28/10/2015 Prime Minister's Questions

CHEERING

CHEERING.

Number one, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Before answering my honourable friend,

I know the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Michael

Meacher, who died suddenly last week, and we send our condolences to

his family and friends.

Michael dedicated his life to public service, diligently representing

his Oldham constituency in this place for a staggering 45 years.

He was a passionate advocate of the causes he believed in.

These included the environment, and he was able to put those

into practice as a minister between 1997 and 2003.

This House and our politics are a poorer place without him.

I know colleagues from all sides of the chamber will remember him with

affection and miss him greatly.

Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues

and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have

further such meetings later today.

Mr Stephen Metcalfe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I associate myself with the sympathies expressed

by the Prime Minister.

Will my Right Honourable Friend join me in celebrating that one in ten

of the world's tractors are built in Basildon?

CHEERING.

That not an Airbus A350 flies without a part built in Basildon?

That not an Airbus A380 flies without a part built in Basildon?

And that Thurrock is not only home to the largest inward investment to

the south-east, but is also attracting investment

from world-renowned organisations such as the Royal Opera House.

All this is leading to job creation and opportunity, and will he there

therefore do all he can to make sure Britain remains a great place to do

business and prosper in?

CHEERING.

Basildon has a special place in my heart.

I did not know those statistics, but it now has

an even more special place.

I can tell him that the long-term youth claimant count

in his constituency is down by 42% in the last year.

He spoke about what a good place Britain is to do business.

I am pleased to say we are now sixth in the world rankings for the best

place to set up and to run a business, and I know that the Leader

of the Opposition, not least because his new spokesman is apparently a

great admirer of the Soviet Union, he will be very pleased to start

the day with tractor statistics.

Jeremy Corbyn.

CHEERING.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I start by associating myself with the remarks the Prime Minister

just made about Michael Meacher, and on behalf of the Labour Party,

his constituents, and the much wider community,

our condolences to his family.

I spoke to them last night and asked them how they would

like Michael to be remembered.

They thought about it, and sent me a very nice message,

which if I may, I will read out.

It's quite brief but it's very poignant.

This is what they said, memories of Michael.

"When I was young, one of the things he frequently said to me was that

people went into politics because they had principles and wanted to

change things to make the world better but that in order to get

into power, they would often compromise on their principles,

and that this could happen again and again until, if they eventually

did get into power, they would have become so compromised,

they would do nothing with it."

Those who knew Michael knew him as a decent, hard-working,

passionate and profound man.

He represented his constituency with diligence

and distinction for 45 years.

He was a brilliant Environment Minister, as the

Prime Minister has pointed out.

He was totally committed to Parliamentary democracy,

and of this Parliament holding all governments to account,

and he was a lifelong campaigner against injustice and poverty.

We remember Michael for all of those things.

We express our condolences and our sympathies to his family

at this very difficult time.

His will be a hard act to follow, but we will do our best.

Mr Speaker, following the events in the other place on Monday evening,

and the rather belated acceptance from the Prime Minister of the

result there, can he now guarantee to the house and to the wider

result there, can he now guarantee to the House and to the wider

country that nobody will be worse off next year as a result

of cuts to Working Tax Credits?

I can guarantee that we remain committed to the vision of a high

pay, low tax, lower welfare economy, and we believe that the way to make

sure that everyone is better off is to keep growing our economy, keep

inflation low, keep cutting people's taxes, and

introduce the National Living Wage.

As for our changes, the Chancellor will set them out

of the Autumn Statement.

in the Autumn Statement.

I thank the Prime Minister for that, but the question I was asking was

quite simply this, will he confirm right now that tax

credit cuts will not make anyone worse off in April next year?

What we want is for people to be better off

because we are cutting their taxes and increasing their pay.

But he is going to have to be a little patient,

because although these changes passed the House of Commons five

times, with ever-enlarging majorities, we will set out our new

proposals in the Autumn Statement, and he will be able to study them.

This is the time when we ask questions to the

Prime Minister on behalf of the people of this country.

They...

LAUGHTER.

Thank you!

LAUGHTER.

Mr Speaker, if I may continue...

People are very worried about what is going to happen to

them next April, so what exactly does the Prime

Minister mean, he is considering it, there is an Autumn Statement coming

up, but we thought he was committed to not cutting tax credits.

Is he going to cut tax credits or not?

Will people be worse off or not next April?

He must know the answer.

I will make two points.

First of all, we set out in our election

manifesto, we were going to find ?12 billion of savings on welfare.

This is...

CHEERING.

Order.

There is too much noise in the chamber.

Order!

A bit of calm.

The questions must be heard, and the answers must be heard.

The Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is an important point, because every penny we do not save

on welfare is savings we must find inthe education budget or

on welfare is savings we must find in the education budget or

in the policing budget or in the health budget.

The second point that I would make is, because of what has happened

in the other place, of course, we should have a debate

about how to reform welfare and how to reduce the cost of welfare.

I am happy to have that debate, but of course it is difficult to

have a debate with the honourable gentleman,

because he has opposed every single welfare change that's been made.

He does not support the welfare cap.

He does not support the cap on housing benefit.

He does not think that any change to welfare is worthwhile,

and I have to say, if we want a strong economy, and we want growth,

and we want to get rid of our deficit and we want to secure our

country, we need to reform welfare.

What we are talking about are tax credits for people in work.

The Prime Minister knows that and he understands that.

He has lost the support of many people in this country that

are actually quite sympathetic to his political project.

Some newspapers who support him have now come out against him on this.

He did commit to ?12 billion in cuts in the welfare budget, but

repeatedly refused to say whether tax credits would be part of this.

In fact, he said they weren't.

Can he now give us the answer we are trying to get today?

Answer the question!

The answer will be set out in the Autumn Statement when we set out our

proposals, but I have to say to him, it has come to quite a strange set

of events when you have the House of Commons voting for something five

times, when there is absolutely no rebellion amongst

Conservative Members of Parliament, or, indeed, amongst Conservative

peers, and the Labour Party is left defending and depending on unelected

peers in the House of Lords!

In British politics, we have got a new alliance -

the unelected and the unelectable!

CHEERING.

Mr... Mr Speaker...

Mr Speaker, it is very interesting that

the Prime Minister still refuses to answer the fundamental question.

This is not a constitutional crisis.

This is a crisis for three million families in this country.

For three million families who are very worried about what is

going to happen next April.

Just before the last election, the former Chief Whip, now

Justice Secretary, said in answer to a question on the BBC World at One,

"Are you going to cut tax credits?"

The answer was, "We are not going to cut them."

Why did he say that?

What I said in the election is that the basic

level of child tax credits would stay the same, and at ?2,780 per

child, it stays exactly the same.

But the point is this, if we want to get our deficit down, if we want to

secure our economy, if we want to keep on with secure growth,

we need to make savings in welfare.

Now, even with his deficit-denying, borrow-forever plan, presumably,

he has to make some savings in public spending.

If you don't save any money on welfare, you end up cutting

the NHS, you end up getting even more deeply policing budgets.

Those are the truths.

the NHS, you end up cutting even more deeply policing budgets.

Those are the truths.

When is he going to stop his deficit denial, get off the fence,

and tell us what he would do?

Mr Speaker, I've...

Order!

A moment ago, I said that the answers needed to be heard.

The questions need to be heard.

The Right Honourable Gentleman was going to ask his question.

It will be heard.

If it takes longer, so be it.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Five times I have asked the Prime Minister today whether or not people

will be worse off if they receive Working Tax Credits next April.

He has still not been able to answer me, or indeed, many others.

Can I put to him a question I was sent by...

LAUGHTER.

Mr Speaker, it might be very amusing to members opposite, but...

LAUGHTER.

I was sent this question by Karen, and I quote.

"Why is the Prime Minister punishing working families?

I work full-time, and earn a living wage within the public sector.

The tax credit cuts will push me and my family into hardship."

Can he give a cast-iron guarantee to Karen

and all the other families who are very worried what is going to happen

next April to their income, how they are going to make ends meet?

He could give them the answer today.

I hope he will.

I ask him, for the sixth time, please give us an answer to a very

straightforward, simple question.

What I would say to Karen is this.

If she is on the living wage, working in the public sector, next

year in April, she will benefit from being able to earn ?11,000 before

she pays any income tax at all.

It was around ?6,000 when I became Prime Minister.

If she has children, she will benefit from 30 hours

of childcare every week.

That is something that has happened under this government.

But above all, she will benefit because we have got a growing

economy, because we have got zero inflation, because we have got two

million more people in work, because we're going to train three million

apprentices in this Parliament.

And that is the fact.

The reason the Labour Party lost the last election is they were

completely un-trusted on the deficit, on debt,

and on a stable economy, and since then, the deficit deniers

have taken over the Labour Party.

That is what happened, and when you look at their plans, borrowing

forever, printing money, hiking up taxes, it is working people like

Karen that would pay the price.

Mr David Morris.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, in my constituency, unemployment has fallen

by 30% since 2010.

And this government has delivered the M6 link road after 60 years,

which will create even more jobs in my area when it is completed.

Does my friend the Prime Minister agree with me that the Conservatives

are ensuring that Morecambe is back open for business?

I well remember visiting my honourable friend's constituency and

looking at the very important road works that were being put in place

that are going to open up the port, help when we bring the new nuclear

power station and all the other steps that he wants to see.

I can tell him that the long-term youth claimant count

in his constituency has fallen by 30% in the last year.

Those are all young people now are able to work and able to

benefit from our growing economy.

Mr Angus Robertson.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

We on these benches associate ourselves with

the condolences already expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of

the Opposition for Michael Meacher.

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister

about the tragic circumstances of Michael Sullivan, a disabled man

from North London who took his own life after an assessment by the

Department for Work and Pensions.

We know that at least 60 investigations have taken place into

suicides following the cancellation of benefits, but the findings

of them have not been published.

The Prime Minister said to me last week that he would look

very carefully at the specific question about publication.

Will the Prime Minister confirm when those findings will be published?

I will write to him about this, but my memory from looking into

his question afterwards is, there are very good reasons why we can't

publish the specific report that he talks about, because it has personal

and medical data in it, which would not be appropriate for publication.

If I have got that wrong, I will write to him, but that is

my clear memory of looking into his question after last week.

Thank you very much.

Tim Salter from Stourbridge in the West Midlands was 53

when he took his life.

The coroner ruled that a major factor in his death was

a statement that, and I quote, "his benefits have been greatly reduced,

leaving him almost destitute."

Tim's sister said, "it is the vulnerable people who are

going to be affected the worst.

The DWP need to publish these reports."

The Prime Minister says he is concerned of the views

of the families involved.

The families say the findings should be published.

Will he publish the findings?

Three million families are going to have

their child tax credits cancelled.

We need the answers to these questions.

Well, first of all, let me just correct him on his last point.

Under the proposals put forward, those people on the lowest levels

of pay were protected because of the National Living Wage, and those

people on the lowest incomes were protected because we were protecting

the basic award of the child tax credit at ?2,780.

I think the other part of the question is the bit I have already

answered, which is my understanding, but I will send him a letter if I

have got it wrong, is that there were too many personal and medical

details for that to be published, and so I think that is an important

consideration in considering whether to publish something.

Mark Pawsey.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister about Ruby.

Ruby is one of my youngest constituents.

She is just one month old.

Why should Ruby face the prospect of spending her entire working life

paying off the debt that has been built up by this generation?

I think it is absolutely right to care about Ruby.

When we became the government, one in four pounds spent by

the Government was borrowed money.

One of the biggest budget deficits anywhere in the world, and it is

always easy for people to say, "put off the difficult decisions, don't

make any spending reductions," but what they are doing is burdening

future generations with debt.

And what I would say to the Labour front bench is,

that is not generosity, that is actually selfishness.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We all know...

LAUGHTER.

I think the Honourable Lady must have misheard.

An innocent error, but Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

We all know about the Prime Minister's broken promise

on tax credits, but will the final nail in the coffin of compassionate

Conservatism be hammered home if he were to scrap universal infant free

school meals in the Spending Review, taking hot, healthy meals out

of the mouths of innocent, blameless infant children?

Will he guarantee now, not to scrap universal infant free school meals,

so he does not go down in history as Dave the Dinner Snatcher.

I am immensely proud that it was a government I glad that introduced

this policy.

13 years of a Labour government. Did they ever do that?

Do you remember the infant free school meals bill

from the Labour Party? No.

So, I'm proud of what we have done, and we will be keeping it.

Thank you very much.

My Right Honourable Friend has demonstrated considerable leadership

in ensuring that Britain is the second-largest donor

of bilateral aid in Syria.

But there is another crisis going on, which the world has

largely forgotten about. In Yemen, there is an ongoing war.

1.4 million people have been forced to flee their homes.

Three million face starvation.

At least half a million children are at risk from life-threatening

malnutrition, and the president of the International Red Cross has said

that in Yemen after five months, we are in the same position as we

are in Syria after five years. Please can we do more?

My honourable friend is absolutely right to raise this,

and we have been involved in trying to help in this situation

right from the start, as in Syria, and we are a major contributor

in terms of humanitarian aid.

We have made clear that all Yemeni parties should engage in good faith

and without preconditions in peace talks to allow Yemen to move forward

towards a sustainable peace.

That needs to be a peace based on the fact that all people

in Yemen need proper representation by their government.

There are similarities with Syria, which is having a government

on behalf of one part of the country is never going to be

a sustainable solution.

How dare anyone in this house earning ?74,000 a year

tell families that their combined income of ?25,000 is too much,

and that they need to give some of it back to balance the economy?

Hear, hear!

Did the Prime Minister refuse to put this in his manifesto because

he knew he would not be elected?

Let me remind the honourable lady about the situation we inherited.

When I became Prime Minister, nine out of ten families were

getting tax credits, including members of Parliament.

That is how crazy the system we inherited was.

We reduced that during the last Parliament, opposed, I have

to say, of course, by Labour and the SNP, to six out of ten families.

Our proposals would take that down to five out of ten families,

but these are not proposals on their own.

They are accompanied by a National Living Wage for the first time.

They are accompanied by allowing people to earn ?11,000 before

paying tax, for the first time.

Those sorts of measures will help the sort

of families she talks about.

The Prime Minister spoke movingly at conference about the plight

of young people in the care system.

Can he answer, what will the government actually do

to improve the life chances of these young disadvantaged children

and give them opportunities as they move forward in their lives?

I thank my honourable friend for the question.

The most important thing we can do is to speed up the adoption system

so that more children get adopted.

Since I have been Prime Minister, we have seen an increase in adoptions,

but because of one or two judgments, it has slipped backwards a bit.

We need to work very hard to make sure more children get adopted.

But for those who can't be adopted, we need to make sure our residential

care homes are doing the best possible job, which is why today I

can announce I have asked the former chief executive of Barnardos, Sir

Martin Narey, who is an excellent public servant, who I worked with

at the Home Office, to conduct an independent review of children's

residential care, reporting to the Education Secretary and myself, so

we can take every possible step to give these children

the best possible start in life.

Redundant steelworkers such as those at Caparo in Wrexham pay

National Insurance contributions and play by the rules.

Why, then, is this government limiting mortgage

interest support for them in the future, and making them pay twice,

once through national insurance, and once through paying back a loan?

Isn't that type of action an irresponsible government

like his should not be pursuing?

And isn't it an example of compassionate Conservatism dying?

Actually, what the gentleman refers to is a temporary recession measure

that was continued in five years, but he does give me the opportunity

to say, as I promised I would last night, to update the house and what

we're doing to help the steel industry, which I know is

important to his constituency.

On energy costs, I can announce today we will refund

energy intensive industries for the full amount of the policy

cost they face as soon as we get the state aid judgment from Brussels.

I can confirm that payment will be made immediately, and it will be

made throughout this Parliament, far more generous than what has been

proposed by the party opposite.

I have had hundreds of e-mails from constituents regarding

the Northern Powerhouse, and I have chosen just one.

John from Weaver Vale emailed me to tell

me to not listen to the Leader of the Opposition, with his strategy of

higher spending, higher borrowing, more debt, but instead, to stick to

our long-term economic...

higher wages, lower welfare, lower tax society.

Does the Prime Minister agree with John from Weaver Vale?

I do agree. John from Weaver Vale has demonstrated

more sense in his e-mail than the Leader of the Opposition did

in at least six questions.

Not only have we seen an economy that is growing,

two million more people in work, low inflation and rising living

standards, but we can also see there are 680,000 fewer workless

households, and 480,000 fewer children in workless households.

To measure the real difference that the growth in our economy is making,

think of those children, those households, and the dignity of work.

Last weekend was the first anniversary

of the death from cervical cancer of Derry girl Sorcha Glenn, aged 23.

In June 2013, she had been concerned enough to ask

for an early smear test but was refused because she was under 25.

Her family have now written an open letter to the Prime Minister.

Can I ask him not to offer here a reflex repeat of the rationale for

current screening age policy, but to reflect on the questions raised

about how this translates into refusing smear tests to young women

like Sorcha and to consider the age-related dilemma since the

screening age was increased in 2004.

The Honourable Gentleman raises a tragic case, and our thoughts

goes out to her family and friends.

It is an important case because the UK National Screening

Committee set the age at 25, and I understand that the reason for that

is not a resources-based decision, but because of potential perverse

medical consequences of carrying out screening routinely

below that age, that there would be a number of false positives

because of anatomical changes that go on at that age.

That is the reason, it is not a resources decision.

But as he says, it is worth looking at those people who fear they have

a family history and ask for a test, and I will certainly write

to him on that specific issue.

Thank you.

Yesterday, the EU said that we can no longer have filters

on the internet to protect our children from indecent images.

I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do to make sure

that our children remain protected.

Like her, I think it is absolutely vitally important that we enable

parents to have that protection for their children from this material

on the internet, and probably like her, when I read my Daily Mail this

morning, I spluttered over my cornflakes, because we worked so

hard to put in place these filters.

But I can reassure her, because we actually secured an opt

out yesterday, so we can keep our family friendly filters to protect

children, and I can tell the house that we will legislate to put our

agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land,

so our children will be protected.

Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister's earlier

remarks about the late Michael Meacher, a decent man, a good

constituency MP, and an extremely effective Environment Secretary.

Yesterday, I visited the refugee camps on

Lesbos, where I met families that were inspirational and desperate.

Along with the British charity workers I found

there, I am frankly ashamed that we will not offer a home to a single

one of those refugee families.

May I ask this question - would he agree with

Save The Children's plea that we take several thousand vulnerable,

unaccompanied children in Europe, some of whom are as young as six?

Let me welcome the minister to his place.

It is good to see such a high turnout of his MPs.

LAUGHTER

Let me answer him very directly.

We have taken the decision as a country to take 20,000

refugees, and we think it is better to take them from the camps instead

of from inside Europe.

I repeat again today that we believe we will achieve 1,000 refugees

brought to Britain, housed, clothed and fed before Christmas.

And specifically on his question about the 3,000 children and the

proposal made by Save The Children.

I have looked at this carefully, and other NGOs and experts point to

the real dangers of separating children from their broader

families, which is why to date, we have not taken that decision.

As he begins his negotiations on our reformed relationship with the

European Union in earnest, will my Right Honourable Friend confirm to

our partners and the British people that no option is off the table, all

British options will be considered, including the option

of a relationship such as that of Norway, if it is negotiable

and in our interests?

I can certainly confirm no options are off the table.

If we don't get what we need in our renegotiation,

I will rule nothing out.

But I do think it is important, as we have this debate as a nation,

that we are very clear about the facts and figures

about the alternatives.

Some people arguing for Britain to leave the European Union, not all,

but some, have particular pointed to the position of Norway,

saying that is a good outcome.

I would guide very strongly against that.

Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do.

They take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country.

But, of course, they have no seat at the table,

they have no ability to negotiate.

I am not arguing that all of those who want to leave the EU

say they want to follow the Norwegian path but some do

and I think it is important in this debate that we absolutely

are clear about the consequences of these different actions.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating

my 17-year-old constituent Jesse McCabe on her 3,800 name

e-petition that has managed to get the exam board at EdExcel

for the first time ever to accept women composers on the syllabus?

Will he tell us, is he a feminist?

If feminism means that we should treat people equally, then, yes,

absolutely. Absolutely.

And I am proud of the fact that I have got sitting round the Cabinet

table a third of women sitting around the Cabinet

table, something we promised and something that we delivered.

Yes.

But can I congratulate her, above all, for her achievement

in terms of this e-petition.

It sounds thoroughly worthwhile and her constituents

and her have done a good job.

Sir, the NHS England knows that the Isle of Wight

Clinical Commissioning Group is a significant outlier

in relation to its allocation targets.

Can my Right Honourable Friend confirm that progress is being

made to identify the factors affecting the island?

Will we benefit from amendments to the new CCG formula?

It is right that decisions on allocations are made independent of

government and not my government so that is how the formula is reached.

There is an independent review of the funding formula underway.

We expect to see its recommendations later this year.

These things should be done in a fair and transparent way.

The Prime Minister will remember meeting my constituents

Neil Shepherd and Sharon Wood.

Nine years ago this week, Neil took their two children Christi

and Bobby on holiday to Corfu and the children tragically died

of carbon monoxide poisoning.

The family's dearest wish is that no other family suffers the heartbreak

and tragedy that they have endured.

Tomorrow in the European Parliament, there will be a vote

on the recommendation that the commission brings forward

legislation to improve carbon monoxide safety and fire safety

for tourism premises in the EU.

Can I ask the Prime Minister whether his MEP supports it?

And if that motion falls, will he look at instigating legislation

nationally in this country?

First of all, I well remember the meeting that we

had and the bravery of the parents after that terrible loss, wanting to

go on and campaign to make sure that others didn't go and lose children

in the way that they had.

I will look very carefully at what she is saying about the

European Parliament.

As for legislation in this country, we do have very strict legislation

on particular things about fire resistant materials but I

will look carefully at that, too.

Question 14. Closed question.

Mr Michael Fabricant.

...14, sir.

The Chancellor and I set out an ambitious long-term plan for the

Midlands, making its future engine for growth for the whole of the UK.

Across government, we are actively working with business leaders

and local authorities to progress this ambition.

Mr Michael Fabricant.

I thank my Right Honourable Friend for his answer.

The Northern Powerhouse will help millions.

But it is the West Midlands which is the only region in the UK

which has the trade balance surplus with China and it is

Greater Birmingham which has the fastest rate of private sector to

job creation in the UK since 2010.

So, will the Prime Minister now ensure in the national interest that

the West Midlands secures the best devolution deal possible?

I think we have huge potential here to ensure devolution to the

West Midlands.

I would say to everyone in the West Midlands concert and that they are

going to be left out of the Northern Powerhouse, actually, I think the

Midlands is in the perfect place to benefit both from the success and

growth of London and of course a rebalancing of our economy

towards the North of England.

In terms of the West Midlands, we look forward to the

West Midlands combined authority coming forward with its plans.

What I would say to all the areas contemplating devolution

and devolution deals, the more you can put on the table

and the bolder you can be with your vision, the bolder response you

will get from government.

Can I tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that the strong

support for all the parties, the local business authorities

right across the West Midlands for a properly funded and significant

devolution deal to strengthen the economy, to boost productivity,

to get Brownfield sites redeveloped, to tackle congestion so that we can

transform the West Midlands with more jobs, but skills, quick

transport links and new homes?

I am very glad to hear from the Honourable Gentleman what

an opportunity there is in the West Midlands to work across party to get

the very best there is in the West Midlands to work across party to get

the very best deal across all of these authorities. Because,

as I said, the more we can get the local authorities to come

together and work together and put their ambition and vision

on the table, the better response they will get from government.

Does my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that bullying

in the workplace is reprehensible?

Can he tell me whether the government is planning any review

of the legislation with a view to extending it to this chamber?

Given that my honourable friend has been called

for a Prime Minister's Question at 12.38, I would have thought any

hint of bullying was clearly over in this House in any conceivable way.

He suffers no disadvantage and I think that is a very good thing.

But I mustn't make light.

Bullying in the workplace is a problem.

We do need to make sure it is stamped out and dealt with where

ever it occurs and that should apply in Parliament as elsewhere.

Hear, hear!