26/10/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.Second reading bill. We are not returning to our live coverage where

:00:00. > :00:07.MPs are dealing with the finance bill which will enact most of the

:00:08. > :00:12.measures contained in the budget. Which the European Union abstracts

:00:13. > :00:20.us from solving. Just so happens that on this occasion, the

:00:21. > :00:23.honourable Lady deserves all of our congratulations for forcing this

:00:24. > :00:26.issue. I am glad that my name is on this motion. I have to say that

:00:27. > :00:32.those who are attacking us for signing this, probably are going

:00:33. > :00:39.some way to diminishing the support. We are here because we wish to take

:00:40. > :00:43.action which serves our constituents. I would like to read

:00:44. > :00:49.the news to some members of the House that approximately half of the

:00:50. > :00:55.people are women. I am happy to do the best that I can to represent

:00:56. > :01:01.them in this place. It seems to me that there are about five courses of

:01:02. > :01:06.action available. The first doing nothing, we are here today because

:01:07. > :01:20.some cause of action must be taken to solve the problem. They voted for

:01:21. > :01:28.a Labour amendment in the other place, Mr Deputy Speaker not for 100

:01:29. > :01:31.years as the House of Lords... This is a serious matter and I ask for

:01:32. > :01:36.you or the Speaker to give a statement to protect the rights of

:01:37. > :01:43.the elected representative, not just for us but the people of this

:01:44. > :01:47.country. It does take both houses to agree. I am sure will not be the end

:01:48. > :01:58.of the matter at this stage. First point of order, the very fact

:01:59. > :02:02.that the honourable gentleman has raised the point of order in the

:02:03. > :02:07.manner that he has, only underpins the importance of members of this

:02:08. > :02:10.House, the majority who are also opposed to these changes actually

:02:11. > :02:15.troop to the right voting lobby to make sure there is alignment of

:02:16. > :02:24.opinion between the two houses. Even though... Order! I am not going to

:02:25. > :02:32.go into a debate. I have given my answer to the member and I am sure

:02:33. > :02:37.we will all be on board. We have a lot of speakers to go. Mr Deputy

:02:38. > :02:42.Speaker, in a sending order of difficulty. There are four deemed

:02:43. > :02:47.the government can do, the first is to do with the amendment would

:02:48. > :02:53.impose. Which is to negotiate within the existing framework of the EU to

:02:54. > :02:58.deliver a 0 rating on tampons and sanitary products. The second thing,

:02:59. > :03:05.would be to renegotiate the power to set these taxes and that is

:03:06. > :03:13.something I will commend the member too minister -- I would command the

:03:14. > :03:15.Minister. The third thing they could do is to legislate notwithstanding

:03:16. > :03:25.European communities act which seems to me a bold, but one that I would

:03:26. > :03:31.support. I hope that the other members would support such a thing.

:03:32. > :03:36.Finally, it -- leave the European Union and decide for ourselves in

:03:37. > :03:40.this house. Decide for ourselves to handle the matters of taxation is

:03:41. > :03:44.that apply to our constituents. What I want to do this evening is listed

:03:45. > :03:48.extremely carefully to what my right honourable friend the Minister says.

:03:49. > :03:53.It is quite clear we cannot go on any longer saying that this issue of

:03:54. > :03:56.taxation on tampons and sanitary products is too difficult to push

:03:57. > :04:03.through all of the member states and the European Commission. Action must

:04:04. > :04:08.be taken, robust and dynamic. I have to say to those that criticise, we

:04:09. > :04:12.know we are taking the risk. The commission and Member States might

:04:13. > :04:15.well rise to the occasion, and unlikely as it seems they may rise

:04:16. > :04:21.to the occasion and solve the problem. Good on them, I would be

:04:22. > :04:28.very glad indeed to see no tax on these products across the European

:04:29. > :04:32.Union. I imagine he and some of his colleagues on the opposite benches

:04:33. > :04:35.would welcome the fact that the government will be able to come back

:04:36. > :04:40.and report to the House and February or March and tell us that whether

:04:41. > :04:43.other members of states or his poor negotiating patterns that have

:04:44. > :04:49.failed to bring this. Would he not welcome this transparency?

:04:50. > :04:57.The point I am making is this. This cannot go on any longer, and I hope

:04:58. > :05:00.what my honourable friend will say is that the government except the

:05:01. > :05:06.principle that tampons and sanitary products should be zero rated. I

:05:07. > :05:09.hope they will explain why it is that they are not in a position to

:05:10. > :05:13.bring such a measure before the House up he I hope my right

:05:14. > :05:18.honourable friend will commit to advancing this cause in the interest

:05:19. > :05:21.of women in the UK across Europe. In this year and going forward so we

:05:22. > :05:32.can get the whole thing cleared up as soon as possible. Hill it is a

:05:33. > :05:36.pleasure to follow the member from Wycombe. However he got his

:05:37. > :05:40.position, I am certainly too great. You because I am here tonight with

:05:41. > :05:46.an opportunity for us to make progress on this issue. And I also

:05:47. > :05:51.start by saying how pleased I am icing the member from a six-year and

:05:52. > :05:58.hear the story of our meeting back in 1993, over 20 years ago. May I

:05:59. > :06:02.suggest it offers a parable for the debate we're having this evening. An

:06:03. > :06:05.opportunity for the member from stone to take over when it comes

:06:06. > :06:10.difficult issues because he is right in his recollection that as a new

:06:11. > :06:17.MP, he did come to my school to speak to the girls and got a

:06:18. > :06:20.grilling from one member. I am sad to hear that the debate you also had

:06:21. > :06:25.about child poverty indexes to further education did not have such

:06:26. > :06:28.an impression on him, but I am delighted in genuinely humbled to

:06:29. > :06:32.hear that it is something he then took to his shadow cabinet to debate

:06:33. > :06:36.about. Because I have to tell the honourable member, he knows this,

:06:37. > :06:41.and at the same time, my head teacher threatened to exclude me

:06:42. > :06:45.should I ask the MP anymore difficult questions. The

:06:46. > :06:53.negotiations in Europe are simple, there may be of good issues, or

:06:54. > :06:57.courage and raising an authority figure, but look, look what happens

:06:58. > :07:00.when you do raise these issues. People may disagree with you and in

:07:01. > :07:07.fact turn around 20 years later, champions for shows like social and

:07:08. > :07:13.progressive change. I am very glad that the honourable Lady gives way

:07:14. > :07:17.because it was in 1993 that we were conducting the referendum in order

:07:18. > :07:21.to be able to get the results that she wants in relation to this

:07:22. > :07:27.particular matter. It was actually because at that time we realised

:07:28. > :07:30.that if we did not sort out the European Union properly, we would

:07:31. > :07:33.not get properly quoted, which he is not get properly quoted, which he is

:07:34. > :07:37.now demanding. I simply say to the honourable gentleman, we do not ask

:07:38. > :07:41.the question, we should never find out is one thing that is on point

:07:42. > :07:45.and I'd stop and one of the reasons that the sensible amendment from the

:07:46. > :07:49.honourable member should garner support from across the House. It is

:07:50. > :07:53.not a debate that has happened at European level. My point about that

:07:54. > :07:57.parable about 20 years ago was when you asked those questions, when you

:07:58. > :08:01.challenge, you can be amazed at the results that you can secure as a

:08:02. > :08:06.result. To me also say, this is not actually a debate about the European

:08:07. > :08:12.Union. I recognise the member from Wycombe was indeed too young to

:08:13. > :08:15.vote, but the point of reason to purchase taxes this, it is a bit of

:08:16. > :08:20.a red herring to think this is about the European Union. Because camp

:08:21. > :08:25.grounds and sanitizing products have always been considered a luxury.

:08:26. > :08:29.That is not by accident, but by design, a an unequal society in

:08:30. > :08:33.which the concerns of women are not treated as equally as the concerns

:08:34. > :08:38.of men. If we were not in the European Union, there is still the

:08:39. > :08:40.possibility that a purchase tax would be applied to tampons which

:08:41. > :08:46.would not be applied to other products. Go on. I just want to

:08:47. > :08:49.return to this question on the gender equality national development

:08:50. > :08:52.act because that has nothing to do with the European Union. I just want

:08:53. > :08:55.to make it quite clear that there are those of us that believe

:08:56. > :08:59.passionately in the arguments that the honourable Lady has put forward

:09:00. > :09:05.and headed by no means is exclusive to the issues of the European Union.

:09:06. > :09:08.I thank you for that. I will come onto the issues of gender inequality

:09:09. > :09:12.on a national level, but I have to give a warning, I will not take any

:09:13. > :09:17.more interventions from the gentleman, and he uses the term

:09:18. > :09:20.tampons, and I think it is important we use the appropriate wording. The

:09:21. > :09:26.point I'm trying to make is that actually... The inequality that

:09:27. > :09:30.women face and having to pay this tax has been there for generations.

:09:31. > :09:35.The question for all of us is what can we do to change that? I want to

:09:36. > :09:40.add my name to those of the people I am sharing our congratulations of

:09:41. > :09:46.the work of the former members, who is a hero to many of us for her

:09:47. > :09:53.persistence and fighting a cause for reducing the rate of the tax on

:09:54. > :09:56.sanitary towels and tampons in the year 2000. Having thoughts are about

:09:57. > :10:00.as negations, where indeed she had to use the appropriate terms and

:10:01. > :10:04.explain the possibility that if we did not resolve these issues, men

:10:05. > :10:07.and women could be sat next to each other with women experiencing their

:10:08. > :10:08.periods and experience it difficult to each other with women

:10:09. > :10:11.experiencing their periods and experience a difficult thing that

:10:12. > :10:13.can come from that without that same protection because of the cost of

:10:14. > :10:17.these sorts of products. The work that she did was visionary on this.

:10:18. > :10:22.In talking to her about this issue, what becomes very clear is that this

:10:23. > :10:26.is not about the rates, but the descriptions. I am looking forward

:10:27. > :10:29.to hear what the Minister has to say about this because actually, there

:10:30. > :10:33.is common agreement that we want to see this issue result. There is a

:10:34. > :10:40.condition that in the year 2015, a tax on women, a joiner tax, whatever

:10:41. > :10:44.you want to call it, is unfair. There is a resolution of this

:10:45. > :10:48.issue, not necessarily from the way she talked about the rates, but with

:10:49. > :10:51.the way that it is described and ascribed to certain products. That

:10:52. > :10:56.is where inequality has come from, because of the concept of what is a

:10:57. > :11:02.necessity. I will of course give way, to the member. I do not

:11:03. > :11:09.remember the honourable Lady giving away 20 years ago, but at that very

:11:10. > :11:12.fine school, a high school for girls, which is a grammar school.

:11:13. > :11:19.And parentheses I should just say... I am delighted that this

:11:20. > :11:23.government is doing more per educational opportunities for the

:11:24. > :11:28.disadvantaged than any previous government and my living memory, but

:11:29. > :11:40.the point I wanted to make was to ask her why she thinks the

:11:41. > :11:46.honourable Lady was unable to remove the 5% rate on tampons and sanitary

:11:47. > :11:50.valves when she's succeeded in reducing the discussion level. Why

:11:51. > :11:54.did she not take this initiative to the European Union there? It is

:11:55. > :11:59.because she found the government of the day was thinking we have more

:12:00. > :12:03.important fish to fry in our negotiations with the European

:12:04. > :12:08.Union. It is this unsatisfactory give and take approach to national

:12:09. > :12:13.interest which I think we should get out of by leaving the European

:12:14. > :12:16.Union. I thank you for that intervention and for bringing up the

:12:17. > :12:19.school I was at, because the school I was at, because it taught me to do

:12:20. > :12:22.my homework. I was incredibly lucky to get to that school having failed

:12:23. > :12:25.to test the first, get. Which is why I should always be against this

:12:26. > :12:29.because I recognise the benefits that I got by being able to take it

:12:30. > :12:32.for a second time and having that education. Which is why I know that

:12:33. > :12:37.one of the rules and challenges around us is that the concept is

:12:38. > :12:42.zero rated VAT is different from the other one. What someone found at the

:12:43. > :12:48.time was that it was not about unwilling unwillingness, but the

:12:49. > :12:53.rules of what he can put the zero rating to. That is why she labelled

:12:54. > :12:58.as secure a reduction of raging. I am sure he would agree that that is

:12:59. > :13:01.progress. But it is also about the way the products are described, and

:13:02. > :13:04.that is what I want to hear from the Minister tonight, because he will

:13:05. > :13:07.know the history of the value added tax and how you describe your

:13:08. > :13:11.product, and what you described to be a necessity. I think it is

:13:12. > :13:16.important to have a concept of what we have described as a necessity.

:13:17. > :13:19.Therefore zero rated. I wonder whether the members opposite also

:13:20. > :13:28.agree that when we change these definitions, that is where progress

:13:29. > :13:38.can be made. For example,... Let it be known, I do not consider them to

:13:39. > :13:42.be essential to my life. I recognise that razors are zero rated, judging

:13:43. > :13:46.by some of the members opposite, the opportunity to shave every day is

:13:47. > :13:50.for them a human right. They are cleanly shaven, I'm sure they will

:13:51. > :13:54.art deeply concerned to be challenged in that way. Hide that is

:13:55. > :13:58.something we can all agree on as a necessity. Pita bread is zero rated.

:13:59. > :14:02.What is the kebab without a good piece of pita bread around it, it is

:14:03. > :14:06.a necessity. Is when you start looking at what is that the SST and

:14:07. > :14:10.what is described as a luxury that you see the inequalities in this

:14:11. > :14:15.debate. Those inequality is as I was saying earlier existed longer before

:14:16. > :14:21.we joined the European Union. Long before we worked on zero value added

:14:22. > :14:24.tax. The question is not to have the similar rates of taxation, but to

:14:25. > :14:28.recognise the similar descriptions. That is the way this issue can be

:14:29. > :14:31.resolved within the European Union. It is also why it matters to us to

:14:32. > :14:35.work with our colleagues in other countries. I come back to the

:14:36. > :14:40.concern from other members about gender inequality around the world.

:14:41. > :14:44.Because he is absolutely right, our sisters in France are paying 20% on

:14:45. > :14:53.their tampons and sanitary towels. Because they do not have the reduced

:14:54. > :14:56.rate. Is not actually about tampons and the rate of taxation across the

:14:57. > :14:57.European Union, it is about the way different countries have interpreted

:14:58. > :15:01.the concept a necessity and essentials. Where we do raise this

:15:02. > :15:04.question, I have been very clear with the member from stone, unless

:15:05. > :15:08.he is wanting to talk about the products we are talking about, I

:15:09. > :15:14.will not allow an intervention. If he can say the word, I will

:15:15. > :15:19.happily... With respect to the question of sanitary towels and

:15:20. > :15:23.tampons. Cannot simply make this point? What I would really like to

:15:24. > :15:28.low, because I recognise the honourable Lady does know what she

:15:29. > :15:32.is talking about. Would like to know whether in fact, in her experience,

:15:33. > :15:36.internationally, outside the European Union, there is a similar

:15:37. > :15:39.problem, which perhaps come from international organisations as well.

:15:40. > :15:44.Is there anything in that was my can she please explain? Let me simply

:15:45. > :15:50.say, people say that progress cannot be made in this chamber. The

:15:51. > :15:54.honourable gentleman is absolutely right, 10% of girls in Africa do not

:15:55. > :15:58.go to school when they have a period because you do not have appropriate

:15:59. > :16:02.sanitary protection. He is right to be concerned about this. What I am

:16:03. > :16:08.simply saying is that his concern, let me see if we can contend temp --

:16:09. > :16:12.ten temper there. We should be concerned about the inequality and

:16:13. > :16:17.tax rates, the inequality of VAT that our sisters pay in a rate of

:16:18. > :16:20.countries that being said tonight, we have an opportunity here in the

:16:21. > :16:25.British Parliament to show solidarity across the continent, to

:16:26. > :16:28.make sure that this is part of negotiations, because let's be

:16:29. > :16:32.honest, it has never been part of the negotiating process and the

:16:33. > :16:37.House. Prior to joining the European Union. Of it was only part of the

:16:38. > :16:41.negotiation process because of the honourable Lady. It is actually a

:16:42. > :16:44.red herring to think this is about the European Union, it is a

:16:45. > :16:49.recognition that the time has come to end these inequalities. Our

:16:50. > :16:53.sisters in France tried to bring forward legislation just this summer

:16:54. > :16:57.and were defeated. What a strong message of social progress we could

:16:58. > :17:01.send from the British from a today by passing this legislation and

:17:02. > :17:04.sending our prime minister in to have that difficult conversation and

:17:05. > :17:09.say how do we clarify a way that essential items are categorised

:17:10. > :17:13.across the European Union? How do we make this work for 51% of our

:17:14. > :17:18.population, because I am sitting from the member that he does care

:17:19. > :17:21.about these issues deeply, he does recognise the inequality, and if he

:17:22. > :17:24.has frustration tonight, it is simply because he does not see

:17:25. > :17:27.progress happening quickly enough. Lemmie reassured him, whether it

:17:28. > :17:31.takes 20 years or two hours in a debate, it is possible to make

:17:32. > :17:35.progress, and I urge them, support this amendment. So we can send our

:17:36. > :17:38.prime minister with something worth fighting for it they European

:17:39. > :17:42.Union, and yes we can all hear back in February whether not our prime

:17:43. > :17:47.minister has made progress. Whether he has been able to say to our

:17:48. > :17:52.French counterparts, Italian counterparts, that tampons and

:17:53. > :17:55.sanitary towels should be treated as necessity and 2015. I am sure when

:17:56. > :17:59.we hear that message from the prime minister tonight, he will give us --

:18:00. > :18:03.minister tonight, it will bring us all into the 21st Century by

:18:04. > :18:14.supporting this amendment as well. Hear, hear! Can I get my respects to

:18:15. > :18:17.the honourable lady for breaking this debate forward. It is very

:18:18. > :18:23.interesting figures I have heard this evening, 250,000 people have

:18:24. > :18:28.signed previous amendments and discussion points about this over

:18:29. > :18:30.the years. I know there has been all sorts of discussion as long as I

:18:31. > :18:36.have been in Parliament about this issue. I am not surprised there has

:18:37. > :18:40.been a cross party amendment, and many from this side of the House,

:18:41. > :18:46.SNP, and others have been supporting this with of course whether you are

:18:47. > :18:53.female or male as it should be. This has been and has always been and

:18:54. > :19:06.will always be analogical tax. We have heard some interesting details

:19:07. > :19:10.-- a logical. I would not know the differences between various products

:19:11. > :19:15.that they were laid out, some would be zero rated, some would be lower

:19:16. > :19:19.rate. It is generally a female issue, of course, but I think she

:19:20. > :19:23.describes some of these products as C Davey products, and if you have a

:19:24. > :19:28.male boots he gave the product, it will of course be zero rated. So

:19:29. > :19:35.immediately, we have these anomalies and the tax system. There... That is

:19:36. > :19:40.one of the anomalies that we have not enjoyed compared to much of

:19:41. > :19:44.European Union, how long that will last, who knows? On children's

:19:45. > :19:50.products and food, they continue to be zero rated. The matter how

:19:51. > :19:57.luxurious that food might appear to some. Of course, and the reason we

:19:58. > :20:02.have this anomaly within tampons and female sanitary products is of

:20:03. > :20:05.course just Oracle. Prior to the first general in 1773 when we join

:20:06. > :20:10.the European Union, we had a sales tax on these products, whereas the

:20:11. > :20:15.Republic of Ireland, as it was highlighted by my friend, they had

:20:16. > :20:21.decided, for whatever historical reason, that there will not be a

:20:22. > :20:26.sales tax on tampons and sanitary items. So we were stuck with that

:20:27. > :20:30.from the date we joined. Dallas at that time, most of the members of

:20:31. > :20:37.that time would have been of my gender, it probably did not rank

:20:38. > :20:41.that high lead on concerns. But despite the anomalies we have, we

:20:42. > :20:47.are in a customs union with the European Union. To a certain

:20:48. > :20:57.extent, VAT rates can be different. A couple of weeks ago,... Whereas in

:20:58. > :21:04.the hungry it is 20%. Some countries have a tourist rate, a restaurant

:21:05. > :21:11.rate of 10%. This country over the years we have had some flexibility

:21:12. > :21:16.on VAT rates, a variety of rates, back down to 15 for a bit, and now

:21:17. > :21:20.we are back up to 20. It is quite remarkable how this debate this

:21:21. > :21:24.evening has managed to get some members very active, we have

:21:25. > :21:29.discussed them at some point, adding it to grammar schools, which I

:21:30. > :21:34.thought was a clever move, and also the fan club of the honourable lady.

:21:35. > :21:42.But it's just turned to her now. We salute her for what she did in the

:21:43. > :21:47.year 2000. From reducing the VAT rate the tampons and the like from

:21:48. > :21:53.the standard rate, which I assume was 15%, down to 5%. And he must ask

:21:54. > :22:02.yourself, why did she not go that extra five? That was in the year

:22:03. > :22:08.2000. I am quite curiously, in 2006, it was not until 2006 the rate of

:22:09. > :22:12.line to condoms was the full standard rate, which would have been

:22:13. > :22:18.at the time probably 17 and a half percent. That was reduced in 2006,

:22:19. > :22:24.some six years later, the reduction on tampons. It was reduced to 5%. It

:22:25. > :22:30.took six years to get there. If memory serves well, Gordon Brown at

:22:31. > :22:34.that time was doing something to the economy, maybe it was appropriate at

:22:35. > :22:42.that time to reduce attack while he was doing it. Why again did not get

:22:43. > :22:49.reduced to 0%? The condom, a product that is the most valuable terrier

:22:50. > :22:52.against STDs, against high to my pregnancy rates in this country, but

:22:53. > :22:56.the difference is that they are freely available in many clinics,

:22:57. > :23:04.but we are incapable, despite the benefits of such a product, of tax

:23:05. > :23:07.rates down to 0%. I think therein is the argument that has been brought

:23:08. > :23:11.this evening. I support your proposal because it is the right

:23:12. > :23:19.thing to do. These are not a luxury, these are an essential thing that

:23:20. > :23:25.should not be tax. Such as postnatal things roll forward. These are not

:23:26. > :23:30.taxed, that is a essential part of a woman's life. And should not be

:23:31. > :23:35.similarly tax. We are incapable of doing so because of that old

:23:36. > :23:42.historical anomaly dating back to pre-1973. And herein is the rub with

:23:43. > :23:46.the European ask that to the. I have no doubts that ministers over the

:23:47. > :23:49.years would have listened very carefully to what you said, and what

:23:50. > :23:56.many people across this house and country... If the honourable

:23:57. > :24:02.gentleman can remember he has speaking from the chair. I have no

:24:03. > :24:10.proposals today. My sincere apologies Madam Deputy Speaker. You

:24:11. > :24:18.have taken me off track now. I will close, that there was an appeal

:24:19. > :24:21.earlier on, again, by the member from Glasgow Central. This should be

:24:22. > :24:26.a mentor, and meshes that comes out of this place, a message that goes

:24:27. > :24:31.to the European Union as some sort of plea. I think we have heard that

:24:32. > :24:36.from member dying members of the other side as well, that a plea and

:24:37. > :24:40.message. I am afraid that goes back to burial times as far as I'm

:24:41. > :24:44.concerned, the taxation without representation. It is all very well

:24:45. > :24:49.that we give messages, but surely this offer sovereign place should be

:24:50. > :24:54.able to set the rate of sales tax, VAT, that it chooses on such

:24:55. > :25:00.products as tampons and sanitary towels. I am afraid it rather

:25:01. > :25:06.reduces the status of this house to one of being the colonies of old.

:25:07. > :25:14.Pleading with the Empire power of the UK for something that they

:25:15. > :25:18.want, of course I will give way. The Prime Minister has been begging and

:25:19. > :25:24.pleading with European leaders all over the place, would it not be a

:25:25. > :25:31.useful thing to do to raise this issue with them? I am certainly

:25:32. > :25:34.hoping that his visit has a lot on his agenda. I am hoping that

:25:35. > :25:39.following this debate, this will be one of them. But it is one of

:25:40. > :25:49.exclusive city on setting VAT rates. And not elsewhere. Isn't the

:25:50. > :25:54.point that there are so many things that we want our Prime Minister to

:25:55. > :25:56.raise in the European Union, and the increasing number of things, how

:25:57. > :26:02.much contribution we make, free movement of people, about how we

:26:03. > :26:06.control our borders, that such a myriad of issues, these little

:26:07. > :26:13.things, I say little, mistakenly, because of course it looms large as

:26:14. > :26:18.and a quality item in our minds. These things get set-aside. And this

:26:19. > :26:25.is a rotten way of running a continent. I agree with my

:26:26. > :26:29.honourable friend, I certainly hope that progress can be made in very

:26:30. > :26:35.many areas and not least this one. I close that we should not be like a

:26:36. > :26:40.colony pleading with an Empire power for something we should be setting

:26:41. > :26:49.here very clearly. I think again that the honourable lady for raising

:26:50. > :26:57.the. I think it has opened Pandora's box on who governs this country.

:26:58. > :27:05.Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to move, also on a VAT issue.

:27:06. > :27:11.Those who would like to pay tribute to everyone participating in the

:27:12. > :27:18.debate, just past. I would like to pay particular tribute to my

:27:19. > :27:21.colleague from Glasgow Glasgow Central, for raising this. At that

:27:22. > :27:28.time, we were favoured with support from the Labour benches, and look

:27:29. > :27:34.forward for them reciprocating this and supporting the amendment. Madam

:27:35. > :27:38.Deputy Speaker, during the second reading debate, I focused

:27:39. > :27:43.particularly on my rescue service. And the punishment by the UK

:27:44. > :27:49.Government in relation to VAT. I should now like to focus on some

:27:50. > :27:55.detail on Scotland who came into being in 2013. I should say I have a

:27:56. > :28:00.prejudice in supporting the police, as I am a former academic supervisor

:28:01. > :28:06.-- advisor to these got a stub about and have contributed to creating

:28:07. > :28:12.programmes for chief ulcers, and crime analysts. The key reason for

:28:13. > :28:17.the creation of police Scotland was, according to the Scottish

:28:18. > :28:26.Government, and I quote, ", establishing a... ". -- such as

:28:27. > :28:32.major investigation teams, whenever and wherever they are needed. Allow

:28:33. > :28:40.me to give a few examples of the effects of creating a single force.

:28:41. > :28:47.Assistant chief Alize Constable speaking as recently as the 29th of

:28:48. > :28:55.September, 2015, stated since the advent of police Scotland, every

:28:56. > :28:59.thing committed has been detected. He is overly modest. Improvement in

:29:00. > :29:07.homicide detection, we have opened old cases as well, unsolved ones

:29:08. > :29:16.from previous police forces, and have already sold five of those two.

:29:17. > :29:24.Police, and has... And is now able to treat things as seriously as

:29:25. > :29:27.murder. The national Child abuse investigation unit, unit has been

:29:28. > :29:32.established to support the investigation of complex child abuse

:29:33. > :29:37.and neglect across Scotland. Police Scotland have also been able to

:29:38. > :29:43.tackle intellectual robbery crime, much more effectively, around ?20

:29:44. > :29:51.million in criminal assets, and making around 70 arrests. And

:29:52. > :29:54.prevents have resulted in areas that shows cross-border cooperation and

:29:55. > :30:00.terrorism as I discussed in the committee stage. This government

:30:01. > :30:05.says we must abandon the improvements resulting from Police

:30:06. > :30:11.Scotland to satisfy some had ruled the mic old rules established in an

:30:12. > :30:17.act in 1994. Reflecting on the debate we just had, this is one area

:30:18. > :30:21.where the government, the UK government, has an entirely within

:30:22. > :30:29.their power to act reasonably and a matter in related to VAT. Yet, they

:30:30. > :30:34.have chosen to provide that exemption to other public bodies

:30:35. > :30:40.elsewhere in the UK, at the same time as they completely denied the

:30:41. > :30:45.right of the Scottish police and the Scottish fire and rescue service to

:30:46. > :30:48.achieve that exemption. Speaking to the Justice committee of the

:30:49. > :30:54.Scottish Parliament last November, chief Constable Stephen House had

:30:55. > :30:59.this to say and I quote. " I do find it bewildering that we seem to be

:31:00. > :31:06.the only police service in the United Kingdom that is charged VAT.

:31:07. > :31:12.None of the 43 forces in England and Wales paid. The answer seems to come

:31:13. > :31:19.back to the Treasury, that is because you are a central government

:31:20. > :31:24.organisation now. Well, you have the police service of Northern Ireland,

:31:25. > :31:30.they do not pay VAT. You have the national crime agency, and they do

:31:31. > :31:34.not peeve .jp 82. But we pay VAT. I just do not understand the logic of

:31:35. > :31:40.that, and I frankly do not think the Scottish public would understand the

:31:41. > :31:47.logic of it either. " Yet, consider what this government has been

:31:48. > :31:51.willing to do on VAT. At the stroke of a pen, the government has made

:31:52. > :31:57.central government funding to private schools in England exempt

:31:58. > :32:05.from VAT. For goodness sake, even the BBC does not have to pay VAT. So

:32:06. > :32:09.when it suits this government, and previous British governments, they

:32:10. > :32:17.have little difficulty in allowing exemptions. But in the committee,

:32:18. > :32:21.the Minister said, and I quote" if the Scottish government under

:32:22. > :32:27.reconsideration of their position and wish to discuss how the service

:32:28. > :32:32.can be eligible once again for VAT refunds, the Treasury will happily

:32:33. > :32:36.engage with them to advise. " Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not the

:32:37. > :32:40.Scottish government that needs to reconsider its position, it is the

:32:41. > :32:45.UK government. Although we are talking significant sums for Police

:32:46. > :32:51.Scotland, and the Scottish fire and rescue service, in total, an excess

:32:52. > :32:56.of ?30 million annually, it is a dense compared to the overall UK

:32:57. > :33:01.budget. There is no economic rationale for continuing to deny VAT

:33:02. > :33:06.exemption. There is no -- the government seems simply to lack of

:33:07. > :33:11.the decency to care about policing and fire rescue services in

:33:12. > :33:16.Scotland. So much for the arty of law and order, so much for the

:33:17. > :33:18.respected gender, their attitude has the stench of publicity and

:33:19. > :33:31.prejudice about it. I was not going to speak in this

:33:32. > :33:35.debate, but I think it is a vital debate, that is why I joined,

:33:36. > :33:39.because I worked with other honourable members on this side in

:33:40. > :33:44.this debate on their first day of committee when I was the sole

:33:45. > :33:48.representative of the shadow Treasury. I thought it was in an

:33:49. > :33:54.important debate then, and I think we move on the debate today, the

:33:55. > :33:57.member from Glasscock Centro, and Halifax spoke very well on this

:33:58. > :34:01.issue in committee. I want to touch on some the things they said. I also

:34:02. > :34:08.want to say that it is very important that we have this Clause,

:34:09. > :34:11.this New Clause moved, and that we have a hard-hitting and sensible

:34:12. > :34:18.debate tonight, which has actually gotten to the point of the real

:34:19. > :34:22.issue about the VAT rate on sanitary products. These are not luxurious

:34:23. > :34:26.products, as other members, but as we know to the committee met in

:34:27. > :34:33.Deputy Speaker, there are designer products which are VAT exempt. My

:34:34. > :34:44.honourable friend found somebody products listed on VAT exempt.

:34:45. > :34:49.Jellies are apparently VAT exempt. Amazingly, things like exotic meats,

:34:50. > :34:54.such as crocodile and kangaroo are VAT exempt. The amazingly named

:34:55. > :35:00.millionaire shortbread is VAT exempt. We have this quite bizarre

:35:01. > :35:08.situation, a strange list of products, I am sure that these

:35:09. > :35:14.things are not luxurious products. -- these are eggs luxurious

:35:15. > :35:18.products. I want to reflect on the response that we have, as I say, we

:35:19. > :35:27.did have a debate, those two members I mentioned spoke well. I supported

:35:28. > :35:29.what they said. What did the Minister said? Let's hope we can

:35:30. > :35:40.really The Minister said we are supported

:35:41. > :35:45.and would like the rate to be as low as possible. And we have opposition

:35:46. > :35:49.that is good and supportive. He did go on to say that he felt it would

:35:50. > :35:55.be a challenge without wider EU were formed and without greater

:35:56. > :35:58.flexibility. He did say, this is important, we will be able to

:35:59. > :36:05.progress further on this matter, I would be sympathetic. We do have a

:36:06. > :36:13.minister who said he was sympathetic. I think the Minister

:36:14. > :36:18.should be supportive of this. A number of his honourable friends

:36:19. > :36:25.want him to be supportive. In terms of this debate can I add my name to

:36:26. > :36:31.those praising the earlier campaigns, her earlier campaign to

:36:32. > :36:33.reduce the VAT rate by 5%, 15 years ago would have been a brave and to

:36:34. > :36:39.do in this House. We have had plenty of members who have been able to

:36:40. > :36:43.talk straightforward about this. Back then there were not as many

:36:44. > :36:49.women in the House and it would have been age of quote subject to talk

:36:50. > :36:57.about. I am glad to thank her for that. I want to say, you can

:36:58. > :37:02.summarise the whole thing by saying this VAT rate that we currently have

:37:03. > :37:07.since the year 2000 is unfair to women and it is unfair to families.

:37:08. > :37:09.It may be that it is a rail challenge for the Minister to

:37:10. > :37:16.negotiate with that you on this matter. I hope that this is a

:37:17. > :37:21.challenge the Minister and the Prime Minister they take on the. In terms

:37:22. > :37:24.of the negotiation with the EU, there are many very things they

:37:25. > :37:30.would be happy to take a challenge for work on the. I think we would

:37:31. > :37:33.want to see, and the ministers honourable friends on either side

:37:34. > :37:37.have indicated that many of them want to see this to. They want to

:37:38. > :37:42.see him take on a challenge like this. I am sure he is up to it. He

:37:43. > :37:47.is very well stated in these matters, he has support from all

:37:48. > :37:50.sides of the House. I urge the honourable members to support the

:37:51. > :37:57.New Clause and give the Minister of the reason to take this on. Thank

:37:58. > :38:02.you Madam Deputy Speaker. I think in terms of the causes we are debating

:38:03. > :38:04.in this part of this evenings proceedings there's probably no

:38:05. > :38:10.greater contrast between this and the House of Commons. Here we are

:38:11. > :38:13.debating whether or not a cut in inheritance tax should go ahead,

:38:14. > :38:16.when it is the unelected House standing up to champion the

:38:17. > :38:19.interests of working people by doing something that frankly any more

:38:20. > :38:23.members on the opposite side should have done. That is to put their

:38:24. > :38:27.conscious in their feet into March through the correct voting lobby

:38:28. > :38:32.because we know from all of the evidence that has Artie been debated

:38:33. > :38:40.this evening that the changes to inheritance tax will effectively

:38:41. > :38:51.cost gastric or some ?940 million by 2020-2021. --. ... When members

:38:52. > :38:54.opposite ask about where our priorities are they while ways be in

:38:55. > :39:00.championing interest of hard-working people and trying to infuse the pay.

:39:01. > :39:17.For this reason, the proposals we are debating this evening to delete

:39:18. > :39:20.Clause nine of the finance Bill says exactly where our priorities are and

:39:21. > :39:23.where they should be. It is humiliating for the Chancellor and

:39:24. > :39:29.the administered having claimed to these great centrist modernizers

:39:30. > :39:33.that it is in fact the House of Lords that has had to do what

:39:34. > :39:37.frankly the elected House of Commons should have done last week. That we

:39:38. > :39:41.so have the opportunity to do so with the debate taking place

:39:42. > :39:47.tomorrow and on Thursday. Speaking of the conservative modernization

:39:48. > :39:52.project, let's remind them of modernization project Mark one. We

:39:53. > :39:54.remember when the Prime Minister promised the greatest government

:39:55. > :40:00.ever and he was running with the Huskies and hugging. And here we

:40:01. > :40:05.have, Clause 45 of the finance Bill, which would remove the exemption

:40:06. > :40:09.from the climate change levy for electrics to be produced by

:40:10. > :40:15.renewable sources from the 1st of August this year. At the members

:40:16. > :40:18.opposite really need to decide whether they are going to be the

:40:19. > :40:23.true loo conservatives that we have seen represented in an unlikely form

:40:24. > :40:27.of the debate on tampons and sanitary products or whether they

:40:28. > :40:34.are going to in fact be the party of the centre ground and work being men

:40:35. > :40:42.and women. I will certainly get away. My honourable friend mentioned

:40:43. > :40:46.the environmental... He also mentioned the sanitary products,

:40:47. > :40:54.being tampons and sanitary towels. He also recognise that... And should

:40:55. > :41:00.also be included in this debate? In this respect and in other have

:41:01. > :41:03.always favoured a woman's right to choose. Is for a woman to decide

:41:04. > :41:10.which is the appropriate form of sanitary products. Of course she is

:41:11. > :41:14.quite right. That it does have the environmental benefits that she

:41:15. > :41:19.talked about. I was glad to add my name to the amendment of my

:41:20. > :41:23.honourable friend, which would tackle this issue. I am glad to see

:41:24. > :41:29.so much cross party support. I am disappointed by the language that is

:41:30. > :41:37.used to this evening about our part. We have heard, apparently he said

:41:38. > :41:40.this is the most indicative measure that the European Union has put in

:41:41. > :41:46.place. No wonder they are represented here in great numbers. I

:41:47. > :41:51.hope the outcome is not dedicated on this. They may find it a struggle to

:41:52. > :41:53.get wider traction. I do find it objectionable that so many

:41:54. > :42:00.honourable members opposite talk about negotiating our new European

:42:01. > :42:03.partners as begging. No difference to our constituents coming to lobby

:42:04. > :42:09.us and having a reasonable conversation. Is -- if this is how

:42:10. > :42:15.it is going to work and we are in trouble. I will give way. I am here

:42:16. > :42:24.because I had to stand in an election, my constituency have a

:42:25. > :42:27.right to vote me out. ... We have the European Parliament, the Council

:42:28. > :42:30.of ministers which are accountable to their respective governments and

:42:31. > :42:34.of course the commission itself is in many ways accountable. I would

:42:35. > :42:39.like to see reforms, reforms to some of these accountability mechanisms.

:42:40. > :42:48.As the old saying goes you have to be in it to win it. Europe as on

:42:49. > :42:51.climate change in inheritance tax and the debate taking place in the

:42:52. > :42:58.other house on tax credits, we have seen in every single example that

:42:59. > :43:03.this is not the new modernised Conservative Party. It is the same

:43:04. > :43:09.all right wing Tories. They have left their minister out dry. The

:43:10. > :43:14.reasonable amendments will be supported by all members, that is my

:43:15. > :43:18.hope. I welcome New Clause seven. I hope everyone can unite in

:43:19. > :43:22.supporting it tonight. I do not think it goes far enough, but it is

:43:23. > :43:25.a great step forward. I will congratulate the honourable member

:43:26. > :43:31.on that. I think tonight people watching this debate, and I hope

:43:32. > :43:33.many millions of women will be watching, that many of them will

:43:34. > :43:38.have actually started to ask the question of just why it is that we

:43:39. > :43:45.still cannot do what everyone believes in this chamber. Sanitary

:43:46. > :43:49.towels and tampons are not a luxury as everyone has that. Therefore

:43:50. > :43:54.should have the right to decide what the level of tax on any product in

:43:55. > :43:59.this country is. People tonight listed have known that the reality

:44:00. > :44:03.is, whatever we say about negotiations, whatever we say about

:44:04. > :44:07.going to our partners and working with our EU partners. Let us not

:44:08. > :44:14.forget it is the EU not the European union. We will not be able to win

:44:15. > :44:17.that the reality is the European Union wants to maintain control of

:44:18. > :44:22.how we run affairs in this country. This is the beginning of a hugely

:44:23. > :44:29.important debate in this country on the referendum. Important issues

:44:30. > :44:32.like this article and of issues that would never get recognised by the

:44:33. > :44:38.European Union. I hope tonight that we will support this and the Prime

:44:39. > :44:40.Minister will go. I do think he will get anywhere and I worked the

:44:41. > :44:45.Minister Amla finally, will the respondent saying if he really

:44:46. > :44:52.believes this country being democratic is this part of the...

:44:53. > :45:01.Why do we just not do it? What would the EU do. I hope that everyone

:45:02. > :45:05.tonight will support. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. A pleasure to

:45:06. > :45:14.respond to this debate. Can I began back on graduating the honourable

:45:15. > :45:20.member on his debut -- began by congratulating. I should attempt,

:45:21. > :45:24.and the time available respond to his speech and the many other

:45:25. > :45:27.speeches we have heard this evening. Let me begin with New Clause nine

:45:28. > :45:34.which would require the Chancellor to undertake a comprehensive review

:45:35. > :45:41.of the inheritance tax regime within one year of the current budget

:45:42. > :45:44.surplus. And the other which would remove Clause nine. This means the

:45:45. > :45:50.additional transferable rate for all individuals who leave their home

:45:51. > :45:57.would not be introduced. Madam Deputy Speaker, the provisions set

:45:58. > :45:59.out in Clause nine were made in the Conservative Party manifesto. This

:46:00. > :46:04.was a promise of the British people. It recognises we are facing

:46:05. > :46:15.a situation where we find more hard-working families facing in

:46:16. > :46:22.inheritance tax bill,. Last year, 35,000... That has been forecast to

:46:23. > :46:28.rise by nearly double to 63000 and 2020-2021. Dozens more worry about

:46:29. > :46:33.leaving their families with in inheritance tax bill. The additional

:46:34. > :46:38.transferable freight simply returns the number of states with in

:46:39. > :46:48.inheritance tax liability to 37,020-21. Rod with the same level

:46:49. > :46:54.as an 2014, 2015. This is still more than it any year between 1997 and

:46:55. > :47:00.2010. Furthermore we have ensured that the wealthiest will make a fair

:47:01. > :47:04.contribution to public finances through inheritance tax. The largest

:47:05. > :47:09.estates will not be able to benefit of the new allowance. They will have

:47:10. > :47:15.a gradually withdrawn, ?1 for every ?2. Those who would support

:47:16. > :47:19.demonstrate that they do not have understand that those who wish to

:47:20. > :47:26.save pay their taxes, work hard to own their own homes and pass it onto

:47:27. > :47:30.children and grandchildren, without facing ASD taxing. We believe that

:47:31. > :47:33.it is right that people should be able to pass on their home to their

:47:34. > :47:47.descendents rather than the tax man instead. The honourable member set

:47:48. > :47:50.out, it sounded like his concerns that there were very few properties

:47:51. > :47:58.within his constituency that would be affected by it. And he also said

:47:59. > :48:00.that he opposed the nation to take them back the last Labour government

:48:01. > :48:08.to introduce the transferable rate band. I remind him that the year in

:48:09. > :48:19.which that was brought in, for .3% of the states paid inheritance tax.

:48:20. > :48:28.If we do not take action, then by 20 19-2020, something like 11% will be

:48:29. > :48:35.paying inheritance tax -- 4.3%. I suspect that the desire to have a

:48:36. > :48:39.revue for -- review for inheritance taxes, judging from the comments we

:48:40. > :48:45.have heard on the suggesting that we will be need meeting to raising more

:48:46. > :48:52.revenue. The party opposite sees that as a potential cash cow for

:48:53. > :48:55.raising additional revenue, if I've misunderstood I am happy to withdraw

:48:56. > :49:03.that remark. And that seemed to be the direct and the party opposite

:49:04. > :49:06.wants to go. Black it is not a being a cash cow, it is a question whether

:49:07. > :49:15.we maintain the rates we are to have. Or move to the next step which

:49:16. > :49:20.is government wishes. The regime as it stands will affect more

:49:21. > :49:24.properties than they did under any of the Labour leaders under the

:49:25. > :49:31.proposals that we have in front of us. The reality is that if we do not

:49:32. > :49:35.take action it will hit more and more states. Will be a tax that will

:49:36. > :49:41.be much more widespread than it was previously. If that is the position

:49:42. > :49:50.they hold, that is the position. I think we should be aware of what it

:49:51. > :49:54.is. In that time available, I would does briefly touch on some of the

:49:55. > :49:59.points that were raised by the honourable member in terms of this

:50:00. > :50:04.area. He raised concerns that this policy would have a big affect on

:50:05. > :50:13.the housing market, reassuring they have looked to this matter. Remember

:50:14. > :50:18.the allowance here only applies to a single home it not encourage people

:50:19. > :50:26.to buy multiple homes to maximise the allowance. Is capped at ?175,000

:50:27. > :50:30.per individual, or 355,000 for a married couples to be there is no

:50:31. > :50:33.disincentive to downsize because they will not lose the allowance in

:50:34. > :50:39.the circumstances. He raised the concern about upsizing, upsizing

:50:40. > :50:45.will only be attractive if a house is a small part of the state. As the

:50:46. > :50:50.honourable gentleman said himself, this is a very rare occurrence. I

:50:51. > :50:58.make the point that they will have a small effect on the housing market.

:50:59. > :51:00.He also raised the concern that about lineal descendents in

:51:01. > :51:09.particular we he made the point that a family structure tends to be some

:51:10. > :51:17.what wider. Let me reassure him that this allowance will apply for houses

:51:18. > :51:21.to the left to adopted children, foster children. I hope that point

:51:22. > :51:29.of clarification is coupled. In the time available, let me address the

:51:30. > :51:36.other matters. To meet briefly touch on Clause one which refers to

:51:37. > :51:42.Scotland in the VAT treatment. This is familiar territory we have

:51:43. > :51:47.debated before stopping extensively in the public bill committing. And

:51:48. > :51:53.2012, Scotland government police and fire authorities consolidated as a

:51:54. > :51:58.result they no longer became reliant on local taxation. This is one of

:51:59. > :52:05.the two criteria for eligibility for the section 33 of the scheme.

:52:06. > :52:11.Following these new national bodies are now no longer eligible for VAT

:52:12. > :52:16.refunds. The Scottish Government were forewarned of this well in

:52:17. > :52:19.advance of the decision they took. The Treasury working to ensure that

:52:20. > :52:23.the Scottish Government to consider the cost quizzes as part of the

:52:24. > :52:30.decision to restructure their services. Date expected cost

:52:31. > :52:37.saving, and waive the loss of many VAT refunds. They went ahead with

:52:38. > :52:45.it, as I explained sent the Scottish Government restructured there were

:52:46. > :52:57.no longer eligible. It was late and clear with eligibility set out. --

:52:58. > :53:06.Raymond. Limited to the issue that has dominated the debate. New Clause

:53:07. > :53:14.to require the Treasury to write a report on the VAT... Including a

:53:15. > :53:18.financial assessment and the impact on the purchasing of these products

:53:19. > :53:28.especially for those aged under and 25. -- aged under 25. I put my name

:53:29. > :53:33.to this amendment because I long thought, it is a bizarre and

:53:34. > :53:39.discriminatory tax which does need sorting out. Perhaps in the 1970s

:53:40. > :53:44.when I am sure most of us were in the school. It still made sense,

:53:45. > :53:48.when many were not using the conduct which does not transformed our

:53:49. > :53:53.ability to be freed up from the monthly restrictions of a period.

:53:54. > :53:55.Many of those in school with me were out every month because they didn't

:53:56. > :54:01.have access to went is now considered a completely normal part

:54:02. > :54:05.of our sanitary life. I would ask the Minister to be brave and think

:54:06. > :54:12.about this and stand up for all young women. Order! I am grateful to

:54:13. > :54:18.my honourable friend. I will address that point in a moment or so. New

:54:19. > :54:25.Clause seven does require the Treasury to label for both houses of

:54:26. > :54:28.Parliament a statement on our strategy to negotiate with the

:54:29. > :54:35.European Union institutions and exemption from the value added tax.

:54:36. > :54:39.For women sanitary protection products within three months of the

:54:40. > :54:43.passing of the act. The Minister must label for Parliament a report

:54:44. > :54:50.on progress in achieving exemption from value added tax. Within

:54:51. > :54:58.European law by the 1st of April 2016. This debate has highlighted

:54:59. > :55:02.the ongoing campaign to a 0 rate for VAT, or exempt from VAT tampons and

:55:03. > :55:07.other sanitary protection products which, as we have for tonight, has

:55:08. > :55:20.cross party support. This goes back for many years. My honourable friend

:55:21. > :55:24.is also raised this issue and I know on other occasions. The many

:55:25. > :55:31.honourable members have raised this point. As the other member pointed

:55:32. > :55:37.out this government sympathizes with the aim of this Clause. However, as

:55:38. > :55:42.we have also heard the UK does not have the ability to extend

:55:43. > :55:48.unilaterally... The UK has more extensive zero rating then most if

:55:49. > :55:54.not all other Member States. Any change to EU VAT rules would require

:55:55. > :55:58.a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28

:55:59. > :56:04.Member States. Can I complete this point and I will certainly give

:56:05. > :56:09.way? Without that agreement we are not permitted to lower rates below

:56:10. > :56:14.5%. Nonetheless as this debate illustrates, there is very

:56:15. > :56:20.considerable cross party support for the UK to abolish VAT on sanitary

:56:21. > :56:23.products. I undertake to the House that I will raise this issue with

:56:24. > :56:29.the European Commission and other Member States setting out that he

:56:30. > :56:34.used words -- views reflected. That it should be possible for a member

:56:35. > :56:36.State to apply a 0 rate for sanitary products. I think the honourable

:56:37. > :56:42.member for raising this debate for the House tonight. We have seen a

:56:43. > :56:46.demonstration of the views from all sides of the House, the belief that

:56:47. > :56:53.there should be that flexibility. I give way. My right honourable friend

:56:54. > :57:00.uses the word per minute. This is not something that is with and our

:57:01. > :57:06.capacity because of the European act. He knows that, the opposition

:57:07. > :57:13.knows that. Will he now commit to the fact that we will not merely

:57:14. > :57:17.talk about this, but actually do something about it? This is a hugely

:57:18. > :57:22.important cross party issue come with you please take on board the

:57:23. > :57:25.fact that we want to be able, we insist on legislating on our own

:57:26. > :57:32.terms in this house. We want to govern ourselves. -- permit. I do

:57:33. > :57:36.not want a console from the House that we don't have looks ability in

:57:37. > :57:43.this circumstance. Nor do I want to conceal from the House the challenge

:57:44. > :57:48.that would exist in reaching agreements. Other Member States to

:57:49. > :57:52.take a different approach. It is striking as the honourable member

:57:53. > :57:57.has pointed out, that there was a vote by the French assembly just a

:57:58. > :58:03.couple of weeks ago in an attempt to move the rate down from 20% to 5.5%

:58:04. > :58:08.that was defeated. I do not wish to pretend that this is just a mere

:58:09. > :58:14.formality. Other Member States to take a different approach. I will

:58:15. > :58:18.certainly give way. Thank you. I am very great. Be the Minister is

:58:19. > :58:21.pushing to start negotiations can he asked a clear commitment to come

:58:22. > :58:27.back and update the House and if so exactly when? I am certainly happy

:58:28. > :58:33.to update the House on any developments at any stage. As and

:58:34. > :58:39.when those development across. I'll be happy to give that reassurance to

:58:40. > :58:45.the honourable the domain. First of all... It is incredibly welcome to

:58:46. > :58:49.hear that he's going to raise this. Cannot present to be clear about and

:58:50. > :58:52.which environment he is going to raise this and when we will hear

:58:53. > :58:57.back. Entity will confirm that the European Council can produce a 0

:58:58. > :59:03.rating if it is declared in the public interest. We commit to

:59:04. > :59:07.raising this in the conversation. The point has been raised about the

:59:08. > :59:16.technicalities of VAT, but there is a public extension party can bring

:59:17. > :59:20.up. Does require a proposal from the commission and the other Member

:59:21. > :59:32.States. To be clear about this it is not a formality. I will take on more

:59:33. > :59:38.intervention. Lyons can he explain. Why is it necessary at all to have

:59:39. > :59:53.any tax harmonization in the EU in order to have trade with the EU? ...

:59:54. > :59:59.Giving the correct attention to that in the five minutes will be quite

:00:00. > :00:04.challenging. On this specific area as we have heard, time has moved on.

:00:05. > :00:11.It is right that we look again at this particular area. I am

:00:12. > :00:16.conscious, this'll have to be last intervention I take. Just respond to

:00:17. > :00:21.my question, if it is so dreadful and we all want it to happen, why do

:00:22. > :00:27.we not just do it and what would the EU do if we did? It is not just a

:00:28. > :00:32.matter of the EU law, the courts of the UK, as I suspect my honourable

:00:33. > :00:39.friend will be happy to explain to the honourable member, would ensure

:00:40. > :00:44.that we have to comply with the law one way or another. The law, it

:00:45. > :00:52.would not be lawful for us to reduce that rate. I should touch very

:00:53. > :00:56.briefly on climate change... I will take one last intervention. I am

:00:57. > :01:00.grateful to my honourable friend. I have listened carefully to him. You

:01:01. > :01:04.knows how seriously I take this, he could reassure me directly that he

:01:05. > :01:10.will specifically present the European Commission to bring forward

:01:11. > :01:15.measures to zero rates, tampons and sanitary products right across the

:01:16. > :01:19.EU? I will make those representations to the European

:01:20. > :01:26.Commission, to allow Member States to have the flexibility to do that.

:01:27. > :01:34.That is the key issue here. Very briefly, on crime and change Levy.

:01:35. > :01:37.-- climate change. Let me briefly explain, we have debated this on a

:01:38. > :01:44.number of occasions before. The climate change levy renewables

:01:45. > :01:47.exemption was misaligned with the other policy providing indirect

:01:48. > :01:58.support to renewable generators, the government is not investing or more

:01:59. > :02:04.effective things. That will provide over ?5 billion worth of support to

:02:05. > :02:13.renewable generation in 2015 - 2016 alone. I do not believe the report

:02:14. > :02:18.on this Clause is necessary. The Chancellor will report in August,

:02:19. > :02:26.setting out the environmental analysis of the summer budget and

:02:27. > :02:31.2015. Very quickly in terms of the enforcement by reduction of the

:02:32. > :02:34.counts, we believe this is a necessary measure. We believe we

:02:35. > :02:38.have struck the balance correctly on this matter. I'm grateful for the

:02:39. > :02:47.remarks from the Bible member and pointing out that the safeguards --

:02:48. > :02:51.honourable member. I know he still has concerns. But we are striking

:02:52. > :02:57.the right outlet. To conclude I urge the House to reject New Clause one,

:02:58. > :03:05.two, seven if it is pushed. I hope it will not be New Clause ten and

:03:06. > :03:10.11. On inheritance tax I think the government has not gone far enough.

:03:11. > :03:14.11% of the states might face it, that is still a tiny minority. If

:03:15. > :03:18.the government is worried about preserving assets it would have been

:03:19. > :03:24.a lot more social care for the elderly. That was indeed a decision

:03:25. > :03:29.of the parliament in Scotland, sadly saying they were warned is not that

:03:30. > :03:33.another. I understand and support the SNP on New Clause one. New

:03:34. > :03:37.Clause seven, I salute the Minister who has come a long way. He has not

:03:38. > :03:45.come far enough. The simile on New Clause 11. The question is that New

:03:46. > :03:55.Clause nine B read a second time. As many of that opinion say iMac, of

:03:56. > :05:26.the contrary say "no". Division, clear the lobby!

:05:27. > :05:37.The question is that New Clause nine B read a second time, Holly Lynch

:05:38. > :17:32.and Jeff Smith. DS Max -- the ayes to the X. No's to

:17:33. > :18:05.the left, 318. The ayes to the right, 278, the no's

:18:06. > :18:15.to the left, 318. The no's have it. Unlocked. Become the New Clause one.

:18:16. > :18:26.The question is that New Clause one be read a second time. Division!

:18:27. > :30:57.Clear the lobby. The ayes to the right, 277, that

:30:58. > :31:08.noes to the left, 317. The noes have it. Unlocked. We come now to New

:31:09. > :31:15.Clause seven. Move formally? Move formally. The New Clause seven to be

:31:16. > :33:30.read a second time, on the contrary know. Clear the lobby!

:33:31. > :43:23.The question is that New Clause seven be read a second time.

:43:24. > :43:50.Order! Order! The aye to the right, 287. The noes to the left, and. --

:43:51. > :44:00.305. Aye to the right, 20 77. Nose to the left, 307. The noes Cavett,

:44:01. > :44:12.the noes haven't. Unlock. Government wants a. And government 17. Thank

:44:13. > :44:26.you. The question is whether it government amendments nine - 16,

:44:27. > :44:35.1-8, 70 12-80, 70-80 be made. Aye I think the aye haven't. The ayes

:44:36. > :44:39.haven't. Mr Speaker, LI had the balls and the other place this

:44:40. > :44:44.evening, I agree that the chancellor and form the media that he will be

:44:45. > :44:48.bringing for measures to respond to the governments defeat. It is the

:44:49. > :44:51.responsibility of monitors, as you know Mr Speaker, you as you have

:44:52. > :44:59.ruled that the sort of announcement should be first made to house or the

:45:00. > :45:03.media. While there are any Treasury questions tomorrow, given the level

:45:04. > :45:07.of interest from members on all sides and the significance of this

:45:08. > :45:14.matter, I am asking that the Chancellor make an oral statement to

:45:15. > :45:18.this house tomorrow probably. That's probably. I'm grateful to the shadow

:45:19. > :45:25.Chancellor for his point of order. Is every bench would have heard what

:45:26. > :45:30.the honorable gentleman has said. It is open to administer to do so

:45:31. > :45:38.tomorrow. It, given a minister is present from the Treasury on the

:45:39. > :45:51.Treasury bench now, he is welcome to write to speak if he wishes. So be

:45:52. > :45:55.it. The House will understand. Order! Now understand that it is not

:45:56. > :45:58.a matter for the chair, I am simply playing there. It is a matter for

:45:59. > :46:01.the government and a minister could speak if he wanted to. But he is not

:46:02. > :46:06.under any obligation to. The honorable gentleman will be in his

:46:07. > :46:15.place tomorrow and so will the Chancellor be and we will await the

:46:16. > :46:19.development of events. Mr Speaker, given the results of the ball any

:46:20. > :46:25.other place tonight, I will appreciate if the Prime Minister

:46:26. > :46:39.includes and also can assure the House that he won't let the other

:46:40. > :46:42.place with more cronies and donors. The package is a good to the

:46:43. > :46:49.Honorable Lady and to be house while hearing what she has to say, that

:46:50. > :46:54.the late Lord why Lott was the author of a bid to break in British

:46:55. > :47:00.politics. As he put it, on the whole room I tend to prefer to cross

:47:01. > :47:07.bridges only one I come to them. Sank to be a very sagacious at the

:47:08. > :47:12.Ritz. All I will say to the House now, as much for the benefit of

:47:13. > :47:19.those outside this place as of members is this, to sentences. The

:47:20. > :47:24.parent act specifies that the government cannot make the

:47:25. > :47:29.regulations unless a draft has been approved by both houses. I think we

:47:30. > :47:36.can all agree upon that. Secondly, it is up to the government to decide

:47:37. > :47:43.how to proceed. We will leave it there, I think for now.

:47:44. > :47:54.Consideration completed. Third rating. Minister to move. I beg to

:47:55. > :47:59.move that this bill now be read at a third time. Mr Speaker, I would like

:48:00. > :48:03.to once again briefly outline the provisions of this finance Bill.

:48:04. > :48:07.These measures demonstrate this governments commitment to support

:48:08. > :48:13.working people, support business, and protect the public finances by

:48:14. > :48:17.tackling tax avoidance and evasion. They might be next that and our path

:48:18. > :48:21.to economic security, building on the economic foundations laid in the

:48:22. > :48:24.last Parliament. I continue our long-term plan for the economic

:48:25. > :48:29.stability and prosperity of this country. Mr Speaker, let me first

:48:30. > :48:34.turn to the support that this doesn't provide toward the working

:48:35. > :48:38.people. And this government is the hard-working people should keep more

:48:39. > :48:43.of the money that they earn. That is why following the methods introduced

:48:44. > :48:50.in the last Parliament, 27.5 million individuals saw the typical income

:48:51. > :48:55.tax bills reduced by ?825. But we want to go further, Mr Speaker. This

:48:56. > :49:05.bill increases the tax personal allowance to ?11,000 and 2016-17. At

:49:06. > :49:13.11,000, 200 rounds and 17-18. Will also increase the high rates

:49:14. > :49:18.thresholds for 42,000, 300 and ?5 in 2015-16 to ?43,000 and 2016-17. This

:49:19. > :49:22.government also believes that individual working 30 hours a week

:49:23. > :49:30.on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we

:49:31. > :49:36.are assigning lot that was the personal allowance has reached the

:49:37. > :49:42.12,000 ?500, you'll always be at the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the

:49:43. > :49:47.national minimum wage. Finally, Mr Speaker it is the basic human

:49:48. > :49:51.aspiration and aspiration that this government has committed to

:49:52. > :49:55.supporting. This bill will help people to provide for their families

:49:56. > :50:00.after they have gone by fitting a new understand 5000 per person

:50:01. > :50:06.transferable allowance were at persons home is passed on add depth

:50:07. > :50:10.to their direct descendents. By the end of the Parliament, he and

:50:11. > :50:16.therapist asked for civil partners America should ?1 million. I'm a

:50:17. > :50:24.horrible friend for giving way. I'll also like to say that my Honorable

:50:25. > :50:28.friend... Has readjust the inequality created by labor when

:50:29. > :50:36.Damon is to remove the temporary tax fund. My honourable friend is right.

:50:37. > :50:40.Were at the last labored government double the rate of income tax, this

:50:41. > :50:44.government and the Coalition government increased the personal

:50:45. > :50:47.allowance varies to catch a lead from the local six and a half

:50:48. > :50:51.thousand pounds to the level that I have sent out this evening. Mr

:50:52. > :50:56.Speaker, I like to announce the support that this bill provides to

:50:57. > :51:00.businesses. The increase investment and improve our infrastructure,

:51:01. > :51:04.because that would drive growth and job creation over the coming years.

:51:05. > :51:09.First, it is clear that we need a business tax regime that is stable,

:51:10. > :51:12.competitive, and there. This is essential in order to make the UK

:51:13. > :51:19.more competitive and to support growth. In the previous Parliament,

:51:20. > :51:25.was cut from 20% to 20%. Something which led to med businesses, to the

:51:26. > :51:29.UK to carry out their activities. But given the global competition

:51:30. > :51:36.with the UK faces, we must go further. This bill cost the

:51:37. > :51:42.Corporation tax to 19% and 2017, an 18% and 2020. Saving businesses more

:51:43. > :51:48.than ?6 million and 2021, and giving the UK the lowest rate of

:51:49. > :51:53.corporation tax in the G20. This bill also sets the banal investment

:51:54. > :51:57.allowance a high-level of ?200,000. This will provide long-term

:51:58. > :52:04.certainty to businesses and encourage them to invest, and plant

:52:05. > :52:06.machinery. Mr Speaker, I was finally like to turn to be measured in this

:52:07. > :52:14.bill was tackled tax avoidance and evasion. And about SIDS in our tax

:52:15. > :52:20.system. Members will recall that the summer budget announced... This

:52:21. > :52:26.measure will collectively raise of ?5 billion a year by 2019-20. I am

:52:27. > :52:30.proud to say that this bill implement a number of those measures

:52:31. > :52:33.which will make an important contribution to the further ?37

:52:34. > :52:40.billion in fiscal consolidation that is required over the course...

:52:41. > :52:48.Course of Parliament by the end of this Parliament. Burst the bill

:52:49. > :52:53.ensures -- first the bill cannot exploit tax loopholes to avoid

:52:54. > :52:56.capital gains tax. We will also address an fact-finding risk in

:52:57. > :53:00.which corporate groups can export tax for asset transfers to

:53:01. > :53:09.interconnect a party. This ensures that profits are brought to tax.

:53:10. > :53:13.Finally, the bill motto... Attack started that directly from a debt at

:53:14. > :53:16.town. This measure was tackled those who seek to play the system and

:53:17. > :53:22.those while avoiding paying their fair share after tax. Which they can

:53:23. > :53:25.afford to pay. This measure will also be subject to robust safeguards

:53:26. > :53:28.and the most fun will will be protected. Taken together, these

:53:29. > :53:33.measures will protect our public finances and send a clear message

:53:34. > :53:39.that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax. I would

:53:40. > :53:43.have one intervention. I thank the Minister. And terms of helping

:53:44. > :53:47.businesses, with a minister care to comment on police money that the

:53:48. > :53:58.government is funny to abolish first industries and replace them with...

:53:59. > :54:04.? Is not a measure contained in this bill, but let's be clear. As a

:54:05. > :54:12.consequence of this bill, the UK's competitive position has been

:54:13. > :54:18.strengthened. Some 20% to 80%. Amide I am delighted to say that the

:54:19. > :54:21.opposite -- part, said the not consider. I like to thank Honorable

:54:22. > :54:25.members on both side of the House for this scrutiny of this bill. In

:54:26. > :54:34.particular, I like to thank member of the public committee... And just

:54:35. > :54:41.nine-hour. This smooth and efficient running was no doubt in part due to

:54:42. > :54:47.the support. My honourable friend will... I also like to thank the

:54:48. > :54:53.humble members for the opposition but we did not always agree,

:54:54. > :54:57.especially on the needs for a fair number of reviews, I am forever for

:54:58. > :55:00.their insightful and reasonable scrutiny. And for the gracious

:55:01. > :55:05.support where we did agree. Finally, I would like to take the economic

:55:06. > :55:10.secretary for their support and setting up the government gave. And

:55:11. > :55:14.my Honorable friend in the back benches for their contribution. Can

:55:15. > :55:19.conclude, this finance bill supports working people. It supports business

:55:20. > :55:22.and protect our public finances. MRC Nextel for and securing the

:55:23. > :55:36.countries economic security. I therefore commend it to the House.

:55:37. > :55:42.Is a mixed finance bill. There are some measures within it forwards the

:55:43. > :55:49.benches agree. The changes on personal allowances, the welcome

:55:50. > :55:55.increase in the annual investment allowance, the surcharge on banks,

:55:56. > :56:03.the encouragement of more to be spent on research and development,

:56:04. > :56:08.the provisions of that interest, and the anti-avoidance provisions for

:56:09. > :56:15.enterprise investment schemes, venture capital trust and controlled

:56:16. > :56:20.foreign companies. But there are some wrong priorities this this

:56:21. > :56:26.bill. In no particular order I say to the House. On inheritance tax,

:56:27. > :56:31.they were the members were not so to hear me say that in the that I said

:56:32. > :56:42.earlier. A giveaway to the most well-off in our society. The cutting

:56:43. > :56:52.of the race of corporation tax and a low tax regime competition to cover

:56:53. > :57:01.up the failures on productivity. The lowering of the bank levy. The

:57:02. > :57:06.prison that we debated tonight on vehicle excise duty, which take us

:57:07. > :57:18.backwards. They favor gas guzzlers and they penalize the less severity

:57:19. > :57:28.vehicles. The tax take, journalists, 617-18 years ago,. The

:57:29. > :57:34.step backwards on the climate change levy, indicating that this

:57:35. > :57:43.government has lessened its commitment and could no longer

:57:44. > :57:46.accept claim to be the greenest of the government ever. That change on

:57:47. > :57:50.the climate change levy one of the host of changes being made of, or

:57:51. > :57:54.which have been made by this government. Which indicates that it

:57:55. > :58:01.is not serious about our environment. Would disagree with the

:58:02. > :58:04.changes on the direct recovery of debt, that is where HMRC to take

:58:05. > :58:10.money out of your bank account without a court order. And they are

:58:11. > :58:16.doing that because they find, and so many people do, that the court

:58:17. > :58:21.system is costly and slow. Rather than change the core system for

:58:22. > :58:24.which they are responsible, they simply introduce a different role

:58:25. > :58:29.for themselves. And they have been the same thing in Clause 48 of this

:58:30. > :58:35.finance bill with interest on judgment that. OneWorld for them,

:58:36. > :58:38.one rule for the rest of us. At the one the government that they have

:58:39. > :58:45.been straining our Constitution. We have dozens of government amendments

:58:46. > :58:49.for the report states. Tabled late last week. About 75 cents a

:58:50. > :58:56.government amendments stretching over 40 pages on highly technical

:58:57. > :59:03.matters. Wish I suggest that they are not entirely sure what they are

:59:04. > :59:07.doing. And when I think I'll be right in saying is that the longest

:59:08. > :59:12.standing order in living memory in terms of the changes on the English

:59:13. > :59:17.balls issue that we face this week. Not a great way to proceed in

:59:18. > :59:22.dealing with our Constitution. And then we see the potential

:59:23. > :59:29.constitutional tussled with the House of Lords. And the tax credits.

:59:30. > :59:34.Brought about by this governments decision to proceed with a

:59:35. > :59:41.fundamental change the tax credits, which will cost working families

:59:42. > :59:45.thousands of pounds to proceed by using a data storage and shipment,

:59:46. > :59:49.rather than putting it in this finance bill which is before us

:59:50. > :59:53.tonight, and clearly this finance bill, like all finance bills, would

:59:54. > :59:57.have never gone near the House of Lords. This government tried to box

:59:58. > :00:02.clever by putting the tax credits changes in eight statutory

:00:03. > :00:09.instrument, and they have been caught swimming without trucks when

:00:10. > :00:12.the tide went out. It is a constitutional tussle. That we did

:00:13. > :00:16.not need if they have put those provisions in the finance bill. And

:00:17. > :00:23.we need to see this finance bill in the context of the economy. It is

:00:24. > :00:27.great news that unemployment is up, albeit that many of those jobs, too

:00:28. > :00:33.many of them are low-paid and insecure. It is great that we have

:00:34. > :00:39.not lost the economic growth and economic growth and stand outside

:00:40. > :00:44.London and the South Eads at last. But, before the benches opposite is

:00:45. > :00:49.start sharing too much, there are ill winds blowing domestically. The

:00:50. > :00:55.deficit on the balance of payment, 615% of GDP, the highest and to the.

:00:56. > :01:00.Inflation targets missed. Productivity style, which based try

:01:01. > :01:05.to mask with a change in the corporation tax rate. GDP per capita

:01:06. > :01:09.after six years of the conservative leading a government in this

:01:10. > :01:16.country, GDP per capita is still in recovery. Living standards are last

:01:17. > :01:19.very well starting to rise and the private sector, not in the public

:01:20. > :01:25.sector where they continued their praises, this government. Living

:01:26. > :01:34.standards stalled for five years because point of order. My

:01:35. > :01:36.understanding is that at the Reading abilities are bought was in the

:01:37. > :01:49.bill, not just a general done about the economy. What can you will on

:01:50. > :01:53.that? -- rule where Mac. I was listening close that's listening

:01:54. > :01:57.closely, but the thrust of the dumb is one order is correct. I should

:01:58. > :02:04.emphasize that it is not a debate about the area of grievances. This

:02:05. > :02:11.is a relatively narrow third reading about what it is in the bill. Upon

:02:12. > :02:16.which, I know the honourable gentleman will now dilate for the

:02:17. > :02:20.remainder two and a half minutes. Has not repurposed on my right, I

:02:21. > :02:26.was putting the finance bill and context of the economy and what it

:02:27. > :02:30.takes place. That is the words... I do think the context of the find

:02:31. > :02:34.that diamond finance bill is important because otherwise one

:02:35. > :02:39.cannot judge, I think, what did the provisions of the finance bill are

:02:40. > :02:44.adequate for the country in which we live. But there are two minutes

:02:45. > :02:47.left. Therefore the context have to be very vividly stated before we get

:02:48. > :02:56.on to be very vividly stated before we get onto. It will be Mr Speaker.

:02:57. > :02:59.But the national debt, up by 60% at the end of the tax year, what is

:03:00. > :03:03.this about protecting the next-generation? With the government

:03:04. > :03:07.has missed its target of five years on that. Have been privatizing that

:03:08. > :03:11.for the next generation in terms of student loans, cost of home buyers,

:03:12. > :03:16.we got a household debt bubble growing. This government has slashed

:03:17. > :03:21.public investment and substituting BFI. The measures in this bill will

:03:22. > :03:25.not be sufficient to address the problems our nation is facing. What

:03:26. > :03:28.we need is public investment, we need in housing, we need in energy,

:03:29. > :03:33.we need in energy, we needed and skill. This government has

:03:34. > :03:36.mishandled the economy, and there is trouble brewing, unless they change

:03:37. > :03:52.course. They should invest in infrastructure and skills. And the.

:03:53. > :03:57.Mr Speaker,... Barbara says, this finance bill is a disgrace to

:03:58. > :04:04.hard-working people. Mr Speaker, I always agreed with my wife. It is a

:04:05. > :04:09.deliberate sleight of the people of Scotland and will get no support

:04:10. > :04:18.from the S and P adventures. The government has once again denied the

:04:19. > :04:24.rifle exemption of the emergencies services. Once again, it is harming

:04:25. > :04:33.the environment, and once again it is favoring the rich.

:04:34. > :04:40.Thank you. There are 12 seconds remaining. No honourable member is

:04:41. > :04:46.getting her time is running out. The moment is arriving. I do believe we

:04:47. > :04:56.will have the votes. The question is that the bill now be read the third

:04:57. > :05:05.time. Say Aye. Of the culture is a noes. Division! Clear the lobby! --

:05:06. > :07:12.contrary. Order! The question is that the bill

:07:13. > :07:17.now be read the third time. Say Aye. On the conjurer is a noes. Tell us

:07:18. > :16:23.for the nose, Mr Jeff Smith. Order! The Aye to the right, 316. D

:16:24. > :16:34.noes to the left, 278. -- the. The Aye to the right to 316. The nose

:16:35. > :16:46.back to the left, 200 and The Aye haven't. Question is as on the order

:16:47. > :16:56.paper. The Aye haven't. Number six is also entitled. The question is

:16:57. > :17:02.asked on the order paper. I think the Aye haven't. Motion number 7

:17:03. > :17:12.also titled financial services and market. The question is as on the

:17:13. > :17:22.order paper. The Aye haven't. Number eight, entitled senior ports. The

:17:23. > :17:30.question is as on the order paper. The Aye have it.

:17:31. > :17:41.Wood of the leave of the house I propose to take motions and nine

:17:42. > :17:46.224. Big leap, I know. I am seeking to take the house with me, to

:17:47. > :17:51.gather. I have had in indication that the house will not be

:17:52. > :18:03.discontented with such in arrangement. The question is as on

:18:04. > :18:12.the order paper. I think the Aye have it. Order. We come now to the

:18:13. > :18:19.adjournment. Beg to move? The question is now that this house

:18:20. > :18:22.adjournment. Thank you Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have secured a

:18:23. > :18:30.debate on this very important issue following my motion number 223,

:18:31. > :18:35.calling time. At the end of June. I am trying to support for members

:18:36. > :18:43.across is how. Most pleased that so many members will stay to attend

:18:44. > :18:47.this debate. This is in indication that this isn't issue that affects

:18:48. > :18:53.constituents and every part of the United Kingdom. For my part, very

:18:54. > :19:00.quickly after the election I had a number of constituents matter with

:19:01. > :19:07.me about despair. They were unable to find peace and quiet in their own

:19:08. > :19:13.homes due to the calls during all hours of the days that evening. Live

:19:14. > :19:18.marketing calls, were quarter marketing calls and abandon silent

:19:19. > :19:24.calls. Do you want a conservatory? Was like to save money on gas,

:19:25. > :19:29.electricity, broadband and other things? Have you had and accident in

:19:30. > :19:35.eight years? Have you claimed PPI to which you are entitled to? Would you

:19:36. > :19:41.like to take out a ordinance? The list goes on and on. We know that

:19:42. > :19:47.such calls as well as being a nuisance are much more than that.

:19:48. > :19:52.They cause distress and anxiety. Particularly to the elderly in the

:19:53. > :19:57.vulnerable. They can simply not ignore the ringing phone. It is the

:19:58. > :20:08.single most important needs of friends and family keeping in touch

:20:09. > :20:12.with them. My constituency during the last few months the numbers of

:20:13. > :20:19.phone calls of those who are vulnerable, elderly, young people as

:20:20. > :20:24.well and those who at a disadvantage had been taking advantage of. Not

:20:25. > :20:29.only are they getting phone calls, they are losing money. Does the

:20:30. > :20:32.honourable lady feel that legislation needs to be put to

:20:33. > :20:41.ensure What I wanted, but a hundred must

:20:42. > :20:47.exist the fact that we know hard it is used and passed on. And leave the

:20:48. > :20:52.consumers would without any real control and their hard evidence that

:20:53. > :20:58.suggests that there are certain groups in society who are delivered

:20:59. > :21:07.the targeted. The air of ten people, said that the moment featured other

:21:08. > :21:12.daily lives. With one third found such a dating. The 6%, more than

:21:13. > :21:16.half saying they were discouraged from answering their phones. Make no

:21:17. > :21:21.mistake, the scale of this problem is huge and the affect on the lives

:21:22. > :21:29.of many of our constituents demands our attention. I am very grateful to

:21:30. > :21:34.the honourable lady forgiving way. I congratulate her on securing this

:21:35. > :21:39.debate. Many of these calls that affect all of our constituents of

:21:40. > :21:45.and down the country are actually originate from a broad. That she

:21:46. > :21:52.have any idea to have weekend there down on such nuisance calls from

:21:53. > :22:00.companies outside of this country, in addition to in this country as

:22:01. > :22:06.well? Suddenly, there is talk and cooperation, it would Ofcom, and

:22:07. > :22:09.looking at what do I European level. Beyond that and international level.

:22:10. > :22:12.I think is the case of knocking heads together and see how we can

:22:13. > :22:19.better regulate the data which leads this country. Registering with the

:22:20. > :22:25.telephone service, or DT PS, is the obvious first app for those who

:22:26. > :22:35.filled their are harassed by nuisance call. This service cannot

:22:36. > :22:40.stop all unsolicited call. And is best that the lady agree that this

:22:41. > :22:45.is an issue that particularly affect many other people. I know that my

:22:46. > :22:49.constituency is full of older people who are concerned about nuisance

:22:50. > :22:55.calls. The honourable gentleman is right. Old people in particular not

:22:56. > :23:00.only suffer more as and stress about this, but they do seem to be

:23:01. > :23:09.targeted, and an research confirms the. It is estimated by Ofcom that

:23:10. > :23:12.keep it -- DBS service can only stop about one third of nuisance calls.

:23:13. > :23:15.This up is because the issue of consent can be very confusing for

:23:16. > :23:22.consumers. Is not always clear that we have -- that may have given their

:23:23. > :23:27.consent to be passed on to other parties by checking or not checking

:23:28. > :23:32.a box in a form. In addition, Ki does make some progress on point? It

:23:33. > :23:35.is awfully a lack of clarity on the sheer range of other parties that

:23:36. > :23:41.may have agreed for the data to be shared with. As a result, those who

:23:42. > :23:45.register with TPS may still be subject to a barrage of nuisance

:23:46. > :23:54.calls. But perhaps most worrying, the evidence is Julie, Julie

:23:55. > :23:58.chilling. One and three of their service users, people who are in

:23:59. > :24:03.severe financial difficulties come, have received an unsolicited

:24:04. > :24:11.marketing call offering... And is absolutely shocking that unsolicited

:24:12. > :24:17.marketing calls from credit are encouraging household the prayer

:24:18. > :24:21.into a spiral problem debt. Before seeking advice, 50% of people said

:24:22. > :24:28.that they went on to take out further loans, barring an average of

:24:29. > :24:35.?980. That is not all. People who have already taken out loans are

:24:36. > :24:40.sinners who it -- significantly to the target -- targeted by calls.

:24:41. > :24:45.According to a report by the children's Society, 42% of people

:24:46. > :24:49.with a payday loan have content that -- were contacted at least once a

:24:50. > :24:56.day. In contrast, to only 11% of those who do not have a PD alone.

:24:57. > :25:00.And chillingly, over 1 million British adults say they have been

:25:01. > :25:05.tempted to take high interest credit, such as a payday loan as a

:25:06. > :25:11.direct result of an unsolicited marketing call or text. I would urge

:25:12. > :25:17.the Minister to use her influence to persuade... To before some grocery

:25:18. > :25:23.faculty on the non-solicited market of high risk credit products like

:25:24. > :25:33.payday loans. More must be done. Following the government action

:25:34. > :25:36.plans... A series of recommendations for government regulations and

:25:37. > :25:44.businesses focused on finding solutions that work within the

:25:45. > :25:47.existing legislative structure. This includes direct response ability,

:25:48. > :25:53.and also requiring business to show the numbers when they call. Ofcom

:25:54. > :26:00.wants all communication providers to stop charging the caller

:26:01. > :26:04.identification display. Only BT and Virgin now do so, but it is his hope

:26:05. > :26:11.that this can be secured from all providers to the forthcoming EQ

:26:12. > :26:16.framework review. Businesses need to make a public commitment to tackling

:26:17. > :26:20.nuisance calls. It is also important that consumers have much greater

:26:21. > :26:25.control over their personal data. Indeed, it is essential that if and

:26:26. > :26:29.when consumers give their consent to be contacted by companies, that it

:26:30. > :26:33.is clear to the consumer that he or she is doing so. And further, that

:26:34. > :26:42.it is easy for the consumer to revoke that consent, should they

:26:43. > :26:46.wish to. I am grateful for the ladies were given way. She him make

:26:47. > :26:50.a compelling speech on this on the subject. Does the honourable lady

:26:51. > :26:54.agree with me that it will be helpful indeed if every time someone

:26:55. > :26:59.made such a call, they were required to state exactly how they Akamai

:27:00. > :27:06.that information and on what basis they were relying on the consent of

:27:07. > :27:13.the person who they were reaching? I thank my honourable friend for his

:27:14. > :27:19.poor. Dashboard. Consumers are often targeted by nuisance call because at

:27:20. > :27:25.some point, they check the box, or they feel the box. A teeny tiny box

:27:26. > :27:29.at the bottom of a page of tiny writing. Was often the consumer does

:27:30. > :27:34.not even see. And this gives consent to companies to contact them by

:27:35. > :27:40.telephone and pass on their personal details to third parties. And of

:27:41. > :27:43.course, had already been mentioned, let's not forget the scam calls,

:27:44. > :27:48.with the goal is to defraud consumers. Work done by some local

:27:49. > :27:53.authorities suggest that as many as 15% of nuisance calls to potable

:27:54. > :27:58.customers are at in that scam calls. Another sign of the consumer and

:27:59. > :28:03.little control of the personal data. Who knows what it can land, as it

:28:04. > :28:10.passes to hands that are not always the scrupulous. Bashir grew me that

:28:11. > :28:15.is not only older adults who may be at risk, but also will people who

:28:16. > :28:20.have learning difficulties might be targeted by some of the scholars?

:28:21. > :28:24.Absolutely. Having there's a whole range of people in society who need

:28:25. > :28:29.the protection of the lot and tighter regulation in this area. A

:28:30. > :28:34.mobile phone users I'm escape this please stop. Many phone users are

:28:35. > :28:41.not aware that they can register their mobile with the TPS and only

:28:42. > :28:44.3% have done so. By all local authorities to doing so actually

:28:45. > :28:51.worked to help her techno bondable consumers. It is invested in ten

:28:52. > :28:55.call blockers, and affected local authorities in Scotland. About boxy

:28:56. > :28:59.guy or higher numbers of nuisance calls. To call blocking device

:29:00. > :29:04.ensures that only trusted sources can get through. And stops nuisance

:29:05. > :29:10.calls in their tracks, before the residence halls had even had a

:29:11. > :29:16.chance to bring. One consumer, one consumer has had just over 2000

:29:17. > :29:21.calls a block and a 4 month period. Bawled this is to be applied, it is

:29:22. > :29:28.a disgrace that anyone households would be subjected to such a barrage

:29:29. > :29:35.of nuisance calls. I think the Honorable manner forgiving way. That

:29:36. > :29:40.she agreed to meet with me that telling a call to move them from the

:29:41. > :29:45.list should be enough to not call you any more? Absolutely. The

:29:46. > :29:51.difficulty though is the that your personal data is out there among a

:29:52. > :29:56.host of other organizations who will further continue to pester you. It

:29:57. > :30:02.is essential that the government determine whether the rule how I

:30:03. > :30:07.data is collected, and use. We must get the balance straight between

:30:08. > :30:10.enabling these -- addition business to carry out marketing activities,

:30:11. > :30:15.where consumers have given their consent for the data to be used, and

:30:16. > :30:21.the abuse of data by a stupid list business and. How also is the

:30:22. > :30:24.government to write a campaign to ensure that companies know the

:30:25. > :30:29.responsibilities when it comes to marketing calls and text and

:30:30. > :30:39.consider how future legislation to tackle nuisance to marketing. In

:30:40. > :30:49.terms, what my Honorable friend -- what my humble friend... To the

:30:50. > :30:57.cause of the Scottish... Commission check charities recognise their duty

:30:58. > :31:02.to the bondable? This should include all organizations who may choose to

:31:03. > :31:07.use cold calling as one of their tools. Senior executives need to be

:31:08. > :31:10.more -- made more response was for the actions of the company. Why the

:31:11. > :31:14.government has committed funding to an awareness campaign, more action

:31:15. > :31:18.is required and that is in my view an important role here for the

:31:19. > :31:22.financial contact authorities. It is time that the response ability for

:31:23. > :31:26.this was no longer placed so heavily on the victims of nuisance calls,

:31:27. > :31:29.and businesses who engage in this practice should be held more

:31:30. > :31:41.accountable for the genuine distress and anxiety they cause to consumers.

:31:42. > :31:47.Well I am very grateful. I thank my honourable friend for calling this

:31:48. > :31:53.important debate on nuisance calls. It is interesting that in the last

:31:54. > :32:04.Parliament, the issue of nuisance calls was raised a great deal by

:32:05. > :32:12.Mike Crocker. Sadly, no longer in this house, but I have to say that

:32:13. > :32:17.while I miss Mike on many levels, I have to say without wishing any

:32:18. > :32:21.disrespect that I bought the honourable ladies speech that the

:32:22. > :32:26.issue of nuisance calls it has a very worthy new champion from

:32:27. > :32:31.Scotland. I thought her speech was very comprehensive and also very

:32:32. > :32:35.well-balanced because while she called for quite rightly further

:32:36. > :32:41.action, she did acknowledge that there has been some action in the

:32:42. > :32:47.recent past. It goes without saying, Mr Speaker, but I was a

:32:48. > :32:51.anyway, that tackling nuisance calls is a priority for us. It is an issue

:32:52. > :32:56.that I have worked on for several years now. It is a very difficult --

:32:57. > :33:00.difficult problem to tackle. I have go with the honourable lady said in

:33:01. > :33:03.her remarks about the particular petitions nature of nuisance calls

:33:04. > :33:09.when it falls elderly or vulnerable people at home, who have a course

:33:10. > :33:13.more likely to suffer from display in terms of being at home with the

:33:14. > :33:24.phone is ringing. Is very important that we do all we can, where it loud

:33:25. > :33:31.other contributions to this debate. He may recognise that I get from

:33:32. > :33:36.constituents, a particular elderly constituents, who are talking about

:33:37. > :33:41.the bottle lived of the phone being a real anxiety for them. And talking

:33:42. > :33:48.about getting rid of that phone line from their home. By Mac is exactly

:33:49. > :33:52.the point. For many elderly people, that phone is their lifeline, not

:33:53. > :33:55.only are they home a by these calls, but obviously they want in many

:33:56. > :33:59.cases to answer the phone because they do not know whether the cause

:34:00. > :34:03.going to be important. They want to be able to use their phone as freely

:34:04. > :34:11.as possible to contact loved ones and indeed additional support

:34:12. > :34:16.services. That is why, about two years ago, I started to co-ordinate

:34:17. > :34:19.the action of being taken about nuisance calls, calling together the

:34:20. > :34:23.two regulators and the information Commissioner and Ofcom, as well as

:34:24. > :34:30.numerous stakeholders, including the telephone companies, but also the

:34:31. > :34:34.ISPs and many other charities and campaigning groups. Again, I would

:34:35. > :34:38.echo what the honourable lady said in her excellent speech, which is we

:34:39. > :34:42.do have to strike about. We do have to read remember what we are talking

:34:43. > :34:46.about nuisance call that underneath the blade that we are talking

:34:47. > :34:51.about, there does lie a legitimate business in this country of decent

:34:52. > :34:57.businesses wanting to make appropriate marketing calls. In many

:34:58. > :35:12.cases, having proper consent to do that.