15/06/2011 The Record

Welcome to The Record. The headlines and David Cameron and Ed

Miliband battle over welfare changes for cancer patients.

Ministers urge unions to call off co-ordinated strikes. Anger over

plans to make the cheque book a thing of the past. This is a

shocking mess and a scandal. eyes were on Ed Miliband during

Prime Minister's Questions after what was considered a poor

performance by him last week. He concentrated on welfare changes set

out in the Welfare Reform Bill, which MPs were due to discuss later

today. It would mean thousands of cancer patients would lose money.

Mr Speaker, when Andy Prime Minister signed off his welfare

Bill, did he realise it would make seven thousand cancer patients

worse off by a �94 per week? That is simply not the case. We are

using the same definition of people suffering as a terminally ill as

the last government. We want them helped and protected. If you are in

favour of welfare reform, you encourage people to do the right

thing, it is no good talking about it, you have got to vote for it.

Miliband insisted his figures were Macmillan Cancer Support says... I

think they should listen to what they have to say! This is what they

have said, I think it is a disgrace Conservative members are shouting.

This is what they have said... Many people will lose this benefit

simply because they haven't recovered quickly enough. Mr

Speaker, I asked him the question, will he admit seven thousand cancer

patients are losing �94 per week? Let me try and explain it again.

Order! Order. I think it is a disgrace members on both sides of

the House are shouting their heads off when matters of serious concern

are being debated. I repeat what I have said before, the public

despise this behaviour. This is important and I want to explain why

Haitink he has got it wrong and why I think we are right. -- why I

think. These are horrible things do have to discuss. The definition is

the same one which as I have said is six months or stop anybody out

of work living longer than that will get the extra support. That is

irrespective of a person's income or assets and that will last for 12

months, not the six months that he said. This additional support can

last indefinitely. It is the same test as the last government. It is

put in place fairly and we have listened carefully to make melon

and we have made sure somebody is reviewing the medical tests. --

Macmillan Cancer Support. I understand he is distracting us but

he should answer my question, why will he not back the Bill? I asked

the questions and he fails to answer them. Let me try and explain

it. The chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support said in my

experience, one year is not long enough for many people to recover

from cancer. The side-effects can last for months or even years after

treatment. It is vital people are not forced to return to work before

they are ready. Macmillan Cancer Support and Britain's cancer

charities have been making this argument for mums. Why does he not

know about these arguments? The House of Commons is a doting on his

Bill tonight. Will he now admits that 7,000 cancer patients are

losing up to �94 per week? I have answered his question or three

times with a full explanation. The point of the benefit reforms is

that there are proper medical tests are. We support people that cannot

work as a compassionate country showed. We make sure people that

can work go out to work so that we do not reward that behaviour. He is

putting up a smokescreen because he has been found out. He talk about

the importance of welfare reform but he cannot take his divided

party with temples DUP it is weak leadership of a divided party. --

divided party. Weak leadership of a divided party. What a disgrace to

talk about a smokescreen. This is about people out in the country and

people concerned on their behalf of. It is not about people terminally

ill. It is people recovering from cancer. The we understand he does

not think his policies through. Is this not one occasion to pause,

listen and reflect? Why does the not too bad? What we have seen this

week is the honourable gentleman get on the wrong side of every

issue. With cutting the deficit, we have got the International Monetary

Fund, his brother, Tony Blair, they are all on our side and he is alone.

On welfare reform we have got everybody recognising welfare

reform apart from the honourable gentleman. On the health service we

have the Royal College of GPs, nurses, positions, the former

Labour Health Minister and Tony Blair all on the side of reform. He

is on his own. A weak leader of a The Government has called on unions

to call off a series of co- ordinated strikes in protest at

changes to pensions, job cuts and a pay freeze. As many as a 750,000

public sector workers are expected to walk out on June 30th. PC as an

two teacher unions have decided to strike on the same day in England

and Wales will stop -- PCS --. -- The unions had been accused of

jumping the gun while talks continued on pension changes.

should not go in for industrial action. It schools close because of

that, the disruption to education and to be lives of parents depended

on schools being open will be very considerable. We are trying to keep

public sector pensions among the best. But other taxpayers have had

their pension schemes affected and I think people will be upset if

industrial action goes ahead. should they be surprised? Many of

them are poorly paid and they have got an onslaught on patients --

pensions. It would be surprising if they did not fight back. If we had

not inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world, we

might not have to take these steps. I would remind them that a civil

servant on medium a, �23,000, retiring after 40 years, will have

a pension costing half a million pounds to purchase in the private

sector. Nobody has access to pensions like that now. May I

commend them for engaging with the public sector unions to avoid

industrial action? But he does not rule out a legislative changes. Can

I plead on behalf of the Select Committee that we do this in an

orderly fashion? Perhaps he should consult about what changes should

be made and then we can have a proper debate instead of being

propelled into legislative changes. I do not have responsibility for

industrial legislation. That rests with the Secretary of State for

business. But we did not rule out changes. Changes have not been

ruled out from outside. We think these legislation works well at the

moment but we keep that under review. Does he agree pensions

should be deferred wages? It should come as no surprise that people are

trying to protect future income. That is why we are engaging with

these discussions at the behest of the TUC. These discussions are

continuing. I remind him that Lord Hutton, the previous Labour

Secretary recommended these reforms to recommend that they are

sustainable and affordable for the future. Any public servant

contemplating strike action currently is jumping the gun.

he understand why public sector unions are balloting members on

strike action now when talks regarding pension dorm are still

ongoing? Only three unions have done that. The majority are

engaging in good faith with the ongoing discussions. We are

determined public sector pensions at the end of the reforms proposed

by Lord Hutton, the Labour pension Secretary, will be among the best

available. We will ask people to work longer because they are living

longer. We want a balance between what they pay and what others paid.

To what extent does he expect PCS action to have an effect on public

services? People are imbued with a strong ethos and will recognise

what we are trying to do is get pensions but continued to be among

the best available. -- that continued. There is a balance

between what they pay and what other taxpayers paid. Some people

have taken a hit. The plan to phase out chequebooks have been attacked

by the Treasury committee. -- has been attacked. They want to get rid

of them by 2018 it a viable alternatives are found. It says

they are in terminal decline as people look at automated payment.

Concerns have been raised about the impact on business and the

vulnerable. The chairman went on the attack. Was this an error of

judgment? I did it is the right thing to do but actually we could

have managed it bettered. -- I think it is. -- better. I am trying

to get clarity on way you think the judgements that you have made which

have triggered these concerns, were they broadly right and was the

presentation that or are these judgments themselves questionable?

I think on balance the approach was right. I think the presentation has

not been good. This is a presentation issue? The big issue

was presentation. What we are trying to do is protect the

position of the Bible. We are trying to insure -- abominable. --

the vulnerable. We are trying to have an acceptable alternative. Had

we not actually take them this Abridge, -- of this method, we

would not have had safeguards in place. What are the alternatives?

The alternatives that he will put him place it chequebooks are ended?

We are looking at a viable alternative. We do not have a clear

alternative? Work is being damned. We are looking at mobile payment. -

- accomplished. Was it foolish to embark on a decision to get rid of

chequebooks before working out at the by alternative? I did not think

it is a colossal error of judgment. Not only have no decision has been

made. In five years we do not have a guarantee that decisions will be

considered. He will not come to a view for at least two five years.

can guarantee that, yes. Why is it that Barclays under the heading,

preparing for the future, why are they telling their customers,

chequebooks are becoming a thing of the past? I have got a letter from

Barclays. I cannot account for what they have said. But what have you

down? Did you know anything about this? What they are telling me is

that it is imperative that we have a viable set up alternatives in

place. Otherwise Barclays cannot support the withdrawal of

chequebooks as set by the payment Council in 2016. Barclays is

prepared to accept chequebooks beyond 2016 it the criteria is not

met. Writing it is clear they are not saying it is definitely

happening. -- I think it is clear. If it is not realistic, they are

saying, then we delay the timetable. That is my position as well. It is

not definitely set. If we can get an acceptable alternative by 2016,

we will deliver or otherwise we What effect do you think that has

on customers who rely on cheques? Look, I need the look at the bank

mandate, without seeing it, I don't know. This is an appalling mess

isn't it. This is a shocking mess. In fact sit a scandal. I mean, here

you are trying to tell us, that there hasn't been a colossal error

of judgment but it is worse than a colossal error of jums. You have

the banks out there, telling customers, that cheques for for the

chop. Look, I am sorry. I obviously will speak to Barclay, I can't

account for what they are saying, I can only represent the payments

council and I can represent do you what they are telling me, and what

they are telling me is what I have just said. And the main news again.

David Cameron has clashed with the Labour leader Ed Miliband during

prim's questions over the issue of welfare payments for cancer

patients. Mr Miliband claimed 7,000 people would be �94 a week worse

off under the Welfare Reform Bill. Mr Cameron accused him of using the

issue as a smoke screen. Still to come: After the recent row over

super-injunction, the Justice Secretary treads carefully on the

issue of parliamentary privilege. want to feel free to say what the

devil I like on legitimate subjects as long as I am taking part in the

proceedings of Parliament. before that, Labour MPs say victim

os domestic abuse will be put at a serious financial disadvantage by

the Government's changes to the system of emergency welfare

payments to vulnerable people. The removal of the Social Fund is

contained in the Welfare Reform Bill which ministers say will bring

about the biggest overhaul of the benefit systems in 70 years. The

bill hands over to local councils the power to make the crisis

payments, but several opposition MPs saucers you problems with the

plan. It is with my experience, that I am so concerned about the

Government's proposals and what it could mean for them. Now a woman

fleeing domestic violence often has to leave her home with nothing more

than the clothes she is standing in without money or access to money

but still needs vital items for herself and her children. A group

of the women's charities have written to the Home Secretary

warning some council also not be financially able or willing to help

women to escape violent partners for, on the grounds of this part of

the legislation, they believe there will be an increased postcode

lottery of provision which doesn't reflect the previous claim that

tackling domestic violence is a priority. They fear that councils

could impose a local connection test which could disadvantage women

fleeing domestic violence wo are often and almost by definition

forced to move into another area. They say many women fleeing the

home have to leave everything behind including household few

nishing and essential items which most families take for granted to

rebuild their lives in a new home. If it is to be localised, if

emergency support is to be localised, what we need is a strong

and unam by -- unambiguous clear statutory duty to support

vulnerable people. I don't think that Status Quo really is an option

because of the level of abuse that we have in the system at the moment.

First, I would point out that in terms of crisis loans, the number

of loans since 2006 has tripled, and we don't really believe that

this increase reflects an underlying increase in genuine need.

Either as a result of the recession or the result of any other things,

because we have looked in detail at the those individuals who are

increase, causing that increased level of demand, and that analysis

has shown it is being driven by young single people, on JSA, many

of whom are still living at home. don't think I would be against the

principle of welfare reform, but what I am against is how it will

affect the people that come to me on a regular basis. There wouldn't

be a week pass in my office and indeed in the offices that I

organise, and look after, that we don't have people in for crisis

loans and people under pressure financial pressure all the time.

Would he agree with me part of the difficulty is in those

circumstances where people's finances are very stretch and where

Tay are very vulnerable, this, the crisis loan system stands between

them and the kind of extortion ath interest lender, which can impact

on their financial welfare but their health anding with bell.

People who are vulnerable, on a low income, particularly have got a

great sense of pride, when claiming benefit. I won't give way at the

moment thank you. And I do believe, I absolutely believe that to force

people into the arms of charity will mean that some people will not

go down that route, and will go to high cost lenders, rather than do

that. I maybe wrong but is the honourable lady really criticises

the charities that provide these services, excellent second-hand

furniture facilities through CBS and so on, because these are not

undignified. These are providing good quality goods that people can

have at reasonable prices and are very worthwhile. Now the Justice

Secretary and land lors Kenneth Clarke has warned the dangers of

MPs an pierce abusing parliamentary privilege. It allows members of

Parliament to say what they like in the Commons and Lords would without

fear of legal reprising. Last month John Hemming was accused of taking

it for granted when he used it to talk about Ryan Giggs. He told a

committee how the privileged principle was ap plied was being

looked at You have to decide what do about the danger, somebody who

wants to defame a rival or enemy, could conceivably find a peer or

member of the House of Commons prepared to use parliamentary

privilege to make statements about the victim with complete privilege

and then it is open season for everybody to print it. I mean, I

don't think it is for the Government necessarily, but I think

the growing habit of court orders being defied by people making

pronouncements using parliamentary privilege which are plainly defying

the court order is something House authorities and members of both

Houses should consider with care. There is a relationship between the

courts and Parliament. There is, and I think we ought to be careful.

I put it as cautiously. Normally like most MPs I rally to the flag

of parliamentary privilege with vehemence. I want to say what the

devil I like on legitimate subjects as long as I am taking part in the

proceedings of Parliament, but perhaps some guidance or measures

by either house to give a steer to members to what is proper and what

is not would be helpful, but it is not easy, not at the moment,

subject either of these hearings or anything I have taken positive

action about. We are looking at it. Elsewhere in the session, the

committee asked the Culture Secretary about the role of the

Press Complaints Commission where people can lodge complaints. Jeremy

Hunt says he saw it as a mediation service. Most of the time they

resolve satisfactorily issues in those 98% of cases by getting an

agreement secured between the press concerned the individual concerned.

But that doesn't always happen, and I think the issue as far as the PCC

is concerned, is that its credibility and its success rests

on confidence of the public. It's a self-regulatery mechanism, not on a

statutory basis and we have deliberately as a country gone down

that route, precisely to avoid the chilling effect that we fear that

statutory regulation might have on the press, but that does depend on

the public having confidence in the way it works, and I think that, I

mean I am sure you are going to come on and talk about phone

hacking, but when issues like that have gone through the courts, and

when that process is complete, then I think people will want to reflect

on whether the PCC has been as effective as it might be and what

it needs to restore public confidence in self regulation of

the press. Is is the confidence of the public more important than the

confidence of the editors? Or equally important or less

important? Well, I would go back to the point Mr Philips said. I think

it is equally important, because effectively, their role is a

mediation role. They are set up as way to ensure a speedy cheap

resolution of people have about the way the press has behaved. If it is

going to be a mediator, it needs to have the confidence of both sides.

The government's saeped report by the former Liberal Democrat leader

Lord Ashdown into Britain's response into international

disasters. In his document published in March, Lord Ashdown

said changes to the system could save lives. He wants to improve

local resilience in at risk countries and help make the

leadership of international responses better and more joined up.

The review followed concerns about the effectiveness of the UK

response to among other things the Haiti earthquake. Lord Ashdown

argued the large numbers killed in the disaster were in part because

of infrastructure and the intablt to respond. The International

Development Secretary welcomed the report. Lord Ashdown's reports sets

a challenging agenda for the 21st century. It recognises that while

disasters are nothing new, we have experiencing a sudden increase in

their intensity -- intensity and frequency. It makes clear this

trend will only grow with climate change, population growth, and

greater urban anyisation. The review concluded that Dyfed has

played a strong patrol in improving the quality of response. This is an

area where Britain is well- respected and well regarded, but

there is no room for complacency which is why I commissioned the

review and why this Government will take action to implement it. There

are some fundamental principles that will guide our response to

humanitarian emergencies. First, we will continue to apply the core

principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality, to all

British Government humanitarian action. Second, we will respect and

promote respect for international humanitarian law. Third, and

crucially, we will be motivated not by political security or economic

objectives, but by need, and need alone. The Ashdown report is an

important step forward. In Government, Labour provided a

strong lead in Government on this issue which produced real reform

but we know there is more to do. As Lord Ashdown said humanitarian work

cannot be the sticking plaster for a lack of political action, but it

can make an important contribution to alleviating suffering round the

world. Today's welcome words, now need to be transferred into the

concrete action for this needed to enshower that in times of crisis it