02/03/2016 House of Commons

Order. Urgent question, Mr Owen Smith. May I ask the Secretary of

State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the Government's

review of the state pension age? Mr Iain Duncan Smith. Yesterday, Mr

Speaker, we announced the appointment of John Criddle and to

lead an independent review of the state pension age. This will make

recommendations for the Government to consider whether the pension age

is fair and affordable in the long term. This will report by May 2017

-- John Cridland. I want to stress that is independently lead and will

be put forward, the information put forward will be about the age of the

state pension. It will consider changes in life expectancy as well

as wider changes in society. It is also useful at this point to remind

the House why this review is necessary. In 1945 and man, for

example, retiring at 65, had a life expectancy of between 60 and 63. The

age of life for men rose in retirement after their pension age

to 27 years under the present forecast and existing timescales and

women have gone from 18 years in retirement after their pensionable

age, the 29.5 years in retirement. Future generations, therefore, would

rightly expect that we should reflect those changes in the nature

of how we set the pension. They would not thank 's, I think, and we

rarely hear anybody speak about future generations if we did not the

right decisions at the right time -- thank us. And ensure pensions are

sustainable to avoid them having to pick up an increasing bill which

would make their lives even more difficult. But I do want to clear

what this particular review is not about. It does not cover the

existing state pension age timetable. It takes up from April

2020 it. We have already provided legislation for this and the review

will not look to change the pension age that point -- April 2028. It is

worth reminding the opposition at this particular point that they, the

Labour Government, when lasting power, first legislated for a state

pension age is beyond 65, but without any commitment to especial

independent review, which we have undertaken. When we brought forward

the Pensions Bill in 2014 opposition seem to have had a change of part

and quite legitimately and reasonably I thought at time agreed

with us for the need for an independent review of the state

pension age. Let me quote what the then shadow Secretary of State at

the time, the right honourable member for Birmingham Hodge Hill is

said, during the course of that bill. He said, and I quote, the

Secretary of State and I have no difference of opinion on the need

regularly to review the state pension age. It is worth reminding

everybody that in that Bill was the statutory provision for a regular

set of reviews of the pension age and yesterday's announcement is

simply in line with that statutory requirement, and that is what we are

now doing. That is what the then shadow Secretary of State said in

agreement. I also remind them they made no amendments to change the

nature of that review or its scope at the time and nor do I recall did

they have anything in their manifesto that had anything to do

with that. Under that legislation we are required to appoint an

independent reviewer of who will make recommendations to him on

future state pension age requirements. We have appointed Sir

John Cridland to leave this work. Under the legislation we required to

report -- are required to report in 2017 on this and I can assure the

House we will come back to the House with an oral and written statement

on whatever comes back from the review. This is part of the

Government reform the pensions to ensure they are affordable for the

long term but it is rightly recognised also have reached their

pension age, work hard and done the right thing and provided for their

families, and I believe it is this Government that is delivering for

those very people. As a result of our triple lock, pensioners will

receive a basic state pension ?1000 hire a year than they were at the

start of the last Parliament under the last Government and we provide a

greater security, more choice and dignity for people in retirement,

whilst also ensuring the system is sustainable for future generations.

On Smith. -- may I start by welcoming the Secretary of State

back to the dispatch box. We have missed him in recent months and are

grateful for his presence today. Despite the statement, I think

people travelling to work this morning will have been shocked to

learn the Government is buying yet another review and in the immediate

future of when they can claim their state pension, with the clear

implication that as was the case with the women's state pension, they

intend to increase it further and faster than we are the people of

Britain were expecting. People will also have been shocked to read this

morning the pension Minister's statement in another place that

under the Tories the state pension should no longer be considered as

retirement age. You will only be able to retire if you are rich

enough or you have a fat private pension, otherwise you will have to

keep working, working until you drop, as one pensions Professor

words this morning. Can this Secretary of State try and clarify

exactly what his Government's long-term economic plan is for

pensioners? Is it, as was the case with the botched reforms of the

women's pension, and as was implied in the terms of reference for this

review, that people can expect the Government to ratchet up the

retirement age much faster than expected? Can he guarantee that even

if this review is not considering the planned increase to 67 by 2028

that his Government will not bring forward that change, and if that

promise is not ratted on can he confirm his Government is

considering speeding up some rises with increases to 69 or 70 being

considered for people currently in their mid-40s. Can he also confirmed

this will be a double whammy for those pension savers as everyone

aged under 43, under his reforms, will have a worse state pension?

Does he in fact agree with his pensions colleague in the Lords that

in the light of his reforms the state pension age should no longer

be considered as the retirement age, that only the wealthy in future will

have the luxury of retiring and the rest will have to just keep on

working? Finally, Mr Speaker, can the Minister tell us what he thinks

the upper limit is for the state pension age, 65, 67, or is it a day

as his colleague warned today? -- or is it 80? The promise, not the 75p

they are always banging on about, but it is the 75 years. You will

have to work and wait under this Tory Government before you get your

state pension. Well, Mr Speaker, all I can assure them by that rather

pathetic response is that the honourable gentleman did not think

he was going to get granted and he has been scribbling away frantically

because it was utter idiocy -- I can only assume. I would genuinely say

that, and I want to be kind to the honourable gentleman, because, you

know, the honourable gentleman has made a career in being Mr angry at

the drop of a hat. I just want to remind him that, yes, they don't

want to hear but I want to answer his question. Let me just remind

him... Good. Let me remind him of exactly what his party was about

before he took over as the opposition spokesman. Let me just

remind him... I apologise order! The Right Honourable gentleman for

Gordon ought to know better. He is a statesman, at any rate a statement

of sorts. He should not conduct himself in an unseemly manner. As

for the member for Blyth Valley, I have warned him about having that

hot curry too often. It tends to have an effect on your demeanour in

the chamber! I am also worried about the member

for Blyth Valley! I want to make sure he has a good retirement, but

he needs to calm down or he may never make it. Can I remind the

opposition, in the questions he asked, they are all questions that

his government actually answered, because they were the ones who

raised the state pension age. They don't like being reminded of it.

They didn't have an independent review before they did it. They

arbitrarily did it, and they set a set of dates, but they did not ask

an independent review were to look at the level of when those dates

should be. We are doing that now. That is what we were asked to do,

and we are being reasonable about it. It is also worth reminding him.

When this statutory review passed in the 2013-14 Bill, let me tell him

what his pension minister said. He said... Yes, I am doing it! But his

party agreed with it. He should calm down or he will never make it to

state pension age. This is what his party said at the time. The

spokesman said" we do not oppose this bill". That was their position

on the state pension age statutory requirement to review it. And

Baroness Sherlock said" it is vital that the way the state pension is

reviewed is seen to be fair", and that is exactly what we are doing.

So they instituted the rises in the state pension age. They are the ones

that raised women's state pension age. They went for the equalisation

of state pension age, and they are the ones in government that started

to do the responsible thing is, and now in opposition are utterly

irresponsible and pointless. I have only one final comment make to the

honourable gentleman. Somebody said to me as I got up, ... Order! The

two gentlemen are both rather cerebrovascular mix. I cannot

believe they would conduct themselves in that manner at a

university seminar. And if they wouldn't do so that, they should not

miss behaviour. Whatever they think of what the Secretary of State is

saying, they must hear a -- they are both so read the gentleman. Can I

say to the honourable gentleman that somebody said the honourable

gentleman is shallow. I think he gives a bad reputation to shallow

people. That was so pathetic as a response to a UQ that was asked from

an opposition that has no policy, jumps around opposing everything,

racking up spending commitments. No wonder they haven't a hope in hell

of being in government. Mr Richard Graham. Every Western democracy

surely has a responsibility to review its state pension age on a

regular basis and on a non-tribal party political basis so that a long

time ahead, the people of this country will know what changes are

going to be made to the state pension age. And if in the past, we

took to long to change the state pension age and then moved to

quickly, surely now this cross-party consensus that was reached on this

review is the right thing for this House to do and report back next

year. My honourable friend has spoken to this on a number of

occasions and he is right. I thought we had that consensus. We certainly

had it in the last Parliament. The Liberal Democrats in the coalition

agreed. The honourable gentleman quoted by the honourable gentleman

was the minister. The pensions commission has said they believed

that the increase in the state pension age is essential, but they

also said it was important as an independent body to review that, and

that is what we are doing. Life expectancy in Scotland still lags

around two years behind the rest of the UK, a gap that persists across

all social demographics and costs the average Scottish pensioner

around ?10,000. However, I am just is concerned about life expectancy

and illness and disability. Healthy life expectancy is not rising at the

same speed as life expectancy. The gap between the two is widening.

Given the government's reductions in support for second is abled people

of working age, changes we are due to discuss later can we have any

confidence that further increases in state pension age will not condemn

thousands of older people with serious health conditions with an

impoverished old age on state benefits prior to their official

retirement? I congratulate the honourable lady on her tone on this

and she has asked some legitimate questions. The reason we instituted

an independent review is so that they can, and I would encourage her

and her party to submit to the review, to serve John Cridland,

their concerns about the different demographic issues in Scotland. They

are well known and it is legitimate for her to raise it with him.

Because he is independent and he can look at various aspects of whether

there are demographic changes, whether there are changes in the

types of work people have done in the past, he will look at all of

this. But the point is, he is independent. He may come back with

no change or he may come back with recommendations for change. I do not

prejudge that, but I recommend that she makes those points to him. Mr

Kenneth Clarke. I was one of those in 1995, when I was Chancellor, who

recognised that the old system was unaffordable. We thought we were

being courageous in giving 20 years notice of our intentions to raise

the retirement age. Does my right honourable friend agree that with

hindsight, we underestimated the remarkably welcome improvement in

life expectancy and the number of women qualifying for a full pension,

and we should have gone faster? Does he also agree that inevitably, there

are bound to be complaints from those who are so unlucky that they

are born at a stage when they are just affected by the change, but a

government has a duty to proceed in the interests of the country and in

the interests of future generations of working taxpayers, who will not

be able to afford to sustain our system unless we respond to reality?

My right honourable friend is correct. This was the position of

successive governments, that they would take this as a nonparty

political point, and that they would agree that there was a need to make

those changes, the pace of which should be decided independently. We

have done that, and it was brave of the government of which he was a

part to start that process. But it was always necessary to review this

in line with demographic shifts. They have rapidly increased and we

are doing that now. But I do regret the fact that the present opposition

has chosen to play political games with this, rather than supporting a

necessary change. Does the Secretary of State except that millions --

does he accepting that millions of this will be looking at this

proposal and seeing what the government did in respect of the

equalisation of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s, and

be worried that the government are about to repeat the same mistakes

for them? Will he now set out what he expects to be a transitional

arrangement for these changes, and whether or not that opens up the

opportunity to look again at the injustice to the Waspy women? It is

a legitimate concern to make sure we give people plenty of notice going

forward. That is what John Cridland will be looking at. If he wants to

make a submission to that commission about the issues of transitional

arrangements, that is possible. It was not this government that

introduced the changes, but we did introduce a transitional change for

those affected to improve the lot of the majority of those who would

otherwise have been adversely affected. Dr Liam Fox. At the

moment, we have three people paying national insurance for every one

person receiving the state pension. By 2040, if nothing changes, there

will only be two people paying national insurance for everyone

receiving the state pension. We have more people in higher education that

before and increased life expectancy. Surely in the long term,

it is only common sense to match the retirement age with life expectancy

in some way? We cannot expect to enter the labour market later, to

leave it earlier and live longer and expect the state to pick up the

bill. I agree with my honourable friend. It is worth putting this in

the context of what we have already done to sustain pensioners in the

longer term. Three areas. One, we have introduced more saving,

automatic enrolment. Over 6 million people are now saving for a pension

that have ever seen before. We have the single tier being introduced,

which puts pension paid above the means test, allowing them to save

and know they will always hold their saving. The third area is that we

now have a state pension which is over ?1000 higher than it was when

we came to office. That is why we need to get the demographic changes

right, because we are going to be fairer to pensions and will support

them in a way that was never done by other governments. I am not going to

get angry, but I am going to gently point out to the Secretary of State

that he is wrong to say there is a consensus about this. He has broken

the consensus he put in place with the excellent former pensions

minister Steve Webb. That agreement was that the independent review is

that would happen every five years would look at life expectancy and

fairness of those paying in. He is now introducing affordability into

that, which was not part of that. Will he acknowledged that this is a

change from what he agreed with Steve Webb and what the Coalition

Government delivered? I am sorry that he chooses to find a

difference. I don't think there is a difference. No one has more respect

for the last pensions minister than I do. He is a good friend and he did

a brilliant job as pensions minister. And as a coalition

partner, we worked well together. He and I agreed in 2014 that we would

introduce this independent review. Sir John is capable of looking at

this in the round and the side on the basis of robust, evidence -based

analysis. He may come forward and say, I see no need to make any

change, but I am prepared to back him on that. Our population is

growing year-on-year, principally through immigration, so I think it

is right that we look to the future. Can I ask if this independent review

will look at whether Britain can control its immigration or cannot

control its immigration, whether or not we remain in Europe, and if you

will be able to see any of the information that comes through on

both of those scenarios? Tempting as it is to involve this review in

other areas, I have to tell you that it is focused on the need to figure

out whether or not given the circumstances, the demographics and

affordability, whether state pension age should rise and what it should

be in the years to come. I am happy to have it limited to that. There

are 2.6 million women who feel that they have not been given enough

notice of changes in their pensions. Can I implore the Secretary of State

to be straight with young people today, that those born in areas of

low life expectancy, they will be dead before they receive pension? I

am not sure the honourable lady wanted to come into politics to

decide that the future for people is so bleak that there is nothing that

can be done. I view about our role in this House is to make sure we

make the necessary changes to improve the life chances of people

so that they have a longer life expectancy and they may enjoy the

fruits of that life expectancy, having worked hard, saved hard, and

then a decent time in retirement. I am an optimist about Britain. She is

a pessimist. But my right honourable friend confirmed that the intention

of the government is to review the pension age every five years and

then give people the opportunity of knowing, with a long lead in time,

what the retirement age will be so that they can plan for a secure

future for themselves and their families? That is right. The

commitment in the act was for a review in every Parliament. That

allows every Parliament to make decisions, hopefully in a

non-partial basis. This was always known about. For those who complain

suddenly that they had not noticed it, this statement was down

yesterday. I don't recall that they did a single thing to raise it to

anyone's attention until a couple of newspapers wrote some articles, and

suddenly, India is a UQ. -- Indigo is a UQ. We do need to review

pension arrangements. But all of these reviews throw up difficult

cases and anomalies, not least about age expectancy across regions of the

UK. Will he ensure that the review looks at those discrepancies and

differences, and will he ensure that there is proper things built in to

ensure the information is given out when changes are made?

Can I say to the honourable gentleman much like I said to the

spokesperson for the Scottish Nationalists that, yes, there are

questions around these and the point about the review is it is within the

scope for him or those within his party to raise those issues with

John Cridland and make sure he takes evidence from him and anyone else he

wishes -- who wishes to give it, but that is certainly within the scope.

My right honourable friend brings cogent figures to the House today,

particularly the expectation from 14 years of retirement to 27. Can he

confirm the review will be conducted in an impartial manner and is it not

simply scaremongering we are hearing from the opposition on the front

bench and their friends in the SNP? I say to my honourable friend and I

will just repeat these figures, backed by what I've right honourable

friend, once Chancellor in the previous Government said, and with

great foresight. The fact is when a man retired in 1845 with the

pensionable age at 65, their life expectancy was between 60 and 63 --

1945. With the same retirement age it will have risen to something like

27 years in retirement. We have to take into consideration that I want

more people to be able to work longer -- take that into

consideration. I want more people to work and retire from longer. It was

companies who said you can't work past 65 but you can now go on and

work. That is part of that process. The Secretary of State said he

wanted to reward those who worked hard and did the right thing. He did

not do that for women born in the 1950s. Many of them were given only

three years notice of the acceleration in their state pension

age. Is he now going to give a commitment to the House that he will

not further accelerate the changes in the state pension age which were

due to come and up to 2046, as he did in the 2011 Act? I would say to

the honourable lady, I accept that she raises her own legitimate point,

but I do wish she would encompass within that the fact she sat on the

benches with a Labour Government actually raised those pensionable

ages, one second... And now the accusations about no notice are very

much lodged at the door of the then Labour Government. I simply say, we

made changes in the last Government to improve the lot of many of those

who were affected and what I have said is that this independent review

is to look at all of that post 2028 and make recommendations about the

best way forward. I would hope she would give some evidence to them if

she has a concern about it. Can my right honourable friend confirm

countries around the globe are being forced to confront the impact of

rapidly rising life expectancy is and it would appear it is only the

parties opposite incomplete denial about the need for this? That is a

fact and many of our neighbours have equalised and are accelerating that

move to a later pensionable age, head of us. Countries like Germany,

Norway and various others around the world have done so and I think it is

only right we do so as well because otherwise we will place a burden on

our children and our children's children and they will not thank us

for that because we did not take the brave necessary decisions. 'S Kansas

Secretary of State tell me today, I am 33 -- canvas Secretary of State

tell me the age I will retire? I can tell her it is clear know when they

will retire and independent review makes it clear we will make

recommendations. If she wants to make a position and make an

independent view on that she can give evidence to the review. We are

having a review every parliament. I do not understand why her party

would be against the review. Surely we would want an independent review

so it is fair and balanced, and I hope she will run about. Does the

Secretary of State agree that with this every Parliament we will be in

full to give greater chain hat to wood have agreed to review on

changes that will happen -- have a to view on changes that will happen.

I agree that is where the floor of timing score and something we want

John Cridland to look at and take into consideration to make sure that

process happens. We want to make sure people have plenty of notice

for that. I know there were recommendations and as I said

earlier that something he will look at, in the next review so on so I

would simply say if you have an issue put it forward to the review.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State claims to be an optimistic

but I see little to be optimistic about here. We have had the

Government response that by raising any concerns we are scaremongering.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that my constituents, many

of them because of regional variations in life expectancy, many

will die before they receive their state pension and they have an

absolute right to be scared? I am sorry not honourable lady takes that

view. You know, we have rising life expectancy, we have people earning

more in jobs, we have more people in work, more people saving than ever

before, preparing for their retirement, and pension coming in

which will mean they do not get means tested. I have to say I am

optimistic on those grounds but I do not blame her for being pessimistic.

Sitting in the Labour Party today, I would be really pessimistic! Mr

Speaker will my right honourable friend reassured those of my

constituents approaching retirement age who will have seen this

morning's headlines splashed across the papers, including in one case

that people will be required to work until they are the age of 81, that

these headlines have no basis whatsoever in fact, given that this

is just the start of it, the review, and no conclusions have even been

made never made agreed upon by this House? I agree but the reality is

this is an independent review and they will look at all that. With

respect to those payments, and they have to make their own decisions and

I will not be critical of them, I would say you cannot extrapolate

from the announcement of the statutory independent review that

somehow that will have some imprecation going forward in terms

of ages. I will just say it is necessary to get the balance right

between those who paid, those who are retired, and those who are

retired, those were saving. That is the job of Government and I would

have hoped it would have been approached in a more consensual

basis across the floor of the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like

to raise another anomaly with the Secretary of State. People working

in Northern Ireland between 1947 and 1957 paid national insurance

contributions but these did not count towards their pension

entitlements because the leaving age in Britain was a little higher. Can

that are normally be raised with Sir John Cridland and can it be

addressed to finally rectify the situation? I don't think that

specific issue is within the scope of this review as I understand it

but I would certainly be happy to speak to the honourable lady myself

about that particular issue. I understand, the point about this

review in a general sense is that it is the first time that someone has

asked an independent body to review things like anomaly is going

forward, but I would be very happy to speak to her if she wants to come

and see me. Mr Speaker, this is a policy where there should be

consensus coming there should be cross-party support. The evidence is

that we are living longer and healthier lives, not just in Dorset,

but there should be optimism across the country. Does the Secretary of

State agree it is the response will thing to do to have an independent

review, follow the statutory resume, examine the evidence and all the

options, rather than the scaremongering and using phrases

such as "Work until we drop". I must say I was slightly surprised earlier

today to see the opposition spokesman was tweeting away the most

inflammatory comments about people retiring. I can understand if you

are in opposition, you need to try to get attention, but actually to

start worrying and scaring people without foundation and without

reality is nothing short of appalling and I wish he would get up

and apologise for it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new review will

consider pension arrangements for a variations between different groups.

Can we take it or have more detail from the Secretary of State as two

different groups reversed the occupation,, because obviously in

relation to shift workers or in my constituency bus drivers who get

corrosive bladder conditions, their quality of life and life expectancy

deteriorates as a result of those jobs. That be raised? It is

certainly within the scope for that to be raised and he and his team

have the power and scope to raise that so I would again recommend his

concern is raised but he certainly has the scope to look at that. It is

up to him at what degree he looks at it. Notwithstanding the antics of

the party opposite, I mean, my right honourable friend is absolutely

right. The underscore the National importance of this issue and I

commend the approach set out today. Notwithstanding the rather

depressing and dispirited response from the parties opposite, although

my right -- will my right honourable friend undertake to continue to

build a national consensus and a consensus across the House on this

issue. It affects all of our constituencies and should be above

party politics. I agree and my door is always open, I am always ready to

see somebody, even if they then decide to change their mind, but I

do say, Mr Speaker, that I have no found this particular tweet which

came out this morning. Strangely, not after he had seen the original

statement but only after he had seen the newspapers and the quote here

is, from my opposite spokesman, "Pensions Minister scraps retirement

for all but the rich and those lucky enough to have a good private

pension". How ridiculous is that? This is the announcement of a

statutory review which has party agreed with back in 2014. He really

needs to apologise for that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of

State and I and all of us are fortunate to have well-paid jobs but

for many of our countrymen and women they work just to survive. I would

like to ask whether the review will look at whether the presumption

should always be that living longer means working longer, whether we

might look at alternative ways of funding the basic state pension so

people are able to benefit and live fulfilled lives in retirement as a

result of the benefits of better health care and living longer. Can I

say to the honourable gentleman again, a wholly legitimate question

to raise and in line with the spokesperson for his party my view

is this is within scope if he wishes to raise it for the reviewer. The

reviewer will have to decide just exact way how he gets that balance

right with his team but it is certainly within scope for the

honourable gentleman and his party to ask the viewer to look at this

balance and see whether or not some of those presumptions are necessary

and I would urge him to do so. The Secretary of State has been a real

champion of our pensioners with the triple lock, automatic enrolment, no

benefiting over 6 million people. Does my friend back not agree that

in the light of cross-party support -- now benefiting. Cross-party

support for the review in 2014 it is no rank hypocrisy for the Labour

front bench to try to make political capital out of this today? I would

tell my right honourable friend, Mr Speaker, that I do genuinely regret

the consensus achieved in the 2014 legislation has now been tossed

aside, literally in a matter of hours. Apparently this morning, over

breakfast, by the opposition, and I would urge them to remember what

their own spokesperson back in 2014 said, instead of chuntering away on

the front bench they said categorically, we do not oppose the

Act and they agreed with the regular review. I urge them to get back to

the sensible position of wanting to cooperate over changes to

pensionable age. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Secretary of

State about the issue about different occupations? We know

certain professions such as people in the armed services or Fire

Brigade or police officers, were the job requires a lot of physical

strength and even surgeons who perhaps later in their lives are

operating on people, whether there will be ought whether Sir John

Cridland has been asked to look at those people's retirement ages as

well? I would say to the honourable lady again that is a legitimate

question, very legitimate. I believe it is within the scope for to raise

this with John Cridland and I would urge her to do so. A number of

similar points are being made. Of course he has to make a final

decision about what the balance of his review will look like within the

terms of reference but I think it is certainly within the terms of

reference and I would urge him to do so. I wish her own front bench had

taken such a positive review. Having listened to this discussion for 45

minutes, setting aside the bluster from some of the opposition parties,

the only point of live versions I can see on what is a five-year

statutory enquirer -- point of diversion I can see, is whether or

not the Government included are required on whether it includes

affordability. Would my right honourable friend agree with me that

if that is the case of affordability should definitely be part of any

inquiry into our pension system? With the national debt of ?1.7

trillion, ?24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, it

would be a crime for the Government not to consider whether our pension

age is indeed affordable and I hope the other countries, the Labour

Party and particular the Lib Dems, where this was the only point of

difference their spokesman could raise, it would reconsider. I would

say I agree with my honourable friend. I thought there was

consensus over this and that is apparently being torn up. I urge the

opposition front bench to change their minds and engage with this. Of

course affordability is included. I do not know of any Government who

would genuinely say we will make some change and not think about

whether it is affordable. Hang on a second, perhaps the last Labour

Government. So I am very sad to hear they are following their normal

trend which is to shout a lot and make commitments they could never

possibly do if they were in government.

Could the Secretary of State rule out the prospect of the retirement

age being increased to 84 as a result of this review, as was

predicted by the previous pensions minister Steve Way? Is there any

limit that this government is prepared to step on the upper limit

of the state retirement age? Honourable lady should not always

necessarily believe everything she reads in the papers. The newspapers

have their own reasons for publishing stuff. There is nothing

in this review that talks about that. I have categorically said that

John Cridland is there to review within the terms of reference where

we should go in with the state pension ages and to look at other

aspects of affordability within the context of what people have done. If

the honourable lady has an issue to raise, she should raise it with him.

I will tell you what is untenable. It is that somehow, her party

opposes an independent and regular review of state pension. Why would

anybody do that? I hear the front bench shouting that it is rigged.

The only thing rid of the way he got onto the front bench as opposition

spokesman! As someone who accepted the rise in his own pension age to

68 in 2007, against all evidence presented by the party opposite, it

has been disappointed to hear the tenor of comments today. With the

Secretary of State assure me that this review will be independent and

will take into account factors from across the country, not just London

and the south-east, around life expectancy is, and that we will get

because drug have engaged with the opposition, if not with the shadow

Secretary of State, with the shadow pensions minister? I would agree. My

honourable friend raised this in the course of the exchange, and he is

right. The important thing is that we have an independent review, and

we own up to decisions we have to take. I just wish the other side

would accept that they took decisions about the state pension

age early. They have collective amnesia now about anything that

happened not just before 2010, but apparently pre-2015. Shortly, I

expected will be pre-2016 and it will go on like that. They should

wake up, smell the coffee and get on with being in opposition in the hope

of being in government, not perpetually in opposition. I think

it is disappointing that further changes are being considered, given

that the government has not even been able to fix the botched mess it

has made for women born in the 1950s. Several of those have come to

my surgery, some facing losses of up to ?30,000 as a result of the unfair

transition. I wonder how many women have come to the Secretary of

State's surgeries, and what message he has had for them? I would simply

say to the honourable gentleman that the nature of this review is looking

forward beyond 2028. It would be with him and his party accepting the

fact that in Scotland, there are particular demographic issues. These

are things that I would hope they would welcome the opportunity of an

independent review to look at aspects that they may wish to raise

about problems in Scotland. I would urge them to do that, and I take

from the nodding his head that he welcomes this independent review,

unlike the front bench of the Labour Party. Will the Secretary of State

ensure that the John Cridland review removes the indication from life

expectancy onto mental and physical health indicators, particularly for

postmenopausal women, and ensure that people can have a

quality-of-life post retirement so that we can gain from that social

capital and people can look forward to their retirement? The honourable

lady raises a legitimate set of issues. And these are issues that

have to be considered about how we deal with people retiring, what

quality-of-life they have. I agree with her. I suggest she talks to the

review and asks them to find some way to consider those issues. Order.

Urgent question, Stuart Seaman Donald. I wanted to ask the

Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a

statement on the developing humanitarian crisis in Greece. The

Secretary of State for International Development. Secretary Justine

Greening. I am delighted to be able to be here, responding to this

urgent question. A situation of humanitarian concern is unfolding in

Greece. There are reportedly 10,000 people at the border between Reese

and Macedonia. The UNHCR is reporting that 24,000 or more people

may be stranded across Greece, and Greek or 30s have established two

camps at the border, with a projected total capacity of 12,000

500. The crowd conditions are putting pressure is on delivering

essential support to people. The UK is already providing nearly ?55

million to the Mediterranean migration crisis response. This

includes essential supplies such as blankets, sleeping mats and tents,

as well as support through non-governmental organisations and

UN agencies. The UK has also established a new refugee children

fund for Europe, which will meet the needs of unaccompanied and separated

children. We should remember that the majority of Syrians who have

fled Syria are in countries neighbouring Syria. That is why the

UK continues to be at the forefront of the response to the crisis in the

region. The recent London conference on Syria raised over $11 billion,

with the Prime Minister announcing that the UK would more than double

our total pledged to the Syria crosses from one point 12 billion

pounds to over 3 billion -- one 3p. -- ?1.3 billion. The UK is working

across the EU to ensure that is you manage tearing crisis is averted and

that the most vulnerable people are protected and provided with shelter.

We are monitoring the situation and we stand ready to meet other

priority needs in assembling a team to go to Greece to assess the

situation. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer.

We all recognise the important role in the department has played in

responding to the Germanic terrier crosses. Sadly, I regret that the

Senate can be said of the Home Office, hence my question was

targeted at her colleagues. Yesterday, the UN High Commissioner

for Refugees warned that Europe faces and imminent humanitarian

crisis, largely of its own making. And as the Secretary of State has

reported, the UN described crowding, shortages of food, shelter, water

and sanitation in Greece. I agree that firstly, we do need a response

in terms of emergency aid. The ?55 million she has referred to is

indeed welcome. But we also need an urgent strategic response from other

European states to share responsibility for supporting Greece

in assessing and hosting arrivals. Does the Secretary of State not

agree with me that border closures, tear gas and rubber bullets do not

amount to the required strategic response? Isn't it obvious that

Greece cannot manage this situation alone? Will the Secretary of State

agree with the United Nations that it remains vital that the European

agreements on relocation are prioritised and incremented? If not,

who does the government think should take on this responsibility? Is it

the government's position that Greece alone must shoulder that

responsible at the? On the other hand, if she does agree that the

challenge should be shared through relocation, how can the UK

Government defend not playing its part? Finally, will she also back UN

calls for increased regular pathways for admission of refugees from

countries neighbouring Syria in light of the unfolding tragedy, will

the government look again at increased recent, expanded family

reunification, private sponsorship and humanitarian and refugee,

student and work visas? Surely in this way, we can reduce dangerous

journeys, save lives and support Greece. If I can start with his

final point, he is right that the issue of making sure people who are

refugees can get on with life, even though they are not at home, is

important. That is why we are focused not just on jobs and work

permits so that refugees can work in neighbouring countries like Jordan

and Lebanon, we also focused on Mickey sure children are back in

school -- making sure they are back in school. Those new steps are

important in understanding how we can more comprehensively tackle this

sort of crisis that we see a in a tin from the conflict in Syria. To

take the other points he has raised, the UK has worked with the UN. We

hosted the London conference with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.

I welcome the announcement that has just come out of the EU today around

the step up in support that will be provided for refugees arriving in

Europe. It has literally just been made as an announcement, but our

initial look at what it is suggesting needs to take place is

precisely the response that the UK has already put in place in Europe.

It is focused on enabling fantastic NGOs who are already there to do a

better job, enabling the UNHCR to do a stronger job, particularly on

processing refugees. As we get into the detail of that announcement, it

will hopefully give us more indication of what the plans are,

but they look like ones that we welcome. He asked more broadly about

how Europe is responding to this crisis. There are two different

aspects to it alongside the pieces I have mentioned. One is sensible

border control. The UK is not part of the Schengen area, for reasons

that have become clear over recent months. But it is important that we

see countries like Greece helped to make sure they can manage their

borders more effectively. It is why our Home Office has worked with the

Greek authorities to do that. It is also important that when refugees

arrive in Europe, they make use of mechanisms such as the Dublin

Convention. We have a core ward mated approach of dealing with

refugees within Europe -- a coordinated approach. We have taken

a clip position on the fact that we have always had a proud history of

accepting people seeking asylum and accepting refugees. But that needs

to happen in a way that is sensibly managed for the people wanting to

claim asylum and refugee status, but also for the country's people are

seeking to get safety in. I am pleased to hear my right honourable

friend recognise that we are talking about refugees and not migrants, and

that the two are different. We are dealing with men, women and children

who are fleeing war zones. This country has a proud tradition which

is being honoured now in seeking to assist. But the European Union

response has been chaotic. The honourable gentleman is right.

Rubber bullets and tear gas, against children and women, is not the

answer. So when will my right honourable friend and her friends in

our cabinet seek to convene a European heating to produce a proper

and holistic response? This comprehensive approach that is

required, as he rightly says, is something we have pressed for for

many months now. It is not a crisis that has just emerged over the last

few weeks. There will be any EU -Turkey summit in the coming week

which gives us a good chance to again see a more structured response

from the European Union. All the way through this process, the UK

approach has steadily emerged as the one with the most sense. Firstly, it

is dealing with the root causes, helping people where they are in the

region, looking to some of the reasons why they have lost hope

about staying there, which is a lack of jobs and their children being

unable to get back into school. And then when people do need to

relocate, we are enabling them to do that safely and working with the

UNHCR and other agencies to identify those most vulnerable people in the

region, and for those who need to be relocated, doing that in a managed

way that is not just better for them because they don't have to put their

lives in the hands of a people smuggler, but also better for the

countries they are going to, because it is enabling them to work with

communities to make sure they are able to take on board refugees who

are being relocated and have all the right services in place for them

when they arrive. The Secretary of State has spoken

again about what the Government is doing for refugees in the region of

the Middle East. This is wholly commendable but this question is

about the millions, including half a million Syrian, refugees in Europe,

and in particular the plight of Greece. I was in Greece last month.

The Greek people have been as hospitable as they can be, and there

prime minister said this week that with the closure of the Macedonian

border and tens of thousands of people backing up in Greece, on the

streets of Athens, on those islands, Greece runs the risk of becoming a

permanent warehouse of souls. What is the Government doing to get

bilateral aid to the Greeks in this crisis? What is the Government doing

to encourage Turkey to do something about the thousands of refugees

being shipped from Turkey into Greece, some of them now

increasingly coming from North Africa? What pressure is the

Government bringing to bear on Turkey to put a stop to this, to

make it easier for them to stay in Turkey, the work and get education

for their children? In respect of the fact we are not there, what is

the Government doing to work with fellow members of the European

family of nations to be more effective against the people

traffickers, to provide safe routes for the refugees and, above all, how

can we turn our backs on the people of Greece who risked being

overwhelmed because of that absence overwhelmed because of that absence

of a strategic approach and humanitarian approach to this issue

by all of the EU nations, including the UK? Well, I would strongly

disagree with her very last statement because actually the

reality is we are the largest contributed to the humanitarian

response here in Europe as well. In fact we have provided nearly ?55

million to the Mediterranean migration crisis and she will be

aware of the work we have done in the Mediterranean helping to save

lives with our own Royal Navy and ships out there are saving lives

over recent months. She asked about what we have done in Greece but

actually we have provided ?90 million in support in total, a lot

to Greece, some helping NGOs on the ground, some helping amazing

organisations like the Red Cross and some helping the International

organisation for Migration and we have also done work with Greece in

helping it manage its borders more effectively. The reality is actually

the work that Britain is doing is actually showing the way, frankly,

for other member states in Europe, around what is sensible, thoughtful

approach to this crisis is that can help us not only deal with root

causes which is what we are doing in the region, but also to show, yes,

we do all need to make sure we are providing support to refugees who

are arriving closer to home here in Europe and that is precisely what

the UK is also leading the way in doing. Mr Speaker, can I

congratulate the Secretary of State and her team in doing it very

difficult job in difficult circumstances. The International

organisation for migration suggest 90,000 people have entered Greece in

the last two months alone, eight times as more as last year and not

all are silly refugees, albeit the all are silly refugees, albeit the

majority are. What more can the Government do to make sure the offs

of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Morocco make up the

other percentage. Think part of this is making sure we do look at some of

the root causes causing refugees to make those journeys in the first

place. He will be aware of the work we are doing in particular both in

Afghanistan, and similarly for those Afghanistan, and similarly for those

people who are shifting from parts of Africa, much of our aid programme

is of course intrinsically focused on improving opportunities in the

countries where those young people are growing up. In the end only

solution to these sorts of crises are peace, in the case of those

driven by conflict, such as we are seeing in Syria, but then

development in the case of those migration flows that are simply due

to people feeling they do not have opportunities on their own doorstep

and therefore they want to find better ones elsewhere, and in

relation to Turkey, this is a country that currently has 2 million

Syrian refugees, and I think we should frankly praise the generosity

of Turkey and Turkish communities, many of which I have had a chance to

meet over the last few years. For the hospitality that they have

provided. I think we will rise to the challenge of dealing with this

crisis, not by pointing the finger at countries, which I know it is

tempting to do, we would like to see other countries in Europe doing

more, contributing more, as the UK has done, but in the end the way we

will rise to the challenge of dealing with this crisis is to work

more collaboratively together but also to do that in a thoughtful way

that is very evidence -based and understands the drive is not what is

making people move but at the same thing does not accept the

criminality we are seeing in terms of the people smuggling taking place

and deals with that as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker will stop we

recognise the role Britain has played but can she confirmed her

answer today does not confirm any new announcements of funding and

resource, and was this crisis is some foreseen, this latest crisis,

but I'm the Government funding announcement it has already made?

And also what analysis was carried out in general before it decided to

double its pledge? The UK Government response cannot simply be about

funding but has two at some point take its fair share of refugees from

Europe to the native kingdom and 20,000 over four years by anyone's

calculation is not a fair share. First of all, our pledge which was

to double the existing support we are giving to this area crisis and

the region affected by this crisis was a sensible one that frankly

reflects the reality of the situation on the ground and what is

needed, and also the fact that if we really are going to do the right

thing, that meant going beyond simply providing day-to-day

life-saving supplies but also getting children back in school. I

do not agree with his characterisation of Britain not

having played its role in helping people more directly in the region

to relocate. I think we have a sensible approach on that that the

Prime Minister has set out himself, taking 20,000 people over the course

of this Parliament. These are going to be the most vulnerable people who

otherwise would have absolutely no prospect of being able to get out of

that region. We are working directly with UN agencies to help those

people do just that and we're working with local around our

country and I pay tribute to the fact that I know there will be those

in Scotland were also going to provide a home to these people, to

make sure that when we do bring people to the UK it is done in a

sensible measure and effective manner. -- sensible, measured and

effective manner. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Secretary

of State and both ministers are coming here today. I know they care

deeply about the plight of refugees and working exceptionally hard on

this and I don't doubt that for a minute. However, given what I saw

when I visited Lesbos month ago I am not surprised by the chaos Greece is

in no. You could see it coming. The Secretary of State Caitlin agreed to

meet with me -- is in now. I remain convinced the UK has a greater

leadership role to play in ensuring Greece is supported and not just

left to collapse and be abandoned by the rest of Europe which is

absolutely what is happening now. In the next of this whole sorry mess,

there are unaccompanied, let's call them by what they really are,

orphaned children, who are still there and in need of error care and

hope and I believe the UK and other countries have a moral obligation to

home then -- our care. Blankets, and I am being simplistic, but that is

not enough. Our leadership in the region is exemplary and I will not

hear a word said against it but there are orphaned children in

Europe now. Can we not take some? I am so very happy to meet with her

and I thank her for her comments. I am sorry she was not able to make

the meeting we did have planned, and she is quite right to raise the

issue of how children are affected by this crisis. It is one of the

reasons why we have put education at the heart of our response and in

relation to those children who are arriving in Europe. She will be

aware we have specifically announced a ?10 million fund but that is very

much to make sure we have a much better system across Europe of

identifying children working with each NCR, making sure they are

specifically protected and put into safe spaces and enabled to get to

where they are trying to get to in a way that does not put them any more

at risk. I would also say to her that there are a number of countries

of course across the European Union that could also help provide safety

for children and that is what we want to see happening, we want to

see a more co-ordinated approach and she will be aware we are also

extending our Vulnerable Person's Scheme to include unaccompanied

children. The one piece of good news in all of this is that in part -- as

part of the work done in the region itself, overwhelmingly children

arriving in countries like Jordan and Lebanon are being reunited with

their family and I can absolutely reassured her that our desire in all

are taken care of. Implicit in her are taken care of. Implicit in her

assumption is that many of these children are wanting to come to the

UK, but of course under the Dublin Convention if they are able to claim

asylum, if they have links in the UK, we can consider those cases and

it is one of the reasons why registering and making sure children

are inside the system, it is so important and that is particularly

what we are focusing on and ensuring happens now. As she will know, it

can be a very chaotic situation and sometimes one of the biggest

challenges we face is that children and people themselves are very

reluctant to come forward to authorities and that is also a

problem we're trying to get over. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The situation

in Greece now is just becoming dangerous, and could well implode as

the crisis gets worse. I am sure she will agree that in fact the

humanitarian aid from both Britain and the EU is not yet enough to help

Greece cope with this crisis. Will she also agree to look at how many

of the refugees who are arriving in Greece in fact have family in

Britain who could look after them? Could she get that assessment done

and also look at whether the refugee resettlement programme could be

extended, not simply to cope with young unaccompanied refugees, as the

member for South Cambridge has said, but also others with family in

Britain who could look after them, so Britain could do its bit in a

fair way? I think today's announcement from the EU is possibly

one of the first big steps we are seeing taken towards making sure

that the level of response needed in Europe itself is at the scale

required, and I agree with her on that. I think countries like Britain

have stepped forward to do what we can. Working where we can with the

Greek authorities, but more is required, and it is good to see that

announcement will be scaling up against those needs. In terms of her

second point, I would simply reiterate to her that we have good

and sound processes that sit behind our asylum and refugee system here

in the UK. We are busily not part of the Schengen area. I think those are

perfectly sensible approach is -- obviously not part of the Schengen

area. Sensible to work through and find out with these refugees will

end up. We will not be part of some pan EU relocation approach. We think

that simply plays into the hands of people smugglers who are perhaps the

only people who gain from the present situation we are seeing and

what we would prefer to do is I think much more sensible approach

which is taking people directly from the region. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My right honourable friend is right to focus on the transportation

crisis what would she also agreed is the wider region which is imported?

Which she agree that for those who criticise the international aid

budget that actually by not putting that investment in countries like

Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, taking millions of refugees, we would have

a far bigger reduction in that and this is not just morally the right

thing but also the sensible thing to do? I do agree with him very

strongly. I think what you see in the UK aid strategy is essentially

that in doing the right thing, by some of the poorest and most

vulnerable people in the world, we also do the right thing by

ourselves. Perhaps the worst longest term challenge of many that Syria is

facing at the moment is that many of its best and brightest are simply

leaving the region so the more we can help people stay close to home,

close to their families, actually the more we prepare for a Syria at

some point to be able to have the people it needs to be there to help

it get back on its feet, although as it stands today, Mr Speaker, that

seems like a prospect that will be some way off, but it does not mean

we should not try to do to achieve it.

The honourable member for Cumbernauld and I were told last

Thursday by Europol that 90% of the migrants who have entered the EU do

so because they are supported by organised criminal gangs. When will

we get a statement from ministers to this House to tell us that there is

success against these criminal gangs that are doing so much damage to the

people of Europe? And when is Turkey going to get the 3 billion euros we

promised them for their help in dealing with this crisis? He will

see that on the bench with me is a Home Office minister and I am sure

he will respond to his point in relation to progress on tackling the

organised criminal gangs. Our National Crime Agency works with

Europol on that. He will also be aware that we played our role in

saving lives in the Mediterranean, with the Royal Navy and Border

Force. In relation to the 3 billion euros package, that is now agreed.

We got it agreed for the London conference, which was a step

forward. The key is to make sure that aid is delivered but also with

a strategy behind how it is invested. That needs to involve not

just the day-to-day support of refugees who Turkey are very

generously hosting. They have 2 million refugees. But we also need

progress on effective border control. And the package now in

place needs to be not only carefully delivered on by the EU, but also by

Turkey in terms of how it uses that investment. I congratulate my right

honourable friend on the position she has taken in this crisis. I

would urge her to continue to put the emphasis on the refugee camps,

which will have a big destabilisation effect in places

like Jordan. I wonder if, given the expertise of her department, she

could say more about the technical assistance she is providing to

Greece? It is in several different areas. Part of it is Home Office

related in relation to management of the border. Part of it is

humanitarian and working through both UNHCR and also latterly, some

assistance to Unicef on child protection. So it is in a range of

areas. Although we often focus on the amounts of aid we are giving,

often, some of the most effective aid is this technical assistance,

which is very cost-effective and also effective in terms of its

outcomes. The Secretary of State is right that to solve this crisis will

require a coordinated approach across Europe. But surely it is

apparent that in order to get that coordinated approach, we have to

have some acts of political leadership. Last year, there were

90,000 unaccompanied children registered as applying for asylum in

Europe. Does that not demonstrate the modesty of the call for this

country to take 3000? Surely this is a time when the government should

say yes to that modest call for political leadership. I think we

have shown political leadership, not just in terms of the scale and the

shaping of the humanitarian response in the region, but also we have

responded to it closer to home. Britain has done more than any

country in terms of providing support to refugees from abroad. As

I said to my honourable friend, we have done a huge amount of work on

supporting unaccompanied children. There will be many parliaments

across Europe that are debating this issue, but few can be as proud of

the work that is not only happening across government, but that so many

British people are providing to refugees across the region. I can

reassure him that this issue of unaccompanied children is something

we are working on and we are playing at Orrell. -- our role. I am part of

the fact that this country is the biggest financial contributor to

this crisis in Europe, a point that is easily dismissed by the parties

opposite. However, the independent commission for aid impact is far

less angry and about the contribution of the European Union.

What can she do to put pressure on her interlocutors to ensure that

some of the EU money that it gives to loony projects is diverted to

assist in this crisis within our own European borders? As he probably

knows, I am what I would call an aide disciplinarian. It is my in

eight chartered accountant that means either with me to see

effective projects that are well run and deliver value for money. That is

what we have been working with the European Union to do. Our push has

been to see them mirror the UK strategy on doing more effective

work in the region, but also doing more on stepping up to the plate to

manage this crisis closer to home. It was good to see the European

Union starting to move in the right direction, and we had further steps

when we helped the London conference a few weeks ago. It is hard to

overstate the national and regional dangers in Greece becoming a giant

refugee camp. That is all the more the case because the refugee crisis

cannot be disentangled from the crisis in the Greek economy and

infrastructure. When I visited a refugee camp on one of the islands,

this island had already lost its health care, as so many of the other

islands had. In addition to the humanitarian assistance, which is

welcome, what discussions is the British government having within the

EU to discuss the state of the Greek economy, heavily dependent on

tourism, and the risk that the Greek economy is going to implode under

the pressure of a growing refugee crisis this year? At the minister

meetings I am attending as a development minister, we do discuss

the challenge is we face goes to home. We should learn from what has

happened in Jordan and Lebanon that we should not expect countries just

to be able to cope on their own when they suddenly see huge numbers of

people flowing into them that they are not expecting, not just in terms

of the financial pressures that puts on them, but also the pressures it

puts on local communities. It is why I welcome the announcement that we

think is coming out of the EU today. It is also the right thing to do for

those people arriving, those refugees. As has been said around

this House, it has taken time for the penny to drop across Europe

about what needs to be done closer to home, but I am proud of the work

the UK has done in trying to make sure that those levels of support

that people need are now being put in place. With the right honourable

lady agree that the British public want to and welcome help for genuine

refugees, particularly those women and children from minority groups,

but many are concerned at what they see as large numbers of young men,

fit and able men who have left behind their families, often

claiming to be younger than they are, often having cultural attitudes

towards women and gays that are unacceptable in Europe, and often

coming here for economic reasons. Do we not need to send a message that

those people cannot come in large numbers? There are two elements to

this. Part of it is responding to the humanitarian crisis itself, and

as he says, the numbers of genuine refugees who have been caught up in

the Syrian crisis, and not just that one, but the one we have seen in

Iraq and the impact of Daesh in northern Iraq which has also led to

refugees. As he points out, part of this is economic migrants. That is

why having strong processes on refugee and asylum and migration is

so important. Available in MP, I often deal with immigration

casework, -- as a London MP. But having strong processes to work

through those different cases is vital. That is why, in spite of the

emotional pressures, we are right to stick to that plan, which is that

written should have the ability to set our rules in relation to

migration. This is why we are not in the Schengen area. Notwithstanding a

couple of contributions from the Tory benches, the Secretary of State

will have heard that there is a cross-party consensus for dealing

with the humanitarian and refugee crisis. There is a great deal of

cross-party support and friendly reception for the efforts that have

been made in this region by the government. Can she therefore not

respond by accepting that the scale of the issue we are now facing

requires a re-examination of the scale of the bilateral support to

Greece? Second, that without a meaningful contribution to the

resettlement, it makes it more difficult to have solidarity across

Europe that is required to deal with this issue properly? As ever, we

will continue to make sure the support we are giving to all the

countries affected by this crisis is at a level that is sensible. I have

set out that Britain has done as much as any country to help refugees

arriving in Europe. That is why a significant proportion of that has

been to support countries like Greece, where those refugees have

arrived. I don't agree with him on his second point in relation to our

approach in terms of relocation. I think we have taken the sensible

approach, and it is one that is increasingly recognised across

Europe as being a more pragmatic approach. My final point to him

would be to say that the people we are able to relocate are the most

vulnerable people from that region, who have been identified by agencies

like the UNHCR as needing to be removed from the region in order to

get back on with their lives and to get the support they need. I think

we are right to focus on the most vulnerable people affected by this

crisis. That will continue to be our approach. I would like to thank the

Secretary of State and the government for the leadership they

have shown in being, after the United States, the biggest donor in

the region of humanitarian support. Does she agree that the refugees we

see from the Middle East are the victims of terrorists and

traffickers, and that simply to take refugees who have already made the

safety of Europe into the United Kingdom is playing into the hands of

those evil traffickers that are appallingly exploiting people? I

think he is right. In the end, there is no getting away from the fact

that overwhelmingly, people want to stay in the region where they have

their home and where they have grown up and where they are close to

family. It has been a failure of the international community to do enough

that has led to the sorts of flows we are seeing. It is why the London

conference we had a month ago is so important, but it is also why we

need to see more countries are doing more in the region. We should not

lose sight of the need to see more international leadership matching

that of Britain in the region, supporting refugees in countries

like Jordan and Lebanon, who themselves have been very generous,

but are also saying that this is a difficult situation for them to cope

with. Greece is a great country and an important ally of hours, but the

people of Greece are still suffering from the financial crisis. The

refugee and humanitarian crisis is pushing them to the brink. Help so

far from the EU has been slow. Does the Secretary of State truly believe

that despite what has been said today, the European Union strategy

to give the proper help is in place and doesn't she agree that more

needs to be done? As ever, it is about today's announcement, which we

understand to be 700 million euros plant or the next three years. It is

about making sure that that money is invested sensibly. I should also say

that it is important that Greece is also willing and able to work with

NGOs on the ground and with UNHCR so that the best work can be done. One

of the biggest things that related to children in Lebanon has enabled

us to do more work on helping create jobs is simply those countries'

important decisions to allow refugees to have work permits, which

has then enabled us to do more to help them have the jobs to be able

to support themselves. It is important that alongside the initial

resource in provided, that we are able to work with the Greek

authorities to make the most of that investment and help people as much

as we can. data and evidence on the data. We

are not in the Schengen area, which means that we can take out how we

can deal with the different people seeking to come to Britain, whether

they claiming asylum all wanting to come here to work as migrants. --

all wanting to come here. His final point on particular minorities, he

is absolutely right to highlight that. I did have a chance to go and

meet some Christian minorities that had been persecuted and caught up in

the Iraqi crisis. Daesh's territorial gains that they had at

that time in Iraq, and I can reassure him that we are very

conscious of the need to make sure that we do not lose sight of the

particular groups who will be most affected by this. We have to talk

about the impact of this crisis on children, but he is quite right to

point out that there are whole communities targeted in some areas.

There should be concerned about the impact on the social structure of

Greece as a result of the double blow of being members of the euro

and the effect that that has had on the economy, and now the chaotic

immigration policy being issued by the EU. With the Secretary of State

agree with me that many Syrian leaders looking to the future are

saying that people should be kept as close to Syria as possible in

well-organised camps, and not thrown into the hands of the traffickers

and people smugglers into Europe. And could she tell us what

discussions she has had with the Government of Jordan, Lebanon and

Turkey as to the resources that they need to sustain the number of people

in their own countries, and what hopes does she have of getting the

other EU partners to stump up some money as the UK Government has done

to support those efforts? I am very grateful for his question. We have

had many discussions with those countries that have seen the biggest

flows of refugees over recent years, the ones he has mentioned in

particular. I think the London conference was especially important

in getting other countries to step up to the plate alongside Britain.

And do more to help provide the resources to those countries like

Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey that they need. He will be aware that right at

the end of last year, we got all the way through the year and it was just

over 50% funded. Because of the London conference we literally got

five weeks into the year and probably about 70 to 80% of this

year's needs have already been resourced. But we still need to see

other countries do more. This is a crisis that will be ongoing for some

time. And therefore, whilst I was delighted with the success of the

Syrian conference, it was the largest ever amount pledged in a

single day, actually unfortunately that needs to be the beginning of

the international community's that a response to this crisis, not the end

of it. Riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets is increasing the

risks for young children and increasing the price tag for

trafficking. I saw it myself on Monday in Calais, and it is the same

in Greece. There is no effective identification and processing of

these young children, particularly with connections with the United

Kingdom. Can she give me her assurance that we welcome the

commitment to provide more safety for young children in Europe as well

as in conflict zones and we will provide that safety for these

desperately vulnerable moment children who don't have a hope of

safety that the Secretary of State talks about and avoid them going

into the hands of traffickers? I hope I can provide that reassurance.

In a sense, it would be twofold. First ball in enabling vulnerable

children in the region -- first of all. Secondly, the ?10 million fund

we established is about better and stronger identification so we can

get cauldron into the system, funding to ensure protection -- we

can get children into the system. Funding to ensure the kind of

specialist protection that Jordan need. Onto a -- vulnerable children

need. Also I think it is important to recognise that even when we

finally reach an end point with working and helping unaccompanied

children, actually from the experiences that they will have been

through will be ones that mean that they will often need further support

in order to get on with their lives effectively, and the UK is making

sure that where possible we can provide that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The people traffickers are benefiting from a career Russian

policy to weaken resolve in Syria, to create a crisis in Europe and

weaken our humanitarian values. But also to week in neighbouring states

such as Jordan, Lebanon, Greece and Turkey -- to weaken. Saudi Arabia

told the Defence Select Committee last week that it has offered visas

to Syrian families, allowing them to move in with their own family

members in Saudi Arabia, they have offered them work permits and they

are offering opportunities for education and employment and health

care. Why can't we do the same, so those Syrian refugees with clear

links to the UK? Well, we have a relocation scheme, but I should also

point out that under the Dublin Convention when people do have

clearly with the UK that that also provides routes for them to be able

to come here, but in the end we need to have a co-ordinated and managed

approach on migration, we are not in the Schengen area for all the right

reasons, as we can see, and it is right for Britain to have the

controls on the rules in place that we do to be able to manage the flows

of people coming into the UK. In the meantime, she talks about people

smugglers and the impact of bombing that is going on, although we hope

the ceasefire obviously holds, it is important that we don't take that

that simply play into the hands of those people, those criminals, who

are gaining from this crisis, and that is why we have taken the

approach we have. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I 2am proud of the UK's

leading role with aid for refugees of many years now, not just the last

few months -- I 2am proud. I wonder if my honourable friend could tell

the house what requests Greece have made to help, and I know the UK have

been seeking a comprehensive EU response to months now, but what

more can we do to put pressure on the whole of the EU to at least help

with the daily basic needs of those refugees in Greece to try and

alleviate some of the burdens? In relation to Greece, we have had

humanitarian advisers in Greece helping to make sure that the Greek

strategy, the sort of way in which camps are being set up, is done as

effectively as possible. It is why we are also working with the UNHCR

latterly we have also helped to provide child protection officers as

well. It is a complex situation over there on the ground. But I think we

should recognise that the UK has not only helped to provide life-saving

support and call humanitarian support, but also that kind of

technical assistance that can help the Greek authorities do a more

effective job themselves -- quarter humanitarian support. On his last

question, I agree it is welcome to seek the European Union now respond

with additional resources to mirror the kind of work that the UK has

been putting our effort into, and it is badly needed and it is good to

see. I think it is now coming through. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With

the Secretary of State agree with me that the very last thing that

families with beheadings, bombs and barbarities need is to face rubber

bullets on arriving in the EU. Would she urged them to take a much more

constructive role within the EU on migration? I think we are taking a

constructive, proactive approach within the EU. We are not part of

the Schengen area but that does not stop us from setting out our views

on an effective way of dealing with this crisis. Speaking in my role as

Secretary of State for International Development, I think one of the most

important elements that response is targeting the cause of making people

feel like they have no alternative but to put their lives in the hands

of the people smugglers, that is to do a better job of supporting them

in the region, close to home and close to their families. I certainly

welcome the financial measures that the UK Government have announced and

are providing, and I share calls for the rest of the international

community to match that. The fact is, no amount of money will ever

provide enough schools, hospitals and homes for four million and

increasing refugees to be permanently circled in these

countries that the honourable member referred to earlier on. Information

from Eurostat relative to the populations of each country, Greece

received twice the number of asylum applications as the UK. Italy

receives 2.5 times. The EU as a whole receives five times the

applications, and some countries such as Hungary and Sweden receive

30 times as many asylum applications as the UK does. While she agree that

these figures destroy once and for all the myths that these refugee

camps full of people whose chosen destination is the UK? On this first

point, we have an ambition to get every single Syrian child who is out

of school because of this crisis back into school by the end of the

forthcoming academic year. That was one of the key outcomes of the

London conference on Syria, to get the funding for those plans. We know

we can do them because we have already done half the children, got

those back into school, we now need to finish off that job. And just

more broadly he talked about the intentions of refugees as they

arrive in the EU. The reality is their role -- there are large Dyers

Boras in Germany and Sweden. Troubled by us Brits. Many people

arriving in Greece want to join their family. In the end, we have to

have a better co-ordinated role that recognises that countries like the

UK are not in the Schengen area and we want to take or own decisions.

There is no getting away from the fact that what you are seeing his

people resorting to a last choice, putting their lives in the hands of

the people smugglers, their first choice though is almost always to

have been able to stay in the region. Internationally we need to

see more action taken following the Syria conference in London to

deliver on that. Order. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on the 2nd of

December last year the Prime Minister came to the House and

sought permission to extend the RAF air strikes that were taking place

in Iraq to Syria. In the motion he undertook to provide quarterly

progress reports, which would set out what the impact had been in

terms of Daesh's finances, that fighters, their weapons, and I think

on which the basis the support of the House was given was that there

would be those regular updates so that we could see also whether for

instance there had been any UK involvement in civilian casualties.

We have now had a quarters in the 2nd of December, and really I am

seating your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to whether there is, perhaps

there is anybody the Prime Minister has sought to make such a progress

report all give such a progress report on the house, and if indeed

he hasn't, what action I can take to try and insure that he does? Well, a

very brief I hope accurate mental calculation suggests to me that

there have been 101 days since the date to which the honourable

gentleman referred. It is perfectly possible that the Government is

contemplating such a statement, and if it isn't doing so, it is possible

that it might do so as soon as news of the point of order from the

honourable gentleman wings its way towards the relevant departmental

minister, will even to the Prime Minister -- or even. If that sounds

by us not to be the honourable gentleman who is a very experienced

member of this House and for former deputy leader of it, will be well

away that he can pursue the matter, for example at business questions,

or on other days beyond today of the device which can help secure a

ministerial presence. Knowing the honourable gentleman as I do, I know

that he will utilise all the weapons at his disposal. The day would not

be complete. You will know that last week, an

urgent question about mental health, you will recall that in my question,

I made comment on the fact that the writers of Coronation Street had

done a great service to those with mental health issues addressing some

of the stigma and issues about it. Mr Speaker, it will not have a

schedule noticed that the creator and original writer of Coronation

Street, Mr Tony Warren, at 79, has passed away. I would ask that this

be noted, the contribution made to social society as much as

entertainment by pioneers like Tony Warren has led to the great

improvement of the British culture and understanding of our country. My

feeling is that the honourable gentleman has found his own

salvation. He has achieved his mission. Moreover, he knows he has

done so. No real contribution from me is required. Other than to act

knowledge that the honourable gentleman has played full is and

gracious tribute to someone who proved to be a change maker. I am

sorry to learn of the gentleman's passing but he has been honoured by

the honourable member today. Thank you. If there are no further points

of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion, Mr Jim

Cunningham. Thank you very much Mr Speaker, I beg to move that a bill

to make provision about the establishment by the Secretary of

State of an independent review of the operation of the employment

rights act of 1996 in relation to the determination of employment

status and dispute resolution mechanisms for employers and

employees. My bill calls for something long overdue, a full and

independent review surrounding the law about self-employed workers and

their rights. The need for this was demonstrated by the collapse of

Citylink in my constituency and other members constituencies. It

will enter into administration just over a year ago. The employees were

informed on Christmas Day 2014. Roughly between two and 2700 people

lost their jobs along with the thousand contractors. The situation

foisted upon them warrants the reason for this bill. There were a

number of concerns about the collapse and how it may have been

handled better. As such, it provoked a joint report of the business

innovation skills and affairs committee. Into the impact of the

closure of Citylink on employment published in March 20 15. Citylink

viewed their drivers as self-employed, they provided their

own vans but were required to wear the company livery and not permitted

to work for anyone else. These drivers were employees in all but

name. The select committee said that these contractors and subcontractors

provided drivers for Citylink have been particularly hurt by its

closure. This is because there were unsecured creditors and were

unlikely to receive the vast majority of the wages they were

owed. The administration is in favour of proposals that it could

only expect to receive 2p in the pound, the select committee noted

that the financial difficulties of the contractors were worsened by the

fact they had been encouraged to take on additional staff and

vehicles and work longer hours in the lead up to Christmas despite the

doubts over the company 's future. Gordon Martin of RMT told the

committee is that due to assurances from Citylink, people went out and

bought additional vans to put on the road and this is a human tragedy

across the piece. People are in thousands of pounds of debt and who

knows how they are going to get paid. This is important in outlining

the vulnerable position subcontractors can be in when a

company goes into Administration. The underlying issue here is that I

wish to raise, that self-employment, RMT told the committee that

self-employed drivers were tied to a company and had to wear the uniform

and use the company livery on their vehicles. That is the way the market

is unfortunately that they are employees by any definition other

than the fact they had an arrangement in place with the soon

to be defined company they were employed by. The select committee

accepted the RMT analysis that this was a direct employment in

everything but name. So why does this matter? All rights under

employment law are continued on -- contingent on employee status. The

self-employed have few rights, not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay or

the national minimum wage and they are responsible for their own

taxation. Workers have a number of basic rights including the minimum

wage and Daniel Levy. Employees have the same rights as workers and --

and annual leave. They also have the right to redundancy. An employee is

an individual who works under a contract of employment. This means

that employment rights, whether or not the contract under the person

work is a contract of employment. Self-employed persons instead are

regarded in law as providing a service for a customer or client.

The distinction is often described as the difference between contract

of service or the contract for service. The question that needs

addressing is how to make sure people under the type of contract

accurately reflect their work. In many situations, self-employed

status is useful, what I object to is people being denied their right

and the top work of contract for their work and therefore not getting

the employment rights to which they should be entitled. The difficulty

is how to know if you are on the right type of contract. The select

committee found that these drivers were employees in all but name. What

I would say to this is that it is no consolation to those that are

affected. It should not be so difficult to determine whether a

contract is an implement contract or not or to find out if you are on the

appropriate contract where you work. Open shop employment is when you are

considered as self-employed and that requires a relationship with the

company and echoes the features of an employee relationship. The

self-employed and individual situation is that they are an

employee, there is only one way to settle this issue, that is to go to

court. If you are a contract and challenge your employment status,

you have to go to court. This is expensive and arduous. The question

of employment status is one of the most widely litigated issues in

employment law. The House of Commons library has kindly supported me in

understanding the legal tests developed by the courts and tribunal

's. There are substantial criteria, each of them involving caselaw, this

level of complexity in the law worsens the problem. An individual

might suspect he is an employee but would be unlikely to know whether or

not he is because the law is so complex. This means that some