17/12/2015 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursday in Parliament.

A new constitutional skirmish as proposals to restrict the powers

In the battle of blue versus another, there was only going to be

one at Victor. councils a revolutionary deal

as part of the latest local For the first time ever, I offer a

guaranteed a Budget to every council which desires one and which can

demonstrate efficiency savings for next year and for every year of this

Parliament. And time to appreciate the virtues

of English sparkling wine. Will my right honourable friend and

ensure that English sparkling wine is served at Government events? So

that Carver, champagne and the inferior brands are confined to the

seller! But first, the review of the House

of Lords and a brief reminder There's primary legislation,

new measures considered by the Lords and the Commons that

become Acts of Parliament. And there's secondary legislation,

also known as statutory instruments. These are powers provided

for in primary legislation that can be activated by the Government

at a later date. The Government opted to use

a Statutory Instrument, or SI, in the Lords to introduce tax

credit cuts in October. The Lords has the right

to block an SI outright. But on tax credits, they actually

voted for a delay to allow impact Infuriated by the move,

the Government asked a Conservative Lord Strathclyde

to investigate the powers He recommended removing

the Lords ability to The news was delivered

to peers by Lady Stowell, She said that when the Lords refuses

to consent to secondary legislation, That means, unlike in primary

legislation, we are able to exercise a veto. A very significant one. So

by convention, we have exercised that power only in exceptional

circumstances, doing so on only five occasions since World War II. So

withholding agreement to a SI is rare enough. To take that step on a

Budget measure, as we did in October, was unprecedented. To do

that on a Motion that where different sides of the House still

disagree as to its effect took us to Dutch rubber into uncharted

territory. These events put a long established, Incheon in doubt and

raised constitutional questions about the primacy of the elected

House which needed to be examined. My honourable friend was asked to

examine whether there was a better way to hand secondary legislation

and in order that the elected House of Commons could have the decisive

say, just as it does on primary legislation.

Lady Smith called statutory instruments the Government's secret

The changes originally proposed were a major policy shift and it would

have been entirely appropriate to become sent by primary legislation.

But the Government chose to use and SI. I want to consider Lord

Strathclyde's report in more detail. But the process the noble lord

recommends is a very significant change. Contrary to some reports, we

overwhelmingly declined to block the measure through a fatal Motion, but

supported, asking the Government to reconsider and bring forward

changes. That is the right and legitimate role of the second

chamber. And indeed my lord, it allow the Chancellor to reconsider

moving forward even more substantial changes and suggested.

She said it wasn't really about tax credits.

This all paints a very unattractive picture of a Prime Minister and the

Government won't tolerate challenge. The evidence -based for the changes

proposed today are weak. I think we differ Dutchmen I differ from the

noble Baroness in that we are currently in a disagreement as to

what happened in October. That is the problem. Because what has

happened, we are now confused as a House. We don't quite know how to

deal with secondary legislation. Because the procedures that we have

before us have become confusing. For many years now there has been

dissatisfaction in all parts of the House with the binary choice that is

open to your lordship's House of options for either accepting or

rejecting SI. Would you also agree that it is relevant that the

procedure recommended by Lord Strathclyde is very similar to that

which was recommended by all-party Royal commission under the noble

load, Lord Wakeham, and by the leader's group in 2011. And also by

the Hansard Society and others. It would therefore be unfortunate if

the circumstances in which this arose was to close people's minds to

positive consideration of the procedure which Lord Strathclyde has

recommended. The Micra she constantly refers to the event in

October. They were bizarre. The Government proposes a reduction in

the income of people in the lowest paid families, the House of Lords

says we think you should think again about this. The governments,

amazingly, says we are thinking again and we've decided that we

agree with the House of lords. And yet, the Government persists in what

can only be seen as a malevolent way, to set up a committee like this

in order to cut the wings of the House of Lords. Governments to get

irritated by this House. I think I expressed and British myself

occasionally. The weather noble lady is misleading herself, is that the

convention laid down by the cunning the committee has not broken down.

Because in the current convention, and it was a red line for me, it's

very clearly states the House of Lords must retain the right to say

no. And the reason was the reason pub are my friend, that without that

right to say no, you sparingly, use carefully, use rarely, but without

retaining that's right, we become a debating society.

Words of warning for the Government there from Lord McNally.

Shortly afterwards, the statement was debated in the House of Commons

where Opposition MPs suggested that the Government

was manufacturing a constitutional crisis.

It is a compromise option that will provide a House of Lords to think

again and would give the final say to the House of Commons. This will

be achieved by allowing the Commons to override a vote by the House of

Lords to reject a statutory instruments. He also recommended the

Government, with the involvement of the Procedure Committee, should

review circumstances in which Statutory Instrument powers should

be subject to Commons over the procedures, especially on financial

matters. And that the Government ensures the appropriate use of

primary and secondary legislation. The Government will need to consider

Lord Strathclyde's review and his recommendations carefully and we

will respond fully when we have done so. This has all the hallmarks of

Government by a fit of pique. The leader says at this review was set

up, I quote, after constitutional questions were raised about the

primacy of this elected House of Commons. What utter trash! The only

people who are raising constitutional questions whether

Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the lead in the soul. They were

stamping their little fee because they hadn't got their way. There

were protests, and, yes, there were. But there will protest against the

Lords. They were against the Government's miserly attempt to cut

tax credits. Rarely has there been a review of such pointlessness with a

prearranged out, as this endeavour of absolute uselessness is. The

battle of blue versus Ermine, there was only going to be one of Victor,

and not the one elected down the corridor there. However this come

about? It was all was an unlikely concept that this Government were

never allow itself to be embarrassed by them ever again.

Chris Grayling didn't think that was fair.

Lord Strathclyde is the last person to be given a script and told to

write a review and then publish it. He has done lots of work, talked to

a lot of thought carefully. It is a pleasure to be here for this bill.

What we are seeing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is crisis management again,

fire fighting again instead of having a clear strategy about the

what the Government was to do on democracy and constitutional change

in the middle of great change with Evo, with Scottish devolution, with

the mess around English devolution. It is important we should at least

try to see ourselves as others do. And democracies, especially nascent

ones, do look somewhat aghast at some of the more archaic features of

our constitutional arrangements. I deeply regret that this has been

brought forward. The leader speaks as this that Micro as if this is

something for the Government alone. It is not, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This concerns parliament as a whole wave changes to be required, it must

be owned by Parliament as a whole. As a new member of this House, I

have to say I find other plays a completely ridiculous anachronism. I

think the people of Somerset are very confused as to why it should

have any power at all in this place. And I, for one, would rather see it

a much more wide ranging review of what is going on with it.

Now, the Government has promised English councils a "revolutionary

deal" as part of the annual local government settlement.

But extra money will be made available to pay for improved

Labour has warned councils will have to make more cuts.

But the Minister in charge told MPs that local authorities will be able

to sign up to a four-year funding package

For the first time ever, I offer a guaranteed Budget to every council

which desires one, which can illustrate efficiency savings. For

next year and for every of this Parliament. A four-year Budget to

give certainty and confidence. This settlement that maintains the

financial resources available to councils in 2020 at around the same

level as they are today. While giving incentives for local

Government make significant savings. It settle the direct up to three and

a half billion pounds to care for our elderly citizens. They is Doric

and lament that is what campaigners for devolution thought that they

would never live to see, local councils answerable to local people

rather than Central Government. CAGNE sadly, the central message is

the same as ever. Cuts, cuts and more cuts. He admits to cash the

crease of ?200 million between now and 2019-2020. As he forgets to say

that the additional spending pressures amount of his ?6.3 billion

according to the LGA. And this will be inflicted on our communities by

the settlement. And does he agree with his conservative colleague,

chair of the LGA, who said, and I quote directly. It is wrong that

services to our local communities rely on will face deeper cuts than

the rest of the public sector yet again. And for local taxpayers to be

left to bigger the bill for new Government policies without any

additional funding. He goes on, even if councils stopped filling

potholes, maintaining parks, closing children's centres, leisure centres

and turned off every street light, they would still not have saved

enough money to plug the financial black hole which they will face by

2020. That is the Conservative leader of the LGA, Mr Speaker. So

far from this being a tactical settlement, there could be nothing

more strategic than a settlement for the first time ever giving the local

council leaders have long called for, which is the certainty of a

four-year funding settlement previously denied to them and giving

them the chance to manage their affairs in exactly the way they want

to. I congratulate my right honourable friend on having

delivered what is frankly the most imaginative local government

settlement that I have heard in my time in the House, including those

that I had to deliver myself. The paradox of this statement is

exemplified by my own council which has had a reduction of its grant by

50%, and yet a massive increase in responsibilities, so pretending that

adult social care can be picked up by a 2% increase in council tax is

obviously a nonsense. A shortfall in Central Government funding full

Ochil services risks hitting the most vulnerable first, and devolving

responsibility is to local councils without associated funding simply

puts councils in charge of implementing his Government was Matt

Cutts. When I was in the department at the beginning of the previous

government of which is party was a member, the savings required of

local government were higher than required in this government.

You're watching Thursday in Parliament with me,

MPs have been debating the sexual exploitation of 16 and 17-year-olds.

It follows a report by the Children's Society

which concluded that people in this age group are particularly

vulnerable as they transition from childhood to adulthood.

It is time of life that requires nuance, a nuance that does not come

easily in-laws that must deal imprecision. We have an age of

consent to sexual activity set at 16, and we are not suggesting this

is changed, but we do start the debate this evening, this afternoon,

in the light of the Children's Society report that shows that we

still do not get the balance right in the case of sexual expectation of

16 and 17-year-oldss. The report published by the group titled old

enough to know better highlights the difficult vulnerability of that

group, and the regarding the fact that they are children, and the age

of consent. Patricia Gibson said the report made

for harrowing reading. The law recognises that those in

this age range can legally consent to sexual relationships, but under

the children act of 1989, they are so considered children, and as such,

professionals, indeed wider society, has a legal duty to safeguard these

young people from exploitation. We'll 16 and 17-year-oldss continue

to be protected from sexual abuse within the family or from those in a

position of trust, and from sexual expectation offences such as child

prostitution and pornography offences? They simply and

appallingly do not receive the same kind of protections as younger

children. The last Parliament saw the high-profile child exploitation

cases in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, among others. It was

reported of children and young people being passed around for sex

by groups of men, their plight made worse by the attitude of those

working in the agencies charged with protecting them who regarded them as

making a lifestyle choice to exchange sex the gifts. No scope

should be left in a 16-year-old to be considered not vulnerable despite

being a child, when we know there are significant problems with

professionals on the justice system treating this age group as adults or

as resilient, or asking for it, particularly if the victim is seen

to be involved in Krummenacher to. The message will go out to

perpetrators loud and clear that if you sexually exploit, abuse or rape

a 16 or 17-year-old, you will automatically receive a harsher

sentence. The law does not recognise that in many cases where children

aged 16 and 17 become victims of sexual offences, they are coerced

into submission by perpetrators who supply them with drugs or alcohol,

or who the young people are scared of. The capacity to consent is

impaired through an imbalance of power between a child and a

perpetrator, and by the young person's use and /or dependency on

drugs or alcohol prior to the defence. There is clear evidence as

you know that children in care are more vulnerable to grooming and

sexual expectation. Will you look again to see if this highly

vulnerable group of 16 and 17-year-olds could have the

protection of a child abduction warning notice? We must also

remember that there are other vulnerable 16 and 17-year-oldss who

are not look -- looked after by local authorities. They could be

disabled or young carers. We do need to work across Government, and that

is why we have established across government response, and I want to

ensure all members that this is a top priority for this Government.

The Home Secretary launched the report tackling child sexual

expectation in March this year, and this sets out a national response to

the failures we have seen in rather as represented are damnable lady,

Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, where children let down by the very

people who were responsible for protecting them. We will continue to

overall the police -- overhaul the police and social services.

Significant work has and is taking place in cross government, but given

the time available, I will not go through the points raised today. But

I will say my door is always open, and all honourable members are very

welcome to come to see me at we can discuss their concerns and the work

that is being done, and I will be happy to share in detail the work

Governments Governments

So it must be time for some panto-related jokes

This year they were cheerfully supplied by Labour MP Chris Bryant.

the panto season is now upon us. Oh, yes it is! And Cinderella is

appearing locally. Apparently auditions were last month, so

unfortunately, they will have to do without my Prince Charming. However,

I feel that the Epsom Playhouse in the right honourable member's

constituency has beauty and the beast at the moment. There is a

rumour going around at the leader and the deputy leader are going to

be appearing in this production on select nights.

He was talking about Chris Grayling and Therese Coffey, who,

by the way, was wearing a fabulous Christmas jumper.

I'm pretty certain that the Debaty leader will be playing Mrs Potts,

because she will be Mrs coffee pots. That is the worst labour joke today

at! Well, it may not be, actually. And as for the Leader of the House,

Mr Speaker, he is no beast, obviously, but I hear there was a

mystery bidder earlier on this week at the sale of Mrs Thatcher's

frocks, and there is a rumour that he is going to be seen waltzing

across the stage in that black printed chiffon number as Belle. And

a review of the year from Chris Grayling. The Conservatives won the

election, and Labour lost. And I think Liberal Democrats have done an

invisibility cloak since then. There has been a slight change in numbers

on the benches over there. And then of course we all came back to

Westminster, and you will remember those happy early-morning sprints as

the Labour left of the Scottish National Party rushed for the best

seats. But they don't need to do that any more, because the Labour

left has moved from those seats to the front bench and the leadership

of the Labour Party. What we will see in the New Year is whether the

shadow leader, and there is a proud tradition of these things, decides

to do anything about that. And it was back to panto with the

SNP's Pete Wishart. I'm surprised to see so many of my colleagues here

tonight, because it was our Christmas party last night, and

there were fine renditions of 500 Miles and Loch Lomond. We also have

Beauty and the Beast at Perth concert Hall. Looking at the Labour

benches, I thought Sleeping Beauty might be more appropriate. And I

always like a good pantomime horse! Now, forget about Champagne

and Cava and Prosecco. If you're looking for a bit

of festive cheer, try some English English wine is a

flourishing industry. The French Champagne producer

Tattinger has recently announced that it's going to produce

English fizz in Kent. English but DeWine is a growing

industry worth almost ?100 million, and I know that two sparkling wines

recently beat champagne in a wine critics' tasting competition. We are

promoting the industry. I thank my right honourable friend for her

answer. In my West Sussex constituency, there has been a

remarkable increase in wine production. Is it not time that a

co-ordinated strategy to promote these excellent wines which beat

others from around the world in wine tastings, and will my right

honourable friend ensure that English sparkling wine is served at

Government events, and Seco, Carver, champagne and other inferior brands

are consigned to the cellars? I will be holding a roundtable in the New

Year with the sparkling wine industry to talk about how we can

encourage the industry to grow. I recently held an event in Shanghai,

and I'm in courage in all of my colleagues across Government to use

English sparkling wine as they drink of choice. Can I thank the Secretary

of State for her support of the English wine industry, and her

recent visit, and I hope that she has a tipple of Breaky Bottom with

her Christmas lunch! How are her discussions with the Chancellor

going to get a better deal on tax English wine producers?

The Environment Secretary pointed out that excise duty is one

And she reassured MPs that during a trip to a Sussex vineyard,

she did her bit for the wine industry!

I did have a very enjoyable morning in Sussex. We started the tour at

9am, and it was one of the best days in the job! Will my right honourable

friend join me in welcoming that injure's new venture to produce

sparkling wine in my constituency? -- Tattinger's. It is not a surprise

that even the French want to get in on the action of English sparkling

wine, and using Defra's data, we have identified an additional 75,000

acres across the country which are suitable for growing sparkling wine.

That is the equivalent of the Champagne region, so I'm sure it

Cheers to that! will go from strength to strength.

And on that note, I'd like to wish you a very happy and peaceful

We'll be back in the New Year, on the 5th of January 2016.

Until then, from me, Kristiina Cooper, goodbye!