26/04/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

As Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn face each other in the Commons one

Labour will guarantee the triple lock and treat pensioners with

respect. Unable to defend our country. Determined to raise tax on

ordinary workers, no plan to manage our economy. Even his own supporters

know he's not fit to run this country.

And, how would you define an extremist?

But first, it lasted almost an hour and was full

The last Prime Minister's Questions before the general election

Jeremy Corbyn questioned Theresa May on pensions and the NHS,

I start, Mr Speaker, with Christopher who wrote to me this

week and he says; in the last five years, my husband has had only a 1%

increase in his wages. The cost-of-living has risen each year.

We now have at least 15% less buying power than then. So where is

Christopher and his husband's share in the stronger economy? What we

know and what I can say to Christopher is that he will have a

choice at the next election, a choice between the strong and stable

leadership of the Conservatives which will secure our economy for

the future and a Labour Party which would crash our economy which would

mean less money for Public Services and the ordinary working families

would pay the price. The Labour leader moved

on to the campaign by the so called WASPI women seeking to overturn

pension changes for women Maureen wrote to me this week. If I

was you, I would listen to what Maureen has to say, I really would.

I really would. Because she writes and she writes with a heavy heart:

We have been treated disgustingly, most of us women born in the 1950s

will not be receiving our pension until we are 66 with no notification

of this drastic change. We have worked for 45 years and have accrued

more than enough to be paid our pension. People want what is

rightfully theirs. Maureen asks, what can be done to help the WASPI

women? What I would say to the issue that Maureen's raised is that the

Government's taken steps to help these women. We have put extra

funding in and is available and we have ensured there is a limit to the

period of time that is affected in relation to the changes. But if the

Right Honourable gentleman wants to talk about pensions and pensioners

looking to the future, once again there'll be a very clear choice at

this election, a clear choice between a Labour Party who in

Government saw the increase in basic state pension of 75p in one year and

a Conservative Government whose changes to pensions mean basic state

pensioners are ?1,250 better off. Millions of WASPI women will have

heard that answer, as have the other questions I've put not been answered

today. I simply say this - Labour will guarantee the triple lock.

Labour will treat pensioners with respect and we won't move the

goalposts to people looking forward to retirement. Cybil who witnessed

the Labour founding of the National Health Service which made health

care available for the many, not just the few, wrote to me this week

and she says this: I'm 88 and have had a wonderful service from the

National Health Service. But nowadays, I'm scared at the thought

of going into hospital. With more people waiting more than four hours

in the A, more people waiting on trolleys in corridors, more delayed

discharges, Mr Speaker, thanks to the Tory cuts, isn't Cybil right to

be frightened about the future of her NHS so long as this Government

remains in office? Well, can I just say to the Right Honourable

gentleman on the National Health Service, our National Health Service

is now treating more patients than it ever has before. We are seeing

more people having operations, we are seeing more doctors, more

nurses, more midwives, more GPs and record levels of funding into our

National Health Service. Theresa May said the Government

would be campaigning on its record and she turned to a campaign

she said was being run She has directed her supporters and

followers to a website - I like Corbyn but...

It says, how will he pay for all this? But... I've heard he wants to

increase taxes. But, I've heard he's a terrorist sympathiser. But, his

attitudes about defence worry me. They are right to be worried. Unable

to defend our country, determined to raise tax on ordinary workers, no

plan to manage our economy. Even his own supporters know he's not fit to

run this country. Will the Prime Minister give a clear unambiguous

commitment to maintaining the triple lock on the state pension? I've been

very clear that under this Conservative Government we have seen

pensioners benefit as a result of what we have done to the basic state

pension. To the tune of ?1,250 a year and I am clear that, under a

Conservative Government, pension and incomes would continue to increase.

Pensioners right across this land are right to conclude that this Tory

Prime Minister plans to ditch the triple lock on the state pension. Mr

Speaker, too many women already face pensions inequality and the Tories

now won't even guarantee the pensions triple lock and the only

reason that they'll not guarantee it is because they want to cut

pensions. Is not the message to pensioners, you cannot trust this

Prime Minister, you cannot trust the Tories on your pension.

I say to everybody as I've just said, if you want to know the party

in Government that has improved a lot of pensioners across this

country, it's the Conservative Party and, under a Conservative Government

those pensioner incomes would continue to increase. And, he talks

about inequality for women. It's the change in the structure of the state

pension introduced by this Government that is going to improve

a lot of women, female pensioners in the future, that is going to be much

better for them. In the nine months that the Prime Minister's held her

office, she has closed the door on desperate child refugees, she has

ignored, ignored the plight of those suffering under the crisis of health

and social care and she is responsible for the shameful rape

clause. 20 years ago, she berated the Conservative Party for being the

nasty party, but her party has never been NATSier. The legacy of this

Parliament is the utter abject failure of Her Majesty's official

opposition to effectively hold her Government to account for any of it.

Is it not time that Britain had a strong, decent new opposition?

Ewell, first of all let me pick up the point he made on child refugees.

This Government has a proud record on taking in child refugees. We have

been the second bilateral donor to the region in order to support

millions of refugees, to educate children, as I saw when I visited

Jordan recently. Of course, we've also supported some of the most

vulnerable refugees, including children 3 bringing them here to

make a new life in the United A reference there to the fact

that the Lib Dems had reselected former MP David Ward to fight

the seat of Bradford East. Mr Ward had been accused

of anti-semitism and shortly after PMQs Tim Farron sacked him

as the party's candidate. Well with this Parliament

rapidly coming to a close, there were just a last handful

of bills to deal with. MPs approved changes

to the Criminal Finances Bill which aims to tackle money

laundering and corruption, counter terrorist financing

and recover the proceeds of crime. They also debated final amendments

to the Bill that changes the way higher education is regulated

in England and creates a new body Finally MPs rejected

changes made to the Digital The bill includes a range

of measures to tighten regulation on online pornography,

ticket touts and broadband speeds. The Minister said the Government

couldn't accept an amendment from peers on a code of practice

for social media platform We agree with the spirit of the

amendment that was agreed in the other place. We take harm caused by

online abuse seriously. We offer an alternative clause that we think

would achieve the intended outcome and form part of our work to tackle

serious harms and online threats and improve Internet safety in the next

Parliament. Our amendment in lieu seeks to provide a code of practice

that will help protect users of online services and set out the

behaviour expected of social media companies. The code is intended to

give guidance for how social media providers should respond to harmful

behaviour such as bullying. There's good work being done by some

companies to prevent the use of platforms for illegal purposes and

potential criminal conduct where reported to the police will continue

to be libel to investigation out with any-- as with any other

offence. On the social media conduct, we are delighted the

Government's taken a decisive step in the right direction. This

amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practise

for online social media platforms in relation to bullying, directing

insults or other behaviour intended to intimidate or humiliate. Whilst

son-in-law media's brought transformative and significant

change for the good, it's facilitated an exponential increase

in bullying -- whilst social media. Seven in ten have experienced cyber

bullying, with 37% experiencing it on a frequent basis. It can lead to

anxiety, depression and suicide. This is the first time social media

providers will be legislated for on this issue and will be required to

have processes in place for reporting and responding to

complaints around bullying. But a senior Conservative thought

there was room to go further. Whether we'd consider the role for a

broader obligation that could be placed in statute on these companies

linked to a failure to act whereby if someone's referred to that

company evidence of harmful content and misleading content, illicit

material that's been distributed on that site, where it's been reported

report and the company failed to act, there's some sort of redress

upon them. This is an important first step looking at the broader

obligations of social media companies and I welcome that.

Whenever you open a bank account, book a flight online or perform

many other common tasks, you hand over vital

A Committee of Peers is investigating the sharing

and protection of data between the UK and

Do you have any concerns that are domestic legislation will affect our

ability to share data with the EU after we leave and, are we going to

find that there are restrictions on the way in which we can share data

or they will accept the data? Is it going to be an area of friction

afterwards or do you see it being straightforward? The Government's

been clear that while we remain a member of the EU we are subject to

the rite and obligations that that brings. At the point that we leave

the EU, our domestic legislation, as I've said, will be compliant with EU

law and should therefore not impede our ability the share data with the

EU. Should the Government decide post-exit to amend our domestic

legislation then of course we'll need to consider whether any of the

proposed changes will impact on our relationship with the EU, including

on issues such as data-sharing. I suppose the question there is, and

it's very hard to say now what we'd do afterwards, but we clearly need

to - the question is, would the need to share data be a factor in

deciding on a sort of way in which our legislation might develop after

we've left? I think it's very clear that we need to share data for

reasons to keep the public safe. Yes, good. And that is a high

priority and the Prime Minister's articulated that as well. On a

number of occasions. You are watching Wednesday in Parliament

with me Alicia McCarthy. Now, let's go back to that final

Prime Minister's Questions. One reason the Speaker let

the session run for so long was to allow MPs who were standing

down to put one last question But before we get to them,

there was one MP who got a very warm welcome from all sides of the House

on his return to Westminster after a life-threatening

bout of the potentially It's good to be back and, to be

honest, it's good to be anywhere! Doctors and nurses at

Russells Hall Hospital saved my life in January,

but each year in the UK 44,000 Will my right honourable friend look

at how we can take the measures we can take to reduce deaths

from sepsis, including awareness-raising, including

a national registry to properly record the burden of sepsis

and effective commissioning levers The UK Sepsis Trust estimates that

measures like these will save 50,000 Can I say to my honourable friend

that it's fantastic to see him back in his place and I hope he will have

noted the welcome he got from across the House

for being back in his place. But he's absolutely right to bring

a focus on this issue of this devastating condition of sepsis

and every death from it But, as we know, something

like 10,000 deaths per year could be avoided through prevention,

early diagnosis and treatment. So we do need to get better

at spotting sepsis across the NHS. The Department of Health

is already beginning work We're having a new public awareness

campaign and we expect a Nice quality standard to be published

later this year. For other MPs, it was

time to say goodbye. What assurances can

the Prime Minister give to the 3.8 million people that voted

Ukip at the last election, that if she is Prime Minister

after the 8th June, the United Kingdom will become

a sovereign country again, living under our own parliament,

making our own laws? I will give an assurance

to all those people who voted for the United Kingdom to leave

the European Union and for all people across the country,

regardless of how they voted, who now want to see this Government

getting on with the job of Brexit That we want to see control

of our borders, control of our laws, control of our money and this's

what we'll deliver. A departing Labour MP paid tribute

to his colleagues who'd stood up Doesn't the Prime Minister agree

that their ongoing presence in this place is vital for the future

of our British steel industry? Can I just say to the honourable

gentleman that I believe he's standing down at the election,

having said that that was to his significant and irreconcilable

differences with the leadership This Conservative Government has

taken steps to support the steel Mr Speaker, it's been an immense

privilege to serve the people of Cannock and Burntwood

and Aldershot for the past 34 years. I arrived in 1983 when one

formidable and determined female Conservative Prime Minister

was transforming the country's economic fortunes and I depart

as another is determined to restore to this country the status

of a sovereign nation state, As I too bid my right honourable

friend, the Prime Minister, Godspeed for a resounding victory

on the 8th June, may Aldershot just make one final plea

in these troubled times. Please will she ensure

that Her Majesty's armed forces are properly funded,

manned, equipped and housed to defend and protect the people

of this glorious sceptred isle, the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland. Three years ago, the Green Party

peer and London Assembly member, Lady Jones, discovered her name

featured on a Metropolitan Police database of people deemed

"domestic extremists." Lady Jones had taken part

in environmental protests and spoken At Question Time in the Lords,

Lady Jones criticised the compiling of such a database,

believing police resources The definition of domestic extremism

used by the police is not statutory. Questions about the police

definition and their work on domestic extremism are matters

for the police. I thank the noble Lady and Minister

for her evasive answer. Quite honestly, of course it's

a matter for the Home Office as to whether the police

are misusing their time. There's now incontrovertible

and huge amounts of evidence that says that the police are watching

peaceful, non-violent campaigners, environmental campaigners, and,

therefore, they are utterly wasting their time and not

concentrating on the people who can this responsibility seriously

about preventing serious crime and make sure that the police

actually follow some reasonable guidelines

on what a domestic extremist is. Well, my Lords, in terms

of the police misusing their time, And, in terms of the question

and the misleading answer, "To ask Her Majesty's Government

whether they intend to refine the definition

of domestic extremism." In the last Queen's Speech -

I appreciate we're towards the end of this parliamentary session,

so the opportunity to do something about what was in last

Queen's Speech is diminishing - promised a Bill to look

at preventing extremism. I understand that's been festering

in the long grass ever since because of the difficulty

in defining extremism. Perhaps the noble Lady could tell us

whether it's going to carry on festering in the long grass

or whether the Government is planning, if it manages to be

re-elected, to bring forward proposals which will define

extremism and which might then define whether or not the noble Lady

is an extremist or indeed quite a number of us might be

deemed by other colleagues in your Lordships'

house as extremists. So how will the Government address

that question because it told us it was going to in the Queen's

Speech? Well, my Lords, clearly

events have overtaken us. Tomorrow, we will pirogue and it

will be in the hands of the next government,

and should that government be a Labour Government,

to decide whether to But, yes, that was,

at the time of the last In the 1980s when Sheikhs

were being persecuted throughout India and blamed and called

terrorists and extremists. I was asked by the BBC,

"Am I a moderate or an extremists?" We must get beyond these smear

definitions and look Well, I don't - as someone

who is extremely moderate as well - I don't disagree with the noble

Lord. The point that I was making,

in answer to the question, is that this definition

was a definition that was actually The Prime Minister has said

she wants to open up new markets for Welsh

businesses following Brexit. During a campaign visit to Wales,

Theresa May said she wanted But in the Commons, opposition MPs

accused her of "playing fast The Prime Minister has said that

she's prepared to walk away from the negotiating table

without a trade deal with the EU. The Foreign Secretary has said that

no deal would be no problem. And yet no deal, as we've heard,

could see tariffs of 30% to 40% on Welsh dairy farmers and meat

producers and 10% tariffs So could I ask the Secretary

of State, isn't it the case that this Tory Government

is prepared to play fast and loose with the Welsh economy

with an extreme Tory vision of Brexit that would push and put

Welsh jobs and livelihoods at risk? Mr Speaker, I don't recognise

the basis of the honourable We want the freest, most open

trading agreement and, it seems to me, that the real

investors, creating real jobs, We've seen a major investment

from Nissan in Sunderland. We've seen a major investment

from Toyota in Derbyshire. We've seen a major investment in my

constituency with Aston Martin. That demonstrates their confidence

in our vision as we leave Wales has a number of technological

hotspots, particularly around Does he not think that they will

benefit after Brexit from bilateral trade deals that we'll be able

to make with the United States, Canada as well as

the European Union? In leaving the European customs

union, Welsh manufacturers and farmers will lose the solid

protections offered by the bloc. Why doesn't he come clean today

and admit it os the intention of the Tories to sell Welsh

producers down the rivers in order to open up markets

with the bankers of London? Well, the honourable member

will recognise that exports from Wales have grown over the last

year, they've grown He will also recognise the data

I highlighted earlier about record levels of employment and low

levels of unemployment. On that basis, he will recognise

we want the freest, open trading arrangements that we can in support

of Welsh farmers because we maintain How does he respond

to their requests for a full assessment on the impact of Welsh

agriculture should we be in a position of falling back

on World Trade Organisation tariffs? Isn't it obvious that 40% tariffs

would destroy Welsh agriculture? Mr Speaker, I'm disappointed

with the approach the honourable I mean, he is assuming

the worst-case scenario. We're having this general election

in order to have strong and stable leadership

in the challenging There are 27 EU nations that will be

challenging everything as we negotiate to leave

the European Union. Strong and stable leadership

is needed now more than ever before. That's it from me for now,

but do join me at the same time tomorrow for the last day that this

parliament sits before But for now from me,

Alicia McCarthy.