08/03/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.ombudsman 's arrest that allows review of complaints against the SRA

:00:00. > :00:14.and I would only encourage you to look at whether that is a possible

:00:15. > :00:18.T. Point of order. Mr Speaker, last Thursday we had an excellent debate

:00:19. > :00:25.on Welsh affairs in this house. But unfortunately the Secretary of State

:00:26. > :00:30.for Wales was absent. The Parliamentary undersecretary said,

:00:31. > :00:35."I can advise the house that the Secretary of State has Parliamentary

:00:36. > :00:37.business elsewhere". However we learn from Twitter that the

:00:38. > :00:45.Secretary of State for Wales was at a lunch with Bexley Conservative

:00:46. > :00:51.ladies. There is a photograph. That is not Parliamentary business. So I

:00:52. > :00:55.would respectfully suggest, Mr Speaker, that of the Parliamentary

:00:56. > :01:03.undersecretary comes to the dispatch box, apologises for inadvertently

:01:04. > :01:09.misleading the house. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to clarify the

:01:10. > :01:12.position and of course apologise if I have inadvertently misled the

:01:13. > :01:18.house but I can confirm that the Secretary of State was on a mixture

:01:19. > :01:24.out -- nature of government and political activity and I will

:01:25. > :01:28.happily clarified. And apologise. But I would also confirm that it was

:01:29. > :01:30.always the expectation as Parliamentary Undersecretary of

:01:31. > :01:38.State that I should be responding to the backbench committee debate on St

:01:39. > :01:42.David's Day. Glove we will consider that matter closed, however there is

:01:43. > :01:47.another point of order on another suspect the -- on another subject.

:01:48. > :01:52.Following the prime ministers commitment last December join the

:01:53. > :01:56.debate on Syria to provide quarterly reports to the house and comments

:01:57. > :01:59.from the Leader of the House last Thursday in business questions, that

:02:00. > :02:04.there will be a further statement shortly on matters relating to

:02:05. > :02:08.Syria. Could you offer me any guidance Mr Speaker on how I can in

:02:09. > :02:12.courage the government to provide a clear indication of when this update

:02:13. > :02:16.will take place and how to persuade ministers that it would be

:02:17. > :02:25.beneficial for the Prime Minister himself to report back to members? I

:02:26. > :02:29.my thank the honourable member for give me notice of this point of

:02:30. > :02:36.order. I understand the government has given and and undertaken it will

:02:37. > :02:41.provide quarterly report but it is for the government to determine the

:02:42. > :02:48.appropriate form of these reports. And indeed which minister should

:02:49. > :02:53.make them. That cannot fall to the chair. However, if the honourable

:02:54. > :02:59.member is dissatisfied with the form or content of the updates, there are

:03:00. > :03:07.a range of opportunities open to her for pressing the government for more

:03:08. > :03:13.information. I would add that similarly, if the statement is not

:03:14. > :03:16.forthcoming with the speed with which the honourable lady things

:03:17. > :03:22.proper, she will also be aware of the mechanisms that she can deploy

:03:23. > :03:29.to try to procure the presence of a minister, possibly even the Prime

:03:30. > :03:37.Minister. We shall await events with interest. Point of order, Mr Michael

:03:38. > :03:41.fabricant. Mr Speaker may I personally apologise to you for

:03:42. > :03:50.inadvertently perhaps through frustration using an eighth letter

:03:51. > :03:54.word beginning with the letter B and ending in -CKS when a colleague of

:03:55. > :03:58.mine was ranging yet another scare story about what a disaster it would

:03:59. > :04:07.be if we were to leave the European Union. It was unseemly. Actually I

:04:08. > :04:12.had heard the utterance of the honourable gentleman. That was

:04:13. > :04:17.spontaneous and from a sedentary position but precisely because of

:04:18. > :04:24.its unseemly nurse I did not wish to draw attention to it. However the

:04:25. > :04:28.honourable gentleman has now done so and there is nothing further that

:04:29. > :04:33.requires to be set. I note in passing that the honourable

:04:34. > :04:39.gentleman has occasion, possibly I have done by my apply, notable

:04:40. > :04:43.hilarity from the Secretary of State for Justice and it is good to know

:04:44. > :04:48.that the right honourable gentleman is in such an upbeat frame of mind.

:04:49. > :04:54.-- by my reply. If there are no further points of order we can now

:04:55. > :05:00.come to the ten minute rule motion in the name of Mr will Quins,

:05:01. > :05:07.notably busy fellow in this house. Let's hear from the honourable

:05:08. > :05:12.member. I beg to move the leave the given to bring in a bill to require

:05:13. > :05:18.first day training as a condition for receiving the driving licence.

:05:19. > :05:22.Mr Speaker, Britain has some of the safest roads in Europe but there is

:05:23. > :05:28.death rate. In the last 12 months death rate. In the last 12 months

:05:29. > :05:36.1780 people were killed on British roads. A total of 23,700 were killed

:05:37. > :05:41.or seriously injured. Land transport accidents are one of the top five

:05:42. > :05:47.biggest killers of males and females between the ages of five and 34. In

:05:48. > :05:51.these situations when somebody is seriously injured or fighting for

:05:52. > :05:54.their lives, every second counts. A review of road traffic in Europe

:05:55. > :05:58.cited by the world health organisation claimed that 50% of

:05:59. > :06:02.deaths from road collisions occurred within a few minutes of the crash.

:06:03. > :06:06.So often there is not time for an ambulance to arrive. Knowledge of

:06:07. > :06:12.first aid can be absolutely critical. The immediate initiation

:06:13. > :06:18.of CPR for example can even quadruple survival from cardiac

:06:19. > :06:22.arrest. But the sad reality is in Britain knowledge of first aid is

:06:23. > :06:26.patchy. Through no fault of their own many people do not feel

:06:27. > :06:36.confident enough to intervene and provide first aid in crash and

:06:37. > :06:38.accident situations. A survey for St John Ambulance and 75% people would

:06:39. > :06:43.not feel confident enough to save a life. At the scene of an accident

:06:44. > :06:48.24% would do nothing until an ambience arrived or a passer-by who

:06:49. > :06:51.knew first aid appeared. Mr Speaker, these are troubling statistics but I

:06:52. > :06:55.hope they set the scene for a bill that I'm bringing forward today to

:06:56. > :06:59.require first aid training as a requirement of the driving licence

:07:00. > :07:04.application. Many other European nations already do this. In order to

:07:05. > :07:09.qualify for driving theory test Switzerland, applicants must prove

:07:10. > :07:13.they have undertaken ten hours of first aid instruction from a company

:07:14. > :07:17.approved by the Swiss government. Since 2016, in Germany, there is a

:07:18. > :07:20.single first aid course for applicants of all categories of

:07:21. > :07:27.driving licence. This course takes seven hours, the equivalent of nine

:07:28. > :07:30.45 minute lessons. In the Czech Republic learners must take

:07:31. > :07:35.obligatory lessons in a driving school, this includes four 45 minute

:07:36. > :07:40.first aid lessons. Other countries that require first aid include

:07:41. > :07:45.Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and the Baltic states. Mr Speaker,

:07:46. > :07:50.introducing this requirement would make such a difference to our

:07:51. > :07:54.population's knowledge of first aid. Around 63% of the population aged

:07:55. > :07:59.between 21 and 29 have a driving licence. If that figure remains

:08:00. > :08:03.steady, within around 13 years this proposal would have helped to ensure

:08:04. > :08:10.nearly two thirds of the number of people aged under 30 in Britain

:08:11. > :08:13.would be potential life-savers. And far more, drivers would feel more

:08:14. > :08:18.confident to step forward in the event of a crash or indeed in any

:08:19. > :08:22.other emergency situations will stop first aid knowledge and skills would

:08:23. > :08:26.also make new drivers more aware of the potential dangers on the road

:08:27. > :08:30.and indeed the perils of speeding and reckless driving. Mr Speaker,

:08:31. > :08:34.this is a great opportunity to boost the ability of a substantial

:08:35. > :08:39.proportion of the British population in an important skill. Every year,

:08:40. > :08:41.as more young drivers receive their licence, the number of British

:08:42. > :08:48.people with first aid training will rise. I do not think it is an

:08:49. > :08:53.exaggeration, Mr Speaker, to say that this change has the potential

:08:54. > :08:58.to save hundreds of lives. Indeed, it reinforces the governments own

:08:59. > :09:03.strategy to improve road safety and reduce the number of people killed

:09:04. > :09:06.on our roads by 2020. Mr Speaker, it was a Conservative government that

:09:07. > :09:12.first introduced the stand-alone theory test in 1996. It is a tough

:09:13. > :09:17.test and so it should be. The pass mark is 86%. It helps ensure that

:09:18. > :09:21.applicants for a full driving licence have a good knowledge of the

:09:22. > :09:28.Highway code and could spot potential dangers through the hazard

:09:29. > :09:33.perception test. At that time, some claimed that the stand-alone theory

:09:34. > :09:35.test was unnecessary. But since that test was introduced road fatalities

:09:36. > :09:41.in this country have more than halved. The theory test may have

:09:42. > :09:46.played a role in that reduction. Since 2007, Mr Speaker, the theory

:09:47. > :09:49.test has contained a number of first aid questions and that was a good

:09:50. > :09:52.development. But I really now believe it is time to reduce a

:09:53. > :09:55.requirement for stand-alone practical first aid training as

:09:56. > :10:01.another condition to obtaining a licence. This is a reform supported

:10:02. > :10:06.by both the British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, to groups who

:10:07. > :10:11.recognised that first aid can have a transformative effect in accident

:10:12. > :10:16.situations. -- two groups. Last year I supported the private members bill

:10:17. > :10:20.to make first aid lessons compulsory in schools, however some opponents

:10:21. > :10:23.of the claimed it would put too much pressure on school timetables and

:10:24. > :10:27.undermined the discretion of teachers. And I understand those

:10:28. > :10:31.concerns. That is why I think my bill is a good, mice. British people

:10:32. > :10:35.should have the opportunity to learn such skills through their lives.

:10:36. > :10:39.Would help boost the first aid skills of many more British people.

:10:40. > :10:42.Surely we want to foster an environment where people are more

:10:43. > :10:48.willing to step forward and help in an emergency?

:10:49. > :10:54.The Government's act aims to do this by removing the fear of liability

:10:55. > :10:58.for helping out. But without having those skills and the confidence, how

:10:59. > :11:06.can we expect people to act? Mr Speaker, I propose that attending a

:11:07. > :11:10.four our practical first aid course, run by a first aid provider should

:11:11. > :11:14.be a minimum requirement for receiving a full driving licence.

:11:15. > :11:18.Evidence of the training would have to be produced before allowing an

:11:19. > :11:26.applicant to take a formal test, as with the current theory test. This

:11:27. > :11:30.change would be made through an amendment to the 1999 regulations.

:11:31. > :11:34.Mr Speaker, I hope I have been able to do this proposal justice in such

:11:35. > :11:39.a short period of time. I truly believe introducing this change will

:11:40. > :11:42.have a transformative impact on the British public's knowledge of simple

:11:43. > :11:47.but life-saving techniques. So many of the British public lead busy

:11:48. > :11:51.lives. Introducing this reform will ensure the majority of young people

:11:52. > :11:55.will be required to take the time to learn these skills, indeed I believe

:11:56. > :12:01.many will welcome the opportunity that this reform provides. Moreover,

:12:02. > :12:04.I'm encouraged by the fact members from six separate parties have

:12:05. > :12:09.agreed to sponsor this Bill, showing degree of cross-party support for

:12:10. > :12:13.this these proposals. Put simply, this change will give many more

:12:14. > :12:16.British people the chance to learn life-saving skills and potentially

:12:17. > :12:25.save a life. I urge colleagues to support the Bill. Does the writer of

:12:26. > :12:28.all member have leave to bring in the Bill? As many as are of the

:12:29. > :12:30.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it. Who

:12:31. > :12:40.will prepare and bring in the Bill? Caroline Lucas, Martin Day, Sir

:12:41. > :13:15.Roger Gale, Mark Williams myself. Driving licence, mandatory first aid

:13:16. > :13:24.training girl. Second reading what day? Friday the 11th of March. Thank

:13:25. > :13:30.you. We come to the main business, the programmed motion. The Minister

:13:31. > :13:38.to move... Thank you. The question is, the Enterprise Bill, as on the

:13:39. > :13:43.order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:13:44. > :13:50."no". I think the ayes have it. Order. As I informed the House on

:13:51. > :13:55.Monday the 26th of October, before a report stage begins on the Bill I

:13:56. > :14:00.will seek to identify, in advance, those changes made in committee,

:14:01. > :14:04.which I would expect to certify, together with any government

:14:05. > :14:09.amendments tabled for report stage, which, if passed, would be likely to

:14:10. > :14:13.lead me to issue a certificate. My provisional certificate, based on

:14:14. > :14:18.those changes and expected amendments is available in the vote

:14:19. > :14:21.office and the bills before Parliament website. At the end of

:14:22. > :14:28.the report stage I am required to consider the Bill for certification.

:14:29. > :14:32.At that point, tomorrow, in this case, I will issue my final

:14:33. > :14:37.certificate. As I informed the House on the 26th of October, I have

:14:38. > :14:43.accepted the advice of the procedure committee, not as a rule, to give

:14:44. > :14:46.reasons that decisions on certification during this

:14:47. > :14:52.experimental phase of the new regime. Anybody wishing to make

:14:53. > :14:57.representations to me prior to any decision should send them to the

:14:58. > :15:01.clerk of legislation. Order. The clerk will now proceed to read the

:15:02. > :15:11.orders of the day. Enterprise Bill as amended, to be considered. We

:15:12. > :15:15.begin with new clause four, in which it will be convenient to consider

:15:16. > :15:23.new clause eight and amendment 17, to move new clause four I call Mr

:15:24. > :15:30.Brennan. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The green investment bank

:15:31. > :15:38.might be referred to as the oaky Cokie clause, because it's been in,

:15:39. > :15:42.out and show -- shaken all about. This is a clause which should

:15:43. > :15:47.actually still be in the Bill. You may not be aware, but I will read

:15:48. > :15:51.briefly from the record what happened in relation to this clause

:15:52. > :15:59.in committee. This is from the committee procedures. The question

:16:00. > :16:01.is clause 32 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say

:16:02. > :16:07."aye". To the contrary, "no". The chair to the contrary, and no. I

:16:08. > :16:12.think the ayes have it. The Minister, I move the clause does not

:16:13. > :16:16.stand part of the Bill. I raised a point of order to the chair, saying

:16:17. > :16:19.the question was that the clause stand part of the Bill. The

:16:20. > :16:23.committee voted the clause should stay part of the Bill. The Minister

:16:24. > :16:28.cannot then say it should not be part of the Bill. The chair said,

:16:29. > :16:32.for clarity, I will put the question again. So actually this was passed

:16:33. > :16:37.in committee, but the bow and be taken a second time because the

:16:38. > :16:40.chair, in the spirit of extraordinary generosity, and to

:16:41. > :16:45.spare the Minister's blushes, allowed a second vote. First it was

:16:46. > :16:52.in, then it was out. We are saying today, let's put it back in again,

:16:53. > :16:57.in this new clause. So this isn't really a new clause, it is an old

:16:58. > :17:02.clause. It was clause 32 in the Bill when we were looking at it in

:17:03. > :17:11.committee. The Government is very wary of this new clause four or old

:17:12. > :17:14.clause 32, because it fears that the green investment bank's borrowing

:17:15. > :17:22.would remain on the Government's books and be classed as public

:17:23. > :17:25.sector debt after privatisation, because of the position taken by the

:17:26. > :17:34.office for National statistics. If there was any question of statutory

:17:35. > :17:38.control over the Green Investment Bank, the national office would

:17:39. > :17:47.insist it stays on the books. Of course, this currently, the purpose

:17:48. > :17:50.currently make sure it is green and not just like any other investment

:17:51. > :17:54.bank. Green Investment Bank is supposed to be a different kind of

:17:55. > :17:58.entity. Not like the one the Secretary of State used to work for,

:17:59. > :18:03.when he earned ?3 million a year with them and which were fined by

:18:04. > :18:07.the European Union for fiddling interest rates. It is not supposed

:18:08. > :18:12.to be that kind of institution. It is supposed to be a different kind

:18:13. > :18:18.of institution, completely different. One focused on

:18:19. > :18:20.sustainable investment in green projects, not based on the

:18:21. > :18:25.unsustainable culture of greed, which brought the world economy to

:18:26. > :18:29.its knees in 2008 and the consequences of which millions of

:18:30. > :18:34.hard-working families are still suffering today. So, if it's going

:18:35. > :18:39.to be that new kind of institution, how do we ensure that it remains

:18:40. > :18:43.that kind of institution if the Government strips it of its

:18:44. > :18:50.statutory purpose to invest in green projects? The point we made in

:18:51. > :18:55.committee, Mr Speaker, is whether the Government should allow that

:18:56. > :18:59.potential ruling by the office for National statistics to completely

:19:00. > :19:05.drive its policy on this important area of sustainable public policy.

:19:06. > :19:09.Basically the office for National statistics point is a technical

:19:10. > :19:14.matter. If the green investment bank remains on the book, after

:19:15. > :19:21.privatisation, that doesn't reflect any kind of problematic public debt.

:19:22. > :19:27.It may spay spoil the look of the Chancellor's forecasts on debt

:19:28. > :19:31.cosmetically, but it would not change the fundamental underlying

:19:32. > :19:37.substance of public finances, if that were the case. In other words,

:19:38. > :19:43.the statutory protection for the Green Investment Bank's purposes is

:19:44. > :19:48.to be removed by the Government because of an accounting convention,

:19:49. > :19:56.which is inconvenient to the Government's political narrative. In

:19:57. > :20:01.other words, it is spin over substance on stilts. That is what is

:20:02. > :20:08.going on here. As we discussed in committee, the Green Investment

:20:09. > :20:11.Bank's... As the Asian infrastructure investment bank, the

:20:12. > :20:16.Treasury is all too ready to allow the United Kingdom, to allow UK

:20:17. > :20:21.borrowing sorry, to be part of the financing of the Asian

:20:22. > :20:25.infrastructure investment bank. It was not worried at all that public

:20:26. > :20:29.debt would be part of the financing of that bank, yet it is extremely

:20:30. > :20:34.reluctant to allow the same for our own and its own Green Investment

:20:35. > :20:38.Bank. Mr Speaker, you won't be surprised to know I have praised the

:20:39. > :20:43.former Coalition Government for introducing the Green Investment

:20:44. > :20:49.Bank. Policy in this area can be very difficult to implement, because

:20:50. > :20:53.by its very nature it is new, innovative and in committee I quoted

:20:54. > :20:59.the wise words of curbing the frog, who said, sang or croaked, it is not

:21:00. > :21:03.easy being green. It is very true. It is not easy. This is an

:21:04. > :21:07.innovative and effective piece of public policy and I praised the

:21:08. > :21:11.former Coalition Government for introducing it. I will give way to

:21:12. > :21:14.my honourable friend. I am grateful to my honourable friend. Isn't one

:21:15. > :21:20.of the benefits of the Green Investment Bank that in a large part

:21:21. > :21:25.it actually addressed some of the market failure that had gone before

:21:26. > :21:29.it? And that what we risk losing are some of the benefits that it really

:21:30. > :21:35.brought, in terms of securing that green investment question mark and

:21:36. > :21:38.all that will happen, and on consequence perhaps, is taxpayers

:21:39. > :21:46.will have to pay more through a larger subsidy?

:21:47. > :21:49.I believe that the proposal that the Government brought forward on

:21:50. > :21:53.privatisation following the election was seriously and are put, if I can

:21:54. > :21:57.put it that way. The Green Investment Bank has only just

:21:58. > :22:01.started to turn a profit and we are glad it is doing that, but it is a

:22:02. > :22:06.very small amount. When the Government, as I will develop

:22:07. > :22:16.further on in my argument, when the government said it intended to

:22:17. > :22:20.privatise the bank it quoted the very statutory objective it is now

:22:21. > :22:23.wishing to remove from statue because of what was said about

:22:24. > :22:26.public debt and the Green Investment Bank being on the books. So it had

:22:27. > :22:30.been trouble all along, this proposal. I think the way the

:22:31. > :22:33.Government is scrabbling around for a solution on this shows it was

:22:34. > :22:37.undercooked when first propose. I will give way to my honourable

:22:38. > :22:41.friend. I thank my honourable friend the giving way and praise him for

:22:42. > :22:44.his amendment and the way he has scrutinised this Bill through

:22:45. > :22:48.committee. Would he agree things have moved on rather substantially

:22:49. > :22:53.since we met in the Enterprise Bill committee, with the Government's

:22:54. > :22:59.publication last Thursday of the prospectus, the announcement that it

:23:00. > :23:04.would proceed? The fact it is to be a two stage auction? It looks from

:23:05. > :23:08.the thing that has been published as though it will be fully privatised,

:23:09. > :23:10.so all the debate and discussion we had in committee about whether or

:23:11. > :23:16.not the Government would or would not keep a minority share in this,

:23:17. > :23:18.as recommended by the environmental audit committee, seem to be for the

:23:19. > :23:24.birds and the minister probably knew that in committee. Can I take this

:23:25. > :23:31.opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend on her appointment

:23:32. > :23:38.to the home affairs select committee. I'm sure she will be just

:23:39. > :23:42.as contentious in scrutinising this Bill. She is absolutely right, the

:23:43. > :23:47.publication of the Government's intentions in relation to this last

:23:48. > :23:49.week are very interesting post I hope the Minister will be able to

:23:50. > :23:54.actually answer the point she has made, about what the Government's

:23:55. > :23:58.intentions are and clarify that in terms to whether it maintains a

:23:59. > :24:05.stake in the Green Investment Bank after privatisation, because when we

:24:06. > :24:10.probed her on that in committee, the answer was none. She is right, that

:24:11. > :24:14.it would appear it is the intention to fully privatise it, even though,

:24:15. > :24:19.as we discussed in committee, it must be the worst possible time to

:24:20. > :24:22.be considering privatising this very important public asset, if part of

:24:23. > :24:29.the purpose is to get good value for the taxpayer by this state of the

:24:30. > :24:33.market currently. I will be developing this point further in my

:24:34. > :24:37.speech. When we were meeting two weeks ago I mentioned the bear

:24:38. > :24:41.market and the slide and in value of all bank shares since Christmas, the

:24:42. > :24:46.softening of growth in China and we have had only this morning mark

:24:47. > :24:50.Carney and the bank of England revealing the large amount of

:24:51. > :24:55.liquidity they are preparing to inject into the UK banking economy

:24:56. > :25:01.in the event of an exit from the European Union, the referendum, if

:25:02. > :25:07.that were to go ahead, in order to avoid a complete meltdown and a

:25:08. > :25:10.financial crisis, the like we saw in 2007- 08. She is right to point that

:25:11. > :25:15.out. Also, by implication to point out that privatisation occurring

:25:16. > :25:20.after the referendum in the summer and the implications of a leave vote

:25:21. > :25:24.for attempting to privatise the Green Investment Bank is highly

:25:25. > :25:29.significant. I will give way. I am very grateful to my honourable

:25:30. > :25:35.friend and wholly support remarks he is making. In respect of the

:25:36. > :25:40.privatisation of the Green Investment Bank, what impact does he

:25:41. > :25:49.think it might have on the prospects for that privatisation, worthy

:25:50. > :25:53.official opposition say it was mindful to purchase back into the

:25:54. > :25:58.public sector the bank, should it be fully privatised as he suggested?

:25:59. > :26:02.And I am not Kentish neglect on that for reasons my honourable friend

:26:03. > :26:08.might well understand given that is not currently that is under

:26:09. > :26:12.discussion. -- I am not going to speculate on that. What I would say

:26:13. > :26:15.is that it is a duty for the government to make sure that if it

:26:16. > :26:21.is going ahead with this privatisation which we do not

:26:22. > :26:28.support, if it is going ahead, it has absolutely be sure it is getting

:26:29. > :26:33.value for money for the taxpayer as well as giving an absolute guarantee

:26:34. > :26:37.that it is protecting the green purpose of the Green Investment

:26:38. > :26:40.Bank. I had praised the government for the introduction of the Green

:26:41. > :26:47.Investment Bank but why do anything to place central green mission in

:26:48. > :26:52.grave doubt? I should of course remind the house that the Green

:26:53. > :26:58.Investment Bank was first proposed under the last Labour government.

:26:59. > :27:01.Because first mentioned as a postal for development by the formula

:27:02. > :27:06.Chancellor Alistair Darling in one of his budgets and it was being

:27:07. > :27:09.developed in the Cabinet Office and the Department for business,

:27:10. > :27:13.innovation and skills when I was a minister in those departments in the

:27:14. > :27:16.previous Labour government. And now that it was introduced under the

:27:17. > :27:22.coalition it has made a good start. It has been able to participate in

:27:23. > :27:25.the financing of projects that otherwise would not have taken place

:27:26. > :27:30.and not make a real contribution to meeting our commitments under the

:27:31. > :27:35.climate change act 2008. I think we are all agreed across the house that

:27:36. > :27:41.it is a good story and I do not see any dissent to that proposition from

:27:42. > :27:44.anyone in the chamber. So it is a strange sort of pass, Mr Speaker,

:27:45. > :27:53.when even something that we all agree with the other good thing,

:27:54. > :27:56.even good borrowing, for sustainable services, is classified as bad if it

:27:57. > :28:00.appears on the government 's book for no other reason than it appears

:28:01. > :28:04.on the government 's book. During difficult years following the

:28:05. > :28:11.banking crash in which we were sometimes in recession, a

:28:12. > :28:16.significant part of growth in the UK was coming from the green economy.

:28:17. > :28:21.By some estimates it accounts for 1 million jobs, more than ?100 billion

:28:22. > :28:25.in value. It is rate this point in that the government are in danger if

:28:26. > :28:29.they are not careful of undermining one of the key drivers of that

:28:30. > :28:38.sector. If we were able to tap into our country's potential we could

:28:39. > :28:47.create thousands more high-quality sustainable jobs for our equality.

:28:48. > :28:50.When the government announced privatisation plans last year the

:28:51. > :28:54.Secretary of State gave an assurance to the house in a written statement

:28:55. > :29:04.and I will quote from that statement from the official report." This

:29:05. > :29:08.should bring a number of important benefits. Giving the Green

:29:09. > :29:13.Investment Bank greater freedom to operate across a wider range of

:29:14. > :29:19.sectors in accordance with its green purposes, which are enshrined in

:29:20. > :29:23.legislation.". In that announcement of the Secretary of State emphasised

:29:24. > :29:26.that the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank were protected by

:29:27. > :29:32.the legislation in which its duty to pursue them are enshrined. Obviously

:29:33. > :29:38.something went wrong after that with the government proposals. They got

:29:39. > :29:40.advice from the office for National statistics which led the government

:29:41. > :29:50.to say that instead they intended to repeal the very legislative

:29:51. > :29:55.announced in the decision to privatise the bank last year. That

:29:56. > :29:59.is why in October last year they had to say in effect it does not really

:30:00. > :30:03.matter if we repeal this statutory protection as long as we make sure

:30:04. > :30:08.the Green Investment Bank does not appear on our books. In his letter

:30:09. > :30:10.of October 15 when he announced his intention to repeal the relevant

:30:11. > :30:16.measures from enterprise and regulatory reform act 2013 that the

:30:17. > :30:23.Secretary of State offered no assurance and that point that those

:30:24. > :30:29.green purposes would definitely be maintained. We have been demanding

:30:30. > :30:33.assurances that when the bank is privatised how are we to ensure that

:30:34. > :30:39.it maintains its green purpose? And does not simply become yet another

:30:40. > :30:45.bank, albeit a very small bank, but one that could easily be gobbled up

:30:46. > :30:48.by someone in the marketplace. That is why labour and other parties as

:30:49. > :30:51.well in the other Place in particular feet of the government on

:30:52. > :30:56.this issue and introduced a special share which we are trying to

:30:57. > :30:58.re-juice in our new clause four which we are discussing now. The

:30:59. > :31:04.government says that the Green Investment Bank can create that

:31:05. > :31:08.special share itself. And in committee the Minister quoted a

:31:09. > :31:15.letter from the chairman of the Green Investment Bank to our noble

:31:16. > :31:18.friend Lord Edelson which I will have see quoted again in a moment.

:31:19. > :31:22.In committee the minister said that this approach would satisfy the

:31:23. > :31:28.office for National statistics. She said she was confident it would but

:31:29. > :31:35.she could not give us a guarantee. As I said in committee we need an

:31:36. > :31:41.absolute assurance on this. Before we will increase this legislative

:31:42. > :31:44.opportunity to future proof the purposes of the Green Investment

:31:45. > :31:49.Bank and now the Green Investment Bank had written to honourable

:31:50. > :31:52.members, as is their right, they outlined their plan to issue a

:31:53. > :31:57.special share that is envisaged for themselves rather than through this

:31:58. > :32:00.bill in the way that we are proposing and their reason for doing

:32:01. > :32:07.this is of course the belief that the ONS will then be allowing them

:32:08. > :32:10.to be classified as being off the government 's book. I asked them if

:32:11. > :32:16.they could guarantee this and this is what they said in response by

:32:17. > :32:21.e-mail: you will likely be aware that ONS does not engage directly

:32:22. > :32:25.with arms length bodies like the Green Investment Bank. At the same

:32:26. > :32:30.time, however, we have been engaging closely with the government over all

:32:31. > :32:36.matters relating to the sales process and this is an issue where

:32:37. > :32:39.we have been as close as we can to government. We understand that

:32:40. > :32:43.government has been engaging closely with ONS on this whole issue

:32:44. > :32:47.including the special share structure which the Green Investment

:32:48. > :32:53.Bank is putting in place and we understand that on the basis of

:32:54. > :32:55.those discussions the government was sufficiently satisfied to allow the

:32:56. > :33:08.sales process to proceed. That is wrong: Folger. -- that is from Colin

:33:09. > :33:12.Folger. On the basis of the government says it is satisfy the

:33:13. > :33:18.Michigan to guarantee categorically there on the floor of the house that

:33:19. > :33:21.it's special share proposal will definitely be acceptable. -- from

:33:22. > :33:27.Colin Faulkner. I hope that Mr will say that, if she wants to intervene

:33:28. > :33:32.she can do so now. She is not indicating, so I will give way to my

:33:33. > :33:39.honourable friend. As Mike I hope that the minister. I wonder if the

:33:40. > :33:42.has had a chance to look at Annex C of the proposed disposal of shares

:33:43. > :33:50.in the Green Investment Bank where it says, as part of any sale

:33:51. > :33:54.discussion investors will be asked to confirm their commitment to green

:33:55. > :33:59.values and set out how they propose to do this. Bidders stated

:34:00. > :34:05.intentions will be taken into account. I wonder if we will hear

:34:06. > :34:08.what percentage will be allocated in the bidding process because

:34:09. > :34:13.obviously all bids will be marked and I for one will be very curious

:34:14. > :34:17.to know what weighting and relevance will be given to the collection of

:34:18. > :34:23.green purposes when the decision is made by government. I think we will

:34:24. > :34:27.all be interested to know that and perhaps the Minister will be as

:34:28. > :34:33.informative as she possibly can be in telling the house that in her

:34:34. > :34:36.response. What I should say to my honourable friend, after

:34:37. > :34:42.privatisation this is the point about this, after privatisation what

:34:43. > :34:47.guarantee do we have that the banks simply will not be swallowed up by

:34:48. > :34:50.somebody else? And all of the guarantees given by the original

:34:51. > :34:59.investors could quite easily evaporate. I thank my friend who is

:35:00. > :35:02.being very generous in giving way. Does he share my disappointment that

:35:03. > :35:07.the government has bent over backwards with the ONS to create

:35:08. > :35:11.this special purpose vehicle, special charity, setting it up

:35:12. > :35:16.independently appointed people to protect the green purposes. But has

:35:17. > :35:20.refused to do any such moves on the other thing that we debated in

:35:21. > :35:27.committee, which is the protection of making sure that the transparency

:35:28. > :35:34.around executive pay which this bank is a rare exemplar in the banking

:35:35. > :35:38.sector is protected as the bank goes forward as well? Yes and she has

:35:39. > :35:42.been dogged in her pursuit of that issue both in committee and in

:35:43. > :35:48.laying her amendments here at report stage and I look forward to her

:35:49. > :35:54.conservation on that subject. My question is, can she guarantee that

:35:55. > :35:56.privatisation will not violate the green purposes of the Green

:35:57. > :36:02.Investment Bank or rather we just keeping our fingers crossed in that

:36:03. > :36:06.regard? There are other reasons that are still to be adequately answered

:36:07. > :36:10.by the government, which were not answered properly in committee

:36:11. > :36:16.stage. Am I right to say that the only reason the legislative lock on

:36:17. > :36:21.the green purposes being repealed is purely to get the Green Investment

:36:22. > :36:26.Bank off the government books? Is that the reason why they are doing

:36:27. > :36:31.this? If that is the principal reason for removing the lock, is

:36:32. > :36:35.that good enough to give up the statutory guarantee given what I

:36:36. > :36:40.said about the technical nature of the accounting issues the ONS are

:36:41. > :36:43.raising? Can she give us any indication her response to this

:36:44. > :36:51.debate of the government view about the stake the intense to retain if

:36:52. > :36:55.any following privatisation? I understand this is a market

:36:56. > :36:58.transaction but we also need an idea of the kind of return the government

:36:59. > :37:04.expects from the sale of the Green Investment Bank. We know as we

:37:05. > :37:07.briefly mentioned earlier about market conditions being currently so

:37:08. > :37:12.poor that the Chancellor actually had to abandon the sell-off of

:37:13. > :37:15.Lloyds shares but we need to know whether the government really think

:37:16. > :37:20.they will get a significant return from the privatisation given all of

:37:21. > :37:25.the pain associated with this process and given, quite frankly,

:37:26. > :37:28.the record in previous privatisations of poor value for

:37:29. > :37:32.money for the taxpayer. I do not expect the Minister to be able to be

:37:33. > :37:35.precise, but she will obviously want to avoid criticism that the

:37:36. > :37:40.government encountered about the lack of value achieved previously.

:37:41. > :37:45.So can she give us some sort of idea of what she is expecting the

:37:46. > :37:50.government to be able to get from this privatisation? Is the minister

:37:51. > :37:54.concerned that these matters will provide further uncertainty for no

:37:55. > :37:57.carbon investors at the time when there is real concern about the

:37:58. > :38:04.governments with treat on investment in wind power. We have learned over

:38:05. > :38:11.many years that it is certainly not wise to privatise in haste. We might

:38:12. > :38:19.well repent at our leisure if this innovative and effective piece of

:38:20. > :38:25.public policy is lost as a result of care. That is not a sustainable way

:38:26. > :38:28.to make sustainable posse particularly not in an area where we

:38:29. > :38:32.are trying to create a sustainable future for the country which is why

:38:33. > :38:43.new clause four has been tabled in my name and that of my honourable

:38:44. > :38:53.friends. The honourable gentleman giving way? I rather thought he had

:38:54. > :38:55.finished his speech. The question is that new clause for the red second

:38:56. > :39:16.time. I am very happy to speak to my New Clause eight both the

:39:17. > :39:22.fraud alert over to associate my self with the very full case

:39:23. > :39:27.recently made by the shadow front bench in favour of New Clause four

:39:28. > :39:30.but in rising just now I would like to speak specifically to New Clause

:39:31. > :39:35.eight. And essentially the context of my amendment is my dismay that

:39:36. > :39:38.the government is determined to push privatisation of the green

:39:39. > :39:42.investment banks through despite concerns its best in the House of

:39:43. > :39:45.Lords, members of this house and indeed civil society. Through this

:39:46. > :39:50.and other actions I fear that it is demonstrating that its diet to get

:39:51. > :39:53.the green investment back off its balance sheet is taking massive

:39:54. > :39:57.presidents over its interest in whether or not the Green Investment

:39:58. > :40:01.Bank genuinely is contributing to the green economy to the extent that

:40:02. > :40:08.it can. As the environmental audit committee which I'm proud to serve,

:40:09. > :40:12.as it noted in its report on the future of the bank in December, and

:40:13. > :40:20.I quote: while we recognise there are potential benefits resulting

:40:21. > :40:24.from an injection of capital we find that the city has been made without

:40:25. > :40:26.you transparency, consultation or proper consideration of alternatives

:40:27. > :40:30.and the absence of the steps is likely to leave that the suspicion

:40:31. > :40:33.that the move and its timings are not evidence based policy.

:40:34. > :40:41.Everything that has happened since December has not changed that view.

:40:42. > :40:45.We have seen a government acting without looking at the evidence. My

:40:46. > :40:49.new clause aims to ensure the bank is maintained as a single,

:40:50. > :40:53.functioning institution and it can continue to invest in the UK's

:40:54. > :40:59.low-carbon economy at the same level planned prior what I think is a

:41:00. > :41:02.deeply regrettable privatisation. As well as being regrettable, I think

:41:03. > :41:09.this privatisation won't be easy. The Government says it aims to sell

:41:10. > :41:13.75% of the bank, equating to ?1.5 billion up front. That is a

:41:14. > :41:18.considerable sum. Indeed, it is huge, even by the standards of the

:41:19. > :41:32.bailout investment funds. According to Bloomberg, that is so. Given

:41:33. > :41:35.there were few deals approaching the 1 billion mark in 2015, I would like

:41:36. > :41:39.to know how the Government can be sure it will make a sale of 1.5

:41:40. > :41:44.billion in just one round. I think there is a very real risk this will

:41:45. > :41:48.turn out to be quite fanciful. Not only that, but investor confidence

:41:49. > :41:57.in the UK's green economy is at an all-time low. One only need look at

:41:58. > :42:00.the energy confidence report on making it more unlikely the

:42:01. > :42:05.Government can sell a majority stake in one round or if the taxpayer will

:42:06. > :42:10.get any value for money. Furthermore, any equity stake bought

:42:11. > :42:12.would require the buyer to follow through on Equity annually. In other

:42:13. > :42:19.words bankrolling the bank's annual is this plan. So the huge sums

:42:20. > :42:26.involved mean it is highly likely that come October the desired 75%

:42:27. > :42:29.will not have been sold. Given the Government's determination to only

:42:30. > :42:32.hold on to a 25% stake, if that, then there is a good chance we could

:42:33. > :42:37.find ourselves in a position where the Government says it has done what

:42:38. > :42:40.it can, it hasn't been able to get the sale awaits and therefore the

:42:41. > :42:44.risk is it proceeds to dismantle the bank and sell off its assets, in

:42:45. > :42:48.other words what we could face is essentially a fire sale. I think

:42:49. > :42:56.that is made even more likely, given that the most attractive parts of

:42:57. > :43:02.the bank, Matic League 1 billion wind funds and energy fund. There is

:43:03. > :43:07.a risk the bank's owners don't commit to fully fund the business

:43:08. > :43:12.plan. It would then become little more than a fund manager, as opposed

:43:13. > :43:16.to a bank driving additional investment in the UK's green

:43:17. > :43:21.economy. I think is really important the Government doesn't just sell to

:43:22. > :43:25.any investor. New investors must committed to fully funding the

:43:26. > :43:29.bank's business plan, driving expansion of the UK's low-carbon

:43:30. > :43:36.economy, addressing market failure to crowd in additional investment,

:43:37. > :43:38.transparency and public accountability standards and

:43:39. > :43:44.facilitating and scaling up citizen investment in the UK's low-carbon

:43:45. > :43:49.economy. Quite simply, my amendments seeks to inoculate against these

:43:50. > :43:52.risks, for the Government to maintain the integrity of the Green

:43:53. > :44:00.Investment Bank as a single institution with a fully bonded --

:44:01. > :44:05.funded business plan. Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable

:44:06. > :44:10.lady. Using her words, would not inoculate and be guaranteed by the

:44:11. > :44:16.special share the Government intends to operate?

:44:17. > :44:20.I thank him for his intervention. I think the special share the

:44:21. > :44:24.Government intends to operate has no real legal underpinning, so we

:44:25. > :44:26.cannot have reassurance in it. I think secondly the very real

:44:27. > :44:31.overestimation of the ease with which they will be able to sell the

:44:32. > :44:34.Green Investment Bank is a real problem, which is what I am

:44:35. > :44:38.demonstrating. I think the Government has overestimated the

:44:39. > :44:42.speed of which they can sell which means there will be a temptation to

:44:43. > :44:45.asset strip. That is what I think we will see. My amendment is a simple

:44:46. > :44:49.way of making sure that doesn't happen. What I'm suggesting is we

:44:50. > :44:57.ensure that anyone buying it commits to full five-year life of the

:44:58. > :45:00.initial round one. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. She

:45:01. > :45:05.is a credit to our committee and I am grateful on the many

:45:06. > :45:13.interventions she is making on this. Does she share my concern, that this

:45:14. > :45:19.proposed, special share may not carry forward in any future sale of

:45:20. > :45:22.the asset? Would she join with me and asking the Minister to clarify

:45:23. > :45:27.that when she responds to the debate? The danger is it is sold

:45:28. > :45:31.once on the next time it's sold, part of that sale is we want to get

:45:32. > :45:34.rid of this stuff which is all about the green part of what the bank

:45:35. > :45:40.does. I am very grateful for her

:45:41. > :45:44.intervention and kind words and congratulate her. I share her

:45:45. > :45:48.concerns that we have no real legal guarantee, over time, that this

:45:49. > :45:53.special share mechanism is going to be safe and going to protect not

:45:54. > :45:59.just the green purposes of the bank, but the focus on complex and novel

:46:00. > :46:04.is investments which a public Green Investment Bank is uniquely suited

:46:05. > :46:07.to. I do fear this privatisation is being done in haste. It is not

:46:08. > :46:11.properly thought through. The guarantees we are being offered are

:46:12. > :46:15.not watertight and therefore I would very much commend my amendment. It

:46:16. > :46:20.is a very simple amendment, but I think it would give some reassurance

:46:21. > :46:24.at least that the Green Investment Bank is maintained as a single

:46:25. > :46:29.functioning institution and can continue to invest in the UK's

:46:30. > :46:32.low-carbon economy, at the level planned before privatisation. If the

:46:33. > :46:36.Government is sure that is possible I hope they will accept this

:46:37. > :46:43.amendment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment number 17 in

:46:44. > :46:47.the name of myself on the right honourable member of Don Valley.

:46:48. > :46:51.Before I come to the substance of that I want to congratulate previous

:46:52. > :46:54.speakers on this. I think the fact that government has moved

:46:55. > :46:58.substantially on some of these issues is testament to the scrutiny

:46:59. > :47:03.that has been provided both by the environmental audit committee and by

:47:04. > :47:14.my own party. I would also like to put on record my anxiety, the fact

:47:15. > :47:17.that this asset sale was rushed out last Thursday, before this Bill has

:47:18. > :47:21.even had a chance to pass through the House, suggesting to me we are

:47:22. > :47:27.not moving on a timetable dictated by the Minister or by the market

:47:28. > :47:32.conditions for the best possible value of a government asset of this

:47:33. > :47:35.kind, but to a timetable driven by the Chancellor, who is going to have

:47:36. > :47:43.to make some very difficult announcements in his budget on the

:47:44. > :47:46.16th of March. To me, the changes mean we will need billions of pounds

:47:47. > :47:50.of green investment to upgrade the energy and transport infrastructure

:47:51. > :47:55.of the UK. So far the Green Investment Bank has done a really

:47:56. > :47:58.sterling job in attracting capital to low-carbon infrastructure

:47:59. > :48:03.projects in the UK, that might have otherwise have struggled to find

:48:04. > :48:08.funding. This Bill allows the Government to sell off the bank.

:48:09. > :48:12.Again, I want to stress, I am pretty certain this bank is going to be

:48:13. > :48:19.sold in one piece, at one time, and the risk is it will not achieve best

:48:20. > :48:23.value for the taxpayer. I am not opposed to privatisation, if it can

:48:24. > :48:27.be shown it is the right policy tool to get the job done, but this

:48:28. > :48:32.decision seems to have been rushed through just to get it off the

:48:33. > :48:36.Government's balance sheet. The environmental audit committee's

:48:37. > :48:40.report, on which the honourable lady myself set, and which we published

:48:41. > :48:44.before Christmas concluded the Government took the decision to

:48:45. > :48:49.privatise the banks without due transparency, consultation or proper

:48:50. > :48:52.consideration of alternatives. Mr Speaker, ministers have simply not

:48:53. > :48:57.yet proven to Parliament that the bank will achieve its aims better in

:48:58. > :49:06.the private sector. The Government has relied on assurances from

:49:07. > :49:11.shareholders and executives who stand to benefit personally from the

:49:12. > :49:15.sale. So if the sale goes ahead my amendment, amendment 17 will ensure

:49:16. > :49:19.the Green Investment Bank remains accountable to Parliament and

:49:20. > :49:25.taxpayers, by reporting annually on the pay of its top team. The

:49:26. > :49:27.environmental audit committee recommended the Government undertake

:49:28. > :49:31.proper consultation and evidence gathering before any sale and

:49:32. > :49:35.protecting the Green Investment Bank's green identity should be

:49:36. > :49:42.paramount. While I welcome the Secretary of State's pledge to

:49:43. > :49:46.protect the bank's status of being green, I am concerned if we do not

:49:47. > :49:50.lock this in legislation it will not be secure. I am concerned especially

:49:51. > :49:57.share will not be worth the paper it is written on in any future sale of

:49:58. > :50:00.the bank and it will be forgotten, because it depresses the onward sale

:50:01. > :50:07.value of the bank. It is a depressor, if you are limiting the

:50:08. > :50:10.nature of activities in which the bank can invest. When the bank was

:50:11. > :50:16.established it was intended by government to be an exemplar, of

:50:17. > :50:20.transparency in the financial sector and reporting of executive pay. This

:50:21. > :50:27.is particularly important, accepted on a cross-party basis, given the

:50:28. > :50:33.lack of trust and bankers and their bonus culture, which exists to this

:50:34. > :50:36.day, which rewarded recklessness. It is therefore disappointing that in

:50:37. > :50:41.the Minister's proposals to privatise the bank this is welcomed

:50:42. > :50:45.clarity is not to continue. Ministers are happy for the bank and

:50:46. > :50:50.its executives to revert to the status of any other bank, or fund,

:50:51. > :50:55.with a minimum reporting of renumeration, limited to that of the

:50:56. > :50:58.highest-paid member of staff and the chairman of the board. This

:50:59. > :51:02.amendment seeks to change that and commits the Government providing

:51:03. > :51:05.full disclosure to Parliament on the re-numeration of the Green

:51:06. > :51:09.Investment Bank's senior management and board after privatisation. This

:51:10. > :51:13.was hotly disputed and argued by the minister at the committee stage of

:51:14. > :51:18.the Bill. I think it is there to say the committee found a certain amount

:51:19. > :51:22.of irony in her stout fence of allowing Green Investment Bank

:51:23. > :51:28.executives to have the freedoms to increase their pay through this

:51:29. > :51:32.Bill, and the privatisation, and yet having a Bill which simultaneously

:51:33. > :51:37.seeks to cap the pay of people working in private sector companies

:51:38. > :51:42.and whose salaries are around the ?25,000 a year mark. In sharp

:51:43. > :51:44.contrast of the salaries of the executive team at the Green

:51:45. > :51:53.Investment Bank, whose salaries, which we know, range from ?125,000-

:51:54. > :51:59.?325,000, plus bonus, plus benefits. This so the bank began in 2012 to

:52:00. > :52:02.invest in green infrastructure projects. It has invested in 58

:52:03. > :52:12.projects with a total value of more than ?10 billion. Last June it

:52:13. > :52:16.announced its decision to privatise the Greenbank and this Bill is the

:52:17. > :52:21.means to do that, to reclassify it is so its finance and contribute to

:52:22. > :52:32.public sector debt by removing reference to the green... I give

:52:33. > :52:35.way. Thank you. I thank the honourable lady for letting me into

:52:36. > :52:39.being. It seems to me the Green Investment Bank has been a success.

:52:40. > :52:44.It was set up by the Coalition Government and it is a good success.

:52:45. > :52:47.One of the reasons why and Mr Speaker, the Green Investment Bank

:52:48. > :52:53.should go into the private sector is to liberate more investment and

:52:54. > :52:59.actually increase the possibilities. Indeed, and that has been the

:53:00. > :53:06.argument given by ministers. We would wish to see the bank being

:53:07. > :53:12.able to fund more projects. The Government, as he would say, has

:53:13. > :53:15.called it a natural next step. I would ask, who else supports the

:53:16. > :53:19.move question at the green investment move supports the move

:53:20. > :53:22.and the Government has drawn on that supporters of primary motivation for

:53:23. > :53:27.their plans to proceed. There has not been the same level of

:53:28. > :53:31.transparency and consultation that accompanied the establishment of the

:53:32. > :53:34.bank. Our committee, the environmental audit committee, heard

:53:35. > :53:41.in our evidence to our inquiry that that decision was taken... Without

:53:42. > :53:44.due transparency, publication of relevant evidence, consultation and

:53:45. > :53:51.proper consideration of alternatives. He is aware there is

:53:52. > :53:54.many different ways to raise money. Privatisation so soon after the

:53:55. > :54:04.bank's creation was also not discussed when it was established

:54:05. > :54:08.just three years ago in 2015. There has been no evidence of

:54:09. > :54:13.privatisation or consideration of alternatives to sell. In response to

:54:14. > :54:16.our report the Government claimed it had undertaken unpublished market

:54:17. > :54:20.testing over the course of two years. In the Bill committee I asked

:54:21. > :54:24.the Minister of State for Small Business and enterprise if she would

:54:25. > :54:27.be willing to public -- published that market testing. She declined

:54:28. > :54:31.and also said she would not publish the impact assessment because there

:54:32. > :54:34.were no regulatory or significant cost impacts of the sale of the

:54:35. > :54:40.Green Investment Bank or changes to its pre-existing policy goals. Our

:54:41. > :54:46.committee disputes that because of the risk to the green purposes of

:54:47. > :54:52.the bank. I think, in summary, our concerns are a bank set up to deal

:54:53. > :54:55.with green issues may not in the future, although it may have more

:54:56. > :55:01.money, may not have this laser focus on green purposes at any future

:55:02. > :55:09.sale. We know from sale of assets whether they are transport assets or

:55:10. > :55:15.whatever they are, that they tend to be sold on, hence my question to the

:55:16. > :55:20.minister about... Happy to give way. Forgive me, I wasn't in your

:55:21. > :55:24.committee. But it does seem to me that the special purpose of the

:55:25. > :55:31.Green Investment Bank will be maintained by the special share and

:55:32. > :55:36.the special share ownership, but any change to the Green Investment

:55:37. > :55:37.Bank's original purposes will have, one way or another, to come back to

:55:38. > :55:44.Parliament. The minister has said that a report

:55:45. > :55:49.will come to Parliament before the bank is finally sold and I had

:55:50. > :55:55.questions for her in committee about how that report would be considered

:55:56. > :56:01.by Parliament. Would it be fitted up on the committee corridor as part of

:56:02. > :56:05.the statutory is timid? Will we have a chance to vote again on this and

:56:06. > :56:11.the Minister is nodding so I ensure she will clarify that when she gets

:56:12. > :56:14.up to respond to the debate. There were a series, we had these concerns

:56:15. > :56:20.and I still have this concerned that if the Green Investment Bank is sold

:56:21. > :56:25.on it it may just be sold on as the Bank of America Merrill Lynch

:56:26. > :56:28.investment bank at some future stage and investment banks are going

:56:29. > :56:34.through a very tricky time at the moment. Things are not at all well

:56:35. > :56:38.in the investment banking sector. I think any purchaser of this bank

:56:39. > :56:49.will be looking for maximum freedoms in order to maximise potential

:56:50. > :56:51.future sale capital receipts. So the only robust consultation the

:56:52. > :56:56.government can point to given they will not publish market testing is

:56:57. > :57:02.itself. The government relied very itself. The government relied very

:57:03. > :57:05.heavily on the bank and its executives in evidence and its

:57:06. > :57:12.response to our committee. And of course those executives and

:57:13. > :57:19.shareholders, those executives stand potentially to benefit from a sale.

:57:20. > :57:22.Amendments 17 invite government to providing information about the

:57:23. > :57:30.Nomura to the senior board after privatisation. I also had questions

:57:31. > :57:37.about how will those in charge of the bank stand to gain personally

:57:38. > :57:41.from the privatisation process? I also question how objective their

:57:42. > :57:49.reviews can be if they are to gain personally from the privatisation?

:57:50. > :57:53.Isn't it the case that private sector companies and their directors

:57:54. > :57:57.are already under disclosure obligations in addition to executive

:57:58. > :58:00.compensation for directors? What would the rationale before going

:58:01. > :58:04.further and making the requirements Pacific Lee on the Green Investment

:58:05. > :58:09.Bank go over and above those required of any other company? The

:58:10. > :58:14.reason for that is that the company has been financed by over ?3 billion

:58:15. > :58:20.of taxpayers money. At a time when my constituents in Wakefield have

:58:21. > :58:26.had the third lowest increase in pay of any part of the country since the

:58:27. > :58:31.financial crisis. And so for my constituents and his constituents

:58:32. > :58:34.who have seen their pay eroded and depressed in the last year as a

:58:35. > :58:41.direct result of the actions of reckless bankers, for us to

:58:42. > :58:46.privatise a fully owned state bank without putting in place of

:58:47. > :58:49.detections to prevent that huge increase in remuneration that tends

:58:50. > :58:52.to happen when state assets are privatised I think is negligent for

:58:53. > :58:58.us given the journey we have travelled in the past ten years. The

:58:59. > :59:03.arguments are of course very persuasive when the bank is in

:59:04. > :59:06.public ownership and her Iraqi months justify the current

:59:07. > :59:10.disclosure regime. But once the bank has been privatised and is in

:59:11. > :59:15.private hands and is being principally, I think 75% or more

:59:16. > :59:19.financed by private money surely the arguments the honourable lady

:59:20. > :59:23.advances no longer apply. Wit and on how much it will be sold by. At the

:59:24. > :59:26.moment it is one hunch percent financed by public money and whoever

:59:27. > :59:33.takes over I don't know whether they will put in that match the funds

:59:34. > :59:39.that the government has put in but certainly they will not be putting

:59:40. > :59:43.that money in on day one. So I think that this bank was set up to be an

:59:44. > :59:48.exemplar to the banking and financial industry. It was not set

:59:49. > :59:52.up to be just another bank. It was set up to do something special land

:59:53. > :59:59.to be something special. The special share protects we hope, the Minister

:00:00. > :00:02.reassures us the specialness of its green purposes going forward

:00:03. > :00:06.although I have questions about the longevity of how long that will

:00:07. > :00:11.last. The question I have is that given it was also set up to be an

:00:12. > :00:17.exemplar on executive pay, why should that part be lost? I will be

:00:18. > :00:21.very happy to take further questions in a moment. After a discussion with

:00:22. > :00:27.my colleagues last week I wrote the chair of the Green Investment Bank

:00:28. > :00:34.asking for clarification on the proposed remuneration for the Green

:00:35. > :00:38.Investment Bank senior executive. Our shareholders, taxpayers, could

:00:39. > :00:43.remain potentially as minority shareholders in the enterprise and I

:00:44. > :00:49.think as long as the UK taxpayer has even 1% shareholding in this bank

:00:50. > :00:55.this should carry forward. These taxpayers are committed to ?3.8

:00:56. > :01:00.billion to this bank and any talk about what a future owner would put

:01:01. > :01:05.into this bank, we will wait until we see the colour of their money at

:01:06. > :01:07.some point in the future. The committee, the environmental audit

:01:08. > :01:13.committee made it clear in that letter that he could not see a

:01:14. > :01:16.reason for -- we cannot see a reason for increasing remuneration. We were

:01:17. > :01:21.particularly interested to know the proposed structure of the management

:01:22. > :01:24.fee the privatised bank would be charging investors and any form of

:01:25. > :01:29.profit share or participation rights for management proposed in the

:01:30. > :01:33.offering two new shareholders. We asked to note the board view

:01:34. > :01:40.regarding quantum and -- quantity and structure of share incentives.

:01:41. > :01:44.We also sought the assurance of the board and commitment to maintaining

:01:45. > :01:48.the staffing levels to ensure the bank continues to fully and

:01:49. > :01:51.effectively serve the UK need for investment in green infrastructure.

:01:52. > :01:56.In his reply Noel Smith reassured the committee that the proposed is

:01:57. > :02:02.this plan will require the current staff complement with possibly a

:02:03. > :02:06.small number of editions. But less welcome was his response that the

:02:07. > :02:11.information memorandum for investors which includes prep injected

:02:12. > :02:15.revenues at cost including -- projected staff costs. This has

:02:16. > :02:19.already been decided at board level and was definitely decided when the

:02:20. > :02:25.minister was in committee with us, is commercially confidential and

:02:26. > :02:28.cannot be shared. I am grateful for giving way, she has a special

:02:29. > :02:32.knowledge in this area so can I tease out a points you mention. She

:02:33. > :02:37.mentioned the ?3.8 billion of public money being invested, what

:02:38. > :02:43.consideration did her committee give to what valuation of the bank would

:02:44. > :02:50.be appropriate for the government to sell? She quite rightly said this

:02:51. > :02:54.was an inspiring start by the government and wanted to be an

:02:55. > :03:01.exemplar and before there is a special sponge blitz to make sure it

:03:02. > :03:05.is the right time to let it go. The remit of the committee was not to

:03:06. > :03:12.second-guess what the government could or should get for the bank. I

:03:13. > :03:19.am sure there will be people in the City of London that are much better

:03:20. > :03:21.able than I am to live. I am sure there will be colleagues certainly

:03:22. > :03:28.on his benches that could probably make a good stab at it. When I

:03:29. > :03:31.worked with small businesses you could get multiples of income but it

:03:32. > :03:37.depends what you're buying. In this case you are buying an asset book

:03:38. > :03:42.with you hope future revenues from the investments that have been made

:03:43. > :03:49.and you are also buying senior bank management intellectual capital if I

:03:50. > :03:52.can put it like that. ?3.8 billion of Dummett investment in green

:03:53. > :03:55.projects that you hope at some point we'll give you a revenue and capital

:03:56. > :03:59.stream as they sold off but it also depends on what purchaser is going

:04:00. > :04:06.to put in to the capital projects as well. She quite rightly says there

:04:07. > :04:15.is a series of investments in the bag but it would be possible to

:04:16. > :04:19.check that her committee has looked at providing an evidentiary -based

:04:20. > :04:24.understanding if in future when this bank is sold whether it is being

:04:25. > :04:28.done on a fair basis? I'm sure that is a simple thing to do and I am

:04:29. > :04:32.sure as we go forward and as the sale proceeds they will be a variety

:04:33. > :04:35.of attempts to calculate the net present value of the bank and I'm

:04:36. > :04:46.sure the government will want to let us know whether they think that has

:04:47. > :04:48.been achieved. There is plainly a public interest in this remaining

:04:49. > :04:52.Green Investment Bank because the amount of public money that has been

:04:53. > :04:58.invested and the public interest in green fuels and green energy being

:04:59. > :05:02.developed. So that together with the work that the committee which she

:05:03. > :05:05.now shares will do to scrutinise the future of the green arrest and bank

:05:06. > :05:09.surely gives enough protection to make sure that it does indeed remain

:05:10. > :05:12.a Green Investment Bank, that is certainly something her committee

:05:13. > :05:19.will continue to switch eyes. Once it is sold my committee has no

:05:20. > :05:25.future locus in scrutinising what it does. It goes off and we can do it

:05:26. > :05:28.as a matter of interest but this is the final legislative opportunity

:05:29. > :05:34.that we have as parliamentarians, collectively in this place, to state

:05:35. > :05:38.and to say what we want to happen to this bank. Again we will possibly

:05:39. > :05:45.have a future chance if it comes back and is going to be debated

:05:46. > :05:48.upstairs on the committee floors. But we are at the penultimate stage,

:05:49. > :05:53.the first round of the bidding process has already started. The

:05:54. > :05:57.starting gun has been fired. If the government comes back and says we

:05:58. > :06:01.want to sell 100% and does so next September, Christmas, the

:06:02. > :06:05.environmental audit committee can look out of interest going forward

:06:06. > :06:11.in the future whether we feel best value has been achieved. But this

:06:12. > :06:15.bestial share, we want to really test that here today to make sure

:06:16. > :06:20.that those as he says, the public interest is protected and green

:06:21. > :06:25.vehicle continues. This is a really important financial institution. If

:06:26. > :06:31.we are to meet those climate change targets. Let me conclude Madam

:06:32. > :06:35.Deputy Speaker by saying that the Chancellor said in January that the

:06:36. > :06:38.sale of shares in Lloyds would be postponed because of market

:06:39. > :06:41.turbulence. The sell-off was scheduled for spring and he has now

:06:42. > :06:45.said it will come after Easter and we await to see when I will come.

:06:46. > :06:49.Since the start of the year we have seen a bear market, great turbulence

:06:50. > :06:54.in the financial markets, panic selling of crude oil and oil prices

:06:55. > :06:58.at the 13 year low. These are worrying times for the global

:06:59. > :07:02.economy and the market is hugely volatile. All bank shares are

:07:03. > :07:07.currently falling in price, whether they are UK bank shares, European

:07:08. > :07:10.bank shares, or US bank shares. Just this morning we have heard that the

:07:11. > :07:13.Bank of England has announced it will give commercial banks three

:07:14. > :07:17.exceptional opportunities just before and after the referendum to

:07:18. > :07:23.borrow as much money as they like to offset any threat of a run on banks

:07:24. > :07:29.and to prevent a repeat of the chaos of the financial crisis of 2008. The

:07:30. > :07:33.house to ask whether, given the pretty bleak turbulent choppy

:07:34. > :07:39.financial picture, whether the government decision to launch the

:07:40. > :07:41.sale of the bank last Thursday was the right one. What ever your views

:07:42. > :07:46.on privatisation this hardly looks like the most auspicious time to

:07:47. > :07:58.sell estate asset, let alone a state owned bank. And cute. -- thank you.

:07:59. > :08:01.Can I just imagine my honourable friend who chairs the select

:08:02. > :08:08.committee on her remarks and I congratulate her on the work the

:08:09. > :08:12.committee has done to tease out the details of what is going on. Madam

:08:13. > :08:19.Deputy Speaker, in 2012 the Green Investment Bank was set up for a

:08:20. > :08:24.purpose. It was stated quite clearly that that purpose was to address

:08:25. > :08:33.Pacific market and investment barriers that would achieve

:08:34. > :08:39.reductions to tax base and consumers. The way it was going to

:08:40. > :08:45.do that was to work under the framework of the climate change act

:08:46. > :08:50.by risk-sharing between the public and private sectors. Identifying and

:08:51. > :08:52.addressing market failures and limiting private investment and

:08:53. > :08:57.thereby accelerating and delivering green investment at large scale and

:08:58. > :09:04.with significantly lower cost of capital. That was the whole point.

:09:05. > :09:10.And it was set up precisely because there was a market failure. The

:09:11. > :09:15.market sector -- the private sector was not able to do this. That is not

:09:16. > :09:18.me saying this as a member of the opposition benches because of course

:09:19. > :09:21.we supported this, it was our idea in the first place when we were in

:09:22. > :09:25.Dortmund and we were delighted when the coalition put it into place. --

:09:26. > :09:30.when we were in government. But the government coalition that stage

:09:31. > :09:37.Thidapa Green Investment Bank commission. Independent, nonpartisan

:09:38. > :09:42.-- the set up the commission. It was brought together by the Chancellor

:09:43. > :09:46.itself. It spent three years and two official rounds of rigorous market

:09:47. > :09:50.testing and evidence gathering to establish that a Green Investment

:09:51. > :09:53.Bank was needed and collected evidence to inform its aims, its

:09:54. > :10:00.design and the operating model it was going to function under. Now,

:10:01. > :10:02.three years, two official rounds of market testing to set it up. Compare

:10:03. > :10:11.that with the and lack of consultation to sell it

:10:12. > :10:18.off. But what did that commission fine? The commission found that

:10:19. > :10:21.without a way of directly addressing market failure and risk-sharing

:10:22. > :10:25.between the public and private sector through a Green Investment

:10:26. > :10:31.Bank, higher levels of direct subsidy would be required to

:10:32. > :10:33.facilitate low-carbon investment, meaning higher costs to the consumer

:10:34. > :10:43.and the taxpayer. That is what the Chancellor's on

:10:44. > :10:48.commission, with the hand-picked people he put on it, agreed. That

:10:49. > :10:59.was the rationales which is now being undermined by the same. So

:11:00. > :11:07.let's be absolutely clear that this represents an increased cost to the

:11:08. > :11:14.consumer and the taxpayer by the Government's on commission. -- oh

:11:15. > :11:23.that commission. The Chancellor has given himself something of a

:11:24. > :11:28.problem. By committing to achieve a public finance surplus every year in

:11:29. > :11:33.normal economic times, the Government has roared out borrowing

:11:34. > :11:41.to fund public infrastructure. The exception is investments through the

:11:42. > :11:50.public finance initiative. Since the financial crisis there has been less

:11:51. > :11:53.private finance available to invest in public or private infrastructure

:11:54. > :11:58.projects. At the same time direct public investment has also decrease.

:11:59. > :12:04.One of the concerns of investors is the political risks that have

:12:05. > :12:09.manifested themselves from potential changes in government policies.

:12:10. > :12:13.Those have been separately criticised and I won't go into those

:12:14. > :12:16.here, but the way in which government has chopped and changed

:12:17. > :12:21.the regulatory frameworks for low carbon investment has seen, as my

:12:22. > :12:32.honourable friend who spoke from the green benches indicated earlier, it

:12:33. > :12:36.has seen a decline in the UK's attractiveness for investment, so

:12:37. > :12:41.that for the first time under the Ernst Young Rubik we fell out of

:12:42. > :12:56.the top ten best places for investment. Last year. So, the way

:12:57. > :13:01.in which this has been tackled by the Chancellor is two fold. The

:13:02. > :13:06.pension infrastructure platform sourcing less than 1 billion in

:13:07. > :13:16.total in its first four years of operation, its aim was 20 billion

:13:17. > :13:20.and 40 billion of UK guarantees scheme, only 1.7 billion guarantees

:13:21. > :13:30.were actually issued in the first two years. Contrast that financial

:13:31. > :13:35.performance, that dire financial informants with the performance of

:13:36. > :13:42.the Green Investment Bank. With just ?2.3 billion of public money it has

:13:43. > :13:46.mobilised over 10 billion of investment in British infrastructure

:13:47. > :13:49.in the last three years. I would have actually wish to have

:13:50. > :13:55.seen the Green Investment Bank have a few more failures, because it

:13:56. > :14:00.adopted a very specific policy at the beginning, and that was, go for

:14:01. > :14:03.safe projects. It went to safe projects because it wanted to build

:14:04. > :14:08.up the track record, it wanted to show that it had a track record of

:14:09. > :14:16.successful investment behind it, so about now it could attract in much

:14:17. > :14:19.more private sector capital, to take on even riskier projects. Because

:14:20. > :14:23.that is the point of agreed investment bank. It's not to do what

:14:24. > :14:28.the market is going to do anyway, what the market can see it is going

:14:29. > :14:33.to get a return on capital from. The whole point of the Green Investment

:14:34. > :14:37.Bank is to take on those much more difficult technical projects that

:14:38. > :14:42.otherwise the market cannot finance. So this is just the point, three

:14:43. > :14:46.years in, when we should have been thinking, great, it's got the

:14:47. > :14:51.successful track record behind it, now what it needs to do is to move

:14:52. > :14:55.on into slightly riskier... Some may fail, that is the nature of

:14:56. > :15:01.investment and banking. We know that. Some projects may fail, but

:15:02. > :15:03.overall the balance of investment flowing through into UK

:15:04. > :15:10.infrastructure would be hugely enhanced. So what does the

:15:11. > :15:19.Government decide to do? Just that the point of liftoff, of the only

:15:20. > :15:22.successful lever the Chancellor has to get money into infrastructure

:15:23. > :15:29.project of this country? The other two having been quite dismal in

:15:30. > :15:36.their performance. Pull the plug. Throw it away. Privatise it and send

:15:37. > :15:39.it back off into the private sector, which was the very place that

:15:40. > :15:53.couldn't manage this market failure in the first place. So, Madam Deputy

:15:54. > :16:01.Speaker, the honourable gentleman who spoke from the benches earlier

:16:02. > :16:08.said, look, it is a success. So why can't it go on being a success, in

:16:09. > :16:13.the private sector? Of course, that was the question that had to be

:16:14. > :16:17.posed by the commission in the first place. That was the question that

:16:18. > :16:23.the Green Investment Bank was set up to answer. But actually, if you were

:16:24. > :16:28.to ask the former chair of the bank, he actually gave the very best

:16:29. > :16:37.response to the honourable gentleman. He said this: "There is

:16:38. > :16:43.an inherent tension between the GI be continuing to invest in novel,

:16:44. > :16:47.more complex projects profitable over the long-term, versus

:16:48. > :16:55.shareholder pressure to maximise returns on short-term investments."

:16:56. > :17:01.There you have it. There is a tension in the private sector. It is

:17:02. > :17:04.a tension we all recognise and it is well known and won the Governor of

:17:05. > :17:09.the Bank of England has spoken on so much over the last year. He calls it

:17:10. > :17:17.the event horizon, the tragedy of the horizon, because the investment

:17:18. > :17:21.horizon is so short that the sort of projects, you cannot see the payback

:17:22. > :17:29.for. I think it is tragic that the Government is actually privatising,

:17:30. > :17:34.neutering what was one of the best things that it established. Of

:17:35. > :17:38.course I will give way. I thank my honourable friend for

:17:39. > :17:44.giving way. You are making a very persuasive argument here. Like me,

:17:45. > :17:48.does he not agree that actually if we are to be a country which

:17:49. > :17:52.represents, as the Chancellor said, the march of the makers, part of

:17:53. > :17:56.that is being at the front of the queue when it comes to leadership,

:17:57. > :18:01.in terms of supporting innovation in this particular marketplace of green

:18:02. > :18:05.energy and green environmental products. Doesn't he feel, like me,

:18:06. > :18:10.that by privatising the Green Investment Bank all we are doing is

:18:11. > :18:13.creating yet another bank, that won't do the job it was intended to

:18:14. > :18:19.do? My right honourable friend has

:18:20. > :18:24.enormous knowledge in this area, and I absolutely agree with her. Of

:18:25. > :18:32.course, what is happening now is that the most successful instrument

:18:33. > :18:35.that the Government itself has created for energising and putting

:18:36. > :18:41.investment into infrastructure projects in this country is now

:18:42. > :18:46.being neutered. That is the tragedy, and it is when these amendments seek

:18:47. > :18:54.to address. Minister. Anna Sue Brie.

:18:55. > :19:01.It has been an interesting debate. I have to confess, I don't agree with

:19:02. > :19:05.many of the arguments that have been advanced on the other side, so I

:19:06. > :19:11.hope honourable members will not support any of the new clauses that

:19:12. > :19:16.has been proposed. Can I go, if I may put it in this way, in reverse

:19:17. > :19:23.order and deal with new clause eight? Posed by the lady who

:19:24. > :19:29.represents Brighton Pavilion, that seeks to ensure the Green Investment

:19:30. > :19:33.Bank continues its green investment plans post-privatisation. We are

:19:34. > :19:39.agreed to as to what we want the bank to continue to do. We are

:19:40. > :19:44.seeking bidders who can commit to this and have the deep pockets to

:19:45. > :19:48.commit to the business plan. The management are played, they need

:19:49. > :19:52.access to private capital, to fund their green business plan. That

:19:53. > :19:56.could be equity capital raised as part of the sale process, debt

:19:57. > :20:00.capital, which the Green Investment Bank can raise when it is in the

:20:01. > :20:06.private sector, or private capital raised as part of a fund structure.

:20:07. > :20:10.Business plans change, they evolve as new opportunities arise and we

:20:11. > :20:15.will not bind new owners into the current plans, so I cannot accept

:20:16. > :20:19.the honourable lady's Amendment. The new owners of the Green Investment

:20:20. > :20:23.Bank will have views on the future strategy and business plan. They

:20:24. > :20:27.will assess it as part of their due diligence and make it a part of

:20:28. > :20:32.their offer. Whoever the new owner or owners are, a special share in

:20:33. > :20:36.shores that the business plan, like the Green Investment Bank, will

:20:37. > :20:43.continue to be green. Madam deputies Speaker, I will take intervention

:20:44. > :20:50.but only make this point. -- Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to a

:20:51. > :20:55.large number of points I have been made, I think it has to be said that

:20:56. > :21:00.it is absolutely almost impossible to think of and understand anybody

:21:01. > :21:03.who would want to buy... The clue is in the name... The Green Investment

:21:04. > :21:09.Bank, unless they wanted to make sure that it continued to invest in

:21:10. > :21:15.green projects. At that point I will of course give way.

:21:16. > :21:20.I think we welcome the general direction travelled, in terms of the

:21:21. > :21:25.special share. During the privatisation process the Government

:21:26. > :21:29.will have a clear say in terms of that direction of travel forward, in

:21:30. > :21:33.selecting the new owners. Can the Minister expand upon how they will

:21:34. > :21:36.ensure appropriate owners are put in place and they will respect the

:21:37. > :21:39.special share and also the green agenda?

:21:40. > :21:46.Of course, everybody will have two comply with due diligence. I welcome

:21:47. > :21:49.the young gentleman's comments, but absolutely make it clear, it is

:21:50. > :21:52.difficult to believe and understand how anybody would want to buy a

:21:53. > :21:57.Green Investment Bank unless they absolutely want to continue with the

:21:58. > :22:01.great work it's been doing. I absolutely pay tribute to that. I

:22:02. > :22:07.will come on to... I will come specifically to why the new clause

:22:08. > :22:13.about the future of this special share is wrong by the opposition and

:22:14. > :22:15.our proposals are the right thing to do.

:22:16. > :22:20.I am grateful to you for giving way. It is not just about green purposes.

:22:21. > :22:23.Can we'll so remember what the Green Investment Bank has done is to focus

:22:24. > :22:27.on complex and novel innovations question but that is precisely why a

:22:28. > :22:32.private investor might not wish to do that, because it takes longer,

:22:33. > :22:35.not such a quick win. And the special share is not legally

:22:36. > :22:39.underpinned, so it gives us no long-term reassurance.

:22:40. > :22:43.I do disagree with the honourable lady, because one of the things

:22:44. > :22:47.about this privatisation, this sale of the Green Investment Bank is

:22:48. > :22:51.precisely to ensure that more money is available from the private

:22:52. > :22:54.sector, particularly to carry out this sort of investment. Forgive me,

:22:55. > :22:59.but it really isn't the role of government to effectively gamble and

:23:00. > :23:06.make investment with taxpayers money. Now, it was right in 2012.

:23:07. > :23:10.Mention has been made by the right honourable gentleman representing

:23:11. > :23:13.Brent North, it was because of an accepted market failure that the

:23:14. > :23:17.Green Investment Bank was set up. The idea that this government is

:23:18. > :23:22.throwing it away, as he put it, really couldn't be further from the

:23:23. > :23:27.truth. The Green Investment Bank is a real success story. Nobody seeks

:23:28. > :23:32.to pretend it is anything other than that. We want its success to

:23:33. > :23:36.continue, but in the private sector. Quickly, I will.

:23:37. > :23:40.I am grateful to the honourable lady for giving way. But does she

:23:41. > :23:45.actually believe there is no longer any market failure that needs to be

:23:46. > :23:51.addressed? Because of course the figures on the infrastructure would

:23:52. > :23:56.suggest quite the opposite. The point made by my honourable friend

:23:57. > :23:59.about the innovative and novel nature of the projects the Green

:24:00. > :24:05.Investment Bank was set up to achieve pay much less return into

:24:06. > :24:09.the private sector, which is precisely the reason why it needed a

:24:10. > :24:12.risk-sharing between the Government and the private sector to launch the

:24:13. > :24:16.bank in the first place. What I would say to that is the very

:24:17. > :24:21.fact that the Green Investment Bank has been so successful has

:24:22. > :24:25.absolutely proved and shown that these are exactly the sort of

:24:26. > :24:30.investments that can be profitable and worthy. In other words, it has

:24:31. > :24:34.shown by its success but there is no longer a market failure. I will take

:24:35. > :24:38.another quick intervention. The benches opposite seem to be

:24:39. > :24:42.saying to things, first that the private sector does not do long-term

:24:43. > :24:46.projects well. Look at Shell BP and others, they do many projects over

:24:47. > :24:50.decades. They are also saying that the private sector does not do

:24:51. > :24:57.innovative projects very well. These propositions are just nonsense.

:24:58. > :25:01.I thank my honourable friend for his excellent intervention, which I

:25:02. > :25:05.wholeheartedly endorse. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have always said the

:25:06. > :25:08.Green Investment Bank would stay green after privatisation. Green

:25:09. > :25:11.investment is what it does and its management has been very clear on

:25:12. > :25:16.that. We have explained that the only reason we are repealing for

:25:17. > :25:20.green protections from legislation is to allow the Green Investment

:25:21. > :25:24.Bank to move to the private sector by removing state control over the

:25:25. > :25:30.bank. But we understand the concerns raised by honourable members and

:25:31. > :25:35.noble Lords and we found a device to protect the green investment's green

:25:36. > :25:43.purposes, without legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very, very

:25:44. > :25:48.grateful to the noble lord Smith of Kelvin, who has already, as was

:25:49. > :25:52.mentioned, written to members of the opposition in the other place,

:25:53. > :25:59.explaining why it is the view of those who are currently in charge of

:26:00. > :26:02.the Green Investment Bank about this special measure and why they

:26:03. > :26:07.absolutely have all confidence in it actually achieving what we all want

:26:08. > :26:13.to achieve. So this is the device, if you like, that cure is the

:26:14. > :26:18.mystery. I just want to put on record my thanks to Lord Smith for

:26:19. > :26:22.his letter, that were sent out by my excellent Parliamentary Private

:26:23. > :26:27.Secretary to all members of this house. I hope that all honourable

:26:28. > :26:31.members, on both sides, have I had the opportunity to read this letter,

:26:32. > :26:35.because this letter could not be more clear about why what the

:26:36. > :26:41.Government has proposed will ensure and protect those green purposes and

:26:42. > :26:47.legislation is absolutely not necessary. One of the reasons why,

:26:48. > :26:52.Madam Deputy Speaker, we don't want the opposition's clause to be

:26:53. > :26:56.successful, to put this into legislation, is because we are of

:26:57. > :26:59.the view that the Office for National Statistics will take the

:27:00. > :27:03.view that effectively what we seek to do will not be achieved, it will

:27:04. > :27:07.not be off the books. That is why it is so important. I will give way.

:27:08. > :27:12.I thank the Right Honourable lady for giving way and in support of

:27:13. > :27:18.what the Right Honourable lady says, can I quote from that letter by Lord

:27:19. > :27:22.Smith of Kelvin. He says; "we are 100% committed to delivering the

:27:23. > :27:29.full intent of the amendment passed by the Lords. I hope that by

:27:30. > :27:34.committing to implement the plan and by doing so transparently we can

:27:35. > :27:37.secure the necessary confidence of shareholders and Members of

:27:38. > :27:41.Parliament, that a special share solution can be delivered without

:27:42. > :27:44.the need for it to be mandated in legislation. ".

:27:45. > :27:48.Thank you very much indeed. I'm very grateful to my right honourable

:27:49. > :27:50.friend for reading out from the letter and, forgive me, Madam Deputy

:27:51. > :27:54.Speaker, I'm not going to read it out obviously as you will be very

:27:55. > :28:00.pleased to know, we'd be here all afternoon. What I have done is,

:28:01. > :28:04.placed it in the library and it really does best explain why this

:28:05. > :28:08.clause from the opposition is now no longer require and why it's so

:28:09. > :28:13.incredibly important that we get the right device to ensure the green

:28:14. > :28:17.principles. I'm going to give way one last time if I may to the

:28:18. > :28:20.honourable lady from Wakefield. Lord Smith of Kelvin may or may not be

:28:21. > :28:25.the chairman to have bank when this sale proceeds so can she answer my

:28:26. > :28:28.previous question I made in the debate - will this special share

:28:29. > :28:32.apply if the bank is sold by any future owner, yes or no? I think

:28:33. > :28:38.it's a short one, I think the answer is yes. The honourable lady will

:28:39. > :28:43.have seen this letter. She will have read it, I hope, up side down,

:28:44. > :28:48.inside out, backwards and everything else, and it really could not be...

:28:49. > :28:51.It goes well over two pages and it really couldn't be clearer as to the

:28:52. > :28:57.way that the special share is going to be set up and, if I can, I'm

:28:58. > :29:02.going to rely on the fact that it talks about the special shareholder,

:29:03. > :29:07.how difficult frankly it would be to undo this device. It could only be

:29:08. > :29:11.done with the permission effectively of the special shareholder. So I

:29:12. > :29:16.think that this House can be sure that this is the sort of right way

:29:17. > :29:20.to achieve, as I say, what we all want to achieve. I will in one

:29:21. > :29:25.moment give way but I want to make this next point. That is why I think

:29:26. > :29:32.it's important to pay tribute, and some may say this is a firstand may

:29:33. > :29:37.not be the last, but to the Scottish government, to the SNP, because I've

:29:38. > :29:40.seen sight of a letter that I know that John Swinney has written quite

:29:41. > :29:44.properly, he's the Deputy First Minister, he has responsibility in

:29:45. > :29:46.Scotland for finance constitution and economy on behalf of the

:29:47. > :29:52.Scottish government. I know that he too quite rightly and

:29:53. > :29:58.understandably has raised his concerns about how we best protect

:29:59. > :30:02.the green credentials of the green investment bank. As a result of

:30:03. > :30:07.that, he too has contacted Lord Smith and, as a result of that, use

:30:08. > :30:11.might imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a letter has been sent backwards and

:30:12. > :30:15.forwards but, in short, and it's to the credit of the party that sits

:30:16. > :30:19.over there, that they take the view, and I'll be corrected if I am wrong,

:30:20. > :30:24.but as I say, this device, which is up and running, the work has already

:30:25. > :30:30.started by the green investment bank, to secure this special

:30:31. > :30:34.shareholding, that everybody can be confident that this is the way to

:30:35. > :30:40.secure what we all want, but without the need for legislation which could

:30:41. > :30:43.completely scupper this privatisation, this selling off of

:30:44. > :30:46.the green investment bank. I will give way.

:30:47. > :30:50.I'm very grateful to the honourable lady giving way. She said on many

:30:51. > :30:54.occasions that she's confident that introducing the special share in

:30:55. > :30:58.this way will work, in our case, all along our case has been, we'd like

:30:59. > :31:01.her to say to the House that she can guarantee, rather than just be

:31:02. > :31:05.confident, that the Office for National Statistics will approve

:31:06. > :31:08.this approach. Can she now say in terms to the House on the floor of

:31:09. > :31:13.the House and on the record that she can guarantee that to the House? The

:31:14. > :31:18.honourable lady, I hope this is a Parliamentary word, he's being a bit

:31:19. > :31:22.of a minx, but I mean that in the nicest way, because he knows...

:31:23. > :31:26.LAUGHTER He quite likes that, that's good. I

:31:27. > :31:29.don't think he'll like the next bit, but, you know, I've already

:31:30. > :31:32.explained when we were in the committee that we absolutely can't

:31:33. > :31:36.give that guarantee. I think he was a bit naughty, I think he called the

:31:37. > :31:39.Office for National Statistics a bunch of boffins which he then

:31:40. > :31:43.rather regretted because they are not, they are absolutely

:31:44. > :31:47.independent. They'll rightly come to their conclusions. What we can say

:31:48. > :31:50.is that we are confident that, if this goes into legislation, they

:31:51. > :31:54.will not take this bank effectively off the books because it will not be

:31:55. > :32:00.properly in the private sector and also we can take the view that if we

:32:01. > :32:03.do it in the way we are all suggesting, including the chairman

:32:04. > :32:06.of the green investment bank, there's every chance in the world

:32:07. > :32:10.this will then become a successful privatisation.

:32:11. > :32:15.I think it is confusing, as to the real views. The honourable lady, the

:32:16. > :32:18.member for Wakefield says she doesn't object to the green

:32:19. > :32:22.investment bank being sold off though she's raised her concerns,

:32:23. > :32:25.but she's in favour of it in principle. I'm not sure if others

:32:26. > :32:30.do. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just

:32:31. > :32:36.deal with that amendment put forward by the honourable ladies for both

:32:37. > :32:39.Wakefield and the Don Valley? We believe very firmly this is another

:32:40. > :32:42.amendment which is not required. The green investment bank is currently

:32:43. > :32:46.required to report to higher standards. The standards for quotaed

:32:47. > :32:50.companies which includes the level of detail required by this

:32:51. > :32:54.amendment. That is appropriate because it's currently entirely

:32:55. > :32:59.publicly owned, post-privatisation. Again, there's absolutely no reason

:33:00. > :33:03.why the green investment bank should be I thinkled out to report on its

:33:04. > :33:07.renumeration to Parliament, especially if it's not spending any

:33:08. > :33:11.public money. It's a matter for the board of a company and its

:33:12. > :33:15.shareholders to agree renumeration policy. I know that there was an

:33:16. > :33:19.exchange of letters between the honourable lady who represents

:33:20. > :33:24.Wakefield and the green investment bank's chair, Lord Smith, the Noble

:33:25. > :33:26.Lord Smith to ask about the future remuneration policy and I'm sure her

:33:27. > :33:30.committee will publish that letter in full. If the Government remains

:33:31. > :33:35.the minority stake in the green investment bank and we have made it

:33:36. > :33:40.clear our intention is to sell a majority of it, we could express

:33:41. > :33:43.views on this and other aspects of corporate policy, we could agree

:33:44. > :33:46.with other shareholders what level of reporting might be appropriate to

:33:47. > :33:53.this and other matters. But we do not consider this matter again

:33:54. > :34:02.should reside within legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, the

:34:03. > :34:06.green investment bank has been a terrifically successful venture and

:34:07. > :34:12.it is important to understand that when it was set up in 2012, it was

:34:13. > :34:21.set up because of a market failure. None of us really, well apart from I

:34:22. > :34:26.think the membe opposite don't like to be reminded of the perilous

:34:27. > :34:30.situation our country faced in 2010, and it wasn't certainly the fault of

:34:31. > :34:34.the banks, a failing of Government policy at the time as well. What the

:34:35. > :34:38.green investment bank's done is to help investors in the market to

:34:39. > :34:41.better understand the risks of green investment. I think this comes back

:34:42. > :34:47.to the point that was being advanced by the honourable gentleman for

:34:48. > :34:51.Brent North. We know that long-term debt markets have improved

:34:52. > :34:55.significantly since 2012, so this is again what I would suggest is an

:34:56. > :34:59.improvement in the market conditions. Frankly, today, you

:35:00. > :35:04.wouldn't set up the green investment bank because those market failures

:35:05. > :35:09.no longer exist. As I say, the green investment bank has proved you can

:35:10. > :35:14.be green and profitable. Its success is demonstrating that the market can

:35:15. > :35:17.deliver green and that must be a good thing.

:35:18. > :35:21.I think I've dealt with the point about the Office for National

:35:22. > :35:24.Statistics so I won't repeat all of that.

:35:25. > :35:28.The honourable gentleman for Cardiff West and indeed the honourable lady

:35:29. > :35:31.for Wakefield ask whether the Government will retain a minority

:35:32. > :35:35.stake in the green investment bank. Our position's not changed since the

:35:36. > :35:39.committee stage. I explained then that we intend to sell a majority of

:35:40. > :35:46.the green investment bank. We may retain a minority, as I say, but we

:35:47. > :35:49.can't commit to that. Our report to Parliament makes clear, decisions on

:35:50. > :35:54.the size of stake in the green investment bank to be sold will

:35:55. > :35:57.depend on the outcome of confidential commercial discussions

:35:58. > :36:03.with investors and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State who made the

:36:04. > :36:06.announcement last week that the green investment bank is now

:36:07. > :36:11.available to be sold and unfortunately I can say no more than

:36:12. > :36:14.that Madam Deputy Speaker, other than to say we are confident this

:36:15. > :36:19.will be a successful sale and that this sale will be done at the time

:36:20. > :36:22.when the market is in the right place.

:36:23. > :36:27.Having said that, of course, we are not just going to sell it, unless of

:36:28. > :36:33.course we know we'll get the right price and we have had, for some time

:36:34. > :36:38.now, strong market interest in the green investment bank. The green

:36:39. > :36:44.investment bank has strong, underlying assets which are less

:36:45. > :36:48.exposed to market volatility and the recent infrastructure of sales like

:36:49. > :36:51.City airnt have been successful too, that gives us confidence again, in

:36:52. > :36:56.particular in this part of the market. So we have those

:36:57. > :37:02.confidences. Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody's asked the question, but if

:37:03. > :37:04.they were to, it would be a good question and honourable members

:37:05. > :37:08.opposite in that part of the House might have asked, so I'm going to

:37:09. > :37:12.pre-empt it. I'm just going to put on the record

:37:13. > :37:15.that the green investment bank, no doubt, has been particularly

:37:16. > :37:20.successful because it's been primarily based in Edinburgh.

:37:21. > :37:25.It's an excellent place for anybody to do business. Especially, of

:37:26. > :37:31.course, as it's still within a United Kingdom. I can see no... I

:37:32. > :37:36.know, he's changed his mind now! I can see no good reason, of course

:37:37. > :37:41.again this is something we explored in committee, we can so see no good

:37:42. > :37:44.reason why the green investment bank would want to move away from

:37:45. > :37:47.Edinburgh. Why on earth would they? If the honourable gentleman wants to

:37:48. > :37:50.intervene, he's changed his mind, probably because I hadn't reminded

:37:51. > :37:54.him about the price of oil but we'll move swiftly on from all of that.

:37:55. > :37:58.The honourable gentleman for Cardiff West asked me whether the Government

:37:59. > :38:02.can guarantee that the green investment bank will be off the

:38:03. > :38:07.balance sheet and I think I have dealt with that. We can't give a

:38:08. > :38:10.cast iron guarantee about the ONS but we have a confidence and I hope

:38:11. > :38:17.that will be shared by the whole of the House.

:38:18. > :38:21.Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, we don't need this amendment, in

:38:22. > :38:27.particular because of the assurances that have been given by the noble

:38:28. > :38:32.Lord Smith in his extensive letter to what is now all members of the

:38:33. > :38:34.House. In it, he goes into quite considerable detail about the

:38:35. > :38:39.mechanisms that he's already beginning to put in place to ensure

:38:40. > :38:43.that there is this special share that will ensure the future green

:38:44. > :38:49.credentials of the green investment bank. That is why we would say that

:38:50. > :38:55.that amendment, which I believe will be tested, should be resisted. Now,

:38:56. > :39:01.turning to amendment 17 and going back to that, if I may, I know that

:39:02. > :39:05.the honourable lady, quite rightly, or the honourable ladies for both

:39:06. > :39:09.Wakefield and the Don Valley have raised their concerns that when

:39:10. > :39:13.sold, the green investment bank will be a private sector company. I think

:39:14. > :39:19.this is an important point to put on the record. As such, it will be

:39:20. > :39:24.subject to normal company law. For a company of the green

:39:25. > :39:29.investment bank side which is unquoted which means it's not listed

:39:30. > :39:35.on the Stock Exchange, the minimum requirement will be to report

:39:36. > :39:38.aggregate information in relation to total renumeration and specific

:39:39. > :39:42.information relating to the highest paid director. As I've said, it's

:39:43. > :39:46.currently required to report to higher standards, the standards for

:39:47. > :39:50.quoted companies which includes the level of detail required by this

:39:51. > :39:56.amendment. That is appropriate because it is currently entirely

:39:57. > :40:02.publicly owned. Madam Deputy Speaker, I've made

:40:03. > :40:05.considerable praise... Yes, thank you for that. That's extremely

:40:06. > :40:09.helpful. No doubt it will be a blessing in

:40:10. > :40:14.due course to everybody that has to have the misfortune... No, no, the

:40:15. > :40:17.great good fortune to read this in Hansard or indeed to be following

:40:18. > :40:23.these procedures. But I wanted to pay tribute, if I may, to the green

:40:24. > :40:26.investment bank, to all those who work for it, and especially to its

:40:27. > :40:36.chairman, the noble Lord Smith. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:40:37. > :40:39.the Government has listened to the concerns, I shan't forget this from

:40:40. > :40:46.the honourable gentleman who represents Nottingham east and his

:40:47. > :40:51.heckling. The Government has listened, that is the most important

:40:52. > :40:55.point of what I am saying. To the concerns of honourable members and

:40:56. > :40:59.noble lords of all parties. We have been open and transparent about our

:41:00. > :41:03.intentions from the Green Investment Bank, not only from June this year,

:41:04. > :41:10.but as far back as the Autumn Statement in January 13 when we made

:41:11. > :41:14.our position clear -- 2013. We want it to increase its green impact with

:41:15. > :41:18.greater access to private sector capital. As Lord Smith says in his

:41:19. > :41:22.letter, he wants to do it this way and not the opposition's way, in

:41:23. > :41:26.particular so they have the access to Equity, which they need so much.

:41:27. > :41:29.We need to give it the freedom to continue doing what it does best and

:41:30. > :41:35.I hope that all honourable members will join me in the no lobbied in

:41:36. > :41:39.resisting these amendments. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should

:41:40. > :41:43.say the Minister criticised me for referring to in Committee to the

:41:44. > :41:49.Office of National Statistics as boffins. Can I remind her that they

:41:50. > :41:54.are a boffin according to Wikipedia and the Oxford dictionary, a person

:41:55. > :41:58.engaged in technical research, and it originates in World War II. I

:41:59. > :42:02.don't think is anything to apologise for in describing them as boffins.

:42:03. > :42:05.We are looking for a guaranteed that the mechanism that the Government is

:42:06. > :42:10.proposing would indeed satisfy the ONS. The Minister's confirmed on the

:42:11. > :42:15.floor of the House today that she cannot offer that guaranteed to us.

:42:16. > :42:18.On that basis we don't want to let this legislative opportunity pass by

:42:19. > :42:23.to ensure the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank. On that basis

:42:24. > :42:27.I will be asking my right honourable friends to join me in the lobby and

:42:28. > :42:33.seek to divide the House on new clause four. The question is that

:42:34. > :42:38.new clause four be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion,

:42:39. > :44:42.say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division. Clear the lobby.

:44:43. > :44:48.Order. The question is that new clause four be read a second time.

:44:49. > :44:55.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

:44:56. > :44:58.Tellers for the ayes, Vicky Fox crossed and Jeff Smith. Tellers for

:44:59. > :50:56.the noes... The ayes to the right, 202. The noes

:50:57. > :58:18.to the left, 284. The ayes to the right, 202. The noes

:58:19. > :58:21.to the left, 284. The noes have it, the noes have it.

:58:22. > :58:34.Unlock. We now come to new schedule 1 with

:58:35. > :58:42.which it will be convenient to consider amendments 18, 15 and 16

:58:43. > :58:44.and Government amendments 3-9. Mr Kevin Brannan to move new schedule

:58:45. > :58:50.1. Thank you very much. We are now on

:58:51. > :58:56.new schedule 1 which I am moving and it links with our amendment 16 in

:58:57. > :59:00.this group. We are also discussing amendment 15 which stands in my name

:59:01. > :59:03.and that of my right honourable friend and amendment 18 tabled by

:59:04. > :59:09.the SNP which we also discussed in committee and which I'm happy to

:59:10. > :59:13.confirm we support today. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is

:59:14. > :59:19.the bit of the enterprise bill which is nothing to do with enterprise.

:59:20. > :59:24.It's largely actually about spin, to be perfectly honest. Let me make it

:59:25. > :59:29.clear, as I did in committee, Madam Deputy Speaker. The opposition

:59:30. > :59:34.agrees that excessive exit payments in the public sector should. Paid

:59:35. > :59:38.and that, if there are abuses in that regard, any abuses should be

:59:39. > :59:42.ended. But the problem with the Government's approach to this, Madam

:59:43. > :59:45.Deputy Speaker, is they are attempting to govern by headline in

:59:46. > :59:52.what they are doing in this part of the Bill in a very complex area. In

:59:53. > :59:57.doing so, they're creating the sorts of anomalies and unfairnesses which

:59:58. > :00:00.we'll hear about, I'm sure, during the course of our debate this

:00:01. > :00:05.afternoon, include ago headline-grabbing figure in this

:00:06. > :00:11.case ?95,000 in a clause on the face of the Bill quite frankly is the

:00:12. > :00:17.worst kind of utterly have beening yewious Government and exactly the

:00:18. > :00:21.sort of rigid legislating that good civil servants advise against --

:00:22. > :00:26.utterly vacuous. And which bad ministers promote. Yet, it allows

:00:27. > :00:29.the Secretary of State to have his tabloid headline about fat cats

:00:30. > :00:34.which is actually what this clause in the Bill is really all about.

:00:35. > :00:39.That was the odious remark the Secretary of State made on second

:00:40. > :00:43.reading. It was an insult actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thousands

:00:44. > :00:48.of decent hard-working people in this country, many of whom, by the

:00:49. > :00:51.way, have never been paid anywhere near ?30,000, let alone the ?3

:00:52. > :00:55.million a year the Secretary of State used to get when he was

:00:56. > :01:01.working for an investment bank. Now, if I were to turn around and accuse

:01:02. > :01:05.the - that's got a lot to do with it, because of the language used by

:01:06. > :01:07.the Secretary of State. If I turned around and accused the Secretary of

:01:08. > :01:12.State of being a fat cat, I'm sure the minister - I'm not going to do

:01:13. > :01:15.that by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker - if I were, I'm sure the

:01:16. > :01:22.minister would be huffing and puffing in her usual way from a

:01:23. > :01:24.saiden tear position, muttering outrageous and disgraceful because

:01:25. > :01:29.she and the Secretary of State like to dish it out but they don't like

:01:30. > :01:34.it back when it comes their way. But she was quite content to sit there

:01:35. > :01:40.with the Secretary of State at second reading and cheer him on at

:01:41. > :01:44.second reading as he introduced public servants like long-serving

:01:45. > :01:47.local librarians and even privatised nuclear decommissioning workers as

:01:48. > :01:50.fat cats. That was the language used by the

:01:51. > :01:55.Secretary of State at second reading. I wonder how they'd feel

:01:56. > :01:59.about what he said at second reading, pad dam Deputy Speaker. I

:02:00. > :02:05.know how they feel actually because they wrote to us in droves at

:02:06. > :02:10.committee stage to express their anger at the insulting rhetoric that

:02:11. > :02:13.was usedth used by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and

:02:14. > :02:19.Skills at the second reading of this Bill. In droves they wrote to us and

:02:20. > :02:24.the evidence was officially Schmidted to the committee and we

:02:25. > :02:29.heard a lot of it at committee. Amendment 15 in this group would

:02:30. > :02:34.seek to protect workers who earn less than ?27,000 a year from the

:02:35. > :02:39.proposed exit payment cap. That's right, the fat cat who is earn less

:02:40. > :02:43.than ?27,000 a year in our amendment are the fat cats receive call bid

:02:44. > :02:46.the Secretary of State that we are seeking to protect in amendment 15.

:02:47. > :02:50.I'll give way to my right honourable friend. Very grateful to the Shadow

:02:51. > :02:54.Minister for Giving way. I was here in second reading when the Secretary

:02:55. > :02:59.of State described the long-serving low and average paid public servants

:03:00. > :03:04.as fat cats. The minister said at the despatch box at the end of

:03:05. > :03:08.second reading this that the exit payment cap wouldn't apply to civil

:03:09. > :03:12.servants earning less than ?27,000. She'll forgive us if we don't take

:03:13. > :03:16.her word for it and if she will accept that amendment today to

:03:17. > :03:20.ensure that promise is in law. Well, there was a time when

:03:21. > :03:24.something said on the floor of the House by ministers was to be

:03:25. > :03:30.accepted and I'm prepared to accept that what the minister says she is

:03:31. > :03:33.sincere about. In fact, I think she probably didn't quite... She

:03:34. > :03:36.probably didn't quite say what my right honourable friend said. I

:03:37. > :03:43.think she said it would effect people, could effect a small number

:03:44. > :03:47.of people on ?25,000 she said in her remarks. What my right honourable

:03:48. > :03:52.friend is echoing is what her Treasury colleague said earlier in

:03:53. > :03:55.the year, the honourable member I think for Witham I think before the

:03:56. > :04:00.election when referring to what would be in the Conservative Party

:04:01. > :04:07.manifesto at the election when she said that it wouldn't affect anybody

:04:08. > :04:11.under beened 27,000 a year -- ?27,000 a year. I and we have taken

:04:12. > :04:17.on this side of the House the words on that Government minister, her

:04:18. > :04:20.colleague who said that in terms as a promise, as a Minister of The

:04:21. > :04:23.Crown, and we have put it into this amendment to hold the Government to

:04:24. > :04:27.its word. Now, the fact that the minister

:04:28. > :04:32.wasn't prepared to repeat that in those terms in her speech perhaps is

:04:33. > :04:35.explained by the refusal of the Government to support this very

:04:36. > :04:39.reasonable amendment which we are putting forward. I'll give way to

:04:40. > :04:43.the honourable gentleman. Very, very grateful for the honourable

:04:44. > :04:47.gentleman giving way. In his deliberations or in analysis, has he

:04:48. > :04:55.looked at the proportion? This is looking at the round of public money

:04:56. > :05:00.spent on that. What proportion of expenditures were for people earning

:05:01. > :05:06.less than ?27,000 and what to portion were for people earning over

:05:07. > :05:10.?100,000. I don't have that figure but we probed the Government of the

:05:11. > :05:15.impact on this on people earning less than ?27,000 a year and I'm

:05:16. > :05:17.afraid we haven't been able to elucidate a great deal of

:05:18. > :05:20.information other than the Government saying it would be rare

:05:21. > :05:25.for this to occur. A point I'm going to make in a moment is, if it's not

:05:26. > :05:28.that rare, why not accept the amendment because it's not going to

:05:29. > :05:33.cost much to the Government if they are right it's going to affect so

:05:34. > :05:37.few people. Very grateful. He's making a very fair point. But in the

:05:38. > :05:41.absence of data he has his own good judgment and reasonableness for many

:05:42. > :05:47.years in Government prior to 2010, but does he not feel the aim of this

:05:48. > :05:51.really is that does he instincts not say the majority of money for this

:05:52. > :05:54.is for people earning over ?100,000, that's really the target of what the

:05:55. > :05:58.Government proposes isn't it? That's what the Government says the target

:05:59. > :06:03.is, and, as the honourable gentleman says, I respect him greatly and his

:06:04. > :06:07.independence of mind and thought and also his intellect on these sorts of

:06:08. > :06:15.matters, and, as I said at the outset, if there are abuses going on

:06:16. > :06:19.in relation to public sector payments, we are perfectly willing

:06:20. > :06:24.to say that that should be stopped. However, we need to look at actually

:06:25. > :06:30.what the clause in the Bill does and it picks a figure of ?95,000 in

:06:31. > :06:35.order to generate a headline to say that fat cat public sector exit

:06:36. > :06:41.payments of over ?100,000 are being stopped by the Bill. What it doesn't

:06:42. > :06:46.elucidate very clearly is that ?95,000 isn't just a cash lump sum,

:06:47. > :06:52.it includes the so-called strain payments which are paid into pension

:06:53. > :06:55.funds of workers where they are being forced into redundancy prior

:06:56. > :07:01.to retirement age, money they'll never get in their pockets. They are

:07:02. > :07:06.not walking away with ?95,000 in their pockets ex-, they are not fat

:07:07. > :07:10.cats earning over ?100,000, in some cases they are on relatively modest

:07:11. > :07:13.incomes. It will capture people in the private sector which the

:07:14. > :07:17.Government was neither keen to elucidate in this. I have a number

:07:18. > :07:22.of people wishing to intervene. I saw the honourable gentleman wanting

:07:23. > :07:25.to intervene there. Could the Shadow minister confirm many of the

:07:26. > :07:31.employees affected by this earning less than ?25,000 a year will mostly

:07:32. > :07:34.be women and this being International Women's Day, perhaps

:07:35. > :07:39.the Government should think again. The gentleman is absolutely right on

:07:40. > :07:42.that point, and clearly there are large numbers of public sector

:07:43. > :07:48.workers often who've worked and given great long service in the

:07:49. > :07:53.public sector who might have to take early redundancy, not surprisingly

:07:54. > :07:56.at a time of severe cuts often in Local Government and the provisions

:07:57. > :08:00.that are there in statute in regard or in their pension fund in the

:08:01. > :08:04.Local Government pension fund require the payments to be made and

:08:05. > :08:09.they'll count towards the ?95,000. I give way. I thank manufacture nor

:08:10. > :08:12.giving way and my intervention compliments that of the honourable

:08:13. > :08:16.gentleman because one of the big concerns about the changes here

:08:17. > :08:20.which I'm sure he shares is that the consultation around this change is

:08:21. > :08:26.so inadequate but there is Government have failed to undertake

:08:27. > :08:31.any public sector equality death duty review which is required under

:08:32. > :08:34.the equalities act and therefore, there are many potential unintended

:08:35. > :08:38.conwhens of these changes which the Government really are not taking the

:08:39. > :08:45.time to consider or explore. Yes. I'll briefly touch on the

:08:46. > :08:52.inadequacy of the consultation later in my remarks. So that's amendment

:08:53. > :08:57.15, it's about workers earning under ?27,000 a year. As I mentioned

:08:58. > :09:06.earlier on - I will in a moment give way - it was the honourable member

:09:07. > :09:13.for Witham at the Treasury who said "those earning less than ?27,000

:09:14. > :09:17.will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning,

:09:18. > :09:21.long-serving public servants". That was the honourable member for Witham

:09:22. > :09:24.a year ago commenting on the Government plans to create this exit

:09:25. > :09:27.sector cap. I thank the Shadow Minister for

:09:28. > :09:31.Giving way. Didn't the minister in committee take the committee through

:09:32. > :09:34.a number of worked examples here in demonstrating it wouldn't have the

:09:35. > :09:38.adverse effect on pensions being affected. For example, a prison

:09:39. > :09:43.officer earning ?28,000 a year with 24 years experience could still

:09:44. > :09:47.retire as young as 52 without being affected and doesn't that illustrate

:09:48. > :09:50.that the honourable gentleman's concerns are not terribly well

:09:51. > :09:53.founded? Well, I would recommend the honourable gentleman reads more

:09:54. > :09:57.deeply into the report of the committee stage and reads the worked

:09:58. > :10:01.example that I gave of somebody in long service in Local Government who

:10:02. > :10:04.would be affected on the salary of ?25,000 a year and I commend that

:10:05. > :10:12.example to him. The honourable members did not think

:10:13. > :10:16.that they were fat cats at that time, and she thought they would be

:10:17. > :10:22.protected. We need to understand why that is not happening in this bill.

:10:23. > :10:26.Why was a lower earnings fall not included, given that the

:10:27. > :10:30.Conservatives promised that they would only pursue, and again I quote

:10:31. > :10:35.from their manifesto, best paid workers. That is what it says in

:10:36. > :10:37.their manifesto. Of course, once the election was over, Madam Deputy

:10:38. > :10:43.Speaker, the Government didn't want that. Problems emerged as a result

:10:44. > :10:46.of how poorly the consultation was conducted, as my honourable friend

:10:47. > :10:50.has said. Usually a full consultation takes 12 weeks. This

:10:51. > :10:55.was done over four weeks by the Government in the summer, it began

:10:56. > :11:00.on the 31st of July 2015, and concluded on the 27th of August. If

:11:01. > :11:04.the Government was serious that this would only affect the best paid, it

:11:05. > :11:09.would be very straightforward to include a provision in this bill to

:11:10. > :11:13.include those on ?27,000 or less -- to exclude. What the Minister said

:11:14. > :11:17.at second reading, which my honourable friend alluded to earlier

:11:18. > :11:21.on and I quote her, she said, what we do know is that there is a very

:11:22. > :11:26.small number of workers, that is the figure she gave, a very small number

:11:27. > :11:30.of workers in the public sector on about ?25,000 who could be caught by

:11:31. > :11:34.this. But those are extremely rare conditions. That is the official

:11:35. > :11:40.report on the 2nd of February, volume 605, column 886. What we want

:11:41. > :11:45.to know, and I think this is what the honourable gentleman wanted to

:11:46. > :11:51.know, is, how rare? And if so, why not exempt the lower paid's I thank

:11:52. > :11:56.him for giving way. He mentioned briefly that the date at which the

:11:57. > :12:00.consultation was published, between July and August. Does it not occur

:12:01. > :12:04.to him, if the Government were keen to genuinely hear back from people

:12:05. > :12:07.potentially affected or interested in this change, they would not

:12:08. > :12:12.impose it over such a short period of time over the summer holidays? My

:12:13. > :12:15.only assumption is they think that fat cats should not have holidays,

:12:16. > :12:21.and that is why they probably thought that it didn't matter, it is

:12:22. > :12:24.only a four-week consultation and that is what they think of the

:12:25. > :12:28.people they are supposed to be consulting. It really is shameful,

:12:29. > :12:32.actually, the consultation. The rhetoric used by the Government is

:12:33. > :12:36.shameful, the contemptuous short nature of the consultation is

:12:37. > :12:39.shameful and the way at which this policy has been introduced overall

:12:40. > :12:43.coming be described as shameful. We are concerned -- can only be

:12:44. > :12:48.described. We are concerned about the reluctance of the exemptions, to

:12:49. > :12:54.ensure that those unfortunate view, which is what the Minister told us

:12:55. > :13:01.they are, if you. If the low-end average paid or affected, only

:13:02. > :13:04.excluding them from the camp will not involve the Government losing

:13:05. > :13:11.money, what is the point and exempting them? I will give way. I

:13:12. > :13:18.was wondering if there may be a flaw in his argument, no pun intended,

:13:19. > :13:22.which is that if you were to put the floor in ?27,000, what about the's

:13:23. > :13:31.?28,000 and how would you differentiate between the two? --

:13:32. > :13:35.the person at ?28,000. I understand the point he is making, the problem

:13:36. > :13:39.with that is that would be all right if it was truly a payment they were

:13:40. > :13:43.going to get in their pocket. The reason these people are captured is

:13:44. > :13:46.because it includes the so-called strain payments that are made into

:13:47. > :13:50.the pension fund if they are made redundant prior to their normal

:13:51. > :13:54.retirement age in that pension fund. That is the fairness within it, and

:13:55. > :14:00.that is the reason why I presume the Government originally itself that

:14:01. > :14:05.the Treasury Minister originally itself said, nobody under ?27,000

:14:06. > :14:10.should be included. We have simply taken the original intention that

:14:11. > :14:17.the Government said it had in relation to this, as elucidating by

:14:18. > :14:22.the Minister, and put it into or amendment in order to test why it

:14:23. > :14:28.isn't being done by the Government. An report in the Lords, the baroness

:14:29. > :14:32.indicated that a drop of ?500 would not be disproportionate for somebody

:14:33. > :14:36.previously entitled to a pension of ?12,500. That is the implication,

:14:37. > :14:41.there could be a fall in the pension paid ultimately. All I would say is

:14:42. > :14:45.that dropped 4% income for somebody on a relatively small income, lower

:14:46. > :14:50.after all planned what one would receive on the minimum wage, is

:14:51. > :14:55.hugely significant somebody on that low income. To say that a 4% cut is

:14:56. > :14:59.not significant, I think hugely is out of touch with the reality of

:15:00. > :15:03.many people's lives. The Government made the case in the House of

:15:04. > :15:07.Commons that leaving with a payment of ?90,000 or above would be a large

:15:08. > :15:10.amount for any employee, but the idea that they will receive that

:15:11. > :15:14.money necessarily is the myth I think the Government has been

:15:15. > :15:19.perpetrating. A large amount will never actually be seen by employees

:15:20. > :15:22.on low to average incomes, because the payment includes compensation

:15:23. > :15:34.paid to the pension scheme. In fact, some of them will never

:15:35. > :15:38.even receive their pension so that money will never actually be seen in

:15:39. > :15:41.anyway, shape or form. The cap includes strain payments, as I have

:15:42. > :15:43.said, and a shortfall in the pension is actually adjusted at the time of

:15:44. > :15:45.redundancy. Strain payments could make up a considerable amount of

:15:46. > :15:47.that money, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if so, long serving Royal

:15:48. > :15:50.workers could finish with a significant shortfall in the amount

:15:51. > :15:55.that should have been allocated to deal with redundancy, unemployment

:15:56. > :16:02.and uncertainty -- Royal workers. They will be left with little to pay

:16:03. > :16:05.for annuities to fight for long-term security -- Royall. I don't think

:16:06. > :16:08.this was the intention of the Minister and the government

:16:09. > :16:11.originally. The fact the Government has refused to respond to these

:16:12. > :16:17.concerns does make me wonder whether I'm right about that. Now, we have

:16:18. > :16:20.been told recently that the Chancellor has withdrawn his

:16:21. > :16:25.proposals on pensions which were to raise temporary pounds to pay down

:16:26. > :16:29.the deficit. He has moved swiftly, in other words, so as not to offend

:16:30. > :16:34.those better of pensioners who might have been hit by that proposal that

:16:35. > :16:39.the Chancellor was developing. So why won't the Government then turn

:16:40. > :16:45.their hand to those who are left with ?27,000 per year, whose

:16:46. > :16:50.redundancy and access to pension is threatened by the exit payment cap?

:16:51. > :16:54.The trance last famously said, we are all in this together, those with

:16:55. > :16:58.the broadest shoulders should share the biggest burden -- the Chancellor

:16:59. > :17:02.has famously said. Here the Government now has a chance to prove

:17:03. > :17:11.that by supporting our amendment. I now turn to amendment 16, which

:17:12. > :17:15.would exclude employees of companies in schedule one, the head of this

:17:16. > :17:20.grouping, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are companies which are

:17:21. > :17:24.operated by the private sector. And new schedule one and the amendment

:17:25. > :17:32.associated with it would exclude them from the scope of the cap. This

:17:33. > :17:35.affects principally people like employees of companies across

:17:36. > :17:41.nuclear state and elsewhere that are employed by companies operating in

:17:42. > :17:44.the private sector. Why are they being included in and affected by a

:17:45. > :17:47.measure that the Secretary of State told us on second reading is

:17:48. > :17:53.starting to hit public sector fat cats? Workers working in the private

:17:54. > :17:59.sector now public sector fat cats according to the Secretary of State.

:18:00. > :18:06.I will. I thank you for giving way. When companies such as this

:18:07. > :18:11.privatise, this includes workers transferred. Employees lost access

:18:12. > :18:16.to the public sector pension scheme. Last week, it included a cap on

:18:17. > :18:18.public sector redundancy payments. Does the Shadow Secretary of State

:18:19. > :18:22.not agree that the Treasury is trying to have its cake and eat it,

:18:23. > :18:27.too, at the expense of these workers? I thank her for promoting

:18:28. > :18:32.me temporarily, but I do agree with her on that point. I know she has

:18:33. > :18:36.been campaigning and helping my honourable friend with this matter,

:18:37. > :18:43.I think we may hear from her, she is absolutely right about this. These

:18:44. > :18:49.are companies who never imagined, employees who never imagine for one

:18:50. > :18:53.second that they would be hit by the Goverment's proposals by what the

:18:54. > :18:58.Conservative Party manifesto said about its commitment to cap public

:18:59. > :19:03.sector exit payments. Now, we raised this issue in Committee, but the

:19:04. > :19:06.Minister was unable to or refuse to come actually, guarantee that those

:19:07. > :19:12.employees will be excluded from the exit payment cap. These companies

:19:13. > :19:16.are really unique position. They are mostly engaged with managing the

:19:17. > :19:21.safe closure of nuclear facilities, and that is obviously a hugely

:19:22. > :19:24.important task for our country, a task of national importance. Why is

:19:25. > :19:30.nature, it involves working towards a specific end date -- by its

:19:31. > :19:34.nature. At which point the employees will effect, provided they have done

:19:35. > :19:38.a good job, make themselves redundant. That is what they are

:19:39. > :19:42.doing, they are working to make themselves redundant. Thank you.

:19:43. > :19:50.Does my honourable friend grew me that it is completely inconsistent

:19:51. > :19:52.to employ -- agree with me. My constituents work at Sellafield, and

:19:53. > :19:57.they are very, very worried about the proposed redundancy cap. I am

:19:58. > :20:01.concerned that this will lead to highly skilled, experienced workers

:20:02. > :20:03.leaving the industry, that their landmines or ability to safely

:20:04. > :20:09.deliver the decommissioning of nuclear facilities -- that then

:20:10. > :20:15.undermines. Yes, my honourable friend will notice that in new

:20:16. > :20:18.schedule one Sellafield is one of the organisations we have included

:20:19. > :20:23.for that very reason that she quite rightly points out in eventually.

:20:24. > :20:27.These are workers who are working towards making themselves redundant.

:20:28. > :20:32.They except that this is a task and finish type of activity of national

:20:33. > :20:35.importance. -- they accept. To get somebody with the necessary skills

:20:36. > :20:39.to commit to that kind of proposition when they are in their

:20:40. > :20:42.early or mid 30s, we need to ensure that they know that they will be

:20:43. > :20:50.provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they

:20:51. > :20:52.reach their mid to late 50s. Finding employment with their specific

:20:53. > :20:57.skills might be extremely difficult for them. These companies cannot

:20:58. > :21:01.afford the package is necessary to compensate somebody for the loss of

:21:02. > :21:04.their role when the task is completed, the companies will find

:21:05. > :21:08.it extremely difficult to prevent these highly skilled workers, who on

:21:09. > :21:14.mobile in the early parts of their careers, from simply leaving. That

:21:15. > :21:18.in itself will drive up costs to the nuclear decommissioning industry. It

:21:19. > :21:22.is to an already difficult skills shortage in that sector. Legislating

:21:23. > :21:25.now, as the Government doing, to override the long-standing

:21:26. > :21:30.arrangements in the nuclear industry where employers involved have kept

:21:31. > :21:34.their end of the bargain faithfully, to be frank it is unconscionable.

:21:35. > :21:38.How can it be right that workers who have stayed with the company to

:21:39. > :21:43.deliver successfully the safety commissioning of a site see their

:21:44. > :21:48.promised redundancy payment related on by the government when it is due

:21:49. > :21:52.to be paid. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend, he is making a

:21:53. > :21:57.powerful argument and one that I generally a loss to understand why

:21:58. > :22:02.the Government does not take heed to it. Not only is he setting out

:22:03. > :22:05.reasons why this will cost in the long term, it will cost the

:22:06. > :22:12.individuals, it is a betrayal of trust, it will actually only benefit

:22:13. > :22:16.to a small degree the company involved, it will not actually

:22:17. > :22:18.benefit the Government. I don't understand why they don't take

:22:19. > :22:25.action to write what is very clearly is wrong. Exactly, and the Treasury

:22:26. > :22:29.justification is again that these workers, because of the nature even

:22:30. > :22:35.though they have been privatised are still deemed to be on the books by

:22:36. > :22:38.the ONS because of the work they are undertaking, which requires

:22:39. > :22:41.understandably there to be in effect for it to be underwritten by

:22:42. > :22:45.Government because they are decommissioning nuclear sites. They

:22:46. > :22:49.are not going to get an insurance policy in relation to that. That

:22:50. > :22:53.technical, statistical designation however does not mean that applying

:22:54. > :22:58.the cap to these workers is either fair or necessary value for money

:22:59. > :23:02.for taxpayers in the long term. There is no proof that taxpayers

:23:03. > :23:05.will receive any benefit as the private operators of the company

:23:06. > :23:09.often receive higher incentive payments in their contract as a

:23:10. > :23:12.result of this kind of change. Unless the Government decides to act

:23:13. > :23:17.on this, employees in the sector will note when it comes to pension

:23:18. > :23:20.provisions and other issues, the Treasury has excluded them from the

:23:21. > :23:23.public sector but considered them within scope when it comes to

:23:24. > :23:29.capping their exit payments. I will give way another time. I thank him.

:23:30. > :23:34.If the Government failed to take heed of some of these issues, on

:23:35. > :23:40.this issue, on the women and their pensions who were born in the 1950s,

:23:41. > :23:45.I think the new mantra for the 2020 election will be, you cannot trust

:23:46. > :23:49.the Tories on pensions. She is absolutely right, of course. I do

:23:50. > :23:54.hope the Government have a last-minute change of heart on this.

:23:55. > :24:01.You know, why is privatised bank not given fat cat treatment either

:24:02. > :24:05.Government under these provisions? But nuclear... I will in a moment. I

:24:06. > :24:10.will repeat it in case anybody didn't hear. Why is a fat cat

:24:11. > :24:13.bankers not given this treatment under the Gospels plans, but nuclear

:24:14. > :24:21.decommissioning workers are given this treatment? -- the Goverment's

:24:22. > :24:25.plans. Higher earners have had their contribution is capped at ?40,000

:24:26. > :24:29.per year, and those on the highest incomes have been capped at ?10,000

:24:30. > :24:33.per year. This Government has taken a lot of action in this area, as the

:24:34. > :24:39.Shadow Minister well knows. What he may not realise is that the banks

:24:40. > :24:42.which have been taken into public ownership, those workers are

:24:43. > :24:46.specifically excluded from the provision of the exit payments cap

:24:47. > :24:51.by the Government's plans. He might like to join us in the lobby later

:24:52. > :24:55.in this matter if he wasn't aware of that fact. It seems to be up with

:24:56. > :24:59.the bankers and down with the workers as far as I can see, Madam

:25:00. > :25:03.Deputy Speaker. What a shocking value free zone this policy is if

:25:04. > :25:12.the Government stick to it. We received strong representation from

:25:13. > :25:16.workers and from the trade unions, including Unite and Prospect and

:25:17. > :25:20.directly from the workers and others in relation to this matter. To put

:25:21. > :25:26.it on the record, it is in new schedule one, the companies we have

:25:27. > :25:32.included that that are affected by this public sector fat cat policy

:25:33. > :25:37.Sellafield Limited, Springfield Limited, National nuclear

:25:38. > :25:52.laboratory, is atomic weapons establishment limited... None of the

:25:53. > :25:57.companies in that list are actually called Fat Cats Ltd and yet they are

:25:58. > :26:05.included on the list of workers that the Government treat as such by

:26:06. > :26:10.their own admission. The Bill committee received lots of letters

:26:11. > :26:23.and I congratulate the workers on the quality of the representations

:26:24. > :26:28.they made to the committee. Ian Milligan who works at Bradwell as a

:26:29. > :26:33.waste engineer said; "I should like to start with a definition quoted

:26:34. > :26:36.from the Oxford English Dictionary, the dictionary that sat on my desk

:26:37. > :26:40.within my career in the nuclear industry which has spanned 20 years.

:26:41. > :26:45.The question I had was, what does the term fat cat infer, and the

:26:46. > :26:55.answer, a fat cat a wealthy person, a highly paid executive or official.

:26:56. > :26:59." He goes on to say "I and many of my work colleagues employed are

:27:00. > :27:04.likely to be caught in the proposed exit payments cap of the enterprise

:27:05. > :27:07.Bill which I and my work mates across-the-board were shocked to

:27:08. > :27:10.discover as we are ordinary working class people and do not consider

:27:11. > :27:14.ourselves to be fat cats by any stretch of the imagination. " I'll

:27:15. > :27:17.give way. I thank the Shadow Minister for

:27:18. > :27:21.Giving way. Can he confirm it was the Secretary of State himself who

:27:22. > :27:24.at second reading used the term public sector fat cat when closing

:27:25. > :27:30.his remarks in support of this Bill and secondly, is that not in

:27:31. > :27:34.contrast to the workers he's talking about who're working at a physically

:27:35. > :27:38.taxing environment for many years? Yes, he's absolutely right. I know

:27:39. > :27:42.it's very difficult to believe which is why I guess he had to check and

:27:43. > :27:47.do his intervention. The Secretary of State said this was intended to

:27:48. > :27:52.hit fat cats in the public sector and therefore that includes

:27:53. > :27:58.everybody affected by it. Now, this confirms the understandable anger

:27:59. > :28:01.that's out there and I know my right honourable friend perhaps might also

:28:02. > :28:06.add to this with examples from workers from his own constituents,

:28:07. > :28:11.agreements have been made, guarantees were given and this

:28:12. > :28:16.provision we were told was to hit public sector fat cats not private

:28:17. > :28:19.sector employees. We tabled the amendment which would exempt those

:28:20. > :28:23.company press the Bill if the minister has another way of doing

:28:24. > :28:27.it, as I said at committee, I would be interesting to hear what that was

:28:28. > :28:32.but in committee she wasn't able to offer any comfort for the workers

:28:33. > :28:37.listed in the companies in new schedule 1. The minister's response

:28:38. > :28:39.was, it has to be said, disappointing given the weight of

:28:40. > :28:42.evidence Schmidted to the committee and the strength of feeling amongst

:28:43. > :28:51.honourable members and their constituents. Workers have made

:28:52. > :28:55.their plans -- submitted. As far as we can surmise, from the limited

:28:56. > :28:58.information that the ministers are prepared to provide about the

:28:59. > :29:03.Government's intentions, it appears the Government are going to take

:29:04. > :29:06.action that will affect them. In committee, the minister rehearsed

:29:07. > :29:09.arguments about all sorts of scares which may have been put about by

:29:10. > :29:13.mythical people she was not prepared to name. But going by the evidence

:29:14. > :29:18.submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected and

:29:19. > :29:21.affected to quite a large extent. We represented those arguments and

:29:22. > :29:26.made the case on behalf of those workers and all we got from the

:29:27. > :29:30.minister in committee was a response to issues that had not been raised

:29:31. > :29:34.in the workers' letters or indeed by us. And a vague reference to

:29:35. > :29:40.secondary legislation atth at some later date that will name some as

:29:41. > :29:46.yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap. In other

:29:47. > :29:49.words, all we got was an empty sheet of page fresh the minister as far as

:29:50. > :29:52.that was concerned. I'm afraid that's not good enough in this

:29:53. > :29:55.House, we need to know the Government's intentions and we need

:29:56. > :29:59.to be able to say to the constituent who is've written to us, who're

:30:00. > :30:08.directly affected, whether or not they'll be hit by the exit payment.

:30:09. > :30:12.These people, Mr Deputy Speaker, are hard-working, the beating heart of

:30:13. > :30:17.working people of this country. If you read their letters, it's clear

:30:18. > :30:21.they're not lefty loonies or fat cots or anything of that kind, their

:30:22. > :30:24.letters reveal they are ordinary working people often living in the

:30:25. > :30:28.constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament and saying to

:30:29. > :30:33.us, they read the Conservativement in and never thought they would be

:30:34. > :30:36.affected by it. Ministers put things in the Bill that are meant to get

:30:37. > :30:41.them a headline in the Daily Mail and the Sun and that's what's wrong

:30:42. > :30:45.with this proposal and why it's so flawed. The reality when we lift the

:30:46. > :30:49.stone and look underneath this proposition is that it after s all

:30:50. > :30:54.sorts of people that the Government did not indicate they intended to ha

:30:55. > :30:58.hit. Hard-working people are being betrayed by their Government in this

:30:59. > :31:01.part of the Bill. They would have made very different

:31:02. > :31:06.assumptions about what this policy meant when they read their Daily

:31:07. > :31:13.Mail or their headlines in other papers and, even if they'd read the

:31:14. > :31:16.Conservative Party many. . That's why -- Conservative Party manifesto.

:31:17. > :31:24.That's why if this Government won't stand up for these workers, we will.

:31:25. > :31:30.Restricted from the restrictions on exit payments. Schedule 1 will be

:31:31. > :31:34.read a second time. I'm very pleased to follow the

:31:35. > :31:40.Shadow minister, the honourable member for Cardiff West and, having

:31:41. > :31:48.constituents who work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment and at the

:31:49. > :31:52.science laboratory, DSTL, I have a huge regard for these extraordinary

:31:53. > :31:57.public servants who contribute so much to the security of our country.

:31:58. > :31:59.I therefore have some sympathy with new schedule 1 which he has

:32:00. > :32:09.mentioned. It's very easy I think for the

:32:10. > :32:13.newspapers to produce graphic headlines about Civil Service

:32:14. > :32:19.pen-pushers get massive public pay offs. But these are slightly

:32:20. > :32:22.different people. These are not ordinary people in the sense that I

:32:23. > :32:28.think the Shadow minister was talking about. These are really

:32:29. > :32:35.rather special people. They are working at the forefront of

:32:36. > :32:39.technology. They are working to ensure the nation remains safe and

:32:40. > :32:46.that our realm is secure. I do know from talking to my

:32:47. > :32:51.constituents that people at the AWE, the Atomic Weapons Establishment

:32:52. > :32:56.which indeed was privatised, that they are very unhappy indeed and

:32:57. > :33:01.it's a very important facility that. It's unique because it is the only

:33:02. > :33:07.base capable of designing and producing the successor to our

:33:08. > :33:10.Trident missile system, our nuclear system and indeed to maintain

:33:11. > :33:17.Trident until the successor comes into force. I'm told morale at the

:33:18. > :33:23.AWE is at rock bottom. To remove the last major benefit of working there,

:33:24. > :33:28.pay has been historically low due to the decent benefits they get, risks

:33:29. > :33:33.the nuclear deterrent in the opinion of some people. But they are not the

:33:34. > :33:39.only ones. I mentioned DSTL as well. I have a constituent there who came

:33:40. > :33:45.to see me at my surgery on Saturday. He's a leading scientist and he

:33:46. > :33:48.brought with him the examples of the ceramic Armour that he has

:33:49. > :33:53.personally developed for the protection of our troops. I don't

:33:54. > :33:59.know how many of my right honourable friends or indeed honourable members

:34:00. > :34:02.around the chamber have been to see our defence science laboratories,

:34:03. > :34:06.but I've always been struck, representing, as I do, Farnborough,

:34:07. > :34:12.the former Royal aircraft establishment, now the headquarters.

:34:13. > :34:16.I have always been struck when I met these people that they have in the

:34:17. > :34:19.past worked in the British conditions, they have rather fine

:34:20. > :34:26.offices now in Farnborough, but they were working in shabby conditions,

:34:27. > :34:29.no rubber plants or wall-to-wall carpeting or anything like that.

:34:30. > :34:32.They could get more money in the private sector, we said why do you

:34:33. > :34:36.want to work here and they said, we want to give something back to our

:34:37. > :34:39.country. There is an extraordinary sense of patriotism, dedication and

:34:40. > :34:45.loyal commitment to our country from these scientists who really do

:34:46. > :34:52.contribute disproportionately, in my view, to the Defence of the Realm.

:34:53. > :34:56.My constituent said to me on Saturday, is for decades, I've been

:34:57. > :35:02.paying my taxes, saving harder, avoiding debt, obeying the law and

:35:03. > :35:06.of course working hard to develop these life-saving technologies for

:35:07. > :35:12.members of our Armed Forces. And he says, somespite of that, I've

:35:13. > :35:20.received below inflation pay rises since 2004, my pension contributions

:35:21. > :35:23.have doubled, my retirement age has in's twoed from 60-67, my redundancy

:35:24. > :35:29.terms have been degraded significantly and my pay is now 20%

:35:30. > :35:35.lower than Ministry of Defence colleagues outside DSTL.

:35:36. > :35:42.He also draws my attention to the 2015 review of the MOD science and

:35:43. > :35:44.technology capability by the Government's Chief Scientific

:35:45. > :35:50.Adviser who said "we understand that staff retention is difficult in the

:35:51. > :35:54.mid career stage. We were surprised DSTL are able to retain staff, let

:35:55. > :36:00.alone good staff, given the comparatively low pay offered. " Of

:36:01. > :36:04.course, the conditions have not been improved because of this will

:36:05. > :36:09.austerity measures. I understand the austerity measures we've had to

:36:10. > :36:15.take, but that didn't stop the Chief Executive of DSTL receiving a 30%

:36:16. > :36:19.remuneration. I think it's understandable in the circumstances

:36:20. > :36:23.that these people do not feel that they have been as well treated as

:36:24. > :36:27.they should be. Of course, the other point about

:36:28. > :36:33.them is that, being crowned servants, as they are, being the

:36:34. > :36:38.kind of people they are, they don't go around protesting, they come to

:36:39. > :36:43.our surgeries, they write us a private letter, they won't write to

:36:44. > :36:46.the national newspapers they won't stand outside with a placard, they

:36:47. > :36:57.just want to get on with their jobs and I think there is a risk that

:36:58. > :37:03.says that we may be taken for granted.

:37:04. > :37:05.These are people significant to our national security.

:37:06. > :37:11.I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. He's absolutely

:37:12. > :37:20.right. I have entire sympathy for his argument. Isn't the concern that

:37:21. > :37:22.actually, the arguments he makes are ones that could be made for everyone

:37:23. > :37:27.working in the public sector which is why there is the instinctive view

:37:28. > :37:31.of the Government not to draw the distinction that he'd like to do in

:37:32. > :37:36.this regard. I have huge respect for my right

:37:37. > :37:46.honourable friend and I understand the argument that I represent the

:37:47. > :37:49.place that is the home of the British Army aviation and it's

:37:50. > :37:53.steeped in technology. I do know these people, I knew them

:37:54. > :37:59.when I was a minister in the Ministry of Defence, I've known them

:38:00. > :38:04.throughout my constituency experience in Aldershot and I value

:38:05. > :38:10.them and, I'm afraid, I do think they're rather special and I do

:38:11. > :38:16.think they have been neglected. I specifically pointed out that

:38:17. > :38:20.they're not or had not been, that their grades have not been made up

:38:21. > :38:23.to the Ministry of Defence grades. Because they are busy in their

:38:24. > :38:27.laboratories doing what they like doing, which is inventing and

:38:28. > :38:33.helping to protect us all, so I do think I'm not going to re-Israel

:38:34. > :38:37.from singling them out. -- resile. My right honourable friend is right

:38:38. > :38:42.to say that I'm doing that, but I hope that he will accept my apology

:38:43. > :38:46.for so doing. I will give way. I think the point about the entire

:38:47. > :38:50.public sector was a ranable one and it would be a stronger one if the

:38:51. > :38:53.Government had not specifically exempted parts of the public sector,

:38:54. > :38:59.namely those parts of the public sector that are in the City of

:39:00. > :39:02.London, the privatised banks and more particularly the compensation

:39:03. > :39:05.schemes like the FCA. They are public sector bodies.

:39:06. > :39:11.My right honourable friend makes a very good point.

:39:12. > :39:14.Of course. Specifically in relation to the City of London, the intention

:39:15. > :39:19.is much of the parts of the City of London that are in the public sector

:39:20. > :39:28.will not be there for very long. I should perhaps say to plonk for

:39:29. > :39:33.Aldershot, I'm a former Army soldier and have lived in his constituency

:39:34. > :39:38.in my younger life and I have a lot of sympathy for what he says, I'm

:39:39. > :39:44.not to being him off, I agree about the military and Intelligence

:39:45. > :39:49.Services as well that could earn literally multiple leaving GCHQ to

:39:50. > :39:58.go and work in the private toke for. If we are to draw line, we should do

:39:59. > :40:04.it in a sensible way or not at all. -- private sector. They acknowledge

:40:05. > :40:09.this Before- was part of our manifesto commitment that we'd end

:40:10. > :40:11.tax-payer funded six-figure payouts, public sector workers. They accept

:40:12. > :40:16.the Government has a mandate for that, but they do make a point which

:40:17. > :40:21.I think is worth putting on record and forgive me for doing this, Mr

:40:22. > :40:26.Deputy Speaker, but they do feel that an agreement that was signed in

:40:27. > :40:32.2010's been back-tracked on. They use the word renege. I say

:40:33. > :40:36.backtrack. The current Civil Service eredundancy terms were agreed by

:40:37. > :40:41.Civil Service unions and the last Minister for The Cabinet Office, our

:40:42. > :40:44.Noble Friend roared Maude just four years before the Conservative

:40:45. > :40:47.Party's announcement that it would seek to renege on that. They say the

:40:48. > :40:51.minister stated at the time harks the new scheme shows is that

:40:52. > :40:57.constructive negotiations with the unions can work and the result as a

:40:58. > :41:01.package that is fair for civil servants and other taxpayers. It

:41:02. > :41:06.also said, I believe we have a scheme which is fair, protects those

:41:07. > :41:11.who need the most support, addresses the inequities and is right for the

:41:12. > :41:16.long-term. I just put it to my right honourable friend on the frontbench,

:41:17. > :41:17.that expression, "it is right for the long-term", it hasn't really

:41:18. > :41:27.lasted more than six years. I would say to her, I am not going

:41:28. > :41:30.to vote against the Government tonight, but I urge my right

:41:31. > :41:36.honourable friends to have a discussion and see if this matter

:41:37. > :41:40.can be looked at again. I think it is not fair on some of our most

:41:41. > :41:50.dedicated scientists, as I say, working to keep us secure. Thank

:41:51. > :41:57.you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to move amendment 18 which is in my

:41:58. > :42:02.name. Amendment 18 complement amendment 15, which is part nine of

:42:03. > :42:08.this Bill. The honourable member for Cardiff West said that the Bill,

:42:09. > :42:14.part nine as it stands just now, it is a classic move from the Tory

:42:15. > :42:18.government which is playing to the perception of the fat cats, people

:42:19. > :42:25.are going to get huge pay-outs that is not compatible to private. This

:42:26. > :42:29.does not take account of those long serving, lower paid workers. As I

:42:30. > :42:34.have touched on, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors behind this. The

:42:35. > :42:39.?95,000 cap includes pension payment that actually goes not the workers,

:42:40. > :42:44.it goes to the pension funds, including state contributions for

:42:45. > :42:48.those in retirement. It seems to me to be absolutely immoral, if

:42:49. > :42:53.somebody has to retire through ill-health, they have worked hard,

:42:54. > :42:59.perhaps in a manual job, they have to retire and then the pension is

:43:00. > :43:01.capped, I really don't see how the Government can't consider the impact

:43:02. > :43:06.of this. It was interesting that the House of Lords asked for an impact

:43:07. > :43:10.assessment but that wasn't forthcoming either. When people on

:43:11. > :43:13.the backbenches are asking the Shadow Minister about the impact

:43:14. > :43:16.assessment of this, it is not for us on these benches to do that, that

:43:17. > :43:22.was the Goverment's responsibility from the outset. The Government

:43:23. > :43:27.itself submitted that this could affect workers on less than ?25,000.

:43:28. > :43:33.These workers including librarians, midwives, and other long serving

:43:34. > :43:37.workers, who are completely worlds away from the horror stories we

:43:38. > :43:44.sometimes read of chief executives to do walk away with massive lump

:43:45. > :43:49.sum. I can understand about these people, they get a massive pay-out

:43:50. > :43:53.and pop-up on another council as a higher paid consultant. Yes, again,

:43:54. > :44:00.I agree there should be caps on this. The situation of outlines, I

:44:01. > :44:06.suggest it is more problem in England, the government in Scotland

:44:07. > :44:11.only has 32 authorities. Again I can see the problem in trying to control

:44:12. > :44:16.that. I think ?25,000 is a lot of money, but that is only 3.5 years of

:44:17. > :44:21.an average salary, which puts into perspective. It but some doubt in

:44:22. > :44:24.the marketplace for good. We already know that many women who have

:44:25. > :44:29.previously taken early retirement have now suffered financially

:44:30. > :44:32.because they were not increasing the state pension age. These women are

:44:33. > :44:36.being forced into work programmes are struggling to get back into

:44:37. > :44:41.work. This illustrates how difficult it can be to get back into work at a

:44:42. > :44:44.certain age. Also we should not be imposing exit caps that can affect

:44:45. > :44:49.life choices for lower paid workers who right now, somebody who is still

:44:50. > :44:52.in work is trying to weigh up their options and come to the realisation

:44:53. > :44:57.that they are having to work much longer than they plan to. They have

:44:58. > :45:01.been notified by the DWP. It is not just lower paid workers, this is

:45:02. > :45:07.going to happen to middle earners who again are not meant to be the

:45:08. > :45:12.target. The local authority I was a member of operating a teacher of

:45:13. > :45:15.fresh scheme, where more experienced teachers could be considered for

:45:16. > :45:22.early retirement and replaced by longer teachers. -- younger

:45:23. > :45:27.teachers. This is creating a vicious circle, saving the taxpayer money

:45:28. > :45:35.overall due to the lower pages being weighed bye-bye the low start --

:45:36. > :45:39.lower payments being paid. The forced austerity that has been

:45:40. > :45:45.opposed on us, the Scottish Government has entered a policy of

:45:46. > :45:49.no compulsory redundancies. In Scotland there have been zero

:45:50. > :45:54.compulsory redundancies in the NHS, whereas in England there have been

:45:55. > :45:59.over 70,000 since 2010. If the Government really wants to play the

:46:00. > :46:04.popularity game, there is one winner, we also mentioned they

:46:05. > :46:10.should extend the publicly supported companies such as the banks with

:46:11. > :46:14.public money behind them. They stick up for the bank's bonuses against

:46:15. > :46:17.the rest of Europe, but the important matter is exit payments

:46:18. > :46:23.that we are talking about, he is quite happy to stand back and let

:46:24. > :46:29.the lower paid workers suffer. I'm grateful to my honourable friend

:46:30. > :46:35.forgiving way. He mentioned Scottish Government avoiding compulsory

:46:36. > :46:39.redundancies. We could not have managed a substantial reduction in

:46:40. > :46:42.our workforce without loss of redundancies had we not had the

:46:43. > :46:48.flexibility to offer severance packages that were proportionate to

:46:49. > :46:52.what service people had delivered. Without the ability to do that,

:46:53. > :46:57.councils in Scotland would have been facing very large numbers of

:46:58. > :47:02.compulsory redundancies. I agree with it completely, it is a fine

:47:03. > :47:06.point. I went through the same experiences as a local council. Some

:47:07. > :47:09.of these payments, they are caught up in the payment cap, they have

:47:10. > :47:13.demonstrated their value for money because of the payback period of two

:47:14. > :47:21.years, it is good value for the taxpayer. Just to conclude, the

:47:22. > :47:25.honourable member talked about protecting workers earning less than

:47:26. > :47:31.20 ?11,000. Amendment 15 allows that to be put in place, and amendment 18

:47:32. > :47:36.allows it to be increased in line with inflation, otherwise it is a

:47:37. > :47:46.further ongoing erosion of terms and conditions governing in inflation.

:47:47. > :47:48.That is why we seek to push a vote and hopefully actually the party of

:47:49. > :47:57.workers opposite while back these amendments. Can I first of all

:47:58. > :48:02.congratulate both my honourable friends, a member for Cardiff West

:48:03. > :48:07.and indeed the member for Aldershot for the eloquent way that they have

:48:08. > :48:11.spoken on new schedule one. I won't repeat what I said at second

:48:12. > :48:18.reading, except to reiterate the point is that the the companies

:48:19. > :48:23.listed on the new schedule one are in no way fat cats. I think we need

:48:24. > :48:26.an apology from the Government on that. Because these are hard-working

:48:27. > :48:29.people, these are ordinary people who have worked in very difficult

:48:30. > :48:32.circumstances for many years and have signed up to agreement in good

:48:33. > :48:40.faith with the Goverment's of the day. -- with the governments of the

:48:41. > :48:46.day. I want this Government to one its promises to safeguard the

:48:47. > :48:50.conditions of service that have been agreed between companies and

:48:51. > :48:55.employees -- to honour its promises. I just wanted to touch on the

:48:56. > :49:00.definition of public sector workers. In no way the people listed in this

:49:01. > :49:05.public sector workers. Many of them work for private companies. If these

:49:06. > :49:09.conditions are imposed on them, the caps, it won't benefit the Treasury

:49:10. > :49:12.at all, it will benefit those private companies that have taken on

:49:13. > :49:17.the contract. There will be no great saving. But there will be a breach

:49:18. > :49:23.of trust and there will be considerable loss to the individuals

:49:24. > :49:27.who have been given protection. Now I know this Minister listens to

:49:28. > :49:32.reason, and I'm sure she actually agrees that many of these people

:49:33. > :49:37.have been caught unintentionally in this Bill. The protective status

:49:38. > :49:42.that I'm referring to goes back to the privatisation of the electricity

:49:43. > :49:46.industry in the 1980s. And regulations were brought in in 1990

:49:47. > :49:51.to protect many of the people, many of the categories that have been

:49:52. > :49:57.listed. The mag knocks workers for example in my constituency, over 120

:49:58. > :50:01.have written to me, they were given protection with other nuclear

:50:02. > :50:05.industry employees, as the right honourable member for Aldershot

:50:06. > :50:11.said, in schedule eight of the energy act 2004. When the recent

:50:12. > :50:17.pension act was going through and their conditions were threatened,

:50:18. > :50:21.and a vote in this House of Commons to take away their protected rights

:50:22. > :50:25.was done, and amendment in the House of Lords restored that protection.

:50:26. > :50:31.These were protections that would give in to these workers by Mrs

:50:32. > :50:35.Thatcher and Cecil Parkinson in the 1980s, and they were honoured by

:50:36. > :50:39.other Conservative ministers. I will give way. I thank my honourable

:50:40. > :50:42.friend forgiving way. I also think it is important to point out that

:50:43. > :50:46.the Treasury didn't actually allow the employees of these companies to

:50:47. > :50:50.remain in the public sector pension schemes when they were privatised,

:50:51. > :50:55.so it is completely inconsistent now to call them on. There is a huge

:50:56. > :50:59.inconsistency here. The workers I'm referring to were actually protected

:51:00. > :51:04.in 2004. They were actually given that protection in statute. This

:51:05. > :51:07.Government is using a very crude analysis by the ONS that they are

:51:08. > :51:11.public sector workers and that they are fat cats and they should be

:51:12. > :51:14.treated all the same. But they are breaking their own promises. And I

:51:15. > :51:18.think that is the strong feeling that I got in the letters that I

:51:19. > :51:27.received from the employees. These were safeguards that were given by

:51:28. > :51:30.previous governments during privatisation, and they are now

:51:31. > :51:33.being taken away from them at a whim. And I say to members opposite

:51:34. > :51:35.to think this, it was not in the Conservative manifesto to take away

:51:36. > :51:39.the protected status of these people. The opposite, we are talking

:51:40. > :51:43.about City Hall fat cats at the time. And many of us agree that

:51:44. > :51:47.people shouldn't actually be rewarded for failure. But these are

:51:48. > :51:53.people doing dangerous work now. And when I mentioned the fact that if

:51:54. > :51:58.this comes in an October many of the private companies are refusing to

:51:59. > :52:01.make these redundancies is now, holding them back until October so

:52:02. > :52:06.that they get reduced conditions of service. And I think that is wrong.

:52:07. > :52:12.But this Minister cantered Doda micro I will give way one more time.

:52:13. > :52:16.Surely the biggest safeguard of all is that an occupational pension

:52:17. > :52:21.scheme is the fair pay, and his constituents could have made more

:52:22. > :52:25.money working for other companies but chose to stay where they were

:52:26. > :52:28.because they were going to get a good pension scheme. That is the

:52:29. > :52:31.conditions of service they signed up to, and it has been taken away in

:52:32. > :52:36.this Bill today, that is the reality. I will give way one more

:52:37. > :52:39.time. I have been listening very carefully and have a lot of sympathy

:52:40. > :52:43.with what he says, but I don't follow the one point that he made

:52:44. > :52:51.regarding private companies versus public companies. If they really are

:52:52. > :52:54.private companies, how can the Bill apply, or am I missing something? It

:52:55. > :52:56.is for a confusing and it hasn't been made clear. My understanding is

:52:57. > :52:58.that if these people were to leave today, they will be given the full

:52:59. > :53:01.package. But that the companies have package. But that the companies have

:53:02. > :53:04.been told that this will apply from October, and these very companies

:53:05. > :53:09.are now saying to them, they can't go until that period. That is what

:53:10. > :53:12.has been said by his constituents and my constituents, who are writing

:53:13. > :53:16.about this. You know, there is confusion about it. But this

:53:17. > :53:21.Minister could end it today. She could say, she will honour, as Mrs

:53:22. > :53:24.that she did and other Tory ministers have done, the protected

:53:25. > :53:32.rights and status of these individuals. We could have a vote.

:53:33. > :53:35.Lawyers will argue that a pension can be protected, but we shouldn't

:53:36. > :53:38.leave it to the lawyers. This House of Commons has the opportunity

:53:39. > :53:44.today, and I hope that members across the House will support new

:53:45. > :53:48.schedule one. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be moving Government

:53:49. > :53:51.amendments related to clause 41, enabling Welshmen as does to make

:53:52. > :53:58.regulations on exit payments which they feel are suitable -- Welsh

:53:59. > :54:00.ministers. That has been agreed, as you might imagine, with Welsh

:54:01. > :54:05.ministers through the Welsh Assembly and I am grateful for that. The

:54:06. > :54:10.Conservative manifesto was a clear that we would introduce this cap and

:54:11. > :54:14.set it at ?95,000. Of course it relates to redundancy pay is, and I

:54:15. > :54:19.think that is extremely important to remember. It will curb only the top

:54:20. > :54:24.end of exit payments, just the top 5% in value of all exit packages

:54:25. > :54:30.across the public sector. Amendment 15 I would suggest is merely a

:54:31. > :54:34.device based on an article written in the Daily Telegraph by the member

:54:35. > :54:38.for with, the honourable member for with, back in January of 2015. It

:54:39. > :54:42.was not part of the manifesto promise that was made and there is

:54:43. > :54:48.no honour if I may say in putting forward that other than a member of

:54:49. > :54:53.this place as a junior Treasury Minister wrote an article in the

:54:54. > :54:56.Daily Telegraph. Can I be absolutely clear, the cap will not affect a

:54:57. > :55:01.classroom teacher earning the maximum of the the pay range of

:55:02. > :55:07.?38,000 with a normal pension age of 60, the cap will not affect anybody

:55:08. > :55:12.working in the NHS earning below ?47,500. It will also not affect

:55:13. > :55:16.firefighters. Police officers I am told cannot be made redundant. Nope

:55:17. > :55:22.you wheeze officer in any event earning low ?54,000 would be caught

:55:23. > :55:26.-- no police officer. The Cabinet Office confirmed that they believe

:55:27. > :55:33.it is possible that a civil servant earning below ?25,000, sorry, no

:55:34. > :55:37.civil servant below 25,000 will be captured. Some earning around

:55:38. > :55:44.?25,000 will be captured. But the reality and truth of it is that we

:55:45. > :55:49.can find no such example. So, a librarian earning ?25,000 with 34

:55:50. > :55:51.years' experience would still be able to retire on an unreduced

:55:52. > :56:05.pension age to 55. We think it's unlikely that anyone

:56:06. > :56:11.receiving less than ?27,000 would be hit by this cap. It's extremely rare

:56:12. > :56:19.in the private sector for anybody on a wage of ?25,000 to expect on

:56:20. > :56:23.redundancy a payment of ?95,000, nearly four times their annual

:56:24. > :56:28.earnings. I really do think though, having said all of that, one of the

:56:29. > :56:30.most important points was the point made by my right honourable friend

:56:31. > :56:34.for Bedford, who's no longer in his place, it's right that we look at

:56:35. > :56:38.the value of the cap, as opposed to looking at the amount of salary or

:56:39. > :56:42.income that somebody is earning at the point when they are leaving.

:56:43. > :56:46.Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I really want to address the very important

:56:47. > :56:50.points that have been made about schedule, new schedule 1 that's been

:56:51. > :56:53.put forward and ask honourable members please not to support the

:56:54. > :56:58.amendment. I listened with great care to the excellent points made by

:56:59. > :57:01.both my right honourable friend the member for Aldershot, pay tribute to

:57:02. > :57:07.the workers he's mentioned and indeed the honourable gentleman who

:57:08. > :57:11.represents him. Make it clear, the reasons why we oppose this new

:57:12. > :57:17.schedule is, we think it's wrong to put the exemptions on the face of

:57:18. > :57:21.the Bill, special exceptional circumstances are what the

:57:22. > :57:26.relaxation part of the clause is for after proper ministerial scrutiny.

:57:27. > :57:33.So I can absolutely assure both honourable gentlemans that I indeed

:57:34. > :57:37.will continue to speak to honourable and Right Honourable friends in the

:57:38. > :57:43.trez aand add how much I agree with the very helpful and wise

:57:44. > :57:46.interventions for Westminster and the City of London which I

:57:47. > :57:50.absolutely adopt. I hope at this stainingth stage, if I may say,

:57:51. > :57:54.honourable members, I hear the points they make, I will continue to

:57:55. > :58:00.speak to honourable members. I will not give way, forgive me, the clock

:58:01. > :58:04.is against me. But now is... No, there are reasons, no need to

:58:05. > :58:08.interrupt. Now is not to time to do this, Mr Speaker, there are other

:58:09. > :58:12.ways we can do this if it's the right thing to do. It's the right

:58:13. > :58:18.thing we are true to a very clear manifesto commitment which we made,

:58:19. > :58:25.to put the cap at ?95,000, people... THE SPEAKER: It's not a point of

:58:26. > :58:29.order, come on. I think it's for me to decide and I'm sure that it was

:58:30. > :58:40.going to be about time and I'm sure we are all aware of the time.

:58:41. > :58:44.I was bobbing up and down like a November 5th apple. I don't know

:58:45. > :58:48.what all the fuss is about because I'm concluding my comments in any

:58:49. > :58:52.event. Based on everything I've said, I would usualth urge

:58:53. > :58:56.honourable members to support the clause but reject the other

:58:57. > :59:00.amendments which are not necessary. I respect your ruling that my point

:59:01. > :59:05.of order which I didn't say is out of order.

:59:06. > :59:08.THE SPEAKER: It's not for me to tell you how much time's left, you know

:59:09. > :59:13.that better than I do. Thank you. I note the minister was

:59:14. > :59:18.unwilling to give way because of time. The only point I want to make

:59:19. > :59:27.in relation to concluding the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this,

:59:28. > :59:31.on the point about what the Treasury minister said, she's confirmed to

:59:32. > :59:35.the House, and I thank her for that, that when ministers say something,

:59:36. > :59:39.you can't believe a word that they say. She confirmed it officially on

:59:40. > :59:46.the record for the House and I thank her for that. On that basis, would

:59:47. > :59:53.she like me to give way, is that what she is saying? I'm happy to

:59:54. > :59:55.give way if it's in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

:59:56. > :00:00.THE SPEAKER: Is it from a saiden tear position or point of order? The

:00:01. > :00:03.record will confirm I did not say a minister's word could not be

:00:04. > :00:06.trusted, I was talking about comment in a newspaper that does not form

:00:07. > :00:10.part of Conservative Party policy nor indeed the manifesto. That's

:00:11. > :00:17.what matters the most. THE SPEAKER: You have clarified your

:00:18. > :00:25.position. You can't believe a word they say. Now, what I would simply

:00:26. > :00:29.say, Mr Deputy Speaker, what the minister's said, as in committee,

:00:30. > :00:31.she's confirmed nothing that will give comfort to the workers so

:00:32. > :00:33.therefore I'll ask my right honourable friends and honourable

:00:34. > :00:38.members if they support the workers, to support us in dividing the House

:00:39. > :00:43.in relation to new schedule one. The question is that new schedule 1

:00:44. > :00:46.be added to the Bill. As many of that opinion say aye, to the

:00:47. > :01:58.contrary no. Division, clear the lobbies.

:01:59. > :02:05.THE SPEAKER: Can you just sit down. Order. Just jump down. That's it.

:02:06. > :02:09.The question is that new schedule 1 be read a second time. As many of

:02:10. > :02:15.that opinion say aye, the contrary no. The tellers to the ayes, Vicky

:02:16. > :08:59.and Geoff for thes no, we have Sarah and Mel.

:09:00. > :14:54.The ayes to the right, 266. The noes to the left, 291.

:14:55. > :15:08.The eyes to the right, 266, the noes to the left, 291. The noes Havret,

:15:09. > :15:12.the noes have it. -- we need to bring to the conclusion the

:15:13. > :15:20.principles. Alan Brown to move the amendment. The question is that

:15:21. > :15:27.amendment 18 be made, as many of that opinion say i. To the contrary,

:15:28. > :17:24.no. Division, clear the lobbies. The question is that amendment 18 be

:17:25. > :23:31.made. As many of that opinion say aye, to the contrary, no.

:23:32. > :29:25.The ayes to the right, 268. The nos to the left, 293.

:29:26. > :29:34.THE SPEAKER: The ayes to the right, 268, the noes to the left, 293. The

:29:35. > :29:41.noes have it, the noes have it. Unlock. The minister to move

:29:42. > :29:47.Government amendments 3-9 formally. The question is that Government

:29:48. > :29:51.amendments 3-9 be made. As many are of that opinion say aye, to the

:29:52. > :29:58.contrary no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

:29:59. > :30:03.Bill to be further considered what day? Tomorrow.

:30:04. > :30:08.Tomorrow. Thank you. Order. We now come to the backbench motion on

:30:09. > :30:19.International Women's Day 2016. Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the

:30:20. > :30:24.benefit of the House, given the business has concluded earlier than

:30:25. > :30:28.expected, could the minister please clarify whether it's her intention

:30:29. > :30:33.for the Government to continue with the House beyond 7. 30? Mr Speaker,

:30:34. > :30:38.it's not our intention to keep the House beyond 7. 30.

:30:39. > :30:43.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the motion on the

:30:44. > :30:47.order papers related to International Women's Day. It's a

:30:48. > :30:53.real honour to be opening this debate. I have to begin by thanking

:30:54. > :30:55.the backbench business committee for granting this debate and the time

:30:56. > :31:00.for it. And the honourable member for

:31:01. > :31:04.Gateshead who lobbied, the leader of the House for...

:31:05. > :31:07.THE SPEAKER: Order. I do apologise for interrupting the honourable lady

:31:08. > :31:13.but it's for the benefit of the House that colleagues should be

:31:14. > :31:19.clear. The position is that this debate will not continue beyond 7

:31:20. > :31:22.o'clock. There is of course an adjournment debate to follow but I

:31:23. > :31:26.think what the honourable lady meant was clear to me and it's important

:31:27. > :31:30.that it should be clear to the House, there is effectively a

:31:31. > :31:35.provision of three hours for this debate and I hope that that's

:31:36. > :31:41.helpful to colleagues. I admit that, on this occasion, I was tipped off

:31:42. > :31:45.by the whip on duty who felt the need of clarification and I think

:31:46. > :31:50.his tip-off was a shrewd one. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:31:51. > :31:55.Thank you also to the leader of the House for this time and, I hope this

:31:56. > :32:00.debate will be as full as possible. There are many areas in which

:32:01. > :32:05.inequality exists still for women. This debate will range, I hope,

:32:06. > :32:10.across complex and varied parts of our society and across the world. In

:32:11. > :32:13.the run-up to today, International Women's Day, it's meant that I've

:32:14. > :32:18.spoken to and engaged with many colleagues across this House and in

:32:19. > :32:22.the other place. Talking about the importance of this day, the issues

:32:23. > :32:27.facing women at home and abroad and of course, with many gentlemen, the

:32:28. > :32:32.importance of international men p Men's Day. The debate perhaps will

:32:33. > :32:38.today boil down to this question. In the age in which we cherish equality

:32:39. > :32:42.of opportunity, why do women not actually get the same chances as

:32:43. > :32:47.men? And what is this Parliament doing to see this happen here and

:32:48. > :32:54.around this wonderful planet of ours? The chance for women to run a

:32:55. > :32:59.business or lead a business is there. A chance for women to

:33:00. > :33:04.properly contribute to their community. The chance to influence

:33:05. > :33:09.the world around them, to be paid the same, to be treated the same

:33:10. > :33:12.and, as we stand here today, to be able to speak in this cherished

:33:13. > :33:18.chamber. And to really be heard.

:33:19. > :33:22.For women, we do not want to be under threat or danger, just by

:33:23. > :33:26.walking home alone, or because of the dangerous and threatening nature

:33:27. > :33:30.of our personal relationships, or due to our religion because of a

:33:31. > :33:35.perceived position in our community or society.

:33:36. > :33:39.This day we celebrate and have the chance to talk about the

:33:40. > :33:43.achievements of women across the world and this day, we must choose

:33:44. > :33:48.to highlight all those inequalities that still exist.

:33:49. > :33:52.I have two daughters and I want to see them grow up in a society where

:33:53. > :33:59.your gender has no relevance to your opportunities and what you can

:34:00. > :34:04.achieve. In fact, today is my second daughter's birthday, she's six and

:34:05. > :34:09.International Women's Day has true meaning in my house and she's a true

:34:10. > :34:15.international woman in the making, I hope. There are invisible barriers,

:34:16. > :34:20.I'm afraid, to my daughters' futures and others and today I hop we'll go

:34:21. > :34:23.some way to confront them. Equality is about choice.

:34:24. > :34:28.It makes me very proud to know that here in the mother of Members of

:34:29. > :34:32.Parliament, we can act as a beacon of equality for women across the

:34:33. > :34:35.world. Today, sixth form girls from across

:34:36. > :34:39.the country are joining us. They have taken part in a series of

:34:40. > :34:42.events throughout the day and I know some are watching us here from the

:34:43. > :34:49.public gallery. As the chair of the all-party women

:34:50. > :34:53.in Parliament, it fell to me and my team to make sure we mark this day

:34:54. > :34:57.rightly and we open this day to students across the UK and may I

:34:58. > :35:05.thank my team and all those supporting me and the MPs in making

:35:06. > :35:13.this happen because we have almost 70 girls from Wales to Scotland,

:35:14. > :35:17.from Eastleigh to Ealing to come to this day and contribute and to hear

:35:18. > :35:21.our democracy in action. I welcome in particular two local students

:35:22. > :35:29.from Barton College and Eastleigh College.

:35:30. > :35:32.Yet only in this session we will finally get a women Select Committee

:35:33. > :35:37.looking at key issues this Parliament is involved with. I'm

:35:38. > :35:42.very proud to serve under the brilliant chairmanship of the Right

:35:43. > :35:48.Honourable member for Basingstoke whose son has a birthday today on

:35:49. > :35:52.International Women's Day, so many happy returns. It's very easy on

:35:53. > :35:58.this day to think the challenge of equality are in the past. But it

:35:59. > :36:03.took until 1995 for the first woman Chief Constable to come into

:36:04. > :36:08.position, until 2009 for the first female Poet Laureate and 2011 for

:36:09. > :36:12.the first woman commander of a Royal Navy warship. Of course, this

:36:13. > :36:18.country's only been led by one mighty female Prime Minister.

:36:19. > :36:25.This House of course led by one female speaker. Rapid progress for

:36:26. > :36:30.women is absolutely not though a subject for historical study but an

:36:31. > :36:34.urgent and pressing need. Earlier in our panel debate, we listened to

:36:35. > :36:40.students and spoke about whether successful women are still seen as

:36:41. > :36:44.pushy, bossy, tokens or indeed why we don't actually get the

:36:45. > :36:51.opportunities we want because it's just confidence.

:36:52. > :36:54.Thinking about successful women, one in seven chefs hired in London in

:36:55. > :37:00.Michelin-starred rest rantses are women. I wonder what Mary Berry has

:37:01. > :37:05.to say about that. -- restaurants. Are our stay-at-home

:37:06. > :37:09.mums given the opportunity to choose and make choices right for them, and

:37:10. > :37:13.are women still being judged? I chose to stay at home and be with my

:37:14. > :37:18.children when they were very little. I wonder if I would still feel that

:37:19. > :37:24.is a safe decision to make now. Are we still judging our women or are we

:37:25. > :37:28.really offering them answers to all the questions that we can give them

:37:29. > :37:34.to effectively be part of the community in any way they choose. In

:37:35. > :37:38.order to get true parity, that is what we need to be striving for. All

:37:39. > :37:42.too off none these set piece debates in the chamber which will draw the

:37:43. > :37:46.focus from political commentators, perhaps we only see women in one

:37:47. > :37:51.way, the press will perhaps focus on the high politics of our nation

:37:52. > :37:59.rather than the huge contribution of many people every day. We need more

:38:00. > :38:03.women councillors, school Governors, magistrates, Mayors, MEPs, assembly

:38:04. > :38:07.members and police commissioners. Often women will step forward into

:38:08. > :38:12.these roles but areth are likely not to continue and move on too quickly.

:38:13. > :38:16.Why is this? Is it because women join these roles to deal with single

:38:17. > :38:20.issues, or do women still see barriers to the top?

:38:21. > :38:25.In business, we need more women on board and in senior roles. And this

:38:26. > :38:28.Government's taken a course to get more women into stem and a

:38:29. > :38:36.generation further into leadership roles. Progress remain toos slow.

:38:37. > :38:42.33% of local councillors in England are women in 2013, compared to 28 in

:38:43. > :38:51.1997. That is too slow progress and we need to step up the pace.

:38:52. > :39:02.We must be minded yes of course. I thank the honourable lady f give

:39:03. > :39:08.-- for giving way. On the question of progress when I went to study

:39:09. > :39:13.electrical engineering in imperial College in 1984, 12% of those

:39:14. > :39:18.studying engineering were women. Today, the figure is exactly the

:39:19. > :39:24.same. A quarter of a century has passed and yet we seem to have made

:39:25. > :39:28.no progress in ensuring that science, engineering and maths

:39:29. > :39:32.represent the half of the world who needs them as well. Does the

:39:33. > :39:36.honourable lady agree with me that that is absolutely unacceptable?

:39:37. > :39:42.Just this afternoon in the panel debate, exactly that issue was

:39:43. > :39:47.highlighted, and I absolutely do agree that we need to encourage more

:39:48. > :39:52.women into this area. 40,000 jobs available in the construction

:39:53. > :39:56.industry, 45,000 in the agricultural industry, we are perhaps barring

:39:57. > :40:00.women from future opportunities, and absolutely it worries me that if we

:40:01. > :40:05.haven't changed since the 80s. We must be minded in this House that

:40:06. > :40:09.the power of women is at the ballot box. That they should be registered

:40:10. > :40:14.to vote, and that we should be making sure that all women feel that

:40:15. > :40:18.it is important to make their own decisions. Yes, of course. Thank

:40:19. > :40:24.you, I thank the honourable lady for giving way. Does the honourable

:40:25. > :40:29.lady, like me, celebrate the fact that everyone knows that women were

:40:30. > :40:35.given the vote at the end of the 1914-1918 war, but actually the

:40:36. > :40:41.women's folk was used to cloak of the fact that working class men were

:40:42. > :40:44.also given the vote, and women by their campaigning also lead to men

:40:45. > :40:53.accessing the vote, and that should never be forgotten. I think women

:40:54. > :40:56.campaigning to make it generally better for men, absolutely. We must

:40:57. > :41:00.be reminded about the power that women have at the ballot box. It was

:41:01. > :41:05.women voting in higher numbers for the Conservatives in May last year

:41:06. > :41:11.which saw a majority government returned, and it will be women again

:41:12. > :41:17.who decide whether we are in war out of the EU and who is the Mayor of

:41:18. > :41:21.London. -- we are in or out. We need women to come together and vote and

:41:22. > :41:24.be active import eggs, because always their effect is

:41:25. > :41:28.extraordinary, as we have just heard -- in politics. I'm sure members

:41:29. > :41:32.around the House will be thinking of the brilliant work of women

:41:33. > :41:35.campaigners, such as the wasp campaigners who came together and

:41:36. > :41:38.made real impact. I watch with interest to see the results that

:41:39. > :41:46.these women have. Women involved in this will not stay quiet, and I

:41:47. > :41:48.salute them in their course. This is a genuine challenge to this

:41:49. > :41:51.Parliament, and we can get the best outcome for these and all women. I

:41:52. > :41:54.am pleased that this Government is taking the necessary action to bring

:41:55. > :42:00.further recorded. There are more women in work since 2010, in fact,

:42:01. > :42:04.more than 1 million more. And legislation that deals with the

:42:05. > :42:08.issues of stalking has been dealt with by this Government, and I

:42:09. > :42:13.welcome this action. We are not afraid to tackle issues which have

:42:14. > :42:18.been left for many years unaffected by this Parliament. Yes, of course.

:42:19. > :42:23.I congratulate her on securing the debate today from the Backbench

:42:24. > :42:27.Business Committee. Does she also welcome the actions of this

:42:28. > :42:31.Government on outlawing revenge pornography, which was for too long

:42:32. > :42:38.something that blighted the lives of many women in this country? Agreed I

:42:39. > :42:43.absolutely concur with that, on Thursday we had action on people

:42:44. > :42:46.posing behind aliases, which the CPS is doing consultation on, where

:42:47. > :42:50.bullying and threatening behaviour is used on social media. It is

:42:51. > :42:56.absolutely right this Government continues to lead the way on

:42:57. > :42:59.bullying, stalking, and indeed using personal relationships to affect

:43:00. > :43:05.people, a dangerous place to beef we do not tackle it. Recent

:43:06. > :43:10.announcement from the Government on the gender pay gap should continue

:43:11. > :43:17.to shine a light companies which do not shine a light on their pay gap.

:43:18. > :43:21.Work in progress continued yesterday with a hugely forward. We can expect

:43:22. > :43:26.they would have to wait 70 years for full parity in executive level, and

:43:27. > :43:32.that is not right. We need to put a better structure in place for

:43:33. > :43:37.carers. Yes, of course. The gender pay gap, a lot of women in my

:43:38. > :43:43.constituency are in part-time work, and they are technically paid,

:43:44. > :43:49.likely to be three times more likely than men to be paid below the Living

:43:50. > :43:54.Wage. Now, these are often women who are not well off. And I would ask

:43:55. > :44:00.the honourable lady to join me in calling on Government and the front

:44:01. > :44:09.bench to do all they can to address this a gap that affects the low so

:44:10. > :44:13.badly. -- the low-paid. We are shining a light on this issue. It is

:44:14. > :44:17.interesting when we hear about part-time work when it comes to

:44:18. > :44:21.women, and I will touch on that shortly in my speech, I feel you may

:44:22. > :44:29.have been reading it. When it comes to men, it is agile working, and

:44:30. > :44:32.women appear to be sadly in some places the downtrodden part-timers.

:44:33. > :44:36.That means to be corrected. We need but a better structure in place for

:44:37. > :44:40.our carers. I was a carer to my mother, and I am a mother. And for

:44:41. > :44:46.many people in my shoes, they continue to be too many obstacles to

:44:47. > :44:51.being at home and being a part-time worker. We need a true carers'

:44:52. > :44:56.volution in this country, which does not penalise women wore indeed meant

:44:57. > :45:02.he would choose to stay at home with their children and look after their

:45:03. > :45:06.loved ones -- wore indeed men. I'm -- I spent time with my parents at

:45:07. > :45:11.that age, and I would never, ever change that if I had the choice.

:45:12. > :45:15.Does she agree with me that flexible working will allow parents and

:45:16. > :45:19.carers to look after their loved ones whilst continuing to work, and

:45:20. > :45:25.it is imperative that employers take that into account? I absolutely

:45:26. > :45:28.agree. Flexible working is really important, to attend doctors'

:45:29. > :45:32.meetings, to make sure you know what is going on at home and not to be

:45:33. > :45:36.worried about work. I know many people who work part-time and don't

:45:37. > :45:40.open their laptops of an evening and make sure they are up-to-date with

:45:41. > :45:44.what is going on, perhaps because they have had to go home and care

:45:45. > :45:49.for their talks on all loved ones. Part-time work is valuable, it is

:45:50. > :45:52.important and useful for both workers and employers. Yet

:45:53. > :45:57.part-timers are often seen as a stopgap. Not being taken seriously

:45:58. > :46:02.enough or maybe as the expendable employees. It is time to see

:46:03. > :46:06.part-timers as agile, capable multi-skill as he while flexible,

:46:07. > :46:11.come in and make a real difference, they look after families, homes and

:46:12. > :46:14.communities and hold down equally important part-time roles. And I

:46:15. > :46:20.challenge anyone in business not to see these workers as valuable and

:46:21. > :46:24.helpful, and just as useful as their full-time members of staff. If that

:46:25. > :46:28.is not the case, then maybe it is time for employers to reassess and

:46:29. > :46:33.listen harder to these vital and often more nimble workers. And I do

:46:34. > :46:39.also want to say that whilst we conduct this debate, I want to say

:46:40. > :46:43.very clearly, it is not my intention to exclude men. Now, I know many

:46:44. > :46:47.male colleagues from across the chamber will be contributing with

:46:48. > :46:54.their own ideas and how we can make a more just and equal society, as

:46:55. > :46:58.fathers, grandfathers, proud dads tickly of daughters. Now,

:46:59. > :47:03.international men's day on the 19th of November highlighted summary

:47:04. > :47:07.serious concerns -- particularly of daughters. Around male suicide and

:47:08. > :47:12.the modern pressures of men. This changing society will have a big

:47:13. > :47:18.impact if we don't bring men fully on this equality journey with us. Mr

:47:19. > :47:21.Speaker, I am the 380th woman ever to be elected to Parliament. In the

:47:22. > :47:26.history of this House, women have not played anywhere close to an

:47:27. > :47:30.equal role. But we are getting there. I welcome the fact that we

:47:31. > :47:34.are moving towards better representation, both in this chamber

:47:35. > :47:39.and on all the issues that we focus on. However, there is much left to

:47:40. > :47:43.be done. Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State in the US, said

:47:44. > :47:48.there is a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.

:47:49. > :47:51.Looking around this chamber today, at many honourable ladies and a

:47:52. > :47:56.woman who have come to mark this important day, I can see that

:47:57. > :48:00.they're in this House is a unified view that our work can ring true

:48:01. > :48:07.equality on International Women's Day. I'm delighted to have wide and

:48:08. > :48:12.broad support from men... I pay tribute to her physical and go

:48:13. > :48:16.debate. When she talks about women's representation in Parliament, which

:48:17. > :48:20.you also look at around the world, for example, Benazir Bhutto was the

:48:21. > :48:24.first female Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first one in the

:48:25. > :48:30.Islamic world who lost her life in an act of terrorism. We should pay

:48:31. > :48:36.tribute to women around the world. I served as an adviser to Benazir

:48:37. > :48:39.bluetit from 1990 to 2007. Parliaments across this world will

:48:40. > :48:44.be looking at themselves today and rightly asking, are they doing

:48:45. > :48:49.enough to make equality reality? Mr Speaker, today an International

:48:50. > :48:59.Women's Day it is our chance in this debate to do just that. The question

:49:00. > :49:06.is as on the order paper. Jess Phillips. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

:49:07. > :49:12.would like to pay credit to the member for Eastleigh and Mike

:49:13. > :49:19.honourable friend from Trent Central for securing this debate. It will be

:49:20. > :49:24.no surprise... In 2015, a woman was murdered in the UK every three days.

:49:25. > :49:29.Women murdered by men that they should have been able to trust.

:49:30. > :49:32.Commonly, women are murdered by their partners, husbands and

:49:33. > :49:38.boyfriends. But also in some cases by their fathers, sons and brothers.

:49:39. > :49:42.We wish to give voice to honour the women who died. Today, ice bound to

:49:43. > :49:47.honour every victim and the fight and violence against women -- I

:49:48. > :49:54.stand. Here are the names of the women who died since International

:49:55. > :50:04.Women's Day last year. Lucy I risk, aged 25. Alison Wilson, 36. Janet

:50:05. > :50:20.Miller, 21. Sarah Pollock, 41. Joe Goldsmith, 49. Cecilia Powell, 95.

:50:21. > :50:32.Marion Smith, 74. Violet Price, 80. Karen Buckley, 24. Susan Davenport,

:50:33. > :50:43.63. Sandy Thomas, 57. Sarah Fox, 27. Bernadette Fox, 57. Eileen Bell, 60.

:50:44. > :50:54.Francisco Neary Senior, 49. Tracey Woodford, 47. Mario look at worth,

:50:55. > :51:06.36. Anna Rosenberg, 43. Wendy Milligan, 46. Gloria Perrin, 76.

:51:07. > :51:21.Mahal roads, 42. Martha Lippman, 26. Emma Crowe Hirst, 46. Joanna Dobbin,

:51:22. > :51:34.55. Shealy Kumar, 35. Meyler Kumar, 13. Near Kumar, 13. Grace Kissel,

:51:35. > :51:42.33. Janet Jordon, 48. And Dunkley, 67. Phyllis Hayes, 65. Nazir Afzal,

:51:43. > :51:50.31. Nadia Khan, 24. Jennifer Edwards, 45. Stacey Henderson, 35.

:51:51. > :52:03.Rita Stevens, 67. Jennifer Williams, 25. Amy Smith, 17. Anita Kapoor, 34.

:52:04. > :52:13.Linda nor Cook, 56 -- 46. Lisa Anthony, 47. Dave Anthony, 14. --

:52:14. > :52:27.Eva Anthony. Lorraine Barwell, 54. Laura Davies, 21. Tracey Baker, 42.

:52:28. > :52:39.Joel Moon, 62. -- Jill Moon. Isabel Parker, 23. Gillian Phillips, 54.

:52:40. > :52:52.Our Abdi, jenny foot, 38. -- Amal Abdi. Denise Selman, 75. Jan

:52:53. > :53:09.Bennett, 67. Laura Holder, 36. Eva Baker, 34 -- Aoife Baker. Wendy

:53:10. > :53:20.Mann, 26. Laura Masters, 20. Natalie, 38. Julie Callier, 55.

:53:21. > :53:31.Karen Reid, 53. Petra Atkinson, 42. Anne-Marie, 47. Nicola Cross, 37.

:53:32. > :53:42.Shelley, 45. Sarah Garber, 27. Jordan, 22. Maxine, 42. Helen

:53:43. > :53:54.Lancaster, 54. Louchats Patel, 44. Leanne Cameron, 25. In old, 49.

:53:55. > :54:02.Kerry Reeves, 26. Christine, 57. Bianca Shepherd, 58. Barbara, 43.

:54:03. > :54:10.Kayleigh Haywood, 15. Susan Michelson, 45. Kelly Pearce, 36.

:54:11. > :54:20.Jean Robertson, 85. Wendy Goodman, 48. Josephine Williams, 83. Sian

:54:21. > :54:33.Roberts, 36. Hilda Oakland, 71. Ravinder, 43. Jackie Abbott, 54.

:54:34. > :54:56.Sian Blake, 43. Kathleen Griffin, 57. Katie Locke, 23. Rita King, 81.

:54:57. > :55:04.Marjorie, 83. Katie Rourke, 25. Katrina O'Hara, 44. Georgina Simons,

:55:05. > :55:15.25. Lisa Little, 49. Andrea Lewis, 51. India, 20. Ellie, 25. Geraldine

:55:16. > :55:36.Newman, 51. Leanne Warne, 36, Jessica McGrath,

:55:37. > :55:45.37, Maria Byrne, 35, Lisa Reynolds, 30, Natasha Bredbury, 28, Julie

:55:46. > :55:48.Hill, 51, Rose Hill, 7 5. I want to thank Karen Smith in the counting

:55:49. > :55:53.dead women project. She doesn't allow the women to be forgotten. She

:55:54. > :55:57.shouts their names so we can do better. I want to note that, as I

:55:58. > :56:02.read each and every woman's story, the variety of women struck me.

:56:03. > :56:08.These were not all poor women, these were women of every age, teachers,

:56:09. > :56:13.dinner ladies, doctors, dancers and daughters, their perpetrators were

:56:14. > :56:16.no less drunks, respected fathers, imminent lawyers, Citibankers.

:56:17. > :56:23.Violence against women has no one face. We must do better. These women

:56:24. > :56:28.are gone here in this place, we must not let them die in vein, we owe

:56:29. > :56:37.that much to them, we know them much more than what they got.

:56:38. > :56:42.Maria Miller. THE SPEAKER: I should just say, I'm

:56:43. > :56:46.moved by the significance of what we have just heard as I neglected my

:56:47. > :56:49.duties, and I should tell the House with immediate effect on the account

:56:50. > :56:54.of the large numbers of members wishing to contribute, there'll be a

:56:55. > :56:57.four-minute limit on speeches. I thank the member for Birmingham

:56:58. > :57:01.Yardley for what she has said. Maria Miller.

:57:02. > :57:03.Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's difficult to follow my right

:57:04. > :57:06.honourable friend the member for Birmingham Yardley. I call her my

:57:07. > :57:09.right honourable friend because we are fellow committee members and I

:57:10. > :57:13.think we have a shared passion to make sure that the voices of women

:57:14. > :57:18.are heard loud and clear in this House. I think what the honourable

:57:19. > :57:22.lady has done has helped to make sure that those women's stories are

:57:23. > :57:26.remembered, that their voices are heard, even if they are now

:57:27. > :57:30.departed. Mr Speaker, International Women's

:57:31. > :57:35.Day comes around for us every year and since we last celebrated

:57:36. > :57:41.International women's day, we have another celebration as well, the

:57:42. > :57:43.establishment of the first women inequalities Select Committee.

:57:44. > :57:47.Everybody in this House and those no longer in this House should be

:57:48. > :57:51.congratulated for the work Thai done in establishing that committee and I

:57:52. > :57:55.have the privilege of chairing it. Today, we've been able to turn the

:57:56. > :57:59.tables in the committee and have young women be the people who were

:58:00. > :58:04.taking evidence from Members of Parliament and I particularly would

:58:05. > :58:10.like to welcome my constituent who has been able to be with me here

:58:11. > :58:13.today and has, I know, enjoyed the day immesurably. Congratulations

:58:14. > :58:19.have to go to my right honourable friend and fellow Hampshire MP, the

:58:20. > :58:23.member for Eastleigh and also the honourable member for Brent Central

:58:24. > :58:26.as well. Both ladies were a formidable force in front of the

:58:27. > :58:29.backbench business committee and I had no doubt at all that they were

:58:30. > :58:32.going to secure a debate on the floor of the House and they have

:58:33. > :58:37.done so at once. I should also add, Mr Speaker, we

:58:38. > :58:41.have thought about adding an extra criteria for being a member of

:58:42. > :58:44.Select Committee that you have to have a child born on International

:58:45. > :58:47.Women's Day, but I look at the member for Hampstead who was a

:58:48. > :58:51.member of our committee and I hope she doesn't feel that it's necessary

:58:52. > :58:54.to give birth today, although of course I'm sure there'll be many

:58:55. > :58:59.people on hand to be able to help out! Mr Speaker, two brief points in

:59:00. > :59:03.this contribution today. Mr Speaker, you know that there are more men in

:59:04. > :59:08.the House of Commons today than there are women ever elected to

:59:09. > :59:16.Parliament. I was elected in 2005 and I was, Mr Speaker, the 265th

:59:17. > :59:21.ever woman Tom today be elected to this House. That's a shocking fact,

:59:22. > :59:26.something that I wasn't aware of when elected. Since women were given

:59:27. > :59:31.the vote in this country in February 1918, 34 million women have been

:59:32. > :59:36.born but just 450 have ever come here to sit on these green benches.

:59:37. > :59:43.No other position has done worse to attract women than being an MP. How

:59:44. > :59:46.can we hope to change in-grained prejudice in society if we fail to

:59:47. > :59:50.hold a mirror up to ourselves and realise that we are not making the

:59:51. > :59:53.progress we need to as an institution to encourage more women

:59:54. > :59:58.to take their positions on these green benches. It's not rocket

:59:59. > :00:03.science, working in two places, a lack of certainty, a long hours

:00:04. > :00:07.culture and presenteeism is not the conditions to encourage more women

:00:08. > :00:12.to come and join us on these green benches. Can I ask members to think

:00:13. > :00:14.long and hard when they come to consider how we organise the

:00:15. > :00:18.business of the house to make this more representative in the future

:00:19. > :00:21.and a place of work people want to live.

:00:22. > :00:25.My second point is on the issue of leadership. I have no doubt of this

:00:26. > :00:29.Government's commitment to putting equality at the heart of their

:00:30. > :00:33.policy and I have no doubt of their desire the see more women in

:00:34. > :00:37.leadership positions. The symbolic importance of Lord Davis's work in

:00:38. > :00:40.getting 25% of women in non-executive positions is

:00:41. > :00:45.important, but we need to go further than that. We have no short fall in

:00:46. > :00:49.talent in this country, what we have is an underperformance of that

:00:50. > :00:54.talent because of in-grained prejudice. I hope the debate

:00:55. > :00:56.today... I'll give way to the honourable lady. I'm very grateful

:00:57. > :01:01.just before the honourable lady comes to the end of her remarks. As

:01:02. > :01:06.she'll be aware, when we organised that photo which is now in the

:01:07. > :01:16.admission audit office for all visitors and members to see, there

:01:17. > :01:22.was only 370 women MPs, now there are 450, there's been 450 women MPs,

:01:23. > :01:28.there's currently 459 male MPs in this House alone, so 450 over 98

:01:29. > :01:31.years. We are very privileged and happy to be some of those women here

:01:32. > :01:38.today, but does she agree with me that that is not good enough? I

:01:39. > :01:43.think we need to hear from the leaders of every political party

:01:44. > :01:45.represented in this House today. A complete commitment to increase the

:01:46. > :01:49.number of women at the next election. Though that will be a

:01:50. > :01:53.challenge with the boundary changes, it's a challenge we should take on

:01:54. > :01:58.and it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to see a significant

:01:59. > :02:02.increase in the proportion of women on the benches and representing the

:02:03. > :02:08.people who live in our country. Mr Speaker, the work place, whether

:02:09. > :02:12.it's in Parliament or the City, or in other institutions was designed

:02:13. > :02:17.by men for men and has not changed fast enough to retain women, not

:02:18. > :02:21.only in day-to-day positions but in positions of leadership. We need to

:02:22. > :02:25.make sure that jobs are designed, whether it's in Parliament or

:02:26. > :02:30.beyond, based on the people who're living lives today, not as they

:02:31. > :02:33.lived 20 years ago. I know the ministers sitting on the frontbench

:02:34. > :02:36.understand that plainly from the policies that they are putting into

:02:37. > :02:40.place and I urge them to continue with the work they are doing and

:02:41. > :02:46.they'll always find my Select Committee holding their feet to the

:02:47. > :02:51.fire. Valerie Vaz? It's a pleasure to follow the honourable lady from

:02:52. > :02:54.Basingstoke. Apologies. Congratulations to everyone for

:02:55. > :02:58.taking part in this debate and apologies for moving the nine-minute

:02:59. > :03:07.speech into four minutes. We have in this debate against the ball ground

:03:08. > :03:11.of the recent murder of Berta Cazeras, shot for her defence of the

:03:12. > :03:15.rites of indigenous people. I hope many will follow her. The UN

:03:16. > :03:18.Secretary-General said when he took office there were nine Parliaments

:03:19. > :03:23.in the world without women, it's now down to four that,'s four too many

:03:24. > :03:27.and there's still no UN General Secretary. Members are right to

:03:28. > :03:31.mention the number of women in this Parliament. It's now up to 29% and I

:03:32. > :03:38.have to say that Her Majesty's opposition Labour Party is at 43%...

:03:39. > :03:42.I will give way. She remarks we haven't had a UN General Secretary

:03:43. > :03:47.who is a woman but would she like to join me in congratulating the

:03:48. > :03:52.current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth who is our friend from

:03:53. > :03:55.the other place, Baroness Scotland. I do, and I'm delighted she was

:03:56. > :04:00.selected. Thank you for that. But the statistics are still damning. In

:04:01. > :04:08.law, one Supreme Court judge, only one is a woman, only 13% of QCs are

:04:09. > :04:14.women, in sierntion women make up only 40% of the stemmed workforce in

:04:15. > :04:18.the UK, in business, only 5.5 chief officers in FTSE 100 companies are

:04:19. > :04:23.women. What about the gender pay gap, Mr Speaker? In 2014, according

:04:24. > :04:26.to the Office for National Statistics, that was 14.2%, which

:04:27. > :04:34.means that in effect, women worked from I think it's the 9th November

:04:35. > :04:39.to tend of the year without any pay. I want to raise two issues. There

:04:40. > :04:43.was an equal pay judgment in 2008 locally. The women who worked in

:04:44. > :04:47.Birmingham City Council are still await ago payout. The men who did

:04:48. > :04:53.the same sort of work picked up extra pay through routine overtime

:04:54. > :04:56.and other bonuses. Mary Ashby and overfiend Haynes are retired. They

:04:57. > :05:04.have the right to that payout and I would say to the Government, you can

:05:05. > :05:07.find ?375 billion for quantitative easing, could the Government please

:05:08. > :05:13.find this money to make sure that all these women get their payout?

:05:14. > :05:20.The secondish you I want to raise is the closure of HMRC offices. I thank

:05:21. > :05:28.the honourable lady for giving way. An important point about equal pay.

:05:29. > :05:32.Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, women score highly there.

:05:33. > :05:36.When women are doing well in this society, everyone is doing well and

:05:37. > :05:40.it helps her argument. I absolutely agree with the

:05:41. > :05:44.honourable member. The closure of the HMRC offices in Walsall, over 60

:05:45. > :05:48.jobs have been lost and 90% are female, they have been offered jobs

:05:49. > :05:51.in Birmingham but they have caring responsibilities to need to stay

:05:52. > :05:57.local. There's of course the higher travel costs. The PCS Union worked

:05:58. > :06:02.out when you lose 50 jobs it's worth ?1.5 billion to the economy locally,

:06:03. > :06:06.too much for Walsall to take. If the Government is serious about tax

:06:07. > :06:10.evasion and avoidance, you need local staff to have that

:06:11. > :06:16.institutional memory to help people with tax affairs and built build up

:06:17. > :06:22.the skills over the years soI would suggest... Thank you very much.

:06:23. > :06:26.Would the honourable member... Would you mind if I don't because I'm

:06:27. > :06:31.running out of time. 500 people sign add petition in Walsall town centre

:06:32. > :06:34.and I would ask the minister to look at the dislocation of women's lives

:06:35. > :06:39.and stop the relocation to Birmingham. Burma may have had this

:06:40. > :06:44.fantastic victory of the NLD, but still the Burmese Army's used rape

:06:45. > :06:47.and sexual violence against women for decades as part of their warfare

:06:48. > :06:52.against ethnic minority groups in the country. Many victims were gang

:06:53. > :06:55.raped and many killed. UN report have described rape and sexual

:06:56. > :07:00.violence as widespread and systematic and we must keep up the

:07:01. > :07:04.pressure to get rid of that 25% of the Army in Parliament in Burma. In

:07:05. > :07:12.Delhi there was an outcry following assault and murder of a woman on a

:07:13. > :07:20.bus. India's daughter, by Lesley Udwin showed the devastating impact

:07:21. > :07:25.of her murder. Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the cleric from Gambia, challenged

:07:26. > :07:29.about mutilation. All the girls kidnapped two years ago this April,

:07:30. > :07:35.we need to do more than just have a hashtag. That's where Governments

:07:36. > :07:38.come in, almost every major piece of legislation that has improved the

:07:39. > :07:41.lives of working women has been introduce bid a Labour Government.

:07:42. > :07:45.The work and families act 2006 extended the right to statutory

:07:46. > :07:50.maternity leave to a full year to all employed women regardless of the

:07:51. > :07:53.length of service. Maternity leave in 2003, legislative

:07:54. > :07:57.Protection Force women and mothers under the equal pay act, sex

:07:58. > :08:02.discrimination act and equality act and everyone knows how brilliant the

:08:03. > :08:04.Sure Starts are, how it was affected local children, helped mothers and

:08:05. > :08:10.fathers in our communes, we need to save those. Education is the key, as

:08:11. > :08:14.the honourable member said, and as Gandhi said, you educate mothers,

:08:15. > :08:18.you educate society. Women can't wait to trickle up to promotion,

:08:19. > :08:23.there needs to be positive action. Marion Allsop, the first female

:08:24. > :08:27.conductor at the Last night of the Proms said and admitted being

:08:28. > :08:32.shocked that it can be 2013 and there are still firsts for women. Mr

:08:33. > :08:37.Speaker, let's hope by this time next year, the women's place at the

:08:38. > :08:42.highest levels will be commonplace. We owe to it future generations.

:08:43. > :08:52.Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last week, I was in Nigeria and I

:08:53. > :08:57.had the honour of meeting a very small team of dedicated and really

:08:58. > :09:02.passionate campaigners. On arrival at the hot, dusty open-air venue, I

:09:03. > :09:09.could haar them chanting and singing and lots of them were wearing red.

:09:10. > :09:17.Every day, the small group of mainly women, but some men, meet in unity

:09:18. > :09:23.fountain in Abuja. They campaign for the return of 276 girls taken by

:09:24. > :09:30.Boko Haram from their school on the 14th April, 2014.

:09:31. > :09:35.57 of the girls escaped shortly after abduction, but 219 remain

:09:36. > :09:42.missing. These young girls were just like our

:09:43. > :09:49.girls. They were daughters, grand daughters, sisters, cousins frsth,

:09:50. > :09:52.nieces and they were loved. They were encouraged to embrace

:09:53. > :09:57.education. They had and their families had and they were preparing

:09:58. > :10:03.for their final school certificate. They had hopes, dreams, aspirations

:10:04. > :10:06.and then disaster struck. But notwithstanding world

:10:07. > :10:09.condemnation and support from Mishaal Obama and our Prime Minister

:10:10. > :10:14.and others, the girls have not been returned.

:10:15. > :10:20.It is likely that many are still held by Boko Haram debuted probably

:10:21. > :10:27.in small groups. Many will be pregnant as a result of rape, often

:10:28. > :10:31.by different men over a prolonged period. Many forced into marriage.

:10:32. > :10:37.Some have been used as suicide bombers, some have died as a result

:10:38. > :10:42.of physical and mental abuse. The Chibok girls are a small proportion

:10:43. > :10:50.of an estimated 2500 women and girls abducted by Boko Haram in 2014. As

:10:51. > :10:52.they return, many face discrimination and rejection by

:10:53. > :10:58.their families and by their communities. Some fear that the

:10:59. > :11:02.girls have been radicalised. Others believe that the children conceived

:11:03. > :11:05.will be the next generation of fighters. Because they carried a

:11:06. > :11:12.violent characteristics of their biological fathers. As a result,

:11:13. > :11:20.children, newborn babies and mothers are facing stigma, rejection and

:11:21. > :11:23.face further violence. I thank the honourable lady for giving way, she

:11:24. > :11:27.is making an incredibly powerful speech about her experiences last

:11:28. > :11:33.week. Is she not equally as saddened as I am is that this is not just a

:11:34. > :11:36.situation in Nigeria but in many countries around the world? I met

:11:37. > :11:43.with representatives of the DDD community, -- they Yazidi community.

:11:44. > :11:47.We have to put the protection of women and girls at the heart of our

:11:48. > :11:50.international policies. I think the honourable gentleman makes an

:11:51. > :11:56.excellent point by wholeheartedly agree with him. Actually, these

:11:57. > :12:01.groups, the children, the babies and mothers, they are victims. They have

:12:02. > :12:04.done nothing wrong. They should be getting all the help and support

:12:05. > :12:11.they need and deserve to move on in their lives, and reintegrate. As I

:12:12. > :12:14.stand in this chamber today, I can still hear the chance of those

:12:15. > :12:20.Nigerian women, and I can still see their round and pain faces. They

:12:21. > :12:24.said, bring back our girls, now under live, bring them back now.

:12:25. > :12:29.Rarely have I witnessed such strength and determination. But now

:12:30. > :12:33.support. As we approach the second support. As we approach the second

:12:34. > :12:38.anniversary of the girls' abduction. So, from the seventh to the 14th of

:12:39. > :12:41.April, there will be an international week of action to

:12:42. > :12:46.raise further awareness and to keep the issue in the spotlight. We want

:12:47. > :12:57.people everywhere to write, e-mail, tweet, hashtag, BBOG to hold

:12:58. > :13:00.rallies, talks and chats. We need agencies and governments around the

:13:01. > :13:04.world to share credible intelligence, and we need to keep

:13:05. > :13:11.these girls, these innocent girls, in our thoughts and in our prayers.

:13:12. > :13:18.Just one tweet, one post, can make a difference, and can bring our girls

:13:19. > :13:23.home. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to structure my speech around

:13:24. > :13:26.the motion that is before us, which starts by expressing my solidarity

:13:27. > :13:30.with International Women's Day, but the way I am doing that is that I

:13:31. > :13:35.have dressed myself in the suffragette colours today. As just

:13:36. > :13:40.one symbol of that solidarity, underneath I have a Fawcett Society

:13:41. > :13:45.feminist T-shirt! The second part of the motion notes with concern that

:13:46. > :13:51.despite women making up 51 the scent of society, more progress needs to

:13:52. > :13:57.be made in letting women to Parliament -- 51% of society. I,

:13:58. > :14:01.like you, Mr Speaker, was a member of the speakers' conference of

:14:02. > :14:05.representation of this place. We have made progress, I am very proud

:14:06. > :14:09.of the Labour Party, which still provides more than half of the women

:14:10. > :14:13.in this place, because we took the decision, not nurses are really

:14:14. > :14:18.easily throughout our party, of using women only short lists. I was

:14:19. > :14:21.originally one of the so-called way to women, but everybody has

:14:22. > :14:27.forgotten that now because they realise that I am and effective

:14:28. > :14:31.member of Parliament! -- so-called quota women. We need to ensure we go

:14:32. > :14:38.further than we have. I welcome the new Conservative women who are here,

:14:39. > :14:40.I am glad that they were beneficiaries of the collapse of the

:14:41. > :14:48.Liberal party, who have done less than any of it -- any other party on

:14:49. > :14:54.this issue in my view. We need to remind ourselves of why we need to

:14:55. > :14:57.have women here. Democracy fails if people cannot hear their voices in

:14:58. > :15:02.Parliament. It is an absolute failure. Do women make a difference?

:15:03. > :15:05.Absolutely. I remember at the turn-of-the-century asking the clerk

:15:06. > :15:07.to the Defence Select Committee what a difference having women on that

:15:08. > :15:12.committee for the first time had made. I was sure the answer would

:15:13. > :15:18.be, of course, it has made an enormous difference. I said, what?

:15:19. > :15:23.He said, we just used to talk about how big the bombs were, and now we

:15:24. > :15:27.talk about the families and people who fight. I just know that what

:15:28. > :15:31.would make me brave is knowing that my family is safe. And women do

:15:32. > :15:38.bring something additional to Parliament. One of the things that

:15:39. > :15:41.we achieved from the previous Prime Minister was the first ever stealth

:15:42. > :15:46.tax cut, when he couldn't bring himself to mention during the budget

:15:47. > :15:51.that the level of VAT on sanitary protection had gone down. I am

:15:52. > :15:56.actually very disappointed that we get patted on the head on some of

:15:57. > :16:02.these issues, so that the most recent tax cut has turned into a

:16:03. > :16:08.wake of actually making a kind of voluntary tax. Guess what, fees

:16:09. > :16:11.appeal, we will give it to -- we will give it to the evil appeal. I

:16:12. > :16:24.am glad that they are getting the money, I am a survivor of a very

:16:25. > :16:28.encounter myself, -- the Eve appeal. Thank you for giving way. Does she

:16:29. > :16:35.agree with me that the Government should perhaps look at some of the

:16:36. > :16:42.big strategic issues on women, such as human trafficking and slavery

:16:43. > :16:45.Bill. The honourable ladies is anticipating where I am going to

:16:46. > :16:49.next. The next part of the debate motion that we are debating talks

:16:50. > :16:53.about equal pay. We have made some progress on that, but I'm very glad

:16:54. > :16:57.that the equalities committee is looking at the fact that older women

:16:58. > :17:00.are being left behind when it comes to equal pay. They are being left

:17:01. > :17:05.behind in many other ways, too. We need to try and sort that out. And

:17:06. > :17:10.then the final thing on this is to call for greater action against FGM

:17:11. > :17:19.and other practices that are harmful to women. Well,. Mike certainly. I

:17:20. > :17:24.commend the Government on setting up the FGM centre, helping women fight

:17:25. > :17:32.against this barbaric act and helping amenities. It is run by

:17:33. > :17:35.Barnardos, there is a funding decision at the end of this month.

:17:36. > :17:42.While the honourable member join me in calling on the Government in

:17:43. > :17:45.helping keep our daughters safe? It is essential to have a strategic

:17:46. > :17:49.response to violence against women and girls. We have been moved by the

:17:50. > :17:54.speech of the honourable member for Yardley. We know that women,

:17:55. > :18:00.internationally and in the UK, are particularly likely to be victims of

:18:01. > :18:04.violence, whether it is so-called cultural practices like FGM, whether

:18:05. > :18:08.they are going to be victims of human trafficking, and I'm glad that

:18:09. > :18:13.the Government has introduced the Modern Slavery Bill and is focusing

:18:14. > :18:17.on that, because we know internationally that the largest

:18:18. > :18:22.reason for trafficking in human beings is trafficking for sexual

:18:23. > :18:30.exploitation. And we also know that when women are murdered, if they

:18:31. > :18:35.have been in prostitution, their perpetrator is much less likely to

:18:36. > :18:42.be caught and convicted down the perpetrators. Our average conviction

:18:43. > :18:46.rate for murder is 75%. But actually at the moment we only convicted 23%

:18:47. > :18:52.of the murders of prostitutes. That is a shocking figure. And in my

:18:53. > :18:59.view, we failed to have an unintelligent, strategic response to

:19:00. > :19:02.the existence of prostitution -- and intelligent. Recognising that as it

:19:03. > :19:05.is actually practised, it is a mechanism for violence towards

:19:06. > :19:14.women, for exploitation, sexually, of children. For turning women into

:19:15. > :19:18.commodities and making all women's lives less safe. And I'm very glad

:19:19. > :19:26.that the Home Affairs Committee is looking at this issue. But I do not

:19:27. > :19:30.think that until we follow the lead of Sweden, in targeting the men who

:19:31. > :19:34.create this problem, in saying that is an offence to pay for women's

:19:35. > :19:41.sexual services, that we will end the horror which is the reality for

:19:42. > :19:45.most women and girls involved in prostitution. The horror of drug

:19:46. > :19:49.addiction, the horror of pimping, and the horror of exploitation and

:19:50. > :19:53.trafficking. And that is one of the things we really need to focus on.

:19:54. > :19:58.When I first came into this House, we were very reluctant to discuss

:19:59. > :20:02.the word prostitution. I'm glad that we now have a chamber which is

:20:03. > :20:04.prepared to talk about it. But we now have to do things in order to

:20:05. > :20:14.end this form of exploitation. Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to

:20:15. > :20:20.follow the member for Slough, and can I also extend my congratulations

:20:21. > :20:25.to the member for Eastleigh and Birmingham Yardley to getting this

:20:26. > :20:29.debate today. It was 20 years ago yesterday that I is Minister opened

:20:30. > :20:33.a debate in Government time on International Women's Day, and I do

:20:34. > :20:38.hope that the front bench will consider giving much longer to a