11/05/2016 House of Commons

Urgent question. Maria Eagle. Can I ask the Secretary of State for

culture, media and sport to make a statement on the white Paper on the

BBC charter. I can inform the House that I will be making a statement

tomorrow. And laying before the House our white paper on the BBC.

The BBC's roll charter expires at the end of December, I launched a

public consultation in July last year, and in March we published the

summary of responses along with an independent review into the BBC's

governance. Over the last ten months we have listened to the views of

hundreds of organisations and institutions, and 180,000 members of

the public. As well as working very closely with the BBC and the BBC

Trust. -- 190,000. We have also had input from Hollywood, Cardiff and

Stormont. The proposals in our White Paper are the result of one of the

largest and most open consultations ever conducted. I have always been

clear that I would publish our proposals as soon as we were ready

to do so, and at a time when the House would have an opportunity to

debate them. I look forward to doing so tomorrow. The BBC is one of the

most valued and successful institutions ever created. It

belongs to the people of this country, who pay for it. It has

levels of public approval but any politician would die for. It is the

linchpin of a unique ecology of broadcasting in this country, which

enables our creative industries to grow at twice the level of the rest

of the economy, employing more people than its size would suggest

is possible. It enables the UK to create goodwill for Britain around

the world. The Secretary of State has been displaying seemingly

implacable hostility to the BBC during the charter renewal process.

He has also been avoiding public -- parliament, and has had to be

dragged to this House after weeks of almost daily leaked briefings to the

media. He has not come willingly to Parliament, he seems intent on using

his brief sojourn in office not to strengthen the BBC but to diminish

it. Not received -- seek value in it, but to denigrate it, not to

enable it, but to control it. So does he accept that a good charter

needs to do three things, it is to guarantee the BBC's financial

independence, it needs to guarantee the BBC's editorial independence, it

needs to help the BBC fulfil its mission to inform, educate and

entertain us all? Does he accept, given that the BBC has agreed to

take on the ?1.3 billion cost of funding free TV licences for over

75-year-old people, that any top slicing or direction from Government

over how licence fee payers' money should be spent, is an unwarranted

interference in independence and threatens the financial independence

of the BBC? Does he accept, in respect of governance, that his

proposals, which we have read about in the newspapers, to appoint a

majority of the BBC's new unitary board, go further than the review of

BBC governance, and does he accept that they raise a widespread concern

that he is seeking thereby to control editorial decision-making by

appointing a majority of the BBC board responsible for editorial

decisions, something which has never happened before? Does he agree that

any such move would be catastrophic for the reputation of our national

broadcaster overseas, and would diminish its credibility and the

respect in which it is held around the world for its objective

reporting? We on the side of the House believes that appointment to

any new unitary board must be made through a process which is

independent of Government. The recent consultation on the BBC

charter, which had the second-largest response to a

Government consultation ever, showed that three quarters of the public

want the BBC to remain independent. Will he listen to that result? The

BBC does a brilliant job in entertaining, informing and

educating, four fifths of the public believe it is serving its audiences

well. Today we read that he is intending to rewrite the BBC's

mission. He is wrong to do so and we will oppose any such revision. He is

seeking to turn the BBC away from a mission which has succeeded

brilliantly for 90 years, of which the public approve, just who does he

think he is? The Secretary of State claims time and time again that he

is a supporter of the BBC. Though he told Cambridge students recently

that the disappearance of the BBC is a tempting prospect. He didn't like

the results of the public consultation, so he is simply

ignoring them. But the public love the BBC and want it to carry on

doing what it has been doing so well for more than 90 years. Let me

finish by giving him a bit of advice. It is not too late for the

Secretary of State to start listening to the public. Indeed, he

had better start doing so. He will not be forgiven and nor will his

party if he continues on the path he has been briefing to the newspapers,

that will lead to the destruction of the BBC as our much loved national

broadcaster and turn it instead into a mouthpiece of the Government of

the day. Let me first of all, Mr Speaker, said that the opening

comments I agree with, the BBC does have a very trusted place in British

life, it does a huge amount to support creative industries and its

global influence is enormous. Those are things which are determined to

preserve. But say that I have been dragged to Parliament I think is a

little rich, went it has always been our intention to make a full

statement when the House was sitting and that that would take place

tomorrow. She set out three concerns of which she said she would judge

our White Paper. I am not going to reveal the contents of the White

Paper until it is published. But I can tell her that I think she will

find that all three of her concerns are ones that are -- which we agree

with her about and which will be met. We have had an extensive

consultation and have taken account of that, but I would simply say in

terms of the other question she has asked, they are legitimate questions

for tomorrow when she has actually had the chance to read the White

Paper. Rather than reading some comments in the newspapers which

have ranged from what I would have to say at complete fan to say, two

others which are quite well-informed but certainly not informed by me or

my department. -- complete fantasy. Well it is occasionally the case

that we criticise the BBC for repeats, in tomorrow's case I

suspect we will have an awful lot of repeats from the honourable lady,

since that is a time when she should ask her questions and when I will be

happy to provide her with answers. Does my right honourable friend

agree that worldwide reputation of the BBC, which she and I admirers,

depends above all on it's obvious independence, and the fact that it

seemed to be independent of Government and all other pressure

groups? And would he reassure me that tomorrow's White Paper will

reinforce bad reputation, and it will be played on the face of it

that there is no threat to the BBC, which he has just been trying to be

sure us a few minutes ago? I have always made clear that editorial

independence is an incredibly important principle, and that they

be -- and that we will do nothing to undermine that. I hope that when he

comes to see the White Paper people find that we have done our best to

strengthen it in some areas. Across the House we are waiting with some

trepidation for the publication of the White Paper. But the Government

should be in no doubt the level of support from editorially independent

public service broadcasting throughout the United Kingdom. But

there often seems to be something of a gulf between some of the wacky

notions floated by the Government via the press and broadcasting

reality. One of the most bizarre must be the idea that the BBC should

desist from broadcasting popular programmes at the same time that ITV

broadcast popular programmes. Presumably the BBC should only show

dull, unpopular programmes at these times. The reports that this remains

a sticking point between the Government and the director-general,

can the Secretary of State reassure us that there is no truth in this

absurd suggestion? Yes. I was concerned, and I think my committee

was concerned earlier this year, but the process of the White Paper might

be delayed by the volume of resort -- responses the Secretary of State

has received. As he and the House will know, my committee made several

serious recommendations on governance, much of which was picked

up by the committee and development group himself. Can the Secretary of

State reassure me that in the crucial role of the chair of this

union -- new unitary board, the selection process will be

wide-ranging and robust? My honourable friend is right that it

has taken a considerable time to go through all the consultation

responses, and we have had some very valuable recommendations both from

his own committee and from the committee in the upper house, but it

was always the case that we would make this statement as soon as

possible and when the House is sitting, and I'm delighted to do so

tomorrow. With regard to appointment to the new BBC board if that is the

recommendation contained in the White obviously that is something

which he will see what we suggest and I will be happy to talk to him

about further once the White Paper's been published. Can I say to the

Secretary of State that the pre-briefing from whatever --

wherever it came to the BBC hostile press has not helped his cause. If

when he publishes tomorrow the White Paper follows the recommendations of

the excellent select committee report published last year, a

committee which he had the time shared and a report he signed up to,

I will support it. But if there is any suggestion of anything that

intrudes on the BBC's independence, he will have the fight of his life

on his hands. I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with

himself. I share the honourable gentleman's view that the report

issued by the select committee was excellent, and he played a very

important role in framing the conclusions as well. But I repeat

what I said earlier, I am committed to the editorial independence of the

BBC, and I hope he will find the reassurance he is seeking in the

White Paper. Earlier this week the Prime Minister described the BBC is

one of the most recognised brands on the planet. It is indeed. It is also

one of the British institutions which is recognised worldwide as a

great achievement of this country, and a great advert for it. It is

clear across the House but one of the key reasons for this long-term

success is the BBC's independence. So can my right honourable friend

assure us that nothing in the appointment system or the board

system in the White Paper will expose the BBC to greater direct

interference from any Government, because that would be a hugely

retrograde step? I repeat again, I am absolutely in agreement about the

importance of editorial independence. In terms of the

appointments process, he will be aware that the BBC Trust -- trusts

were entirely appointed by the Government is indeed where the BBC

governors before then. However, the BBC board is a different beast, and

I hope that he will find that we have taken steps to ensure the BBC

independence is beyond doubt. Parents across the country value the

BBC's children's channels, they BBC and Cbeebies. The BBC like the NHS

is a world-class institution, and it is the envy of other nations. If it

is not broken, he must not fix it. I share the honourable lady's

admiration particularly for the programming the BBC produces for

children, particularly as most of the commercial sector has now

withdrawn from children's programming. I consider that a very

important part of the BBC's public service role, and I hope she will

find measures in the White Paper which she also will be able to

welcome. I doubt there is anybody on either side of this House who is not

a major supporter of the BBC, but for someone who served on the

national heritage select committee, and the culture, media and sport

select committee for many years, and having worked for the BBC it is a

bit rich for the honourable lady to make some of the points she has

made. I remember some of the appointments that were made to the

Board of Governors by Tony Blair. And as for the comment that may the

BBC should be showing programmes which are different from that of ITV

are not competing, that was a point which was made by Kris Smith when he

was culture, media and sport Secretary in Tony Blair's

Government. -- Chris Smith. I think those observations well well made,

and I hope he will come along and make some more tomorrow. -- were

well made. Thank you, S4 see provides popular

programming in Welsh, as popular as possible in fact. It is now largely

funded by the BBC. -- S4C. Is he concerned his reported proposals are

seen as likely in Wales to hamper S4C's ability to fulfil this prime

function? I am concerned if these reports are

circulating, but I hope there will be the assurance tomorrow. I share

the honourable gentleman's regard for the programming that they

produce. That he will also be aware that we have announced that once we

have completed the BBC Charter review process, we will have a

review of S4 C, with an aim of how to sustain it. When TS Eliot and

Lawrence Olivia formed the society, I was the 12-year-old who put stamps

on the publications. Can the Secretary of State say when Channel

4 might come up for review? There are a number of issues on the

agenda. The charter was the most important priority not least because

it runs out before the end of the year, we will also see whether it

can be strengthened in its delivery of the public service remit, and I

believe we should make public our solutions as soon as possible. --

our conclusions. I have heard what he has to say about the BBC's

independence, but does he recognise that currently on the board there is

just one ethnic minority? It would be a travesty of the same old people

and the same old Westminster village occupy the same roles. I have

sympathy with his comments. Appointments to the board is

something that will be made clear tomorrow. At what I can say to him

that the issue of the importance of diversity is something central to

the White Paper in terms of those who work for the BBC, those who

appear on BBC programmes, and those who watch BBC programmes. Following

the lefty Lovie hysteria at the weekend, does he agree that

scrapping the discredited BBC trust, asking for more transparency in a

publicly funded organisation and wanting the BBC to be distinctive

and impartial is hardly the end of public service broadcasting as we

know it? I am grateful to him, he will find that our proposals

certainly do not represent the end of public service broadcasting, and

I hope it will strengthen service broadcasting. There is no doubt

about the level of public support for the BBC's independence,

impartiality and fairness, so at a time where it is being undermined by

competitors and attacked by the Conservative hard right, and the

bitter practitioners of the new and kinder politics on the hard left,

and of course the crazed from -- conspiracy theorist is, isn't it

really important that mainstream politicians stand up for the BBC's

right to do its job and defend its staff from the terrible bully and we

have seen recently? I do sometimes sympathise with the BBC in terms of

maintaining impartiality at a time when they are so many diverse views,

and striking a balance between those becomes increasingly hard. But

impartiality and objectivity is absolutely at the cornerstone of the

BBC's reputation, and I hope that is always the case. Would he agree that

the period of charter renewal is time to consider what the BBC can do

better than the future, even though it is a much loved institution, and

also that there is white concern about the government is of the BBC?

I agree, and he has contributed to the excellent select committee

report on this matter, and I hope that he will find our proposals on

the White Paper take account of that. Are intended to strengthen the

BBC and raise areas where perhaps it has not fulfilled its potential to

date. The BBC facility in Scotland, at Pacific Ian Glasgow, and I would

like to ask specifically about BBC Alba, which is currently 73%

repeats, and can only provide 4.4 hours of new output each week. They

would like ten hours, and I would hope that the government would take

that request on-board. The channel has grown as much of it can do,

reaching 700,000 people a week. I would say that I had a very useful

meeting with the Chief Executive of BBC Alba, and I agree that they do

and excellent job in broadcasting Gaelic. That is something the

government remains committed to. She again will need to wait until

tomorrow. We recognise the importance of it, but to some extent

funding is for the BBC. I welcome the words of reassurance, could he

provide assurance about regional broadcasting and the importance it

should continue to play in the BBC? I agree with my honourable friend

about the importance of BBC local broadcasting. In terms of BBC local

radio, it is one of the areas where it is difficult to imagine the

commercial sector would ever provide the kind of news broadcasting and

community information the BBC provide, and that is one of the

strengths, and I would like to see it continue in the future. Is part

of the ongoing remove, -- review, could the Secretary of State outline

is part of the importance of regional broadcasting that the

continuing collaboration between BBC Northern Ireland and Irish

broadcaster R T the will continue? -- RTE. The importance of the BBC

working in collaboration with other broadcasters is something we very

much support. Like most members of this House, I respect the production

values of the BBC. But does he agree that it is only proper to ask the

BBC to review its government's arrangements and ensure it continues

to have an approach in a fast changing digital world?

on both points. There is universal agreement that the existing

government stop your has not proved sufficiently effective, and there is

a need for a new system of governance, and he makes the point

we are in a fast changing media landscape. The way in which people

consume television is changing. If we look back at the position ten

years ago, it has transformed, and the likelihood is that the will

continue. And he reassured us he will not listen to the hardline

cranks and obsessive detractors of the BBC who are always knocking that

important institution which is much loved and valued by mainstream

Britain. The BBC actually raises the standard about it and the quality of

out that from amongst those competitors, and hobbling the BBC

will do nothing but reduce that quality. Well, I have no wish to

hobble the BBC. We have listened to all views expressed, but all I can

do is invite him to come to the House tomorrow and he will hear what

we propose. With wonderful BBC dramas like happy Valley being

filmed in my beautiful part of Yorkshire, will the Secretary of

State assure me that the White Paper will enhance, support and encourage

yet more BBC TV production in the regions? I was fortunate enough to

visit the set of Peaky Blinders recently, when it was filming in

Liverpool, and it is a very good example of a fine and popular BBC

drama, the kind of thing the BBC is excellent at, and hope it will

continue to produce in the future. -- I hope it will continue to

produce. The -- with the Secretary of State increase the number of

funding available for programming made in Wales for Wales? Central to

the BBC and the White Paper is programming for regions. We have a

little more to say about that tomorrow. I thank him for his words

of free assurance, particularly what he said about local radio. In the

last Parliament I led an oversubscribed Westminster Hall

debate opposing cuts to BBC local radio, and even the BBC trust seemed

surprised that the strength of support for them. I look forward to

seeing the statement tomorrow. What more can -- statement tomorrow, and

what more he can tell us about the importance of local radio. I agree.

Local radio performs an enormous function, particularly when there

are crises including the flooding in the north and, when it was essential

that people were able to obtain information about how to receive

help and what the scale of the problem was. I am a great supporter

of BBC local radio. In terms of the allocation of budget, that is

largely a matter for the BBC, we do not tell them how to divide the

funds that they have, but I hope that they continue to give BBC local

radio the priority it deserves. Speaking as one of the old lefty

luvvies spoken about earlier, we were led to believe that there would

be no top slicing of the licence fee. Does that agreement still hold?

I can say to him that the agreement we reached with the BBC last July

stands, and nothing in the White Paper will change that. Does the

Secretary of State agree that with a clearly met to educate, entertain

and inform the British public, the BBC plays a pivotal role in British

society, but the way we consume education, information and

entertainment changes, is there a need to respond to that? The pace of

change of technology is very rapid, and the way people consume

television today is very different to what it was ten years ago. I have

no doubt that when the charter comes to be renewed the next time, it will

have changed further, and the BBC needs to take account of that, as

does every other broadcaster. The Secretary of State may be aware that

Welsh language broadcaster S4c is the only broadcaster across Wales

and the UK in Welsh. Its existence is very important. -- S4C. Is future

funding considered as part of the charter renewal process, or will

they just be stuck in the long grass with little words about it

afterwards? I agree with her that S4C makes a very valuable

contribution to the broadcasting landscape, and is appreciated across

Wales, and I believe it has a considerable audience in Patagonia.

We're going to have a further review of S4C once the charter has been

renewed, and that will cover all including its governance, its remix

and its funding. There is no existential threat to the BBC, and

this debate has been carried to rise by hype, as we have just seen today

from the left. Would he agree that in return for ?4 billion a year

guaranteed, plus BBC worldwide, it is perfectly reasonable for the

British public to expect a bit of help tightening, more accountability

and even have in this -- evenhandedness? The BBC is

privileged to receive ?3.7 billion from licence funding and additional

income. Obviously it is important that money is spent wisely and we

should seek to improve efficiency wherever possible, and also to seek

greater transparency. They are priorities for us which we will

address tomorrow. There is some concern that the Secretary of State

doesn't seek to exert undue influence in the wrong direction in

the future of the BBC, but could I suggest that one area where

intervention would be welcome would be if he advises that the people of

the Midlands must get a much fairer and more equitable share on the

return from licence contributions they

I am aware of the strength of feelings in the Midlands, and there

was a Westminster Hall debate, again it is up to the BBC in large part

however the importance of ensuring that the BBC serves all nations and

regions of the United Kingdom is something we feel strongly about. --

strongly about. Having debated the future of the BBC a few days ago on

the radio with my honourable friend, I yield to no one in my willingness

to go the extra mile in support. But can I thank the Secretary of State

for meeting with me to listen to some of my concerns. And having been

reassured, would he agree with me that it may have been better for the

opposition benches to have waited for 24 hours so that they could have

been educated and informed in the same way? -- I was very happy to be

able to discuss with my honourable friend some of his concerns, and I

am hoping that his mind at rest. But I would say to other members that it

is sensible to wait until they see what we actually propose, rather

than some of the world speculation that has appeared in the newspapers.

Virtually everyone agrees that the retention of the high-quality

independent public sector broadcaster is essential. With the

Minister agree with me that one of the feet thing -- one of the things

that ?3.7 million budget is that it comes from the public purse, and

that greater transparency should be from the top of the agenda in terms

of the BBC and the Minister's announcement tomorrow? I would agree

on both of these points. They will be on the agenda tomorrow. Can I

just remind him that I was once upon a time a messenger of the BBC's

summer --, so I know my way around Broadcasting House. But can I argue

that we should actually have some sort of understanding as to how the

senior management in the BBC are being paid, because I think that is

something which most certainly my local journalist would be interested

in learning about? I do agree with my honourable friend, I think

transparency's very important particularly when public money is

involved. Obviously we in this House and indeed those who work for

Government across the whole of the public sector do have the

information about the remuneration packages made public over a certain

level, the BBC already published bands for -- figures for their

senior management, but I sure his wish to see as much transparency as

possible. The Secretary of State says he recognises the importance of

the BBC reflecting the geographical diversity of the regions of the UK,

and indeed the anger that exists in the Midlands about the fact that the

BBC has not provided further shares in terms of investment or in terms

of its operation and breadth of operation in that region. I

understand they cannot say precisely what is in the White Paper, but

could he tell the House today what his approach will be to try to

influence those things, going forward, and could I also put it to

him that when he looks at Channel 4, there is a job of work that could be

done there to ensure that they have greater geographical reach and

perhaps moving their headquarters to Birmingham might be a good step in

that direction? I am grateful to the honourable gentleman, not only am I

obviously not able to tell him today what is in the White Paper, but

actually as I indicated earlier, some of these questions are ones for

the BBC to determine, not for the Government. But I reiterate the

importance of serving all the nations and regions. It is something

we will be stressing to the BBC, and I also hear what he says about

Channel 4. The cuts to local authority funding have created a

crisis in regional arts and culture and availability. But in the

creation of the BBC, we have a national institution which enables

people, irrespective of where they live or what they earn, to have

access to the best. Doesn't the Secretary of State understand that

by chipping away at the Independence and the finances of the BBC, he is

increasing this unequal access, and that is why he has created such a

big backlash? I hope the honourable lady will wait until the publication

tomorrow, before she makes any comment about the independence of

the funding. I agree with her the important role the BBC plays in

supporting the creative sector and the arts, it is something which I

want to see continue. Does the Secretary of State recognise that

the BBC is internationally renowned for its independence and quality

programmes, that entertain, inform and challenge, but any attempts by

Government to play "Fat controller" by for example interfering with

programme scheduling, wrist -- risk inflicting severe damage on the

BBC's reputation. I have no ambition to become the fat controller. It's

always useful to have a bit of information! I was very pleased that

the Secretary of State referred to the important role of regional

radio. I wanted to highlight James Hogarth, who broadcast for eight

hours straight from radio Humberside when the BBC studio in York was

flooded in December, providing that vital public services emergency

information. So I hope that in the White Paper tomorrow we will have

reference to that important emergency service that the local

radio provides. As I indicated to my honourable friend earlier, I agree

that BBC Local Radio and forms a valuable service at all times, but

it comes into its own at a time of crisis in one particular part of our

country or another. Where it is possibly the only source of news and

information for the people who are affected. Like my honourable friend

from Hull north, my constituents are concerned about local news

provision, and regional news provision, can the Secretary of

State assure us that the White Paper will not impinge on the independence

or the resources of local news provision? Again I will not reveal

the contents of the White Paper, but I can assure him I don't think he

has any cause for concern? -- cause for concern. It is testament to the

quality of the BBC's programming that BBC worldwide brought in 226 --

200 ?6.5 million worth of funds to the BBC, an additional ?10 on each

and every licence fee payer, so can the Secretary of State conveyed to

the House of Commons that he has no intention of selling off any aspect

of the BBC's commercial arm? I would invite the honourable gentleman to

read what we actually say about this in the White Paper tomorrow, but

where I agree is that the BBC does have an extremely valuable asset,

and that it should exploit that in order to maximise the return, and

reduce the pressure on the licence fee. Order. The clerk will now

proceed to read the orders of the day. Consideration of Lord's

message. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial

privileges engaged by Lords amendment 47 he, I must also inform

the House that the motion relating to Lords amendment 47 he is

certified as relating exclusively to England. If the House divides on the

certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to

be passed. -- amendment 47E. To move to disagree with Lords amendment

47E, I called the Minister. Minister Brandon Lewis. I beg to move the

motion that this has disagrees with the Lords in the amendment 47E. I

would also like to inform the House that I am placing in the House

library the analysis on standing order 830. Mr Speaker, yet again we

are here making it clear that this Bill defends and delivers our

manifesto. I thank the other players for not continuing the opposition to

starter homes. But let us be clear, bit -- this is not -- this is the

third time we have had to be here and confirm a key manifesto

agreement. So I do not attempt to detain this has for too long. I do

not have to remind this House of what we said in our manifesto,

having outlined it last week and earlier this week. The Lords have

scrutinised this Bill more than adequately, and I thank them. But

this is no longer scrutiny, and this is an amendment. Enough is enough,

it is time to stop. And Mr Speaker, you have certified that this

amendment is financially privileged again. So as I set out earlier this

week, it is contrary to convention for the House of Lords to send back

an amendment in you that clearly invites the same response of

financial privilege from this House. Yet on this issue they have chosen

to do exactly that. And not that once -- not once, but twice. A

number of Lord's rightly voiced their concern yesterday that the

Lords were being invited to transgress constitutional

proprietors, and I hope this House would agree that this sort of

behaviour risks calling into question the role of the second

chamber. As the noble lord Lord McCormack eloquently said yesterday,

the elected house is a superior house when it comes to political

power. The amendment which has two levels are problems with it would

impact on our ability to work with local authorities to deliver the

best deals for replacement housing. And this could reduce the funding

for our manifesto commitment to deliver right to buy discounts for

housing association tenants, which is our clear manifesto mandate from

the General Election. This therefore no beer -- moves beyond the question

of policy into constitutional issues. So I ask this House to send

a clear message that it is time for their Lordships' to respect the will

of this House. And respect our right to get on with delivering the

commitments of our manifesto, which will ensure that we deliver the

homes our country needs. The question is that this has disagrees

with the Lords in the amendment 47E. As we are all aware, the Government

suffered a further defeat in the other place last night. And in -- as

in our debate on Monday, I mentioned that there were a string of defeats

and concessions, and some of the sharpest edges of this Bill have

been knocked off, but it is still a missed opportunity. Since 2010

homelessness and rough sleeping has more than doubled, house prices and

private rents have risen dramatically, and this Bill does

little to tackle that. Lords amendment 47E seeks to put beyond

doubt that adequate funding will be available to local authorities to

deliver at least one new affordable home for each higher value

properties sold, and at least two in London. It gives local housing

authorities the opportunity to demonstrate a need for social rented

housing for the Secretary of State to consider. The Bill provides a

statutory basis to extend the right to buy for housing association

tenants, paid for by a sale of council homes to the highest bidder,

which could be buy to let landlords or overseas investments. These are

homes pay for by our taxes, by our parents' taxes, and the people who

have the money could be overseas investors or buy to let landlords.

Questions have been raised on this, and the Public Accounts Committee

identified the risks of the policy which is so lacking in financial

clarity. And in the House of Lords, yesterday evening, it was said it

has been argued this is unnecessary since ministers have given a

commitment. If that is the case, it should not be controversial. If the

Government do not accept this like-for-like displacement, they

need to explain why or it will be clear that it is no more than

another raid on local authorities' finances, putting greater pressure

on already pressed local services. Shelter has calculated that to

deliver ?4.5 of receipts, 23,500 vacant council properties per year

will need to be sold, nearly a third of all vacant stock each year.

Without a commitment on the face of the Bill, there will be a huge loss

of genuinely affordable homes, as the Government sounds the death

knell for social housing. The Government has said the suspect they

are simply honouring their commits to a replacement which this

Bill does not effectively do. This Bill and Government policy will make

it near impossible for the delivery of new affordable housing. The new

starter homes requirement will push social rented housing out of section

106 agreements. The amendment is about expanding

opportunities for affordable housing, which is something I hope

the government would welcome, but they insist on limiting new

affordable homes in that one part of the housing crisis. If we're serious

about fixing the housing crisis, if the government is serious about

getting people onto the housing ladder, it must accept all forms of

tenure. The government was defeated many times in the House of Lords.

The bill does nothing to address the last six years of failure. There are

many things in this Bill I disagree with, but I believe that the

amendment 47 EE will improve the bill and put on the face of it the

very thing that the Prime Minister just one hour ago confirmed to my

honourable friend, the Member for Westminster North, if the

government's intention, and I hope the government will reconsider. I do

not understand what the government's objections to this at. When the

press release went out at the time, it said that after funding,

affordable housing on a one to one basis, and proceeds would... I would

also fail to understand what the Minister said when he referred to

this matter a day or so ago when he said this would significantly reduce

the funding available for the ball into the right to buy, preventing

the government from fulfilling their manifesto commitment. As I

understand it, the building cost is completely independent of tenure, so

I fail to understand why the money available would be less than was

previously the case. So I hope the government will, at this very last

hour, reconsider this and accept what I think is a perfectly sensible

amendment put forward by the House of Lords, which is not in

contradiction with what the Conservatives put forward in their

manifesto. I wish I could say that it was a pleasure to be here once

again, to debate the many, many flaws in the housing and planning

Bill, but I am grateful to the noble Lords that they have been so robust

in their scrutiny and in their response to this Bill. Much has been

said by the government about the obstructive nature of the Lords in

relation to this Bill. I do not believe they are being remotely

obstructive or difficult. They are simply not convinced. They are not

convinced that the government has done it's working, they are not

convinced that the bill will deliver the government's own manifesto

commitments to one for one replacement. This is about a

transparent and accountable process for legislating which gives both

houses the confidence that there is any basis at all to believe the bill

will deliver what the government says it will deliver. Local

authorities now the community best. They undertake housing needs

assessments, they have statutory housing duties, they are

democratically accountable to their local population, and they know the

make of homes needed in their area. Nobody on this side is saying that

starter homes should not be a part of the mix is, what we're saying is

starter homes should be part of a mix to be locally determined by

councils who are accountable to the local communities, and there must be

one for one replacement before the proceeds are spent on anything else.

Once again the government is rejecting sensible tries from the

House of Lords. It is ideological committed to a bill that will make

the housing crisis worse than it is already, and I urge the government

to listen to the House of Lords and accept the amendments they are

proposing. The Minister has been complaining about the behaviour of

the noble Lords, and I would say that I am grateful for them standing

up to people with housing needs in this country. The government's

refusal to accept this amendment is causing huge concern. In my

constituency there is another 10% in rent, and we need more council

homes, not fewer. It is important we get this right, and we genuinely

risk seeing a reduction in genuinely affordable homes in the context of

this already chronic affordable housing shortage. The money for a

replacement is not secure. The offer or 141 or two for one is not the

same as like for like, the same affordable rent, in the same area.

The assets should not be used... We should not be adopting a top-down

policy of selling off assets. The chartered Institute of Housing

assessed that funds raised would not fully cover the cost of local

authority replacements and the cost of discounts under an extended right

to buy. And that funding the right to buy discounts could only be

achieved at the cost of not building the replacement local authority

units. In other words, under the government proposals, one can only

be achieved at the expense of the other. Ministers have not released

any figures to demonstrate that additional funding would not be

needed from central government. This has been raised time and again in

this House and in the other place, and yet we still do not know how the

numbers will add up. Rightly, much has been made by the Public Accounts

Committee report on this issue, and as the chain of that committee

rightly said, we're not talking about a calculation on the back of

an envelope, there is no envelope at all. The government seems to be

hedging its bets by not releasing an impact assessment, and is taking

little or no consideration about how it is funded in practice. But the

amendment has rightly called them out. Ministers have estimated they

will get ?4.5 billion of receipts from the forced sale of council

homes. Shelter has calculated that to deliver 23,500 vacant -- to

deliver this, 23,500 homes will need to be made vacant, leaving those

with an even more minuscule chance of ever getting the secure council

home that they need. If ministers were ever serious about replacing

the council stalker to selling off, it is reasonable to ensuring

legislation that the funding will be there for local authorities to do

so. That begs the question as to why the government is digging in its

heels, why are they refusing to accept an amendment which simply

seeks to secure a manifesto commitment? I fear it amounts to a

tailoring down of the bricks and mortar of the welfare state of

social housing. This government is allowing social housing to fund an

ill-conceived attack on social housing, pulling out the rug from

those who need it most. I hope the government will continue to support

this. Most unfortunate that the government has been so obstinate.

Because of the strength of feeling of the country as a whole, they gave

way, and I'm very pleased about that. As far as social housing is

concerned, in all the years I have done this job, carried out surgeries

over nearly half a century, no one has come to need as to be Private

tenants... But there have been many people who have wanted to be

rehoused by Bill housing association or a local authority. If they were

in a position to buy, then they would not be seeking social housing,

and what the government seems to forget deliberately at the number of

people in this country whose only hope of decent housing, if they can

be rehoused by the local authority, and therefore all the more do I

regret this absolute obstinate attitude taken by the government. I

can only assume it comes out of a bias towards private sector, and

towards the privately rented sector, as against social housing. In my

part, I have listened to some of my honourable friends representing

constituencies, and I do not suggest that the problem in my area is

anywhere near the London boroughs. But there are enough people in my

constituency who have been waiting considerable amount of time to be

rehoused, and the reason is obviously that there is an acute

shortage, along waiting list, and therefore the only hope is to be

rehoused in due course. I would hope that even at this late hour, the

ministers would understand the need for this amendment which the Lords

carried to be accepted, and it is very regretful that I said at the

beginning of my remarks that the government have been so obstinate.

The question is, that this House disagrees with the Lords in their

amendment 47 E.ON division! Clear the lobby. -- amendment 47 EE.

Order. I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to

England, a double majority is therefore required. The question is

that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 47E.

Tellers for the ayes. Tellers for the

Order, order! Dry to the right, 292, the noes to

the left, 197. Of those representing England, the ayes 275, the noes 177.

Less than 100. You're slipping!. Ayes to the right,

292. The noes to the left, 197. Of those members representing

constituencies in England, the ayes to the right, 275, the noes to the

left, 177. The ayes have it! Unlock. Minister to move that a committee to

be appointed to draw a reason. I beg to move that a committee to be

appointed to assign reasons for disagreeing with the amendment,

Amendment 47E, that Brandon Lewis be the chair of the committee, that

three B the quorum of the committee, that the committee do withdraw

immediately. The question is that a committee be

appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for a --

disagreeing to their Amendment 47E. Andrew Griffiths, Brandon Lewis,

Graham Morris, and Julian Smith be members of the committee, that

Brandon Lewis be the chair and that three be the quorum, that the

committee withdraw immediately. Vote-macro -- As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

The ayes have it. Programme motion to be moved

formally... The question is as the -- as on the

order paper. Vote-macro the ayes have it!

Armed Forces Bill, consideration of laws amendments.

I draw the House's attention to the fact that financial privilege is

engaged by Lords amendments one and two, if the House agrees them, Mr

Speaker will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the journal. We

will take Lords amendment one, which with -- with which we will consider

Lords amendment two. Call the Minister to move to agree with Lords

amendment one... I beg to move that this House agrees

with Lords amendment one, I intend to be brief, madam Deputy Speaker,

but I hope that you will allow me to briefly update the House that our

team in the Invictus Games so far have a medal total of 89. 55 of

which have been won just on the first day of the competition alone,

and one of our chief cheerleaders there is my honourable friend, the

Minister for veterans and personnel, who has taken through this Bill. I

am pleased to welcome the Armed Forces Bill back to the House to

consider amendments made in the other place. These two amendment

still with a matter raised by the delegate powers and regulatory

reform committee. That matter concerns the regulation making

powers in new sections 304 and 303, which are inserted into the Armed

Forces act. -- 310. These powers allow regulations to be made in

relation to appeals against the views of sentence. Clauses ten and

11 are part of the statutory frame and -- framework is to Bill creates

for offenders who cooperate with prosecutions. That framework follows

the provision in the serious organised crime and police act 2005,

which applies to civilian criminal justice system. It concludes

provisions which allow a person to receive a reduced sentence in return

for assisting or offering to assist an investigator or prosecutor. A

decision of the court-martial on such reviews may be appealed by the

person sentenced or by the director of service prosecutions. The Lords

amendments make provision with respect such appeals.

The Bill does not set out the detailed rules in the conduct of

appeals but instead new sections provide those rules to be set out in

regulations made by the Secretary of State. They will be based on

existing rules in the court-martial appeals act, 1968. Governing the

conduct of appeals from the court-martial, to the appeal court,

or to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Bill confers powers

on the Secretary of State to make regulations. In relation to appeals,

against reviews of sentence, which against reviews of sentence, which

contain provision corresponding to any provision in parts two and four

be appeals act 1968, with or without modifications. This is provided for

in new sections 304 D10 and 304 E nine. These revelations are subject

to the negative procedure. The delegated powers and regulatory

reform committee was content with this, subject to one area of

concern. The committee noted in the report that the 68 act included some

provisions which may be modified on the Lord Chancellor, by regulations

subject to the affirmative procedure. The relevant provisions

in the 1968 act are in sections 31 eight, 33, 303A, 406A and 47. They

relate to the recovery of costs and expenses arising from appeals

proceedings. The committee 's concern is the new regulation in the

new sections 340 ten and 304 E nine, subject to the negative procedure

could be used to make provision about the recovery of costs and

expenses which is made under the 1968 act in relation to appeals

covered by the act would have to be made by the affirmative procedure

regulations. The government has submitted amendments in the other

place to clauses ten and 11, the amendments limit the powers in these

sections of the Armed Forces act 2006 under which regulations can be

made about appeals. The effect is twofold. First, regulations under

those sections may not make provision corresponding to that

which the Lord Chancellor may include in regulations in the 1968

act. Secondly, regulations under those sections may confer regulation

making powers corresponding to those in the act, but only if the exercise

of those powers is conferred to the affirmative procedure, like the

powers of the Lord Chancellor. These and Mance will address the committee

concerns. While I note they have been designated with financial

privilege we do not expect any significant expenditure to arise

from the regulation making powers. I hope Honourable members are able to

support these amendments, which were accepted by all sides of this House

in the other place and I commend them to the House. The question is

this House agrees with the Lords on their amendments one. Toby Perkins.

Thank you very much, mad deputies bigger. I thank the Honourable lady

for updating the House on impressive performances from the invaders games

team. -- Madame deputies bigger. -- from the games team. -- Madden

Deputy Speaker. It is reassuring when we can reach consensus on both

sides of this House and with the other place. Particularly when

dealing with such an important matter as the welfare of Armed

Forces personnel. The safety and security of the nation is reliant on

the commitment, courage and patriotism of Armed Forces

personnel. We owe them a debt of gratitude. It is only right we

continue to up date the law to make sure we take steps to protect the

security and well-being of Armed Forces personnel as we look to them

to protect our own. We are pleased to support amendments one and two.

While technical in nature they have the powers in the sections around

recognising assistance with court marshals in sentencing. The

honourable lady has gone to a little more detail. We welcome the

commitment in the report stage of the Bill. The relation of sexual

assault has been spoken of in a clear format. The potential benefits

of removal of discretion to investigate sexual assault and two

review compensation levels paid to injured service personnel,

particularly the most seriously injured and those suffering from

mental illness. While we originally called for these measures to be

included in the Armed Forces, we are pleased that the Government has made

these concessions outside the statutory framework. I commend my

colleagues in the other place, especially the noble Lords Tony

Cliff for pushing for these concessions. -- -- Tunnicliffe. We

are pleased to support these amendments. I thank the Minister

again for her statement and for her conclusion of this Bill and for her

leadership which she has given as well. We appreciate the commitment

and the dedication. I would like to make one point, a very quick one. I

do not want to delay the House any longer. It is gratifying to see the

centrality of the role of the commanding officer is still

recognise. They are being offered assistance and legal clarifications

and it is to be welcomed by everybody in this House. But we must

not lose sight that four soldiers, sailors and airmen, the relationship

between them and commanding officers must be sacrosanct and not eroded by

a ship towards independent oversight. The Minister has included

that and I appreciate that. We must trust that these men and women in

command of a unit in peacetime and operations. That lies at the heart

of the bond between service personnel and command. In that

regiment and in their heirs stations and on board ships. I thank the

Minister for her commitment. Kristin Oswald. Thank you. I joined the

Minister in congratulating those who have participated in the games. We

have strong focus on supporting the work of service personnel making up

Armed Forces. It has been constructive to see positive

progress in committee and in this chamber. It is important to use

available opportunities to examine and assess the structures and

outcomes for members of the armed services. We are pleased to see the

Government conceding in the other place and agreeing to review to

consider removing the position of the commanding officer to

investigate allegations of sexual assault. The accusers and accused

benefit from added transparency in such challenging situations. We are

supportive of amendment number one. There was significant committee

discussion about the most appropriate way of modernising the

mechanics behind the matters dealt with here. The review of sentence

following offers of assistance. And a person who has been sentenced by

court-martial may have their sentence reviewed to take into

account assistance given, or offered. The reviewing court may

reduce the sentence in return for the off of assistance given. The

subsection allows person who is reviewed to appeal against

court-martial and gives them the opportunity for the director to

appeal against the decision. It is appropriate that then is,

transparency and good practice are central to service discipline

proposals and this would appear to be a positive move in this regard.

In addition, we are supportive of the inclusion of amendment two,

allowing for a sentence to be reviewed, to take account of a

failure of a person sentenced to give assistance which they had

offered to an investigator or prosecutor where they had received a

discounted sentence in respect of that. This reflects the importance

of additional clarity for service personnel and we have welcomed that.

We do have a Judy of care to service personnel under the Armed Forces

covenant. -- response ability of care. It is important it is dealt

with in terms of continual transparency. -- response ability.

-- response ability. This will be published before the summer recess.

That is a topic I have returned to several times in committee and in

this chamber and it is vital these statistics are published regularly

in a consistent format and the report includes all appropriate

metrics so there is the chance to properly scrutinise information and

assess progress. If we do not have the opportunity to regularly examine

fully and consistently these statistics, many of the fine words

spoken in this place are simply words. I would encourage the

publication and it would suggest we appear to be making a positive step

in the right direction in terms of greater transparency in service

justice. The question is this House agrees with the House of Lords in

amendment one. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". The eyes have it. Amendment two, formerly. The question is this

House agrees with the Lords in and two. As many as are of the opinion,

say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The Ayes have it. We come to motion

number three on the sittings of the House. Minister to move? The

question is as on the order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no". Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. And we

now come to the motion recommended by the backbench business committee.

The operating pensions fought UK pensioners living overseas. Mr Ian

Black foot. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The operating pensions for

UK pensioners living overseas as appears on the order paper in my

name and those in many of my colleagues, I'm grateful to the

backbench business committee in granting this debate. I laid down an

early day motion, 1235, praying that the operating regulations that

denied 550,000 pensioners, they are denied their full pension

entitlement that it be annulled. It had the support of 97 members from

eight parties. Including the Government party and independent

members. This matter has cross-party support. I hope that today the

Government will reflect on the injustice many face and the strength

of cross-party support that there is on this issue. The policy of not

awarding increases has been followed by successive governments and

continues with the introduction of the new state pension introduced

this April. You're right to the full UK pension is determined by the

country you live in. There are 640,000 UK pensioners living in

overseas countries, where the UK meets its full obligation. But

sadly, 550,000 living in countries where annual operating does not take

place and pensioners suffer from a frozen pension. -- annual updating.

I think for those who do not necessarily know the details at the

end, would he agree that nobody intended this injustice to start? It

started in the 1950s because they had not put in the operating. And

nobody bothered to say that this is crazy. -- updating. This is an

anomaly which has taken place. There is no logic for pensioners living in

the US that they can benefit but those in Canada cannot. There is a

question of justice. That is why I'm asking for members to unite in this

matter across this House. It should concern us all and I hope today

Minister and the governed will respond in the correct manner. --

government. The pension legislation provided for the additional state

pension to be updated at least in line with earnings and also provided

for the state pension updating overseas to continue. Pensioners

would have been entitled to updating is if they retired in the UK but

they are no longer entitled to increased payment simple because

they live in certain overseas countries. They will only be updated

on a European Union country or one in which the UK has a reciprocal

agreement. There are 16 such non-European Union countries,

including the USA, Israel, Turkey and the republics of the former

Yugoslavia. The agreement with Canada, New Zealand and the former

agreement with Australia do not provide for updating. Between them

these countries account for around 80% of overseas residents who do not

get their full pension entitlement. What we are talking about is

individuals who have paid national insurance in anticipation of

receiving a full UK state pension. We often talk about a postcode

lottery. In this case it is a national lottery whether our 530,000

pensioners paying the price. -- where there are. You are entitled to

this not least upon your national insurance contributions but on what

country you live in? How can that be fair? If you live in the US Virgin

Islands your rights are protected. If you live in the British Virgin

Islands they are not. This debate is about fairness. It should not be

about where you live. After all, pensions are a contract, not a

benefit. It is only fair and just that a British pensioner choosing to

enjoy their retirement overseas should receive the same amount as a

If you pay in, the pension should remain in the United Kingdom. You

If you pay in, the pension should pay out, regardless of your address.

I thank the honourable gentleman for that very succinct point. This

should be about... It is often referred to as British values of

fairness. If you paid into that pension, you should get your

entitlement. There is no excuse for us not doing that. Why should we be

in the position that we seem to be in, that we have different classes

of pensioners? It's morally unjust and unfair for the government to

strip pensioners of their rights. Overseas pensioners are entitled to

fairness. The state pension is all right, not a privilege. Look forward

to the minister responding later but I hope we do not hear what we have

heard before, which is it is all about cost. It's about doing the

right thing and recognising all pensioners deserve to be treated

fairly. We should today focus on the 550,000 pensioners losing out but

there is a topical dimension to this debate as well. What other

implications for the 400,000 UK pensioners living in EU countries if

there is to be a bricks sit vote in a few weeks' time? In the Other

Place, of course there is uncertainty about how about you the

UK could impact on pension benefits living in other parts of Europe.

What are we to make of this? There is no clarity in that answer from

the government at all. Are the 550,000 pensioners likely to be

joined by others if there is a vote? The government could say today that

those living in the UK countries, irrespective of that vote, or have

their pensions protected. Or the minister do that today, will he is

sure pensioners living in EU countries that pension would not be

affected? That's a very simple request. Remove this uncertainty for

UK pensioners living in Europe. If we consider that the government

wants to list the limit from 15 years to their entire lifetime, why

would the government not want to confirm voting rights on UK

pensioners but denied them full pension rights? What drives this

decision-making process? Is it about cost savings or will it be about

accepting obligations to meet our commitments to paying pensions

regardless of the country of residence? I appreciate that the

Minister will have been told by the Treasury or the nothing. The

Minister is a loyal government servant and I understand the

position he is in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, during a debate in

2003-4, when acting as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, if

the system worked in the way most people think, it would not matter

where a person left. Madam Deputy Speaker, it would not matter where a

person lived. I have to say, on this occasion, I have said this before

but I agree with the Chancellor. It should not matter where you live. My

appeal to the Minister is reflect on those words from the Chancellor.

Those words were spoken while in opposition that each and every one

of us should be judged by our deeds and government. It is not good

enough to say the right thing in opposition and then claim it is all

about cost in government. Let us today do the right thing, let us

unite in this House, standing up for our pensioners, regardless of

domicile. I am looking forward to hearing voices from all sides of the

Chamber, looking forward to hearing the honourable member speaking from

the Labour front bench and the honourable lady did set a meeting on

the 2nd of February of this year, that this situation is unfair,

illogical and does not make sense, and I agree with the sentiments. I

hope that if the House divides of this motion, the Labour benches and

all those across the Chamber stand shoulder to shoulder with all the

pensioners seeking their full pension rights. He mentioned the

all-party group on frozen pensions. I thought he might be interested to

know he has just been elected as the vice-chair of the all-party group,

as has our honourable friend sitting next to us, elected as the co-chair

of that all-party group. It was crowded. This you share my concern

that these injustices run like a thread throughout the UK Government

policy and it's time to resolve these issues? I thank my honourable

gentleman for that. I didn't even know I was up about! I am grateful

for that news. But he's right. We are talking about frozen pensions

but there are injustices faced by women born in the 1950s and many

have engaged in that debate. I have suggested to the Minister, given the

importance of these issues, that we should be taking this out of the

Chamber in some regards, that we should have a pensions commission

that should look at these matters so we can make sure we get this right.

We all have obligations to look after our pensioners. I also

acknowledge that there is a cost of the government of unfreezing

pensions. However, increased immigration as a result would offer

the government savings to pay for it. In 2010, an Oxford economic

study published using government subsistence showed a pensioner who

leaves the UK saves the UK's ?7,700 a year in NHS usage and other

age-related benefits. Lost incomes would amount to ?3900. That saving.

That would save the government ?4300. There are many people living

in the UK today that have come from the Caribbean or Indian

subcontinent, worked here or their working life, want to go back to

their country of origin but can't do so because they risk being penalised

by a frozen pension. We must hope those people that want to do those

as well as the existing UK pensioners the live overseas. It is

therefore not just about the gross cost of increased pension spending.

There is a reduced commitment to those pensioners who seek the UK to

be with loved ones abroad or return to their country of origin.

Those two are subject to frozen pensions have waited long enough to

see this matter debated in the House. We must not let them down. We

need to speak up for those pensioners who want to move abroad

and perhaps those who want to come here or wish to Rob turned to their

country of origin. There are a host of reasons why a pensioner may

choose to move abroad in later life. It's wrong to punish them for making

this choice. Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance

contributions during their working lives in expectation of a decent

pension and return will find themselves living on incomes have

fallen in real terms year-on-year. Payments of National Insurance

contributions is mandatory. All recipients have made these

contributions. It's unfair to differentiate payment levels.

Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they

choose to live in the wrong country. In most cases without any knowledge

of the implications of their choice. Others are being forced back to the

UK, away from the family they laugh, just to secure an income they can

survive. Reform would bring the UK in line with international norms as

most other developed countries pay their state pension equivalents in

this way. We are, sad to say, the only country in the OECD that does

not pay pensions irrespective of domicile. That should shame us all.

Why are we the only country that does not accept our wrist moral

responsibility to our pensioners? This must change. We know the

statistics, 550,000 people affected, behind those numbers there are

550,000 human stories. Let me take three examples of the human cost of

the freezing of state pensions. A person moved from India to Glasgow

in 1960 and worked in the UK for 30 years in shipbuilding, manufacturing

and the ship industry. He returned to India in 1997 and reached the

state pension age in 2008 and was paid a decent pass 30 a week. Having

made all the required National Insurance contributions, if you're

storing the UK today, he would not get ?87, he would get the full UK

state pension. The decline in his income has left him concerned about

losing his home. He now feels he may have to move back to the UK. Why are

we putting such a gentleman in such a position? I will happily give way.

It's a very good example he gave. Is it not also a paradox? If he returns

to the UK, he gets his pension upgraded to the full amount, so it's

a cost of the UK Government as well as disrupting a person's life. My

noble friend is correct. It's not just about someone who comes back to

the UK to live. If that individual or any other came back to the UK for

a holiday, they collect a full UK state pension will stop but the

whole thing is just daft. We need to normalise it and accept our full

responsibilities. Let me give you the example of Rita Young, 78, who

lives in Peterborough. She retired in 2002 aged 67 having enjoyed a

long career as an market researcher. Her son worked in Australia. Since

being widowed, Rita has wanted to join her son and grandchildren in

Australia but has felt unable to do so because of the prospect of a

frozen pension. As she gets older, Rita finds daily life increasingly

difficult, especially as she doesn't have a family that she can rely on.

She is deeply saddened and is not able to be with her family during

the later stages of her life. She said, I have worked contributed to

my state pension all my life. It doesn't seem fair that the

government can just stop upgrading it because I want to be with my

family. That's the human cost. And then, lastly, former college

lecturer, and, 91, lived and worked in the UK or her life, paying

National Insurance contributions throughout. 2002, aged 77, she

retired and decided to move to Canada to be with her daughter and

grandchildren. 14 years on, and, who has served as an intelligence

officer and the Second World War, has struggled to live on a frozen

pension of ?75 50 a week. Does he agree with me that the fact that

majority of the Commonwealth nations who are part of this process, it's a

slap in the face for those who have served not only this country but the

Commonwealth, not just in the Second World War but previous and conflicts

at about? Unfreezing death pension would be a worthwhile exercise. When

you talk about Canada, if a Canadian pensioner moved here, the Canadian

pension would get the full pension here. We need to make sure that our

pensioners living in Canada have the same. And feels she would be forced

to move back to the UK because I pension would no longer cover the

day-to-day expenditures and is increasingly reliant on her daughter

to get by. She said, it's the injustice that gets to me. I value

my independence but I can't go on living like this and I don't want to

inflict this on my family. As well as ever-increasing property, I feel

a sense of stress and shame. It is affecting my health. Madam Deputy

Speaker, for these people and all those who are not getting what is

rightfully theirs, let this House today sent a clear and unequivocal

message to the government that we want all our pensioners, regardless

of domicile, to be in receipt of what is rightfully theirs, a full

state pension. Today we can take the first steps in fixing this injustice

and deliver fairness for all our pensioners. The question is as on

the order paper. Minister. I will start by congratulating the

honourable gentleman on securing this important debate on this

important subject and those who have supported him on this order paper.

For clarity, just I would like to point out a flaw in the motion,

which it seems to indicate that this government has introduced this

measure. And it speaks of no more up ratings and it regrets the governed

has taken this action. I would point out this is a policy which has been

consistent for 70 years and it is not something this government has

done. I will give way to the honourable member. I'm grateful to

him for giving way. I made it clear I recognised it is something which

has happened since the 1940s. I acknowledge that. It has happened

under all governments but we do have the opportunity to respond to this

in the correct manner. I think it is the record for the Minister and the

House that each year, statutes were brought in which continues at this.

I think none of us can say that we are blameless for what has gone on.

I think a small minority of us have been voting against what government

proposes to Parliament. This is our fault for not recruiting more

people. The best people to recruit would be the Chancellor and the

Prime Minister and the ministers who have to face up for the Government

and pass the responsibility onto those who do carry responsibility

who are the most senior ministers in government. I am grateful to both

gentlemen for having clarified that. I was simply pointing out an

inconsistency in the order paper and for the sake of order wanted to make

sure while there have been yearly decisions taken by the Government,

this is consistent with policy which has been undertaken by successive

governments on both sides of the House. The UK state pension is

exportable worldwide, regardless of the country of residence, or

nationality. Successive governments have taken the view that all those

who have worked in the UK and built an entitlement to a state pension

should be able to receive it. We have no plans to change this

arrangement. However, the state pension is only increased, or given

a uprating if they are resident in the European economic area or a

country with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement allowing for a

uprating. The policy has been consistent for some 70 years,

including the Government of Clement Attlee, Wilson, Tony Blair, Matt

Mullan, Thatcher and major. -- Major. The rate currently paid in

the UK would currently cost in excess of half a billion per year.

This amount would increase significantly over time. If arrears

were included, the cost would be into Williams of pounds. --

billions. Some have suggested partial uprating. While this might

cost tens of millions short-term, the annual cost would converge into

that of full-time uprating in the long term. It might help if the

Minister today or perhaps another day, maybe the next session, could

explain first when was the last time the Government voluntarily

negotiated a reciprocal agreement with another nation or territory?

Secondly, since the last negotiation, which was on a

voluntary reciprocal agreement, how many other countries have been

brought into the uprating for other reasons, like access to the European

Union? I can certainly partly address his question. No new

commitments for upratings have been made since the 1980s. All the other

information he seeks, I'm happy to write to him more substantially on

that. We have to recognise that resources are limited. The

government has to make judgments and take difficult decisions about how

best to use these limited resources. The majority of pensioners abroad

live in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South

Africa. The rules in these countries are varied. Some have largely means

tested pensions systems whereby a significant proportion of any

increase in the amount of the UK state pension would go to the

treasuries of those countries rather than the pensioner. I should add

that many people who voluntarily move abroad do that before they have

reached pension age. Many of them may well have been able to build up

some pension provision in the countries that they have emigrated

to. We should also remember the decision to move abroad is a

voluntary one. It remains a personal choice. Dependent on the

circumstances of the individual, which will differ from one person to

another. The occasions for the state pension is just one factor in this

decision. There has been no evidence of a proven behavioural link between

the uprating policy and pensioner migration. I'm grateful to the

Minister. He is being generous with his time. Can he not accept that in

every other OECD country, they allow the pensioners living abroad to

collect a pension? Why are we against this? We're not talking

about people getting something to which they are not entitled. We're

talking about them getting something they're entitled to because they

have made national insurance can be shown. That is what we are denying

them. I think it is important we do not just a look at this in one

narrow perspective, as the honourable gentleman as saying. They

have paid national insurance and are entitled. There are other aspects.

The element of individual choice. When people are thinking about going

abroad it is not purely this issue that determines whether they are

going to live here, or abroad. Over the years, the UK has entered into a

number of reciprocal agreements with other countries. But most provide

for payments of upratings. That is not the primary purpose of the

agreements. They are intended to provide a measure of coordination

between Social Security schemes, to protect the Social Security workers

moving between the countries in their working lives. They prevent

employees, employers and the self-employed from needing to pay

social security contributions to both the home state and the state of

employment at the same time in order to get access to social Security

benefits. And of course Social Security agreement varied to some

extent from country to country. Depending on the nature and scope of

the country's Social Security scheme. It should also be noted the

UK is not alone in applying restrictions on payment of state

pensions abroad. In some respects, the UK arrangements are less

restrictive than those which apply in some other countries. Madam

Deputy Speaker, the crux of the issue is individual choice. Those

who have contributed to the UK state pension scheme are free to draw

their entitlement from wherever they choose to live. The rules governing

the uprating pensions are straightforward and widely

publicised. If a person chooses to live in a country, country a, that

pension will be up rated. If they live in country B, it will not be.

In the final analysis, it is for the individual to weigh up the benefits

of living in country B, where his position will not be operated

against those afforded thy Aid, or indeed by remaining in the UK. I am

mindful that there are are a number of people in this chamber who wish

to speak. It is a backbench business debate and I mindful to give

backbenchers the freedom to speak more than the front benches. I

congratulate the honourable member again and those who have supported

him on securing this debate. I'm pleased to have been able to set out

the Government position, which remains unchanged. Angela Rayner.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to congratulate the

honourable member for Ross Guy and labour and my honourable friend, the

member for Vauxhall, for securing this debate and thank all members

that are taking part in this debate and have already made significant

contributions. I know my party leader has spoken eloquently on this

issue in the last time previously serving on the all-party

Parliamentary group. Frozen pensions seem even more of a problem today in

the context of the rich and wealthy hiding their money in overseas tax

savings. Many of my constituents have grandparents and parents who

have answered our government's call to come after the war to rebuild our

country. Many of these pensioners have been a long-standing public

servants and have even fought for our country, paying national

insurance for all if not many of their working lives and playing by

the rules. But since 1981 it has been the position that were a person

is not ordinarily resident in the UK there is no entitlement to an annual

increase in retirement pensions. The current government has reaffirmed

this in the debate on January the 26 and the Minister stated, as

honourable members will be aware the state pension is payable worldwide

but uprating for people not ordinarily resident in the UK is

generally restricted to people living in the European economic

area, Switzerland, Gibraltar, or countries with which there is a

reciprocal agreement providing for the uprating. Madam Deputy is

bigger, cost has been cited as a determining factor in continuing to

freeze pensions, which the House of Commons library puts in the region

of half a billion per year. But the proposal of partial uprating has an

estimated cost of just 37 million. Small in government spending terms.

This option offers an affordable and expedient policy alternative. I am

my party are keen to review the research by the ICP and the NCP,

which suggests a partial way forward which is cost neutral to the

Exchequer. We want to be bold in our response. And also credible. I am

aware that the Right Honourable member for West Dorset has made a

commitment to looking at this reversal on behalf of the

Government. Madam Deputy Speaker, as some runs Italy new to this brief, I

think it is worth taking a fresh look about the logic of the current

arrangements, which is just not there. -- relatively new.

Arrangements with some countries and not others. Where one pensioner in

the USA gets an up rated pension and a pensioner in neighbouring Canada

has there's frozen. The government should review the impact of this

policy, and Labour is calling for a full equality is an impact

assessment on freezing the overseas state tension, as well as a country

by country analysis of the number of people affected. I recently met with

the international Consortium of British pensioners and the National

pensioners Convention. We discussed the impact of the freezing overseas

state tensions. Many members of this debate have passionately spoken

about the individual impact, like Rita Young, being kept away from her

family, mentioned by the honourable member in his opening remarks. It is

clear that while the Government has told us half the story, ministers

must be forthcoming about the impact of the policy. We know for example

that the majority of those affected live either in Canada or Australia.

Two countries where the pension system is means tested. The previous

pensions minister said as a result, uprating of the pensions are British

citizens living here would effectively need a transfer to the

Canadian and Australian Exchequer. The pensioners themselves would not

necessarily be any better. However, I would welcome further detail from

the Government about the number of British pensioners living in

countries where the pension systems are not means tested. I would be

grateful of the Minister can give the House that information today,

all if he would write to me. Can he tell us how many British pensioners

live in countries where the pensions system is not means tested and by

how much they are losing out? Also, I share the request made early in

the debate about the countries in which they live, have approached the

UK Goodman for a reciprocal agreement similar to that which we

have in the United States. -- UK government. If so, on what grounds

were the agreements refused? Can the Minister give an estimate of the

cost to the Exchequer of uprating of British pensioners living in

countries where the pension system is not means tested? I am keen to

listen, learn and work with stakeholders such as the all-party

Parliamentary group to find a solution which is credible,

affordable and fair. Members from across the House would have

received, like myself, e-mails and correspondence from many overseas

pensioners who will be watching the debates today. I hope they take from

the debate that members from across this House value their contribution

which they have made to our great country and will continue to work

across parties to seek a fair way forward. Thank you, Madam Deputy

Speaker. Can I congratulate the honourable member on his good

fortune in securing this debate? And his election to the office of the

Waspy committee. Maybe in that capacity he can write to my

constituents, to inspect a big into that committee and explain why he

and I are here today rather than upstairs.

As the chairman of the all-party group for frozen pensions, more

numbers may be surprised my name is not on the motion. As my honourable

friend, the minister, has recognised and the honourable friend, it's

technically flawed. But that said, that should not be allowed to

diminish in any way from the frost of the motion, which is very simple

and because it's very simple I don't want to detain the House for long.

This is an injustice that has been perpetrated post-war and continued

ever since under successive governments, as has been said. As my

honourable friend... Is he seeking to intervene? No comment not. The

point has been made but let's make it again. It's an absurdity that a

pensioner living in Canada on one side of Niagara Falls has a frozen

pension and a pensioner living in the United States, 500 yards across

the river on the other side, does not have a frozen pension. There is

no equity, sensible logic in that whatsoever. The point has been made

incorrectly I think that a lot of these people have paid National

Insurance contributions and therefore they should get their

pensions but we all need to recognise that national insurance is

not funded pension scheme, unlike a private pension scheme, which is

fully funded. National insurance contributes to a number of benefits.

But the point has not been made that throughout their working lives, very

many of the now elderly people we are talking about, who are being

shoddily treated, have not only paid National Insurance contributions but

their taxes to the United Kingdom and served the United Kingdom, in

some cases in the Armed Forces. If in retirement, having paid their

dues or their working lives, they wish then to join friends, family,

in another country, why should they not be able to do so and take their

pensions with them? The point has also been made that there is another

restriction movement which is that a significant number of Commonwealth

immigrants came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 60s,

established, worked here, regard themselves as British and have paid

their dues or their working lives, but now, in old age, would like

return to the example of the Caribbean and feel they are being

prevented from doing so because they are afraid that their pensions will

be frozen and they won't be able to afford to live in the country of

their birth. I believe that that is morally wrong. There is another

downside to all of this, which is that we are in danger of generating

a car dream of pensioners, like the 90-year-old in Canada who may have

to abandon his partner who has dementia and come back to the United

Kingdom because he can't afford to live, who will be coming back, and

if they come back, there will be a cost to our health services and

social services and that needs to be taken into account the Department

for Work and Pensions the Treasury. The issue relating to those expats

living in France and Spain but throughout the European Union has

been touched upon and skated over. Potentially, this is a very real

issue indeed. If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union,

there is no guarantee at all that those pensioners will continue to

have their pensions operated. And following the cessation with the

fuel payment, on the spurious grounds that a few places are part

of metropolitan France and therefore it is appropriate to take that

benefit from them, a lot of those pensioners are not, as is popularly

described, rich retirees living on yachts in the Mediterranean,

drinking gin, they are struggling. They will come home because they

won't have anywhere else to go. And I suspect that that struggle will

turn into a torrent if we leave the European Union. It's no good, the

Brexit people saying, we will negotiate unilateral agreements.

With 27 countries, mainly France and Spain, but there is Italy and Greece

and others dotted throughout the 26 other member states of the European

Union. It is a very real issue that the DWP and Treasury will have to

face. The all-party group recognises the difficulties in resolving a

problem that has been allowed to build up over many years. And with

great respect to my honourable friend, it is facile to say

successive governments have done this. Successive doubt governments

have but they have been wrong and it's time we put this injustice

right. There has to be a way of addressing the issue. John Malcolm

and Jim Tilley and others, the International Consortium of British

pensioners, have put forward, having met the Cabinet Office, why believe

to be a sensible solution. This is not a DWP issue. I understand

entirely that the Treasury is very afraid that if an inch is given, I

will be taken in the courts by those will then seek recompense back for

the last 40 years. And that of course could add up to a very

considerable amount of money. But we have to move forwards. We can't stay

where we are. So, what John Malcolm and his colleagues have suggested,

and what we have suggested with him to the Chancellor, is that there

should be an operating based upon today's pensions, receipt of today's

pensions. If somebody had better pension frozen 20 years ago, and

many have, they would be operated at that figure, not today's figure.

That would be a pittance, a beautiful son of money. But it would

be a step in the right direction and gradually over time, that would

actually resolve the problem and we would accept the principle, which is

the right principle. Those pensions should be operated in line with

inflation year on year. The Chancellor, following a receipt of

John Malcolm's paper, has looked at it and construed that more

information is needed. That I accept. The pensioners are not

experts in all of these matters. So my understanding is that the

Chancellor has been in touch with John Malcolm, has referred back to

him, he is now assembling further information that is required in

order for the Office for Budget Responsibility to consider this. But

the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury, the Cabinet

Office and the Prime Minister or have to recognise this. If we don't

address this, there will certainly be a moral cost because we are wrong

and there will also be a financial cost. An two fronts because

pensioners who can't afford to live overseas will come home and

pensioners who want to go overseas to retire won't go. At the end of

the day, that will be a cost on the social services budget. When my

honourable friend comes to respond, I would like him simply to say that

he recognises the problem, but he understands... I suspect this is

slightly above his pay grade, it certainly above mine! There has to

be a way forward, there has to be a solution. I want this government,

this Conservative government, to have the pride and courage to give

to people who are in retirement oversees the dignity that they

deserve. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to pay tribute to

everyone who has brought this debate to the floor of the Chamber and I