14/02/2014 The Week in Parliament

time. I will be back with more in about 30

minutes. Now, time for a look back at the week in Parliament.

Welcome to the programme. Gales, floods, rainstorms. Never has the

phrase the political weather had such a literal meaning. When it

comes to this relief effort, money is no object. We will spend what is

necessary to help. Response has to be faster than in the past and

everyone has to feel they are getting the help they need. It may

have been cold and wet outside but inside Westminster, things were

getting hot, especially in the battle over Scottish independence.

We know what we are doing. We are keeping the sterling. (LAUGHS). But

what will happen to people in England without the sterling? There

were a few sandbags of legislation. MPs were allowed a free vote on the

matter of children's health. Hasn't the House of Commons got a

responsibility to do everything possible to protect children from

smoking? Will we have smoking police weaving in and out of traffic and

looking in car windows. If there is not a serious answer to this, how

can it be enforced? This week, the serious questions of the economy had

to take a second place to the weather forecast. There were

alarming scenes of a seriously flooded nation. The Somerset levels

had its fifth week under water. The most powerful image of the

south-west was of the rail line left dangling in Dawlish in Devon. When

the flood levels poured across large swathes of the Home Counties, as the

Thames spilled into the residential avenues, the political stakes were

rising with the water levels. Homes were evacuated as streets and roads

became lakes. The map of red flood alerts looked ominous and sure

enough, it got worse. The communities secretary was briefing

MPs as the events unfolded. Pumping continues but the challenge to keep

up with the correct place of the inflow from the latest rainfall

levels are increasing in some areas. It's likely to take weeks to remove

the sheer volume of flood water once there is a significant break in the

weather. Can he explain why the Prime Minister has been unable to

deny that the Environment Secretary has been forced to write a letter

objecting to the communities secretary 's on one of DEFRA's

agencies? Does he accept in hindsight it was wrong to launch

such a direct attack and will he take this opportunity to apologise?

I don't know if she is obsessed by process. We are much more concerned

with making the effort to deal with problems involved with flooding.

With regard to the Environment Agency, it is entirely wrong for the

honourable lady to suggest for one moment that I have issued even the

slightest criticism of the marvellous workforce of the

Environment Agency. My admiration for the work of the Environment

Agency exceeds that of no one and I believe it's time for us all to work

together. And not to make silly party political points. I do believe

that we need a period of calm in the House because those who have been

flooded and those who are on the verge of being flooded look to us to

show some leadership. I cannot remember a more complacent or

inadequate response from a Cabinet minister to a serious matter in this

House. Last year after last winter's floods and the travel

disruption in the south-west, the government announced ?31 million of

new money for improved rail resilience in the south-west. That

money has still not materialised. Why should anybody believe any of

the new promises he is making now when he has failed to deliver any of

them in the past? I'm sorry that the honourable gentleman seems so

resolved to petty insults across the chamber. Of course, there are people

right now risking their lives, working on the railways to get those

railways running. Tuesday night and David Cameron promised money would

be no object in the ever-growing flood relief effort. On Wednesday, a

flood hit Prime Minister 's questions. Only confirm for everyone

in my constituency that doing everything he can will include not

only reversing cuts to the Environment Agency budget and giving

proper funding for flood prevention but also crucially, crucially...

Crucially removing... He said thousands of military were now in

permission to help out. It's clear that we are seeing more extreme

weather events and we will suspect -- we will go on seeing more extreme

weather events and we must do everything we can to improve the

resilience of our country. When it comes to this relief effort, money

is no object. We will spend what is necessary to help family, people,

communities get through this difficult time. David Cameron had

some more things to announce. I am a gay huge number have already been

deployed and, yes, as we seek -- a huge number have already been

deployed and, yes, those numbers are being deployed to make sure those

people are helped. One of the reassurances he provided yesterday

was to say that money was no object. This morning, the transport

secretary said it was not a blank cheque. Can he say exactly what

areas of spending yesterday's promise covers? Money is no object

in this relief effort. I want communities who are suffering and

people who see water at their doors to know that when it comes to the

military, when it comes to sandbags, when it comes to emergency

services, when it comes to restoring broken flood defences, money is no

object. The government has to speak with one voice on this issue. The

response has to be faster than it has been in the past and everyone

has to feel that they are getting the help they need. If the

government does this, they will get our complete support. What I have

said last night is what I have said today. Money will be no object. I

don't want people to worry about pennypinching as they see the vital

work that is required to help them with their houses and to help them

deal with the floods. That is what this government is doing. We are

deploying the military where we have been asked to. We have been

deploying extra pumps where we have been asked to. We are raising

compensation for local communities. I'm only sorry that he seeks to

define the House when we should be coming together. Will the Prime

Minister after this episode has been dealt with, ensure that we do not

build on floodplains so that people are not inconvenienced in this way?

I will look carefully at that. The figures suggest that in terms of

applications for properties being built on floodplains, the official

advice, and that includes the advice from the Environment Agency, is

followed in 99% of occasions. It's worth remembering that areas like

London are part of a floodplain, so I don't think it's possible to say

that no house can ever be built on a floodplain. What we need to do is

look at the rules and listen to the experts and make sure we can only

build where we can protect. Thursday saw exchanges about climate change.

Does my honourable friend agree that although concern is sometimes

expressed about the cost of climate change at a geisha, recent events

are a stark warning that the cost of adaptation is also very

substantial? -- climate change mitigation. Isn't it actually the

case that movement in the jet stream are more closely and demonstrably

linked to our present adverse weather event than any link to

potentially climate change? As the minister has just accepted, climate

change will lead to these extreme weather events becoming more

frequent, can he explain why his department has been forced to admit

thanks to a Freedom of Information request that total spending on

climate change mitigation and adaptation was cut by more than 40%

since last year? Under the first four years of this government, we

have spent ?2.4 million on flood defences, which is more than was

spent in the last government. This government continues to make this a

priority. The focus is on response today and we will then move into

recovery. But in the long-term, we have secured ?2.3 billion alone into

the next period. On Monday, MPs voted heavily in favour of a ban in

smoking in cars when children are passengers. The vote by a margin of

269 came during debate on the children and families Bill and

followed a similar vote in the House of Lords. The vote does not compel

the government to bring in a smoking ban, which would apply in England

only. The benefit to health was repeatedly spelt out but opponents

argued that a ban could not practically be resourced --

enforced. Everyone is clear that children should not be exposed to

the harm of second-hand smoke. We know that young people have little

choice about being in place where they are exposed to smoke in many

cases. She gave her view of any ban. How does she envisage it might be

enforced? Will we have smoking police weaving in and out of the

traffic and looking in car windows? There must be a serious answer to

this. How will it be enforced? Enforcement has been a subject of

much of the debate in both houses over a number of years and the

detail of that is some of that would be looked at in regulation if the

House is minded to give the government a steer on the principle

of it, but it is not for today's debate. At least, it is not for

me... At least it is not for me to comment on the detail of it but I'm

sure it will be explored in the debate that follows. If we know

beyond any doubt that passive smoking in an enclosed space can do

serious harm to a person's health and that hundreds of thousands of

children are being subjected to this in a car every single week, and if

we know from experience of similar laws passed in this country and

other countries that legislation can have a major impact in changing

behaviour and improving public health, should we act and do some

wing or do we stand by and do nothing? -- act and do some. We we

cannot afford not to act. By that same token, should we criminalise

pregnant women who smoke on the basis that their child is in an even

more confined space than in a car? We are talking about very specific

measure today and he wishes to bring further measures. The point we are

discussing today is about children who don't have a choice when they

travel in a car. I have no quibble with the honourable lady. She

represents new Labour who think they should ban everyone else from doing

the things they don't like themselves. What perturbed me, the

Conservative ministers appear to have not crossed the concept that

you can disapprove of something without actually banning it. This is

yet another in a long line of triumphs for the nanny state. If the

honourable member had been present at the time, he would argue very

strongly against compulsory seatbelts in cars. Of course he

would have done because when I was listening to him today, I hurt the

authentic voice of primitive Tories. I don't work on the assumption,

necessarily on the assumption, but whatever the honourable member

opposes I should support. A short time later, MPs voted in favour of

the ban. 376 votes to 107. Bluff and bullying, the words of the Scotland

first Minister to describe the Chancellor 's declaration that if

the Scots say goodbye to the UK, they also say goodbye to the pound.

The first Minister said that the Chancellor 's view, supported by

Labour and the Lib Dems, would backfire spectacularly. MPs debated

the currency issue on Wednesday. If an agreement was not possible, what

would the plan B? I'm happy to take an intervention now. If you want to

tell the people of Scotland is now what the Scottish nationals second

plan is? What put his policy mean for the people of England? -- what

would his policy means that the people of England, and the price of

holidays fought English people going abroad? Can I apologise to everyone

in this debate because I actually allowed the honourable member to

tell us what the plan B was anti- trunk and on about something to do

with apologies. -- holidays. You will get the same respect under my

chairmanship. Thank you. I will give them one more opportunity to tell us

what the plan B would be. Should people vote yes for independent

Scotland? The question is that we know full well what we are doing. We

are keeping sterling. What would happen to the people of England

without sterling? Imports would be more expensive and holidays would be

more expensive. It is irresponsible to the people of England, as it is

to the people of Wales. In the event of separation, the SNP propose that

currency of a foreign state. There will be no political and fiscal

union. Scotland then becomes, and this is really important for the men

and women in the streets of Scotland, a higher risk as a

result. Interest rates will increase which means we will have to spend

more money on mortgages and on loans and credit cards. The nationalist

will accept that because they will pay any price. Where would

independence keeping sterling leave us? A central bank is not control

the economy. It works to a single 2% inflation target which we think are

sensible. I don't have enough time. It would effectively leave us in

Scotland and the same place in the rest of the UK, accepting the

monetary policy discipline of an independent MDC while leaving

Scotland along with the rest of the UK in complete control of the rest

of its social and economic leaders. He rejected comparisons with the

eurozone currency union. The old chestnut about being like Greece was

also raced again. The problem at that Greece had was nothing to do

with being in a currency union. It had everything to do with having

appalling productivity. Scottish productivity is now identical to the

rest of the UK. Honourable members will be aware that just last week

the governor of the Bank of England set out his views on currency unions

in what I thought was a very measured, and has he described

himself, technocratic terms. Honourable members may also have

read that the Chancellor plans to give a speech on this very matter

later on this week. I will give way. The Prime Minister and Chancellor

have played with Scotland. We have the Prime Minister in London and the

chance threatening us with currency. -- the Chancellor. Which one does he

support? I think that goes to show that the SNP is not interested in

any serious debate on one of the most important issues facing the

Scottish people and the British people. I think it speaks for

itself. The debate over Scotland's future still has seven months to go.

Five Liberal Democrat MPs rebelled on Wednesday night against the

Coalition government over the amounts of money being allocated to

local councils by Whitehall. The Lib Dems were not happy. I hope one of

the things that the minister can see across the house and across the

parties and the rural urban divide is a desire to fundamentally look at

how we reform local government finance going forward. But

fundamentally, my complaint is why should some of the poorest people in

the country on the lowest wages pay far more in council tax and see far

less crimes coming in from central government and at the same time see

local services in raging around them? The argument over climate

change and whether it is man-made continues. It caused this angry

moment when a climate change sceptical MP challenges a scientist.

You are looking at temperature change. Which time period you choose

makes a critical difference to the results you get. All of that is

carefully explains. If I can cut short a very long and irrelevant

answer, I asked a very specific question. You did and I tried to get

a very specific answer. You didn't. I asked why the judgement of the

experts differed. You said it was because the experts start from the

present climate, implying that the others didn't. I then said, am I

correct? I am extremely satisfied by the answers we have had. It is

disgraceful. We have a considerable agenda we want to cover. He is back,

albeit briefly. The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a rare

appearance in the Commons, speaking about the suffering of children and

the conflict in Syria. It is officially, as you know, Madam

Deputy Speaker, already the guest humanitarian tragedy since the

Second World War. Some years from now, the world will look at what

happened and wonder why we did so little. Faced with a catastrophe

that has made more people permanently homeless than the world

's most recent natural disasters from the agents in army of 2004 to

the Haiti earthquake of 2010. Is this the best way to deal with

street protests that get out of hand? Water cannons, and overseas to

cope with unruly demonstrators but they have never been used on the

British mainland. As discussion started using them in London, peers

get their views in first. A pensioner was permanently blinded by

water cannon in Germany. He was part of a protest to stop developers from

cutting down some trees. I'm afraid things are changing. The public

disorder will change its character over the years. We are not in that

era any more. What impact would it have to see London under seat and

cannons being employed? What would be the impact on the economy and

tourists? Is Westminster becoming ever more male? A female MP

announces she is stepping down at the election, earning herself some

glowing tributes in the chamber. Can adversely pay tribute to the

honourable lady who know is not standing again at the next election

and threw her time in Parliament has been a real supporter of many

children in Kayu, particularly the most vulnerable. -- children in

care. I know families are very thankful for the work she has done.

I echo entirely what the minister has said. This house is losing five

to many outstanding members and find too many outstanding female members.

Rainstorms and gale force winds set the political weather this week.