A former labour minister talks about her battle with a brain tumour and wa nts to her battle with a brain tumour and wants to tackle cancer. 50 that we can live well together with cancer, not just dying of can live well together with cancer, notjust dying of it. The defence secretary announces a new review of the armed forces and faces calls for more spending. Can we make sure we do not repeat the nonsense when people say you can modernise. And the government is told to do more tothe revolving door of former ministers and Civil Servants moving into lucrative jobs in the private sector. If nothing is done by government, it risks further undermining trust in politics. First, there was a prolonged standing ovation in the house of lords as a woman called for greater work to beat cancer. She was diagnosed with a brain tumour and told her peers what happened. Diagnosed with a brain tumour and told her peers what happenedm diagnosed with a brain tumour and told her peers what happened. In may last year i was on my way to talk, not for the first time, about new projects in east london. I got into a taxi but i could not speak. I had two powerful seizures. I was taken to hospital. Two days later i was told that i had a brain tumour. A glioblastoma, gmb. A week later it was removed by an outstanding surgeon was removed by an outstanding surgeon at the National Hospital in queen square. I then had the standard treatment of radio and chemotherapy. She was backing a scheme called the eliminate cancer initiative. Eci. Itaims scheme called the eliminate cancer initiative. Eci. It aims to do three main things. The first, link patients and doctors across the world through a Clinical Trial network. Secondly, speed up the use of active trials. And thirdly, build a global database to improve research and patient care. She wa nted research and patient care. She wanted to share knowledge at every level. She said she was not afraid. So many Cancer Patients collaborate and support each other every day. They create that community of love and determination that they find each other every day. All we now ask is that dog is and Health Systems learn to do the same. Dcotors. And for us us to Work Together to learn from each other. In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it is lived, but how it draws to a close. I hope that this debate will give hope to other Cancer Patients like me so that we Cancer Patients like me so that we can live well together with cancer, not just dying of can live well together with cancer, notjust dying of it. All of us, for longer. Thank you. Hear hear. Toa to a packed Public Gallery and with mps crowding, a fellow former cabinet minister paid tribute to his friend of a0 years. Cabinet minister paid tribute to his friend of 40 years. We are, all of us, privileged to be here this afternoon and to have heard her speak and to give us a clarion call to pick up that cudgel and to work tirelessly to make sure that what she seeks is carried forward for others in the future, and that the nhs, scientists, innovators, co nsulta nts, nhs, scientists, innovators, consultants, can draw down from experience across the world and remember her as we all wheel and a privilege to have heard this afternoon. Will. Hear hear. I would also like to praise her for the determination to raise these ideas. It is fair to say she inspired us all, and many cancer sufferers as well. We should expect nothing else from you and what you brought us in the pattern of big gains in 2012. One of the quirks of the nhs, i do not know if it was intended, it has an unrivalled data sect for medical experiences and journeys. It is invaluable to the research community. We know that the public is not completely with us on sharing data, but we will access and create the data for research purposes. What the data for research purposes. What the noble lady has done today is offered hope. She is making suggestions for how to improve cancer care, raising suggestions for how to improve cancercare, raising our suggestions for how to improve cancer care, raising our sights, demanding we work harder to offer hope for those suffering. It is the right challenge, and one i will acce pt right challenge, and one i will accept on behalf the government. In doing so, i promise our efforts will not waver until the scourge of cancer no longer robs us of the ones we love. The defence secretary hinted he will ask for more money for the armed forces of the uk when he carries out a defence review. Making a statement, he said it would not be fiscally neutral. There has been much speculation in recent weeks there could be cuts on the horizon, specifically the potential loss of Amphibious Assault ships and reports that army levels could fall from 78,000 two 70,000. To. That is will be luthi target of 82,000. It was overseen by the National Security council, but the defence secretary successfully argued for it to be carried out within the ministry of defence. The world is becoming a more dangerous place. We cannot afford to shy away from this reality. We cannot take security for granted. But even more than that, in a post brexit world, britain must continue to champion global good. It must continue to seize global opportunity and deal with global threats. If this review identifies additional spending is necessary for the security of our nation, will the government step up to the plate . Surely he must agree it would be pointless to have a review that finds we need additional equipment and increased personnel only for the government to ignore that recommendation. You cannot do security on the cheap, mr speaker, and the government needs to recognise this. And yet the statement makes reference to further efficiencies being carried out as pa rt of efficiencies being carried out as part of this review, raising the spectre of yet further cuts. The honourable lady asked the question is this aiming to be fiscally neutral as a review, and it is not. It is looking at how we can actually get the armed forces that we need in order to deal with the threats we face. Could you please make sure we do not repeat the nonsense of when people say you can modernise, what they mean is cut. If it is not to be fiscally neutral, can he confirm it isa fiscally neutral, can he confirm it is a departure from the defence select committee. He said it was fiscally neutral. Can members of the armed forces expect a pay rise . He repeated it was not aiming to be fiscally neutral. You have the support of the whole house if you managed to secure additional funding for the pressures this year and next year, to put the defence budget on toa year, to put the defence budget on to a more sustainable footing that allows armed forces to tackle the increased threats they face without these demoralising rumours of deep cuts. The words here are interesting and important. What really matters in the end is money, more money. We have seen room after rumour and speculation undermining not only our global reputation, but also the confidence of serving personnel about their futures. Confidence of serving personnel about theirfutures. Rumourafter rumour. All of it has been nonsense. There had been much criticism during the statement of the way it was made with timing being repeatedly changed, but a conservative believed he understood the pressure. Changed, but a conservative believed he understood the pressurelj changed, but a conservative believed he understood the pressure. I have every sympathy with the secretary of state in terms of the last two days when this was going to be announced that many are familiar with. The minister said the aim of the review was for the armed forces to set out their case with the resources they needed. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled the law allowing people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal low has been wrongly interpreted for more than 40 yea rs. Wrongly interpreted for more than 40 years. Blow. Joint enterprise has been used in recent years to convict people in gang related cases if they could have foreseen violent acts by associates. But it is very controversial because many believe it lowers the burden of proof and allows people to be swept up into prosecution, convicted on the basis they were all in it together. With hundreds of what is known as lifers in prison convicted under what the Supreme Court viewed as an incorrect application of the law, this is one of the biggest injustices we have ever faced. The of the biggest injustices we have everfaced. The criminal of the biggest injustices we have ever faced. The criminaljustice Establishment Club is closing in on itself to prevent this from fully in exposed. Look at the statistics. 3796 of those serving sentences forjoint sentences are black. It is a disproportionate figure which underlines why it is absolutely essential we have the review that my friend called for in the motion today which i fully support. Surely we are seeing a today which i fully support. Surely we are seeing a case, today which i fully support. Surely we are seeing a case, given the uncertainty here, where the courts are in effect acting as legislators. That is incorrect. If there is uncertainty in the law, this house has the clear it up, especially when it is visiting injustice on people. There has been a failure by the criminal Justice System there has been a failure by the criminalJustice System to distinguish between grains and gangs and groups. Not all gangs have a purpose. Humans are by nature are group animals. It does not mean that ifan group animals. It does not mean that if an incident occurs, everyone in the group intended whatever happened to happen. We know in this house when honourable members have picked up when honourable members have picked up the mace, the former leader of the snp, the honourable member lord heseltine, if you picked up the mace and an oldermemberof heseltine, if you picked up the mace and an older member of parliament thought the mace was coming towards them and had a heart attack and died, you would be in serious trouble. But if you discussed it with your colleagues before hand, trouble. But if you discussed it with your colleagues beforehand, you would also be in serious trouble. That is the whole political party, in this occasion, the snp, that could have been heading towards. That is a ridiculous this has become. It is why we need urgent, urgent, urgent review. August, 2013, alex henry went shopping with three friends. A confrontation took place that lasted just over 40 seconds. It is not clear why it took place. It may have been triggered by a stare. One young man used a knife from within a bag and stabbed two brothers, one of whom tragically lost his life. On the sixth day of the trial, the man with the knife beaded guilty to murder with intent and was sentenced to 22 years. Pleaded. Alex henry got 90 years despite never touching the knife or even being aware of its existence. Only four years left. 19. Even being aware of its existence. Only four years left. 19. We can ring an only four years left. 19. We can ring an end to this horrendous disproportionate knight, a stain on jurisprudence. Bring. 40 seconds can lead to 12 years someone who just happens to be in a group of people can find themselves facing the best part of their young life in prison for something they could not stop, even if they wanted to. It is often said, deputy speaker, that the house is at its worst when it is unanimous, when we agreed, this is the exception. I recognise the importance of the law ofjoint enterprise. The impact it can have on those like the constituents of the honourable member for manchester. But for the reasons set out the government does not believe the time is currently right for the changes injoint enterprise is currently right for the changes in joint enterprise law. Is currently right for the changes injoint enterprise law. As laid down by the Supreme Court, i very much hope that the revised guidance on secondary liability will provide guidance for prosecutors in this area and guidance for prosecutors in this area and i happy to keep the matter under review. You are watching thursday in parliament. A senior conservative has made a stinging criticism of the revolving door which allows former ministers to ta ke which allows former ministers to take up highly paid jobs linked to previous earnest aerial responsibility. The chancellor George Osborne took a job with a Financial Firm shortly after leaving office and later took on the editorship of a newspaper. Bernard jenkin, who chairs the Public Administration and Constitutional AffairsCommittee Also said he was disappointed the government had responded evasively to the report on the issue. For example, and i name only one department but it includes every department, at the cost of flow of Senior Officers who finish up flow of Senior Officers who finish up working in the defence industry. Asimilar up working in the defence industry. A similar situation occurs in other departments. Nobody should assure there is automatically anything from with this but there needs to be an adequate reassurance that indeed there is nothing wrong and were not fostering of a permissive attitudes. He described the official watchdog asa he described the official watchdog as a toothless regulator which had failed to change the environment around official appointments. The magazine private eye, from who will we took evidence, frequently appears to do we took evidence, frequently appears todoa we took evidence, frequently appears to do a betterjob than the advisory committee. He said the firm at chancellor agree that nothing is done by government to strengthen rural is further undermines trust and integrity in politics. Our report does mention George Osborne in two respects. First of all, that it was startling that he was given a black checked to join a crock at a very inflated salary. Black rock. So shortly after he had left his first. George osborne also com pletely first. George osborne also completely bypassed the appointment as editor of the Evening Standard prior to accepting his appointment and we regard this as a very glaring example, not necessarily of any particular dishonour, but of how the system absolutely fails to command public confidence. To explain why he had five meetings with black rock, he altered the law in his favour and then took a job for 600 £50,000 for one day a week work. If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to sit what is then. Take a look at the government response to the Committee Abbas report in which we clearly state the government is committed to maintaining the highest behaviour from mps. Committees response. Response Bernard Jenkin described as disappointing. Saying it was not adequate. The Prime Minister says she is appalled by reports of groping and Sexual Harassment at a men only charity fundraiser. Speaking at the World Economic forum she said she thought that objectification of women was something we were leaving behind. The childrens minister attended the evening but said he left the event early. Mps expressed their fury about the womens shipment in the commons on wednesday. One shadow minister wanted to know. If the visitor by the minister was an official or private visit. Was it all the president s men, either way, it is an abuse of power. There is absolutely no place for that type of activity, men only club, effectively abusing young women in the way that the story has been reported. It is absolutely unacceptable. It continues to develop and appalled. Can we have a debate about these club and see what can be done to challenge the laws that sustains them and the culture that sustains them and the culture that still thinks they are acceptable. Zero tolerance and now is the time to tackle this pathetic behaviour. Plastic waste has made the news again as the replace for water refill point across england in an attempt to reduce plastic bottles sold. Businesses which provide it, the refill point was welcomed by the environment secretary. The government is trying to stick to its environment plan. We have a ready band personal product with certain plastics. We are investigating how we develop the scheme to produce more incentives. Why is it that he allowed 25 years of that strategy for the elimination of non essential plastics . The nature of the 25 year plan was a recommendation covering a wide range of issues but it is a case or a more demanding and more ambitious targets which the government is bringing forward but his right to encourage us to do more. The importance of recycling has been mentioned. I concern at the government is opposing the new eu targets. Can you explain why it that is so . We are anxious to make sure across the eu we have the right targets. One of its flaws is measuring through wet. It incentivise us the wrong approach but i confident our country has gone further than the European Union has suggested, banning micro plastic, including taxes and charges on plastic bags. We have gone further and faster than the eu. We want a truly green brexit. Mr gove told the commons he was hopeful of a breakthrough with the us over its ban on haggis because one of its key ingredient is sheeps london. Ban on haggis because one of its key ingredient is sheeps londonlj ban on haggis because one of its key ingredient is sheeps london. I had discussions in order to see if we can lift the ban on haggis. While the american president has many fa u lts the american president has many faults he has one virtue, a scots mother. Controversial plans to build a zip wide tourist attraction across a zip wide tourist attraction across a reservoir faces a zip wide tourist attraction across a reservoirfaces opposition. It was described as a very bad idea and inappropriate for a National Park and World Heritage site. Concerns over the potential thr