeted. At

those heady daily drinkers, who are

drinking cheap strong alcohol.

The

heaviest drinkers are the low

economic groups and children. These

are the ones that gravitate to the

cheapest alcohol that is hit by a

minimum unit price, whereas there is

virtually no impact whatsoever on

the on trade and price of a pint of

beer, in a pub. So it is going for

those drinks that we know are

favoured by those who are more

vulnerable.

My patients with

alcohol-related cirrhosis, the

average consumption is the the

median, it's higher, 22. So a

typical drinker will drink 60 metres

of that and they'd be paying about

£20 for it. And that will go

threefold. So instead of paying £20

bill be paying £70.

Or still spend

£20 and get less units of alcohol.

What they're likely to do is a

rather than drinking 7.5%, the bead

drinking 4% they can drink their

delay -- 30 L. So it is not that

they're drinking it, they'll have to

completely stop but substantially

cut their alcohol intake.

Because a

moderate drinker, you are dragging

14 units a week, then on average, it

the cost of this to you will be just

over a pound a week.

Somewhere

between that, about the same as a

cost of coffee a week.

Professor

Nick Sharon. And finally, there is

always an undercurrent of noise in

the comments, and he's shouting

insults and comments, liking cricket

they call it sledging, but one new

Minister just was not having it.

In

2011 we changed the law, so that

councils can place families in

decent and affordable private rented

homes. This now... Behave yourself

love, Pisa. This now means...

And

much to everyone's surprise she

didn't get a telling off from the

Speaker. Love. That's all please

join Alicea from the same time

tomorrow, but from now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.