28/10/2015 House of Commons

Hello, and welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage of the

House of Commons. In half an hour, David Cameron will face Labour

leader Jeremy Corbyn and back benches for prime ministers

questions. After that, Labour MPs Chris Bryant will ask an urgent

question on the Government's review on the House of Lords following the

Government defeat on planned cuts to tax credits. The main business in

the chamber will be opposition debates. The first focuses on the

steel industry. The second debate is on junior doctors' contracts. The

BMA is campaigning against changes promoted by Health Secretary Jeremy

Hunt. -- proposed. Remember to join me for a round-up of the day in both

houses of Parliament and the Select Committee rooms at 11pm this

evening. First, we have questions to the Secretary of State for

International Development, Justine Greening, and hope team of

ministers. -- her team of ministers. Order, order. Holly Lynch. Question

number one. We are doing climate smart development, and through the

international climate fund we are helping millions of people cope with

the effects of climate change and giving 6.2 million people access to

clean energy. The Prime Minister recently announced that over the

next five years the UK climate funding will increase by at least

50%. 2015 is a once in a generation opportunity to make progress on both

international development and climate change. In countries like

Bangladesh and regions of Africa, connection between climate change

and issues like child marriage is stark. The impact on livelihood of

their homes, they are taking the decision to see their daughters

married earlier and earlier in the hope that at least she will have a

roof over her head and enough to eat. Too often this gamble is

leaving girls at risk. We need a question. I hope that we will

resolve climate change in order to deal with international department.

She is right to point out that climate change has a number of

different impacts that go well beyond simply the environment and

impact people, too. She will know that last year we hold that Girls'

On it. This was about harnessing and increasing the momentum to tackle

child marriage worldwide. That is a flagship programme to do just that

-- girls summit. 660 million Africans currently have no access to

power at all. Can Mike honourable friend explain what she is doing to

make sure that the global goals are met, but being careful and cautious

about climate change. She will be pleased to hear that last week my

honourable friend, the member for a while when garden city, announced a

brand-new programme but the UK will be leading called Energy Africa, it

is aborted by Kofi Annan meaning that we can get energy two people

who are least likely to afford it. I wonder if she is concerned in anyway

of the signals that the Department of energy and climate have been

given from this country in the lack of support for renewable energy on

the change in the regime and what that might mean for lessons in other

countries? There are two aspects to tackling climate change. One is

mitigation, many developed countries like the UK have significant plans

to transition to becoming low carbon economies, but for many others,

critically off in developing countries, the challenge is really

about adaptation to how they are able to read that the climate

change, which often hits them first, but also sustainable growth and

development of the less. Could I congratulate her department on the

excellent work that they have done with the Nepal the government on the

community through forestry programme. It has seen the forest

station increase in the poll. Have we got lessons to learn for other

areas in which her department operates -- Nepal Matt

when you work with a grain of nature and put in place programmes which

allowed livelihoods to be sick successful and profitable, that can

go hand-in-hand with preserving the environment. That is one of the

number the department has in place to tackle reforestation and ensure

that it happens. Question number two. We are supporting 11 partners

with ?221 billion for the onset of winter. Vulnerable refugees will

receive warm clothes, thermal blankets, fuel and cash. The

Minister will be aware that in Lebanon, around 190,000 refugee

families do not live in formal camps. Those who cannot afford to

rent accommodation are often forced to live in tented settlements in

rural areas or unfurnished buildings in urban areas. What steps are the

department taking to support those who live outside as well as inside

the refugee camps? As the honourable gentleman observes, there are no

refugee camps in Lebanon. I visited the settlement to which he refers,

and it is precisely for that reason that we support Unicef and the UNHCR

to make the provision that we are paying for. Code the Minister told a

House whether the persecuted Christians and other religious

minorities are able to get into the camps, and whether they will be able

to remain within them and take winter refuge? Mr Speaker, I have

visited camps that are specifically for Christians. But I would be

reluctant to make any kind of aid provision specific to a religious

conversion, because that would be to port combustible on a conflict which

is already in process. Mr Speaker, refugee children in Europe also face

a tough winter. Last week, the UNHCR expressed concern that unaccompanied

children moving in Europe are at a heightened risk of violence and

abuse, especially in reception centres. Save the children operates

in Italy and Greece, they identified that these children are operating a

high level of psychological distress. Does the Minister agree

that is because these children have arrived in Europe, it does not mean

that they are safe, and can he remind the Prime Minister that I

wrote to him on the 11th of September and I am still awaiting an

answer? I don't dig that the Prime Minister will be needing any

reminder about the nature of the crisis. It is precisely for these

reasons that we provide core funding to the UNHCR and Unicef. The United

Kingdom is rightly, in my view, taking 20,000 refugees. Their right

eight categories of profiles of resettlement under the UNHCR

guidelines -- there. Will the Government be using those

guidelines, or will we be introducing our own guidelines,

given that the eight categories do not include widows orphans? Mr

Speaker, we will be using the UNHCR guidelines. Thank you, Mr Speaker,

can I pre-emptively welcome the new Labour front bench team and look

forward to working with them on these important matters. Does the

onset of winter and the challenges it brings not highlight the

importance of the UK playing a diplomatic role in resolving the

crisis in Syria, and does the Minister agree that as the winter

sets in and family start to freeze, this is what the government

migration be prioritising? I agree in Tiley that we must bend every

muscle to providing a settlement -- entirely. In supporting preparation

for winter, can Mike honourable friend confirmed that it is the UK

that is taking the lead in Europe in providing more resources than any of

other of our European allies. He is quite right. This is the greatest

humanitarian response that we have made to any emergency ever. Diane

Abbott. There are terrible reports of the conditions in the Syrian

refugee camps on the Greek islands like Lesbos. No shelter, no food,

children's sleeping in bin bags, and conditions can only get worse as

winter approaches. Is the Government really prepared to turn its back on

people like these? We have already done work and are doing work with

the UNHCR and the Red Cross. Chris Davies. Question three, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should take the opportunity to welcome the

shadow front bench team into their roles, I look forward to debate but

also hopefully constructively working with them on the common

cause on this agenda. Mr Speaker, the root causes of migration are

diverse, they include conflict, lack of security, and also lack of

opportunity and jobs. That is why we are providing help and security for

refugees are affected by the Syrian prizes, and when we are doubling our

jobs and growth it is not only did for the people in the country, it is

in our national interest. The focus in recent weeks has been on migrants

from the Syrian conflict, but what is her department doing to tackle

migration from Africa? Two things, in short, working to create jobs. We

doubled our economic development work across the department. Also

helping African countries cope with refugees and displaced people that

they themselves have, for example in Ethiopian, Sudan and Kenya. Thank

you. Can the Minister confirm that migrants from Eritrea are no longer

going to be described as economic migrants, since some of the worst

human rights atrocities are taking place in that country? She is

absolutely right to highlight the human rights concerns that we have

in relation to Eritrea. In relation to her more specific question, let

me write to her with an update. We are happy to hear the honourable

lady. Thank you. Many women and girls come to our shores to escape

evil and oppression abroad. Can the Minister update me on what the

department is doing through our aid programme to fight the practice of

FGM around the world? The UK has a flagship programme, the largest of

its kind in the world, that is supporting this African led movement

now to end FGM in 17 of the most affected countries. Our goals summit

last year galvanised global movement on ending FGM child marriage, and

indeed next month, the African Union are indeed themselves hosting an

African summit to maintain momentum, which I hope to be able to join.

This is a disappointing question. The root cause of migration is

because they prefer the weather, of Britons to Spain. Will the Secretary

of State have a word with the whips office to stop conflating the

refugee crisis with economic migration?

I was not expecting a question on UK pensioners in elation to migration

but he has obviously made his point. The focus from a different

perspective is to help people caught up in crises like Syria through

no-fault of their own and ensure they get the support and medical

treatment but also that their children, the education they

deserve. Question number four, Mr Speaker. Registration is essential

in order to enable refugees to obtain humanitarian services and

protection under international law. To date, we have provided ?44

million in Jordan and Lebanon on which will include coverage of

registration and the issuing of birth certificates. I am very

grateful to the that helpful answer as he outlines, registration can be

vital. Some estimates suggest nearly 30,000 Syrian refugee children born

in Lebanon on could fall into that category. Does the minister

recognise this needs to be responded to, both from the Government and

grassroots legal advice organisations on the ground and will

he commit to supporting that registration? Can I suggest to the

honourable gentleman that the deployment of a blue pencil is

helpful on these occasions. I cannot confirm the figures, if they are not

registered, it makes it rather difficult account. But he is right

and it is essential we continue to work with the Norwegian refugee

council which a particular expertise in securing the rights for refugees

and that we continue to lobby the Government. Given the complexity of

the situation, how meticulous and precise are the processes to insure

that children most at risk are prioritised, trying to deliver a

more acceptable outcome? I have visited the registration centres in

Lebanon on and I can assure him, as to the extraordinary efforts that

have gone to, by a remarkable staff. Undoubtedly, it has become

challenging, since May, although it has improved more recently but we

are on the case. I thank the minister for his answer on the 44

million but what actual action is the Government going to take because

there are specific issues, of fair complexity and cost of registering

these stateless children and we don't want to see anybody left

behind. Will he come back with a more specific cancer? I welcome the

honourable gentleman to the front bench and I think it is important to

put your money where your mouth is. 44 million is an important part of

the answer. It is vital we work with the Norwegian refugee council and

that we lobby the Government. I don't rule Lebanon on unfortunately.

2.3 million people in Gaza and the West Bank have insecure access to

food. 1.4 million are in need of water, sanitation and hygiene. This

month, 58 Palestinians have been killed, 7042 Palestinians and 70

Israeli 's have been injured. A related question on Gaza if I may.

What assessment has been made of the destruction of UK funded facilities

in Gaza by the bombing of the Israeli air force? It seems we are

in a situation where we either directly or through the UN, provide

facilities that get bombed and then have to provide them again. What can

stop this tragic merry-go-round? Will he try to persuade the Israeli

Government... These questions are too long, we are very short of time.

12 UK underfunded UK schools were severely damaged in the hostilities

and the only way we can prevent this is by peace process.

Will he praised the doctors at the medical centre in Jerusalem who are

showing real humanitarian characteristics by treating victims

at and attackers at the same time? I think that is a lesson to the

measure of leadership that is now required to overcome the huge amount

of distrust and hatred. What discussions have the Secretary of

State has with the Israeli Government about the increase in the

illegal building on the West Bank and the impact that has had on the

current levels of violence? I have had substantial discussions with the

Israeli Government on this issue and could not have been more robust in

my representations. That took me by surprise! What consideration has my

taken to the provision of a desalination plant the Gaza as

proposed by the Israeli Government which would provide all water needs

for Gaza and would satisfy the humanitarian grounds we want to see.

My honourable friend draws attention to this, the UN study predicts Gaza

will become uninhabitable as a consequence of the water problem by

2020 so it is vital there is a peace process so the level of investment

required to drive such developments becomes available. My capacity this

summer, I visited a prison in Jamaica where we negotiated a prison

bill to transfer an arrangement for a national offender is reported by

my right honourable friend. We spend lots of money incarcerating national

offenders in this country, with the minister be kind enough to look at

Pakistan, Bangladesh and Vietnam for future projects? My honourable

friend will be pleased that her we do work in various countries. I just

described Jamaica. I will shortly visit Ghana. Where does building

prisons fit into the UK's state spending priorities for foreign aid

and does the minister understand concerns about aid money perhaps

increasingly being siphoned off for other purposes? As the honourable

lady, mentioned, we have a strict regime about where money is spent

but in the end it is about security both in those countries and at home.

Topical questions. Last month I was at the UN for its historic adoption

of the 17 global goals and the UK provided a key role in creating

goals that have a commitment to leave no one behind. The UK pressed

for more support Syrian refugees and finally, at a Rotary event in last

week alongside my right honourable friend for Southend West, we

recognise that for the first time, there have been no cases in Africa

of polio in over a year. I congratulate the honourable member

for winning a procurement award. What more can she do for value for

money in her department? It is an area I would be keen to deliver on

Ashe I have been keen to deliver on for the taxpayer.

We are now looking at how we can make it easier for SME s to work

with... As a result of the on going conflict

in Yemen, 21 million people are now in desperate need of aid. What is

she doing to secure action by the UN Security Council for

constructing... To the conflict in peace talks and providing

humanitarian access? He is absolutely right to raise this

forgotten crisis. At the UN in September I held a discussion with a

range of people including UN agencies about how we can do a

better job of reaching people in need. That fundamentally requires a

dialogue on how to achieve peace. Given that the Government of Somalia

are now taking control of a number of towns and areas that were

previously occupied by Al Shaqab, does he agree it is crucial that

effective local government services are put in place to support local

communities? Her that salute you write that as we achieve rowing

political stability hopefully in Somalia, we then back that up with

allowing a more federal approach to Government and indeed we are pulling

together programmes that will enable us to support local government to do

the basic services people depend on. Speaking about the situation in

Palestine last week, the Israeli Prime Minister declared Israel would

have to control all the territories, his words, for the

foreseeable future. He has no intention of allowing the creation

of two states. What implications has that got for UK development policy?

It is absolutely vital that we get a peace process back on track. I hope

that at the weekend, the agreement that was made about the temple is at

least a start to that process but the only way to address the issues

that it raises is pursuing a two state solution. Can you update the

House on what you are doing to help fragile states? Thank you. This is

an area we have chosen to focus more work on helping fragile and failing

states tackling instability and helping people affected by conflict.

It is not just the right thing to do for those people and their

countries, it is how we can keep our own country safe, secure and

prosperous as well. On the 15th of October, human rights watch

published a report on the deteriorating situation in Nepal.

That document over 45 deaths in recent months and it criticises the

Nepal the police. Given the department is funding the police

there, can I ask if they would read the report and give a considered

response data bindings? He raises an important point and the work

alongside the police have been important to help us ensure

humanitarian support gets to people affected by the earthquake. We will

of course respond. Hampshire farm rescue played a critical role in the

immediate recovery efforts after the earthquake in Nepal, what steps are

being taken to insure economic recovery in that country? Beyond

providing initial emergency humanitarian aid we now need to look

at how we can look at hopping Nepal recover which includes investment in

infrastructure in particular. Also broader investment in energy and

access to energy and improving the business environment to get

investment in the country. Can the minister reassure the House the

steps the department are taking... INAUDIBLE

Much of the work we do is aimed at engendering stability in countries

but in the end, many of the issues the honourable members raise need to

be dealt with at a political level and they need long-term leadership

in order to ensure communities can live side-by-side. When that is in

place we have the best prospect of development. The global humanitarian

system is struggling to cope under the pressure of many crises in the

world. Can the Britain is doing to reform the

system so it is fit for purpose for years to come? Encouraging UN

agencies to improve on value for money but secondly looking ahead to

the world humanitarian summit in Istanbul next year, making sure the

international community and UN agencies have a better response to

protracted crises such as the one in Syria, where children are left with

no education and people are left with no jobs. Those are the root

causes as to why migration is now taking place from that region. It

has been more than a month since the sustainable development goals worth

agreed in the United Nations, when will the Government published its

plans for the implementation of the goals? I think we can be proud of

the work the UK did in shaping those goals. It was led by the Prime

Minister and his participation in the high-level panel by that sex is

up by the Secretary General of the UN. -- set up by the Secretary

General of the UN. She has done fantastic word in

tackling female genital mutilation, what further steps will she take to

tackle the equally up rent -- abhorrent breast... It is absolutely

vital women have voice and control in their lives. It is essential what

we do and it will continue to be. I welcome the announcement of

increased support to the urgently needed humanitarian relief in Yemen.

Can she comet on the effectiveness of this aid when supporting the

Coalition hurriedly carrying out indiscriminate bombing in civilian

areas? The long-term solution to helping people in Yemen is going to

be a political process that delivers peace but secondly, she is right to

highlight the dire humanitarian situation which sees 80% of people

in Yemen in need. I can assure her that we are working on improving

access for aid getting into the country but also that making sure

that aid, particularly fuel, that it can also get around the country to

communities in need. I know the whole house will wish to

join me and paid tribute to Michael Meacher. He died suddenly last week

and we send our condolences to his family and friends. Michael

dedicated his life to public service, diligently representing his

constituents for a staggering 45 years. He was a passionate advocate

of the causes he believed in, including the environment, and he

was able to put these into practice as a minister between 97-2003. This

house and our politics are poorer place without him and I know

colleagues from all sides of this chamber will remember him with

affection and miss him greatly. Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties

in this house to have further meetings today. Can I associate

myself with the sympathies expressed by the Prime Minister. Will my right

honourable friend join me in celebrating that one in ten of the

world's tractors are built in Basildon? Yanuyanutawa not an Airbus

Basildon. And it is attracting Basildon. And it is attracting

investment from well renowned organisations such as the Royal

Opera house. All of this is leading to job creation and opportunity.

Will he therefore do all he can to ensure that Britain remains a great

place to do business and prosper in the? -- prosper in. Basildon has a

special place in my heart. I didn't know all those statistics, but it

now has an even more special place. I can to him that the long-term use

claimants is down by 24% of the last year. He spoke about what a great

place Britain is to do business. We are now six in the rankings in the

world for the best place to setup and to run a business. I know the

Leader of the Opposition, not least because his new spokesman is

apparently a great admirer of the Soviet Union, will be pleased to

start the day with tractor statistics.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by associating myself with the

remarks the Prime Minister made about Michael Meacher? On behalf of

the Labour Party, his constituents and the much wider community, our

condolences to his family. I spoke to them last night and asked how

they would like Michael to be remembered. They thought about it

and sent me a very nice message, which if I may, I will read out.

Quite brief but very poignant. They said, when I was young one of the

things he frequently said to me was that people went into politics

because their principles and they wanted to change things to make

things better, but in order to get into power they would often

compromise on their principles and that this could happen again and

again until, if they eventually did get into power, they would have

become so compromise that they would do nothing with it. Michael was a

decent, hard-working, passionate and profound man. He represented he his

constituency with diligence for 45 years. He was a brilliant

environment minister, as the Prime Minister pointed out. He was totally

committed to parliamentary democracy and this Parliament, holding

government or governments to account and he was a lifelong campaigner

against injustice and poverty. We've remember Michael for all those

things, we express our condolences and express are some these to his

family at this very difficult time. His will be a hard act to follow,

but we will do our best. Mr Speaker, following the events on

Monday evening, and the belated acceptance from the Prime Minister

of the result there, can he now guaranteed to The House and wider

country that nobody will be worse off next year as a result of cuts to

working tax credits? What I can guarantee is we remain

committed to the vision of a higher pay, low tax, lower welfare

economy. We believe the way to make sure that everyone is better off is

to keep growing our economy, keep inflation low, keep cutting peoples

taxes and introduce the national living wage. As for changes, the

Chancellor will set them out in the Autumn Statement. I thank the Prime

Minister for that, but the question I was asking was quite simply this.

Will he confirm, right now, that tax credit cuts will not make anyone

worse off in April next year? What we want is for people to be

better off because we are cutting their taxes and increasing their

paid, that he is going to have to be a little patient, because although

these changes passed the House of Commons five times, with ever

enlarging majorities, we will set out our new proposals in the Autumn

Statement and you will be able to study them.

Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker, this is the time when we

asked questions of the Prime Minister on behalf of the people of

this country. Thank you. Mr Speaker, if I may continue.

People are very worried about what is going to happen to them next

April. So what exactly does the Prime Minister mean, is considering

it, there is an Autumn Statement coming up? We thought he was

committed to not cutting tax credits. Is he going to cut tax

credits or not, are people going to be worse for next in April next

year? You must know the answer. First of all we set out in our

election manifesto that we would find ?12 billion of savings on

welfare. Order, there is too much noise in the chamber. Order! A bit

of calm. The questions must be heard, and the answers must be

heard. The Prime Minister. Thank you Mr Speaker. It is an

important point because every penny we don't save on welfare is savings

we have to find in the education budget or in the policing budgets,

or in the health budget. The second point I would make is the cause of

what has happened on the other place, of course we should have a

debate about how to reform welfare and how to reduce the cost of

welfare. I am happy to have that debate, but of course it is

difficult to have that debate with the honourable gentleman, because he

has opposed everything all welfare change that was made. He doesn't

support the welfare cap. He doesn't support the cap on housing benefit.

He doesn't think that any change to welfare is worthwhile. I have to

say, if we want a strong economy and we want growth, we want to get rid

of our deficit, we want to secure our country, we need to reform

welfare. What we are talking about our tax

credits for people in work. The Prime Minister knows that, he

understands that. He has lost the support of many people in this

country that are actually quite synthetic to his political project.

Some of the papers who supported him have come against on this. He did

commit to ?12 billion worth of cuts in the welfare budget repeatedly

refused to say if tax credits would be part of this. In fact he said

they want. Can he now give us the answer we are trying to get today?

Answer the question. The answer will be set out in the

Autumn Statement when we set out our proposals. I have to say to him, it

has come to quite a strange set of events when you have the House of

Commons voting for something five times, when there is absolutely no

rebellion among conservative members of parliament, or indeed amongst

Conservative peers and the Labour Party is left offending and

depending on unelected peers in the House of Lords. We British politics

a new alliance. The unelected and the unelectable.

SHOUTING. Mr Speaker, it is very interesting the Prime Minister still

refuses to answer the fundamental question. This is not a

constitutional crisis, this is a crisis for 3 million families in

this country, for 3 million families in this country who are very worried

about what is going to happen next April. Just before the last

election, the former Chief Whip, now Justice Secretary, said in answer to

a question on the BBC world at one, are you going to cut tax credits?

The answer was, we are not going to cut them. Why did he say that?

What I said in the election is that the basic level of child tax credits

would stay the same. At ?2700 per child it stays exactly the same. The

point is this, if we want to get our deficit down, if we want to secure

our, me, if we want to keep on with secure growth, we need to make

savings on welfare. Even with his deficit denying, borrow forever

plan, presumably he has to make some savings in public spending? If you

don't save any money on welfare, you end up cutting the NHS, you end up

cutting even more deeply police budgets. Those are the troops. One

is he going to stop deficit denial, get off the fence and tell us what

he would do? Mr Speaker... A moment ago, the

answer is a need to be heard, the questions need to be heard. The man

is going to ask his question and it will be heard. If it takes longer,

so be it. Thank you Mr Speaker. I've five

times asked the Prime Minister today whether or not people will be worse

off if they receive working tax credits next April? He still hasn't

been able to answer me or indeed many others. Can I put him a

question I was sent... CHEERING Mr Speaker, it might be very amusing

to members said, but... I was sent this question by Karen:

Why is the Prime Minister punishing working families? I work full time

and earn their living wage within the public sector. The tax credit

cuts will push me and my family into hardship. Can he give a cast-iron

guarantee to Karen and all the other families who are very worried what

is going to happen next April to therein come, how they are going to

make ends meet, could give them the answer today, I hope you will. I ask

him, for the sixth time, please give us an answer to a very

straightforward, very simple question.

What I would say to Karen is this, if she is on the living wage,

working in the public sector, next year in April she will benefit from

being able to earn ?11,000 before she pays any income tax at all. It

was around ?6,000 when I became Prime Minister forced up if she has

children, she will benefit from 30 hours of childcare every week. That

is something that has happened under this government. But above all, she

will benefit because we have a growing economy, because we have

zero inflation, because we have two million more people in work, because

we will train 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, and that is the

fact. The reason the Labour Party lost the last election is they were

completely un-trusted on the deficit, on debt and on a stable

economy. And since then the deficit deniers have taken over the Labour

Party. That is what happened. When you look at their plans, borrowing

for ever, printing money, hiking up taxes, it is working people like

Karen that will pay the price. Mr Speaker, in my constituency,

unemployment has fallen by 30% since 2010. And this Government has

delivered the M6 Link Road after 60 years. It will treat even more jobs

in my area when it's completed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me

that the Conservatives are insuring Morecambe is back open for

business? I remember visiting his constituency and looking at the very

important roadworks that were being put in place which will up the port,

help when we bring in the new nuclear power station and the other

steps he wants to see, I can tell him the long-term youth claimant

count in his constituency has fallen by 30% in the last year, Young

people now able to work, to benefit from our growing economy. Angus

Robertson. We associate ourselves with the condolences expressed by

the and the Leader of the Opposition about Michael. Last week I asked the

Prime Minister Erdogan tragic circumstances of Mike O'Sullivan,

from north London, a disabled man who took his life after an

assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. We know 60

investigations had taken place into suicide wallowing the cancellation

not been published. The Prime not been published. The Prime

Minister said to me last week that he would look very carefully at the

specific question about publication. Will he confirm when these findings

will be published? I will write to him about this but my memory from

looking into this afterward is there are very good reasons why we can't

publish the specific report he talks about because it has personal and

medical data in it which would not be appropriate for publication. If I

got that wrong, I will write to him but that's my clear memory of

looking into his question after last week. Tim Salter from Stourbridge in

the West Midlands was 53 when he took his life. The coroner ruled a

major factor in his death was greatly reduced living almost

destitute. His sister said if of honourable people who will be

affected the worst. The DWP need to publish these reviews. The Prime

Minister says he is concerned about the views of the families involved.

The families say the findings should be published. Really publish them? 3

million families will have their child tax credit is cancelled. We

knew the answer to these questions. Let me correct on its last point.

Under the proposals we put forward, those people on the lowest levels of

pay where protected because of a national living wage and those

people on the lowest incomes where protected because we were protecting

the basic award of a child tax credit in 2007 and ?80. The other

part of the question is a bit I've already answered but I'll send them

a letter if I got it wrong, they were too many personal and medical

details for that to be published. I think they is an important

consideration that in deciding whether to publish something. I'd

like to ask the Prime Minister about Ruby, one of my youngest

constituents, just one-month-old. Why should she faced the prospect of

spending their entire working life paying off the debt would have been

built up by this generation? I think Ruby is right, when we became the

Government, one in ?4 spent by the Government was borrowed money. We

had one of the biggest budget deficit anywhere in the world and

it's always easy for people to say put off the difficult decisions,

don't make any spending reductions, but what they are doing is burdening

future generations with debt. What I would say to the Labour front bench,

that is not generosity, that is actually selfishness. I think the

lady must have misheard but Mrs Sharon Hodgson. We know about the

broken promise about tax credits but for the final nail in the coffin of

compassionate Conservative there's be hammered home everywhere to scrap

universal infant free school meals in the spending review, taking hot

meals out of the mouths of innocent name with infant children? Will he

guarantee now not to scrap universal infant pre-school meals slowly does

not go down in history as David the Denis Thatcher? I'm immensely proud

it was part of the Government would introduce this policy 13 years of a

Labour Government and did they ever do that? -- dinner snatcher. Do you

remember the infant free school meals, Labour Party? I'm proud of

what we have done and we will be keeping it.

CHEERING Thank you. Mr Speaker, my right

honourable friend has demonstrated considerable leadership in ensuring

Britain is the second-largest donor of aid in Syria. There is another

crisis going on which the world is largely forgetting. In Yemen is an

ongoing war, 1.4 million people forced to flee their homes, 3

million face starvation, half a million children are at risk from

malnutrition and the president of the International Red Cross has said

in Yemen, after five months, we're in the same position as we are in

Syria after five years. Please can we do more? He's absolutely right to

raise this and we have been involved in trying to help the situation

right from the start, as in Syria, a major contributor in terms of

humanitarian aid. We've made it clear all parties should engage

without conditions and in good faith in peace talks to allow Yemen to

move towards a sustainable peace and that needs to be a piece based on

the fact that all people in Yemen needs proper representation by their

Government. There are similarities with Syria, which is having a

Government on behalf of one part of the country, never a sustainable

solution. How dare anyone in this House earning ?74,000 a year tell

families their combined income of ?25,000 is too much and they need to

give something back to balance the economy? Did the Prime Minister

accused the listener 's manifesto because he knew he wouldn't be

elected? -- refused to put this in his manifesto. When I became Prime

Minister, nine out of ten families were getting tax credits, including

MPs. That's how crazy the system we inherited was. We would use that

during the last Parliament, opposed of course by Labour and the SNP, 26

out of ten families. Our proposals would take that down to five out of

ten families but these are not proposals on their own but

accompanied by a national living wage, for first time. By allowing

people to air and ?11,000 before paying tax, for the first time,

those sorts of measures will help the thought of family she talks

about. The Prime Minister spoke about conference about the plight of

young people in the care system. Can he answer what the garment will do

to improve the chances of these young disadvantaged children and

give them opportunities as they move forward in their lives? The most

important thing we can do is to speed up the adoption system so more

children get adopted. What we have seen since I've been Prime Minister

is an increase in adoptions but, because of one or two judgments, it

slipped backwards a bit and need to work very hard to make sure more

children get adopted. For those who can't be adopted, we need to make

sure our residential care homes are doing the best possible job they can

and that's why today I can announce I've asked the former chief

executive of Barnardos, an excellent public servant, who I worked with at

the Home Office, to conduct an independent review of children's

residential care reporting to the Education Secretary at myself so we

can take every step to give these children the best start in life.

Redundant steelworkers such as those in Wrexham pay national insurance

contributions and played by the rules. Why then is this Government

limiting mortgage interest support for them in the future and making

them pay twice, once through national insurance and once through

paying back a loan? Isn't that type of action and irresponsible

Government like his should not be pursuing and isn't it an example of

compassionate conservatism dying? He refers to a temporary recession

measure on mortgage payments which was continued for five years but he

does give me the opportunity to say, as I promised I would last night, to

update the House on what we're doing to help the steel industry which is

important to his constituency and, on energy costs, we will refund the

full amount of the policy costs they full amount of the policy costs they

face as soon as we get the state aided judgment from Brussels. I can

confirm that payment will be made immediately and throughout this

Parliament, far more generous than what has been proposed by the party

opposite. Graham Evans. I have had hundreds of e-mails from

constituents regarding the Northern Powerhouse and I have just chose

one. John e-mailed me to say, not to listen to lead of the opposition

with his strategy of higher spending, higher borrowing, more

debt, but instead to stick to the long-term economic higher wages,

lower welfare, low tax society for that does the Prime Minister agree

with John? I do agree. He has demonstrated more sense in his

Melbourne leader the opposition did in his six questions. Not only have

we seen an economy growing, 2 million more people in work,

inflation that is low, living standards are rising, but actually,

680,000 fewer work less household and 480,000 fewer children in

workless households. If you want to measure the real difference is the

growth in the economy is making, think of those children and

households and the dignity of work. Last weekend was the first

anniversary of the death from cervical cancer of the girl aged 23.

In June 2013, she was concerned to ask for an early smear test was

refused because she was under 25. As has been highlighted, her family

have now written an open letter to the Prime Minister. Can I ask him

not to offer here a reflex repeat of the rationale for current screening

age policy, but to reflect on the questions raised about how this

translates into refusing smear tests to young women like this and to

consider the age related level since it was increased in 2004? He raises

an absolutely tragic case and our thoughts go to her family and

friends. He raises an important case because the UK National screening

committee set the age of 25 and my understanding is the reason for that

is not a resource is based decision, but because of the potential adverse

medical consequences of carrying out screening routinely below that age

that there would be a number potentially false positives because

of actually anatomical changes were to go on at that age full that

reason, not of resources decision. It is worth looking at. Those people

who fear they have a family history and ask for a test, I will write to

him on that specific issue. Yesterday the EU said we can no

longer have filters on the Internet to protect our children from

indecent images. I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do to

make sure our children remain protected. I think it's absolutely

vitally important we enable parents to have that protection for their

children from this material on the Internet. Like her, when I read my

daily main was morning, I spotted over my cornflakes because they work

so hard to put in place these filters but I can reassure her

because we actually secured an opt out yesterday so we can keep our

family friendly filters to protect children and I can tell our House we

will legislate to put our agreement with Internet companies on this

issue into the law of the land so our children will be protected. Tim

Farron. Mr Speaker, can I associate myself with the Prime Minister 's

early remarks about the late Michael Meacher, a decent man, a good MP,

and an extremely effective Environment Secretary. Yesterday I

visited the refugee camps on Lesbos and there I met families that were

inspirational, and desperate run alongside at a charity workers I

found there. I am ashamed we will not offer at home to a single one of

those averaging families. My ask the Prime Minister this question? Will

not offer at home to a single one of those averaging families. My ask the

Prime Minister this question? With the aggrieved with the save the

children plea that we take as a country 3000 vulnerable and

accompanied children some as young as six? Let me again welcome him to

his place for them it's good to see such a high turnout of his MPs.

LAUGHTER . Let me answer him directly. We

have taken a decision as a country to take 20,000 refugees and we think

it is better to take them from the camps instead of taking them from

inside Europe. I repeat again today that we believe we will achieve 1000

refugees brought to Britain and housed and clothes and fed before

Christmas, specifically on his question, though, about 3000

children and the proposal made by save the children, I have looked at

this very carefully and there are other experts to point to the real

danger of separating children from their broader families and that's

why to date we have not taken that decision. As he begins his

negotiations on our reformed relationship with the European

Union, in earnest, will my right honourable friend confirmed to our

partners and the British people that no option is off the table, all

British options will be considered, including the option of a

relationship such as that of Norway if it's negotiable and within our

interests? I can certainly confirm to my honourable friend that no

options are off the table and, as I have been clear, if we don't get

what we need in our green negotiation, I will absolutely rule

nothing out but important, as we have this debate as a nation, we are

very clear about the facts and figures and the alternatives,

because some people are arguing for Britain to leave the EU, not all

people, and have pointed to the position of Norway saying it's a

good outcome. I would guide very strongly against that, Norway

actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do and take twice as

many per head migrants as we do in this country, but they have no seat

at the table, no ability to negotiate. I'm not arguing all those

who want to leave the EU say they want to follow the Norwegian pass,

but some do, and I think it's important in this debate we are

absolutely clear about the consequences of these different

actions. Willa Prime Minister congratulate my 17-year-old

constituent on her 3800 named in addition to get the exam board for

the first time to accept women composers on the syllabus. Will he

tell us is he a feminist? If feminism means that we should treat

people equally, then, yes, absolutely. And I'm proud of the

fact I have got sitting around the Cabinet table, a third of women on

something we promised and something we delivered. Can I congratulate

her, above all, for her achievement in terms of this eve petition. It

sounds thoroughly worthwhile and her constituent and have done a good

job. Andrew Turner. The NHS England knows that the Isle of Wight's

clinical commissioning group is a significant outlier in relation to

its allocation targets. Can my right honourable friend confirm that

progress is being made to identify the factors affecting the island?

Really benefit from amendments to the new CCG formula? What I can say

to my honourable friend is its right that assistance on allocations are

made independent of Government and not by Government and so that is how

the formula is reached. I can also tell him is an independent review of

the funding formula underway and we expect to see its recommendations

later this year but these things should be done in a fair and

transparent way. The Prime Minister will remember meeting my

constituents, Neal Shepherd and Sharon Wood, nine years ago this

week. Neil took their children on holiday to Corfu and the children

tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning. The family's dearest wish

is no other family suffers this heartbreaking tragedy they have

endured. Tomorrow in the EU Parliament there will be a vote on a

recommendation that the commissioner brings forward legislation to

improve carbon monoxide safety and fire safety for tourism premises in

the EU. Can I ask the Prime Minister that is MPs supported and if that

motion falls, will he instigate legislation nationally in this

country? First of all, I do remember the meeting we had and the great

bravery of the parents after their terrible loss. Wanting to go on and

campaign to make sure others did not use children in the way they had. I

will look carefully at what you said about the European Parliament as for

legislation in this country, we have strict regulation on particular

things about fire resistant materials but I will look carefully

at that too. Question 14, closed questions. Prime Minister,... We

said at a long-term plan for the Midlands making its future engine

for growth for the whole of the UK and across Government we are working

with business leaders and local authorities to progress this

ambition. I thank him for his answer. The Northern Powerhouse will

help millions but it's the West Midlands which is the only region in

the UK which has a trade balance surplus with China and its Greater

Birmingham which is the fastest rate of private-sector job creation in

the UK since 2010. So will the Prime Minister now ensure, in the national

interest, but the West Midlands secures the best devolution deal

possible? I think we have huge potential here to secure massive

devolution to the West Midlands first ball I would say to everyone

concerned they will be left out by the Northern Powerhouse, I think the

West Midlands is in a perfect place to benefit both from the success and

growth of London and of course a rebalancing of our economy towards

the North of England. In terms of the West Midlands, we look forward

to the West Midlands combined authority coming forward with its

plans and what I would say to these areas contemplating devolution and

devolution deals, the more you can put on the table, the builder you

can be with your vision, the bolder response you would get Government.

Can I tell a the Chancellor the strong support of the parties,

businesses across the West Midlands, for a properly funded and

significant devolution deal to strengthen the economy, boost

productivity and get the brown site redeveloped to tackle congestion so

we can transform the West Midlands with more jobs, better skills, quick

transport links and new homes? I'm glad to hear from the honourable

gentleman what an opportunity there is in the West Midlands to work

across party to get the very best deal across all these authorities

because, as I said, the more we can get the local authorities to come

together and work together, and put their ambition and vision on the

table, the better response they will get from the Government. Simon

Burns. Does my right honourable friend

agree with me that bullying in the workplace is reprehensible? Can he

tell me whether the Government is planning any review of the

legislation with a view to extending it to this chamber? Given that my

right honourable friend has been called for a primaries as questions

at 12:38pm, I would have thought any hint of bullying was clearly

overemphasise in every conceivable way. He suffers no disadvantage and

that's a good thing but bullying in the workplace is a problem and we do

need to make sure it is stamped out and dealt with and that should apply

in Parliament as elsewhere. Urgent question.

The Leader of the House, Chris Grayling. Mr Speaker, on Monday, the

House of Lords rejected a financial measure that had been approved three

times by the elected House of Commons. We are clear that this

raises constitutional issues that need to be examined carefully. We

need to ensure we have arrangements in place... Order. I apologise for

interrupting the leader of the house. This is a very serious

matter. I think it would be seemly if colleagues who are leaving the

chamber did so quickly and quietly and if others inclined to conduct

private conversations perhaps decided to conduct those private

conversations outside the chamber. There is a very important matter

being dealt with in response to the urgent question. The leader of the

house. We need to ensure that we have arrangements in place that

protect the ability of elected governments to secure business that

has the support of the elected house. Yesterday the government

announced that it is in the process of setting up a review to examine

how to protect the ability of elected governments to secure their

business in Parliament. It will consider how to secure the decisive

role of elected House of Commons in relation to its privacy on financial

matters and secondary legislation. It will be led by Lord Strathclyde

and supported by a small panel of experts. The relationship between

the Commons and the Lords is extremely important and when

conventions are put in doubt it is right that we review that. Clearly

the house will be fully updated once more details of the review have been

agreed. It is clear that the government intends to give the House

of Lords a kicking but it should remember, as it fashions this

pretend constitutional crisis, that the vast majority of people in this

country uploaded the Lord's on Monday because this was not in the

government's manifesto. Does he see no irony at all in getting a member

of the House of Lords to review the financial privilege of the House of

Commons and a hybrid of trade peer at that? Is this the right person to

be doing it? In 1999 Lord Strathclyde said of the convention

that the Lords did not strike down statutory instruments, I declare

this convention is dead. That same day he and the Lords voted down two

Labour government statutory instruments. He thinks it is an

utter disgrace to do so. Is there one rule for Tory regulations and

another one for Labour ones? Is he a convert or hypocrite? Why are there

no representatives... Order. I am perfectly capable of dealing with

these matters. I do not require any sedentary cantering. He should

withdraw that term. I withdraw that unreservedly. I presume he is a

convert. Why are there no representatives of other parties or

the House of Commons? Would it not be better for this house to conduct

its own inquiry? Could not the public administration and

constitutional affairs committee whose church is admirable and

sitting in the chamber now do the job vibrator? Is there not a far

simpler means or guaranteeing financial privilege? Stop relying on

secondary legislation. In all honesty is not a disgrace that

measures that affect 3.2 million people in this country should be

decided on a 90 minute debate with no opportunity for amendment? There

is a very simple principle. Money bills do not get scrutiny in the

words so get extra time in the House of Commons. Secondary legislation

does not get much time in the Commons so it gets consideration in

the House of Lords. Does the leader not realise that the Lords only had

the power they acted on Monday because the government tried to

sidestep scrutiny by using secondary legislation dependent on the tax

credits act 2002, section 66 of which specifies that changes to tax

credit rates must be approved by the Houses of Parliament? The government

relies on hundreds of acts that have the same provision. Does he intend

retrospective amendments to each and everyone of these acts and as he

intending to use the Parliament act to drive this through? We have very

few checks to executive power in this country. If we do not protect

our Constitution it is not worth the paper it is not written on. There is

a real danger that of Parliament as a whole lets the government of the

Day dismantle every check and balance it will no longer be

governing by consent and that really would be a constitutional crisis. I

have great respect for the honourable gentleman's experience

but he will not be surprised that I do not anticipate the outcomes of

reviews before they have started. I said we would be publishing full

details of the terms of reference and the full review panel into cost

so I am afraid he is going to have to wait to see the film detail when

we bring it to the house. There is no restraint on any committee

carrying out any inquiry it wishes to do. On primary legislation tax

credits are classified as a benefit and cannot be included in a money

belt. He would not certify them a bill that included them as a money

belt. The 2002 act provided by Gordon

Brown... Would he also confirmed that the Labour and Liberal peers,

having discovered they have a large party political majority, in the

upper House, are now using it with increasing frequency and they have

cast a vote which is totally contrary to every sensible

understanding of the constitutional position for the last hundred years,

indeed it is an exact replica of the Conservative peers foolishly voting

against Lloyd George's budget. Whilst I welcome the advice of my

noble friend with whom I have enormous respect, would he not

delayed too long before bringing forward legislation which sets out

clearly what convention has previously established, because if

the Lords keep repeating these party political votes, it will be almost

impossible to have stable Government taking firm and difficult decisions

for the remainder of this Parliament. Presumably they will

start this behaving with ever more frequency. I do share your concerns.

He makes his point with his usual wisdom. I hope Lord Strathclyde will

address those issues. It is essential these matters are dealt

with and it is worth remembering that in 13 years of Labour

Government, the Labour Party did not have a majority in the House of

lords and yet Conservative peers and others respect of lords and yet

Conservative peers and others respectively conventions. It is a

great shame that within a few days, it is very clear now that the Labour

Party and Liberal Democrats have no intention of respecting conventions

which will fundamentally change the relationship between the houses. I

am sure that the British public are amazed and bewildered at this

handbags at dawn spat between the Tories and the unelected Lords in

this great battle of the nobles. Is it the case that the way democracy

now works in the UK is if you don't like what one part of the

legislature does, you simply emasculate it or reappoint it? Is

this the democracy we are living in? The emergence of this as some sort

of tribunes of the people is ridiculous. I have concerns about an

unelected Tory peer handling this enquiring. The only comfort we take

in this case is the fact he reviewed and reported on the Scottish Tories

and set recommendations in place for the progress of the future and now

they have 14% in the polls. I know what honourable gentleman is saying

and I would say to him he can also take comfort in the fact that Lord

Strathclyde is also a Scot and so brings to this job great wisdom. Can

I thank my right honourable friend and can I assure him that the public

administration and Constitutional affairs committee requires no

instructions from the Government about what it will carry out. We

have already started to cross examined witnesses about events

yesterday... On Monday at our meeting yesterday and we will be

looking at what Lord Strathclyde is likely to be looking at but there is

a simple point to make. Wouldn't you agree that the 1911 packed

established the principle of financial privilege at a time when

there was very lettable secondary legislation. It should not now be

too complicated ensure that principle is extended in the 1911

act to secondary legislation to avoid misunderstandings like this in

the future. I have no doubt might honourable friend and his committee

will be looking closely at these issues and I am not surprised they

have made a start on this already. Most people I think in this House

realise this week has marked a significant change or potential

change in the relationship between the two houses. What we now need to

do is establish a firm foundation for the future. This committee will

play an active role in that. When change is necessary I wanted brought

forward as quickly and sensibly as possible. We need to make sure we

deal with these issues for the foreseeable future. Could the Leader

of the House in sure the review includes whether the House of lords

have the right to vote down measures that have been brought forward by a

Government that said they would not do those measures in the first place

and could he tell me whether members of the panel will be paid a daily

rate and difficult be higher than the minimum wage? We will bring

forward full details of the review panel in due course. I would remind

him nobody can be under any doubt we knew we would have to make tough

decisions. Many of us believe as a point of principle those who make

the law, should be accountable to those who live under it. Does my

right honourable friend admit this is impossible as long as we have an

appointed chamber and how does he feel about the fact that nowadays

only Britain and Iraq have unelected clerics in our legislature? There

are strong opinions in this has about the need of reform. This House

has not chosen to pursue an avenue of reform with the House of lords up

to now. The Lords were right and entitled to table the fatal motion.

This is a smoke screen to detract attention from the pain that would

have been inflicted by tax credit cuts on 3 million working families

on low incomes. If the Leader of the House is wanting to reform the House

of lords, can I recommend he dusts down all the hard work done in the

Coalition and gets his party this time, to support those reforms

instead of scarpering them? I am really not sure how the Liberal

Democrats in France at their case for reform by throwing out

conventions and behaving contrary to all workings of parliaments over the

last few decades. By all means make the case for reform but don't behave

in a way that is simply designed to wreck the manifesto of an elected

Government. We all know too well in this House that a knee jerk reaction

leads to Poor Law often. What assurances can he give us that such

a hastily convened commission will be given reasonable time to carry

out their work and no pressure will be brought to bear on them on the

timetable so that we do not have results that are produced that we

can regret at our leisure. I said clearly yesterday that I don't thing

we should just do change on the hoof and I don't think we should rush

headlong into change. But equally we have to accept there appears now to

be a strategy in the House of lords, an alliance between Liberal Democrat

peers and labour peers to demolish the Government's platform on which

we were elected. This cannot wait forever but I accept your point we

have to do this carefully and properly. Does he appreciate the

irony of selecting and her Redditch rupiah who said this convection was

dead previously to undertake this review? I think it is entirely

sensible to pick a respected senior figure who knows the workings of

Government and the House of lords and will undoubtedly produce words

of wisdom for all of us. Mr Speaker, my friends on the Scottish national

party's front bench want me to mention that from 1407, the Commons

was given primacy over financial matters and that was confirmed in

our motion of 1678 when all matters of taxation and expenditure were to

be the preserve of this House. In 1839, the Speaker of the House of

Commons insisted that an Amendment from the House of lords on a

financial matter must be rejected. And that they would not even

consider a turnpike trust if suggested by the House of lords, so

jealous have we been of our privilege that the Democratic House

must have control of taxation and expenditure. Might I urge my right

honourable friend to send the clearest message to the House of

lords that if their Lordships do not baby conventions have governed this

country the centuries, they will be forced to buy legislation. He speaks

with enormous wisdom about these matters. And, you will not be as a

prize to remember that it was under the Labour Government history was

downplayed in our curriculum and it is certainly the case that

parliamentary history doesn't appear to be top of the knowledge of

members in the other place. Her that salute the right and we have got

traditions in this country that date back decades and centuries and they

are cast away, I think, this week entirely inappropriately, but I

think it is a huge mistake and it is a shame the party 's opposite do not

appear to respect them. Can I ask you to face the House so we all get

the then a fit? As we all carefully reflect on the 15th century... Can

we also look to the modern world and it might be that a Government

elected on 37% of the boat, 14% of Scotland, might not be expected to

win every single division in this legislature? Could it not be the

case that the Government should accept that its position seems to be

based on a sense of entitlement as opposed to detachment to the

Democratic ballot box? It is nothing to do with entitlement. No

Government should ever take... Both or either houses of Parliament for

granted but it is not unreasonable that when convection to have existed

for decades and decades, that they should be respected. Would the

Leader of the House agreed that time really has come for proper reform of

the House of lords and when we talk about proper reform, that means a

reformed chamber which is fully elected? There is no doubt and just

talking to colleagues around this building, that the issue of the

House of Lords reform has returned very much to centre stage. I would

say that we face big challenges in this country and we have some

important legislation to get through and I want to first deal with health

and education and environmental matters and enterprise and the

economy but there is no doubt these issues are now going to be discussed

much more widely. The Leader of the House has explained why these

measures were not in a finance bill. He seems to be confusing the

fact that there is a big bill attached to the tax credits. With it

being a finance measure. Surely if we followed his logic, no bill that

involved any spending could go to the other place, be it legal aid,

HS2 for example. This is a very simple matter, tax credits are

officially categorised as benefits and not a tax matter. If we put a

change on tax credits into a finance bill, the finance bill will not

necessarily be certified as a money belt. That is the reality of what we

deal with. That is why they are not in a finance bill. Hasn't the Leader

of the House just said while the lords are entitled to reject... They

did not reject it, they amended it and delayed it. Because it clearly

is not a tax measure, had it been won, we would have put it in the

finance bill. I do think we are seeing a knee jerk reaction to the

House of lords doing what they are supposed to do. I am all for a

review but let's have a proper review and take our time over it and

would the Leader of the House reflect on that and announce more

than just Lord Strathclyde heading the review? It is absolutely

essential we do not rush this and we have said they will be a panel of

people working with Lord Strathclyde and they will be announced in due

course. I will just remind him that this instrument has only been

rejected in this way by the House of lords five times in the past

century. This is the first time this happened to measure that is very a

budgetary measure. Before we all join the Lord's Resistance Army in a

synthetic constitutional crisis, will the Leader of the House not

acknowledge the real issue is not about the procedural part of

respective houses in the Parliament but about the spending power of

hard-pressed households and hard-working households and any

reviews, will he make sure our first priority is to get this House in

order, not another? I think this House is in perfect order.

I frequently take school children and visitors from other democratic

countries on tours of this building and I always find it slightly

awkward trying to explain that the House of Lords is appointed. Just

like other members, is it not really time that we had a fully elected

second chamber? He and a number of people feel that and it is the

result of Monday's activities this debate is likely to restart in this

parliament having not continued in the last one. We'll the Leader of

the House except that there is a role for the other place in

providing guidance to this House when they might feel it is out of

sync with the country? Why should we take seriously the views of the

Leader of the House when he continues to back it with 15 new

peers at the same time as flushing by 50 members of the selected House?

The reality is that this House has voted five times, prior to Monday it

was the night times, for these changes. Ultimately it has to be the

elected House of Commons that has the final say on these matters and

that is why the action of the Lords in my view was not acceptable. Can I

welcome the Strathclyde review and the Leader of the House's

reiteration of the privately of this elected House of Commons? The shadow

Leader of the House referred to the unwritten constitution of

convention. Is it not the case that the House of Lords has breached that

convention and by definition is acting in a very unconstitutional

manner? I very much agree. I have heard many in the House of Lords in

recent years stressed the importance of convention and this time they

appear to have ignored the importance of convention which is

why this issue has been created. Can I ask if there will be any political

balance on this matter? We will give more detail about the composition of

the panel and the terms of reference shortly. Is it not true that changes

may be necessary to the House of Lords but the last thing we want is

another House of Commons? What he sets out as one of the great subject

of debate every replace the House of Lords with something else shouldn't

be elected or not? That is a matter that has been debated several times

since he and I were elected in 2001. The important thing from my point of

use to ensure the coming months that the strategy that some appear to be

taking to the platform of elected government has to be dealt with. We

have to resolve these matters quickly. The Conservative government

keep trying to play politics with this and keep finding themselves in

a hole. They did not put it in the manifesto which has allowed the

Lords to vote against it. They removed it as a statutory

instrument. They have appointed a hereditary peer to do a review. When

will the government stop digging? We have appointed a respected former

Leader of the House of Lords to do this. A compatriot of hers and I am

sure he will do an excellent job. Yesterday the Chancellor said the

House of Lords had gnome and date for tinkering with the tax credit

issue but with 14% of the voted is his government that has no mandate

to introduce these vicious welfare reforms in Scotland. After the

tinkering we have had, with the solution not be to abolish the House

of and replace it with terrain English Parliament? The Scottish

nationalists keep making this argument but I have listened to them

expressing fury and it would give them less say over matters that

would affect Scotland, but an English Parliament would give them

no say, so the argument does not stack up. Points of order. The

Leader of the House of Lords to answer any of the terms about

whether people would be paid or be able to take evidence. He said he

would make this available in the fullness of time. He did not choose

to make a statement to the House. We cannot presume he is going to make

that available to the House before the rest of the country. I wonder

whether he might want to leap to his feet to point out he will put all of

this and make this available in the library of the House. The Leader of

the House is entitled to rise to his feet, but is not obliged. It would

be fair to say... These matters are under consideration. Conclusions

have not been reached. The detail is not yet known. It will be decided in

June course. The request is that the House be informed first. I think it

would be a reasonable supposition that if an important part of the

subject matter is the prerogatives of the House of Commons it will

occur to the leader first to notify the House of Commons of the

particulars. I think to judge from the gentle board of ascent from the

Leader of the House from which the government Chief Whip does not your,

that that is indeed, at any rate now, the government's intention. And

there will be statement. And what he said in his statement. Order. Point

of order. In order for the Leader of the House to make a contribution he

must go to the dispatch box and inform us of what he has just said.

I am grateful, but I think I can make a judgment about the handling

of matters. It is certainly open to the leader to come to the dispatch

box but he is not obliged to do so. I think it is clear that we will get

the details and that they will be communicated first to the House.

Yes? Yes. We will take that as a yes. That is how it will be

recorded. We will leave it there. I always appreciate the attempts of

the right honourable gentleman at what might be called diplomacy.

Point of order. At by ministers questions the Prime Minister stated

that the last Labour government had failed to act in introducing free

school meals. This is not correct and as the schools minister in the

last Labour government I know that the Labour government had introduced

three pilots for free school meals for all primary school pupils in

Durham, Wolverhampton and new and the plan was to roll the mountains

of timber 2010 but when the Coalition Government came into

government the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats cancelled the

scheme. Is it possible to correct the record? She has just done that.

As a spirited and indefatigable parliamentarian she knows that that

is what she has just done. In recent days I have received to my

parliamentary written answers from two different departments on the

same question on the vital issue of banning consequentials from HS2. The

Department for Transport provided a straight answer. The Treasury

regrettably was not as useful, offering a generic response which

could be used to answer any question. What can be done to

encourage the Treasury to follow the leader of the Department for

Transport in answering questions? I suspect that a representative of the

Treasury will shortly year of the honourable gentleman's point of

order, meanwhile it has been heard by amongst others the Leader of the

House. It has been a long-standing practice from which I certainly do

not think this Leader of the House intends to depart that the Leader of

the House cheeses ministers on the importance of timely and substantive

replies. He is adding into the mix the incentive of wanting to compete

favourably with another government department. The idea that the

cleverly -- Treasury would want to be outclassed by any department

strikes me as improbable. If there are no further points of order we

come to the ten minute rule motion. Leave the given for me to bring in a

bill to make provision about the use of bailiffs and other enforcement

agencies to collect council tax arrears, to establish a code of

practice and to create an independent ombudsman to administer

the cord and adjudicate complaints. This deals with two interrelated

problems. Taken together they are pushing many people into a debt trap

by forcing them to borrow more to pay council tax arrears and

unaffordable bailiffs seized. The first problem is that local councils

ready to Colin the bailiffs when people fall into arrears. This is

despite guidance which is meant to encourage local authorities to look

towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations

and avoid the bailiffs. This bill gives people a stronger right to

challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option. The

second problem is that the bailiffs, despite the recent reforms, continue

to use unreasonable methods such as aggressive behaviour and

intimidation. They charge unreasonable fees and misrepresent

their powers in order to gain entry to collect goods. This bill would

ensure that they conduct collections activities in a reasonable and fair

way. For the first time it will give people access to an independent

ombudsman to secure redress. At present the circumstances an

extremely limited a complaint can be made or whether action can be taken

through complicated processes, leaving many people who feel they

have been treated unfairly unsatisfied. The number of people

contacting debt advice charities for help with council tax debts has

increased rapidly in recent years. More than 63,000 people sought help

in 2014 from one agency. The Hundred and 72% increase from 2010. Council

tax arrears are the fastest growing problem debt dealt with by National

Debtline. Printable -- 24% of clients had this particular debt. It

is the most common debt issues in by Citizens Advice Bureau. Too many

cases are sent to the bailiffs and sent to quickly. It is the default

option for many councils. Half of clients who sought help were

referred to bailiffs in a recent review. That is twice as many being

offered an affordable repayment plan. Research from a trust in 2013

found that councils had referred debts to bailiffs on 1.8 million

occasions in a year, which rose to 2.1 million last year. Sending in

the bailiffs often makes a bad situation worse than tips people

further into problem debt. Many bailiffs still felt to comply with

the national standards for enforcement agents and the high fees

mean that many clients have paid at least they aren't and ?10 extra for

bail of collections. -- ?310. Most people fell behind on other bills or

borrowed from payday lenders are friends and families. This lack of

help means that people are more likely to fall into debt. They are

more than three times more likely to take out a payday loan and 50% more

likely to fall into debt with other bills to pay the council tax demand.

The last government committed to clamp down on aggressive bailiffs

behaviour and there was a series of changes introduced last year to

procedures. These changes are a move in the right direction but the light

touch approach does not seem to have had much effect. Citizens advice

have found that in the year since the regulations came into force

there has been an extremely significant increase in the number

of problems caused by bailiffs. Last year they helped with 77,000

problems caused by bailiffs, an increase on 45,000 in the previous

year. Evidence shows that people are continually intimidated by bailiffs.

A client was told that it was looking at a prison sentence of up

to 51 weeks if he did not pay his debt in field by the end of the day.

Another bailiff told a client he was going to come round with the gang of

lads if the debt was not paid and that that was made within 24 hours

of the enforcement notice being issued. Step change evidence agrees

with this. A bailiff called that one of their client's houses, a single

parent. She was threatened with prison unless she allowed the

bailiffs into the House and the bailiffs said in front of her child,

do you want your son to be taken away from you when you go to prison?

The way they apply fees and charges causes problems. There was one

client who had been paying bills, paying a Magistrates' Court fine

while she looked for work. When she found work the deduction stopped.

She had been paying for a considerable period of time and she

believed she had paid off the fine. She received notice from a bailiff

regarding an outstanding amount of ?60. This was inflated to ?370.

The bailiffs then contacted the client by phone threatening to come

round that day with a locksmith and removal van if she could not pay in

full. She offered ?170 that day, ?200 on the day she was paid, the

following week, and the bailiff refused to accept that offer.

Another common issue is when the bailiff from misrepresent their

powers. Forcing entry to people's home. This is restricted to certain

debts but 67% of advisers last year saw cases with the bailiffs

misrepresented their powers and used force to take their goods. This bill

will not solve everything but it will help to put existing good

practice guidance for both councils and bailiffs from the department of

community of local government and the Ministry of Justice, into a

statutory footing and it will introduce and months button --

ombudsman scheme for bailiffs. It will avoid pushing people into the

debt trap. It is no use asking someone on low income to pay ?370 by

end of the day. Problem debt costs the economy in the region of ?8

billion with councils picking up the bill for at least 2 billion through

the cost of homelessness, and additional demand for the care,

support and the public health services. I fully recognise councils

are under a huge pressure to balance their books and they are named and

shamed based on collection rates but it is counter-productive if their

actions simply adds to people's debt woes. They need to make more of an

effort to ensure that there are reasonable payment plans available

and gets on not simply passed on to bailiffs as a default. The reform

and regulation bailiffs is not working, too many bailiffs still

believe they can act like a heavy mob, Russia rising people to repay

by using illegal tactics. -- pressurising people. I think this

bill would take a step for further to remedying the situation. The

questions that the member has to bring in the bill. As many as are of

the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no"... Andy McDonald,

Anna Turley, Margaret Greenwood, Liz McInnis... Andrew Percy and myself.

Regulation of enforcement agents, collection of council tax arrears

bill. 20th November 2015. Thank you. We now come to the first of our two

opposition day debates. Taking place today. The first is in the name of

the Leader of the Opposition, on the steel industry. I should inform the

House I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister to

open the debate, I call the Shadow Secretary of State 's Angela Eagle.

I beg to move the motion in my name and in names of other honourable

members. We have called this debate today because the British steel

industry is in crisis. The Government seemed unwilling to do

anything very practical about it. In the last three weeks alone, 2200

employees in Redcar lost their jobs, 3000 on-site contractors have been

laid off, 6000 further jobs will be lost in the local community. The

hard closure of that site means the effective destruction of the

steel-making assets there including what was the second largest blast

furnace in Europe. The Government's reviews all the help has effectively

ended 170 years of steel-making in Redcar, destroying specialist local

skills and condemning the community to a bleak future. The announcement

of the closure of the long products business in Scunthorpe and other

places has cost 1170 jobs and ended steel-making in Scotland. The news

that the part on industries has filed administration means 1700 more

jobs are at risk. Alongside the tragedy of each individual job loss,

Andy Raleigh vocations for the supply chains and the local

economies, there is now a real worry that the UK steel-making capacity is

being sacrificed on the other blaze a fair economics by a Government

which will not act to preserve our country's strategic assets. Our

contention on this side of the House is that steel-making in the UK is an

industry of national strategic importance. It should be supported

by the Government for that reason. It is important for UK

manufacturing, it helps us balance payments and it is vital for our

defence and security. If we are really about to embark on the huge

infrastructure investment the Chancellor boasts about, surely, we

should ensure that UK steel has every chance to compete and win

those contracts. But to do that, we must ensure there is a UK steel

industry, still in existence, when those contracts come up for

competition. Yet as this industry has lurched deeper into this holy

foreseeable crisis, the Government have been very quick to come up with

expressions of sympathy but it has simply reluctant to take any

decisive action. She will be aware as I am that concerns around the

challenges facing the steel industry have been raised in this House, ten

debate I think, repeated questions, meetings, for well over two years,

is she very surprised it has taken until today for the Secretary of

State for business to try to sort out of the mess in Brussels? I

certainly am and I have to say that if the secretary for state the

business needs to have an opposition debate to be encouraged to do his

job by going to Brussels and talking to the commission after years of not

doing, we will have more opposition steel debates so we can persuade him

he should do what is his duty and what he should have been doing in

the first place. I was proud to get a backbench debate on the crisis on

the steel industry which happened to be one day before the Redcar

steelworks ceased production. We were accused of showboating by the

northern powerhouse. I was fairly astonished to read about the

comments of the minister for what the Government called the northern

powerhouse who said what had happened to red card was a tragic

destruction from the work he was doing on the northern powerhouse. I

would have hoped he would have seen it as part of his job to try to get

this Government to take much earlier action in order to head off what was

an entirely foreseeable occurrence. Would she agree with me that the

Chinese have not just started dumping still, -- steel, they have

been dumping steel for a very long time? They have and I will come onto

the Chinese later in my remarks. Does she accept as one who lived in

Sheffield myself of the best part of 30 years, that the real decline in

the steel industry started with the absolutely horrendous

nationalisation of the steel industry by the party opposite and

furthermore, what steps have Labour Government ever taken to restrict

state aids in other parts of the European Union which come from

countries such as Germany and others? I suspect the

nationalisation of the steel industry happened before I was born

and we could actually look at a history lesson but I do know there

are many examples of Government in the EU who do a lot better job than

this one appears to have done so far of preserving their own steel

industry. I give an example now, the House of Commons library just

produced a paper on European state aids which says clearly, Germany for

example, feeds over twice the amount of state aid which is given in this

country. A whole raft of state aids are given in Germany which this

Government decided not to do in this country. My honourable friend's

comments speaks themselves. I am most grateful to the Shadow minister

for allowing me to interrupter. This Conservative Government, when they

were considering devolved and to the Northern Ireland, this Government

was concerned it would be a state aid and illegal under EU

legislation. However, where there is a will, there is a way and this

Government has been able to devolve within the Stormont House talks, ...

Corporation tax. This Gutmann should have a will to save the steel

industry in this country and make sure it is not illegal in the terms

of the state... Honourable lady is correct. There are many governments

in the EU that managed to deal in a far more creative way with state

agencies and this one does. On the issue of the EU, would my honourable

friend agree there is a strong case for carbon tariffs from the EU so we

don't display is clean steel, produced in Britain, the dirty steel

produced in China and elsewhere? Art my honourable friend makes a

practical suggestion. I think it should be looked at with great

seriousness by the Government and the EU. The steel summit in

Rotherham was only convened following the backbench debate and

it ended up with more job losses and no significant Government announces.

As the crisis has unfolded, the Government has had to be dragged

kicking and screaming here to answer urgent question after urgent

question. Steel is an energy intensive industry which inevitably

results in extra costs being placed on it for environmental reasons. But

it is clear the Government has the power to lower energy costs for

steel producers through implementing the energy intensive compensation

package immediately. Despite being announced in the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement in 2011, the most substantial part of this package is

still waiting to be implemented. Ministers are admitted in a

parliamentary question to my right honourable friend, that they had not

bothered to raise this issue with the commission in the last 12

months. It is clear the Government has shown no leadership in Europe

with the Business Secretary only visiting the commission for his

first time today. Better late than never I suppose. What on earth has

taken this Business Secretary so long? I welcome his visit and I

trust he will emerge from the commission with some tangible

progress but, after all the foot dragging and in action, it really is

about time he did. We need to reiterate this point, the EU package

has already been compensated. It is an EU wide market, taxation system.

We are talking about the CPF which was implemented by this Chancellor

who did not consult the industry or talk to the European Union and then

had to go to Brussels... We don't know if he has yet but we presume

today, to get compensation for a tax brought in by this Government,

unilaterally without any consultation with the industry. That

is the issue. When we talk about compensation packages, we talk about

it for a British tax. My honourable friend to represent many

constituents who have been directly affected by the closure in Redcar.

He demonstrates his knowledge of the problems the British steel industry