02/03/2016

:00:09. > :00:15.Order. Urgent question, Mr Owen Smith. May I ask the Secretary of

:00:16. > :00:23.State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the Government's

:00:24. > :00:29.review of the state pension age? Mr Iain Duncan Smith. Yesterday, Mr

:00:30. > :00:33.Speaker, we announced the appointment of John Criddle and to

:00:34. > :00:39.lead an independent review of the state pension age. This will make

:00:40. > :00:43.recommendations for the Government to consider whether the pension age

:00:44. > :00:52.is fair and affordable in the long term. This will report by May 2017

:00:53. > :01:00.-- John Cridland. I want to stress that is independently lead and will

:01:01. > :01:03.be put forward, the information put forward will be about the age of the

:01:04. > :01:07.state pension. It will consider changes in life expectancy as well

:01:08. > :01:13.as wider changes in society. It is also useful at this point to remind

:01:14. > :01:19.the House why this review is necessary. In 1945 and man, for

:01:20. > :01:28.example, retiring at 65, had a life expectancy of between 60 and 63. The

:01:29. > :01:35.age of life for men rose in retirement after their pension age

:01:36. > :01:39.to 27 years under the present forecast and existing timescales and

:01:40. > :01:45.women have gone from 18 years in retirement after their pensionable

:01:46. > :01:50.age, the 29.5 years in retirement. Future generations, therefore, would

:01:51. > :01:53.rightly expect that we should reflect those changes in the nature

:01:54. > :02:01.of how we set the pension. They would not thank 's, I think, and we

:02:02. > :02:05.rarely hear anybody speak about future generations if we did not the

:02:06. > :02:09.right decisions at the right time -- thank us. And ensure pensions are

:02:10. > :02:12.sustainable to avoid them having to pick up an increasing bill which

:02:13. > :02:17.would make their lives even more difficult. But I do want to clear

:02:18. > :02:22.what this particular review is not about. It does not cover the

:02:23. > :02:25.existing state pension age timetable. It takes up from April

:02:26. > :02:30.2020 it. We have already provided legislation for this and the review

:02:31. > :02:36.will not look to change the pension age that point -- April 2028. It is

:02:37. > :02:40.worth reminding the opposition at this particular point that they, the

:02:41. > :02:44.Labour Government, when lasting power, first legislated for a state

:02:45. > :02:48.pension age is beyond 65, but without any commitment to especial

:02:49. > :02:57.independent review, which we have undertaken. When we brought forward

:02:58. > :03:00.the Pensions Bill in 2014 opposition seem to have had a change of part

:03:01. > :03:05.and quite legitimately and reasonably I thought at time agreed

:03:06. > :03:08.with us for the need for an independent review of the state

:03:09. > :03:13.pension age. Let me quote what the then shadow Secretary of State at

:03:14. > :03:17.the time, the right honourable member for Birmingham Hodge Hill is

:03:18. > :03:25.said, during the course of that bill. He said, and I quote, the

:03:26. > :03:28.Secretary of State and I have no difference of opinion on the need

:03:29. > :03:33.regularly to review the state pension age. It is worth reminding

:03:34. > :03:39.everybody that in that Bill was the statutory provision for a regular

:03:40. > :03:42.set of reviews of the pension age and yesterday's announcement is

:03:43. > :03:47.simply in line with that statutory requirement, and that is what we are

:03:48. > :03:51.now doing. That is what the then shadow Secretary of State said in

:03:52. > :03:55.agreement. I also remind them they made no amendments to change the

:03:56. > :04:00.nature of that review or its scope at the time and nor do I recall did

:04:01. > :04:04.they have anything in their manifesto that had anything to do

:04:05. > :04:06.with that. Under that legislation we are required to appoint an

:04:07. > :04:11.independent reviewer of who will make recommendations to him on

:04:12. > :04:17.future state pension age requirements. We have appointed Sir

:04:18. > :04:22.John Cridland to leave this work. Under the legislation we required to

:04:23. > :04:28.report -- are required to report in 2017 on this and I can assure the

:04:29. > :04:31.House we will come back to the House with an oral and written statement

:04:32. > :04:34.on whatever comes back from the review. This is part of the

:04:35. > :04:38.Government reform the pensions to ensure they are affordable for the

:04:39. > :04:41.long term but it is rightly recognised also have reached their

:04:42. > :04:44.pension age, work hard and done the right thing and provided for their

:04:45. > :04:47.families, and I believe it is this Government that is delivering for

:04:48. > :04:54.those very people. As a result of our triple lock, pensioners will

:04:55. > :04:57.receive a basic state pension ?1000 hire a year than they were at the

:04:58. > :05:01.start of the last Parliament under the last Government and we provide a

:05:02. > :05:05.greater security, more choice and dignity for people in retirement,

:05:06. > :05:15.whilst also ensuring the system is sustainable for future generations.

:05:16. > :05:19.On Smith. -- may I start by welcoming the Secretary of State

:05:20. > :05:22.back to the dispatch box. We have missed him in recent months and are

:05:23. > :05:25.grateful for his presence today. Despite the statement, I think

:05:26. > :05:30.people travelling to work this morning will have been shocked to

:05:31. > :05:35.learn the Government is buying yet another review and in the immediate

:05:36. > :05:38.future of when they can claim their state pension, with the clear

:05:39. > :05:42.implication that as was the case with the women's state pension, they

:05:43. > :05:46.intend to increase it further and faster than we are the people of

:05:47. > :05:54.Britain were expecting. People will also have been shocked to read this

:05:55. > :05:56.morning the pension Minister's statement in another place that

:05:57. > :06:00.under the Tories the state pension should no longer be considered as

:06:01. > :06:06.retirement age. You will only be able to retire if you are rich

:06:07. > :06:11.enough or you have a fat private pension, otherwise you will have to

:06:12. > :06:14.keep working, working until you drop, as one pensions Professor

:06:15. > :06:20.words this morning. Can this Secretary of State try and clarify

:06:21. > :06:24.exactly what his Government's long-term economic plan is for

:06:25. > :06:28.pensioners? Is it, as was the case with the botched reforms of the

:06:29. > :06:32.women's pension, and as was implied in the terms of reference for this

:06:33. > :06:37.review, that people can expect the Government to ratchet up the

:06:38. > :06:40.retirement age much faster than expected? Can he guarantee that even

:06:41. > :06:49.if this review is not considering the planned increase to 67 by 2028

:06:50. > :06:52.that his Government will not bring forward that change, and if that

:06:53. > :06:55.promise is not ratted on can he confirm his Government is

:06:56. > :07:00.considering speeding up some rises with increases to 69 or 70 being

:07:01. > :07:06.considered for people currently in their mid-40s. Can he also confirmed

:07:07. > :07:13.this will be a double whammy for those pension savers as everyone

:07:14. > :07:17.aged under 43, under his reforms, will have a worse state pension?

:07:18. > :07:22.Does he in fact agree with his pensions colleague in the Lords that

:07:23. > :07:27.in the light of his reforms the state pension age should no longer

:07:28. > :07:30.be considered as the retirement age, that only the wealthy in future will

:07:31. > :07:34.have the luxury of retiring and the rest will have to just keep on

:07:35. > :07:41.working? Finally, Mr Speaker, can the Minister tell us what he thinks

:07:42. > :07:50.the upper limit is for the state pension age, 65, 67, or is it a day

:07:51. > :07:58.as his colleague warned today? -- or is it 80? The promise, not the 75p

:07:59. > :08:01.they are always banging on about, but it is the 75 years. You will

:08:02. > :08:11.have to work and wait under this Tory Government before you get your

:08:12. > :08:15.state pension. Well, Mr Speaker, all I can assure them by that rather

:08:16. > :08:20.pathetic response is that the honourable gentleman did not think

:08:21. > :08:28.he was going to get granted and he has been scribbling away frantically

:08:29. > :08:34.because it was utter idiocy -- I can only assume. I would genuinely say

:08:35. > :08:37.that, and I want to be kind to the honourable gentleman, because, you

:08:38. > :08:43.know, the honourable gentleman has made a career in being Mr angry at

:08:44. > :08:49.the drop of a hat. I just want to remind him that, yes, they don't

:08:50. > :08:54.want to hear but I want to answer his question. Let me just remind

:08:55. > :08:58.him... Good. Let me remind him of exactly what his party was about

:08:59. > :09:08.before he took over as the opposition spokesman. Let me just

:09:09. > :09:15.remind him... I apologise order! The Right Honourable gentleman for

:09:16. > :09:18.Gordon ought to know better. He is a statesman, at any rate a statement

:09:19. > :09:26.of sorts. He should not conduct himself in an unseemly manner. As

:09:27. > :09:30.for the member for Blyth Valley, I have warned him about having that

:09:31. > :09:31.hot curry too often. It tends to have an effect on your demeanour in

:09:32. > :09:39.the chamber! I am also worried about the member

:09:40. > :09:43.for Blyth Valley! I want to make sure he has a good retirement, but

:09:44. > :09:48.he needs to calm down or he may never make it. Can I remind the

:09:49. > :09:51.opposition, in the questions he asked, they are all questions that

:09:52. > :09:56.his government actually answered, because they were the ones who

:09:57. > :10:00.raised the state pension age. They don't like being reminded of it.

:10:01. > :10:05.They didn't have an independent review before they did it. They

:10:06. > :10:10.arbitrarily did it, and they set a set of dates, but they did not ask

:10:11. > :10:14.an independent review were to look at the level of when those dates

:10:15. > :10:18.should be. We are doing that now. That is what we were asked to do,

:10:19. > :10:25.and we are being reasonable about it. It is also worth reminding him.

:10:26. > :10:35.When this statutory review passed in the 2013-14 Bill, let me tell him

:10:36. > :10:43.what his pension minister said. He said... Yes, I am doing it! But his

:10:44. > :10:49.party agreed with it. He should calm down or he will never make it to

:10:50. > :11:00.state pension age. This is what his party said at the time. The

:11:01. > :11:06.spokesman said" we do not oppose this bill". That was their position

:11:07. > :11:14.on the state pension age statutory requirement to review it. And

:11:15. > :11:18.Baroness Sherlock said" it is vital that the way the state pension is

:11:19. > :11:24.reviewed is seen to be fair", and that is exactly what we are doing.

:11:25. > :11:28.So they instituted the rises in the state pension age. They are the ones

:11:29. > :11:34.that raised women's state pension age. They went for the equalisation

:11:35. > :11:37.of state pension age, and they are the ones in government that started

:11:38. > :11:42.to do the responsible thing is, and now in opposition are utterly

:11:43. > :11:44.irresponsible and pointless. I have only one final comment make to the

:11:45. > :12:03.honourable gentleman. Somebody said to me as I got up, ... Order! The

:12:04. > :12:08.two gentlemen are both rather cerebrovascular mix. I cannot

:12:09. > :12:11.believe they would conduct themselves in that manner at a

:12:12. > :12:13.university seminar. And if they wouldn't do so that, they should not

:12:14. > :12:18.miss behaviour. Whatever they think of what the Secretary of State is

:12:19. > :12:23.saying, they must hear a -- they are both so read the gentleman. Can I

:12:24. > :12:26.say to the honourable gentleman that somebody said the honourable

:12:27. > :12:29.gentleman is shallow. I think he gives a bad reputation to shallow

:12:30. > :12:33.people. That was so pathetic as a response to a UQ that was asked from

:12:34. > :12:36.an opposition that has no policy, jumps around opposing everything,

:12:37. > :12:43.racking up spending commitments. No wonder they haven't a hope in hell

:12:44. > :12:49.of being in government. Mr Richard Graham. Every Western democracy

:12:50. > :12:54.surely has a responsibility to review its state pension age on a

:12:55. > :12:59.regular basis and on a non-tribal party political basis so that a long

:13:00. > :13:04.time ahead, the people of this country will know what changes are

:13:05. > :13:07.going to be made to the state pension age. And if in the past, we

:13:08. > :13:10.took to long to change the state pension age and then moved to

:13:11. > :13:14.quickly, surely now this cross-party consensus that was reached on this

:13:15. > :13:22.review is the right thing for this House to do and report back next

:13:23. > :13:26.year. My honourable friend has spoken to this on a number of

:13:27. > :13:30.occasions and he is right. I thought we had that consensus. We certainly

:13:31. > :13:34.had it in the last Parliament. The Liberal Democrats in the coalition

:13:35. > :13:39.agreed. The honourable gentleman quoted by the honourable gentleman

:13:40. > :13:43.was the minister. The pensions commission has said they believed

:13:44. > :13:46.that the increase in the state pension age is essential, but they

:13:47. > :13:53.also said it was important as an independent body to review that, and

:13:54. > :13:57.that is what we are doing. Life expectancy in Scotland still lags

:13:58. > :14:02.around two years behind the rest of the UK, a gap that persists across

:14:03. > :14:07.all social demographics and costs the average Scottish pensioner

:14:08. > :14:15.around ?10,000. However, I am just is concerned about life expectancy

:14:16. > :14:18.and illness and disability. Healthy life expectancy is not rising at the

:14:19. > :14:24.same speed as life expectancy. The gap between the two is widening.

:14:25. > :14:29.Given the government's reductions in support for second is abled people

:14:30. > :14:33.of working age, changes we are due to discuss later can we have any

:14:34. > :14:36.confidence that further increases in state pension age will not condemn

:14:37. > :14:39.thousands of older people with serious health conditions with an

:14:40. > :14:47.impoverished old age on state benefits prior to their official

:14:48. > :14:51.retirement? I congratulate the honourable lady on her tone on this

:14:52. > :14:56.and she has asked some legitimate questions. The reason we instituted

:14:57. > :15:01.an independent review is so that they can, and I would encourage her

:15:02. > :15:05.and her party to submit to the review, to serve John Cridland,

:15:06. > :15:09.their concerns about the different demographic issues in Scotland. They

:15:10. > :15:14.are well known and it is legitimate for her to raise it with him.

:15:15. > :15:18.Because he is independent and he can look at various aspects of whether

:15:19. > :15:22.there are demographic changes, whether there are changes in the

:15:23. > :15:25.types of work people have done in the past, he will look at all of

:15:26. > :15:30.this. But the point is, he is independent. He may come back with

:15:31. > :15:34.no change or he may come back with recommendations for change. I do not

:15:35. > :15:39.prejudge that, but I recommend that she makes those points to him. Mr

:15:40. > :15:43.Kenneth Clarke. I was one of those in 1995, when I was Chancellor, who

:15:44. > :15:47.recognised that the old system was unaffordable. We thought we were

:15:48. > :15:52.being courageous in giving 20 years notice of our intentions to raise

:15:53. > :15:56.the retirement age. Does my right honourable friend agree that with

:15:57. > :15:59.hindsight, we underestimated the remarkably welcome improvement in

:16:00. > :16:05.life expectancy and the number of women qualifying for a full pension,

:16:06. > :16:09.and we should have gone faster? Does he also agree that inevitably, there

:16:10. > :16:13.are bound to be complaints from those who are so unlucky that they

:16:14. > :16:18.are born at a stage when they are just affected by the change, but a

:16:19. > :16:22.government has a duty to proceed in the interests of the country and in

:16:23. > :16:27.the interests of future generations of working taxpayers, who will not

:16:28. > :16:34.be able to afford to sustain our system unless we respond to reality?

:16:35. > :16:40.My right honourable friend is correct. This was the position of

:16:41. > :16:44.successive governments, that they would take this as a nonparty

:16:45. > :16:48.political point, and that they would agree that there was a need to make

:16:49. > :16:54.those changes, the pace of which should be decided independently. We

:16:55. > :16:57.have done that, and it was brave of the government of which he was a

:16:58. > :17:01.part to start that process. But it was always necessary to review this

:17:02. > :17:05.in line with demographic shifts. They have rapidly increased and we

:17:06. > :17:08.are doing that now. But I do regret the fact that the present opposition

:17:09. > :17:16.has chosen to play political games with this, rather than supporting a

:17:17. > :17:22.necessary change. Does the Secretary of State except that millions --

:17:23. > :17:25.does he accepting that millions of this will be looking at this

:17:26. > :17:28.proposal and seeing what the government did in respect of the

:17:29. > :17:33.equalisation of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s, and

:17:34. > :17:40.be worried that the government are about to repeat the same mistakes

:17:41. > :17:43.for them? Will he now set out what he expects to be a transitional

:17:44. > :17:46.arrangement for these changes, and whether or not that opens up the

:17:47. > :17:53.opportunity to look again at the injustice to the Waspy women? It is

:17:54. > :17:58.a legitimate concern to make sure we give people plenty of notice going

:17:59. > :18:02.forward. That is what John Cridland will be looking at. If he wants to

:18:03. > :18:10.make a submission to that commission about the issues of transitional

:18:11. > :18:15.arrangements, that is possible. It was not this government that

:18:16. > :18:19.introduced the changes, but we did introduce a transitional change for

:18:20. > :18:22.those affected to improve the lot of the majority of those who would

:18:23. > :18:29.otherwise have been adversely affected. Dr Liam Fox. At the

:18:30. > :18:32.moment, we have three people paying national insurance for every one

:18:33. > :18:36.person receiving the state pension. By 2040, if nothing changes, there

:18:37. > :18:40.will only be two people paying national insurance for everyone

:18:41. > :18:44.receiving the state pension. We have more people in higher education that

:18:45. > :18:48.before and increased life expectancy. Surely in the long term,

:18:49. > :18:53.it is only common sense to match the retirement age with life expectancy

:18:54. > :18:57.in some way? We cannot expect to enter the labour market later, to

:18:58. > :19:02.leave it earlier and live longer and expect the state to pick up the

:19:03. > :19:05.bill. I agree with my honourable friend. It is worth putting this in

:19:06. > :19:12.the context of what we have already done to sustain pensioners in the

:19:13. > :19:15.longer term. Three areas. One, we have introduced more saving,

:19:16. > :19:19.automatic enrolment. Over 6 million people are now saving for a pension

:19:20. > :19:23.that have ever seen before. We have the single tier being introduced,

:19:24. > :19:27.which puts pension paid above the means test, allowing them to save

:19:28. > :19:33.and know they will always hold their saving. The third area is that we

:19:34. > :19:36.now have a state pension which is over ?1000 higher than it was when

:19:37. > :19:40.we came to office. That is why we need to get the demographic changes

:19:41. > :19:43.right, because we are going to be fairer to pensions and will support

:19:44. > :19:50.them in a way that was never done by other governments. I am not going to

:19:51. > :19:53.get angry, but I am going to gently point out to the Secretary of State

:19:54. > :19:59.that he is wrong to say there is a consensus about this. He has broken

:20:00. > :20:04.the consensus he put in place with the excellent former pensions

:20:05. > :20:07.minister Steve Webb. That agreement was that the independent review is

:20:08. > :20:12.that would happen every five years would look at life expectancy and

:20:13. > :20:15.fairness of those paying in. He is now introducing affordability into

:20:16. > :20:19.that, which was not part of that. Will he acknowledged that this is a

:20:20. > :20:24.change from what he agreed with Steve Webb and what the Coalition

:20:25. > :20:29.Government delivered? I am sorry that he chooses to find a

:20:30. > :20:33.difference. I don't think there is a difference. No one has more respect

:20:34. > :20:37.for the last pensions minister than I do. He is a good friend and he did

:20:38. > :20:42.a brilliant job as pensions minister. And as a coalition

:20:43. > :20:51.partner, we worked well together. He and I agreed in 2014 that we would

:20:52. > :20:56.introduce this independent review. Sir John is capable of looking at

:20:57. > :21:01.this in the round and the side on the basis of robust, evidence -based

:21:02. > :21:05.analysis. He may come forward and say, I see no need to make any

:21:06. > :21:11.change, but I am prepared to back him on that. Our population is

:21:12. > :21:15.growing year-on-year, principally through immigration, so I think it

:21:16. > :21:20.is right that we look to the future. Can I ask if this independent review

:21:21. > :21:24.will look at whether Britain can control its immigration or cannot

:21:25. > :21:28.control its immigration, whether or not we remain in Europe, and if you

:21:29. > :21:37.will be able to see any of the information that comes through on

:21:38. > :21:41.both of those scenarios? Tempting as it is to involve this review in

:21:42. > :21:46.other areas, I have to tell you that it is focused on the need to figure

:21:47. > :21:48.out whether or not given the circumstances, the demographics and

:21:49. > :21:52.affordability, whether state pension age should rise and what it should

:21:53. > :22:00.be in the years to come. I am happy to have it limited to that. There

:22:01. > :22:03.are 2.6 million women who feel that they have not been given enough

:22:04. > :22:07.notice of changes in their pensions. Can I implore the Secretary of State

:22:08. > :22:12.to be straight with young people today, that those born in areas of

:22:13. > :22:19.low life expectancy, they will be dead before they receive pension? I

:22:20. > :22:22.am not sure the honourable lady wanted to come into politics to

:22:23. > :22:28.decide that the future for people is so bleak that there is nothing that

:22:29. > :22:31.can be done. I view about our role in this House is to make sure we

:22:32. > :22:34.make the necessary changes to improve the life chances of people

:22:35. > :22:38.so that they have a longer life expectancy and they may enjoy the

:22:39. > :22:44.fruits of that life expectancy, having worked hard, saved hard, and

:22:45. > :22:50.then a decent time in retirement. I am an optimist about Britain. She is

:22:51. > :22:53.a pessimist. But my right honourable friend confirmed that the intention

:22:54. > :22:58.of the government is to review the pension age every five years and

:22:59. > :23:02.then give people the opportunity of knowing, with a long lead in time,

:23:03. > :23:05.what the retirement age will be so that they can plan for a secure

:23:06. > :23:12.future for themselves and their families? That is right. The

:23:13. > :23:19.commitment in the act was for a review in every Parliament. That

:23:20. > :23:26.allows every Parliament to make decisions, hopefully in a

:23:27. > :23:33.non-partial basis. This was always known about. For those who complain

:23:34. > :23:35.suddenly that they had not noticed it, this statement was down

:23:36. > :23:38.yesterday. I don't recall that they did a single thing to raise it to

:23:39. > :23:48.anyone's attention until a couple of newspapers wrote some articles, and

:23:49. > :23:53.suddenly, India is a UQ. -- Indigo is a UQ. We do need to review

:23:54. > :24:02.pension arrangements. But all of these reviews throw up difficult

:24:03. > :24:08.cases and anomalies, not least about age expectancy across regions of the

:24:09. > :24:16.UK. Will he ensure that the review looks at those discrepancies and

:24:17. > :24:19.differences, and will he ensure that there is proper things built in to

:24:20. > :24:24.ensure the information is given out when changes are made?

:24:25. > :24:28.Can I say to the honourable gentleman much like I said to the

:24:29. > :24:34.spokesperson for the Scottish Nationalists that, yes, there are

:24:35. > :24:37.questions around these and the point about the review is it is within the

:24:38. > :24:43.scope for him or those within his party to raise those issues with

:24:44. > :24:47.John Cridland and make sure he takes evidence from him and anyone else he

:24:48. > :24:51.wishes -- who wishes to give it, but that is certainly within the scope.

:24:52. > :24:55.My right honourable friend brings cogent figures to the House today,

:24:56. > :25:03.particularly the expectation from 14 years of retirement to 27. Can he

:25:04. > :25:08.confirm the review will be conducted in an impartial manner and is it not

:25:09. > :25:12.simply scaremongering we are hearing from the opposition on the front

:25:13. > :25:16.bench and their friends in the SNP? I say to my honourable friend and I

:25:17. > :25:21.will just repeat these figures, backed by what I've right honourable

:25:22. > :25:24.friend, once Chancellor in the previous Government said, and with

:25:25. > :25:31.great foresight. The fact is when a man retired in 1845 with the

:25:32. > :25:35.pensionable age at 65, their life expectancy was between 60 and 63 --

:25:36. > :25:41.1945. With the same retirement age it will have risen to something like

:25:42. > :25:46.27 years in retirement. We have to take into consideration that I want

:25:47. > :25:51.more people to be able to work longer -- take that into

:25:52. > :25:54.consideration. I want more people to work and retire from longer. It was

:25:55. > :26:02.companies who said you can't work past 65 but you can now go on and

:26:03. > :26:04.work. That is part of that process. The Secretary of State said he

:26:05. > :26:10.wanted to reward those who worked hard and did the right thing. He did

:26:11. > :26:15.not do that for women born in the 1950s. Many of them were given only

:26:16. > :26:19.three years notice of the acceleration in their state pension

:26:20. > :26:24.age. Is he now going to give a commitment to the House that he will

:26:25. > :26:30.not further accelerate the changes in the state pension age which were

:26:31. > :26:38.due to come and up to 2046, as he did in the 2011 Act? I would say to

:26:39. > :26:42.the honourable lady, I accept that she raises her own legitimate point,

:26:43. > :26:45.but I do wish she would encompass within that the fact she sat on the

:26:46. > :26:53.benches with a Labour Government actually raised those pensionable

:26:54. > :26:56.ages, one second... And now the accusations about no notice are very

:26:57. > :27:00.much lodged at the door of the then Labour Government. I simply say, we

:27:01. > :27:03.made changes in the last Government to improve the lot of many of those

:27:04. > :27:10.who were affected and what I have said is that this independent review

:27:11. > :27:14.is to look at all of that post 2028 and make recommendations about the

:27:15. > :27:18.best way forward. I would hope she would give some evidence to them if

:27:19. > :27:23.she has a concern about it. Can my right honourable friend confirm

:27:24. > :27:26.countries around the globe are being forced to confront the impact of

:27:27. > :27:34.rapidly rising life expectancy is and it would appear it is only the

:27:35. > :27:39.parties opposite incomplete denial about the need for this? That is a

:27:40. > :27:43.fact and many of our neighbours have equalised and are accelerating that

:27:44. > :27:48.move to a later pensionable age, head of us. Countries like Germany,

:27:49. > :27:54.Norway and various others around the world have done so and I think it is

:27:55. > :27:58.only right we do so as well because otherwise we will place a burden on

:27:59. > :28:02.our children and our children's children and they will not thank us

:28:03. > :28:08.for that because we did not take the brave necessary decisions. 'S Kansas

:28:09. > :28:17.Secretary of State tell me today, I am 33 -- canvas Secretary of State

:28:18. > :28:21.tell me the age I will retire? I can tell her it is clear know when they

:28:22. > :28:25.will retire and independent review makes it clear we will make

:28:26. > :28:29.recommendations. If she wants to make a position and make an

:28:30. > :28:32.independent view on that she can give evidence to the review. We are

:28:33. > :28:37.having a review every parliament. I do not understand why her party

:28:38. > :28:41.would be against the review. Surely we would want an independent review

:28:42. > :28:48.so it is fair and balanced, and I hope she will run about. Does the

:28:49. > :28:52.Secretary of State agree that with this every Parliament we will be in

:28:53. > :28:56.full to give greater chain hat to wood have agreed to review on

:28:57. > :29:01.changes that will happen -- have a to view on changes that will happen.

:29:02. > :29:04.I agree that is where the floor of timing score and something we want

:29:05. > :29:08.John Cridland to look at and take into consideration to make sure that

:29:09. > :29:12.process happens. We want to make sure people have plenty of notice

:29:13. > :29:15.for that. I know there were recommendations and as I said

:29:16. > :29:19.earlier that something he will look at, in the next review so on so I

:29:20. > :29:23.would simply say if you have an issue put it forward to the review.

:29:24. > :29:27.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State claims to be an optimistic

:29:28. > :29:33.but I see little to be optimistic about here. We have had the

:29:34. > :29:37.Government response that by raising any concerns we are scaremongering.

:29:38. > :29:40.Does the Secretary of State agree with me that my constituents, many

:29:41. > :29:43.of them because of regional variations in life expectancy, many

:29:44. > :29:48.will die before they receive their state pension and they have an

:29:49. > :29:54.absolute right to be scared? I am sorry not honourable lady takes that

:29:55. > :29:58.view. You know, we have rising life expectancy, we have people earning

:29:59. > :30:02.more in jobs, we have more people in work, more people saving than ever

:30:03. > :30:06.before, preparing for their retirement, and pension coming in

:30:07. > :30:09.which will mean they do not get means tested. I have to say I am

:30:10. > :30:13.optimistic on those grounds but I do not blame her for being pessimistic.

:30:14. > :30:20.Sitting in the Labour Party today, I would be really pessimistic! Mr

:30:21. > :30:23.Speaker will my right honourable friend reassured those of my

:30:24. > :30:27.constituents approaching retirement age who will have seen this

:30:28. > :30:31.morning's headlines splashed across the papers, including in one case

:30:32. > :30:35.that people will be required to work until they are the age of 81, that

:30:36. > :30:40.these headlines have no basis whatsoever in fact, given that this

:30:41. > :30:43.is just the start of it, the review, and no conclusions have even been

:30:44. > :30:49.made never made agreed upon by this House? I agree but the reality is

:30:50. > :30:51.this is an independent review and they will look at all that. With

:30:52. > :30:56.respect to those payments, and they have to make their own decisions and

:30:57. > :30:59.I will not be critical of them, I would say you cannot extrapolate

:31:00. > :31:02.from the announcement of the statutory independent review that

:31:03. > :31:06.somehow that will have some imprecation going forward in terms

:31:07. > :31:10.of ages. I will just say it is necessary to get the balance right

:31:11. > :31:14.between those who paid, those who are retired, and those who are

:31:15. > :31:16.retired, those were saving. That is the job of Government and I would

:31:17. > :31:21.have hoped it would have been approached in a more consensual

:31:22. > :31:27.basis across the floor of the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like

:31:28. > :31:34.to raise another anomaly with the Secretary of State. People working

:31:35. > :31:36.in Northern Ireland between 1947 and 1957 paid national insurance

:31:37. > :31:39.contributions but these did not count towards their pension

:31:40. > :31:46.entitlements because the leaving age in Britain was a little higher. Can

:31:47. > :31:50.that are normally be raised with Sir John Cridland and can it be

:31:51. > :31:54.addressed to finally rectify the situation? I don't think that

:31:55. > :31:57.specific issue is within the scope of this review as I understand it

:31:58. > :32:01.but I would certainly be happy to speak to the honourable lady myself

:32:02. > :32:06.about that particular issue. I understand, the point about this

:32:07. > :32:10.review in a general sense is that it is the first time that someone has

:32:11. > :32:13.asked an independent body to review things like anomaly is going

:32:14. > :32:18.forward, but I would be very happy to speak to her if she wants to come

:32:19. > :32:21.and see me. Mr Speaker, this is a policy where there should be

:32:22. > :32:25.consensus coming there should be cross-party support. The evidence is

:32:26. > :32:30.that we are living longer and healthier lives, not just in Dorset,

:32:31. > :32:33.but there should be optimism across the country. Does the Secretary of

:32:34. > :32:37.State agree it is the response will thing to do to have an independent

:32:38. > :32:41.review, follow the statutory resume, examine the evidence and all the

:32:42. > :32:47.options, rather than the scaremongering and using phrases

:32:48. > :32:51.such as "Work until we drop". I must say I was slightly surprised earlier

:32:52. > :32:54.today to see the opposition spokesman was tweeting away the most

:32:55. > :33:00.inflammatory comments about people retiring. I can understand if you

:33:01. > :33:05.are in opposition, you need to try to get attention, but actually to

:33:06. > :33:08.start worrying and scaring people without foundation and without

:33:09. > :33:13.reality is nothing short of appalling and I wish he would get up

:33:14. > :33:19.and apologise for it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new review will

:33:20. > :33:22.consider pension arrangements for a variations between different groups.

:33:23. > :33:27.Can we take it or have more detail from the Secretary of State as two

:33:28. > :33:32.different groups reversed the occupation,, because obviously in

:33:33. > :33:36.relation to shift workers or in my constituency bus drivers who get

:33:37. > :33:40.corrosive bladder conditions, their quality of life and life expectancy

:33:41. > :33:47.deteriorates as a result of those jobs. That be raised? It is

:33:48. > :33:50.certainly within the scope for that to be raised and he and his team

:33:51. > :33:53.have the power and scope to raise that so I would again recommend his

:33:54. > :34:00.concern is raised but he certainly has the scope to look at that. It is

:34:01. > :34:05.up to him at what degree he looks at it. Notwithstanding the antics of

:34:06. > :34:07.the party opposite, I mean, my right honourable friend is absolutely

:34:08. > :34:11.right. The underscore the National importance of this issue and I

:34:12. > :34:16.commend the approach set out today. Notwithstanding the rather

:34:17. > :34:20.depressing and dispirited response from the parties opposite, although

:34:21. > :34:24.my right -- will my right honourable friend undertake to continue to

:34:25. > :34:28.build a national consensus and a consensus across the House on this

:34:29. > :34:32.issue. It affects all of our constituencies and should be above

:34:33. > :34:37.party politics. I agree and my door is always open, I am always ready to

:34:38. > :34:40.see somebody, even if they then decide to change their mind, but I

:34:41. > :34:45.do say, Mr Speaker, that I have no found this particular tweet which

:34:46. > :34:48.came out this morning. Strangely, not after he had seen the original

:34:49. > :34:55.statement but only after he had seen the newspapers and the quote here

:34:56. > :34:58.is, from my opposite spokesman, "Pensions Minister scraps retirement

:34:59. > :35:02.for all but the rich and those lucky enough to have a good private

:35:03. > :35:06.pension". How ridiculous is that? This is the announcement of a

:35:07. > :35:11.statutory review which has party agreed with back in 2014. He really

:35:12. > :35:19.needs to apologise for that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of

:35:20. > :35:23.State and I and all of us are fortunate to have well-paid jobs but

:35:24. > :35:26.for many of our countrymen and women they work just to survive. I would

:35:27. > :35:30.like to ask whether the review will look at whether the presumption

:35:31. > :35:35.should always be that living longer means working longer, whether we

:35:36. > :35:39.might look at alternative ways of funding the basic state pension so

:35:40. > :35:42.people are able to benefit and live fulfilled lives in retirement as a

:35:43. > :35:46.result of the benefits of better health care and living longer. Can I

:35:47. > :35:51.say to the honourable gentleman again, a wholly legitimate question

:35:52. > :35:55.to raise and in line with the spokesperson for his party my view

:35:56. > :35:59.is this is within scope if he wishes to raise it for the reviewer. The

:36:00. > :36:02.reviewer will have to decide just exact way how he gets that balance

:36:03. > :36:05.right with his team but it is certainly within scope for the

:36:06. > :36:08.honourable gentleman and his party to ask the viewer to look at this

:36:09. > :36:15.balance and see whether or not some of those presumptions are necessary

:36:16. > :36:18.and I would urge him to do so. The Secretary of State has been a real

:36:19. > :36:23.champion of our pensioners with the triple lock, automatic enrolment, no

:36:24. > :36:28.benefiting over 6 million people. Does my friend back not agree that

:36:29. > :36:33.in the light of cross-party support -- now benefiting. Cross-party

:36:34. > :36:36.support for the review in 2014 it is no rank hypocrisy for the Labour

:36:37. > :36:44.front bench to try to make political capital out of this today? I would

:36:45. > :36:48.tell my right honourable friend, Mr Speaker, that I do genuinely regret

:36:49. > :36:51.the consensus achieved in the 2014 legislation has now been tossed

:36:52. > :36:56.aside, literally in a matter of hours. Apparently this morning, over

:36:57. > :37:00.breakfast, by the opposition, and I would urge them to remember what

:37:01. > :37:03.their own spokesperson back in 2014 said, instead of chuntering away on

:37:04. > :37:08.the front bench they said categorically, we do not oppose the

:37:09. > :37:12.Act and they agreed with the regular review. I urge them to get back to

:37:13. > :37:18.the sensible position of wanting to cooperate over changes to

:37:19. > :37:22.pensionable age. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Secretary of

:37:23. > :37:27.State about the issue about different occupations? We know

:37:28. > :37:33.certain professions such as people in the armed services or Fire

:37:34. > :37:37.Brigade or police officers, were the job requires a lot of physical

:37:38. > :37:42.strength and even surgeons who perhaps later in their lives are

:37:43. > :37:45.operating on people, whether there will be ought whether Sir John

:37:46. > :37:48.Cridland has been asked to look at those people's retirement ages as

:37:49. > :37:54.well? I would say to the honourable lady again that is a legitimate

:37:55. > :37:57.question, very legitimate. I believe it is within the scope for to raise

:37:58. > :38:00.this with John Cridland and I would urge her to do so. A number of

:38:01. > :38:04.similar points are being made. Of course he has to make a final

:38:05. > :38:07.decision about what the balance of his review will look like within the

:38:08. > :38:10.terms of reference but I think it is certainly within the terms of

:38:11. > :38:15.reference and I would urge him to do so. I wish her own front bench had

:38:16. > :38:19.taken such a positive review. Having listened to this discussion for 45

:38:20. > :38:23.minutes, setting aside the bluster from some of the opposition parties,

:38:24. > :38:26.the only point of live versions I can see on what is a five-year

:38:27. > :38:32.statutory enquirer -- point of diversion I can see, is whether or

:38:33. > :38:34.not the Government included are required on whether it includes

:38:35. > :38:37.affordability. Would my right honourable friend agree with me that

:38:38. > :38:43.if that is the case of affordability should definitely be part of any

:38:44. > :38:49.inquiry into our pension system? With the national debt of ?1.7

:38:50. > :38:53.trillion, ?24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, it

:38:54. > :38:57.would be a crime for the Government not to consider whether our pension

:38:58. > :39:00.age is indeed affordable and I hope the other countries, the Labour

:39:01. > :39:03.Party and particular the Lib Dems, where this was the only point of

:39:04. > :39:08.difference their spokesman could raise, it would reconsider. I would

:39:09. > :39:12.say I agree with my honourable friend. I thought there was

:39:13. > :39:15.consensus over this and that is apparently being torn up. I urge the

:39:16. > :39:19.opposition front bench to change their minds and engage with this. Of

:39:20. > :39:22.course affordability is included. I do not know of any Government who

:39:23. > :39:27.would genuinely say we will make some change and not think about

:39:28. > :39:31.whether it is affordable. Hang on a second, perhaps the last Labour

:39:32. > :39:35.Government. So I am very sad to hear they are following their normal

:39:36. > :39:37.trend which is to shout a lot and make commitments they could never

:39:38. > :39:42.possibly do if they were in government.

:39:43. > :39:47.Could the Secretary of State rule out the prospect of the retirement

:39:48. > :39:51.age being increased to 84 as a result of this review, as was

:39:52. > :39:56.predicted by the previous pensions minister Steve Way? Is there any

:39:57. > :40:03.limit that this government is prepared to step on the upper limit

:40:04. > :40:08.of the state retirement age? Honourable lady should not always

:40:09. > :40:10.necessarily believe everything she reads in the papers. The newspapers

:40:11. > :40:14.have their own reasons for publishing stuff. There is nothing

:40:15. > :40:19.in this review that talks about that. I have categorically said that

:40:20. > :40:22.John Cridland is there to review within the terms of reference where

:40:23. > :40:25.we should go in with the state pension ages and to look at other

:40:26. > :40:33.aspects of affordability within the context of what people have done. If

:40:34. > :40:37.the honourable lady has an issue to raise, she should raise it with him.

:40:38. > :40:42.I will tell you what is untenable. It is that somehow, her party

:40:43. > :40:50.opposes an independent and regular review of state pension. Why would

:40:51. > :40:54.anybody do that? I hear the front bench shouting that it is rigged.

:40:55. > :41:01.The only thing rid of the way he got onto the front bench as opposition

:41:02. > :41:07.spokesman! As someone who accepted the rise in his own pension age to

:41:08. > :41:10.68 in 2007, against all evidence presented by the party opposite, it

:41:11. > :41:14.has been disappointed to hear the tenor of comments today. With the

:41:15. > :41:17.Secretary of State assure me that this review will be independent and

:41:18. > :41:22.will take into account factors from across the country, not just London

:41:23. > :41:25.and the south-east, around life expectancy is, and that we will get

:41:26. > :41:29.because drug have engaged with the opposition, if not with the shadow

:41:30. > :41:33.Secretary of State, with the shadow pensions minister? I would agree. My

:41:34. > :41:39.honourable friend raised this in the course of the exchange, and he is

:41:40. > :41:42.right. The important thing is that we have an independent review, and

:41:43. > :41:46.we own up to decisions we have to take. I just wish the other side

:41:47. > :41:49.would accept that they took decisions about the state pension

:41:50. > :41:56.age early. They have collective amnesia now about anything that

:41:57. > :42:00.happened not just before 2010, but apparently pre-2015. Shortly, I

:42:01. > :42:03.expected will be pre-2016 and it will go on like that. They should

:42:04. > :42:07.wake up, smell the coffee and get on with being in opposition in the hope

:42:08. > :42:16.of being in government, not perpetually in opposition. I think

:42:17. > :42:19.it is disappointing that further changes are being considered, given

:42:20. > :42:23.that the government has not even been able to fix the botched mess it

:42:24. > :42:27.has made for women born in the 1950s. Several of those have come to

:42:28. > :42:31.my surgery, some facing losses of up to ?30,000 as a result of the unfair

:42:32. > :42:34.transition. I wonder how many women have come to the Secretary of

:42:35. > :42:42.State's surgeries, and what message he has had for them? I would simply

:42:43. > :42:49.say to the honourable gentleman that the nature of this review is looking

:42:50. > :42:56.forward beyond 2028. It would be with him and his party accepting the

:42:57. > :43:00.fact that in Scotland, there are particular demographic issues. These

:43:01. > :43:05.are things that I would hope they would welcome the opportunity of an

:43:06. > :43:09.independent review to look at aspects that they may wish to raise

:43:10. > :43:14.about problems in Scotland. I would urge them to do that, and I take

:43:15. > :43:17.from the nodding his head that he welcomes this independent review,

:43:18. > :43:24.unlike the front bench of the Labour Party. Will the Secretary of State

:43:25. > :43:30.ensure that the John Cridland review removes the indication from life

:43:31. > :43:34.expectancy onto mental and physical health indicators, particularly for

:43:35. > :43:36.postmenopausal women, and ensure that people can have a

:43:37. > :43:41.quality-of-life post retirement so that we can gain from that social

:43:42. > :43:46.capital and people can look forward to their retirement? The honourable

:43:47. > :43:51.lady raises a legitimate set of issues. And these are issues that

:43:52. > :43:56.have to be considered about how we deal with people retiring, what

:43:57. > :44:00.quality-of-life they have. I agree with her. I suggest she talks to the

:44:01. > :44:13.review and asks them to find some way to consider those issues. Order.

:44:14. > :44:19.Urgent question, Stuart Seaman Donald. I wanted to ask the

:44:20. > :44:21.Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a

:44:22. > :44:26.statement on the developing humanitarian crisis in Greece. The

:44:27. > :44:30.Secretary of State for International Development. Secretary Justine

:44:31. > :44:36.Greening. I am delighted to be able to be here, responding to this

:44:37. > :44:40.urgent question. A situation of humanitarian concern is unfolding in

:44:41. > :44:46.Greece. There are reportedly 10,000 people at the border between Reese

:44:47. > :44:50.and Macedonia. The UNHCR is reporting that 24,000 or more people

:44:51. > :44:57.may be stranded across Greece, and Greek or 30s have established two

:44:58. > :45:04.camps at the border, with a projected total capacity of 12,000

:45:05. > :45:06.500. The crowd conditions are putting pressure is on delivering

:45:07. > :45:09.essential support to people. The UK is already providing nearly ?55

:45:10. > :45:11.million to the Mediterranean migration crisis response. This

:45:12. > :45:15.includes essential supplies such as blankets, sleeping mats and tents,

:45:16. > :45:19.as well as support through non-governmental organisations and

:45:20. > :45:23.UN agencies. The UK has also established a new refugee children

:45:24. > :45:27.fund for Europe, which will meet the needs of unaccompanied and separated

:45:28. > :45:30.children. We should remember that the majority of Syrians who have

:45:31. > :45:34.fled Syria are in countries neighbouring Syria. That is why the

:45:35. > :45:38.UK continues to be at the forefront of the response to the crisis in the

:45:39. > :45:42.region. The recent London conference on Syria raised over $11 billion,

:45:43. > :45:45.with the Prime Minister announcing that the UK would more than double

:45:46. > :45:59.our total pledged to the Syria crosses from one point 12 billion

:46:00. > :46:09.pounds to over 3 billion -- one 3p. -- ?1.3 billion. The UK is working

:46:10. > :46:16.across the EU to ensure that is you manage tearing crisis is averted and

:46:17. > :46:18.that the most vulnerable people are protected and provided with shelter.

:46:19. > :46:21.We are monitoring the situation and we stand ready to meet other

:46:22. > :46:26.priority needs in assembling a team to go to Greece to assess the

:46:27. > :46:30.situation. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer.

:46:31. > :46:32.We all recognise the important role in the department has played in

:46:33. > :46:36.responding to the Germanic terrier crosses. Sadly, I regret that the

:46:37. > :46:40.Senate can be said of the Home Office, hence my question was

:46:41. > :46:45.targeted at her colleagues. Yesterday, the UN High Commissioner

:46:46. > :46:48.for Refugees warned that Europe faces and imminent humanitarian

:46:49. > :46:52.crisis, largely of its own making. And as the Secretary of State has

:46:53. > :46:55.reported, the UN described crowding, shortages of food, shelter, water

:46:56. > :47:01.and sanitation in Greece. I agree that firstly, we do need a response

:47:02. > :47:06.in terms of emergency aid. The ?55 million she has referred to is

:47:07. > :47:09.indeed welcome. But we also need an urgent strategic response from other

:47:10. > :47:13.European states to share responsibility for supporting Greece

:47:14. > :47:16.in assessing and hosting arrivals. Does the Secretary of State not

:47:17. > :47:20.agree with me that border closures, tear gas and rubber bullets do not

:47:21. > :47:27.amount to the required strategic response? Isn't it obvious that

:47:28. > :47:33.Greece cannot manage this situation alone? Will the Secretary of State

:47:34. > :47:37.agree with the United Nations that it remains vital that the European

:47:38. > :47:43.agreements on relocation are prioritised and incremented? If not,

:47:44. > :47:46.who does the government think should take on this responsibility? Is it

:47:47. > :47:50.the government's position that Greece alone must shoulder that

:47:51. > :47:54.responsible at the? On the other hand, if she does agree that the

:47:55. > :47:56.challenge should be shared through relocation, how can the UK

:47:57. > :48:02.Government defend not playing its part? Finally, will she also back UN

:48:03. > :48:05.calls for increased regular pathways for admission of refugees from

:48:06. > :48:08.countries neighbouring Syria in light of the unfolding tragedy, will

:48:09. > :48:14.the government look again at increased recent, expanded family

:48:15. > :48:18.reunification, private sponsorship and humanitarian and refugee,

:48:19. > :48:20.student and work visas? Surely in this way, we can reduce dangerous

:48:21. > :48:30.journeys, save lives and support Greece. If I can start with his

:48:31. > :48:34.final point, he is right that the issue of making sure people who are

:48:35. > :48:42.refugees can get on with life, even though they are not at home, is

:48:43. > :48:45.important. That is why we are focused not just on jobs and work

:48:46. > :48:51.permits so that refugees can work in neighbouring countries like Jordan

:48:52. > :48:56.and Lebanon, we also focused on Mickey sure children are back in

:48:57. > :49:04.school -- making sure they are back in school. Those new steps are

:49:05. > :49:08.important in understanding how we can more comprehensively tackle this

:49:09. > :49:15.sort of crisis that we see a in a tin from the conflict in Syria. To

:49:16. > :49:20.take the other points he has raised, the UK has worked with the UN. We

:49:21. > :49:25.hosted the London conference with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.

:49:26. > :49:31.I welcome the announcement that has just come out of the EU today around

:49:32. > :49:39.the step up in support that will be provided for refugees arriving in

:49:40. > :49:42.Europe. It has literally just been made as an announcement, but our

:49:43. > :49:46.initial look at what it is suggesting needs to take place is

:49:47. > :49:52.precisely the response that the UK has already put in place in Europe.

:49:53. > :49:56.It is focused on enabling fantastic NGOs who are already there to do a

:49:57. > :50:06.better job, enabling the UNHCR to do a stronger job, particularly on

:50:07. > :50:09.processing refugees. As we get into the detail of that announcement, it

:50:10. > :50:13.will hopefully give us more indication of what the plans are,

:50:14. > :50:18.but they look like ones that we welcome. He asked more broadly about

:50:19. > :50:23.how Europe is responding to this crisis. There are two different

:50:24. > :50:29.aspects to it alongside the pieces I have mentioned. One is sensible

:50:30. > :50:36.border control. The UK is not part of the Schengen area, for reasons

:50:37. > :50:42.that have become clear over recent months. But it is important that we

:50:43. > :50:46.see countries like Greece helped to make sure they can manage their

:50:47. > :50:52.borders more effectively. It is why our Home Office has worked with the

:50:53. > :50:59.Greek authorities to do that. It is also important that when refugees

:51:00. > :51:02.arrive in Europe, they make use of mechanisms such as the Dublin

:51:03. > :51:06.Convention. We have a core ward mated approach of dealing with

:51:07. > :51:13.refugees within Europe -- a coordinated approach. We have taken

:51:14. > :51:18.a clip position on the fact that we have always had a proud history of

:51:19. > :51:23.accepting people seeking asylum and accepting refugees. But that needs

:51:24. > :51:27.to happen in a way that is sensibly managed for the people wanting to

:51:28. > :51:35.claim asylum and refugee status, but also for the country's people are

:51:36. > :51:38.seeking to get safety in. I am pleased to hear my right honourable

:51:39. > :51:42.friend recognise that we are talking about refugees and not migrants, and

:51:43. > :51:51.that the two are different. We are dealing with men, women and children

:51:52. > :51:54.who are fleeing war zones. This country has a proud tradition which

:51:55. > :51:56.is being honoured now in seeking to assist. But the European Union

:51:57. > :51:59.response has been chaotic. The honourable gentleman is right.

:52:00. > :52:05.Rubber bullets and tear gas, against children and women, is not the

:52:06. > :52:08.answer. So when will my right honourable friend and her friends in

:52:09. > :52:16.our cabinet seek to convene a European heating to produce a proper

:52:17. > :52:20.and holistic response? This comprehensive approach that is

:52:21. > :52:25.required, as he rightly says, is something we have pressed for for

:52:26. > :52:31.many months now. It is not a crisis that has just emerged over the last

:52:32. > :52:35.few weeks. There will be any EU -Turkey summit in the coming week

:52:36. > :52:43.which gives us a good chance to again see a more structured response

:52:44. > :52:48.from the European Union. All the way through this process, the UK

:52:49. > :52:53.approach has steadily emerged as the one with the most sense. Firstly, it

:52:54. > :52:55.is dealing with the root causes, helping people where they are in the

:52:56. > :53:00.region, looking to some of the reasons why they have lost hope

:53:01. > :53:05.about staying there, which is a lack of jobs and their children being

:53:06. > :53:09.unable to get back into school. And then when people do need to

:53:10. > :53:13.relocate, we are enabling them to do that safely and working with the

:53:14. > :53:18.UNHCR and other agencies to identify those most vulnerable people in the

:53:19. > :53:25.region, and for those who need to be relocated, doing that in a managed

:53:26. > :53:29.way that is not just better for them because they don't have to put their

:53:30. > :53:32.lives in the hands of a people smuggler, but also better for the

:53:33. > :53:38.countries they are going to, because it is enabling them to work with

:53:39. > :53:43.communities to make sure they are able to take on board refugees who

:53:44. > :53:45.are being relocated and have all the right services in place for them

:53:46. > :53:54.when they arrive. The Secretary of State has spoken

:53:55. > :53:59.again about what the Government is doing for refugees in the region of

:54:00. > :54:05.the Middle East. This is wholly commendable but this question is

:54:06. > :54:08.about the millions, including half a million Syrian, refugees in Europe,

:54:09. > :54:13.and in particular the plight of Greece. I was in Greece last month.

:54:14. > :54:21.The Greek people have been as hospitable as they can be, and there

:54:22. > :54:24.prime minister said this week that with the closure of the Macedonian

:54:25. > :54:30.border and tens of thousands of people backing up in Greece, on the

:54:31. > :54:36.streets of Athens, on those islands, Greece runs the risk of becoming a

:54:37. > :54:39.permanent warehouse of souls. What is the Government doing to get

:54:40. > :54:43.bilateral aid to the Greeks in this crisis? What is the Government doing

:54:44. > :54:49.to encourage Turkey to do something about the thousands of refugees

:54:50. > :54:53.being shipped from Turkey into Greece, some of them now

:54:54. > :54:56.increasingly coming from North Africa? What pressure is the

:54:57. > :55:02.Government bringing to bear on Turkey to put a stop to this, to

:55:03. > :55:05.make it easier for them to stay in Turkey, the work and get education

:55:06. > :55:12.for their children? In respect of the fact we are not there, what is

:55:13. > :55:16.the Government doing to work with fellow members of the European

:55:17. > :55:21.family of nations to be more effective against the people

:55:22. > :55:27.traffickers, to provide safe routes for the refugees and, above all, how

:55:28. > :55:28.can we turn our backs on the people of Greece who risked being

:55:29. > :55:33.overwhelmed because of that absence overwhelmed because of that absence

:55:34. > :55:37.of a strategic approach and humanitarian approach to this issue

:55:38. > :55:46.by all of the EU nations, including the UK? Well, I would strongly

:55:47. > :55:50.disagree with her very last statement because actually the

:55:51. > :55:55.reality is we are the largest contributed to the humanitarian

:55:56. > :56:00.response here in Europe as well. In fact we have provided nearly ?55

:56:01. > :56:04.million to the Mediterranean migration crisis and she will be

:56:05. > :56:08.aware of the work we have done in the Mediterranean helping to save

:56:09. > :56:12.lives with our own Royal Navy and ships out there are saving lives

:56:13. > :56:15.over recent months. She asked about what we have done in Greece but

:56:16. > :56:23.actually we have provided ?90 million in support in total, a lot

:56:24. > :56:28.to Greece, some helping NGOs on the ground, some helping amazing

:56:29. > :56:32.organisations like the Red Cross and some helping the International

:56:33. > :56:36.organisation for Migration and we have also done work with Greece in

:56:37. > :56:40.helping it manage its borders more effectively. The reality is actually

:56:41. > :56:44.the work that Britain is doing is actually showing the way, frankly,

:56:45. > :56:49.for other member states in Europe, around what is sensible, thoughtful

:56:50. > :56:52.approach to this crisis is that can help us not only deal with root

:56:53. > :56:58.causes which is what we are doing in the region, but also to show, yes,

:56:59. > :57:01.we do all need to make sure we are providing support to refugees who

:57:02. > :57:04.are arriving closer to home here in Europe and that is precisely what

:57:05. > :57:11.the UK is also leading the way in doing. Mr Speaker, can I

:57:12. > :57:15.congratulate the Secretary of State and her team in doing it very

:57:16. > :57:20.difficult job in difficult circumstances. The International

:57:21. > :57:26.organisation for migration suggest 90,000 people have entered Greece in

:57:27. > :57:29.the last two months alone, eight times as more as last year and not

:57:30. > :57:31.all are silly refugees, albeit the all are silly refugees, albeit the

:57:32. > :57:37.majority are. What more can the Government do to make sure the offs

:57:38. > :57:42.of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Morocco make up the

:57:43. > :57:45.other percentage. Think part of this is making sure we do look at some of

:57:46. > :57:50.the root causes causing refugees to make those journeys in the first

:57:51. > :57:55.place. He will be aware of the work we are doing in particular both in

:57:56. > :57:59.Afghanistan, and similarly for those Afghanistan, and similarly for those

:58:00. > :58:06.people who are shifting from parts of Africa, much of our aid programme

:58:07. > :58:08.is of course intrinsically focused on improving opportunities in the

:58:09. > :58:13.countries where those young people are growing up. In the end only

:58:14. > :58:18.solution to these sorts of crises are peace, in the case of those

:58:19. > :58:21.driven by conflict, such as we are seeing in Syria, but then

:58:22. > :58:24.development in the case of those migration flows that are simply due

:58:25. > :58:28.to people feeling they do not have opportunities on their own doorstep

:58:29. > :58:31.and therefore they want to find better ones elsewhere, and in

:58:32. > :58:39.relation to Turkey, this is a country that currently has 2 million

:58:40. > :58:42.Syrian refugees, and I think we should frankly praise the generosity

:58:43. > :58:47.of Turkey and Turkish communities, many of which I have had a chance to

:58:48. > :58:51.meet over the last few years. For the hospitality that they have

:58:52. > :58:55.provided. I think we will rise to the challenge of dealing with this

:58:56. > :58:59.crisis, not by pointing the finger at countries, which I know it is

:59:00. > :59:03.tempting to do, we would like to see other countries in Europe doing

:59:04. > :59:07.more, contributing more, as the UK has done, but in the end the way we

:59:08. > :59:10.will rise to the challenge of dealing with this crisis is to work

:59:11. > :59:15.more collaboratively together but also to do that in a thoughtful way

:59:16. > :59:18.that is very evidence -based and understands the drive is not what is

:59:19. > :59:21.making people move but at the same thing does not accept the

:59:22. > :59:27.criminality we are seeing in terms of the people smuggling taking place

:59:28. > :59:32.and deals with that as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker will stop we

:59:33. > :59:36.recognise the role Britain has played but can she confirmed her

:59:37. > :59:42.answer today does not confirm any new announcements of funding and

:59:43. > :59:48.resource, and was this crisis is some foreseen, this latest crisis,

:59:49. > :59:52.but I'm the Government funding announcement it has already made?

:59:53. > :59:55.And also what analysis was carried out in general before it decided to

:59:56. > :59:59.double its pledge? The UK Government response cannot simply be about

:00:00. > :00:04.funding but has two at some point take its fair share of refugees from

:00:05. > :00:08.Europe to the native kingdom and 20,000 over four years by anyone's

:00:09. > :00:15.calculation is not a fair share. First of all, our pledge which was

:00:16. > :00:20.to double the existing support we are giving to this area crisis and

:00:21. > :00:23.the region affected by this crisis was a sensible one that frankly

:00:24. > :00:27.reflects the reality of the situation on the ground and what is

:00:28. > :00:31.needed, and also the fact that if we really are going to do the right

:00:32. > :00:36.thing, that meant going beyond simply providing day-to-day

:00:37. > :00:38.life-saving supplies but also getting children back in school. I

:00:39. > :00:42.do not agree with his characterisation of Britain not

:00:43. > :00:46.having played its role in helping people more directly in the region

:00:47. > :00:52.to relocate. I think we have a sensible approach on that that the

:00:53. > :00:55.Prime Minister has set out himself, taking 20,000 people over the course

:00:56. > :01:00.of this Parliament. These are going to be the most vulnerable people who

:01:01. > :01:05.otherwise would have absolutely no prospect of being able to get out of

:01:06. > :01:08.that region. We are working directly with UN agencies to help those

:01:09. > :01:12.people do just that and we're working with local around our

:01:13. > :01:16.country and I pay tribute to the fact that I know there will be those

:01:17. > :01:19.in Scotland were also going to provide a home to these people, to

:01:20. > :01:22.make sure that when we do bring people to the UK it is done in a

:01:23. > :01:29.sensible measure and effective manner. -- sensible, measured and

:01:30. > :01:32.effective manner. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Secretary

:01:33. > :01:36.of State and both ministers are coming here today. I know they care

:01:37. > :01:40.deeply about the plight of refugees and working exceptionally hard on

:01:41. > :01:45.this and I don't doubt that for a minute. However, given what I saw

:01:46. > :01:50.when I visited Lesbos month ago I am not surprised by the chaos Greece is

:01:51. > :01:55.in no. You could see it coming. The Secretary of State Caitlin agreed to

:01:56. > :02:00.meet with me -- is in now. I remain convinced the UK has a greater

:02:01. > :02:03.leadership role to play in ensuring Greece is supported and not just

:02:04. > :02:06.left to collapse and be abandoned by the rest of Europe which is

:02:07. > :02:11.absolutely what is happening now. In the next of this whole sorry mess,

:02:12. > :02:16.there are unaccompanied, let's call them by what they really are,

:02:17. > :02:22.orphaned children, who are still there and in need of error care and

:02:23. > :02:26.hope and I believe the UK and other countries have a moral obligation to

:02:27. > :02:34.home then -- our care. Blankets, and I am being simplistic, but that is

:02:35. > :02:38.not enough. Our leadership in the region is exemplary and I will not

:02:39. > :02:47.hear a word said against it but there are orphaned children in

:02:48. > :02:51.Europe now. Can we not take some? I am so very happy to meet with her

:02:52. > :02:55.and I thank her for her comments. I am sorry she was not able to make

:02:56. > :02:58.the meeting we did have planned, and she is quite right to raise the

:02:59. > :03:03.issue of how children are affected by this crisis. It is one of the

:03:04. > :03:07.reasons why we have put education at the heart of our response and in

:03:08. > :03:13.relation to those children who are arriving in Europe. She will be

:03:14. > :03:17.aware we have specifically announced a ?10 million fund but that is very

:03:18. > :03:24.much to make sure we have a much better system across Europe of

:03:25. > :03:27.identifying children working with each NCR, making sure they are

:03:28. > :03:33.specifically protected and put into safe spaces and enabled to get to

:03:34. > :03:36.where they are trying to get to in a way that does not put them any more

:03:37. > :03:40.at risk. I would also say to her that there are a number of countries

:03:41. > :03:45.of course across the European Union that could also help provide safety

:03:46. > :03:49.for children and that is what we want to see happening, we want to

:03:50. > :03:57.see a more co-ordinated approach and she will be aware we are also

:03:58. > :04:00.extending our Vulnerable Person's Scheme to include unaccompanied

:04:01. > :04:06.children. The one piece of good news in all of this is that in part -- as

:04:07. > :04:08.part of the work done in the region itself, overwhelmingly children

:04:09. > :04:12.arriving in countries like Jordan and Lebanon are being reunited with

:04:13. > :04:15.their family and I can absolutely reassured her that our desire in all

:04:16. > :04:19.are taken care of. Implicit in her are taken care of. Implicit in her

:04:20. > :04:25.assumption is that many of these children are wanting to come to the

:04:26. > :04:29.UK, but of course under the Dublin Convention if they are able to claim

:04:30. > :04:33.asylum, if they have links in the UK, we can consider those cases and

:04:34. > :04:38.it is one of the reasons why registering and making sure children

:04:39. > :04:41.are inside the system, it is so important and that is particularly

:04:42. > :04:46.what we are focusing on and ensuring happens now. As she will know, it

:04:47. > :04:49.can be a very chaotic situation and sometimes one of the biggest

:04:50. > :04:52.challenges we face is that children and people themselves are very

:04:53. > :04:57.reluctant to come forward to authorities and that is also a

:04:58. > :05:02.problem we're trying to get over. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The situation

:05:03. > :05:06.in Greece now is just becoming dangerous, and could well implode as

:05:07. > :05:10.the crisis gets worse. I am sure she will agree that in fact the

:05:11. > :05:14.humanitarian aid from both Britain and the EU is not yet enough to help

:05:15. > :05:20.Greece cope with this crisis. Will she also agree to look at how many

:05:21. > :05:25.of the refugees who are arriving in Greece in fact have family in

:05:26. > :05:30.Britain who could look after them? Could she get that assessment done

:05:31. > :05:35.and also look at whether the refugee resettlement programme could be

:05:36. > :05:40.extended, not simply to cope with young unaccompanied refugees, as the

:05:41. > :05:43.member for South Cambridge has said, but also others with family in

:05:44. > :05:49.Britain who could look after them, so Britain could do its bit in a

:05:50. > :05:54.fair way? I think today's announcement from the EU is possibly

:05:55. > :05:58.one of the first big steps we are seeing taken towards making sure

:05:59. > :06:03.that the level of response needed in Europe itself is at the scale

:06:04. > :06:07.required, and I agree with her on that. I think countries like Britain

:06:08. > :06:12.have stepped forward to do what we can. Working where we can with the

:06:13. > :06:16.Greek authorities, but more is required, and it is good to see that

:06:17. > :06:20.announcement will be scaling up against those needs. In terms of her

:06:21. > :06:27.second point, I would simply reiterate to her that we have good

:06:28. > :06:32.and sound processes that sit behind our asylum and refugee system here

:06:33. > :06:37.in the UK. We are busily not part of the Schengen area. I think those are

:06:38. > :06:41.perfectly sensible approach is -- obviously not part of the Schengen

:06:42. > :06:46.area. Sensible to work through and find out with these refugees will

:06:47. > :06:50.end up. We will not be part of some pan EU relocation approach. We think

:06:51. > :06:53.that simply plays into the hands of people smugglers who are perhaps the

:06:54. > :06:57.only people who gain from the present situation we are seeing and

:06:58. > :07:00.what we would prefer to do is I think much more sensible approach

:07:01. > :07:09.which is taking people directly from the region. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:07:10. > :07:12.My right honourable friend is right to focus on the transportation

:07:13. > :07:17.crisis what would she also agreed is the wider region which is imported?

:07:18. > :07:20.Which she agree that for those who criticise the international aid

:07:21. > :07:25.budget that actually by not putting that investment in countries like

:07:26. > :07:31.Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, taking millions of refugees, we would have

:07:32. > :07:34.a far bigger reduction in that and this is not just morally the right

:07:35. > :07:41.thing but also the sensible thing to do? I do agree with him very

:07:42. > :07:46.strongly. I think what you see in the UK aid strategy is essentially

:07:47. > :07:50.that in doing the right thing, by some of the poorest and most

:07:51. > :07:52.vulnerable people in the world, we also do the right thing by

:07:53. > :07:58.ourselves. Perhaps the worst longest term challenge of many that Syria is

:07:59. > :08:01.facing at the moment is that many of its best and brightest are simply

:08:02. > :08:05.leaving the region so the more we can help people stay close to home,

:08:06. > :08:09.close to their families, actually the more we prepare for a Syria at

:08:10. > :08:14.some point to be able to have the people it needs to be there to help

:08:15. > :08:18.it get back on its feet, although as it stands today, Mr Speaker, that

:08:19. > :08:21.seems like a prospect that will be some way off, but it does not mean

:08:22. > :08:35.we should not try to do to achieve it.

:08:36. > :08:44.The honourable member for Cumbernauld and I were told last

:08:45. > :08:47.Thursday by Europol that 90% of the migrants who have entered the EU do

:08:48. > :08:52.so because they are supported by organised criminal gangs. When will

:08:53. > :08:57.we get a statement from ministers to this House to tell us that there is

:08:58. > :09:00.success against these criminal gangs that are doing so much damage to the

:09:01. > :09:05.people of Europe? And when is Turkey going to get the 3 billion euros we

:09:06. > :09:12.promised them for their help in dealing with this crisis? He will

:09:13. > :09:15.see that on the bench with me is a Home Office minister and I am sure

:09:16. > :09:20.he will respond to his point in relation to progress on tackling the

:09:21. > :09:26.organised criminal gangs. Our National Crime Agency works with

:09:27. > :09:29.Europol on that. He will also be aware that we played our role in

:09:30. > :09:35.saving lives in the Mediterranean, with the Royal Navy and Border

:09:36. > :09:40.Force. In relation to the 3 billion euros package, that is now agreed.

:09:41. > :09:44.We got it agreed for the London conference, which was a step

:09:45. > :09:51.forward. The key is to make sure that aid is delivered but also with

:09:52. > :10:00.a strategy behind how it is invested. That needs to involve not

:10:01. > :10:03.just the day-to-day support of refugees who Turkey are very

:10:04. > :10:08.generously hosting. They have 2 million refugees. But we also need

:10:09. > :10:15.progress on effective border control. And the package now in

:10:16. > :10:18.place needs to be not only carefully delivered on by the EU, but also by

:10:19. > :10:24.Turkey in terms of how it uses that investment. I congratulate my right

:10:25. > :10:29.honourable friend on the position she has taken in this crisis. I

:10:30. > :10:36.would urge her to continue to put the emphasis on the refugee camps,

:10:37. > :10:41.which will have a big destabilisation effect in places

:10:42. > :10:44.like Jordan. I wonder if, given the expertise of her department, she

:10:45. > :10:51.could say more about the technical assistance she is providing to

:10:52. > :10:57.Greece? It is in several different areas. Part of it is Home Office

:10:58. > :11:03.related in relation to management of the border. Part of it is

:11:04. > :11:10.humanitarian and working through both UNHCR and also latterly, some

:11:11. > :11:14.assistance to Unicef on child protection. So it is in a range of

:11:15. > :11:20.areas. Although we often focus on the amounts of aid we are giving,

:11:21. > :11:24.often, some of the most effective aid is this technical assistance,

:11:25. > :11:32.which is very cost-effective and also effective in terms of its

:11:33. > :11:35.outcomes. The Secretary of State is right that to solve this crisis will

:11:36. > :11:41.require a coordinated approach across Europe. But surely it is

:11:42. > :11:48.apparent that in order to get that coordinated approach, we have to

:11:49. > :11:51.have some acts of political leadership. Last year, there were

:11:52. > :11:55.90,000 unaccompanied children registered as applying for asylum in

:11:56. > :12:01.Europe. Does that not demonstrate the modesty of the call for this

:12:02. > :12:06.country to take 3000? Surely this is a time when the government should

:12:07. > :12:13.say yes to that modest call for political leadership. I think we

:12:14. > :12:17.have shown political leadership, not just in terms of the scale and the

:12:18. > :12:21.shaping of the humanitarian response in the region, but also we have

:12:22. > :12:25.responded to it closer to home. Britain has done more than any

:12:26. > :12:29.country in terms of providing support to refugees from abroad. As

:12:30. > :12:36.I said to my honourable friend, we have done a huge amount of work on

:12:37. > :12:39.supporting unaccompanied children. There will be many parliaments

:12:40. > :12:44.across Europe that are debating this issue, but few can be as proud of

:12:45. > :12:52.the work that is not only happening across government, but that so many

:12:53. > :12:57.British people are providing to refugees across the region. I can

:12:58. > :13:01.reassure him that this issue of unaccompanied children is something

:13:02. > :13:08.we are working on and we are playing at Orrell. -- our role. I am part of

:13:09. > :13:13.the fact that this country is the biggest financial contributor to

:13:14. > :13:18.this crisis in Europe, a point that is easily dismissed by the parties

:13:19. > :13:23.opposite. However, the independent commission for aid impact is far

:13:24. > :13:29.less angry and about the contribution of the European Union.

:13:30. > :13:31.What can she do to put pressure on her interlocutors to ensure that

:13:32. > :13:36.some of the EU money that it gives to loony projects is diverted to

:13:37. > :13:45.assist in this crisis within our own European borders? As he probably

:13:46. > :13:50.knows, I am what I would call an aide disciplinarian. It is my in

:13:51. > :13:54.eight chartered accountant that means either with me to see

:13:55. > :13:58.effective projects that are well run and deliver value for money. That is

:13:59. > :14:04.what we have been working with the European Union to do. Our push has

:14:05. > :14:11.been to see them mirror the UK strategy on doing more effective

:14:12. > :14:17.work in the region, but also doing more on stepping up to the plate to

:14:18. > :14:21.manage this crisis closer to home. It was good to see the European

:14:22. > :14:27.Union starting to move in the right direction, and we had further steps

:14:28. > :14:34.when we helped the London conference a few weeks ago. It is hard to

:14:35. > :14:39.overstate the national and regional dangers in Greece becoming a giant

:14:40. > :14:44.refugee camp. That is all the more the case because the refugee crisis

:14:45. > :14:47.cannot be disentangled from the crisis in the Greek economy and

:14:48. > :14:50.infrastructure. When I visited a refugee camp on one of the islands,

:14:51. > :14:55.this island had already lost its health care, as so many of the other

:14:56. > :14:58.islands had. In addition to the humanitarian assistance, which is

:14:59. > :15:02.welcome, what discussions is the British government having within the

:15:03. > :15:05.EU to discuss the state of the Greek economy, heavily dependent on

:15:06. > :15:08.tourism, and the risk that the Greek economy is going to implode under

:15:09. > :15:17.the pressure of a growing refugee crisis this year? At the minister

:15:18. > :15:23.meetings I am attending as a development minister, we do discuss

:15:24. > :15:28.the challenge is we face goes to home. We should learn from what has

:15:29. > :15:33.happened in Jordan and Lebanon that we should not expect countries just

:15:34. > :15:36.to be able to cope on their own when they suddenly see huge numbers of

:15:37. > :15:41.people flowing into them that they are not expecting, not just in terms

:15:42. > :15:48.of the financial pressures that puts on them, but also the pressures it

:15:49. > :15:54.puts on local communities. It is why I welcome the announcement that we

:15:55. > :15:59.think is coming out of the EU today. It is also the right thing to do for

:16:00. > :16:06.those people arriving, those refugees. As has been said around

:16:07. > :16:09.this House, it has taken time for the penny to drop across Europe

:16:10. > :16:14.about what needs to be done closer to home, but I am proud of the work

:16:15. > :16:18.the UK has done in trying to make sure that those levels of support

:16:19. > :16:24.that people need are now being put in place. With the right honourable

:16:25. > :16:29.lady agree that the British public want to and welcome help for genuine

:16:30. > :16:33.refugees, particularly those women and children from minority groups,

:16:34. > :16:38.but many are concerned at what they see as large numbers of young men,

:16:39. > :16:41.fit and able men who have left behind their families, often

:16:42. > :16:45.claiming to be younger than they are, often having cultural attitudes

:16:46. > :16:49.towards women and gays that are unacceptable in Europe, and often

:16:50. > :16:52.coming here for economic reasons. Do we not need to send a message that

:16:53. > :16:58.those people cannot come in large numbers? There are two elements to

:16:59. > :17:07.this. Part of it is responding to the humanitarian crisis itself, and

:17:08. > :17:14.as he says, the numbers of genuine refugees who have been caught up in

:17:15. > :17:18.the Syrian crisis, and not just that one, but the one we have seen in

:17:19. > :17:23.Iraq and the impact of Daesh in northern Iraq which has also led to

:17:24. > :17:29.refugees. As he points out, part of this is economic migrants. That is

:17:30. > :17:36.why having strong processes on refugee and asylum and migration is

:17:37. > :17:43.so important. Available in MP, I often deal with immigration

:17:44. > :17:46.casework, -- as a London MP. But having strong processes to work

:17:47. > :17:52.through those different cases is vital. That is why, in spite of the

:17:53. > :17:58.emotional pressures, we are right to stick to that plan, which is that

:17:59. > :18:03.written should have the ability to set our rules in relation to

:18:04. > :18:08.migration. This is why we are not in the Schengen area. Notwithstanding a

:18:09. > :18:15.couple of contributions from the Tory benches, the Secretary of State

:18:16. > :18:18.will have heard that there is a cross-party consensus for dealing

:18:19. > :18:22.with the humanitarian and refugee crisis. There is a great deal of

:18:23. > :18:25.cross-party support and friendly reception for the efforts that have

:18:26. > :18:28.been made in this region by the government. Can she therefore not

:18:29. > :18:33.respond by accepting that the scale of the issue we are now facing

:18:34. > :18:38.requires a re-examination of the scale of the bilateral support to

:18:39. > :18:44.Greece? Second, that without a meaningful contribution to the

:18:45. > :18:47.resettlement, it makes it more difficult to have solidarity across

:18:48. > :18:55.Europe that is required to deal with this issue properly? As ever, we

:18:56. > :18:57.will continue to make sure the support we are giving to all the

:18:58. > :19:03.countries affected by this crisis is at a level that is sensible. I have

:19:04. > :19:13.set out that Britain has done as much as any country to help refugees

:19:14. > :19:17.arriving in Europe. That is why a significant proportion of that has

:19:18. > :19:20.been to support countries like Greece, where those refugees have

:19:21. > :19:28.arrived. I don't agree with him on his second point in relation to our

:19:29. > :19:33.approach in terms of relocation. I think we have taken the sensible

:19:34. > :19:37.approach, and it is one that is increasingly recognised across

:19:38. > :19:41.Europe as being a more pragmatic approach. My final point to him

:19:42. > :19:47.would be to say that the people we are able to relocate are the most

:19:48. > :19:52.vulnerable people from that region, who have been identified by agencies

:19:53. > :19:55.like the UNHCR as needing to be removed from the region in order to

:19:56. > :20:01.get back on with their lives and to get the support they need. I think

:20:02. > :20:05.we are right to focus on the most vulnerable people affected by this

:20:06. > :20:12.crisis. That will continue to be our approach. I would like to thank the

:20:13. > :20:18.Secretary of State and the government for the leadership they

:20:19. > :20:22.have shown in being, after the United States, the biggest donor in

:20:23. > :20:30.the region of humanitarian support. Does she agree that the refugees we

:20:31. > :20:35.see from the Middle East are the victims of terrorists and

:20:36. > :20:39.traffickers, and that simply to take refugees who have already made the

:20:40. > :20:47.safety of Europe into the United Kingdom is playing into the hands of

:20:48. > :20:56.those evil traffickers that are appallingly exploiting people? I

:20:57. > :21:01.think he is right. In the end, there is no getting away from the fact

:21:02. > :21:05.that overwhelmingly, people want to stay in the region where they have

:21:06. > :21:10.their home and where they have grown up and where they are close to

:21:11. > :21:16.family. It has been a failure of the international community to do enough

:21:17. > :21:21.that has led to the sorts of flows we are seeing. It is why the London

:21:22. > :21:25.conference we had a month ago is so important, but it is also why we

:21:26. > :21:31.need to see more countries are doing more in the region. We should not

:21:32. > :21:34.lose sight of the need to see more international leadership matching

:21:35. > :21:38.that of Britain in the region, supporting refugees in countries

:21:39. > :21:42.like Jordan and Lebanon, who themselves have been very generous,

:21:43. > :21:52.but are also saying that this is a difficult situation for them to cope

:21:53. > :21:56.with. Greece is a great country and an important ally of hours, but the

:21:57. > :21:58.people of Greece are still suffering from the financial crisis. The

:21:59. > :22:04.refugee and humanitarian crisis is pushing them to the brink. Help so

:22:05. > :22:07.far from the EU has been slow. Does the Secretary of State truly believe

:22:08. > :22:13.that despite what has been said today, the European Union strategy

:22:14. > :22:20.to give the proper help is in place and doesn't she agree that more

:22:21. > :22:24.needs to be done? As ever, it is about today's announcement, which we

:22:25. > :22:29.understand to be 700 million euros plant or the next three years. It is

:22:30. > :22:38.about making sure that that money is invested sensibly. I should also say

:22:39. > :22:42.that it is important that Greece is also willing and able to work with

:22:43. > :22:46.NGOs on the ground and with UNHCR so that the best work can be done. One

:22:47. > :22:51.of the biggest things that related to children in Lebanon has enabled

:22:52. > :22:56.us to do more work on helping create jobs is simply those countries'

:22:57. > :23:01.important decisions to allow refugees to have work permits, which

:23:02. > :23:07.has then enabled us to do more to help them have the jobs to be able

:23:08. > :23:11.to support themselves. It is important that alongside the initial

:23:12. > :23:15.resource in provided, that we are able to work with the Greek

:23:16. > :23:17.authorities to make the most of that investment and help people as much

:23:18. > :24:23.as we can. data and evidence on the data. We

:24:24. > :24:31.are not in the Schengen area, which means that we can take out how we

:24:32. > :24:37.can deal with the different people seeking to come to Britain, whether

:24:38. > :24:45.they claiming asylum all wanting to come here to work as migrants. --

:24:46. > :24:48.all wanting to come here. His final point on particular minorities, he

:24:49. > :24:57.is absolutely right to highlight that. I did have a chance to go and

:24:58. > :25:04.meet some Christian minorities that had been persecuted and caught up in

:25:05. > :25:07.the Iraqi crisis. Daesh's territorial gains that they had at

:25:08. > :25:11.that time in Iraq, and I can reassure him that we are very

:25:12. > :25:15.conscious of the need to make sure that we do not lose sight of the

:25:16. > :25:19.particular groups who will be most affected by this. We have to talk

:25:20. > :25:22.about the impact of this crisis on children, but he is quite right to

:25:23. > :25:29.point out that there are whole communities targeted in some areas.

:25:30. > :25:33.There should be concerned about the impact on the social structure of

:25:34. > :25:37.Greece as a result of the double blow of being members of the euro

:25:38. > :25:41.and the effect that that has had on the economy, and now the chaotic

:25:42. > :25:45.immigration policy being issued by the EU. With the Secretary of State

:25:46. > :25:50.agree with me that many Syrian leaders looking to the future are

:25:51. > :25:55.saying that people should be kept as close to Syria as possible in

:25:56. > :26:00.well-organised camps, and not thrown into the hands of the traffickers

:26:01. > :26:06.and people smugglers into Europe. And could she tell us what

:26:07. > :26:11.discussions she has had with the Government of Jordan, Lebanon and

:26:12. > :26:15.Turkey as to the resources that they need to sustain the number of people

:26:16. > :26:20.in their own countries, and what hopes does she have of getting the

:26:21. > :26:25.other EU partners to stump up some money as the UK Government has done

:26:26. > :26:28.to support those efforts? I am very grateful for his question. We have

:26:29. > :26:32.had many discussions with those countries that have seen the biggest

:26:33. > :26:37.flows of refugees over recent years, the ones he has mentioned in

:26:38. > :26:41.particular. I think the London conference was especially important

:26:42. > :26:45.in getting other countries to step up to the plate alongside Britain.

:26:46. > :26:49.And do more to help provide the resources to those countries like

:26:50. > :26:52.Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey that they need. He will be aware that right at

:26:53. > :26:58.the end of last year, we got all the way through the year and it was just

:26:59. > :27:02.over 50% funded. Because of the London conference we literally got

:27:03. > :27:05.five weeks into the year and probably about 70 to 80% of this

:27:06. > :27:10.year's needs have already been resourced. But we still need to see

:27:11. > :27:16.other countries do more. This is a crisis that will be ongoing for some

:27:17. > :27:19.time. And therefore, whilst I was delighted with the success of the

:27:20. > :27:23.Syrian conference, it was the largest ever amount pledged in a

:27:24. > :27:28.single day, actually unfortunately that needs to be the beginning of

:27:29. > :27:36.the international community's that a response to this crisis, not the end

:27:37. > :27:40.of it. Riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets is increasing the

:27:41. > :27:45.risks for young children and increasing the price tag for

:27:46. > :27:49.trafficking. I saw it myself on Monday in Calais, and it is the same

:27:50. > :27:53.in Greece. There is no effective identification and processing of

:27:54. > :27:56.these young children, particularly with connections with the United

:27:57. > :28:01.Kingdom. Can she give me her assurance that we welcome the

:28:02. > :28:04.commitment to provide more safety for young children in Europe as well

:28:05. > :28:07.as in conflict zones and we will provide that safety for these

:28:08. > :28:11.desperately vulnerable moment children who don't have a hope of

:28:12. > :28:16.safety that the Secretary of State talks about and avoid them going

:28:17. > :28:22.into the hands of traffickers? I hope I can provide that reassurance.

:28:23. > :28:27.In a sense, it would be twofold. First ball in enabling vulnerable

:28:28. > :28:36.children in the region -- first of all. Secondly, the ?10 million fund

:28:37. > :28:41.we established is about better and stronger identification so we can

:28:42. > :28:44.get cauldron into the system, funding to ensure protection -- we

:28:45. > :28:47.can get children into the system. Funding to ensure the kind of

:28:48. > :28:55.specialist protection that Jordan need. Onto a -- vulnerable children

:28:56. > :29:00.need. Also I think it is important to recognise that even when we

:29:01. > :29:02.finally reach an end point with working and helping unaccompanied

:29:03. > :29:07.children, actually from the experiences that they will have been

:29:08. > :29:12.through will be ones that mean that they will often need further support

:29:13. > :29:14.in order to get on with their lives effectively, and the UK is making

:29:15. > :29:20.sure that where possible we can provide that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:29:21. > :29:26.The people traffickers are benefiting from a career Russian

:29:27. > :29:32.policy to weaken resolve in Syria, to create a crisis in Europe and

:29:33. > :29:38.weaken our humanitarian values. But also to week in neighbouring states

:29:39. > :29:41.such as Jordan, Lebanon, Greece and Turkey -- to weaken. Saudi Arabia

:29:42. > :29:47.told the Defence Select Committee last week that it has offered visas

:29:48. > :29:52.to Syrian families, allowing them to move in with their own family

:29:53. > :29:55.members in Saudi Arabia, they have offered them work permits and they

:29:56. > :30:01.are offering opportunities for education and employment and health

:30:02. > :30:08.care. Why can't we do the same, so those Syrian refugees with clear

:30:09. > :30:13.links to the UK? Well, we have a relocation scheme, but I should also

:30:14. > :30:18.point out that under the Dublin Convention when people do have

:30:19. > :30:24.clearly with the UK that that also provides routes for them to be able

:30:25. > :30:29.to come here, but in the end we need to have a co-ordinated and managed

:30:30. > :30:34.approach on migration, we are not in the Schengen area for all the right

:30:35. > :30:37.reasons, as we can see, and it is right for Britain to have the

:30:38. > :30:41.controls on the rules in place that we do to be able to manage the flows

:30:42. > :30:47.of people coming into the UK. In the meantime, she talks about people

:30:48. > :30:52.smugglers and the impact of bombing that is going on, although we hope

:30:53. > :30:56.the ceasefire obviously holds, it is important that we don't take that

:30:57. > :30:59.that simply play into the hands of those people, those criminals, who

:31:00. > :31:04.are gaining from this crisis, and that is why we have taken the

:31:05. > :31:10.approach we have. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I 2am proud of the UK's

:31:11. > :31:15.leading role with aid for refugees of many years now, not just the last

:31:16. > :31:20.few months -- I 2am proud. I wonder if my honourable friend could tell

:31:21. > :31:25.the house what requests Greece have made to help, and I know the UK have

:31:26. > :31:28.been seeking a comprehensive EU response to months now, but what

:31:29. > :31:32.more can we do to put pressure on the whole of the EU to at least help

:31:33. > :31:39.with the daily basic needs of those refugees in Greece to try and

:31:40. > :31:44.alleviate some of the burdens? In relation to Greece, we have had

:31:45. > :31:48.humanitarian advisers in Greece helping to make sure that the Greek

:31:49. > :31:53.strategy, the sort of way in which camps are being set up, is done as

:31:54. > :31:57.effectively as possible. It is why we are also working with the UNHCR

:31:58. > :32:03.latterly we have also helped to provide child protection officers as

:32:04. > :32:08.well. It is a complex situation over there on the ground. But I think we

:32:09. > :32:14.should recognise that the UK has not only helped to provide life-saving

:32:15. > :32:18.support and call humanitarian support, but also that kind of

:32:19. > :32:23.technical assistance that can help the Greek authorities do a more

:32:24. > :32:28.effective job themselves -- quarter humanitarian support. On his last

:32:29. > :32:32.question, I agree it is welcome to seek the European Union now respond

:32:33. > :32:38.with additional resources to mirror the kind of work that the UK has

:32:39. > :32:41.been putting our effort into, and it is badly needed and it is good to

:32:42. > :32:48.see. I think it is now coming through. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With

:32:49. > :32:53.the Secretary of State agree with me that the very last thing that

:32:54. > :33:00.families with beheadings, bombs and barbarities need is to face rubber

:33:01. > :33:05.bullets on arriving in the EU. Would she urged them to take a much more

:33:06. > :33:13.constructive role within the EU on migration? I think we are taking a

:33:14. > :33:18.constructive, proactive approach within the EU. We are not part of

:33:19. > :33:23.the Schengen area but that does not stop us from setting out our views

:33:24. > :33:27.on an effective way of dealing with this crisis. Speaking in my role as

:33:28. > :33:30.Secretary of State for International Development, I think one of the most

:33:31. > :33:35.important elements that response is targeting the cause of making people

:33:36. > :33:39.feel like they have no alternative but to put their lives in the hands

:33:40. > :33:42.of the people smugglers, that is to do a better job of supporting them

:33:43. > :33:50.in the region, close to home and close to their families. I certainly

:33:51. > :33:53.welcome the financial measures that the UK Government have announced and

:33:54. > :33:57.are providing, and I share calls for the rest of the international

:33:58. > :34:00.community to match that. The fact is, no amount of money will ever

:34:01. > :34:03.provide enough schools, hospitals and homes for four million and

:34:04. > :34:07.increasing refugees to be permanently circled in these

:34:08. > :34:15.countries that the honourable member referred to earlier on. Information

:34:16. > :34:18.from Eurostat relative to the populations of each country, Greece

:34:19. > :34:23.received twice the number of asylum applications as the UK. Italy

:34:24. > :34:27.receives 2.5 times. The EU as a whole receives five times the

:34:28. > :34:33.applications, and some countries such as Hungary and Sweden receive

:34:34. > :34:37.30 times as many asylum applications as the UK does. While she agree that

:34:38. > :34:42.these figures destroy once and for all the myths that these refugee

:34:43. > :34:47.camps full of people whose chosen destination is the UK? On this first

:34:48. > :34:52.point, we have an ambition to get every single Syrian child who is out

:34:53. > :34:56.of school because of this crisis back into school by the end of the

:34:57. > :35:01.forthcoming academic year. That was one of the key outcomes of the

:35:02. > :35:04.London conference on Syria, to get the funding for those plans. We know

:35:05. > :35:08.we can do them because we have already done half the children, got

:35:09. > :35:11.those back into school, we now need to finish off that job. And just

:35:12. > :35:16.more broadly he talked about the intentions of refugees as they

:35:17. > :35:25.arrive in the EU. The reality is their role -- there are large Dyers

:35:26. > :35:32.Boras in Germany and Sweden. Troubled by us Brits. Many people

:35:33. > :35:38.arriving in Greece want to join their family. In the end, we have to

:35:39. > :35:41.have a better co-ordinated role that recognises that countries like the

:35:42. > :35:44.UK are not in the Schengen area and we want to take or own decisions.

:35:45. > :35:50.There is no getting away from the fact that what you are seeing his

:35:51. > :35:55.people resorting to a last choice, putting their lives in the hands of

:35:56. > :35:59.the people smugglers, their first choice though is almost always to

:36:00. > :36:03.have been able to stay in the region. Internationally we need to

:36:04. > :36:15.see more action taken following the Syria conference in London to

:36:16. > :36:18.deliver on that. Order. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on the 2nd of

:36:19. > :36:22.December last year the Prime Minister came to the House and

:36:23. > :36:26.sought permission to extend the RAF air strikes that were taking place

:36:27. > :36:33.in Iraq to Syria. In the motion he undertook to provide quarterly

:36:34. > :36:38.progress reports, which would set out what the impact had been in

:36:39. > :36:45.terms of Daesh's finances, that fighters, their weapons, and I think

:36:46. > :36:49.on which the basis the support of the House was given was that there

:36:50. > :36:53.would be those regular updates so that we could see also whether for

:36:54. > :36:57.instance there had been any UK involvement in civilian casualties.

:36:58. > :37:01.We have now had a quarters in the 2nd of December, and really I am

:37:02. > :37:04.seating your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to whether there is, perhaps

:37:05. > :37:09.there is anybody the Prime Minister has sought to make such a progress

:37:10. > :37:13.report all give such a progress report on the house, and if indeed

:37:14. > :37:21.he hasn't, what action I can take to try and insure that he does? Well, a

:37:22. > :37:26.very brief I hope accurate mental calculation suggests to me that

:37:27. > :37:31.there have been 101 days since the date to which the honourable

:37:32. > :37:36.gentleman referred. It is perfectly possible that the Government is

:37:37. > :37:41.contemplating such a statement, and if it isn't doing so, it is possible

:37:42. > :37:47.that it might do so as soon as news of the point of order from the

:37:48. > :37:52.honourable gentleman wings its way towards the relevant departmental

:37:53. > :37:57.minister, will even to the Prime Minister -- or even. If that sounds

:37:58. > :38:00.by us not to be the honourable gentleman who is a very experienced

:38:01. > :38:10.member of this House and for former deputy leader of it, will be well

:38:11. > :38:14.away that he can pursue the matter, for example at business questions,

:38:15. > :38:19.or on other days beyond today of the device which can help secure a

:38:20. > :38:23.ministerial presence. Knowing the honourable gentleman as I do, I know

:38:24. > :38:28.that he will utilise all the weapons at his disposal. The day would not

:38:29. > :38:42.be complete. You will know that last week, an

:38:43. > :38:50.urgent question about mental health, you will recall that in my question,

:38:51. > :38:54.I made comment on the fact that the writers of Coronation Street had

:38:55. > :38:58.done a great service to those with mental health issues addressing some

:38:59. > :39:02.of the stigma and issues about it. Mr Speaker, it will not have a

:39:03. > :39:07.schedule noticed that the creator and original writer of Coronation

:39:08. > :39:14.Street, Mr Tony Warren, at 79, has passed away. I would ask that this

:39:15. > :39:17.be noted, the contribution made to social society as much as

:39:18. > :39:22.entertainment by pioneers like Tony Warren has led to the great

:39:23. > :39:28.improvement of the British culture and understanding of our country. My

:39:29. > :39:31.feeling is that the honourable gentleman has found his own

:39:32. > :39:38.salvation. He has achieved his mission. Moreover, he knows he has

:39:39. > :39:43.done so. No real contribution from me is required. Other than to act

:39:44. > :39:49.knowledge that the honourable gentleman has played full is and

:39:50. > :39:55.gracious tribute to someone who proved to be a change maker. I am

:39:56. > :40:03.sorry to learn of the gentleman's passing but he has been honoured by

:40:04. > :40:09.the honourable member today. Thank you. If there are no further points

:40:10. > :40:15.of order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion, Mr Jim

:40:16. > :40:23.Cunningham. Thank you very much Mr Speaker, I beg to move that a bill

:40:24. > :40:28.to make provision about the establishment by the Secretary of

:40:29. > :40:34.State of an independent review of the operation of the employment

:40:35. > :40:39.rights act of 1996 in relation to the determination of employment

:40:40. > :40:44.status and dispute resolution mechanisms for employers and

:40:45. > :40:49.employees. My bill calls for something long overdue, a full and

:40:50. > :40:55.independent review surrounding the law about self-employed workers and

:40:56. > :40:59.their rights. The need for this was demonstrated by the collapse of

:41:00. > :41:05.Citylink in my constituency and other members constituencies. It

:41:06. > :41:11.will enter into administration just over a year ago. The employees were

:41:12. > :41:20.informed on Christmas Day 2014. Roughly between two and 2700 people

:41:21. > :41:27.lost their jobs along with the thousand contractors. The situation

:41:28. > :41:31.foisted upon them warrants the reason for this bill. There were a

:41:32. > :41:37.number of concerns about the collapse and how it may have been

:41:38. > :41:40.handled better. As such, it provoked a joint report of the business

:41:41. > :41:46.innovation skills and affairs committee. Into the impact of the

:41:47. > :41:54.closure of Citylink on employment published in March 20 15. Citylink

:41:55. > :41:58.viewed their drivers as self-employed, they provided their

:41:59. > :42:03.own vans but were required to wear the company livery and not permitted

:42:04. > :42:10.to work for anyone else. These drivers were employees in all but

:42:11. > :42:15.name. The select committee said that these contractors and subcontractors

:42:16. > :42:20.provided drivers for Citylink have been particularly hurt by its

:42:21. > :42:24.closure. This is because there were unsecured creditors and were

:42:25. > :42:28.unlikely to receive the vast majority of the wages they were

:42:29. > :42:35.owed. The administration is in favour of proposals that it could

:42:36. > :42:39.only expect to receive 2p in the pound, the select committee noted

:42:40. > :42:43.that the financial difficulties of the contractors were worsened by the

:42:44. > :42:47.fact they had been encouraged to take on additional staff and

:42:48. > :42:53.vehicles and work longer hours in the lead up to Christmas despite the

:42:54. > :42:58.doubts over the company 's future. Gordon Martin of RMT told the

:42:59. > :43:05.committee is that due to assurances from Citylink, people went out and

:43:06. > :43:11.bought additional vans to put on the road and this is a human tragedy

:43:12. > :43:14.across the piece. People are in thousands of pounds of debt and who

:43:15. > :43:21.knows how they are going to get paid. This is important in outlining

:43:22. > :43:24.the vulnerable position subcontractors can be in when a

:43:25. > :43:33.company goes into Administration. The underlying issue here is that I

:43:34. > :43:36.wish to raise, that self-employment, RMT told the committee that

:43:37. > :43:40.self-employed drivers were tied to a company and had to wear the uniform

:43:41. > :43:45.and use the company livery on their vehicles. That is the way the market

:43:46. > :43:49.is unfortunately that they are employees by any definition other

:43:50. > :43:56.than the fact they had an arrangement in place with the soon

:43:57. > :44:01.to be defined company they were employed by. The select committee

:44:02. > :44:06.accepted the RMT analysis that this was a direct employment in

:44:07. > :44:14.everything but name. So why does this matter? All rights under

:44:15. > :44:18.employment law are continued on -- contingent on employee status. The

:44:19. > :44:22.self-employed have few rights, not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay or

:44:23. > :44:27.the national minimum wage and they are responsible for their own

:44:28. > :44:32.taxation. Workers have a number of basic rights including the minimum

:44:33. > :44:40.wage and Daniel Levy. Employees have the same rights as workers and --

:44:41. > :44:44.and annual leave. They also have the right to redundancy. An employee is

:44:45. > :44:51.an individual who works under a contract of employment. This means

:44:52. > :44:56.that employment rights, whether or not the contract under the person

:44:57. > :45:02.work is a contract of employment. Self-employed persons instead are

:45:03. > :45:06.regarded in law as providing a service for a customer or client.

:45:07. > :45:11.The distinction is often described as the difference between contract

:45:12. > :45:17.of service or the contract for service. The question that needs

:45:18. > :45:25.addressing is how to make sure people under the type of contract

:45:26. > :45:31.accurately reflect their work. In many situations, self-employed

:45:32. > :45:37.status is useful, what I object to is people being denied their right

:45:38. > :45:39.and the top work of contract for their work and therefore not getting

:45:40. > :45:45.the employment rights to which they should be entitled. The difficulty

:45:46. > :45:50.is how to know if you are on the right type of contract. The select

:45:51. > :45:56.committee found that these drivers were employees in all but name. What

:45:57. > :46:01.I would say to this is that it is no consolation to those that are

:46:02. > :46:06.affected. It should not be so difficult to determine whether a

:46:07. > :46:12.contract is an implement contract or not or to find out if you are on the

:46:13. > :46:20.appropriate contract where you work. Open shop employment is when you are

:46:21. > :46:24.considered as self-employed and that requires a relationship with the

:46:25. > :46:29.company and echoes the features of an employee relationship. The

:46:30. > :46:34.self-employed and individual situation is that they are an

:46:35. > :46:40.employee, there is only one way to settle this issue, that is to go to

:46:41. > :46:45.court. If you are a contract and challenge your employment status,

:46:46. > :46:49.you have to go to court. This is expensive and arduous. The question

:46:50. > :46:56.of employment status is one of the most widely litigated issues in

:46:57. > :47:00.employment law. The House of Commons library has kindly supported me in

:47:01. > :47:08.understanding the legal tests developed by the courts and tribunal

:47:09. > :47:12.'s. There are substantial criteria, each of them involving caselaw, this

:47:13. > :47:16.level of complexity in the law worsens the problem. An individual

:47:17. > :47:21.might suspect he is an employee but would be unlikely to know whether or

:47:22. > :47:25.not he is because the law is so complex. This means that some

:47:26. > :47:31.companies might be wrongly categorising employees or

:47:32. > :47:39.self-employed persons over employment rights. At any time, the

:47:40. > :47:44.Citylink collapse, I met with the Disney secretary, to his credit, he

:47:45. > :47:48.was aware of this difficulty. He told the select committee and I will

:47:49. > :47:53.quote him at length, for before the issue came up, I had initiated an

:47:54. > :47:57.investigation of implement status which we are now undertaking. There

:47:58. > :48:03.is what appears to be a growing number of people who are not

:48:04. > :48:06.genuinely self-employed and have in some sense fallen through the

:48:07. > :48:11.cracks. We are trying at the moment to get a handle on this through

:48:12. > :48:15.legislation and how we might address that problem. We certainly

:48:16. > :48:20.acknowledge that it exists and it is part of a wider debate. I would hope

:48:21. > :48:28.my successor, whoever it is, takes are seriously because there is a

:48:29. > :48:34.gap, the then secretary announced a review for October 20 14. It appears

:48:35. > :48:40.this review is in turmoil and we still don't know the outcome. In

:48:41. > :48:44.March 2015, in answer to a question, the then Minister responded that a

:48:45. > :48:48.number of teams from across the Department of business, innovation

:48:49. > :48:53.and skills had been looking into employment status and yet, an answer

:48:54. > :48:59.to a parliamentary question asked by the member for East Ham, the

:49:00. > :49:06.minister said "Officials from the Treasury, each MRC, DWP will form a

:49:07. > :49:11.cross government working group for employment status earlier this year.

:49:12. > :49:18." To which I can ask, what were they doing last year? Finally Mr Speaker,

:49:19. > :49:23.it is time for a proper review led by experts in employment law. I

:49:24. > :49:28.suggest a leading employment lawyer is appointed to chair that review.

:49:29. > :49:32.We need greater clarity as to the criteria of self-employment. We need

:49:33. > :49:37.a forum for which individuals can query or challenge their employment

:49:38. > :49:42.status without having to go to court. I would suggest an ombudsman

:49:43. > :49:47.or a government agency might be appropriate. We need penalties for

:49:48. > :49:51.companies that intentionally use bogus self-employment contracts and

:49:52. > :50:00.get full consideration for the rights and support we provide to the

:50:01. > :50:03.self-employed in today's world. Order, the question is that the

:50:04. > :50:11.honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill, as many can, say

:50:12. > :50:14.I macro. It would be helpful if the honourable gentleman would express

:50:15. > :50:19.support for his owner Bill, on the contrary, no. I think the ayes have

:50:20. > :50:28.it. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill? You macro myself busy Mr

:50:29. > :50:43.Speaker, Christine Stevens, Dennis Skinner and Steve Berget.

:50:44. > :51:14.Employment status review Bill. Second reading what Dave. Friday the

:51:15. > :51:22.11th of March, indeed. Thank you, order, we come now to the motion on

:51:23. > :51:25.the supplementary estimate in respect of the Department for

:51:26. > :51:31.business, innovation and skills. The question is as on the order paper.

:51:32. > :51:39.To open the debate I call the chair of the science and technology

:51:40. > :51:43.committee, Nicola Blackwood. Thank you Mr Speaker. We hold a position

:51:44. > :51:48.of great responsibility in the global scientific community, as a

:51:49. > :51:51.science powerhouse, we set the bar for polity research and a duty to

:51:52. > :51:57.take care of our spending and structural decisions to do more than

:51:58. > :52:00.maintain the status quo. As we face down a century filled with

:52:01. > :52:04.infinitely complex societal challenges, age, convex illness is,

:52:05. > :52:08.climate change, we have to acknowledge we are in the hot seat.

:52:09. > :52:13.Our scientists and innovators in academia and industry will be at the

:52:14. > :52:17.forefront of discoveries that will not only underpinned the

:52:18. > :52:22.productivity of our economy but also ensure the sustainability of our way

:52:23. > :52:25.of life. If we get our regulatory frameworks and immigration policy is

:52:26. > :52:29.wrong, we will be on the wrong side of history. It is for that reason

:52:30. > :52:34.that the science and technology committee chose spending on science

:52:35. > :52:38.and innovation as our first enquiry and ensure we reported in time to

:52:39. > :52:43.make recommendations ahead of the spending review and why we asked for

:52:44. > :52:45.this debate today ahead of the budget to press on recommendations,

:52:46. > :52:50.we are grateful for the government response but they have not yet been

:52:51. > :52:53.taken up. Our findings found widespread support, the Times and

:52:54. > :53:00.Financial Times published editorials endorsing our calls to increase

:53:01. > :53:04.development and the president of the Will Society joins scientists up and

:53:05. > :53:08.down the country when he said our report hit the nail squarely on the

:53:09. > :53:17.head. The evidence we received was clear, we punch well above our

:53:18. > :53:21.weight in science and innovation. I thank her for giving way. As she

:53:22. > :53:28.knows, my constituency has one of the centres of future technology and

:53:29. > :53:30.in context of the remarks she has said, I wonder what she has

:53:31. > :53:40.recommended in relation to taking that forward and future development.

:53:41. > :53:46.My honourable friend is right to be proud of this, I have visited it on

:53:47. > :53:52.more than one occasions, and one of the proposals we have made is to

:53:53. > :53:57.increase R investment in the UK, he can hear exactly what have

:53:58. > :54:01.proposed to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in that

:54:02. > :54:07.particular area of research, with just 0.9% of the world's population

:54:08. > :54:12.and 3.2% of the world's R spending, we produce 16% of the

:54:13. > :54:17.world's most cited papers, we hold over 10% of the world's patents, we

:54:18. > :54:23.have produced 18 Nobel laureates, we have four of this world's top six

:54:24. > :54:27.universities, one of them in my constituency, if I may boast! We

:54:28. > :54:31.attract more inward investment for research than any other part of

:54:32. > :54:35.Europe. But it is not enough to be proud of the exceptional impact of

:54:36. > :54:39.our research base. Because we must also be mindful of the pivotal role

:54:40. > :54:42.that they played in the goals that we have set ourselves as a nation.

:54:43. > :54:47.And that the committee, we welcome the times of this statement

:54:48. > :54:52.protecting the science budget in real terms, increasing the capital

:54:53. > :54:57.budget to ?1.1 million and maintaining the innovation budget,

:54:58. > :55:00.albeit with 165 million in lows. We are also grateful to the Business

:55:01. > :55:05.Secretary for reassuring us that not only with the ring fenced for the

:55:06. > :55:07.science budget remained but also that no additional organisations,

:55:08. > :55:11.programmes or spending lines would be added to that budget when giving

:55:12. > :55:15.evidence to the committee in January. Although we welcome that

:55:16. > :55:18.assurance we would like to see those allocations for ourselves. The

:55:19. > :55:22.Business Secretary assured us that those allocations would be finalised

:55:23. > :55:26.in mid-February. We are now in March, and I am told that the

:55:27. > :55:29.negotiations are still ongoing. Can the Minister please tell the House

:55:30. > :55:34.what the hold-up is an power is exactly when those allocations will

:55:35. > :55:39.be made public, because we are concerned that as excellent as our

:55:40. > :55:42.research bases, commercialisation, though improving, reigned sub

:55:43. > :55:47.optimal, and crucially, despite the recent sending settlement, UK

:55:48. > :55:55.investment is internationally low at a time when our competitors or

:55:56. > :56:02.increasing R investment. The UK remains 12th amongst 28 member

:56:03. > :56:09.states, in 2013 Germany invested around 3%, China 2%, Israel and

:56:10. > :56:13.career around 4.2%. There is a reason that all of our competitors

:56:14. > :56:22.or increasing their R -- and coronary eh. It is because R

:56:23. > :56:26.investment is proven for innovation and growth. Science spending is not

:56:27. > :56:29.a subsidy, it is a strategic investment that creates jobs,

:56:30. > :56:36.increases productivity and attract inward investment. I'm grateful to

:56:37. > :56:43.my honourable friend. Does she agree with me that research often leads on

:56:44. > :56:47.to some of the greatest creations, and it was decades between the

:56:48. > :56:52.discovery of the electron and being able to use it as we do today? Davey

:56:53. > :56:58.to my honourable friend is absolutely right. And I often like

:56:59. > :57:03.to quote, there are only two kinds of research, that which has been

:57:04. > :57:07.exploited and that which is yet to be. We must ensure that the pipeline

:57:08. > :57:12.all the way through to commercialisation is working at peak

:57:13. > :57:18.capacity. But we must be mindful of the fact that between 2000 and 2008,

:57:19. > :57:26.50 1% of productivity growth came from innovation. And we know that

:57:27. > :57:32.the investment in research, because the latest analysis tells us so. It

:57:33. > :57:37.shows that ?1 of public investment will increase Private funding

:57:38. > :57:41.between ?1 30 and ?1 60. It shows that firms which consistently

:57:42. > :57:47.investing R have 13% higher productivity than those who don't.

:57:48. > :57:53.It chose that for every ?1 of public investment in R, raises private

:57:54. > :57:56.sector R productivity by 20p each year in perpetuity. Our top

:57:57. > :58:00.recommendation to Government was to produce a long-term road map to

:58:01. > :58:11.increase public and private R investment up to the 3% EU target.

:58:12. > :58:13.And this would sit well alongside the national innovation plan which I

:58:14. > :58:15.understand the Business Secretary is proposing, and we are not alone in

:58:16. > :58:18.calling for this increase. Other select committees and institutions

:58:19. > :58:21.have done so before us. In fact, it was this own analysis which called

:58:22. > :58:26.for the UK to ring Greece R investment up to 2.9%, the average

:58:27. > :58:34.of our competitors -- the UK to increase. If the evidence is so

:58:35. > :58:37.compelling, what would such a road map looked like? Based on

:58:38. > :58:44.international Lal says, if the UK were to invest 3% of GDP, we would

:58:45. > :58:47.expect a third of that to come from public spending. Policies in the

:58:48. > :58:50.road map would need to be a combination of increasing Government

:58:51. > :58:54.R and stimulating private sector investment beyond the life of this

:58:55. > :58:58.Parliament. While protecting the science budget proper and ring

:58:59. > :59:03.fencing this parliament is a good start, we also believe that the

:59:04. > :59:08.policies to protect the departmental R and to make it more transparent

:59:09. > :59:11.are necessary. Departmental R has plummeted in some departments in the

:59:12. > :59:15.last decade, and reversing this trend can only lead to better

:59:16. > :59:19.Government, and will also create all of the virtuous effect that we have

:59:20. > :59:23.seen in the last parliament. We also need to target private sector

:59:24. > :59:26.investments to scale up. In the UK we have become a country with lots

:59:27. > :59:32.of start-ups, but not enough companies which make it through the

:59:33. > :59:34.so-called MidCap gap to become ?1 million valuation companies.

:59:35. > :59:40.Incentives for early-stage investors to build and sustain companies are

:59:41. > :59:44.needed, options might include increasing the threshold to cover

:59:45. > :59:47.100 million on companies, or incentives for investors to hold

:59:48. > :59:52.onto eligible research intensive companies longer and not sell them,

:59:53. > :59:58.such as reintroducing the capital gains tax relief to reward ten to 15

:59:59. > :00:01.year exits from investments in such countries, or incentives for

:00:02. > :00:04.pensions and institutional fund investors to invest in research

:00:05. > :00:09.intensive companies, as they tend to have a longer term output. A

:00:10. > :00:13.programme like capital gains tax break from the dividend returns for

:00:14. > :00:16.funds and the proportion to the percentage of the fund which is

:00:17. > :00:21.invested in a research intensive company might be an option. We can

:00:22. > :00:25.also look to immigration policy for possible opportunities. Tier one

:00:26. > :00:33.invested visas require individuals to invest ?2 million in the UK for

:00:34. > :00:35.the duration of Thursday. The migration advisory Council has

:00:36. > :00:38.recommended that these should be invested in the public good like

:00:39. > :00:40.hospitals and schools. There is an opportunity to assemble a portfolio

:00:41. > :00:45.of investment for research to meet this criteria, so that our ecosystem

:00:46. > :00:48.could vent that might benefit from this investment. The immigration

:00:49. > :00:53.still charge is a final option we could propose and we are to minister

:00:54. > :00:56.to consider an exemption for the stem Ph.D. Level certificate of

:00:57. > :01:01.sponsorship from the immigration skills charge. This would not only

:01:02. > :01:06.boost the them Ph.D. Employers, but also Ph.D. Level exemptions already

:01:07. > :01:09.exist in the visas system in recognition of the need to recruit

:01:10. > :01:13.from the best in the world to these posts. These ideas is a starting

:01:14. > :01:16.point but message is clear. We believe that increasing R

:01:17. > :01:20.investment to a competitive level needs to be a national priority and

:01:21. > :01:25.a long-term programme is the right mechanism to achieve it. Getting the

:01:26. > :01:30.science spending right is not just about how much we spend, it is also

:01:31. > :01:33.about how we spend it. We also receive worrying evidence that not

:01:34. > :01:38.all of our capital projects operating at full capacity due to

:01:39. > :01:43.inadequate reason was allocations. The Isis neutron source worth 400

:01:44. > :01:50.million for example is only operating for about 128 days instead

:01:51. > :01:53.of an optimal 180 days due to insufficient operational costs, and

:01:54. > :01:57.similar problems were reported elsewhere, including in the capital

:01:58. > :02:01.network. It is for this reason that while we welcome the Government's

:02:02. > :02:05.commitment to the capital network, which is working well, we urge them

:02:06. > :02:08.to consolidate and fully fund the existing network before expanding

:02:09. > :02:12.it. It is simply wasteful not to ensure that we are putting enough

:02:13. > :02:20.resource into the system to realise the full value from all capital

:02:21. > :02:22.investments. So that is why we called for a review of all capital

:02:23. > :02:26.resource allocations to ensure that all future capital investments are

:02:27. > :02:30.allocated the resources necessary to fully use our assets. The Business

:02:31. > :02:33.Secretary accepted this problem when he appeared before us, and he

:02:34. > :02:37.assured us that a review was under way to ensure the situation did not

:02:38. > :02:41.recur, and he committed to sending the committee the results of that

:02:42. > :02:45.review but we haven't received it, so I hope the Minister can update us

:02:46. > :02:48.on progress today. He also identified France and Finland as the

:02:49. > :02:51.inspiration for the influx of innovation loans. The committee

:02:52. > :03:02.would be interested to hear what particular metrics the Government

:03:03. > :03:04.used to conclude that loans were effective. Really innovation. We

:03:05. > :03:06.understand that the Government incensed the pilot this scheme. As a

:03:07. > :03:08.committee, we can only commend a scientific approach to measuring the

:03:09. > :03:11.impact of different types of instruments, if that is the

:03:12. > :03:15.intention, but it would be helpful to hear from the minister at the

:03:16. > :03:18.outset what the hard evidence is on which financial instruments work

:03:19. > :03:24.best and what his plans are to build on that evidence before introducing

:03:25. > :03:27.such loans. And finally, we were crystal clear that on no account was

:03:28. > :03:31.the Government's proposals for reorganisation of the research

:03:32. > :03:35.councils and higher educational undermine the jewel funding system

:03:36. > :03:38.or the handling printable. In his evidence to the committee, the

:03:39. > :03:41.Secretary of State said there would be one response from Government

:03:42. > :03:46.covering all these things, he couldn't give us a timeline for that

:03:47. > :03:49.response however. Given the far reaching impact of these proposals

:03:50. > :03:52.and the current uncertainty surrounding Government intentions, I

:03:53. > :03:56.hope the Minister can be a bit more definitive today. Could he please

:03:57. > :03:59.not only say when the Government will publish, but could he also

:04:00. > :04:04.clarify on these particular points. Firstly, does the Government plan to

:04:05. > :04:08.adopt the proposal for a ministerial committee? And if so, what form will

:04:09. > :04:18.it take? A single minister meeting with research UK, or will it

:04:19. > :04:20.involvement as does from across key departments. This will clearly have

:04:21. > :04:22.an important impact in terms of politicisation, of funding

:04:23. > :04:24.decisions. Secondly, can he give us some sense of the major concerns

:04:25. > :04:29.raised in the green paper consultation process, in particular

:04:30. > :04:34.regarding merging the science budget allocation roll with research UK,

:04:35. > :04:37.and can he tell the House what measures are emplaced to make sure

:04:38. > :04:42.the jewel support system will be safeguarded if these changes go

:04:43. > :04:46.ahead? And finally, what additional costs does he anticipate will incur,

:04:47. > :04:51.and will be is have to be found from within the existing sites but it's

:04:52. > :04:55.Madam Deputy Speaker, our goal in this budget and in this parliament

:04:56. > :04:59.is to be unleashed the full potential of every local economy in

:05:00. > :05:02.Britain. In an increasingly knowledge-based economy, the pursuit

:05:03. > :05:07.of excellence in research and innovation is at the very heart of

:05:08. > :05:11.effective strategies for sustainable growth, increasing productivity and

:05:12. > :05:16.creating high-value jobs. It is not enough just to aim for stability.

:05:17. > :05:20.For maintaining the status quo. Especially if policies and spending

:05:21. > :05:25.decisions are based more closely on templates of the past than an

:05:26. > :05:28.analysis of future challenges. Globalisation means that a single

:05:29. > :05:32.disruptive technology can create a worldwide market shift in what seems

:05:33. > :05:37.like an instant, and asked them ecosystem needs to be the most agile

:05:38. > :05:42.and responsive in the world in order to complete -- art stem. We will

:05:43. > :05:47.only achieve this if we recognise that we operating in a global market

:05:48. > :05:51.at home as well as abroad. 25% of university research income comes

:05:52. > :05:57.from overseas, largely the EU. 50% of business R in the UK is from

:05:58. > :06:00.firms headquartered overseas, and it has grown 59% in recent years,

:06:01. > :06:05.quarter of top researchers operating in the UK not British nationals,

:06:06. > :06:09.investors and talent need to the Government instil confidence in the

:06:10. > :06:13.research base. With the green paper, the review and the upcoming pilots

:06:14. > :06:16.and innovation loans is that we are sending signals of turbulence and

:06:17. > :06:20.uncertainty. It is time for the Government to step up and make it

:06:21. > :06:24.crystal clear that the UK science and innovation is built on a

:06:25. > :06:29.rock-solid foundation. It is time for the Government to end

:06:30. > :06:33.uncertainty over these reforms and set out their direction. And it is

:06:34. > :06:36.time for them to demonstrate commitment, creates the Bility

:06:37. > :06:40.uncertain for science with a long-term road map to increasing

:06:41. > :06:45.public and private or indeed to competitive levels. With this

:06:46. > :06:49.process we can supercharge the effects of the ring fence and

:06:50. > :06:54.capital commitments, capturing large-scale inward investment and we

:06:55. > :07:03.would secure our status as a bona fides science superpower. It is a

:07:04. > :07:07.genuine pleasure to follow the chair of the science and technology Select

:07:08. > :07:11.Committee. The manner in which she is steering that committee towards

:07:12. > :07:15.practical added Value recommendations is exemplary and

:07:16. > :07:19.superb, and the manner in which she steered the House through her

:07:20. > :07:23.recommendations this afternoon has been astonishingly good, too. We are

:07:24. > :07:27.in a position of agreeing with every single word that the honourable lady

:07:28. > :07:37.has said, and so I won't take too much of the House's time. I thought

:07:38. > :07:40.she was particularly strong if I may say on saying what a pivotal role

:07:41. > :07:42.science plays in future economic and productivity growth. And I was

:07:43. > :07:45.particularly interested, given my Select Committee's priorities, on

:07:46. > :07:48.her point quite frankly about start-ups. I think it is relatively

:07:49. > :07:53.easy to start a business in this country. The manner in which we can

:07:54. > :07:57.scale that up to have really large firms employing a lot of people that

:07:58. > :08:02.are innovative and successful is a major challenge for this Parliament.

:08:03. > :08:04.And I do hope that our two select committees can work together very

:08:05. > :08:09.closely in the future to provide that drawing up that is needed. She

:08:10. > :08:20.also mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, that science has never been

:08:21. > :08:22.more crucial to our status as a modern economic nation, and I

:08:23. > :08:24.absolutely agree. We need innovative and successful firms creating

:08:25. > :08:27.wealth, unemployment on the back of science research and development. We

:08:28. > :08:30.are here now on the 21st-century on the cusp of the fourth Industrial

:08:31. > :08:35.Revolution. The first in the 18th century used water and steam power

:08:36. > :08:38.to mechanised production, the second in the early 20th century used

:08:39. > :08:42.electric power to create mass production, the third in the late

:08:43. > :08:46.20th century used like chronic and information technology to war to

:08:47. > :08:52.make production, and least digital and revolutionised the means of

:08:53. > :08:55.communication. This fourth Industrial Revolution, moving at an

:08:56. > :08:59.expedite shop is, is astonishing. The technologies that this

:09:00. > :09:06.revolution is unleashing such as the internet of things, autonomous

:09:07. > :09:08.vehicles, science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy storage,

:09:09. > :09:10.artificial intelligence and quantum computing will disrupt almost every

:09:11. > :09:22.industry in almost every country. Science and technology are the

:09:23. > :09:27.foundation of this revolution. The choice in the future is stark,

:09:28. > :09:32.countries which embrace and invest in science will be the winning

:09:33. > :09:37.nations of the future. Those that do not will fall behind in economic

:09:38. > :09:41.growth and rising living standards. As the honourable lady quite rightly

:09:42. > :09:45.pointed out, it is a matter of concern that we have fallen behind

:09:46. > :09:50.in terms of spending on research and develop than in the past 30 years.

:09:51. > :09:55.What we do spend, we seem to spend a very efficiently and effectively. We

:09:56. > :10:03.punch well above our weight but we must think of the volume of that

:10:04. > :10:09.value as well. We've spent just over 2% of GDP on RND once in the last 30

:10:10. > :10:12.years, that was in 1986. We have never again reached that level. We

:10:13. > :10:20.have declined steadily over that period. To reach a long-term average

:10:21. > :10:27.spend in proportion to GDP of around 1.6 or 1.7%. We are below the EU

:10:28. > :10:32.average and the Russell group has pointed out that in terms of the

:10:33. > :10:36.level of RND intensity in the top 22 countries list and by the OECD, the

:10:37. > :10:41.UK has the lowest level investment. Our investment has declined while

:10:42. > :10:45.our competitors like Korea, Germany, the US and even Japan have increased

:10:46. > :10:51.their share of the economy on research and development. As

:10:52. > :10:57.mentioned in her report, Imperial College have said that in terms of

:10:58. > :11:03.investment as a proportion of GDP, it is around 1.72% at the moment,

:11:04. > :11:16.China has increased their share of RND from 1.5 to 1.8. France has

:11:17. > :11:23.increased from 2.11% in 2005 two 2.26% in 2012. Germany has increased

:11:24. > :11:35.its investment in our and the 22.9% in 2012. The US -- increased it to

:11:36. > :11:40.2.92%. Imperial College London, in giving evidence to the honourable

:11:41. > :11:44.lady's select committee said the choice is stark, without increased

:11:45. > :11:48.investment in RND, the UK risks losing its position at the forefront

:11:49. > :11:52.of research globally, thickly given the rapid rate of advance in

:11:53. > :12:00.scientific research and the intense levels of international cooperation.

:12:01. > :12:03.I am grateful to my right honourable friend, he is he also concerned that

:12:04. > :12:09.where the government tends to support innovation in RND that the

:12:10. > :12:15.resources are very unevenly distributed. From the catapult

:12:16. > :12:22.programme, 9% of resources have gone to the Midlands region but 46% have

:12:23. > :12:27.gone to London and 22% to the south-east, surely that is not the

:12:28. > :12:32.best way to get the best out of the country? It is an excellent point,

:12:33. > :12:35.if we are spending a pound of public money, what do we want out of that

:12:36. > :12:41.and where do we get the best bang for our buck. If the government is

:12:42. > :12:44.serious about rebalancing the economy and making sure prosperity

:12:45. > :12:48.is bred not just inland and the south-east but across the country,

:12:49. > :12:51.the Midlands engine and the Northern powerhouse need to have that

:12:52. > :12:58.scientific base in order to boost investment, and ultimately wealth

:12:59. > :13:03.creation as well. The Russell group said that the UK punches above its

:13:04. > :13:06.weight when it comes to excellent in research in higher education but

:13:07. > :13:12.this situation is unsustainable in the long run without continued

:13:13. > :13:15.investment. We lag behind our main competitors in investment on RND and

:13:16. > :13:22.cannot continue to maintain our status as a world leader without

:13:23. > :13:25.support. The EU has stated that in order to maintain a future

:13:26. > :13:29.competitiveness in the face of enormous and unprecedented global

:13:30. > :13:36.competition, member states should be working towards Street -- 3% of GDP

:13:37. > :13:42.by 2020. We are a long way from that. Only Finland, Sweden and

:13:43. > :13:49.Denmark currently exceed that target. But this is so vital for

:13:50. > :13:54.future productivity and gains. In her select committee, she will felt

:13:55. > :13:58.the science issue was so important it should be the focus of her first

:13:59. > :14:04.enquiry, on the business select committee, we the productivity gap

:14:05. > :14:08.published by the government in 2015 was important and should be the

:14:09. > :14:15.major eco-challenge of this Parliament. We looked at this and we

:14:16. > :14:21.look at spending on research and development in our" re-and we found

:14:22. > :14:26.the publicly funded R and D creates that strong multiplier effect and

:14:27. > :14:31.crowds in private sector, charitable and inward investment. Stimulator in

:14:32. > :14:36.something like 30% more self investment from industry. We heard

:14:37. > :14:40.strong evidence throughout our enquiry into the productivity plan

:14:41. > :14:44.how much public spending on R and D can draw in the private spend rather

:14:45. > :14:49.than crowding it out. It is a model operated around the world by our

:14:50. > :14:52.major competitors. Our recommendation of our first enquiry

:14:53. > :14:56.on the government's productivity plan said we fully agree with the

:14:57. > :15:01.science and technology committee recommendations on maintaining good

:15:02. > :15:05.R and D investment and we cope the call that if the government is

:15:06. > :15:08.serious about the activity and competitiveness, it needs to commit

:15:09. > :15:13.to a total level of public and private are and the investment in

:15:14. > :15:17.the UK of 3% of gross domestic product. We recommended the

:15:18. > :15:20.government produces a road map for increasing the total level of public

:15:21. > :15:26.and private R and D in the UK to get to that 3% target. She also

:15:27. > :15:33.mentioned the move from grants to loans. I really worry about this. I

:15:34. > :15:37.think this is a major concern. Capital and the decision to spend

:15:38. > :15:42.capital investment is global, often decided by people around boardroom

:15:43. > :15:45.tables not in the UK. It can be transferred anywhere. Those

:15:46. > :15:50.companies, those multinational corporations will be looking at a

:15:51. > :15:54.different dashboard of metrics as to where they put their latest

:15:55. > :15:59.investment. Flexibility of the labour market, tax risks, how good

:16:00. > :16:03.it is for business. They will look at the collaboration and partnership

:16:04. > :16:07.between public and private, particularly in terms of research

:16:08. > :16:11.and development. Other countries do this, other countries will provide

:16:12. > :16:16.help and support in order to land that investment. We have been a

:16:17. > :16:20.major strength in this for the past 15 years, the level of foreign

:16:21. > :16:24.direct investment into the United kingdom has been excellent. By

:16:25. > :16:28.moving from grants to loans, we put that at risk. Why would Rolls-Royce

:16:29. > :16:33.invest in a factory here when Singapore, where they already have a

:16:34. > :16:37.presence would be offering a range more. It is a case of making sure we

:16:38. > :16:42.do not compromise our true strengths when it comes to grants and loans.

:16:43. > :16:45.Can I echo what the honourable lady was saying when the minister

:16:46. > :16:51.response, what is the basis and rationale for this? Isn't he aware

:16:52. > :16:56.that there is huge risk in moving forward the move from grants to

:16:57. > :17:00.loans. What are the metrics that he will use in order to advance this

:17:01. > :17:07.and can we pilot it before it is ruled out across the economy? The

:17:08. > :17:13.second proposal is the proposal to merge and innovate UK with research

:17:14. > :17:17.UK. Capital centres are relatively new organisations but they need

:17:18. > :17:22.stability and certainty to be embedded into the ecosystem science

:17:23. > :17:27.research and innovation. This will cause disruption and uncertainty and

:17:28. > :17:31.this will affect our science base. Can the minister outlined to the

:17:32. > :17:37.house what is the road map to ensure that there will be a safe way for

:17:38. > :17:44.innovate and research UK to come together. We fully agree in terms of

:17:45. > :17:48.wanting to improve productivity, it is what we want to do throughout our

:17:49. > :17:53.enquiries in this Parliament. Part of that is to spend for the

:17:54. > :17:58.long-term and prioritise capital spend. Under the Coalition

:17:59. > :18:01.Government, business capital rose by 84%, under this spending review,

:18:02. > :18:08.announced by the Chancellor two or three months ago, business capital

:18:09. > :18:12.Dell will fall by 60%. The spending review stated quite explicitly that

:18:13. > :18:16.the government has chosen to pirate ties day-to-day spending on national

:18:17. > :18:25.security and key public services while investing more for the

:18:26. > :18:31.long-term in capital infrastructure. It increases by about ?12 billion

:18:32. > :18:35.but it is cut by 12%, the capital spend will increase. The capital

:18:36. > :18:40.because of housing will increase and that is around a combo bold

:18:41. > :18:50.apartment, transport capital spend has doubled over the lifetime of

:18:51. > :18:57.this Parliament to ?12 billion. The science budget is 12 billion,

:18:58. > :19:04.science budget is around ?1.1 billion a year. I don't see that as

:19:05. > :19:09.a huge success. I see it as a failure in the go Asians by the

:19:10. > :19:12.department during the spending review, especially as the Chancellor

:19:13. > :19:20.says that science is a major priority for this government. We

:19:21. > :19:23.have lost around ?300 million in capital is bent on science since

:19:24. > :19:27.2010, it will take a lot of investment and priority in order to

:19:28. > :19:32.catch up, given that our competitors are moving ever further away. Will

:19:33. > :19:37.the Minister comment on this and does he think that this was a

:19:38. > :19:41.disappointing negotiation? Does he think that we really do, given

:19:42. > :19:47.priority and a pivotal role that science plays that we be spending

:19:48. > :19:52.more on science to boost that long-term value for the economy?

:19:53. > :19:58.Given that central importance of science, as perhaps the driver of

:19:59. > :20:01.future economic growth, increased competitiveness and improved living

:20:02. > :20:05.standards, relative decline in science spend, regardless of whether

:20:06. > :20:08.we spend it wisely should be the cause of enormous concern and

:20:09. > :20:11.determination on a national level to reverse it. On that basis, I am

:20:12. > :20:15.pleased the honourable lady brought forward this debate and we have the

:20:16. > :20:19.Minister can respond positively to ensure that science is at the heart

:20:20. > :20:26.of our economic revival now and in the future. Thank you madam debit

:20:27. > :20:29.speaker for calling me to this important debate. It is a debate

:20:30. > :20:33.about the very future direction of our nation, a debate about whether

:20:34. > :20:38.we are truly going to commit to the high value, high skills economy and

:20:39. > :20:41.invest in the areas that underpin that aspiration, such as core

:20:42. > :20:46.scientific research or are we going to just pay lip service to that aim

:20:47. > :20:50.while spending most of our energies maintaining the status quo. I

:20:51. > :20:54.suppose the reality will be a bit of both. But on this occasion, I am

:20:55. > :21:01.pleased that the government's actions appear to be working towards

:21:02. > :21:06.backing up the aspiration. That is why I would like to place on record,

:21:07. > :21:09.my thanks to the Chancellor and the Minister for the announcement in the

:21:10. > :21:15.recent spending review of a real terms increase in spending on

:21:16. > :21:18.science. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the science and

:21:19. > :21:21.technology committee in the last Parliament, indeed I wanted to be

:21:22. > :21:26.chairman in this Parliament but unfortunately it was not to be and

:21:27. > :21:31.my honourable friend was successful and I wish her well with her

:21:32. > :21:39.committee over the coming years. I digress, when I was member of the

:21:40. > :21:45.committee back in 2010, we were very pleased that there was a flat cash

:21:46. > :21:50.settlement and a ring fence for the science budget. At that time, that

:21:51. > :21:54.seemed an excellent outcome compared with the cuts that were being

:21:55. > :21:58.experienced by other departments. But of course, the inflationary

:21:59. > :22:05.effect of that cash settlement in 2015 was that effectively it had

:22:06. > :22:07.dropped by 15%. Therefore the announcement of a real terms

:22:08. > :22:12.year-on-year increase in this Parliament is particularly welcome.

:22:13. > :22:19.As the Minister, I hope will recall, will say that we are protecting

:22:20. > :22:23.science research funding in real terms, this combined with ?6.9

:22:24. > :22:29.billion of science capital commitment means a total investment

:22:30. > :22:32.of over ?30 billion in science by 2020. That has to be welcomed by

:22:33. > :22:44.all. It shows the government are

:22:45. > :22:48.concerned about the future economic plans, Britain is a great place to

:22:49. > :22:52.do science, as we have heard here. But every pound invested, we publish

:22:53. > :22:58.more papers and receive more citations than any other developed

:22:59. > :23:01.nation. We perform well above the average, producing 16% of top

:23:02. > :23:07.quality published research findings with just 3.2% of the world was Mac

:23:08. > :23:08.and the expenditure but how has this come to be the case and how do

:23:09. > :24:00.maintain it? the past for the collective futures

:24:01. > :24:05.as demonstrated in the recent Russell Group report, engines of

:24:06. > :24:13.growth, a sample of 240 projects from universities delivered at least

:24:14. > :24:19.?21 billion of economic benefit, 100 fold return on the investment.

:24:20. > :24:25.Proving that public investment in R support economic growth. But

:24:26. > :24:29.that investment has to be free from political interference, as enshrined

:24:30. > :24:34.in this report. The principle is the idea that decisions about what to

:24:35. > :24:39.spend research funds on should be made of by researchers, rather than

:24:40. > :24:45.politicians. And this I think must and has to continue. It is right for

:24:46. > :24:50.the Government to support science. But it must not become too

:24:51. > :24:54.prescriptive, or what it will kill the very creativity that allows us

:24:55. > :25:00.to punch well above our weight. And I think at present, Government is

:25:01. > :25:05.about getting it right. Investing in these centres is an excellent

:25:06. > :25:08.example of how the Government can help researchers steer but without

:25:09. > :25:13.directing interference, and I hope that we will see this continue. It

:25:14. > :25:18.is right that we put up the money, but it is also right that it is the

:25:19. > :25:22.scientists who decide how the funding is spent. Now, I am going to

:25:23. > :25:27.keep my remarks fairly short, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may. We have an

:25:28. > :25:32.excellent record of investment in science in this country. But they're

:25:33. > :25:38.rather dust one or two things that I do want to highlight. -- there are

:25:39. > :25:44.just. The relationship between Parliament and the science community

:25:45. > :25:48.I think is as good as it has ever been. Yesterday we saw an excellent

:25:49. > :25:55.event, which I know the minister spoke at, Voice Of The Future. It is

:25:56. > :26:00.a collaboration of the committees and the Houses of Parliament, which

:26:01. > :26:05.invited young and early career scientists into Parliament to quiz

:26:06. > :26:08.those responsible with directing how Parliament and science into Iraq.

:26:09. > :26:13.Another example of this will come next week when I am hosting --

:26:14. > :26:19.science interact. I am hosting a competition that will again de Jong

:26:20. > :26:24.and early career scientists present at a poster competition -- young and

:26:25. > :26:27.early career. They will have the opportunity to highlight their work

:26:28. > :26:33.and the potential to receive significant drag recognition and

:26:34. > :26:37.prizes. The landscape for science is good in the UK. And I think the

:26:38. > :26:40.Government is showing genuine support. But I can't let the

:26:41. > :26:47.opportunity pass without highlighting one or two areas which

:26:48. > :26:50.I think need addressing. As has been highlighted by both previous

:26:51. > :26:54.contributions, the amount we spend on science in the UK is well below

:26:55. > :26:58.are other international partners. We are the fifth largest economy in the

:26:59. > :27:05.world, and if all other major economies ahead of us are spending

:27:06. > :27:10.more than us. This could be the simple step of rather than spending

:27:11. > :27:15.0.5% of our GDP on research and development, we could aim to spend

:27:16. > :27:18.0.7% by 2020. That is a figure that we have committed to spending in

:27:19. > :27:22.other areas, and I think it is something that we could certainly

:27:23. > :27:25.commit to spending on science. We know it makes sense, we have seen

:27:26. > :27:28.how we get a return on that investment and I would like the

:27:29. > :27:34.Government Amber minister to take that thought away. The final point I

:27:35. > :27:37.want to make -- and the Minister. I want to talk about how we inspire

:27:38. > :27:41.the next-generation of scientists. One of the areas where we have seen

:27:42. > :27:47.and identified skills gap is through the roles are sided's recent report,

:27:48. > :27:54.which said that by 2020 -- the Royal Society. We need new engineers,

:27:55. > :27:57.scientists and tech professionals. The Government is doing something

:27:58. > :28:00.through the apprenticeship programme to me that gap, but we need to do

:28:01. > :28:05.more to inspire young people to seek science. One way we could do that is

:28:06. > :28:12.by the Government facilitating greater working between schools,

:28:13. > :28:18.learned societies, professional bodies and stem businesses to

:28:19. > :28:22.actually take real life examples of how science works in society into

:28:23. > :28:27.our educational establishments to inspire science at an earlier age. I

:28:28. > :28:35.think the settlement that we have seen goes a long way to insuring

:28:36. > :28:37.that we continue to be an economic and scientific powerhouse, and I

:28:38. > :28:45.commend the Government for its actions. Thank you, Madam Deputy

:28:46. > :28:48.Speaker. We meet today for this debate at an auspicious moment,

:28:49. > :28:55.because according to this morning's Financial Times, grey-haired, mono

:28:56. > :28:58.browse and comb overs can be consigned to history after research

:28:59. > :29:03.led by British scientists revealed how our genes affect hair growth on

:29:04. > :29:09.the head and face, and this, if evidence is needed, is continuing

:29:10. > :29:13.sign of the health of British science. But it takes funding of

:29:14. > :29:19.British basic science to produce the publications which can then in time

:29:20. > :29:24.become the wealth creating, job generating businesses of the future.

:29:25. > :29:28.So I am broadly supportive of the Government's continuing commitment

:29:29. > :29:33.to the science budget. But I think there is much more we can do when it

:29:34. > :29:38.comes to UK Government support for science, for knowledge transfer and

:29:39. > :29:43.for greater private sector involvement in R First of all, if

:29:44. > :29:48.I may, some history. When the last Labour government came to power in

:29:49. > :29:52.1997, happy days, we found as we always do that the Conservative

:29:53. > :29:56.Party had decimated the British science base. Laboratories were

:29:57. > :30:02.falling apart, basic funding slashed, support for R pathetic,

:30:03. > :30:05.space programming chaos. The usual. Over 13 years, primarily under the

:30:06. > :30:10.leadership of science minister Lord Sainsbury and with the support of

:30:11. > :30:14.Gordon Brown Amber Wellcome Trust, the Labour Party rebuild Britain's

:30:15. > :30:19.science base. The UK innovation fund was created for technology,

:30:20. > :30:23.entrepreneurs, the science research investment fund to tackle the

:30:24. > :30:26.backlog of underinvestment in facilities and bar higher education

:30:27. > :30:31.innovation fund to incentivise universities to transfer their

:30:32. > :30:35.knowledge into industry. The result has been a golden age for British

:30:36. > :30:40.science. Great discoveries, the Higgs bison, the Rosetta mission,

:30:41. > :30:43.and enter the brain drain, world-class well resourced

:30:44. > :30:48.universities carrying out cutting edge work -- and end to the brain

:30:49. > :30:55.drain. He is making an important point, the work that the Lord did

:30:56. > :31:01.was instrumental. Does he agree with me that this 10-year span, 10-year

:31:02. > :31:05.science Plant, actually gave all institutions and companies time to

:31:06. > :31:09.be able to invest with certainty and confidence, because that ecosystem

:31:10. > :31:13.was steady for the entire decade? Right honourable friend makes a

:31:14. > :31:16.powerful point, and the selection committee's report, the point about

:31:17. > :31:21.the innovation like, actually without the investment they knew of

:31:22. > :31:24.extraordinary results, so successful was the Labour Party's science

:31:25. > :31:38.policy that the pressure group Save British Science had to go into

:31:39. > :31:43.liquidation the Conservative government cut the budget, this was

:31:44. > :31:47.not a long-term sustainable decision of the science -based needs. We have

:31:48. > :31:51.heard that the capital part of the science budget stands at ?1.1

:31:52. > :31:55.billion, and this would be protected in real terms until 2021. I agree

:31:56. > :32:02.with the science Select Committee and their concern about the UK

:32:03. > :32:06.falling behind in terms of our competitors or Indian investment. I

:32:07. > :32:12.agree with the road map to head towards 3% -- R investment. This

:32:13. > :32:16.would take us up to the euro norm, and I agree with the comments of the

:32:17. > :32:22.member for Oxford West and Abingdon, side is not a subsidy at an

:32:23. > :32:26.investment. -- science. I think this limited debate offers us a broader

:32:27. > :32:31.opportunity think about the role and function of the state in how we

:32:32. > :32:36.create the wealth of tomorrow. What a decent science policy should set

:32:37. > :32:39.out is how we supportive, collaborative and inventive they'd

:32:40. > :32:43.generate is not only the basic science

:32:44. > :32:48.and institutions for innovation which are fundamental to a high

:32:49. > :32:53.wage, high skill economy. Wages for jobs in the knowledge economy are

:32:54. > :32:56.higher, in 2013 they were 4% higher, and if the knowledge economy made up

:32:57. > :33:01.one third of jobs in Britain we would be creating an extra 2.4

:33:02. > :33:04.million extra better paid jobs. Whilst we know that the Business

:33:05. > :33:10.Secretary is a market fundamentalist, a minimalist state

:33:11. > :33:14.zealot, my honourable friend can spell that brilliantly, the failure

:33:15. > :33:17.of his negotiation strategies, we know that the Chancellor is eyeing

:33:18. > :33:24.up for the spending cuts. I am so glad that the science Minister has

:33:25. > :33:31.outed himself as a supporter of the work on entrepreneurial activist

:33:32. > :33:35.state. We know that publicly funded research and development has a

:33:36. > :33:43.strong effect, it crowds in private-sector charitable and inward

:33:44. > :33:50.investment. We know the National Science Foundation and Google, but

:33:51. > :33:58.high-tech, no note, green tech, we will only succeed in this sector

:33:59. > :34:03.with knowledge transfer. Let me lay out just a few areas of concern.

:34:04. > :34:06.First of all, how other government departments use their science

:34:07. > :34:10.budgets. This is where we have seen a real cut in terms of size

:34:11. > :34:14.expenditure. This money is not ring fenced and their Israeli. At Egypt

:34:15. > :34:21.approach to how it is used. In the United States -- there is very

:34:22. > :34:25.little. We need a lot more of what they do in the United States across

:34:26. > :34:28.the UK Government. Secondly, as my honourable friend has spelt out, the

:34:29. > :34:33.Government's regional approach to science spending is a mess. I

:34:34. > :34:36.applaud the Chancellor's investment into Manchester, the city which

:34:37. > :34:40.likes to think it was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, but we

:34:41. > :34:48.all know that goes to Stoke-on-Trent! Well, the level of

:34:49. > :34:55.investment in regional universities and catapults centres is pathetic.

:34:56. > :35:01.In 2013, 50 2% of total UK R was spent in the south-east. The

:35:02. > :35:04.Government is talking about the silicon tech and Silicon roundabout

:35:05. > :35:09.and the Olympic Park, but it could do much more does aboard

:35:10. > :35:15.organisations like the research into ceramics in my constituency of

:35:16. > :35:18.Stoke-on-Trent. Thirdly, we do need to work much harder on getting young

:35:19. > :35:22.people into science and technology, subject I wish the Government would

:35:23. > :35:27.stop pretending that careers advice doesn't matter and get a grip of

:35:28. > :35:31.careers advice. We face a crisis in terms of getting high-quality maths

:35:32. > :35:36.teachers into high property areas. Allowing people to pursue a career

:35:37. > :35:39.in science. And we must, as my honourable friend suggested, do

:35:40. > :35:42.something about supporting the growth and development of

:35:43. > :35:46.technology. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to intrude

:35:47. > :35:50.upon internal family disputes, but it is clear that our policing Europe

:35:51. > :35:59.is absolutely fundamental for the continuing support of art science

:36:00. > :36:01.-based -- our place in Europe. 50 by a biotech and pharmaceutical

:36:02. > :36:07.representatives have reported that it is important that we remain in

:36:08. > :36:12.the EU if this sector is continuing to grow. Not only would exit from

:36:13. > :36:17.the EU negatively impact this sector, but it would lead to

:36:18. > :36:21.disruption, expense, and regulatory burdens. We have to make sure that

:36:22. > :36:26.we remain in an informed European union. If we want to get more out of

:36:27. > :36:31.our investment into the UK science, then we also need a much more

:36:32. > :36:39.concerted belief in and support for a truly entrepreneurial state. Thank

:36:40. > :36:43.you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this debate

:36:44. > :36:46.following the committee's report on the science budgets. Members will be

:36:47. > :36:50.aware that there has always been a strong evidence for the link between

:36:51. > :36:57.spending in research and development and the productivity of our economy.

:36:58. > :37:00.The UK's economic growth depends on our ability to innovate, and

:37:01. > :37:05.investment is essential in order for the UK to to maintain a competitive

:37:06. > :37:11.advantage and continue the share of the global market. As my honourable

:37:12. > :37:15.friend, the member for Oxford West and Abingdon, highlights, investment

:37:16. > :37:20.is also an effective way to invest money to drive economic growth.

:37:21. > :37:24.Every ?1 spent by the government R increases private sector

:37:25. > :37:29.productivity by 20p per year in perpetuity. And as the Department

:37:30. > :37:38.for Business, Innovation and Skills highlights, in its own report, it

:37:39. > :37:44.averages ?1 36 in private investment for about ?1 investment. Government

:37:45. > :37:47.investment also provides a productive environment for research

:37:48. > :37:51.generally. For example, although Cancer Research UK does not receive

:37:52. > :37:54.any funding from government research, it depends upon Government

:37:55. > :37:59.investment in UK science to create is a environment for that we said.

:38:00. > :38:02.These reasons and many others are why we on the committee recommended

:38:03. > :38:09.that the Government bridges a long-term road map -- produce a

:38:10. > :38:16.long-term road map for increasing public and private R in the UK for

:38:17. > :38:20.up to 3% GDP. Businesses need as much long-term certainty as

:38:21. > :38:23.possible, we are making substantial commitments to long-term investment,

:38:24. > :38:31.and this is what a robust road map will hope to deliver.

:38:32. > :38:38.With a protection of science research in real terms at its

:38:39. > :38:40.current level to increase in line with the rest of inflation for the

:38:41. > :38:45.rest of this Parliament. Members will note this is a better deal than

:38:46. > :38:50.the flat cash settlement in 2010 which due to inflation caused the

:38:51. > :38:58.real value to fall. While inflation is very low, nearly zero, it may not

:38:59. > :39:02.seem that this is a terribly dramatic commitment but again, it

:39:03. > :39:06.provides economic certainty. China is now going through a period of

:39:07. > :39:11.economic turmoil and the European Union is still in the dog drums. The

:39:12. > :39:22.government is showing that the UK is a great place to invest. But despite

:39:23. > :39:28.moves to deliver on the ?6.9 billion commitment in the Conservative

:39:29. > :39:32.manifesto and the confidence in the ring fence, the investment in

:39:33. > :39:37.science is still low compared to other leading scientific nations.

:39:38. > :39:42.Fortunately, the UK science industry has been rightly recognised for the

:39:43. > :39:49.superb quality of its research while representing only 0.9% of the world

:39:50. > :39:53.population, it produces 15.9% of the top-quality research findings. A

:39:54. > :39:58.productive research environment must have government investment in

:39:59. > :40:03.science capital and resource. But the work is far from over, we need

:40:04. > :40:08.to do more to reap the benefits of our research and convert those

:40:09. > :40:13.findings into the commercial both for products and services. This is

:40:14. > :40:18.not an easy task to accomplish. It requires a protection of the budget

:40:19. > :40:24.as highlighted in the Downing report, to reduce the complexity of

:40:25. > :40:28.support systems to provide clear advice on funding which the

:40:29. > :40:33.government recognised and supported in its response to the committee.

:40:34. > :40:36.Like many, I was pleased that following the spending review, the

:40:37. > :40:42.government will be taking forward the recommendations of the nursery

:40:43. > :40:45.view of science councils which subject to legislation, will

:40:46. > :40:54.introduce a new body. Research UK. That will work above and across the

:40:55. > :40:58.existing research councils. The review makes it mindful that the

:40:59. > :41:03.downing report highlighted how complex the system can become and

:41:04. > :41:09.the need for simpler fixation or to hide the wiring. Integration of

:41:10. > :41:15.innovate UK and the proposed research UK has the potential

:41:16. > :41:18.strength and collaboration between the commercial and research sectors

:41:19. > :41:22.but there must be clarification on what decisions will be made at the

:41:23. > :41:27.research council level and what decisions are made by the new

:41:28. > :41:31.overarching body. Long-term and stable government investment will

:41:32. > :41:34.help foster partnerships between industry, research organisations,

:41:35. > :41:39.charities and international partners. These relationships need

:41:40. > :41:43.the confidence that this government is bringing by delivering economic

:41:44. > :41:50.recovery and by the good deal in the science budget. Beyond the science

:41:51. > :41:58.budget, there is finance, research and development, several departments

:41:59. > :42:04.without a ring fenced budget, this highlights the importance of having

:42:05. > :42:09.a science expert in every government department. With evolution, we

:42:10. > :42:15.should look at other models such as that of Germany and see if the

:42:16. > :42:20.government structure, though different to ours, offers guidance.

:42:21. > :42:24.In Germany, individual states have scientific advisers and I look

:42:25. > :42:28.forward to seeing how devolution enables city regions like greater

:42:29. > :42:32.Manchester to take the best scientific advice and focus on

:42:33. > :42:37.supporting our fantastic universities, industries, perhaps

:42:38. > :42:43.each city region having its own dedicated scientific adviser.

:42:44. > :42:50.Increasing specialisation in the UK where every business organisation

:42:51. > :42:55.focuses on what they do well. For example, the UK pharmaceutical

:42:56. > :42:58.industry concentrates on a triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and

:42:59. > :43:02.London, we need to recognise the importance of gaining critical mass

:43:03. > :43:07.in particular industries in other areas of the UK. The greater

:43:08. > :43:12.Manchester area has a fantastic history as a global player in the

:43:13. > :43:20.mass spectrometry industry inspired by John Dalton's work in the early

:43:21. > :43:26.19th century on atomic theory. It is the industry I belong to before

:43:27. > :43:31.coming to this place. We recognise the graphene Institute and other

:43:32. > :43:38.organisations to be rightly proud to ensure Manchester as a leading city

:43:39. > :43:42.of research and for the jobs of the future. As our economy continues to

:43:43. > :43:48.strengthen, we need to ensure that our science base keeps pace. I am

:43:49. > :43:52.pleased to hear from UK scientists at the spending review has been well

:43:53. > :43:58.received but without increased investment in our and day, the UK

:43:59. > :44:01.risks losing its position at the forefront of research globally.

:44:02. > :44:06.Particularly given the intense levels of international competition.

:44:07. > :44:09.This is why I urge the government to create a science road map that spans

:44:10. > :44:14.beyond the electoral cycle, a commitment would give certainty for

:44:15. > :44:18.investment which sometimes takes decades to deliver and will always

:44:19. > :44:23.-- also be a mechanism for the whole of the R and D community to

:44:24. > :44:32.challenge parties to commit to in their manifestos. Thank you Madam

:44:33. > :44:38.Deputy Speaker, firstly I would like to congratulate the chair of the

:44:39. > :44:41.science and technology committee, for her determination to publish the

:44:42. > :44:47.committee's report on the science budget prior to the CSR. This no

:44:48. > :44:52.doubt contributed to the Chancellor's announcement that the

:44:53. > :44:57.science budget would be maintained for the course of this Parliament.

:44:58. > :45:01.Although the settlement was treated with relief by many in the

:45:02. > :45:06.scientific community, this was only because they feared much worse.

:45:07. > :45:13.However, government investment in science is pitifully poor, since

:45:14. > :45:17.2010, the science budget has been frozen in cash terms. Leading to a

:45:18. > :45:24.real terms drop of 10% over the Parliament. By 2012, the UK

:45:25. > :45:33.Government investment and science fell two and a Barras in 0.44% of

:45:34. > :45:38.GDP. Less than any G8 country has invested in our and deepen the last

:45:39. > :45:43.20 years. -- and embarrassing. However, the UK remained one of the

:45:44. > :45:48.best places in the world to do science. But how can this position

:45:49. > :45:53.be maintained when countries such as Japan and South Korea are pumping

:45:54. > :45:58.money into their research establishments? They have created an

:45:59. > :46:03.environment that allows science to flourish. It is no surprise that

:46:04. > :46:11.their economies are also booming. If we are not careful, we risk losing

:46:12. > :46:16.the lead in cutting edge science. When the universities UK

:46:17. > :46:21.spokesperson addressed the science and tech budget committee, she said

:46:22. > :46:26."Long-term underinvestment of publicly funded research in the UK

:46:27. > :46:32.is leading to an erosion of capacity." The Scottish Government

:46:33. > :46:36.has already recognised this erosion and has sought to mitigate this

:46:37. > :46:42.impact. Subject to the reserved nature of RC UK and government

:46:43. > :46:52.spend. By increasing its expenditure on research and knowledge exchange

:46:53. > :46:59.by 11% in the year 2013 - 14. A rise of 38% since 2007. I would ask that

:47:00. > :47:06.the UK Government do likewise. As a physicist, it was a real pleasure to

:47:07. > :47:10.be there last week with the select committee, a wonderful example of

:47:11. > :47:14.international collaboration. Many may wonder about the wider impact of

:47:15. > :47:25.a Felicity like that, it is of course known for its work on

:47:26. > :47:31.particle collision. -- a facility. Technology has been developed and

:47:32. > :47:38.innovation has flourished. Of course, this is a facility that gave

:47:39. > :47:41.birth to the World Wide Webb. Particle acceleration and focusing

:47:42. > :47:46.technology has led to medical developments such as proton beam

:47:47. > :47:51.therapy for cancer. But for me, one of the most exciting projects right

:47:52. > :47:56.now is the development of high-temperature superconducting

:47:57. > :48:00.materials. These materials will allow current to flow with zero

:48:01. > :48:05.resistance and have major implications for global energy

:48:06. > :48:11.supply. There are many physicists, engineers and technicians from the

:48:12. > :48:15.UK working there, including Aidan Robson from the University of

:48:16. > :48:22.Glasgow, one of the team to discover the Higgs bows on. But when we wish

:48:23. > :48:27.own the total number of personnel, it was disappointing, around 900

:48:28. > :48:34.were from the UK compared to 1500 from Italy and 1300 from Germany.

:48:35. > :48:41.When I asked why this was, I was told "Italy is more serious about

:48:42. > :48:45.science." There is currently a new type of particle accelerator being

:48:46. > :48:49.developed, however, this may in fact be built in Japan since the Japanese

:48:50. > :48:54.government is willing to contribute 50% of the costs. That is how a

:48:55. > :49:01.government demonstrates it is serious about science. Following on

:49:02. > :49:08.from points that have already been made from other honourable members,

:49:09. > :49:12.the recent work by most notably, Professor Stephen Watson at Glasgow

:49:13. > :49:17.University, has pointed to the significance of infrastructure

:49:18. > :49:24.spends of UK Government investment. There is however a huge mismatch

:49:25. > :49:29.between the spend for the so-called Golden Triangle and the spend

:49:30. > :49:36.elsewhere in the UK. Infrastructure and investment is known to play a

:49:37. > :49:39.key investment in driving scientific discovery and crucially, in

:49:40. > :49:44.attracting business investment. No one would deny the impressive nature

:49:45. > :49:49.of building such as the Institute in London and I look forward to seeing

:49:50. > :49:54.it up and running. However, facilities such as this means that

:49:55. > :49:58.private investment will be to the flowing into an narrow geographical

:49:59. > :50:02.area. Therefore the government must map out investment, both the matter

:50:03. > :50:13.clear and geographically, something that has never been done before --

:50:14. > :50:21.thematically. I thank her for giving way. I appreciate the view of the

:50:22. > :50:25.honourable lady about where science is invested and where you encourage

:50:26. > :50:30.and support, often the money and the resources followed the expertise. If

:50:31. > :50:33.there is a great centre at one particular location, naturally,

:50:34. > :50:38.business and the government will invest in those particular areas,

:50:39. > :50:42.and so on, the reason why the Italians are interested in it is

:50:43. > :50:46.they have a great interest in particle physics which we do not

:50:47. > :50:53.emphasise as much in this country, we perhaps look at different areas.

:50:54. > :50:55.Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable gentleman for

:50:56. > :51:01.his contribution. There is no reason why the UK should not be world

:51:02. > :51:04.leaders in particle physics as well. The infrastructure and environment

:51:05. > :51:11.must be such that it allows the skills and talents to be developed.

:51:12. > :51:14.The final point I would like to raise is the proposed move to loans

:51:15. > :51:21.rather than grants for industry -based research. These proposals

:51:22. > :51:28.have sent a chill down through research intensive industries such

:51:29. > :51:32.as the pharmaceutical sector. The UK is in global competition to attract

:51:33. > :51:41.industry to carry out our and the here. This move could put the UK at

:51:42. > :51:44.a competitive disadvantage and put us under the real risk that

:51:45. > :51:53.companies will move there are and the abroad. In conclusion, I have

:51:54. > :51:58.several questions, does the Minister agree that more, not less investment

:51:59. > :52:03.in blue sky scientific research is needed and will the government

:52:04. > :52:10.commit to increase science spending to 3% of GDP? The EU target and it

:52:11. > :52:17.is recommended by the select committee report. Secondly, will the

:52:18. > :52:23.government commit to the growing infrastructure spend in science to

:52:24. > :52:29.make sure the these scientific immunity in all parts of the United

:52:30. > :52:33.Kingdom are properly supported? And finally, will the government abandon

:52:34. > :52:42.its harebrained plan to replace research grants with loans.

:52:43. > :52:48.I'd like to start biking gradually tingle members of the science and

:52:49. > :52:54.technology Select Committee on their excellent report forgot I'd like to

:52:55. > :53:01.start by congratulating. It has indeed hit the nail on the head.

:53:02. > :53:05.Science is vital for securing Britain's future prosperity, it not

:53:06. > :53:11.only into pens or economic position, it also helps to secure our

:53:12. > :53:15.well-being and health, including medical breakthroughs, and indeed

:53:16. > :53:22.the eradication of grey hair, as my honourable friend mentioned earlier!

:53:23. > :53:29.I was reminded of this at an event I attended yesterday which has already

:53:30. > :53:33.been mentioned, The Voice Of The Future 2016. That was an opportunity

:53:34. > :53:37.for young scientists question parliament. The Minister knows about

:53:38. > :53:40.this because we were both there for the queueing day session towards the

:53:41. > :53:46.end of the day. It is gratifying and inspiring to hear that there such

:53:47. > :53:51.support for science amongst young people. If only the Government were

:53:52. > :53:58.equally supportive. Unfortunately for us all, the Department for

:53:59. > :54:02.Business, Innovation and Skills has suffered a further 17% cut in the

:54:03. > :54:06.November spending review. Much was made about protecting the ?4.7

:54:07. > :54:11.billion science budget until the end of this parliament in 2020.

:54:12. > :54:15.Particularly I think ministers were especially proud of protecting the

:54:16. > :54:19.science capital budget of ?1.1 billion until 2021. Although I was

:54:20. > :54:25.pleased to be reminded by my honourable friend that some of the

:54:26. > :54:28.departments did indeed do better. For example, defence, transport,

:54:29. > :54:33.Communities and Local Government as far as housing is concerned secured

:54:34. > :54:36.a more favourable capital spend. But I would be the first to concede that

:54:37. > :54:40.many in the science industry breathed a sigh of relief at that

:54:41. > :54:48.settlement, after all, I think we were expecting much worse.

:54:49. > :54:51.could have been so much better. As we were reminded by the honourable

:54:52. > :54:55.member for Glasgow North West just now, the ring fenced noncapital

:54:56. > :55:00.science budget was eroded by flat cap settlement. By ?1 billion in

:55:01. > :55:04.real terms in the previous parliament. If we discount the

:55:05. > :55:09.introduction of the global challenges fund which is geared to

:55:10. > :55:13.overseas development and has got any strings attached, this is another

:55:14. > :55:20.settlement which will see a serious decline in funding. The fact

:55:21. > :55:23.remains, ?4.7 billion is only not .49% of GDP. It does fall in

:55:24. > :55:31.comparison with our competitor nations -- is only 0.49%. The UK

:55:32. > :55:35.spending is the lowest amongst the G8 countries on R As the Minister

:55:36. > :55:42.will know, the Royal Society has called for this to be raised in

:55:43. > :55:49..67%, which will match OECD average. -- to 0.67%. This is because, as the

:55:50. > :55:54.past Director-General of the CBI remarked last year, we are falling

:55:55. > :55:58.ever behind or international competitors, and we must take

:55:59. > :56:03.action, so we lead from the front. This is also the finding of the

:56:04. > :56:06.Select Committee. I will give way. Thank you. As a member of the

:56:07. > :56:10.committee, which he acknowledged that whilst those numbers may not

:56:11. > :56:16.sound as good as she presents them, in fact the output that we get for

:56:17. > :56:20.that is in fact better than ever. I would agree that the output is good,

:56:21. > :56:24.and surely that makes the case for more investment into the science

:56:25. > :56:30.budget, not less. As the committee pointed out, the committee itself

:56:31. > :56:36.pointed out, the UK has fallen behind its competitors in terms of

:56:37. > :56:39.the total R investment, and it will put UK competitiveness,

:56:40. > :56:45.productivity and high-value jobs at risk if it is not reversed. The

:56:46. > :56:49.committee did recommend increasing public and private research

:56:50. > :56:54.development investment of 3% of GDP. Current position, about not .6% of

:56:55. > :56:59.GDP -- 0.6 with that. We have heard about how much less we spent there

:57:00. > :57:03.are competitor nations. We do have a serious problem underfunding. As has

:57:04. > :57:09.been mentioned by our honourable friend from Hartlepool, and the

:57:10. > :57:14.member for average term and the member for Bolton West who have all

:57:15. > :57:18.given compelling figures. There is much value in using public funding

:57:19. > :57:24.to leveraged private money and increase productivity. Why not

:57:25. > :57:27.commit to more funding and use more from private industry? We are not

:57:28. > :57:30.seeing the level of industry funding that we need. I do welcome the

:57:31. > :57:37.comments from the honourable member of Oxford and West Abington, and my

:57:38. > :57:43.honourable friend from Hartlepool, on scaling up investment and not

:57:44. > :57:46.just that of investment. They Government does mention innovate UK

:57:47. > :57:51.and the catapult network in its response to the committee's report,

:57:52. > :57:54.which aims to strengthen R and encourage innovation, and I commend

:57:55. > :58:04.this development. However, as we have heard, ?165 million of UK

:58:05. > :58:09.grants for innovate have been for turning scientific research into

:58:10. > :58:16.commercial applications, these have been axed and replaced by loans.

:58:17. > :58:21.This creates risks for innovators and damages innovation, and the CBI

:58:22. > :58:25.has expressed concerns. What evidence has this decision been

:58:26. > :58:30.based? And do they actually believe that turning grants into loans will

:58:31. > :58:34.benefit innovation and encourage companies to invest. While I am on

:58:35. > :58:38.the subject of the Catapult metalwork, why does the North of

:58:39. > :58:43.England do so badly when it comes to Innovate UK funding? -- the catapult

:58:44. > :58:48.network. The North West did not have a single Catapult project until last

:58:49. > :58:53.year, how can this be right when the Southeast gets 52%? What we need

:58:54. > :58:56.from this government, as we have heard from many honourable members,

:58:57. > :59:01.is a proper road map, outlining where we are going with research and

:59:02. > :59:08.development. And, let me add, that any road needs to go forward to the

:59:09. > :59:11.north, and not just stop at the M25. What is not clear is what the

:59:12. > :59:15.government are trying to achieve in the long run, what is their plan?

:59:16. > :59:19.And can they see the wisdom of increasing R funding as a

:59:20. > :59:21.proportion of GDP to something approaching our competitors? Nowhere

:59:22. > :59:27.in the response to the committee's reported this made clear. But, as we

:59:28. > :59:32.heard, from many members, we have a lot to be proud of in this country.

:59:33. > :59:38.The UK is very good at free search, we have heard many figures. And in

:59:39. > :59:44.fact -- at research. We gave hugely in this regard, membership to the

:59:45. > :59:49.EU, as the honourable member eloquently said. Scientific

:59:50. > :59:56.development and immigration are dependent on collaborative ideas and

:59:57. > :00:01.contributions -- and collaboration. The EU also makes working across the

:00:02. > :00:07.border is easier, wait European researchers camp all the knowledge,

:00:08. > :00:10.infrastructure, and data. Tall can pool their knowledge. The UK does

:00:11. > :00:15.disproportionately well. STUDIO: That is where we leave our

:00:16. > :00:20.live coverage of the House of Commons to go over live to the House

:00:21. > :00:23.of Lords where they are debating the UK's membership of the European

:00:24. > :00:26.Union and the referendum set for Thursday the 23rd of June. You can

:00:27. > :00:27.continue watching the House of Commons throughout the evening, on

:00:28. > :00:46.our website. The review is independently lead and

:00:47. > :00:53.evidence led as well. It will be evidence put forward to consider,

:00:54. > :00:56.and the importance of its considerations will be about the

:00:57. > :00:58.state pension the