List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Debate between Alex Burghart and Peter Bottomley

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that Sir Laurie Magnus, who took up his post in December, has said that he will return to the regular cycle of publications. This list is his—he has oversight of it. It would be wrong if the Government were to interfere in that process, and we will obviously continue to engage fully with him to make sure that the list is up to date and reflects the ongoing interests of Ministers, so that the system can operate effectively.

On the point that the hon. Lady makes about the former Deputy Prime Minister, she will know from listening to previous statements and debates in this House that no formal allegations were made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) before the Prime Minister appointed him. The moment those formal allegations were made, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister agreed that there should be an independent investigation. Adam Tolley KC conducted his investigation, and the Deputy Prime Minister then resigned.

On the hon. Lady’s point about civil service impartiality, of course we accept and respect civil service impartiality. It is one of the things that makes government work so effectively in this country.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister will agree that there is much more openness and transparency now than 13 years ago. Through him, can I put it to the Prime Minister that Sir Laurie Magnus should be asked each year whether he would like to write a public letter to the Prime Minster on how the system is working, and any changes or improvements he would like to see made?

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the Father of the House for his long view on these things, and I am sure that Sir Laurie will have heard his remarks.

Infected Blood Inquiry and Compensation Framework

Debate between Alex Burghart and Peter Bottomley

Thursday 24th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alex Burghart]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. Sir Robert’s findings have fed into the inquiry. We are now preparing for the inquiry’s final findings and we will respond as quickly as possible.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I have perhaps interrupted the Minister as he was about to answers the question I am about to ask, but the Cabinet Office asked for the Robert Francis inquiry, not Brian Langstaff. Robert Francis’s report has been received by the Cabinet Office. Sir Brian Langstaff’s report is expected in the middle of next year. Are we seriously expected to believe that we will not hear anything more on the Government’s reaction to the Sir Robert Francis report before the middle of next year?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend the Father of the House is absolutely right that it was the Cabinet Office that asked Sir Robert to conduct the work. The findings have now been fed into the inquiry and are being considered. I draw his attention to the remarks that Sir Robert made on the BBC’s “Today” programme on 17 August. He said that the Government were considering the matter and that it was very complex. He said that they had to wait for Sir Brian’s recommendations because his own work was feeding into that inquiry, and he had given options for them to consider.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Minister fairly quotes Robert Francis. It would be possible for us to text Robert and ask whether he would like to us to say the following, but if the Minister can give some responses to some of Sir Robert’s recommendations before the middle of next year, would he be willing to consider doing that, please?

[Alex Burghart]

I am very happy to have that conversation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are meeting the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in the coming weeks, and I am sure that will be a central part of our discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

For the sake of Hansard, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that that meeting will be in private, but I am quite confident that at least one of the people participating will talk about it in public afterwards and that it may be the start of a longer dialogue.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Dame Angela, can we take what the Minister says as a definite maybe?

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

It is probably not a matter for me, but I observe that in here we are on the public record, so the Minister might wish to make some comments that he knows the Public Gallery and anyone who watches our proceedings will hear, rather than relying simply on a private meeting.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Debate between Alex Burghart and Peter Bottomley

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Burghart]

Presenting the case in the way that the hon. Gentleman does is slightly misrepresentative, because the cost of not bailing out the banks would have been extraordinarily high and would have seen businesses all over the country go bankrupt and people go out of work. It would have damaged their lives and would have become a cost to the state. I simply cannot see things in the binary way that he sets them out.

In 1942, William Beveridge wrote about the purpose of his pensions proposals, saying that

“giving to each individual an incentive to continue at work so long as he can, in place of retiring, is a necessary attempt to lighten the burden that will otherwise fall on the British community, through the large and growing proportion of people at the higher ages”.

Under the last Labour Government, it was acknowledged that we must not reach a position where women would be expected to spend 40% of their adult lives in retirement—that proportion is due to increase continually. No Government could have sustained that without dramatically curtailing services for younger people. On top of those demographic concerns, the Pensions Act 2011 had to deal with the circumstances that were dictated by the great financial crisis of 2008.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend talks about the introduction in 1908 of the state pension age of 70, but he could have told us that it was reduced to 65 in 1925, and that the inequality of the earlier retirement age for women was introduced, I think, in 1940. I am not arguing with him; I am trying just to set the scene.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s scene setting. Forgive me if I skipped a sentence earlier— I should have said that the retirement age of 65 was introduced in the Contributory Pensions Act 1925, so I am grateful to have been put right.

The Pensions Act 2011 dealt with the circumstances of 2008 and was introduced in the context of the emergency Budget brought forward by the then Chancellor in 2010, which offered the triple lock. To remind Members, that guarantees, each and every year, a rise in the basic state pension in line with earnings, prices or a 2.5% increase, whichever is the greatest. That policy meant that between April 2010 and April 2016, the value of the state pension rose by more than 22%, compared with growth in earnings of about 7.5% and growth in prices of 12%. Pensioners saw their incomes rise at almost double the pace of the average worker in that period. In 2018-19, the state pension is more than £1,450 a year higher than it was in 2010.

We know that the triple lock will be in place for the duration of this Parliament. For people reaching state pension age after April 2016, a new pension has been introduced at a single flat rate of £159.55 a week, which also has been triple-locked. All the women affected by the 2011 state pension age changes will draw their state pension under the new system.