07/01/2016 Thursday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Thursd`y in Parliament, our look at the best

of the day in the House of Commons.

On this programme: The equalisation of the state pension age

is adversely affecting women, say MPs.

I understand, I fully understand the question,

where are you going to find the money?

But I refuse to accept or bdlieve that it's got to come out

of the pensions of older wolen.

Labour attacks the government's decision to give extra support

to diesel electricity gener`tors.

In just one day in December, she agreed to subsidise highly

polluting diesel generators to the tune of ?175 million.

And putting a minister on the spot.

A Shadow Cabinet member trids to find out if his opposite number

wants Britain to stay in or come out of the European Union.

It's an out, isn't it?

He's an outer!

Come on, come out, come out

But first, it's been claimed that hundreds of thousands of wolen born

in the 1950s are facing hardship following the decision to epualise

the state pension age with len.

In the 1990s, the government agreed that women and men should both

retire at 65.

The change was due to start until 2010.

Ministers then raced the st`te retirement age to 66 and,

in 2011, speeded up the change.

In a Commons debate, MPs claimed that women born

in the 1950s were not inforled in time to make other plans

and that, for many, working until they are 66 or funding

a private pension were not viable options.

MPs asked for the government to make transitional arrangements.

Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years

after the changes came in.

That's 14 years less these women have to prepare and to try `nd make

some alternative arrangements.

Yes.

She is making a very import`nt point but isn't the injustice to this set

of women this in a nutshell - that they've not just had one change

to the state pension age, they've had two, that that process

has been accelerated and thdre is no transitional arrangements in place?

Isn't that the real unfairndss here?

The whole thing clearly became a total mess.

That's quite evident and I don't know whether it wasn't reported

deliberately, for political reasons or fear of ramification.

I don't know whether it was a genuine accident.

I don't know.

But what I do know is women were not notified, it wasn't reported

and they weren't given enough time to be able to make

the appropriate arrangements.

That then brings us on to the Pensions Act in 2007.

And it increased the equalised SPA from 65 to 66 between 2024-26 and it

gave all affected people, effectively, 17 years' notice.

That's fair enough.

But then we come onto what ly colleague has mentioned -

the Pensions Act 2011.

And that came along and that said, forget the 17 years' notice.

We are going to rush this through.

We need to do this right now.

Those who are sitting up in that gallery right now -

they did not cause the financial crash, they did not cause

the state our economy is in and they did not make

the irresponsible decisions that have got us here.

I understand, I fully understand the question,

where are you going to find the money?

But I refuse to accept or bdlieve that it's got to come out

of the pensions of older wolen.

We all agree with equalisathon of the pension age but therd

are large sums of money involved in this and there are difficult

decisions that have to be m`de.

But it is important, Mr Spe`ker that the rule of fairness is applied

as much as possible and it's clear that a sizeable group of wolen

seemed to be bearing the brtnt of these changes disproporthonately.

I'll give way over there first.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The honourable gentleman is making an important speech.

I would ask him, when he is talking about fairness, if he realises how

this feels for women of my generation who owe evdrything

to those women who were born in the 50s, who fought

for the Equal Pay Act, and for all the advantages that have

given us any chance?

Does he feel that unfairness to those women, as I do?

I've had representations from constituents who were in low-paid

jobs with huge caring responsibilities for childrdn,

for other family members, when they didn't have access to free

childcare and other things, and we have them to thank for that.

And yet it's those people, for whom I think there's now been

a breach of trust, effectivdly, by these changes hitting thdm

disproportionately, to whom we have a large dutx of care

that I don't think we are going to be fulfilling.

I do think, Mr Deputy Speakdr, that there is a risk today

of overstating the case and my colleague in the Select Comlittee

will not mind me, I hope, saying that when she said nobody

was aware of the 1995 changds, there was no correspondence.

That simply is an exaggerathon of the situation.

We will never know exactly who was communicated to and who

probably most importantly, noticed it and paid attention to it.

Not yet, certainly not at the moment.

But nonetheless, the argument that no transitional arrangements

were made, which is what the honourable members are calling

for today, is of course also wrong.

There was a significant transitional arrangement and concession lade

in 2011 which affected 250,000 people and cost the

government ?1.3 billion.

Some women born in the 1950s will have started their working

lives without even the protdction of the 1970 Equal Pay Act.

Many of those women will have carried out work at a lower rate

than men for no other reason than that they were women.

The gender pay gap is at its widest for many of the women

who are under discussion today.

And let's not forget either the time that many of them have taken,

part-time or to bring up chhldren, and not even had the chance to

contribute to occupational pensions.

Does the government underst`nd the anger that there is that more

transitional provisions havd not been considered,

the over 100,000 signatures for a debate in this House,

the online campaign that thdre has been in respect of this matter?

The government listened to the concerns expressed

at the time of the 2011 act and shortened the delay that anyone

would experience in claiming their state pension relativd

to the 1995 timetable to 18 months.

This concession benefited almost 250,000 women who would othdrwise

have experienced delays of tp to two years.

It is regrettable that people have sought to make this on a political

basis and have conveniently forgotten that after 1995,

there were 13 years of Labour government.

And I have here a list of some ten pensions ministers,

all during the Labour administration, and they totally

failed to do anything yet they conveniently seek to ptt

the blame post-2010 onwards.

And s motion calling for transitional funding

arrangements to be made was passed by 158 votes to zero.

The result is not binding on the government.

The Energy Secretary has adlitted that household energy bills

will rise because of a decision to award ?175 million of support

to diesel electricity gener`tors.

Amber Rudd conceded that the new subsidies for diesel

would add a few pounds to family energy bills.

The subsidies are paid to power plants to ensure they are

on stand-by if extra electrhcity capacity is needed.

The Shadow Energy Secretary took up the issue in the Commons.

Last month, the Secretary of State agreed to hand out hundreds

of millions of pounds in new public subsidies to diesel and coal power

generators through her capacity market scheme.

Can she tell the House how luch family energy bills will

rise as a consequence?

We have needed to make sure the capacity market is in place

to ensure that we don't havd any problem at all with energy security.

Diesel will form part of thd future but only in very small amounts.

Let us remember it is there as back-up and will be switched

on occasionally when it is needed.

The addition of the capacitx market to people's bills will be

a matter of a few pounds.

In just one day in December, she agreed to subsidise highly

polluting diesel generators to the tune of ?175 million paid

for by increasing family energy bills.

Can she answer this, Mr Spe`ker - are those companies now expdcted

to make returns of more than 20 at the expense of bill-payers?

What is astonishing is the honourable lady's lack

of understanding of the fact that the capacity market is needed

because of Labour's woeful underinvestment in infrastrtcture

under their government.

We are left with the conseqtences of making sure that energy security

is completely reliable.

The capacity market is essential to ensure that that hole is filled

and we are proud of the way it has delivered.

The second auction has just completed.

As I said to be honourable lady it is a few pounds.

It will be under ?10.

And we will ensure that energy security is never going to be

a question under this government.

Another Labour MP turned to the plans for a complete shutdown

of all remaining coal-fired power stations by 2025.

Everyone in this Chamber benefits this year from electricity,

from coal burnt in power st`tions.

What contingency agreement has been reached with EDF to ensure

that in 2026 and beyond, when we don't have enough power

available, the decision to close down coal-based power

stations can be reversed?

Mr Speaker, can I reassure the honourable gentleman

that we are moving to a consultation on ending coal-fired power

stations by 2025?

I am sure that he will want to participate in it but thhs

government is taking the long-term view on getting the right

mix of decarbonising and having energy security.

And that is why we are making this plan well ahead of time.

It is ten years ahead.

Onto the issue of nuclear energy.

Outside Hinkley Point C, they are proposing a new nuclear

power station.

The government is considering having discussions with only a single

supplier for each one.

So this means, yet again, the government is going to be held

hostage with no guaranteed programme, high profits

for the suppliers and extortionate strike rates agreed.

Should the government not do the decent thing and rethink

this nuclear policy?

Mr Speaker, the government thinks that nuclear reactors

are an important part of delivering on the low carbon future.

There is a great opportunitx for making sure that we also develop

skills, as my honourable friend has referred to,

but on the particular example that he has referred to,

I will ensure that my department looks carefully and comes b`ck

to him with some answers.

Caroline Lucas.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In her attempt to explain the hugely unpopular cuts to solar,

the Secretary of State constantly pretends this is about reducing

costs to householders.

Given that the industry analysis shows that solar costs around half

the cost of Hinkley over 35 years and would save consumers around ?15

billion, how can she keep jtstifying such blatant double standards

when it comes to nuclear power?

I'm sorry but the honourabld lady is just not dealing with thd facts!

The facts are that the solar changes will still deliver a 5% yield

to people who put them up.

The fact is that nuclear provides important baseload when the sun

isn't shining or in terms of wind, when the wind isn't blowing.

The honourable lady can have her own views.

She can't have her own facts.

Amber Rudd.

Well, is fracking the answer to Britain's energy needs?

Not everyone is convinced.

The controversial process of extracting gas from rocks deep

underground by means of a high-pressure water mixture

continues to divide opinion.

At the end of 2015, MPs votdd to allow fracking the shale gas

underneath national parks and other protected sites so reversing

a decision they had taken 12 months before.

But opponents of fracking are continuing their protests.

In the Commons, an energy mhnister wondered why fracking

was being viewed as some kind of disaster.

She was responding to this puestion from a familiar Labour figure.

Doesn't the minister accept that widespread opposition to fr`cking

exists in all parts of Brit`in?

Will she congratulate, as I have done, the residents

in Bolsover for refusing to allow a drilling operation

and getting it stop?

Not only by the local authority but by her own inspectorate.

Well, I think it is quite extraordinary, Mr Speaker,

that honourable members opposite continually talk about the potential

for shale gas as if it is some kind of disaster.

The honourable gentleman hilself comes from a very honourabld

and long-standing mining arda.

Now, mining has a legacy that we will be dealing

with for many years to come.

The shale industry, on the other hand, offers the opportunitx

to really create a new home,grown energy source that is vital

for our energy security into the next decades.

Andrea Leadsom.

You are watching our round-tp of the day in the Commons

and Westminster Hall.

Still to come...

MPs discuss an unlikely contender for classification as a supdrfood.

Now, is the military covenant working successfully?

It sets out the relationship between the UK, the Governmdnt

and our Armed Forces, following the principle

that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of thd forces

and their families.

The military covenant has bden debated in Westminster Hall.

Whilst the term "covenant" seems to imply some form of legally

guaranteed contract, it is not as such enshrined in law.

Over 400 years, though, the state has recognised sole

obligation towards its Armed Forces.

Queen Elizabeth I, for inst`nce providing by statute in 1593

a weekly parish tax to support disabled army veterans returning

to their homes.

But it is very important we do not see the stories that occasionally

we do see about servicemen having to sell homes to fund the ptrchase

of prosthetic limbs, or when we see other veterans

being forced out of the famhly home in search of medical help.

We need to make sure that those duties are taken on by socidty.

Not just because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do,

the honourable thing to do, but actually because it is the best

thing to do and the safest thing to do.

And the most sensible thing to do.

There is also no doubt that the military covenant has been

a step forward by the UK Government in how we look

after our servicemen and wolen.

I welcome that.

However, without teeth, without enforcement,

whilst expecting servicemen and women or veterans to enforce

the spirit and will of the covenant themselves,

in some areas of the countrx, it is unfortunately felt

to be empty promises.

We have had reports where people are waiting,

whether it is a transfer from one service to another

because of relocation or whether or not it is being

on waiting lists for far too long.

And we need to make sure that the needs of veterans,

as well as serving personnel, are expediated as fast as possible.

And their families as well, to make sure that that takes place.

The honourable member for North Wiltshire rightly pointed

out that the covenant deals with a huge range of aspects

of military and veterans' issues.

One area where we may usefully ask further questions is on concerns

health care might not be kedping up to speed with mental health needs.

For example, what support is given to Royal Navy personnel

who are currently operating in the Mediterranean on a d`ily

basis and seeing young children and their parents drowning

in desperate searches for a safer life?

It must be incredibly distrdssing and it is our duty to consider

the well-being of our forces as they go about this

vital humanitarian task.

We have managed to embed the principles of the coven`nt

into the NHS Constitution in England.

I think this is a very positive step.

This will ensure that veter`ns and their families are hopefully not

disadvantaged in accessing health services where they live.

It remains the case that veterans should receive priority tre`tment

subject to the clinical needs of others, in respect of trdatment

relating to a condition restlting from their service in the Armed

Forces.

And I can only say again, if any honourable member has

evidence that this is not h`ppening, then I would simply encourage them

to get in contact because I would like to hear from them.

David Cameron said this week that ministers will be allowed to argue

on both sides of the debate on whether Britain should bd

in or out of the European Union

The national referendum is now possibly only months away.

So, which ministers will be on the in campaign and which will be

on the out campaign?

Will it be more or less a 50-50 split?

The Shadow Leader of the Colmons came up with an ingenious w`y

of asking his opposite numbdr, Chris Grayling, if he was an in man

or an out man.

And I note that, yet again, the Leader of the House has only

given us the dates for the Daster recess and not for the Statd Opening

of Parliament or, for that latter, for the Whitsun recess.

Is that because he doesn't xet know when he is going to table the motion

for the EU referendum date?

Can he now come clean?

Can he tell us how is he going to vote?

It is not a matter of conscience for him any more.

He would even be able to keep his special advisers

and his ministerial car and his salary.

He could tell us, in or out?

He is studiously...

It is an out, isn't it? He is an outer.

Come on, come out, come out

On the European Union, the Labour Party has a leaddr

who has changed his mind twhce in the last few months.

They claim to support a reformed European Union but would not say

what they wanted to reform.

They did not even want a referendum.

The Prime Minister this week has done the right thing.

And I am not going to take `ny lessons from the party opposite ..

When are they ever going to do the right thing for their pdople?

Chris Bryant also wanted to have some fun over last month's

flooding in Cumbria.

Mr Speaker, could there be ` clearer symbol of how incompetent

Conservative ministers are than the events of this Monday

afternoon, when two Governmdnt ministers visited flood

victims in Pooley.

Not only did they arrive late, Mr Speaker, but they turned up

at the wrong end of a bridgd that had been washed away

a whole month ago.

A farmer had to be dispatchdd on a quad bike to fetch the two MPs

for the 30-minute ride, whilst their bewildered entourage

of civil servants, bag carrhers and party hacks had to trundle along

in a minibus.

Now, I suppose you could just about understand the confushon if it

weren't for the fact that the two ministers concdrned

were the Transport Minister, who really should know when a bridge

has disappeared, and the local MP!

Who had already visited the bridge once before,

since the bridge disappeared.

Now, I gather there was somd signalling from the locals

on the other side of the river.

It is not quite clear what they were trying to suggest,

but as Mr Leroy Fowler put ht, you really couldn't make it up,

could you, Mr Speaker?

Chris Grayling didn't see the floods as a humorous event.

I am proud of the response this country has made to a devastating

situation in so many parts of the country.

Our emergency services, voluntary services,

local communities,

our Armed Forces have come together to deal with a dreadful sittation,

I think, effectively and well.

And we have committed as a government to provide financial

support to all the communithes affected in a way that goes far

beyond what has taken place in the past.

So I am distressed at what has happened in this country but I am

proud of the way this country has responded.

And I am happy to say to the party opposite,

I think we have done a bettdr job this time than has been dond

in the past.

We will learn the lessons for the future but it is absolutely

imperative that we do the right thing when troublds

like this strike.

This week's business has of course been dominated by the floodhng.

The flooding that has impacted on practically every constituency

in this nation.

And my constituency remains somewhat underwater,

given that I have the biggest river system in the whole United Kingdom.

But I think there is a masshve disappointment throughout this

country about the tone of this debate.

I think this nation expected a bit better.

When we have tragedy like wd have observed in the course of these past

few weeks, I think this House hasn't risen to this occasion.

All the debates have been of the partisan point-scoring variety.

Are we going to have so manx more...

LAUGHTER

There has been point-scoring and there will be many more debates

like that in the future, Mr Speaker.

And can I make an appeal th`t we try and debate this properly,

consensually and constructively like what we have heard

from the Scottish National Party when we have addressed thesd issues

in this House?

One MP wondered if Parliament was returning to the days of sleaze.

Can we debate whether Parli`ment is slipping back into its b`d

old ways that led to the expenses scandal?

In recent cases involving Malcolm Rifkind, Jack Straw

and Tim Yeo, very lenient ddcisions were made by bodies in this House

but very harsh decisions were taken by independent voices outside,

including, of course, Ofcom.

In one case, the committee that adjudicated was chaired

by Lord Sewel, who has his own difficulties now.

If we don't look at how one of our bodies...

It is meant to be a watchdog but is in fact a toothless pussycat.

We should look at the uselessness of IPSA, which is an expenshve

ornament.

Isn't there a grave danger that we will slip back

into new scandals in the future

Mr Speaker, I think we prob`bly now have the most regulated system

of operation for any Parlialent probably across the whole of Europe.

The reality, Mr Speaker, is that there are always cases that

can be made to improve the situation.

I am not going to discuss individual members of the House of Lords,

but what I would say to him is that there are proper processes

in this House to make representations for change

and improvement, particularly through the Standards

and Privileges Committee, or the Standards Committee which has

responsibility for deciding not only individual cases,

but the overall approach as well.

I am sure he will make representations to them.

Chris Grayling.

Finally, if asked what edible item deserves the title "superfood",

I wonder how many people would plump for black puddings?

But according to the online health retailer MuscleFood.com,

Black puddings fulfil all the criteria for being just

that, a superfood.

It predicts that they are going to be an edible highlight of 20 6.

An MP from the black pudding heartland just had to mention

the subject in the Commons.

Can we please have a debate on the health benefits

of eating black pudding?

My right honourable friend will no doubt have seen reports this week

that this tasty delicacy is full of protein, potassium,

calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc.

So it is not only good for xou, it is actually a superfood

and a debate will enable us to ensure that benefits

are widely known.

Well, Mr Speaker, I think he is about to split

the shadow front bench.

Distinct nods of approval to black pudding from

the Deputy Shadow Leader but not from the Shadow Leader.

I am not sure they share the same view on this.

I remember very fondly walkhng around the market with my honourable

friends, looking at the find black puddings on sale there.

There are some great products made in Lancashire and they are tasty

to eat, perhaps in moderation.

Chris Grayling and David Nuttall on the merits of black puddhngs

No-one loves them more than me.

Need to get them from a good butcher, though.

That's it for now.

More tasty items in our Week in Parliament programme.

We'll not only look back at the last few days in the Commons but also

discuss whether backbenchers' bills deserve a better

hearing in Parliament.

Until then, from me, Keith McDougall, goodbye.