19/07/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Wednesday In Parliament.

On this programme:

The Government announces the pension age is going up to 68

seven years earlier than planned.

The last Prime Minister's Questions before the recess sees Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn do battle over pay and the economy.

And the Government's urged to do more to help

unaccompanied child refugees.

It is a catastrophe for these children

and I feel passionate about it.

But first, the state pension age is to rise from 67 to 68

seven years earlier than initially planned.

Ministers are accepting a recommendation made

in the Cridland review earlier this year.

It means six million people will have to wait longer before

receiving their state pension.

The change will affect those born between April 1970 and April 1978.

The increase will now come into effect from 2037.

The Government hopes the move will save around ?74 billion.

The Work and Pensions Secretary, David Gauke,

told MPs people that were living longer.

In 1948, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the modern state pension

was introduced, a 65-year-old could expect to live

for a further 13.5 years.

By 2007, when further legislation was introduced

to increase the state pension age, this had risen to around

21 years and in 2037, it is expected to be nearly 25 years.

There is a balance to be struck between funding of the state pension

in years to come whilst also ensuring fairness for future

generations of taxpayers.

The approach I am setting out today

is the responsible and fair course of action.

Failing to act now in light of compelling evidence of

demographic pressures would be irresponsible

and place an extremely unfair burden on younger generations.

Last week, evidence from Public Health England showed

how deep inequalities in healthy life expectancy remain both

regionally and between different groups in our society including

women, disabled people and black and minority ethnic groups.

It is therefore astonishing that today

this Government chooses to implement their plans to speed up

the state pension age and increase it to 68.

Mr Deputy Speaker, most pensioners will now spend their retirement

battling a toxic cocktail of ill-health, with men expecting

to drift into ill-health at 63, five years earlier than this proposed

quickened state pension age of 68.

Labour want a different approach.

In our manifesto, we are committed to leaving

the state pension age at 66 while we undertake a review into

healthy life expectancy, arduous work,

and the potential of flexible state pension age.

Even by the standards of the party opposite,

their approach to be state pension age is reckless,

short-sighted and irresponsible.

When the evidence in front of us shows that life expectancy

will continue to increase a little over one year every eight years

that pass, fixing the state pension age at 66 as advocated

by the party opposite demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate

the situation in front of us.

In the SNP, we continue to call for the establishment

of an independent savings and pensions commission.

We believe that the Government is not doing enough

to recognise the demographic differences across the

United Kingdom and an independent review of this would look at those

and would take those into account.

When Her Majesty the Queen came to be throne in 1952,

there were 300 people in that year who reached the age of 100.

Last year, it was over 13,000.

Does he express or will he express surprise that I feel at

the irresponsibility and recklessness

of the party opposite in resisting some of these measures?

Well, I don't know if I'm surprised by anything

the Labour Party does, but it is disappointing.

A Labour MP had been expecting a statement

on the so called WASPI women - those born in the 1950s who claim

they weren't given proper notice of the rise in their state pension age.

I had hopes that the minister was coming here today

because he'd seen the light.

He'd realised that the women from the 1950s are being dealt a terrible

set of cards by this Government, that he was going to compensate

them, that he was going to make good on the injustice that has been done

to them, that he was going to make sure that every single person

who wasn't even notified by the Government

that they were going to be caught by this

would be compensated and that he was going to

finally acknowledge that women in my constituency

who are in their 60s, who say to me that they are

completely clapped-out because they have had tough,

laborious jobs all their lives, that they are the very people

that his minister says should now take up an apprenticeship.

How dull are they?

David Gauke said he wasn't sure

he'd want to call his constituents "clapped-out."

As to the 1950s women, he said that as with this announcement,

there was a need to balance a dignified retirement

with the fact that state pensions had to be paid for.

Now, there was a rowdy end of term sort of feel to the last

Prime Minister's Questions before parliament begins its summer break.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, focused on low pay but began

by highlighting splits at the top of the Government.

At the weekend, the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, said some senior

ministers were briefing against him because they didn't

like his views on Brexit.

That followed press reports that Mr Hammond had said some public

sector staff were overpaid.

Mr Speaker, the Chancellor said this week that some

public servants are overpaid.

Given the Prime Minister has had to administer a slap down to her

squabbling Cabinet, does she think the Chancellor was actually talking

about her own ministers?

I recognise, as I said when I stood on

the steps of Downing Street a year ago,

that there are some people in our country

who are just about managing.

They find life a struggle.

That actually covers people who are working in the public sector

and some people who are working in the private sector and that's why

it's important that the Government is taking steps,

for example, to help those on the lowest incomes

through the national living wage.

It's why we have taken millions of people out

of paying income tax altogether.

It's why basic rate taxpayers under this Government have seen a tax cut

of the equivalent of ?1000.

Can I invite the Prime Minister to take a check

with reality on this?

One...

SHOUTING

Mr Speaker...

One in eight workers in the United Kingdom,

that is 3.8 million people in work, are now living in poverty.

55% of people in poverty are in working households.

The Prime Minister's lack of touch with reality goes like this -

low pay in Britain is holding people back at a time of rising

housing costs, rising food prices and rising transport costs.

It threatens people's living standards

and rising consumer debt and falling savings

threatens our economic stability.

Why doesn't the Prime Minister understand that low pay

is a threat to an already weakening economy?

The best route out of poverty is through work

and what we now see is hundreds...

Order, order!

Order, the question has been asked.

The Prime Minister's answer must -

and however long it takes it will - be heard.

The Prime Minister.

The best route out of poverty is through work.

That's why it's so important that over the last seven years,

we have seen 3 million more jobs being created in our economy.

It's why we now see so many thousands of people

in households with work rather than in workless households.

Many more hundreds of thousands more children

being brought up in a household where there is work rather

than a failure to have work.

That's what's important, but what's important

for Government as well is to ensure that we do

provide support to people.

That's why we created the national living wage.

That was the biggest pay increase for people on lowest incomes ever.

When did the Labour Party ever introduce the national living wage?

Never.

That was a Conservative Government and a Conservative record.

What we want is a country where there are not 4 million

children living in poverty, where homelessness is not rising

every year and I look a long that front bench opposite, Mr Speaker,

and I see a Cabinet bickering and backbiting while the economy

gets weaker and people are put further into debt.

Isn't the truth that this divided Government is unable to give

this country the leadership it so desperately needs now

to deal with these issues?

I'll tell the Right Honourable gentleman the reality.

The reality is that he is always talking Britain down and

we are a leading Britain forward.

The SNP's leader at Westminster turned to the pensions

of those WASPI women.

The Prime Minister has found up to ?35 billion

for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station,

up to 200 billion to replace the Trident missile system

and 1 billion for a deal with the DUP

just so she can keep her own job.

She seems to be able to shake the magic money tree

when she wants to.

Can the Prime Minister now end the injustice for those women

who are missing out on their pension

before she herself thinks about retiring?

We have put ?1 billion extra into this question of the change

of state pension age to ensure that nobody sees their state pension age

increase by more than 18 months from that which was

previously expected, but I have to also say

to the honourable gentleman that the Scottish Government,

of course, does now have extra powers in the area of welfare.

And perhaps...

Perhaps it's about time the Scottish Government got on

with the day job and stopped talking endlessly about independence.

Theresa May.

You're watching Wednesday in Parliament with me, Alicia McCarthy.

Youth custody centres in England and Wales are now so unsafe that

a tragedy is inevitable.

That's the finding of the annual report

of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

The Chief Inspector said there'd been a staggering

decline in standards.

He hadn't inspected a single establishment where it was safe

to hold young people.

Prisons for men had also become worse in the past 12

months with startling increases in violence.

A Labour MP, whose constituency includes the Feltham Young Offenders

Institution in London, had put down an urgent question.

The jump in violence in our prisons is a crisis

of the government's making.

The warning signs have been there.

They've been warned by MPs, they've been warned by staff

in our prisons and they've been warned by charities.

Now they are being condemned by this damning report.

The budget for prisons has been cut by more than a fifth

over the last six years, cuts that have now been proved

to be a false economy.

Prison staff have been cut by a quarter and those who remain

are being put at risk.

The human impact of Tory austerity is now being laid bare at the door

of our prison system.

Yes, the staffing issue has been indicated as a problem,

and this has been addressed in the last year.

As I said previously, we have appointed more than 500 to March,

and we are on course to fulfil our target of 2500 extra

prison officers by the end of 2018.

But I would argue that the unforeseen exacerbant in prisons

has been Spice and drug use.

And it was not anticipated by any previous government,

and this is undeniably causing difficulties both in terms

of the behaviour of the prisoners and indeed the corruption

of the prisoners and some staff with regard to the trade

in these substances.

The Minister is right to be frank, as he always has been,

about the dire state of affairs in our prisons, which the Select

Committee highlighted in a number of reports in the last Parliament.

On a constructive note, would he recognise that,

although there is no prison legislation proposed in the current

session for the Queen's Speech, it would be appropriate

for the government nonetheless to forward much of the prison

reform agenda that does not require legislation?

With regards to legislation, we have not ruled out future

legislation for prisons, but I would argue that there

is quite a lot we could be getting on with which does

not require legislation.

We are eager and keen and determined to reform our prison system.

The chief inspector says that he'd reached a conclusion,

that there was not a single establishment that we inspected

in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold

children and young people, adding that the speed of decline

has been staggering as, in 2013-14, nine out of 12

institutions were graded as good or reasonably good for safety.

Given this, what explanation does the Minister have for this?

We know that there are many, many difficulties in

the youth justice system.

The violence rate is ten times higher in the youth justice system

compared to the adult prison estate.

Working, and I would like to support, and give

full support, actually, to the staff who continue

in the youth estate because I've seen it with my own eyes,

I've visited the majority of the youth estate,

and it is extremely difficult.

But given there was a prisons bill already drafted that actually had

made some progress in the last session, can he tell the House why

that Bill has been dropped?

And if the government is committed to prison reform,

why has it dropped a piece of legislation that was ready to be

heard by this House?

If there is a requirement for further legislation,

that has not been ruled out in the future but, as the right

honourable gentleman recognises, there are Parliamentary time

pressures here, and this is something which we are

having to accommodate.

However, there is absolutely no reason why they can't continue

with the reform programme that we've planned.

The outgoing Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, has demanded

to know when the government will meet what he called its measly

commitment to transfer 480 unaccompanied child

refugees from Europe.

He said, so far, 200 have come to the UK.

The government's preferred approach is to take children not

from countries in Europe but from the region

where they came from.

Ministers argue this would counter the pull factor and stop families

sending their youngsters on the dangerous journey to Europe.

But in a concession, after a campaign by the Labour peer

Lord Dubs, ministers agreed they would take some unaccompanied

children who were already in the EU.

Tim Farron was asking an urgent question about the so-called

Dubs Scheme and the promise to bring 480 youngsters to

the UK in this way.

I say it's a measly commitment because the UK Government

could do so much more.

Freedom of Information Act requests show that local councils have

voluntarily offered to accept 1572 more children in addition to those

they already support.

Does the Minister know this?

And in light of this information, would the government reopen Dubs

and take its fair share?

Now, I know of two young people who signed a consent form to be

transferred under Dubs over a year ago.

They are still stuck in Greece.

And the horrific truth, Mr Speaker, in closing

is that the longer this goes on, the more likely that these children

will go missing and fall into the evil hands of traffickers.

According to Oxfam, 28 children every single day

are going missing in Italy alone.

Will this government step up continue to ignore the plight

of these desperate children?

What we are very clear about is that making sure that we do not

create a pull factor but, at the same time, we did the right

thing, as we have done with the ?2.46 billion of support

make us one of the biggest contributed with the biggest

humanitarian aid project this country has ever conducted

to look after the people who need our care the most.

And instead of playing politics with children's lives,

we should get on with looking after them, and I wish

he would join us in doing that.

The House understands the government's preference to take

unaccompanied children directly from the region, but I've visited

the camps in France and Greece, and the Minister needs to be

reminded those children are already there, often living in horrible

conditions and particularly at the mercy of traffickers

and sexual exploitation.

An SNP MP quoted a report by the Human Trafficking Foundation

that was launched last week.

This independent inquiry has found that UK ministers have done

"as little as legally possible to help unaccompanied

children who have fled war and conflict in their home".

It says the UK Government have "turned away from a humanitarian

crisis that would not be tolerable to the British public

if they were more aware of it", and that, by failing to offer safe

passage, the UK Government are "unquestionably fuelling both

people trafficking and smuggling".

I actually would encourage more people to have a look at

what she refers to as an independent report were one of the co-authors

is a recently retired Labour Member of Parliament,

a report that, actually, when I read it - this is why

I would encourage people to read it - actually has a lot of accusations

and statements with no evidence to base them on whatsoever.

Well, that question was repeated in the House of Lords,

where one of the co-authors of the human trafficking report

tackled the Minister over the conditions

facing child refugees.

I hope that the Minister has read our report which talks

about children being tear-gassed on a daily basis by the riot police

in northern France and the terrible conditions both in Italy

and in Greece.

There is no effort whatever to identify Dubs children in either

Calais or in Dunkirk or indeed in Greece or in Italy, as far

as the evidence that we received.

It is a catastrophe for these children, and I feel

passionate about it, and nothing seems to be done.

I recognise the noble lady's passion, and she and I have talked

on a number of occasions on this, and I also have read her report.

The first thing that I would say, in terms of the treatment by police

of children in France, is this, and I've said this

before in this House, the prime responsibility

for unaccompanied children in Europe lies with the authorities

in the countries in which the children are present.

However, we continue to work with European and international

partners to reach a solution to the migrant crisis,

and the UK has contributed significantly in terms of hosting,

supporting and protecting the most vulnerable children.

Once we have reached the 480 children, she says the government

will have accepted or will accept under section 67.

Is that the end of it or will the government respond

to local authorities who say and are still saying

they are willing to take more?

It's a simple yes or no.

The Minister didn't give a yes or no answer, saying

the government was bound by local authority capacity.

Now, Labour has accused the government of reneging

on a promise to allow MPs a vote on an increase in student

tuition fees in England.

That charge came during an emergency debate secured by Labour MPs

on measures which will allow tuition fees to rise this autumn

to a maximum of ?9,250.

But Labour faced accusations from the Conservatives of misleading

students during the general election campaign, saying it had promised

to write off existing student debt.

This weak and wobbly government doesn't even

trust its own backbenchers with a vote on its own policies.

But the higher education and research act that

the Education Secretary and the Universities Minister took

through this House is very clear on the matter.

Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 states that the upper limit of fees can

only rise when each House of Parliament has passed

a resolution that, with effect from the date specified

in the resolution, the higher amount should be increased.

So can the Minister guarantee that no students will have to pay

the higher fees until both Houses have passed such

a resolution allowing it?

On the subject of being weak and wobbly, can she confirm,

is it still Labour policy to pay off all ?100 billion of

the outstanding student debt?

Is it still her policy, yes or no?

And I have said once and I will say it again,

we have no plans to write off existing student debt,

and we never promised to do so.

During the election, her party made categorically clear

to endless numbers of students that they would abolish the student debt.

Will she now get up and apologise for using them as election fodder?

I'm sure the Minister's about to make what he believes

is a convincing case.

However, the real test is not just to give us his words

but to give us a vote on them, so that is the question

I put to him now.

If he is so convinced that what he's doing is right,

then will he give the courage of those convictions

and put them to this House?

The party opposite wants to talk about process because its policy

platform is disintegrating before our eyes.

And the regulations, Mr Speaker, are not proposed, as the honourable

member opposite says.

They have now been in force for six months.

This debate, which cannot change arrangements for 2017-18,

is therefore a sham exercise.

I suspect this is simply more of the same cynical politics we saw

over the weekend when Labour broke its own pre-election pledge,

about which we've heard so much this afternoon,

to write off historic student loan debts.

Freezing the repayment threshold, making graduates pay more

than they signed up for, and members opposite talk

about broken promises.

There could be no worse breach of faith, breach

of promise, breach of contract than that retrospective change.

It's frankly fraudulent.

If it was any other organisation in the government,

the Financial Conduct Authority would get involved.

No other loan has so many protections built

in for low earners.

But the focus narrowly on the repayment structure

is to ignore so much of what makes the current system a good deal

for less advantaged students.

It secures more places and higher quality teaching.

I know there is a lot of nostalgia in some circles for the days

when university was free but, too often, those people fail

to acknowledge that this was only possible because the proportion

of school leavers who went on to higher education was tiny.

And finally, the Speaker, John Bercow, has quietly been

relaxing the dress code in the House of Commons.

He said that MPs should wear businesslike attire,

but that it was not essential for male MPs to wear a tie.

Not to be outdone, one female MP took the opportunity

of Scottish Questions to flag up her support for Scotland's

national women's football team as they prepared to face

England's Lionesses in the Euro 2017 tournament.

Hannah Bardell.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I'd also like to put on my record the very best wishes

of everyone on these benches for the Scottish football team.

I'm wearing the colours, I hope you don't mind.

I used to play alongside two of Scotland's national

players at university.

Their career has obviously done better in football than mine.

Hannah Bardell in praise of Scotland's women's football team.

And that's it from me for now, but do join me at the same time

tomorrow for the last day of Parliament before

the summer recess.

But for now, from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.