This Week in Westminster - October 10th-13th

This week saw Parliament return from its conference recess with the continuing speculation over the future of the Defence Secretary Liam Fox and the final consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Lords. An attempt in the Lords to force this controversial Bill to be reconsidered by a committee failed and it subsequently passed into law. In the House of Commons, there was a heated debate on jobs and growth, the Prime Minister signalled a concession over the state pension age and there was a debate over whether MPs can use handheld electronic devices in the Chamber. I was able to raise an issue relating to healthcare for injured service personnel in Defence questions

• Care for service personnel (Monday 10th October)

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Ministry of Defence medical services has a good record of engagement with the carers of wounded service people, but when servicemen are transferred to the NHS system, carers are often told that, because of patient confidentiality, they cannot be engaged with and information cannot be shared. Will the Minister ensure that such continued engagement with carers takes place for service personnel, especially those with traumatic brain injury or mental health problems, once they enter the NHS?

Mr Robathan: The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, of which I was not aware. Practitioners in the NHS certainly should get full medical records from the military medical services. If she were able to raise some specific cases with me, I would be most interested to hear them, and I look forward to hearing from her.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0001.htm#11101016000492

• Jobs and growth (Wednesday 12th October)

Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): In opening this Opposition debate on the economy and moving our motion urging the Government to kick-start Britain’s choked-off recovery and adopt Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, I shall start by setting out the facts for the House and for the country. Over the past year the British economy has ground to a complete halt. The latest figures show no growth at all since last autumn. Consumer and business confidence has slumped. For three months manufacturing output has been falling. More than 16,000 companies have gone out of business. Employment is falling and today’s chilling news is that unemployment has risen by 114,000 in the past three months alone.

Unemployment here in Britain now stands at 2.57 million people out of work—the highest level since 1994. Unemployment is rising across the country. We have the highest level of unemployment among women since 1988. Most worryingly of all, youth unemployment, which a year ago was falling, is now rising again, up 74,000 in the past three months, with 991,000—more than one in five—young people out of work. There has been a 60% rise in youth long-term unemployment since February, and the overall level of youth long-term unemployment is at its highest for 19 years. What a waste of talent, what a waste of money and what a betrayal of this young generation.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111012/debtext/111012-0002.htm#11101259000001

Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab): As the Chancellor has referred to my book—and no doubt others will do so, too—perhaps I should draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

From listening to the Chancellor, it is easy to forget one important fact. When we left office in 2010, our economy was growing; 12 months later, our economy is not growing at all. Growth has stalled, probably for more than a year. Despite everything that the Chancellor and his colleagues said during the last election about its all being the fault of the last Labour Government and nothing to do with global problems or Europe, our economy was growing. Now, 16 months after that general election, while the Chancellor has been in charge and responsible for setting the economic direction, our economy has stopped growing. Even a few months ago people believed that we might see a slow but gradual climb out of recession into growth, but now, right across the world, people are seriously worried that we could be in for a prolonged period of stagnation—at tremendous cost to the country, as today’s unemployment figures show.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111012/debtext/111012-0002.htm#11101259000001

• Finally signs of a concession of pensions (Wednesday October 12th)

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): The whole House will want to endorse the Prime Minister’s words about our heroic service personnel and their families, and I think that most of us also want to see the earliest possible withdrawal of our combat troops from Afghanistan.
What will the Prime Minister do about that group of women already in their late 50s who have seen their state pension age rise from 60 to 64 and now face a further two-year increase from 64 to 66? The coalition had to reform the pension system and will be fairer to women, but this anomaly needs addressing.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right to identify that it is of course right to equalise men and women’s state pension ages. That has been a long-term goal shared across the House of Commons. I also think that it is right to raise the retirement age to 66, as we have done. We know that a large group of people are affected by this transition and that some people will potentially have to work for an extra two years. We are looking at what transitional help we can give to this group of people and will make an announcement shortly.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111012/debtext/111012-0001.htm#11101259000011

• Technology arrives in the Commons (Thursday 13th October) – a debate has been raging in some quarters about whether MPs should be allowed to use handheld electronic devices in the Chamber, particularly to use email and Twitter during debates. On one side, it has been argued that allowing it would be a step too far, while others have made the case for access improving communication and the outside world. The House of Commons voted in favour of allowing the use of such devices, although this is unlikely to be the last word in this debate.

Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that tweeting helps MPs to stay informed, in touch and accountable to their constituents, and that to ban it would be an inexplicable step back in time? That is 138 characters.

Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): I thank the hon. Lady for her succinct, pithy and tweetable intervention of 138 characters, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.
All too often we are accused of being inward-facing. The public say that we are out of touch and inaccessible. Twitter allows us to make politics relevant, and makes us as individuals accessible.

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con): I accept that the quality of our contributions may vary, and I certainly make no claims for what I have said in that regard. As the hon. Lady knows, I have experienced 13 years with no practice of speaking in the House, so I am a bit of a newcomer myself.

I sometimes wonder, though, what would happen when a Member was using an electronic tablet, for example, and the power went off. That Member could be caught in a very difficult situation. It is ironic, is it not, that we are discussing this matter at a time when one of the best-known devices, owned by many Members, is having problems in achieving the purposes that some Members have extolled today.

I know that I shall not be able to stem a tide of what is, I guess, modernity, but there can be no doubt that it is transformational, and that it does not necessarily accord with the style of debate that we have used in the House over the years. Twice, when I had the privilege of sitting in the Chair, I had to restrain hon. Members from making telephone calls from the Chamber simply because the device was there. No one is suggesting that telephone calls should be made, but the fact that the device is there and can be used for that purpose does, I am afraid, lead to infringements. I also noticed that the Whips on duty on the Government and Opposition Benches were often distracted by the use of their devices and were not keeping pace with business, which created a dysfunction with the Chair.

Such devices are very compelling when they are in someone’s hand. It is not a question of what they might do, which is what is being recommended, but a question of what they can be used for. We know that people’s eyes tend to be drawn to a television screen when they visit someone else’s house. Similarly, the press of a button on a hand-held device can easily enable someone to view images from outside the House that command his or her interest. People know of my interest in cricket. How convenient it would be to ascertain what was happening in the Test match at that very moment! As the bowler was walking back to the end of his run, I should be able to look up and appear interested in what was going on in the Chamber, before looking down again at what was happening at the match.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111013/debtext/111013-0002.htm#11101351000002